Photo du Jour 516
Welcome Back! Um, Why Are You at Work Today?
Tiger Woods In "Serious" Condition After Car Crash
-thumb-110x110-461569.jpg)
Photos from Black Friday
SFist Interviews: John Ortved, Author of The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History
Here's why.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Did anyone else see this? This is shameful!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11
[more]
This issue is sad for everyone involved.
That seems like a reason to remove it, not a reason not to remove it.
Of course it's also worth noting that the bicycle was riding in their blind spot and they signaled.
Defensive driving folks.
The driver is not signaling when he enters the frame, and the blinker only shines two and a half times before he turns. The CA Vehicle Code states that you should signal how far before a turn? That's right: 150ft.
I believe you're missing the point of defensive driving.
Even if the person didn't signal at all, who cares? It doesn't matter after you're already under the car. Paying attention and expecting and preparing for the probable mistakes is the point.
Ah sorry, I didn't realize you were speaking from so far off the deep end. Random shit that happens out of the blue is not avoidable. Good luck staying away from cars on Market St., I'm just thankful I'm healthy enough to ride at traffic speed, which is good because any less and I'm apparently running the risk of forcing a car to break the law and drive into me.
Sad, indeed. But in that video, the guy got hit while he was in the bike lane. Seems to me the video makes a pretty good case of getting rid of a dangerous bike lane!
Of course, getting rid of it wouldn't be an acceptable option. There's got to be a better solution. How about separating the bike lane with a curb to dissuade cars even more from making that turn (by preventing them from clipping the corner in the turn.) Or re-route the bike lane through that intersection to run alongside the pedestrian walkway. That won't stop idiots from making the illegal turn, but it'll at least keep the cyclists out of the cars' blind spots.
it does seems that way, i know, and i should've clarified myself, but riders will just ride in the street then. this is market street. the lane needs to stay.
They could at least paint some big straight-ahead arrows in the car lane that read "ONLY." Don't know just how effective that'd be, but it seems like at least a minimal effort!
Right, it's the bike lane that's dangerous...
Cars should not make illegal turns. This is clear and the driver was clearly in the wrong and should be/have been punished.
BUTTTTTTT . . . the cyclist was not wearing a helmet and from the way he reacted, looked like he was riding a fixed-gear without a hand brake.
Three things the cyclist could have done to mitigate or avoid injury from the driver's dumb error: (1) wear a helmet, (2) have a free-wheel and/or gears, (3) have brakes!
We cyclists are smarter than drivers in that we don't pollute (aside from the manufacturing of our bikes) so let's prove it by not being dumb. Wear a helmet and have brakes!
It sure looked like the cyclist in question did not have functioning brakes.
That should also have a $250 minimum fine. Save the track bikes for the tracks.
Also, note that this is not the current layout. There are a lot more barriers, warning signs, etc. there now.
Seems to me they need to station a cop there for a while and peg all the idiots doing illegal turns. It's not the cyclists' fault he's not watching out for a car driver to do something illegal.
I drive through that intersection most mornings (the proper way, thankyouverymuch!) and there have been several times when I've seen cops stationed just to the west of the on-ramp. Haven't seen them there in a while, though. Couldn't hurt to bring them back for a bit.
I have to disagree that it's not his fault he wasn't prepared for the driver to do something illegal. As a scooter rider, I ALWAYS think the cars around me are going to do something stupid and/or illegal. The one time I think everyone will obey the rules will be the one time I get taken out.
I see tons of bike riders blow through intersections without looking because they either assume there are no cars crossing their path, or that all the cars see them. Sorry folks, keep your heads on swivels and ride defensively. Just the fact that you're in the right won't keep you alive.
As for this bike lane issue, I agree that it needs to stay. and I also like the idea of a curb. How about a curb with some of those yellow pipe-cone things?
jwz's bike rule #11: always assume the cars can see you perfectly, and are trying to kill you.
There's way too much fish in mercury
i miss summer.
All things considered, there's one very easy and cost effective solution.
http://www.seton.com/images/spacecode/cz4.jpg
tear down that freeway!
People were so hyped at the orgasmic thrill of ripping out the freeway onramp, they never stopped to think of all the consequences.
Drivers obviously should not be making the left - it's way illegal, and dangerous too (not just for bikers, but for drivers too since that's a sharp turn and just dumb to do), but you can't block it off with a curb....because all those folks on octavia gotta cross.
It's been my experience that trying to ban turns for drivers is tough. Go to 9th and Lincoln some day and watch all the idiots make illegal lefts that endanger pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers and MUNI. It's amazing (in a bad way).
You would think with all the smart people in town, someone could come up with a way to fix this, or have prevented it in the first place so EVERYONE could ride peacefully, but oh well.
This wasn't a difficult or or expensive problem to fix while it was still just a drawing, yet apparently nobody thought of it. But hey, the landscaping is purty.
One question that I haven't heard answered yet: if we get rid of the bike lane, where are the bicycles supposed to go? In traffic lanes with the cars? Oh, yes, that should be much safer for everyone.
"if we get rid of the bike lane, where are the bicycles supposed to go?"
Either in the car lane, or even better on a different road entirely. That intersection is horrible by design and no amount of lipstick on that pig will make it safe. By removing the bike lane it signals to cyclists that they need to have a heightened sense of fear about being in that death trap, and not do things like ride in a car's blind spot near possible right turns.
With all respects to the cyclist, that accident was totally avoidable. When cycling in the city you should never put yourself in a position where it's possible to get hit by a car. This involves altering both position and speed. By removing the bike lane that will 1) suggest that the intersection is not a safe haven for bikers, which it will never be, and cyclists will take a different route and 2) encourage cyclists to take the lane to greatly reduce the possibility of right hook.
Bicycle has been by far my primary mode of transportation for the last 10+ years, and I'm always on extreme alert when I go through that intersection. Zero bike/car accidents so far.
If it's impossible for the freeway ramp to be removed entirely then I think a bike tunnel veering right and going under the freeway would be a decent solution. But that's expensive.
With all respects to the cyclist, that accident was totally avoidable. When cycling in the city you should never put yourself in a position where it's possible to get hit by a car.
With all due respect, this is naive. Yes, the accident would have been avoided if the driver was following the law, but that doesn't help them now. Yet, the cyclists are the ones who should alter their behavior? Reasonable minds disagree.
Since you're at risk for getting hit by a car whenever you ride your bike on the street, what possible solution are you driving at? An underground network of bike tunnels? Helicopter bikes? Hilariously, you suggest bicycles put themselves closer to cars. OK. I ride in the city, in the traffic lanes, but that's not for everybody and there are laws about when cars can be in the bike lane (those thick solid white stripes are curbs under the law).
Not to mention that this video apparently also shows a hit and run.
The you aren't referring to reasonable minds. Everyone should change their behavior. It doesn't matter which party you are. Just because you judge one party more wrong than the other doesn't give you the skin on your thigh back, doesn't repair the compound fracture in your arm. The point is defensive driving, and that's what it's all about. Avoiding the predictable. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong.
The point is avoiding the situation in the first place. And this accident was entirely avoidable.
We agree on the larger point that cars and cyclists have to move together in a way that minimizes accidents, but this particular accident was not avoidable by the bicyclist. The car signalled while beside the cyclist, then cut him off. Watch it again and note that even if the lane were removed, not all cyclists would ride in the middle of the lane. Some people just think it's scary, and those people will continue to ride. And get hurt perhaps, but come on.
Right-hooks are a common way for cars to get themselves hit by cyclists. I don't know what you think the cyclist should do when a car suddenly veers into them, but I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).
It was avoidable because anyone with two neurons to rub together knows that riding in a cars blindspot is dangerous, especially approaching an intersection in the right hand lane. It's not difficult to instantly deduce that a car may turn in front of you. So just like preparing to avoid doors opening going down the street this was a known quantity and entirely avoidable.
Fuck yes the traffic lane is safer. I take it all the time when I need to (that intersection included). That guy got hit because he was in someone's blind spot. He wouldn't have had that problem if he'd been in the traffic lane.
I still think there has to be a better solution, but until there is, I'm not riding in the bike lane on that block.
That guy got hit because he was in someone's blind spot.
No, he got hit because the car made an illegal right turn.
The bicycle plan EIR talks about Market/Octavia. See "plan 2-12 in the EIR appendix page 15.
It talks more about what has already happened vs. what they are going to do. If the class II bike lane is removed, they would likely create a'SHARROW' , which is just painting the street with a bike symbol. It would be a shared car bike lane.
This is the best I could glean from the HUGE EIR and I may be missing something because I'm not reading all gazillion pages of the sucker.
BTW today was the day for public comment...
I'm a pretty avid cyclist and a transportation engineering student. I recognize really counter-intuitive that NOT having bike lanes might be safer in instances like this, but bike lanes at high traffic intersections like this have been proven unsafe. see this for more information.
That is not to say that there should be no streetscape improvements whatsoever for bikes, however a lot of the "bicycle community" needs to realize that bike lanes are not always the solution to bike/car conflicts and work towards appropriate solutions.
As an avid cyclist, I completely agree. Bike lanes are really only safe if you are going significantly slower than the car traffic on the street, probably slower by twice or more. As you approach the speed of traffic, the longer you spend in a blind spot, and the greater the chance of being forgotten.
That isn't to say I think bike lanes are unsafe, they are just designed poorly. There should be physical separation between cars, (moving and parked) to minimize the chances of interaction.
I try to ride in traffic as long as i'm not going too far below the speed limit, (isn't it 25 on most residential streets anyway?) If there is an irate driver, and a safe place to pull over, I will get out of the way, but drivers need to recognize that bikes have the same rights they do, even if they are a bit slower.
That video is a fantastic argument for getting RID of the bike lane.
Cars making the (illegal) right turn won't be able to cut off cyclists if they're sharing a lane. Half of the Market St. ROW is already sharrowed... doing the same to this block would improve safety.
This myopic "MORE FACILITIES = ALWAYS BETTER" nonsense does not stand up to reality. Just like legislating that cars can't make a right turn does not prevent them from doing it. Never underestimate the selfishness and stupidity of motorists, and apparently of sfist's editors, who keep harping on this issue.
I'm a pretty avid cyclist and a transportation engineering student. I recognize really counter-intuitive that NOT having bike lanes might be safer in instances like this, but bike lanes at high traffic intersections like this have been proven unsafe. see this for more information.
That is not to say that there should be no streetscape improvements whatsoever for bikes, however a lot of the "bicycle community" needs to realize that bike lanes are not always the solution to bike/car conflicts and work towards appropriate solutions.
This is an edited version of the video. The whole thing where the cyclist has a little conversation with the guy, says "No Right Turn" and casually points to the back of the NRT sign, and tubbo walks over to look up at the sign (that part seen in this video) is priceless.
That is good. I guess I was wrong on my hit-and-run comment, but the video doesn't make it very clear.
I have to agree with scopa. I ride a scooter in the city and am always scanning for another moving vehicle making a dumb move (including bikes).
I respect that bikes aren't clogging the air but I think they're nuts (especially the ones in the headlands riding slowly uphill along streams of rental cars full of tourists not watching the road). At least on a scoot I'm going the same speed as the cagers.
The thing about this intersection I can never figure out is why is it so special. Yes, it's a freeway entrance but aren't their opportunities for cars to make legal right turns suddenly and across this very same bike lane at Valencia, Gough, and 12th?
Actually, the original plan for this intersection was for eastbound traffic on Market to have an easy turn onto the freeway. Due to Bike Coalition objections, the intersection was changed to the current configuration.
I agree that this is an example of why you wouldn't want to have a bike lane. I spend a lot of time on Valencia checking left and riding into the flow of traffic to avoid situations just like this one. I've been forced to make a right turn at 14th and Valencia a couple of times.
The issue with bike lane usage is exactly what others have said; if you're traveling at the rate of traffic, you're often better off riding in the traffic lane, as opposed to the bike lane.
If you can't travel at the rate of traffic, getting around the city is much harder. But even going slower, I would have no qualms about getting out of the bike lane if I think it's safer in the traffic lane. I fortunately can avoid this intersection most of the time, but annoying a driver by getting in the lane is better than encountering this kind of situation.
Bikes are supposed to be in traffic. See this video created by an SF police officer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7M-_ueoU2E
Actually, the original plan for this intersection was for eastbound traffic on Market to have an easy turn onto the freeway. Due to Bike Coalition objections, the intersection was changed to the current configuration.
I agree that this is an example of why you wouldn't want to have a bike lane. I spend a lot of time on Valencia checking left and riding into the flow of traffic to avoid situations just like this one. I've been forced to make a right turn at 14th and Valencia a couple of times.
The issue with bike lane usage is exactly what others have said; if you're traveling at the rate of traffic, you're often better off riding in the traffic lane, as opposed to the bike lane.
If you can't travel at the rate of traffic, getting around the city is much harder. But even going slower, I would have no qualms about getting out of the bike lane if I think it's safer in the traffic lane. I fortunately can avoid this intersection most of the time, but annoying a driver by getting in the lane is better than encountering this kind of situation.
For anyone still following this thread, I drove through the intersection this morning and noticed that improvements have already been made since this video was made. There's now a long, extended curb between the car and bike lanes, as well as a row of plastic poles. Neither show up in the video, so they're presumably new additions.
A red light camera could be very useful here.