I hate to be a pain, but I have to disagree with you on this one. It's against the law to run red lights and stop signs because there's a strong possibility that you or someone else will get hurt. Driving through the Mission I'm routinely forced to take some last minute measure to evade some overly-aggressive bicyclist on a fixie. Sudden stops and last minute swerves are risky. I'm not sure that adopting the traffic policy of a state whose cities have a fraction of the population density as those in California is really the right answer here.

Rather, we should look to making some streets bicycle-only or otherwise create bicycle through-ways where there are no stop signs or traffic lights.

In the meantime, I wish cops would hand out more tickets to bicyclists, just like they ticket motorists.

Though, yeah, $166.96 seems like a steep fine as a matter of public policy, especially given that a lot of folks who bike instead of ride do so for financial reasons.

Below is what the bicycle plan has to say about enforcement. Read this, contemplate the makeup and politics of the SFPD and POA that runs the department, and tell me that this is not a license for open season on cop harassment of cyclists.

Ticketing should be done according to statistics collected by the DPH in order to make the streets safer.

But the SFBC has a conflict of interest here, between its mission to represent cyclists and its bottom line. Project 20, a community service program for tickets, has a relationship with the SFBC. I've taken advantage of it. But when a group has a pipeline of free labor based on a public policy that targets its members for harrassment masquerading as enforcement, that group is not likely to take steps to turn off that spigot.

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bproj/documents/Chapter_6_final_Enforcement.pdf

6. ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY

Goal:
Improve bicycle safety through targeted enforcement of moving violations.

Objectives:
• Increase San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) enforcement of motorist and cyclist traffic violations that pose the greatest threat to safety;

• Provide Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) bicycle safety education to police and those cited for moving violations that focuses on safe cycling, relevant traffic laws, and safe sharing of the roadway; and,

• Increase SFPD enforcement of motorist violations in bicycle facilities, including additional patrols to enforce the prohibition against double-parking in bike lanes.

RECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

City staff should place a high priority on the following policies and actions to realize the goal of improved bicycle safety through increased enforcement of moving violations in San Francisco:

Action 6.1

Place a high priority on SFPD enforcement of both bicyclist and motorist violations that most frequently injure cyclists.

-marc

Really? Is this your justification? It's your right to be able to do what you want when sharing the street with other vehicles?

You are welcome to be pissed about getting a ticket (I would be too) but you really only have yourself to blame. The streets are a dangerous place, probably the most dangerous for cyclists and motorcyclists. If anything, traffic laws are in place to save our asses. (Also, the Critical Mass example doesn't really support your point. It's just that, there are simply too many people and it would be both impossible to ticket them all, and it could engender a mob response which is the last thing the police want to deal with in a situation like that).

I ride a motorcycle myself and often roll through traffic signs as well. If I get a ticket well, I deserved it, I broke the law (and believe me, I have my fair share of tickets).

If we were to get into a cat fight about this, my response would be that I have NEARLY hit over a dozen cyclists running traffic stops and red lights. And guess what, I will be hurting as well after that type of accident.

But I digress, don't think this is where we should be wasting our energy. The whole 'us vs them' mentality in these situations never solves anything.

You got nailed for breaking the law (even when you knew the law). Be a woman about it, pay the ticket and move on :) (and I say that with the best of intentions).

Really? Is this your justification? It's your right to be able to do what you want when sharing the street with other vehicles?

You are welcome to be pissed about getting a ticket (I would be too) but you really only have yourself to blame. The streets are a dangerous place, probably the most dangerous for cyclists and motorcyclists. If anything, traffic laws are in place to save our asses. (Also, the Critical Mass example doesn't really support your point. It's just that, there are simply too many people and it would be both impossible to ticket them all, and it could engender a mob response which is the last thing the police want to deal with in a situation like that).

I ride a motorcycle myself and often roll through traffic signs as well. If I get a ticket well, I deserved it, I broke the law (and believe me, I have my fair share of tickets).

If we were to get into a cat fight about this, my response would be that I have NEARLY hit over a dozen cyclists running traffic stops and red lights. And guess what, I will be hurting as well after that type of accident.

But I digress, don't think this is where we should be wasting our energy. The whole 'us vs them' mentality in these situations never solves anything.

You got nailed for breaking the law (even when you knew the law). Be a woman about it, pay the ticket and move on :) (and I say that with the best of intentions).

Let's see, San Francisco is in the being inundated by a rising tide of violent crime. Homicide, assault, battery and the like are all spiking.

In what twisted world does it make sense to waste expensive SFPD resources ticketing cyclists or enforcing victimless crimes such as possession or use of marijuana?

I have a difficult time believing that San Franciscans are sticklers for consistency to the extent that they'd put themselves in continued harms way just to be sure that people who take risks with their own lives are protected from our potential stupidity.

No harm, no foul.

-marc

We need to design 10 mile bike commutes without so many stop signs. Stop and go can be a lot more frustrating on a bike after a long day of work than in an automobile. Do you really think the exhaust pipe is less toxic than cigarrettes?

As a fellow commuter cyclist, I have almost been hit by fellow cyclists more than cars. Of the cars that almost hit me, most of them were probably projecting the annoying behavior the see from other cyclists onto me. The irony is that my fellow cyclists routinely do the same things that are considered the most egregious for a car to do when cyclists are around: run lights, stop signs, turn right in front of traffic, and generally drive with a sense of entitlement.

When you get on that bike, it doesn't mean that things like stop signs and stop lights no longer apply to you. Sure, it is easier to run them on a bike (you can see better, hear cars, etc) but just stop. Please. If you can't play the game by the rules, don't play it.

Thanks!

How about if the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance similar to the pot ordinance that put into place the Idaho law, forbidding cops from ticketing cyclists who properly yield at stop signs and "stop sign" stop at red lights?

There is a middle ground between cyclists ignoring all traffic laws with complete impunity and a Catholic guilt style rigid adherence to the letter of the law irrespective of real world consequences and trade offs in allocating scarce enforcement resources. If I'd wanted to live in a disciplinarian society, I'd have stayed in Texas.

But it seems that the moderates and conservatives who support a free hand for business all of a sudden lose their libertarian streak when it comes to advocating a "no harm, no foul" position for bikes.

-marc

A coworker relates a story of a cop ticketing a cyclist, tricked out in racing gear, on Townsend by the CalTrain station this morning. He must have run the 5th street T-intersection stop sign.

How much longer will we continue to sit back while the commuter cops join rogue motorists in terrorizing cyclists?

-marc

The day they design a good number of streets with lights timed for bicycle speeds is the day you can expect good numbers of bicyclists to strictly obey the rules. Until then, people--all people, including bicyclists--will let the combination of their own selfishness mixed with common sense (with a preponderance of common sense on the part of bicyclists who slow, yield, then blow through stop signs, in my opinion) override obedience to traffic rules. The law of the conservation of momentum is often more important than the law of the CA vehicle code to bicyclists. I think this is similar to whatever reason motorists have for always, and I mean always, exceeding the 25 mph speed limit that applies to almost every street in San Francisco. 26 is speeding, people!

With scarce traffic enforcement resources, the public policy question is one of where we allocate those resources, to a cyclist running a stop sign or an equivalent number of motorists speeding way faster than 26mph?

-marc