CycleSF event canceled, but RecPark gets paid anyway

|
(115)
Maybe people didn't understand why they needed to pay for the "simple pleasure of a bike ride."
Nich Baressi

Bicycling around San Francisco has become increasingly popular with both residents and tourists, but apparently that doesn't mean people want to pay $40-75 for an organized ride around the city's perimeter, even when the money goes to the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department and the cause of putting more bike racks into the parks.

Despite a citywide ad campaign (for which I was one of several cyclists voluntarily photographed with our bikes) and aggressive social media effort, Jumping Fences – the company that also produces the San Francisco Marathon, which is set for June 16 – has canceled the CycleSF event it had planned for April 28, citing lower than anticipated demand.

The company had pledged $100,000 to RPD in connection with the event, which was to involve 13- and 26-mile rides through the city ending with a big party in the park, and the company announced that it would still be giving the department $25,000 despite “postponing” the event.

“We are disappointed Cycle SF has chosen to postpone their event. We are looking forward to working with them in the future on a family-friendly bicycle event,” said Connie Chan, spokesperson for the Recreation and Parks Department.

Jumping Fencing Marketing Director Joanna Reuland contended that “awareness was strong” surrounding the event and she wasn't sure why it didn't take off. “It had become clear that we weren't going to make our promise so we thought it was probably best to just postpone the event,” Reuland told us.

Part of the problem might have been how cheap and easy it is to cycle around the city and the availability of free monthly group rides like Critical Mass and SF Bike Party. Apparently paying to bike around the city just doesn't have the same demand as the San Francisco Marathon, which costs $35 for the 5K or $145 for the full marathon.

Some in the bike community also grumbled that the event was benefiting a city department about which many have decidedly mixed opinions, particularly given its closeness with corporate donors, rather than a bike advocacy organization such as the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, whose 12,000-plus members organizers did little to directly target. What whatever it was, it is no more.

Comments

Why -- I didn't literally mean "look," "walk," "quack," and "duck," of course.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

rather a mixed-use path where bikes are not banned), I make a point of always walking on the left to slow down approaching bikes. It also helps me see them coming.

Every now and then a cyclist will tell me to "keep right" and I reply that that only applies to vehicles and not to people. They rarely persist in the debate.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 11:46 am

Asshole.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 12:40 pm

The mixed-use footpaths are for the use of pedestrians, children, mothers with baby strollers, jugglers, birdwatchers, and the elderly -- none of whom should be made responsible for adjusting to your reckless attitude.

If you want to ride fast, get into the street. The lights are timed so its very easy to turn off to let bundles of heavy traffic pass by. Plus, if the worst happens, one less self-important tech geek will never be missed.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:03 pm

The mixed-use footpaths are for pedestrians, children, mothers with baby strollers, jugglers, birdwatchers, and the elderly -- none of whom should be made responsible for adjusting to your reckless attitude.

If you want to ride fast, get into the street. The lights are timed so its very easy to turn off to let bundles of heavy traffic pass by. Plus, if the worst happens, one less self-important geek will never be missed.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:05 pm

What Marcos ignores here is there is a huge "SLOW" sign for the cyclists at the start and end of that mixed-use path.

Clearly Marcos thinks the law doesn't apply to him. But then cyclists often think that.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:16 pm

If you're in a city then you have to pay attention to your surroundings. If you don't want to have to pay attention to your surroundings, then the suburbs, where you live, is the place for you.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 2:00 pm

on the sidewalk towards me, being a city person, I find myself habitually working to suss out whether I'm about to be mugged or otherwise threatened, and plan accordingly.

I don't like having to do that for every jerk speeding along on the sidewalk, which is why I'd prefer if such louts were consistently ticketed for such behavior.

The downside of that is that while riding on the sidewalk is a gray area, the law against it is black and white. Inconsiderate louts would, once again, stand a good chance of spoiling it for everybody else.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 2:37 pm

Sharing the public space requires respect for and from everyone and that requires that everyone be constantly aware of their surroundings and acting accordingly. There should be no need to ask that from healthy adjusted adults.

As usual, your logic is tortured. If the law is clear than it is already ruined for cyclists riding on the sidewalk, bad conduct is not going to ruin it any further.

I don't like it when I'm walking and some clueless pedestrian just stops in the middle of a crowded sidewalk and dawdles without a care as to who else might be trying to negotiate the same space, when someone just walks out of a store as if they own the sidewalk with no care as to who might already be occupying that space. That's selfish entitled bullshit.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 5:15 pm

Talk about "tortured."

Pedestrians don't need to make you feel welcome to "share" their space.

There's no confusion about the law: you are a pirate in their environs.

Simply the fact that you are making people *feel* endangered -- and that much is known -- is a theft on your part which occurs before you are actually close enough to anybody to actually represent a possible imminent danger.

You don't mind making pedestrians feel endangered because it makes *you* feel safer. Your calculus values *your* sense of security over that of pedestrians, and laws be hanged.

Yes, tortured.

The young mother stops to wipe the speck out of the eye of her suddenly crying infant daughter... marcos, coming up behind them rapidly, impatiently sweeps them aside using his handle bars for leverage, and administers a sharp kick for emphasis. How dare anyone stand in marcos' way?

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 7:15 pm

It appears that of the two fatal pedestrian bicycle collisions, one was the fault of the pedestrian and the other of the cyclist. Two incidents, equally divided over a period of a few decades means that cyclists are no practical threat to pedestrians. None of these incidents happened on the sidewalk. There is no evidence on the table of ped injuries due to collisions with cyclists on the sidewalk. Most pedestrians don't get scared. A few do. Rarely do any pedestrians have any legitimate reason to be concerned for their safety due to cyclists riding on the sidewalk.

That's life in the Big City.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 7:40 pm

hearing-impaired lady who waited timidly with her walker for him to pass.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 7:37 pm

We get extra points for hitting the most vulnerable, that's why it happens so often that the body count is piling up. How can you even get out of bed in the morning without recoiling back into the comfort of their covers in fear?

What if the tap water itself is poison?

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 7:59 pm

pertinent links:

http://www.commutebybike.com/2008/07/09/top-5-rules-for-riding-on-the-si...

http://www.dongaline.com/Articles/Growing-Bike-Culture-Clashes-with-Pede...

www.sfmta.com/cms/.../StateofCycling2012AccessibleVersion.pdf
"Unsafe Behaviors

More detailed safety information is available from the SFMTA’s 2011 Bicycle Count Report. During these counts, the SFMTA records the number of bicyclists riding on sidewalks and in the wrong direction where on-street bicycle facilities exist and where they may be lacking. These behaviors are counted because they may lead to collisions between bicyclists and motorists or pedestrians. Additionally, it helps identify where infrastructure improvements may be needed or where additional education efforts could affect bicycling behaviors.

Between 2008 and 2011, the manual bicycle counts found a statistically significant decrease in sidewalk bicycle riding at nine locations. This indicates an overall improvement of safe bicycling behavior. This change could be related to education and outreach or an overall increase of on-street bikeway facilities on these or parallel streets."

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:50 pm

One of those bike messengers knocked me over when he rode up on to the sidewalk from the street at top speed. And then this guy had the temerity to yell at me because I supposedly got in "his" way. Fortunately, a kind pedestrian stopped and read the guy the riot act. I demanded to know where he worked so I could complain to his boss, but he just sped off like the coward he is. Some bikers are like smokers; they don't care who their behavior hurts. Sociopaths with little conscience. Marcos seems like a good example of that.

Posted by Sianna on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 2:37 pm

support for Lilli here, but somehow Marcos has managed it.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 2:57 pm

Unlike trolls on the sfbg blog, most cyclists are not assholes. If it is my safety and breaking the law, I'll go for my safety. Always better to survive to fight a cycling on the sidewalk ticket out in court than lose my life or limb to a rogue motorist.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 5:13 pm

So now Marcos is spouting "better judged by twelve than carried out by six". He's a literal libertarian constitutionalist.

You're a lousy socialist, Marcos.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 5:21 pm

You know that I'm an anarchist not a leftist, right, and that after growing up in Texas, I'm not an anti-gun nut. I think that government should be run of by and for the people not the corporations and that democracy always trumps capitalism. Electorally I'm a populist.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 5:42 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

deaths in SF in just the last 2 years.

One was at Market and castro and the other on the embarcadero IIRC.

There have of course also been various injuries. When you look at the way some cyclists ride (on the sidewalk, wrong way on one-way streets and blowing thru stop signs and red lights, that is hardly surprising.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 10:19 am

It seems that there is reasonable doubt that the pedestrian was crossing legally at Castro and Market.

There is a fair argument to be made that the cyclist entered the intersection legally and was allowed and required to complete the transit of the intersection, indeed forced lest he be hit by cross traffic on Market.

Peds cross illegally and early of the time, they know the cues that an auto is coming, sound and bulk, but do not take the same care to check for a bicycle. In that case, that pedestrian laziness was fatal.

This happens at the west crosswalk at 4th and Market frequently. The difference there is that there is that one is slowed by cycling into the wind and there is sufficient shelter from the sidewalk and the architecture of the intersection so that cyclists can stop and not get hit by cross traffic. The only danger to a cyclist would be if one swerved to the center stripe to avoid early crossing peds and got caught on the rails or cheese grater BART vents.

The City maintains a dangerous condition at Castro and Market and is probably liable for wrongful death due to that dangerous condition.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 9:37 am

marcos channeling a PI attorney? Or Grover-Norquistly anticipating the drowning of "the baby"?

"Peds... know the cues that an auto is coming, sound and bulk, but do not take the same care to check for a bicycle."

And that, in a nutshell, is why you must avoid riding on sidewalks in the presence of pedestrians.

Last time I checked, it is the responsibility of a vehicle driver to be able to stop before hitting pedestrians in crosswalks. While you make the most compelling case possible for Chris Bucchere, it seems doubtful that he was not at least predominantly at fault.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 10:58 am

It is not all about your paranoid fear of cyclists on sidewalks. The Castro and Market dangerous condition was maintained by the City such that a cyclist could transit through an intersection legally in the streets as pedestrians put themselves in mortal danger. The City claims that it is all for good, safe design and California law requires them to mitigate dangerous conditions that are brought to their attention. The City should take proactive steps to identify dangerous conditions and prioritize scarce DPW street $ to mitigate themselves to keep people safe and to save the City in the long run. The City bets that it will cost them less to do nothing than to be proactive.

You need to get some professional help or take some meds for your paranoid fixations on the nonexistent dangers of cyclists on sidewalks, lilli.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 5:21 pm

the street, that does not imply that a cyclist (or motorist) can mow him down with impunity.

Excessive speed was the issue here. and not paying attention.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

For that matter motors have killed 5 people already this year. So what, it's dangerous living in the big city, be aware of your surroundings or move to a gated community with 'armed response' sign on your lawn. The only kind of insurance I could get behind would be 'no fault' which of course is anathema to the crowd that makes their living off the current system.

Posted by pete moss on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 7:57 am

that cyclists are not also a danger.

Guns kill more people than knives, but that doesn't mean that knives are safe.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 9:57 am

But since the danger is an order of magnitude less, there are no calls for knife control, just as there should be no calls for bike control.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 10:35 am

If cyclists want "equal" access to and use of public roads, then they must bear responsibility for obeying the laws of those roads.

And a knife used in anger will see you being charged in the same way as using a gun.

You want tight laws strictly enforced except when it inconveniences personally, and then you go all Ayn Rand.

Just like Steven want strict enforcement on AirBnB but not on Occupy and tree huggers.

Hypocrisy.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 10:51 am

Are you suggesting that all knives but switchblades, the ones that are not controlled, are safe?

Are you suggesting background checks and waiting periods for the purchase of knives?

Should there be carry restrictions on knives, banning open and concealed carry?

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 1:49 pm

The sidewalk is for 13 year olds and younger to ride on as an accommodation for their tender years and diminutive size. It's not for 50+ year old self-important putzes.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

You've got such bile, sounds like the left victim version of a FOX News of paranoid abdication to the power of inflexible, arbitrary authority.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

that seem to do OK as far as I know, I can't recall ever going to one. Whenever there is a huge product picture at the front gate and a fee to get in that is reason enough not to go for it is surly suck inside.

Whoever thought people would ride around in a group and pay for the privilege has been promoting to many lame events.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:07 am

Probably the only reason they were going to give the $ to Rec & Park was that R&P probably wasn't going to allow them to throw their party in the park without the contribution.

A thorough investigation of that agency is long overdue. The guy from SFWeekly (__ Smith, forget the first name) did some great pieces on the massive corruption in their park patrol unit but unfortunately the Chron has never touched them.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 5:58 pm

they put an extra load on the park and it's staff.

The problem here appears to be that the bike crowd are tightwads.

Posted by anon on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 6:13 pm

No "the problem here appears to be" that most bicyclists just aren't stupid enough to be fooled into paying a lot of money for something they do for free everyday.

As for Rec & Park, apparently they go way beyond charging reasonable amounts in what they charge groups to use the park such as groups wanting to have events at the bldg at 9th & Lincoln. Under the terrible "leadership" of Phil Ginsberg, groups are required to pay for unneeded and expensive park patrol officers to be there - something that wasn't done before. Probably not a coincidence that I haven't seen any poster events there in recent years (events where old rock concert posters are sold by some of the artists who did them).

Posted by Guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 8:04 pm

those who do not have to pay more taxes.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:02 am

Why would anybody be in the least part interested in what you prefer? You are a nameless unaccountable noise generator on this forum. Go fuck yourself.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:19 am

Just abuse, as usual.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:31 am

I simply was informing you that nobody gives a fuck what you think.

Nobody gives a fuck what you think. Got it?

If you care to make some statement that needs refuting, I'll help you out with that at first opportunity, fucker.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 8:27 am

And the fact that you don't care is well known, as it is evident in your every utterance, including those that have gotten you banned from many other websites.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 8:43 am

User fees are a form of regressive taxation, and parks are a public good.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:19 am

CA has always been big on user fees over general taxes.

But "regressive" means the poor paying disporoportionately more in taxes and that's not the case here. A poor person won't pay user fees unless he or she "uses" the services.

Nobody is forced to go on recreational bike rides in the park.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:33 am

the experience of visiting state parks is a truly depraved personality.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 9:22 am

Really?

You're confusing it with the GG Recreation Area.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 9:36 am
Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:44 pm

That would be Four out of Five dentists. What say the other 20%, I've always wondered?

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 9:51 pm

I was just wondering why anyone would want to give Rec and Park one red cent after Ginsburg's record. It is like throwing more money into the sieve of Muni, you want better parks and transit but that's not on the agenda of the Brown/Newsom/Lee administration.

But since there is a sliver of funding going to "the most vulnerable," then it should be okay to toss more dough Ginsburg's way.

Symbolic caring for the poor by the people who are waging war on them.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 3:39 pm

bullshit is also a mystery.

A parking lot is closing at 17th and Folsom, to adjust for that, put in meters that take away more parking spots in the area.

But those meters make money for the city so it is a good idea of course.

Progressives love of government is so entertaining.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:52 pm

Also from this author