sorry bout your accident. we have to figure something out on this injunction, that's for sure.

If you had hit the crack or pothole and that caused you to fall, then probably the city would be at fault. Certainly tell them about it. But I have some questions.

The car that passed you on the right was obviously in the right lane, so it's unclear to me why you were not. I understand you had to go around a bus, but so did the car, didn't it? Why was it able to move into the right lane, but you didn't before it did?

When you did have to move left, why stop on the stripe rather than move completely into the next lane, as you would if you had been on a motorcycle or motor scooter? That is, if you have legitimate reason to not be in the right lane, then you don't have to ride the stripe. The stripe leaves you with very little room for safely avoiding hazards, which you learned the hard way. And you should also develop the habit to never move laterally without first looking back. And look ahead so you don't get surprised by suddenly appearing potholes.

Speaking of learning the hard way, many people consider reading books and/or taking classes a preferable method for learning how to ride safely in traffic, rather than risking your life until you've learned each lesson the hard way. For books I recommend Effective Cycling by John Forester, Cyclecraft by John Franklin and Streetsmarts by John S. Allen (available for free in PDF - google for it).

As to the bike lane, if you read those books or take some classes you'll learn that they don't make you safer, and arguably make cycling more dangerous. I find that they encourage motorists to pay less attention to us, and fool us into thinking we can pay less attention to them (not to mention that they often encourage poor road positioning due to the inherent static nature, justaposed to the dynamic nature of proper positioning), which is exactly opposite of what we need for safety.

Oh, God, it's the vehicular cyclists.

Newsflash: for most riders, who are not trying to be athletic and who don't really feel up to challenging multi-ton juggernauts for a couple of meters of pavement, bike lanes are indispensible. I ride vehicular style (though I find Forester's work largely obnoxious), but I don't expect relative newbies to do so, nor to have the necessary confidence to do so.

Finally, vehicular cycling relies on motorists ceding pavement to you. In this city, with a police force that is conspicuously doing nothing about enforcing traffic laws, that's a recipe for collision. When the cops begin ticketing motorists for running stop signs and going double the speed limit and making unsignalled left turns, vehicular cycling may become practical for most people. Until then, keep it to yourself and your road cycling class.

If it were not obvious, that was a response to Biker Dude. Amanda, you have only my sympathy.

I'm glad you're okay, Amanda. This bicycling for our health is fucking killing us.

Now the reason why there is no plan for a bike lane on Van Ness is that the current bike network plan that is being held up by the court has not changed since 1997.

You all might remember that the SFBC got paid almost $500K to do public outreach in 2004 on the bike network of the 2002 bike plan update, but from what I could find, there efforts did not change any of the proposals.

City staff feels that it can engrave a bike network in granite, put a pretty cloth over it, and not have to do any more work on any more projects until the first one is complete.

Thus, there have not been any new projects added to the bike network, Van Ness being one fine example, Polk, 10th and and Market being another, South Van Ness at 13th/Duboce and Howard a third, since 1997. These are not academic quibbles over abstruse policy differences, rather locations where cyclists are maimed and killed on a regular basis yet are not even on the table for rectification, injunction or not.

Speeds on that segment of Van Ness are also off the hook. The SFBC has studiously avoided engaging the SFPD in enforcing the vehicle code against autos all while the SFPD disproportionately cites cyclists. We passed Prop H, police reform, in 2003 to help address cop dysfunction, namely police violence and lack of protection against violent crime, but also to empower transit activists to coerce rational enforcement from cops. Once enforcement is certain, then behavior will change and safety will increase.

The east side generates the lion's share of sales taxes for the City. In order to generate those taxes, we take on the lions share of delivery trucks, especially on US-101, Van Ness. It is not acceptable that we take on that burden, that our streets are not maintained in a safe manner, while streets in the more conservative districts are well maintained.

There are plans afoot to intervene legally in the injunction lawsuit to argue that the City has the power under its police authority to keep the byways safe for all comers, and that CEQA cannot trump the responsibility of a jurisdiction to keep its residents safe.

One would hope that the SFBC, having failed to identify a way out, would abandon the 'not invented here' mentality and support this novel approach to ending the gridlock.

But what we need in the future is to put an end to these omnibus bicycle plans and by simplifying, figuring out an annual funding plan for bicycle projects and plan on an annual basis for what we can do next year. There should always be a bicycle plan ripening, one in the middle and one just starting off. They should be small, compact and tactical approaches to solving problems rather than enormous, expansive and strategic.

That way the complexity of each is tied to the realistic ability of the City to fund projects each year and any CEQA burdens are minimized.

-marc

Michael,

Thanks for sharing that tidbit about finding much of Forester's work obnoxious. I can't disagree. Personally, I prefer Franklin's Cyclecraft. I understand a new edition is available in the UK, but it's not on amazon.com, and unfortunately the 1999 edition is out of stock.

The notion that bike lanes are indispensable to anyone is ascribing an absurdly high level of utility to a stripe of paint. Bike lanes are particularly dangerous for novices, because novices have little or no idea what makes them hazardous when. I'll concede that they can be useful to keep congested traffic aligned to facilitate passing on the right, but that must be done slowly or it's dangerous too.

As to motorists in the city not ceding space to cyclists, please. If you're waiting for them to cede space to you, that explains much. Safe cycling requires knowing how and when to assertively claim your space. You may fear that someone will intentionally run you down, but practically speaking that never happens, and riding as if there is a reasonable likelihood that it might is absolutely debilitating.

As to your comment about unsignaled left turns, whether you're on a motorcycle, bike, walking or even in a car or truck, it's not advisable to ascribe much meaning to flashing or unflashing turn signals. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on what it might mean. Controlling the timing so that potential oncoming left-crossers are not in the intersection at the same time as you is probably the first defense, but reading motorist behavior is key too. This is just as important when bicycling as when motorcycling. The CA motorcycle handbook has some good stuff on p. 17: "Vehicles that turn left in front of you, including those illegally turning left ... are the biggest dangers. ... There are no guarantees that others will see you. Never count on 'eye contact'. ... If a vehicle can enter your path, assume that it will. Good riders are always "looking for trouble" -- not to get into it, but to stay out of it. ... Maintain a space cushion ... that permits you to take evasive action. As you approach an intersection, select a lane position that increases your visibility to the driver. ... Reduce your speed as you approach an intersection. After entering the intersection, move away from vehicles preparing to turn. Do not change speed or position radically. The driver might think that you are preparing to turn."

I don't think all of the wording is ideal, but in general I agree with the advice and think it applies equally to bicyclists.

By the way, note that bike lanes guide bicyclists to ride contrary to the advice provided above. To the contrary, your "indispensable" bike lanes encourage bicyclists to choose a lane position that makes them about as invisible to motorists as is practically possible in these situations.

Since there was no bike lane contemplated for Van Ness Ave., can we stipulate that the injunction against the Bicycle Plan had nothing to do with this accident? Ms. Witherell seems convinced that somehow she was a victim of something---the injunction, dangerous streets, faulty paving, etc. But the reality is that cycling has inherent dangers that the city can't really protect her from. Even when the Bicycle Plan is completely implemented and the network of bike lanes is entirely linked all over the city, cyclists will continue to suffer injuries from various causes beyond the control of our civic authorities. Does anyone in the cycling community really think this is not the case?

It seems like you merged left to get around a bus, and then a car zipped to your right to pass on your right? Like you write, it may be a little bit iffy, but the motorist is the one how needs to exercise care. He should not have been passing to your right.

Since, as you note, people are scampering between buildings here, that's another reason for motorists to take it easy. You got hit because somebody else was in in hurry and put his own convenience ahead of your safety.

Glad you're relatively okay.

Was that comment above really from the obnoxious speck of camel dung who is largely responsible for the delay in implementing the bike plan; the incredible waste of money this has caused - who knows - maybe Buster's Place might still be open; there might even have been fewer fatalities or injuries if this dick had kept it zippered.
One of the problems with freedom is that even cretins qualify.

I must agree with Mr. Monk. A comment from Rob Anderson on bike safety is...ironic, let us say, as hs is the one man most responsible for the foul state of San Francisco streets from a bicycling point of view.

Amanda, if you are thinking in terms of lawsuit, he's a mighty fine co-defendant...

Rob is wrong on the issues but those most responsible for our lack of progress are: 1) The Planning Department office of Major Environmental Analysis which gave the green light to the general rule exclusion, 2) The City Attorney who gave legal cover for the gre, 3) The MTA Bicycle Program which decided to lump in all bicycle planning into one omnibus document--easier to derail, 4) The Board of Supervisors who passed it, 5) The Mayor who signed it into law, and 6) the SFBC which provided political pressure on all of the above to do the wrong thing.

This outcome is the result of the nexus of administrative and advocacy comedies of errors which gave Anderson a toehold in court.

Nobody should ever challenge the right of any American to seek redress in court when the government breaks the law, even if it breaks the law in a way that benefits us.

Cyclists need to demand an assessment post mortem on what went wrong so that these errors might not repeated in the future. What we do not need to be doing is blaming Anderson for the failures of government and advocates.

Anderson is right cycling is dangerous. The City has a responsibility under the law to keep us safe through its police power. We need to demand that the City do its job and ensure that the right to pass through roadways on a bicycle as guaranteed by state law is enforced.

-marc