The stoplight at 12th Street and Market has become more of guideline than a rule for many cyclists because the timing of the light is just so inconvenient. The wait often prompts cyclists to cross early when they do not have the right of way. This preemptive crossing results in heavy fines when the cyclists are caught and is dangerous to pedestrians when they are not.
In order to tackle the problems at this intersection, Bert Hill, chairman of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee citizen oversight group, is recommending the implementation of a separate cyclist-crossing light. This light would speed up the timing for cyclists, cueing up a green light for cyclists when it is activated. The trade-off, argues local disability advocate Bob Planthold, is that disabled pedestrians will have less time to safely cross the street. His proposed solution is separate sensors for pedestrians and cyclists. Although this would be more expensive, it would better accommodate all interested parties.
Although no plan has been approved yet, committees are working on finding a solution that is acceptable to everyone.
Last month Gov. Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 819, a bill intended to encourage more communities to implement modern protected bike facilities. The current system actively discourages cities from implementing protected bike lanes and other cycling innovations commonly used in Europe because they are not legally covered by Caltrans’s outdated bike lane standards. The new bill is a step forward since it streamlines a process by which cities and municipalities can apply to implement more innovative designs.
And now the bill is getting support from a Canadian study which compares the various different environments in which people ride their bikes. In many ways, their findings reflect common sense. For example, they found that streets with bike lanes are safer than streets without bike lanes. Not to sound rude but, duh. The suprising news is in the numbers. A bike lane (even the most basic and flawed as many in California are) will reduce the risk of injury to cyclists by 50% as compared to a similar street without a bike lane. And the same style street with a protected bike lane (meaning barriers between cars and cyclists) drop risk of injury 90%. Those statistics are astoudning. Numbers like these are hard to argue with.
Imagine, if cities invested in protected bike lanes, it is likely that injuries to cyclists would drop approximately 90%. That means more cyclists on the road and we have posted numerous articles about what more cyclists means for cities; safer streets, better public transportation, less traffic and congestion, more tourism, and the list goes on.
Basically, the Canadian study put numbers to something that San Francisco cyclists have known all along. You have to invest in safety. It may be a lot up front, but the returns are astronomical.
The tragic death of Hailey Ratliff, the 12 year old Novato girl struck and killed while riding her bicycle in October, has local police pleading Bay Area residents to educate themselves on the rules of the road. Here are some basic precautions that EVERY cyclist needs to take:
All cyclists, minors included, must learn and follow the rules of the road. For those riders without a driver’s license (and subsequently without the mandatory training) this means familiarizing yourself with California and local laws.
It may seem counterintuitive, but it is safer to bike on the street than on the sidewalk. Streets are generally flatter, the visibility is better and there is less risk of a collision with cars exiting their driveways.
Stay at least 3 feet from parked cars. The distance will allow for more reaction time if a car begins to pull onto the street.
Wear a helmet.
Use bike lights and reflectors, especially at night and during the winter when cloud cover can lower visibility.
Always signal your moves and make your intentions obvious. If you are going to turn, make sure all the cars around you know you are going to turn.
Drunk cycling is drunk driving.
It’s not fair, but it is true that it lands on cyclists to take extra precautions when sharing the road with cars. Winter in San Francisco and the Bay Area means heavy fog and wet roads. Please be safe!
Half-hidden tracks belonging to the historic San Francisco Belt Railroad create a dangerous obstacle for cyclists along the waterway near Ghiradelli Square . The line, built in 1889, was used to transport cargo from the piers to various locations along the waterfront. In addition, since the line ran from a tunnel under Fort Mason to the Presidio it was perfect for transporting troops during World War II. Since the line was officially shut down in 1993 this rich history has been at odds with the safety and ease of the roadway. The San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, which has jurisdiction over the tracks, says that the problem is that the tracks can’t merely be pulled up.
The Maritime National Park is looking for a compromise solution. Their original solution was to fill in the tracks in areas where people cycle most often and leave them alone in other places. However, the pavement cracks every time the sand under the tracks shifts.
Park officials will hold an open house to gather public comment on possible solutions for the old tracks on Dec. 6, from 4 to 7 p.m. at the Maritime Museum at 900 Beach St.
Even the most well-intentioned acts can have negative consequences. Case in point, Octavia Boulevard in Hayes Valley. Prior to 2005 Hayes Valley was, in the words of Bay Citizen reporter Zusha Elinson, “a hooker haven beneath the Central Freeway”. This all changed when the city replaced the overpass with Octavia Boulevard. With trees and a park the area became positively residential. Except that its not. It is a busy on-ramp for the near by freeway.
This combination, a residential spin on a congested, fast-moving, freeway onramp, has turned out to be dangerous. The intersection has the (dis)honor of being San Francisco’s most dangerous with 30 injury collisions in the last three years. In the last year alone the intersection was the site of 13 collisions involving injuries.
The real kicker is that 9 of those 13 crashes involved cyclists. With approximately 63,000 vehicles using the intersection each day, the danger to pedestrians and cyclists can be very real. Cars idle in the cross-walks, make illegal turns, get frustrated with the congestion and drive recklessly or simply treat it like the freeway it used to be. Rahman Law PC has successfully handled cases in which bicyclists haven been injured by vehicles on Octavia Boulevard. The majority of such injuries occur when drivers make an illegal right turn onto Market from Octavia.
A study by the SF County Transportation Authority recommends “improving bikeways and crosswalks and reducing car traffic by updating public transit and using congestion pricing, a system of electronic tolls for crowded streets.” It has also been suggested that the city install a camera to catch those vehicles that make an illegal right turn on Market. Whatever the solutions turn out to be, most people would agree that Octavia boulevard is an improvement to the overpass. Few would argue that it has not improved and rejuvenated the area. However, the city now needs to protect its cyclists and pedestrians and take measures to make Octavia safer.
Three blocks of Fell and Oak streets between Scott and Baker streets are getting a much needed complete streets style makeover. SFMTA has approved a plan to implement separated bike lanes, to install bulb-outs to 12 corners, and to slow traffic signal lights.
The renovations will mean that the streets will lose a total of 50 parking spaces, a negative consequence that had many local business owners up in arms. At the same time, however, cyclists and pedestrians praise the changes, saying that they are a long time coming. “[The changes] will help people of all ages walking to and from some of the most beloved parks in San Francisco,” said Elizabeth Stampe, executive director of Walk SF, a pedestrian advocacy organization. “For too long, the Panhandle and Golden Gate Park have been like islands in the middle of these freewaylike streets.”
In the United States riding without a helmet is often viewed to be as dangerous and irresponsible as smoking. Needless to say, the stigma against it is significant. Helmets are seen as life-saving devices, the cycling version of seat belts. To ride without one is to take your life in to your own hands.
A Bike Garage in Amsterdam
In many Euroepan cities, including Amsterdam and Paris where cycling is extremely prevalent, however, the percentage of people who wear helmets is negligable (and mostly limited to tourists). Yet, these cities are some of the safest for cyclists in the world. From experience, I can say that a person feels safer cycling without helmet in Amsterdam than cycling with a helment anywhere in the United States. What could account for this disparity?
Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney, argues that the deterrence factor associated with helmet-wearing is so significant that it outweighs the safety benefits. This may seem like a strange or outlandish claim, but in many respects it makes sense. Wearing a helmet is a significant social faux-paz. Any child who grew up in California (and has experiece in cycling) can attest to the many embarrasing occasions when mom or dad forced them to put on a helmet before a bike ride. As we grow older this stigma, and the one which makes a person irresponsible (and sometimes a law-breaker) when they do not wear a helmet, can become so strong that it prevents a person from riding bikes altogether.
Professor de Jong argues that the fewer cyclists on the road, the more dangerous cycling is for those who do it. More cyclists= safer cycling. Look at the Amsterdam and the Paris examples. Both cities have a large number of daily cyclists and both cities have an entrenced cycling cuclture. This culutre, de Jong argues, is essential to biking safety, and if helmet laws are preventing this culture from floiurishing, then hemlet laws are in fact making cycling more dangerous.
In big cities that are trying to appeal to the toursit crowd, helmet laws can be especially contentious. Tourists want to take the easiest, most convenient route. Having to worry about safety equipment, like a helmet, could be a practical deterrent. In addition, helmets make a fairly safe activity seem inherently dangerous. “Recent experience suggests that if a city wants bike-sharing to really take off, it may have to allow and accept helmet-free riding. A two-year-old bike-sharing program in Melbourne, Australia — where helmet use in mandatory — has only about 150 rides a day, despite the fact that Melbourne is flat, with broad roads and a temperate climate. On the other hand, helmet-lax Dublin — cold, cobbled and hilly — has more than 5,000 daily rides in its young bike-sharing scheme. Mexico City recently repealed a mandatory helmet law to get a bike-sharing scheme off the ground.”
Instead of worrying avout enforicing helemt laws, European ccycliung advocates recommend that U.S. cities focus on making safer lanes, safer intersecxtions and ultimately safer streets for cyclists.
This is obviously a contentious issue. Helmets have saved people’s lives. On that issue there is no dispute. But, is making helmets mandatory (and thereby deterring some riders) the best answer? Maybe. Maybe not.
Streetsblog has reported a crash near a vehicle ramp southbound Potrero Avenue to Bayshore Boulevard over Cesar Chavez Street in which a drunk driver killed a pedestrian. The junction of Cesar Chavez and Highway 101 is known as “the hairball” for its dangerous intersections, and the particular danger for pedestrains and cyclists who venture into the mix. “This whole area is incredibly unfriendly and unsafe for walking right now, and local workers and residents have been asking for new crosswalks and other improvements,” said Elizabeth Stampe, executive director of Walk SF. It is no suprise that the victim was reportedly in the road and not in a crosswalk, since, according to Streetsblog the “nearest crosswalks on that stretch of Potrero, at Cesar Chavez and 25th Street, are roughly 1,056 feet apart”.
The driver, a 25 year old San Francisco native, was arrested for driving under the influence and felony vehicular manslaughter in the death of the unidentified man.
Chicago is leading the way in pedestrian safety in the United States by pledging to eliminate all pedestrian fatalities by 2022.
Now, that’s not a phrase you would expect to hear. Chicago is a car-centric, midwest, urban center. Currently about 50 pedestrians are killed annually on Chicago streets. Not exactly the city that you would imagine to take the lead in a campaign for pedestrian safety. After an extensive sudy which included public input, City Officials announced a plan with 250 short-term and long-term projects and goals. As grist.org points out “a city that cares about walking is a city that cares about people”. This plan has great potential not simply to protect pedestrians from vehicles, but to make Chicago a more desirable tourist destination (walking is always a plus with tourists), to improve safety, and to improve living conditions in general. An investment in pedestrians is an investment in the city.
The plan includes some features which are common throughout the Bay Area and some that it would be nice to see implemented here. Besides marked sidewalks, in-road stop signs at crosswalks (it’s a state law to stop at crosswalks), pedestrian refuge islands (as seen in Berkeley and elsewhere in the East Bay and pictured above) and better signals, the plan also proposes ‘Road Diets’. This blog reported on Road Dieting a while back, but for those of you who don’t know, putting a road on a diet means shifting emphasis from cars to pedestrians and cyclists by reducing traffic lanes, widening sidewalks, adding bike paths and greening medians. These road diets are long-term investments for the neighborhoods which they service. Road diets can decrease the number of cars, increase the number of pedestrians, improve safety conditions, reduce collisions, increase demand for restaurants and store-front businesses and generally improve the conditions of the neighborhood. Not surprisingly, San Francisco city transportation officials say San Francisco has put more roads on a diet than anywhere else in North America.
Still, San Francisco could learn a lot from Chicago’s Plan. One idea which I don’t think is implemented consistenly throughout the Bay Area is the lagging left turn during which the left turn signal is delayed to give pedestrians time to cross with traffic moving parallel across the intersection. Another interesting proposal are chicanes (see picture below) which essentially act like speed bumps with out the speeding up and speeding down and subsequent noise pollution.
Perhaps most interesting is Chicago’s focus on taxis. Chicago’s taxis account for 30% of pedestrian fatalities. Chicago’s plan includes revoking more licenses, engaging in significant outreach to taxi companies not just drivers, implementing the use of bumper stickers on taxis encouraging people to report dangerous driving, and the long-term goal of developing a safety-based incentive system. In addition, the Chicago Plan proposes integrating pedestrian safety into police training and improving the pedestrian connectivity to buses and trains.
The rest of the Country will be watching closely to see whether Chicago can meet the seemingly impossible goal of Zero Fatalities by 2022. While I am skeptical of their achieving this goal, I look forward to seeing the many (hopefully) positive changes Chicago undergoes from the effort.
Masonic Avenue is being considered for a Boulevard Makeover. The San Francisco street has been in the news recently as the site of two high-profile fatality accidents in the past two years. And the rest of the numbers clearly support the argument that a change is needed. “Between 2004 and 2009, before traffic-calming measures were implemented, there were 116 collisions resulting in 131 injuries on Masonic.” Indeed, 32,000 vehicles use the street everyday.
The new design would remove two traffic lanes, and implement 1.2 miles of separated bike paths, add a center median and install sidewalk extensions to better accommodate transit vehicles and pedestrians. The new design is consistent with the Complete Streets movement discussed in an earlier post. The goal of ‘Complete Streets’ is to “ensure that all public roads in California are designed and operated to accommodate all roadway users, including bicyclists, public transit riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities”.
This new design has the support of the North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association and will be put before the SFMTA on Tuesday, September 18th. Not everyone is behind the proposal, however, and the point in contention is that which could most successfully stall the improvements, the money. The project has an estimated cost of $18 million and right now funding is at only $1 million. SFTMA is hoping to find more funding from regional grant sources, but even if the project finds the funding and goes forward, it will be years before residents see any change.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. RAHMAN LAW PC is unable to identify which statute of limitation will apply without a thorough review of your potential case. Therefore, the information contained on this website does not constitute legal advice. Statutes of limitation change as new laws are passed. You should consult with a lawyer immediately to fully evaluate your case.
You should not act or rely on information in this website without seeking the advice of an attorney. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.
RAHMAN LAW PC does not offer any guarantee of case results. Past success in litigation does not guarantee success in any new or future lawsuit. The information contained within this website does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
To the extent the State Bar rules require us to designate a principal office and/or single attorney responsible for this site, RAHMAN LAW PC designates Shaana Rahman as being the attorney responsible for the site. Ms. Rahman can be reached at 177 Post Street, Suite 750, San Francisco, California 94108, 415.956.9245.
By sending an email through this website (rahmanlawsf.com), you are providing us with your email address and permission to contact you via email. You may unsubscribe to our email communications at any time using the link provided in the email communication.
