SFist: Not News: Masonic Still A Mess

jimH

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:54:31 -0800

The bike plan sailed thru until Rob Anderson et al took it to a judge, who seemed to think that it wasn't even a close call that there should be an EIR. As I understand it, the EIR got delayed because of the consensus that it wasn't necessary. Then it was scheduled, then it was supposed to be sped up (under pressure from the SFBC et al), then it turned out that the EIR got off to a slow start (actually slower than the original plan before the speed up) and it's going to take a long time, cost millions etc. The two areas that might receive special attention sooner than later are Fell/Masonic and the odious, terrible failure of ivory tower engineering known as Octavia Blvd.

jimH

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:12:39 -0800

Hey Dan man. I'm saying the only unambiguous situation is the ped who starts walking on the ped green. That's a dead bang 100% driver at fault situation. The SFBC is working on a bikes in the crosswalk law currently. It's an ambiguous situation VEHICLE CODE 21950 "This section [which generally favors peds] does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." "pedestrians are required to yield the right-of-way to vehicles already in the intersection when the "walk” signal is first shown." Vehicle Code 21451(c) There's a new sign telling drivers they need to yield. I'm not sure what judges would do with that. Do you assume the risk of danger when you are on "a wilderness trail"? No se. Ins. cos. have lots of arguments to make when their insured drivers injure people in this area. http://sfist.com/2007/07/12/sfist_photo_fel.php

SFist_Dan

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:50:09 -0800

So, JimH...if I start jogging or biking across when the pedestrian signal says "go," and I get hit, it's my fault? And...I may be wrong here, but I'm fairly sure that originally, the EIR was going to be done sometime last year, but late last year somebody found out that nothing at all had been done on it, so then the city finally got on it after some bad publicity. Please note that I'm going on memory here, so this could be totally wrong

greggers

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:02:31 -0800

Drivers can't be expected to watch for every little thing. They have so many things to do while they are driving as it is.... Traffic can't be expected to slow down. It is our god given right to be able to drive as quickly through the city as we, um, think we should be able to drive.

sfsoma

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:46:44 -0800

Rob Anderson is an easy target for those angry about this issue. The real problem is that the Newsom administration and the kids in Room 200, along with the BOS do not think they have to comply with the law. They think they are above it. It was absolutely apparent that splitting the plan into smaller pieces to avoid the EIR was illegal. Newsom or dept head who reports to him went ahead anyway and ended up costing the city even more money by the trial that was totally unnecessary. I am sick and tired of the teflon coating for this administration. Newsom and his kids have made some of the worst bungles of any mayor in the last 20 years and this uneducated, spokesmodel bartender wants to be Governor of California. Give me a break. Also, how about all the perks like access to politicians that the normal public do not get for the Bicycle Coalition, talk about special interests, this is one that takes full advantage of everything and everyway to push their dogmatic agenda.

Tweety

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:18:11 -0800

Rob Anderson is another fine example of how in San Francisco, a lone crazy voice can delay and destroy something would greatly benefit the masses. He wants to run again for District 5 Stuporvisor. I guess Mirkarimi isn't so bad after all.

Ciaran

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:11:43 -0800

Take that whole block out of masonic - the panhandle doesn't need a road going through it.

jimH

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:41:36 -0800

The only people crossing in the crosswalk that can be assured of not having any blame if they get hit are those who start walking when the ped signal tells them. Anything else (cycling, jogging whatever) is a muddy situation. The studies worry about car traffic backing up on Fell if those parking spaces are taken out. This is sort of the opposite situation of that at Oak and Octavia, where taking out a few parking spaces would make things safer for everybody. And yet, that's too much to ask for from the neighbors on that block. Some propose moving the crosswalk to midblock between Fell and Oak.

Akit

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:14:18 -0800

Couldn't the city just move the crosswalk like five feet away from the intersection? Extra room means extra stopping time for drivers.

aj

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:13:56 -0800

Pedestrians get run over too. Is that enough?

fizzandpop

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:12:02 -0800

"...Would require the removal of four parking spaces from Fell street". Translation: would require the removal of four camping spots for yeasty Oregoners.