Uphill climb
Bicycles can improve the city and save the planet. So why are bike riders still treated as second-class citizens?
Bicyclists generally try to avoid hills, so one of the most popular bike routes in town is a series of turns called the Wiggle, which snakes along a valley through the Lower Haight. The route — a sort of bridge between east and west — is traveled by a growing number of bicyclists, from hipster kids on colorful fixies to grizzled seniors on comfortable touring bikes.
I ride the Wiggle every day. Coming from the Panhandle, the most harrowing approach is the three blocks I have to travel on busy Oak Street, competing for space with impatient motorists who often seem to forget that they're wielding deadly weapons. Many times I've had cars zip by me within inches, honk (a very startling sound when you're not wrapped in metal and glass), zoom up right behind me, or flip me off.
But then I turn right onto Scott Street — and the world suddenly changes. My heart rate drops and I breathe deeply. Rain or shine, there are almost as many bikes there as cars. The cyclists smile and nod at one another and even the motorists seem more respectful, sometimes waving us through the stop signs even when it's their turn.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
It feels like an informally functional community. It's how traveling around this city ought to be.
Even though the citywide percentage of vehicle trips taken by bicycle in San Francisco is still in single digits (compared to more than 20 percent in many European cities), and even though a court injunction that's expected to be lifted this summer has banned any new bike projects in the city for the past three years, bicycling is booming in San Francisco, increasing by almost 50 percent since 2006. I'm never alone these days on my solo commute.
My decision to ride a bike and sell my car wasn't about joining a movement. I just like to ride my bike, a simple joy that I really began to rediscover about 10 years ago. It's fun, cheap, and an easy way to get exercise. And it connects me with my surroundings — the people, buildings, and streetscapes of this beautiful city — in a way I didn't even realize I was missing when I drove.
But as pressing political and planetary realities have welled up around my personal transportation choice, I've come to see that I am part of a movement, one that encapsulates just about every major issue progressive San Franciscans care about: public health, environmentalism, energy policy, economics, urban planning, social justice, public safety, sustainability, personal responsibility, and the belief that we can make our communities better places, that we're not captive to past societal choices.
As a bicyclist and a journalist, I've been actively engaged in these struggles for many years. I understand that bicyclists are criticized in many quarters as a vocal minority with a self-righteous sense of superiority and entitlement, and that I'm personally accused of bias for writing empathetically about bicyclists in dozens of bike-related stories.
Well, guess what? I don't apologize. We are better than motorists, by every important measure. We use less space and fewer resources and create less waste and pollution. Bikes are available to almost every segment of society, and we don't need to fight wars to power them. They improve the community's health and ...
( 10 comments | Comment on this article )
marcos on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 09:03 AM
Steve, you are too close to your friends at the SFBC to evaluate them critically, as they had as much of a role to play in leading us to our current quandary as anyone. We need an honest, objective assessment of the role of bicycle advocacy in leading us to a place where more folks ride but riding is less safe and does not promise to improve even with 56 bike lanes.
The SFBC knew of the LOS problem when Greg Hayes brought it up at the Bicycle Advisory Committee in 2002, and along with Emily Drennan, in order to not hear those inconvenient truths, had the BAC disbanded. Drennan's brittle refusal to hear the truth ended up wedging the BAC in a position of no return and I made the mistake of signing onto a reboot at that point, a reboot which rendered the BAC irrelevant, allowing the SFBC to set the stage for the General Rule Exclusion which led to the protracted EIR process which is not ending. For this reason, of ambition clouding good policy, as well as blaming others for not carrying campaign water in her ill-fated BART election, Drennan should not be considered for endorsement in the future by progressives.
Note that the Bicycle Network being environmentally cleared is the 1997 bicycle network which was grafted onto the 2002 Bicycle Plan Update. The SFBC received, what, just under $500K to conduct a public outreach process for that network, a public outreach process which took in the 1997 network and produced as output the 1997 network. Neat trick.
Of course the errors here were to ignore the LOS matter, to bundle a gazillion projects into a single plan making one big target, and to assume that because our goals are sound, that the law did not apply to us.
Anderson is politically irrelevant, but that said, nobody should ever make the case that a citizen should be barred from going to court and suing to compel governmental compliance with the law., ever. It is incumbent upon policy makers and decision makers to ensure that their product is legally defensible. Not only did they not, but they seek to avoid any sort of responsibility for their actions and the subsequent consequences of their actions.
How many cyclists have been injured or worse based on the choices made by advocates to pressure city staff to evade the law? Had the law been followed by city staff, there would have been no grounds for a lawsuit, the plan would have been cleared 3 years ago, and injuries would have been prevented. There are emails in the court case which show a paper trail of which advocates made the poor choices. Why have these not been printed in the Guardian? Why have our own escaped accountability? How does that equip cyclists so that we are protected from future similar errors?
The path forward is simple. From the ground up, we need to ensure that our streets are maintained for safety first and under progressive economic principles. This means that surfacing, striping of bike facilities and the engineering of the streets must be done with an eye towards safety and sustainability. This notion of a bond for street repairs must be dispatched with and a sustainable plan concocted to pay as we go to keep our streets in good repair. We need a dangerous conditions inspection system so that the City knows of streetscapes which are death traps. Once the City is aware of them, they can be sued by those maimed by them, and that would be the best incentive towards making cycling safer from the infrastructure standpoint.
The SFPD needs to be brought to heel to enforce the law according to public health outcomes rather than their own suburban prejudices. The SFBC has steadfastly refused to challenge the SFPD even though we opened the door to that with Prop H in 2003. This has erected barriers to cycling with cops issuing tickets against cyclists for piddly crap all while motorists whiz by illegally and pose real threats to peds and cyclists.
Instead of focusing on the industrial, day-to-day uses of streets, advocates have taken the boutique, burning man approach--that we must suffer the travails of oppressive society daily so long as we get a day or two each year for a bicycle carnival where we shake off the shackles of confinement. This has taken the form of Healthy Saturdays, Sunday Streets and a pathological focus on bike lanes. Never mind that most folks don't ride bikes in GGP on Sat or Sun, most folks don't spend a few hours on Sunday Streets, and most folks don't ride in bike lanes. Never mind that the Ahab like focus on Healthy Saturdays put the squeeze play on McGoldrick and caused a wave of luxury condos to wash over the Eastern Neighborhoods. I look so cool on my bike so who cars about displacement?
Most bike trips are during the week, not in the park, and on non-bike lane streets. Yet the SFBC has been conspicuously absent from advocating any sort of policies that make the vast bulk of cycling safer and more attractive. The SFBC has been AWOL when it comes to advocating for Muni which is the lynchpin system of safer streets for cyclists and peds. Now with a 50c fare increase, we will see more folks switching to cars, more traffic on the streets, slower Muni and worse conditions for cyclists.
Don't know about the rest of you all, but I'm seeing 50 years old coming at me like a speeding auto, and I'm not sure that my body can take much more of the dings that insulated harried, angst ridden motorists, an auto-centric enforcement regime and crumbling streetscape can throw at me.
The problem here is that the SFBC"s power to weight ratio approaches nil. For all of their power, we see precious few results on the ground.
But the SFBC is so cool, and they are Steve's friends, so laissez les bon temps roulez, to hell with critical coverage!
-marc
The SFBC knew of the LOS problem when Greg Hayes brought it up at the Bicycle Advisory Committee in 2002, and along with Emily Drennan, in order to not hear those inconvenient truths, had the BAC disbanded. Drennan's brittle refusal to hear the truth ended up wedging the BAC in a position of no return and I made the mistake of signing onto a reboot at that point, a reboot which rendered the BAC irrelevant, allowing the SFBC to set the stage for the General Rule Exclusion which led to the protracted EIR process which is not ending. For this reason, of ambition clouding good policy, as well as blaming others for not carrying campaign water in her ill-fated BART election, Drennan should not be considered for endorsement in the future by progressives.
Note that the Bicycle Network being environmentally cleared is the 1997 bicycle network which was grafted onto the 2002 Bicycle Plan Update. The SFBC received, what, just under $500K to conduct a public outreach process for that network, a public outreach process which took in the 1997 network and produced as output the 1997 network. Neat trick.
Of course the errors here were to ignore the LOS matter, to bundle a gazillion projects into a single plan making one big target, and to assume that because our goals are sound, that the law did not apply to us.
Anderson is politically irrelevant, but that said, nobody should ever make the case that a citizen should be barred from going to court and suing to compel governmental compliance with the law., ever. It is incumbent upon policy makers and decision makers to ensure that their product is legally defensible. Not only did they not, but they seek to avoid any sort of responsibility for their actions and the subsequent consequences of their actions.
How many cyclists have been injured or worse based on the choices made by advocates to pressure city staff to evade the law? Had the law been followed by city staff, there would have been no grounds for a lawsuit, the plan would have been cleared 3 years ago, and injuries would have been prevented. There are emails in the court case which show a paper trail of which advocates made the poor choices. Why have these not been printed in the Guardian? Why have our own escaped accountability? How does that equip cyclists so that we are protected from future similar errors?
The path forward is simple. From the ground up, we need to ensure that our streets are maintained for safety first and under progressive economic principles. This means that surfacing, striping of bike facilities and the engineering of the streets must be done with an eye towards safety and sustainability. This notion of a bond for street repairs must be dispatched with and a sustainable plan concocted to pay as we go to keep our streets in good repair. We need a dangerous conditions inspection system so that the City knows of streetscapes which are death traps. Once the City is aware of them, they can be sued by those maimed by them, and that would be the best incentive towards making cycling safer from the infrastructure standpoint.
The SFPD needs to be brought to heel to enforce the law according to public health outcomes rather than their own suburban prejudices. The SFBC has steadfastly refused to challenge the SFPD even though we opened the door to that with Prop H in 2003. This has erected barriers to cycling with cops issuing tickets against cyclists for piddly crap all while motorists whiz by illegally and pose real threats to peds and cyclists.
Instead of focusing on the industrial, day-to-day uses of streets, advocates have taken the boutique, burning man approach--that we must suffer the travails of oppressive society daily so long as we get a day or two each year for a bicycle carnival where we shake off the shackles of confinement. This has taken the form of Healthy Saturdays, Sunday Streets and a pathological focus on bike lanes. Never mind that most folks don't ride bikes in GGP on Sat or Sun, most folks don't spend a few hours on Sunday Streets, and most folks don't ride in bike lanes. Never mind that the Ahab like focus on Healthy Saturdays put the squeeze play on McGoldrick and caused a wave of luxury condos to wash over the Eastern Neighborhoods. I look so cool on my bike so who cars about displacement?
Most bike trips are during the week, not in the park, and on non-bike lane streets. Yet the SFBC has been conspicuously absent from advocating any sort of policies that make the vast bulk of cycling safer and more attractive. The SFBC has been AWOL when it comes to advocating for Muni which is the lynchpin system of safer streets for cyclists and peds. Now with a 50c fare increase, we will see more folks switching to cars, more traffic on the streets, slower Muni and worse conditions for cyclists.
Don't know about the rest of you all, but I'm seeing 50 years old coming at me like a speeding auto, and I'm not sure that my body can take much more of the dings that insulated harried, angst ridden motorists, an auto-centric enforcement regime and crumbling streetscape can throw at me.
The problem here is that the SFBC"s power to weight ratio approaches nil. For all of their power, we see precious few results on the ground.
But the SFBC is so cool, and they are Steve's friends, so laissez les bon temps roulez, to hell with critical coverage!
-marc
Scribe on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Marc,
Thanks for illustrating a point that I needed to cut from my piece for space reasons, that the bike community is far from the unified movement we're often made out to be. Marc hates the SFBC, many bike messengers hate Critical Mass, and the fixey crowd sometimes irritates those who appreciate gears. There are radicals and moderates, old and young, liberals and conservatives, rule-breakers and law abiders, assholes and some of the nicest and most public-spirited people I've ever met. The only common denominator is we like bikes and see them as an important part of the transportation system.
Steven T. Jones
Thanks for illustrating a point that I needed to cut from my piece for space reasons, that the bike community is far from the unified movement we're often made out to be. Marc hates the SFBC, many bike messengers hate Critical Mass, and the fixey crowd sometimes irritates those who appreciate gears. There are radicals and moderates, old and young, liberals and conservatives, rule-breakers and law abiders, assholes and some of the nicest and most public-spirited people I've ever met. The only common denominator is we like bikes and see them as an important part of the transportation system.
Steven T. Jones
Alligator on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 09:08 PM
Marc,
I think you need to visit the Harbor Side Health Center to cope with all that stress/anger you have built up.
-Your Cajun Friend
I think you need to visit the Harbor Side Health Center to cope with all that stress/anger you have built up.
-Your Cajun Friend
timdaw on Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Marcos, I read every word of your post and rather than break it down point by point I thought I'd let the internet do the talking:
[link]
[link]
bkwforum on Friday, May 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM
You had me on your side at the beginning of the article, until you became all self-righteous. You can decorate your bike any way you want. (Though people might take your cause a little more seriously if you didn't look ridiculous. Not to mention the distraction you create that draws a driver'sattention to you and away from the road).
That doesn't distract from your sense of entitlement or your admitted disregard for the laws, not just the rules, the LAWS of the road. "Maybe you've seen me around town — and if so, maybe you've seen me blow through stop signs or red lights. Yes, I'm that guy, and I only apologize if I'm stealing a motorist's right-of-way, which I try to avoid." If you want to ride in the streets, then stop at the stop lights like the rest of us. It's not your place to ignore the traffic signs/signals and make your own right-of-way. If everybody had that same attitude there'd be chaos on the roads and bodies scattered everywhere.
You talk about the stress you suffer at the beginning of your route. Hey, welcome to the real world! Commuting is stressful. It isn't any less stressful in bicycle dominated areas like Beijing!
"Well, guess what? I don't apologize. We are better than motorists, by every important measure." Yeah, you're better. Right. Except that it's the motorized vehicle drivers who are paying for "your" streets. It's the motorized vehicles that deliver products to your homes, offices and retailers.
"The elderly, those with disabilities, some families with kids, and a few other groups can credibly argue that the bicycle isn't a realistic daily transportation option. But that's a small percentage of the population." Well, Steve, I don't know where you got your statistics, but you might want to check your math. Each specific segment you mentioned is, in and of itself, a LARGE part of the population and we are not easily dismissed.
I am one of the disabled who no longer rides a bike. It is the singular, most important change in my life that I regret the most. I was an avid rider, pedaling my Cannondale mountain bike all around town, in all kinds of weather (I loved riding in snow!). I understand what it's like to ride freely, and I remember well the frustrations of being honked at, or forced to the berm or nearly hit by inattentive drivers. But I also remember recognizing the need to abide by the rules of the road, to co-exist with vehicle drivers, and to be responsible while doing so. Your battle is not a new one, and I applaud your efforts in trying to make a difference, but I think your "radical" approach is doing your cause more harm than good. Your sometimes acerbic wit can be off-putting, even offensive. If this is how you come across through the written word, I can imagine how caustic your attitude may be in the heat of a "discussion" about your rights.
Continue to fight the good fight, and I wish you well in your efforts, but please reconsider your approach.
That doesn't distract from your sense of entitlement or your admitted disregard for the laws, not just the rules, the LAWS of the road. "Maybe you've seen me around town — and if so, maybe you've seen me blow through stop signs or red lights. Yes, I'm that guy, and I only apologize if I'm stealing a motorist's right-of-way, which I try to avoid." If you want to ride in the streets, then stop at the stop lights like the rest of us. It's not your place to ignore the traffic signs/signals and make your own right-of-way. If everybody had that same attitude there'd be chaos on the roads and bodies scattered everywhere.
You talk about the stress you suffer at the beginning of your route. Hey, welcome to the real world! Commuting is stressful. It isn't any less stressful in bicycle dominated areas like Beijing!
"Well, guess what? I don't apologize. We are better than motorists, by every important measure." Yeah, you're better. Right. Except that it's the motorized vehicle drivers who are paying for "your" streets. It's the motorized vehicles that deliver products to your homes, offices and retailers.
"The elderly, those with disabilities, some families with kids, and a few other groups can credibly argue that the bicycle isn't a realistic daily transportation option. But that's a small percentage of the population." Well, Steve, I don't know where you got your statistics, but you might want to check your math. Each specific segment you mentioned is, in and of itself, a LARGE part of the population and we are not easily dismissed.
I am one of the disabled who no longer rides a bike. It is the singular, most important change in my life that I regret the most. I was an avid rider, pedaling my Cannondale mountain bike all around town, in all kinds of weather (I loved riding in snow!). I understand what it's like to ride freely, and I remember well the frustrations of being honked at, or forced to the berm or nearly hit by inattentive drivers. But I also remember recognizing the need to abide by the rules of the road, to co-exist with vehicle drivers, and to be responsible while doing so. Your battle is not a new one, and I applaud your efforts in trying to make a difference, but I think your "radical" approach is doing your cause more harm than good. Your sometimes acerbic wit can be off-putting, even offensive. If this is how you come across through the written word, I can imagine how caustic your attitude may be in the heat of a "discussion" about your rights.
Continue to fight the good fight, and I wish you well in your efforts, but please reconsider your approach.
Scribe on Friday, May 15, 2009 at 01:22 PM
BKWforum,
Traffic laws were created with cars in mind, not bikes. Bicyclists need momentum and if we stopped at every stop sign, that's an incredibly inefficient system that also slows car traffic because bikes take a long time to clear an intersection when starting from a dead stop. So we (even the bicycle cops in town) generally ride in a way that makes sense and doesn't steal the right-of-way from motorists. That's the law in Idaho and it works just great, with no chaos or "bodies in the road." So if we aren't stealing your right-of-way, then your point seems to be based more on spitefulness (or maybe guilt) than a real concern for an equitable and efficient transportation system.
I'm always amazed at how sanctimonious drivers get about this point, making such a huge deal of our law-breaking, while a significant number of motorists regularly break speed limits and run red lights -- a far more dangerous violation of the law than anything bicyclists do. Even pedestrians regularly jaywalk. So we're all law-breakers. Want a solution? Have laws that make sense and that have buy-in from the communities they regular. Only then will you foster respect for the law, which is a prerequisite for your high expectation that everyone always engage in lawful behavior.
Traffic laws were created with cars in mind, not bikes. Bicyclists need momentum and if we stopped at every stop sign, that's an incredibly inefficient system that also slows car traffic because bikes take a long time to clear an intersection when starting from a dead stop. So we (even the bicycle cops in town) generally ride in a way that makes sense and doesn't steal the right-of-way from motorists. That's the law in Idaho and it works just great, with no chaos or "bodies in the road." So if we aren't stealing your right-of-way, then your point seems to be based more on spitefulness (or maybe guilt) than a real concern for an equitable and efficient transportation system.
I'm always amazed at how sanctimonious drivers get about this point, making such a huge deal of our law-breaking, while a significant number of motorists regularly break speed limits and run red lights -- a far more dangerous violation of the law than anything bicyclists do. Even pedestrians regularly jaywalk. So we're all law-breakers. Want a solution? Have laws that make sense and that have buy-in from the communities they regular. Only then will you foster respect for the law, which is a prerequisite for your high expectation that everyone always engage in lawful behavior.
Astopholus on Friday, May 15, 2009 at 02:56 PM
Sorry to disagree Scribe but any moving "vehicle" as a bike, scooter, moped, car etc all fall under the same laws that everyone needs to follow regardless of whether or not the vehicle is self propelled.
If it were as simple as a empty street where a bicyclist rolls through a stop then there would be no issue. It's in a city like San Francisco where it is almost like a game of Frogger where the self propelled faction of our traffic participants feel compelled to just do as they please regardless of the safety of anyone around them or even themselves.
If you want to have traffic laws where bicyclists are exempt from traffic laws, create a grass roots organization and change the laws. Until then, everyone needs to abide by traffic laws. They are there for a reason.
If it were as simple as a empty street where a bicyclist rolls through a stop then there would be no issue. It's in a city like San Francisco where it is almost like a game of Frogger where the self propelled faction of our traffic participants feel compelled to just do as they please regardless of the safety of anyone around them or even themselves.
If you want to have traffic laws where bicyclists are exempt from traffic laws, create a grass roots organization and change the laws. Until then, everyone needs to abide by traffic laws. They are there for a reason.
costanoan on Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 09:26 AM
You say that "when we [bicyclists] get into accidents, we don't kill or maim the people we hit." That's certainly not true when it comes to collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. Such collisions can result in painful and debilitating injuries, and occasionally even fatalities. Given that fact, it is disturbing how frequently one views bicyclists recklessly endangering the safety of pedestrians in San Francisco by riding at high speeds on crowded sidewalks, or flying through a red light into a crowded crosswalk. While I'm certain that reckless bicyclists are only a relatively small minority of the total bike riding population, there clearly needs to be a geater level of respect for pedestrian safety as well as greater enforcement of traffic and safety laws.
Also, as another commenter has already pointed out, the population for whom bicycling is not a viable commuting option is nowhere near as tiny as you imagine. Just the elederly and disabled alone probably make up somehting like 1/3 to 1/2 of the population. In addition, the distance and terrain of the commute are important factors. Commuting from the Haight to the Mission is a very different story than, say, Ingleside to North Beach. Or Palo Alto to Berkeley. And let's face it, San Francisco is no Amsterdam. Amsterdam is just about flatest city on the planet, whereas SF is pretty much the polar opposite. Hills here cannot be totally avoided in every bicycle commute. And that definitely reduces the number of people for whom bicycling is a viable method of daily commute here versus a more bike-friendly terrain like Amsterdam.
The high rate of bicycle theft combined with lack of secure parking options in many shops and workplaces is another issue for many people. Bicycling can work up a good sweat, which is great exercise, but a lot of people have jobs where showing up to work sweaty and smelly is not exactly a good career move. Many people are simply afraid for their physical safety, which is a legitimate fear, particularly in commute directions that lack good bike lanes. Now, I'm 100% behind any and all efforts to ameliorate these problems, create more and better bike lanes, and anything that makes bicycling a viable commuting option for more people. Biking is a great thing. But it's not and never will be a viable daily commuting option for everyone.
Also, as another commenter has already pointed out, the population for whom bicycling is not a viable commuting option is nowhere near as tiny as you imagine. Just the elederly and disabled alone probably make up somehting like 1/3 to 1/2 of the population. In addition, the distance and terrain of the commute are important factors. Commuting from the Haight to the Mission is a very different story than, say, Ingleside to North Beach. Or Palo Alto to Berkeley. And let's face it, San Francisco is no Amsterdam. Amsterdam is just about flatest city on the planet, whereas SF is pretty much the polar opposite. Hills here cannot be totally avoided in every bicycle commute. And that definitely reduces the number of people for whom bicycling is a viable method of daily commute here versus a more bike-friendly terrain like Amsterdam.
The high rate of bicycle theft combined with lack of secure parking options in many shops and workplaces is another issue for many people. Bicycling can work up a good sweat, which is great exercise, but a lot of people have jobs where showing up to work sweaty and smelly is not exactly a good career move. Many people are simply afraid for their physical safety, which is a legitimate fear, particularly in commute directions that lack good bike lanes. Now, I'm 100% behind any and all efforts to ameliorate these problems, create more and better bike lanes, and anything that makes bicycling a viable commuting option for more people. Biking is a great thing. But it's not and never will be a viable daily commuting option for everyone.
timdaw on Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM
bkwforum and astopholus. Laws only need to be respected when they are true and good. To change laws they usually need to be broken first. We're talking about stop signs here, remember. Anyway, stop signs are a piss-poor way to control all traffic and I don't know what part of SF y'all live in but I see many, many, many cars roll through stop signs all the time, everywhere I go.
[link]
[link]
Marxsyst on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 02:01 PM
How come none of my lib acquaintances connected the dots between the democratic rule and fiscal failure? Exhibits: California, New York, Vermont, Michigan... Or is it all Bush's fault?
Comment on: Uphill climb
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
