January 24, 2007
Bikes on Octavia
Early Monday morning, a biker was hit by some guy making an illegal right turn onto Highway 101 from Market Street at the Octavia intersection. The driver bicyclist is in serious condition.
As a result, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition is not happy. Not happy at all. They are demanding something to be done about that particular intersection at Octavia and Market Street and to show how serious they are, they are calling for a demonstration this Friday at 8 in the morning at the actual intersection. They are also calling for attendance at various meetings between now and then and demanding action. What the want is more in the way of enforcement, including more police presence and cameras.
That intersection has been a source of trouble from the get-go. Originally, the turn was supposed to be legal. Then, after complaints from bicycle activisits, the right turn was made illegal. This despite complaints from others that a right-hand turn at a red light is a God given right. What was Woody Allen's line about right hand turns being the only positive contribution California has made to civilization? Anyways, the whole thing just appears to be one of those things that was going to be problematic. It's a pretty obvious place for a right-hand turn but it's also a pretty obvious place not to have one as it's extremely dangerous for bikers.
When we worked in the city, we loved to bike down Market Street on our way to work. If we had to do it now, we'd probably find another way to go. That intersection scares the crap out of us.
Image from the SF Bicycle Coalition
|
I bike thru this intersection a lot. This would be a good place for a traffic camera. I hate to recommend that, but, absent a traffic cop, what's there to deter people from making that turn?
"The Driver is in serious condition". Incorrect, the driver will have to suck up a $200 fine for an illegal right turn. How serious is that!
While it is sad that someone was hit, the intersection should be repainted to create a right turn lane. (have the bike lane move between the two lanes) As it is the bike lane ends on the very next block. By not allowing cars on the ramp there has them circling around the neighborhood looking for the next freeway ramp, why not get them off the city streets as soon as possible for the improved safety of everyone. As for a camera there, why shouldn't I ask for a camera at haight and scott where pedestrians are routinely struck or buzzed by bicycles/skateboards ignoring the stop sign.
To the guy who did a hit and run on the cyclist at Oak and Ashbury last night: We all hope you get cancer and die.
I don't think cameras or more ticketing is going to make it any more safe. It's so non-intuitive to not be able to make RH turn off Market that cars will do it no matter what. It's a split second decision when a driver gets there and says "crap, can't turn right -- do I keep driving who-knows-how-far to find a new way on the 101 or just turn right now" and even good people will make the wrong decision. When I bike through that intersection I usually take the lane to make sure I'm seen and avoid getting hit by a car making that turn. Better yet, I go a different way.
For the record, I'm a car-free SFBC member. But I don't think that bikes have a god-given right to be on every part of every road in the city. I'm thinking that routing bikes away from this major highway ramp is best. There's just no cheap way to make it safe. A bike tunnel or path around and under the 101 would be great, but how long until that would happen... Until then, maybe have the bike route go Market - Duboce - Valencia - Market?
Right turns and bicycles peacefully coexist in numerous other intersections around the city, so why was this one singled out in particular?
I'm an avid bicyclist, but I also believe that cars (and right turns) have their place as well, if this is an "obvious" place to make a right turn, why not design the intersection for safer right turns, rather than just trying to make it safe by putting up a "no right turn" sign. I'm no traffic engineer, but it seems like a cop-out to just outlaw the right turn rather than designing something better...
Oh and btw.. Google thinks you should be able to make a right turn at Octavia from Market...
Are you saying that Google is wrong??? ;-)
The bicyclist (who I know) has broken all but one of her ribs in front and a couple in back. She also has a collapsed lung. She is expected to be in hospital for at least two weeks.
Man, i can't believe that driver didn't even get cited for leaving the scene of the accident! (at least according to SFGate)
That's wrong.
Just to clarify, it was the rider who got injured, not the driver. I made a horrible, horrible typo just in time for the server to go and so my typo was stuck up on the site far longer than it should have-- my boneheadedness stuck in suspended animation.
Must have been the blogger gods getting back at me for making the typo in the first place.
Also, I'm glad to hear the rider is okay. Those injuries sound awful, though
Right turns and bicycles peacefully coexist in numerous other intersections around the city, so why was this one singled out in particular?
I think it's because there's such a high volume of traffic that wants to get on the 101, is in the mindset of getting out of the city fast, and wants to (and does) turn right. Since there's a bike lane there that gives cyclists a false sense of security, and hence having it there might be a bad idea. Thus all the accidents.
Anyway, all the best to the victim for a fast and full recovery.
I think one of the points of not allowing the right turn is to discourage much traffic from using Market, which is a bike and bus corridor.
Are comments working again yet?
It's a design flaw pure and simple. The damn thing about some people will get killed before anything is done about it.
Yes, the design flaw is having a freeway ramp intersect a major transit, bicycle, and pedestrian route.
what about adding another light just for bikers? do they ever do that anywhere, like a little bike icon?
cars could make right turns while bikers wait (with appropriate stopping spots so everyone is safe and doesn't get turned into), bikers get to go straight while cars wait.
Contrary to popular lore, the Bicycle Coalition was not wholly responsible for the no-right turn policy. When the ramp was conceptualized, it was the consensus of both city departments and Caltrans that there be no right turn at that intersection. Caltrans, in fact, has designed the ramp such that it is not designed to accept right-turning cars off of Market St. The reasons for doing so was that they didn't want the traffic going from Market St. to Duboce onto the the freeway to suddenly flood Market St. with traffic.
At some point, DPT changed its mind and decided to allow the right turn. Now its true that the SFBC lead the charge to overturn that decision, but it was a decision that was opposed by many including the Planning Dept., Caltrans, etc. The legislation passed unanimously and the Mayor signed it.
I can email you a memo written by the Planning Dept. to that effect if you'd like.
Now its true that the SFBC lead the charge to overturn that decision, but it was a decision that was opposed by many
So if I understand this correctly, my SFBC membership dues went to putting at least one bicyclist in the hospital? Wonderful. I assume the SFBC's lobbying consisted mostly of passionate hand-waving rather than something based on studies and logic?
I don't understand why it's bad for traffic to go from eastbound Market to the 101. Wouldn't it be better to get people out of SF as efficiently as possible rather than force a lengthy, polluting, mazelike pattern to the on ramp? If that sped up or backed up traffic on Market a calming device could be installed. In any case, I'd rather navigate a line of idling cars than the current situation.
I feared this outcome from the start. I'll make another prediction for accidents on Octavia as cars are forced to make the express to local lane hail marys. (These have to be done real quick, with little time to check for bikes, or cars and pedestrians for that matter.)
Jessica's idea about a signal light for bicyclists is interesting. I wonder if bicyclists would pay any attention to it? My experience has been that bicyclists don't pay much attention to right-of-way indicators ... there's a stop sign outside my window that I have never seen a bicyclist even slow down for, not once.
"they didn't want the traffic going from Market St. to Duboce onto the the freeway to suddenly flood Market St. with traffic."
Am I dense, or is this sentence kind of confusing? I'm as confused as Karsty about why it's a bad idea to have those right turns. I'm do trust the experts' evaluation; I just don't understand the reasons behind it.
The "maze" you idiots keep bringing up is driving another 400 feet down to Gough and turning right there, where it's allowed.
Was the bike rider or the driver on their cell phone? Bicyclists in this city seem to think they're some special creature (similar to the Prius driver) and don't have to follow any rules either. I hope the bicyclist gets better, but the city is so incompetent, and people so smug, there's going to be no change.
From what I understand, bicyclists have to follow the same traffic laws as cars. I wear out my tires actually stopping at stop signs, I so rarely even see a bicyclist slow down.
Go stand at Haight and Laguna at 8 am on a weekday to get an idea of what Market would look like. Right now there are very few routes around the motorists blocking traffic. From Haight I have to go over to 14th as it is, and I don't even need to get down Market.
There have to be some routes for local traffic not getting on the freeway.
kranky, someone's been watching south park! ;)
Mattymatt, yeah I totally know your point about bikers not stopping. It is funny because it seems to be (at least in my experience) one of those things that when you are a driver you get annoyed and think oh those bikers, how unsafe, but the next day when you are a biker, you think, oh, it is so annoying (and harder to ride) to stop at every stop sign and just easier if you don't.
But I do think that if this intersection is so dangerous--and it certainly sounds like it--that some extra special attention should be paid to it.
Have the extra bike light. Stick a cop there. Give people--bikers and cars--tickets, at least until people get used to following the rules. Ultimately the point is to make people safe(r), and I do think--but don't have any proof to back it up--that there is a sense of every one (biker or car) for him or herself and traffic rules in the city are not so much enforced for cars, and very, very seldomly for bikes, so there are no consequences, unless you are unfortunate to be involved in some type of accident. Make people think about it before people get hurt.
a ps. to my post, i mean cranky. i have no idea why i thought it was with a k. sorry.
manish,
how can i get a message to the bicycle coalition to help stop the abuse of the sidewalks over here in south beach and near the ball park?
i know i am not the only one that hates all these fuckers that ride at full speed on the sidewalks and occasionally hits one of our pets or kids.
what's the deal?
I live three blocks away and ride my bike down Market past this intersection to work every morning. I had the great misfortune to pass by just after he accident and see the victim laying in the roadway - great start to the week. I've seen at least one other cyclist get hit in this intersection as well.
Here's the problem: if you're coming down market you're coming down a long hill, and most cyclists use this long run to the light below to pick up speed - time it right and you can go through three intersections before you need to stop again. At the on ramp there is a light, and every cyclist I have seen ride through there stops when it's red. However, when it's green and traffic is flowing, cyclists move down that hill pretty quickly. If someone suddenly decides that they want to make a right onto the on-ramp, and doesn't signal (as happens often, I saw two cars do it one right after the other this morning), and a cyclist is beside them, that cyclist is going to get hit. The problem isn't cyclists not paying attention to lights, it's drivers not noticing cyclists and turning across their lane (a common problem throughout the city). Since there's no turn lane for the ramp, what you have is a sudden right turn without slowing, and no chance for a cyclist to slow down or get behind a vehicle before it turns.
I'm a cyclist and have nearly been hooked at this intersection also. I think cyclists would all be better served if the bike lane were removed at this location. Heck, turn the bike lane into a dedicated right-turn lane and put sharrows in the straight through lane.
When the cyclists start to respect other people in SF, like peds on sidewalks and people crossing the street legally, maybe we'll shed some tears for them.
Until then, good luck out there. And watch out for my right turn onto 101.
To all the people complaining about the bicyclists not following the traffic laws, think of it this way:
The bikes are in the RIGHT LANE at that intersection, and therefore cars, which are in the SECOND LANE FROM THE RIGHT should NOT be allowed to turn right there.
It's common traffic logic, and the fact that they put bike lanes on the side of the road, assuming that a tiny little lane is enough to make it safe for bikers rather than just assuming bikes are traffic is the problem.
If I had a nickle for every cyclist that ran a stop sign in SF, I'd have a couple hundred bucks. If I had a penny for every driver that turns right in SF without signalling, I'd be a Millionaire.
Joseph, I'm so glad you commented what you did -- the whole right turn bike lane thing is something I agonize over constantly. And I can't be the only one.
When I'm driving on a street with a bike lane, and I want to make a right turn, should I a) pull into the bike lane behind the cyclists waiting for the light to change (and, yeah, I know a lot of cyclists blow off the lights but not all of them do) or b) stay in the right driving lane, wait for the light to change and for the waiting cyclists to my right to do whatever they're going to do before I turn.
I've tried both, but neither seem satisfactory -- either I'm a jerk car blocking the bike lane, or I end up in some stand off as cyclists to my right seem to be looking at me expecting me to kill them instead of riding forward.
I want to be as good a citizen I can be while still driving a freakin' car, so any insight or advice from cyclists, drivers, or both would be great.
I recognize all the effort to come up with an acceptable project, however- in retrospect - it was a mistake to terminate the freeway onto Market Street.
I drive for work and travel the stretch of Market St. from Dolores to Franklin a dozen or so times a day. That a stretch of Market is nothing less than a dizzying combination of traffic islands, complex intersections w/complex signaling, pedestrians on mid-street transit platforms and swerving lanes that merge and unmerge with bike lanes and the F-line tracks.
How the idea of terminating a freeway directly into all this ever got off the ground is beyond me, frankly.
Had more practical thinking prevailed, surely designers could have taken advantage of the natural terrain that quickly rises immediately north of Market Street and constructed an attractive, low slung viaduct (matching the design of the new Octavia Blvd.) to carry Octavia's four inside lanes from point just south of Haight... OVER Market and McCoppin streets before transitioning into a freeway beyond Valencia.
Lets face it... The existing Market/Octavia intersection has created an irresistible right-on-red temptation. The current configuration does not work. (Photo-enforcement..give me a break!)
I'm afraid that only a re-design can correct the "attractive nuisance" that exists today and that is certain to result in a series of ugly accidents.
Eventually, the number of injures, deaths and lawsuits will become intolerable. Only then (over the predictable howls from progressives) will common sense prevail and a viaduct be constructed that carries 101 traffic OVER Market street... safely.
Good comments sonofsoma. However, I'd prefer that instead of going over market, the 101 would terminate earlier, somewhere on Duboce. That would give traffic a chance to fan out before hitting Market and give Market a more liveabale and European feel, as opposed to having a freeway flying overhead.
Totally with you on the cameras issue. Having pictures of flattened bicyclists is stupid, unless you happen to be making a documentary movie similar to The Bridge.
Also agree with others that the bike lane should be removed, unless the iconography changes to more of a "triple black diamond -- out of bounds -- ski at your own risk" feel complete with skull and crossbones.
Eve, you're required to merge into a bike lane (carefully!) before making a right turn. It's in the CVC. You're not blocking the lane, you're safely indicating your place in the traffic pattern.
I wish more people knew this.
It is a design flaw and as with speed limits it's
really the design and not the enforcement that sends signals to the drivers.
I may be way off base here but I seem to recall a pedestrain tunnel under the ramp? Is this correct? Is there any way to create a bike lane that passes under the ramp?
To me the only other option is to try to redesign the street to make physically clear that a right turn is not permitted by building a pedestrain bulb into the lane at market that only bikes can pass through. this would eliminate turns at least by the confused (I am sure the determined motorist could still drive around it)
My general rule about merging into a bike lane if making a right-hand turn is if there's bikers already at the intersection, get behind them and only make the turn at the light. If they''re behind me, then I'll go in the lane, making sure they're far enough away from me that they won't get hit.
I'm not sure if this is proper way to do it but it works for me.
of course, I've only been driving for a few months
Alexis, I wish more cyclists knew this!
I can't even count the number of times I've done exactly what you described, and am waiting to turn when cyclists would ride up behind me, angrily slap my car, and/or yell at me for "blocking the lane."
Still, having that happen to me is peanuts compared to the damage careless drivers do to those on bikes, so I can take my lumps and follow that rule. Thanks.
I made an illegal right turn here all the time before I realised the hazard that the bike lane creates. It pisses me off that I have to wait through lights on octavia or get stuck in the cue to get on at Van Ness. I obviously don't want to smack up any cyclists, I've been bumped by enough cars when I ride to know better.
Really, this should not be an illegal turn. There are plenty of places where bicyclists and cars peacefully coexist on hills where cars make a legal right turn. It can work. It does work.
Making it the exception and trying to change people's behaviors is "valiant" BUT it creates an odd situation that no cyclist or motorist really expects.
From what I see, the main reason that this is dangerous is that the car driver turns quickly and without a signal to avoid drawing attention to their illegal action. If there was a proper turning lane, then the cars and bikes would understand each others actions.
I don't see a cheap solution to preventing illegal turns here. Enforcement? I only wish that it were so easy. See you at the demo.
Jack hammers please,
I watched the hearings on this intersection and with one exception, they were a model for compromise. The exception was the right turn where the cyclist was hit. Time for another hearing called by area supe (Mirk?, Bevan?).
Frankly, you aren't gonna stop out-of-towners (this guy was in to pick up some concrete?) ... they'll make a right and take a chance. Major cities have permanent cops at major intersections. This intersection is worth a full-time cop. Two blocks away, a full-time City cop stands in the doorway of Bank of America with his thumb ...
Interestingly, this is the strip of Market where Rob Anderson went to court to stop any bike lanes whatsoever from being added. Imagine that.
h.
karsty, I too am a car free cyclist, member of the SFBC, and an LCI.
The right to travel on public roads is given to all. Except where expressly prohibited (such as expressways).
Though I don't have many chances to go down that stretch of Market, I will consider it my duty to practice my rights by traveling on the public road, where there is a designated, committed area for human powered transport.
Drivers of bicycles and other slow vehicles have the same rights as faster vehicles. They also have similar responsibilities. Demonstrating control of the vehicle while complying with intersection markings and traffic control devices is the biggest responsibility. Yes, there is at least one cyclist who stops at stop lines and stop signs.
And yeah, cyclists on the sidewalk and going the wrong way are a hazard to themselves and others. They get offended when their behavior is pointed out - yet the motor vehicle driver going the wrong way and honked at is generally embarrassed rather than defensive.
Bicycles and their drivers are best served when they act and are treated as vehicles. (paraphrasing John Forrester)
Like bicyclists, we SF wheelchair users have a beef, not only about cars taking illegal rights at the Mkt/Octv fwy, but bicyclists riding on SF sidewalks.They too often run into us, cut us off at curb ramps, & force us off into other pedestrians or structures. We're crip enuff & bike riders don't seem to give a fuck they're putting us at risk for more injury. SFPD said in writing it would start enforcing the law against bikes ridden on sidewalks. They don't & that suxx! Pls help get the word out???