SFist: SFist Photo: Fell and Masonic Deathtrap Revisited

NoeValleyJim

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:25:07 -0800

Good idea Mark. I will bring it up with the MTA at the next CAC meeting.

guest

Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:03:35 -0800

Visual cues from a driver mean NOTHING. I have been in many near misses where the driver saw me and decided to plow right on ahead anyways. Any cyclist with experience in city riding knows not to rely on visual cues. I have one question for pedestrians that I have never been able to figure out. There is a path dedicated to pedestrians on the south side of the panhandle where bikes aren't allowed to ride. Why do so many walk in the bike lanes and leave the pedestrian side empty, especially when walking in the bike lanes is described as "terrifying"? I find myself weaving around people constantly who are walking side by side blocking the path, forcing me onto the wet muddy grass. I understand that pedestrians are going to use the bike side, but I do wish that more would take off their ipods and be conscientious of the other people utilizing the path. The panhandle is one of the only car free zones for me in the city, and I find myself avoiding it more and more because of these issues. And please. Don't walk your dog in the bike path. It's just not a good idea.

guest

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:45:23 -0800

How about a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists (to walk bikes across)? I know it would be expensive, but isn't it worth it if it saves people's lives and limbs from the "death monsters"?

guest

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:04:15 -0800

I agree that drivers should be more observant of pedestrians and bikes. I really try to be. But there is also a responsibility to non-drivers to behave safely. Anyone notice in that several of the photos the pedestrian signal is a red hand meaning stop and the countdown is at 0? Or that in the last photo the bikes look they are going to cross when the red hand is lit and traffic signal is yellow? How is the danger the driver's fault in that instance?

guest

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:47:35 -0800

what does the law say about bicyclist riding a bike through a crosswalk? that might be part of the problem. if you are riding a bike, you should be smart enough to slow down and get a visual from any car drivers that they see you. if you speed through this crosswalk then you're asking for trouble.

sfbanane

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:38:11 -0800

Mason & Columbus Ave. has a very similar situation

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:08:51 -0800

Seriously, I cross this crosswalk nearly everyday, and it's not a problem. It's called looking both ways (remember, our parents taught us this when we were 3) and, if necessary, raising your middle finger to overly aggressive drivers. If the city were to put in a dedicated left turn signal, they would have to clear out the parking on the left side of Fell, because just using the existing left lane would back up traffic along that stretch, and the purpose of a one way road like this to speed up the pace of traffic.

fizzandpop

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:38:22 -0800

That's right, suspend common sense and do a study instead. This is city is awesome at that.

MarkBallew

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:57:06 -0800

Where traffic ends up and if pedestrians end in greater danger is pure speculation on your part, fizzandpop. You would have to perform an EIR to even prove your statement. My proposal would solve the problem at hand without expense.

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:49:08 -0800

As a runner, it didn't take me very long to figure out that if I'm running west across Masonic at Fell, then I can't see the cars and they can't see me. After a few too many close calls, I switched my loop to run east across Masonic at Fell, and I have not had any close calls at all since. I still think the best solution to this problem is to widen the path by Oak and make it one-way going west, and to make the path by Fell one-way going east. This would also reduce those terrifying incidents for pedestrians on that path with bikers going in both directions and weaving across the opposite lanes for passing.

Ciaran

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:26 -0800

The 4-way walk signal is a good idea, but there's still the problem of people turning right on red who don't bother to stop and look first (from Masonic onto Fell).

fizzandpop

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:37:20 -0800

No one has to die except the pedestrians on the smaller side streets (Paige, Hayes) which will now be forced to take all the Masonic traffic after it has looped up to Stanyan or Baker and then circled back around again to reach its final destination. Nice one, well thought through.

MarkBallew

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:07:17 -0800

I have a simple solution to this problem: Just close that segment of Masonic off to cars, leave two lanes for the 43, move the 43 stop over there and a street toilet (so those people on Haight and Masonic don't get a toilet near their front door). It costs little, and no one has to die while we decide on crossing guards and turn lane lights. Maybe we could put in a little extra panhandle grass there? I've always been confused why there were streets running midway through a park.

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:04:21 -0800

I drive regularly through that intersection. Closing it would just force traffic onto Baker or Stanyan. Better, bigger signage would help. A few weeks of failure-to-yield tickets would help (get some of those cops out from behind their desks.) Factoid: in the rest of San Francisco it's illegal to ride a bike on a sidewalk or in a pedestrian crossing (unless you're under 18) so some drivers may just think the bikers are being assholes. What doesn't work: bikers coming down the at high speeds. Very often, drivers can't see bikers on the path coming towards them. And as a Panhandle resident- a walk on that path can be terrifying for pedestrians. And as a final note, tell the dick with stop sign he belongs within the crosswalk, not three feet into the intersection. There's enough drama without throwing yourself onto cars, girlfriend.

fizzandpop

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:44:10 -0800

Speed bumps for the cyclists might be an idea, but they'll have to be set back from the crossing because you won't be able to use your brakes when you're riding over them. Anything to slow down the Tour de France wannabes "going for their time", or other such nonsense, would be a good idea. The blur of lycra shirts advertising spanish supermarket chains no one's ever heard of is a really irrisistable target for my tennis ball throwing activities.

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:32:03 -0800

I think they should close off parking for 20 yards or so on the east side of the intersection and sadly get rid of a couple of big trees which really mess up visibility, maybe put some new ones on the other side of the bike/hike path. Also a some sort bicycle detector/crosswalk button that will add an extra warning signal to automobiles in the intersection. The bikes also need to slow down, as there is only so much people can see, especially at night. Iam5

Jas

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:57:38 -0800

You know, it's not just this crossing at Fell/Masonic that is tough - the western crosswalk is pretty hairy, with the Masonic traffic taking a right at high speed onto Fell. My solution - one of those 4-way walk lights that lets you walk left, right, or diagonal before either direction turns green. Right downtown this is used to great effect in several scary 2-way meets 1-way intersections.

fizzandpop

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:44:09 -0800

Oh and that's not a stretched wheelbase Mercedes, it's just a regular old S Class. Judging by the wheels, probably a 500SE. The S Class of that ilk (the W126) were available in SEL (stretched) form, but this ain't one of them. Am I right car dorks?

J

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:41:20 -0800

Left turn lane (maybe 2 of them)...left arrow. Also, mini-speed humps on the bike path, so bicyclists will slow down! Further, they should put a second pedestrian/bicycle signal before you get to masonic, so it's a lot more visible to the cyclists. Now, that crossing guard jumping on the stopped car in the picture...I remember when the crossing guards were posted there. The idea was great but the excecution horrible. I saw on at least one occasion, where the crossing guard went out when the light (for crossing) was RED and tried to stop a car so a bike could cross against the light. Oh, and the neck-craning... didn't we all learn as a kid to look left-right-left before you cross an intersection? Aren't both neck-craners above trying to cross when the counter is on zero? Or is the jogger's on 10?

jwb

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:39:39 -0800

Nice article, Jim. Your photos clearly illustrate all the problems going on here.

fizzandpop

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:10:26 -0800

The solution is to stencil BEWARE! DEATH MONSTERS AHEAD! on the bike path. But I do like the raised crossing idea, except it will be torn to pieces in weeks by the cars coming down Masonic and bottoming-out. Maybe we need those tweety bird noises they have at crossings in the 'burbs. Or Gendarmes.

Sweet Melissa

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:39:38 -0800

"Respect my AUTHORITAH!" - Absolutely perfect caption! I can't stop laughing at it!

rzu

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:38:00 -0800

How about a raised crosswalk? Cars would be forced to slow down to go over it. Make it a bright color so it stands out and with some embedded lights (like they have on Polk in front of City Hall) that blink when the peds have the crosswalk light.

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:16:46 -0800

wait, you mean there is an intersection in SF where I can make a left turn?!?!?!

Akit

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:59:46 -0800

Interesting photo with the crossing guard and the blue car. I'm a little suspicious of why the crossing guard (and his orange vested cronie) is standing at least three feet away from the crosswalk? I've never saw a crossing guard ever try to do his or her job outside of the crossing lines.

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:54:44 -0800

Bikers/Walkers should start carrying clubs. That's the solution. One less windshield.

Jeremy_notSFist

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:52:15 -0800

Wow! Great action shot with the car vs. crossing guard confrontation. I just imagined a follow-up shot with the car continuing through the intersection with the crossing guard hanging onto the hood and pounding on the windshield with the stop sign. That would be awesome. Extraoridnary work, Jim. I love the photographic examples (including neck craning) for all the various permutations of this intersection.

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:36:47 -0800

Dedicated left turn for the cars makes the most sense to me as a former panhandle resident. Those bikes come through there so quickly it's impossible for the cars to see them coming and have to faux yield just to see who is going to enter the intersection in the next few seconds. Plus, it's the cheapest solution!

aj

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:33:23 -0800

Acck!!! Please ignore "there would be counterproductive" above.

aj

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:32:58 -0800

I live right near there and really like the separate turn arrow and bike/ped traffic light idea. Banning left turns altogether would not work as there would be counterproductive as cars would ignore the ban and/or take long trips via side streets to get through. You don't need to be a card carrying bike nut to want fewer crashes!