Wiggle Safety Upgrades Delayed Because Cars Can't be Everywhere

Car traffic wouldn't be allowed to go through one half of one street in all of San Francisco?  This is absolutely insane!
image found here.

The Wiggle, a patchwork of bike sharrows on pavement weaving through fast car traffic & parked cars has been around for quite some time.  The only reason why someone on a bike would take this route is because it's geographically convenient, and not because the city makes it any easier to ride through it safely. In an effort to remedy this issue, the SFMTA started the long arduous process of making some changes to the street to accomodate the thousands of people that walk and bike through the area every day.

According to Streetsblog, "A major feature of the planned Wiggle upgrades is a large sidewalk bulb-out which would physically block drivers from entering southbound Scott at Fell Street. That would reduce the car traffic on Scott, which runs one block parallel to Divisadero, that degrades the livability of the neighborhood and congests the intersection at Haight." The other part of the plan would divert traffic on Divisidero Street from taking a left turns onto Haigh Street.  After two years of planning, community input, the project was halted because a few merchants who weren't paying attention started screaming at the 11th hour.

Stop a car from doing a car thing?  Are you insane?  Leave the deterring to pedestrians and cyclists thankyouverymuch.
Image found here.

SFMTA's timeline is very similar to other projects that have gone through copeous amounts of community input, engineering and planning, then squelched by a few car loving merchants.  The Polk Street bike plan was changed at the 11th hour to accommodate the Mayor's Optometrist's desire for side car storage.  The Oak/Fell bike lanes were delayed to add more magical free parking on SF Streets.  Removing 57 parking spaces from a pedestrian and bike path in the Marina was also delayed so the Parks & Rec department could fullfill their clear duty to preserve as much car storage as possible.  This even works for coffee shop owners who want to keep two bus stops on the same block for their own personal gain. 

The SFMTA claims this was part of their timeline all along and part of the natural SF process:

Tuesday, June 11, 2013, 5:00 pm to 8:30 pm

Wiggle Neighborhood Green Corridor Community Open house

Wednesday, August 28, 2013, 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

Scott Street Traffic Calming Meeting

Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm

Wiggle Neighborhood Green Corridor Community Open House #2

Wednesday, January 22, 2014, 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm

Wiggle Neighborhood Green Corridor Community Open House #3

Friday, January 17, 2014, 5:59 pm

View the proposals for the Wiggle Neighborhood Green Corridor

Friday, March 20, 2015, 6:06 pm

Show your support for the Wiggle Neighborhood Green Corridor!

Monday, March 23, 2015, 7:00 pm

Wiggle Neighborhood Green Corridor at Alamo Square Neighborhood Association Meeting

Friday, April 3, 2015, 10:00 am

Engineering Public Hearing, April 3, 2015

May - 11th Hour
Merchant Anger, Screaming & Delay 

June - TBD
Water down and negate project scope to appease merchants
  

The LoHaMNA (Lower Haight Neighbors and Merchants Association) sounded the 11th hour alarm after they heard that a vehicle wouldn't have unfettered access to all the streets of San Francisco.  A few equally important and long winded acryonym groups then followed suit. 

The PfCoESoSF (People for Cars on Every Street of San Francisco) and MWaAfSbKECT(Merchants Who are All for Safety but Keep Every Car Thing) all have voiced their concern and distain over this safety project that's been years in the making.

It's pefectly fine to limit pedestrians and bikers, but by no means can you limit a motorist's right to drive on any street, ever.

One MWaAfSbKECT member said, "Look, it's ok to demolish entire communities for city stroads like Geary Boulevard, place parking on every street in the city, but you can't ever divert traffic off any of them.  It's just assinine."  When asked about the safety benefits of having fewer cars on the roads near pedestrians and bikers, they just stared blankly for a few seconds and then proceeded to discuss much needed parking and traffic lanes.  He also went on to say, "and just think what could happen if people get this ridiculous idea that a car doesn't belong everywhere?"

Building areas like Masonic & Geary that cater exclusively to cars is fine.  Diverting traffic off one street in SF is absolutely forbidden.  Ask any merchant aka "traffic engineer".

The SFMTA expects to come back with a watered down, visionless Wiggle design sometime in June. 

Nanny State Laws Enacted for Cyclists and Basketball Players

In Steve Rubenstein's punny article "Some bicyclists are hardheaded about mandatory-helmet law" (did you get that part, hardheaded?! Hahahaha *wipes tear)  he goes to great lengths to show how foolish someone would be if they didn't wear a helmet leisurely riding a bicycle in a city.   He doesn't address ~probably~ fictional places like "Malmö" where there are allegedly 310 miles of dedicated bike lanes that are separated by a divider and up a level from car traffic. In the 10 years from 2003 to 2012, the city has seen only 16 cyclists killed in an accident involving a car.

Where are your bike helmets Malmo?  You don't even really exist!
image found here.

Steve' and his group Citizens Advocating Reasonable Suggestions ('C.A.R.S') say, "Getting a helmet onto a grown-up bicyclist’s head isn’t a no-brainer, even though the saving of brains is the idea." Oh god did he just say that?!  Brilliant!  Read the entire article for a whole slew of zingers like this.  Steve gleefully avoids discussing other weird countries that don't have the same kinds of problems that the United States has with cyclists for some unknown reason.

I don't care if bikers have an incredibly low injury and fatality rate Amsterdam!  You should go to jail for not wearing a helmet!!!
image found here

Officials began to realize that it's a lot easier to enact nanny state laws and blame everything on helmets than to build infrastructure.  "Helmets are an inexpensive way of putting the onus on the person who got struck by a 2 ton vehicle traveling at high speeds" said Sergent Gary Walker, as he sped off in his tank-like cop car.  

Bicycle advocates, and anyone who understands simple statistics, warned that helmets could actually have an adverse affect on cycling safety.  They cited several articles that showed the more bikers who were out on the streets, the safer they became, so helmets could actually reduce the amount of people biking on the streets and make everyone less safe. They also said that if we're going to make cyclists wear helmets then why not make basketball players, since the sport is the most dangerous in the country.

Just put a helmet on it, duh.

Concerned mothers and aunts soon began asking "why are WE THE TAXPAYERS paying for this special interest groups private playgrounds? The basketball courts put in public parks take away parking AND have to be paid for by funds that the BASKETBALL PLAYERS won't chip in for!?! The basketball lobby clearly has infiltrated parks & rec departments all across the county! How many basketball injuries go unreported each year? ITS THE NUMBER THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!"

As soon as officials heard this information, they immediately called for helmets to be worn by every basketball player.  Anyone found not wearing a helmet would be a charged $200 fine.  Basketball players have not taken these suggestions very well and said that it would make people less inclined to play basketball.  Some basketball fans have cried out that they don't want to see their favorite player in a helmet.

Oh enjoy the novelty now, but these will be mandatory soon!
image found here.

News of this reached all the way up to the NBA, which then issued a statement in retaliation. Hey, did you know"35,200 people died in US traffic accidents, plus there were about 3.8 million crash injuries requiring medical attention."  If you think that basketball or even cycling injuries is a big deal, how are you even allowing people to drive, much less without helmets?"

The best way to prevent a fraction of the 35,000 deaths in the United States? More like nanny state bullshit!
image found here.

"C.A.R.S" lashed out saying, "this ridiculous burden on motorists would be difficult to enforce and would lead to a lot of unnecessary citations."  They also claimed that this might turn more people off to driving if they're forced to wear a helmet, and what would they do then?!  C.A.R.S. made more reasonable suggestions, like mandatory helmets for pedestrians and banning them from most city "stroads".  

Buffered Bike Lane in Golden Gate Park - WORST IDEA EVER!

Buffered bike lanes in Golden Gate Park force motorists to deal with slower speeds and dooring.  A problem previously endured by bikers.
Image found here.

When you go into a park riding a bike is probably the last thing on your mind.  You're most likely wondering how you're going to be driving and parking your car in mother nature's green bosom. Well, some idiots at the SFMTA decided that they would try to make cycling safer in San Francisco, while protecting nature's most precious resource, car parking.  Golden Gate Park is not only home to ponds, windmills, and buffalo, but it's also home to 10,000 parking spaces.

Golden Gate Park: Home to 53 species of mammals, 250 species of birds, 20 species of reptiles and thousands of varieties of parking spots.
image found here

The SFMTA came out with a report stating that these modifications made pedestrians, cyclists and even drivers feel safer.  Motorists certainly applaud the efforts of the SFMTA to not remove the ten thousand parking spots in Golden Gate.  Some motorists complained about parking in the new configuration. Agnu Dillford exclaimed, "How are you supposed to know where to park?  Where it says parking?  Where all the other cars other are parked?  Do you park on the asphalt that has the picture of a bike and forward moving arrows?  It's so confusing!"

"Wait, do I park where all the other cars are parked, or do I park in the lane with the arrows and pictures of bikes?"
image found here.

Some people are not happy with the design, mainly because drivers can no longer enjoy road domination for nearly a mile.  Transportation nation claims, "For cars, average speed has dropped about two or three miles per hour since the road was striped."  Drivers are forced to slow down their car in one of the largest urban parks, surrounded by nature.  Motorist Lita Ward said, "I've had several incidents where I've nearly collided with people getting out of their cars, that are crossing the bike lane into the sidewalk area,”  Because of the changes, cars have to slow down and be mindful of dooming (when someone opens up their car door and hits your vehicle), a problem that was previously confined to people riding bicycles.

Just a few blocks down Golden Gate Park and natural street order is restored.  Cyclists contend with speeding cars and the threat of dooring.  The way nature intended.

And while the first few blocks of Golden Gate Park remain an absolute nightmare, the rest of streets remain a glorious testament to car domination. Aside from the few strips of buffered bike lanes, motorists also have to contend with "Car Free Sundays" when less than a 4th of the space in Golden Gate is devoid of nature's greatest gift, car traffic and parking.

Car Free Sundays.  Nature must be rolling in her grave.
image found here.  

Backers of Prop L Look to Connect to Transit Riders, Pedestrians and Cyclists

Now that the people of "Restore Car Dominated Balance" have Proposition L on the ballot, they're looking for support from the people they are trying to marginalize.  Paul Aster, backer of Prop L said, "when we looked at the demographics we realized that the amount of people who solely drive isn't large enough to pass this through.  We need to connect to the other half of the city that doesn't drive a personal vehicle.  We want to relate to them and show that our wants and needs really aren't all that different."

"See, our concerns are not all that different"

Proposition L supporters want to make sure citizens understand how difficult it can be to sit in a vehicle and drive from point A to B in the least amount of time possible.  "We want to make sure someone in a bus realized that we're only parked in their bus stop because of bad city policy, somehow.  We want pedestrians to think twice when the crosswalk is blocked or we blew through a red light. Maybe it was due to a newly added bike lane, or some pedestrian safety initiative?  It certainly wasn't OUR fault."  Prop L supporters want everyone to put themselves in the lead shoes of drivers and contemplate the sheer horror of being unable to find a super convenient free parking space out of the 441,541 spaces available in SF.

Save these "Car Buffets" (Van Ness - Left, Masonic - Right) are perfect examples of balanced street-freeways 

Proposition L supporters also want to highlight some of San Francisco's wonderful "Car Buffets" that work amazingly well for drivers who can't handle excruciatingly slow speeds of 25 miles an hour.  Paul said, "These 'Car Buffets' are perfectly safe when pedestrians are in constant fear of bodily injury."  And while it's pretty clear that speeding doesn't save much time at all, Paul says that doesn't mean drivers shouldn't feel the satisfaction of getting somewhere faster.  "Some people feel the satisfaction of cycling to and from work, or carrying a load of groceries home from the store.  Drivers only feel this satisfaction when they're ripping through a neighborhood to get home just in time before The Big Bang Theory starts."

Prop L to make "San Francisco's streets safe and inclusive for EVERYONE".
Photo: Bryan Goebel

Paul concluded, "Once public transit riders, cyclists and pedestrians see that we're just another sharp, wildly spinning cog in the SF transportation machine, they'll be more receptive to this car dominated balance proposition."

Oh Come on Why Won't Anyone Pay Attention to That UC Study About Bicycle Doom!?!

Here's a picture of a trauma room - Scary Right?  Don't even think of getting near a bike now!

Remember when I harped about that UC Study that irrefutably concludes that cycling is the most dangerous thing ever?  No, no not this UC bike study.  And I told you that the city is covering up the fact that you have a 0015% chance of getting hurt while biking in San Francisco?  Well here it is again!  I figure since no one is recognizing this as a beacon of doom, I'll just keep ranting on and on about it like any sensible person would do.  Here is some more Q&A on this important study on bicycle ruin.

Question 1: Does the city really do anything right?  How is this statistically insignificant amount of crashes any more or less important than car crashes, or pedestrians accidents?  Are you just trying to scare people into not biking?

B-Boy's Answer:  You just don't get it!  It's all part of the massive conspiracy with the all powerful SF bike coalition that dates back all the way to the Kennedy assassination.  Also, have I ever told you about how much I hate muslins.  Those cotton delicate sheers really grind my gears!

Question 2: Wait, the study says that there's more AVB (Automobile Vs. Bicycle) accidents than CO (Cyclist Only) accidents.  Doesn't that suggest that many of these accidents could be prevented by simply having motorists behave better on the roads and design better, safer, streets?

Bobbert's Answer:  Don't distract yourself from the real conclusion of this study.  People got hurt biking so it would be better if we simply create more barriers to stop cyclists from ever setting ass on a bike.  Do you really think that motorists are going to behave any better, ever?

Question 3: Don't the authors of this study come to the following conclusion: "Access to bicycling and other non-motorized modes of transportation is a significant need, especially in light of the public health issues resulting from inactivity. To encourage bicycling, improved roadways and management of risk and risk perception is key."

Bobby's Answer: They're a bunch of brain washed dicks!  The point is that even if you touch a bike you run the risk of winding up in the emergency room.

Have I shown Michael Helquist's  picture before?  He hurt his arm 5 years ago biking when he hit a pothole.  He's fine how but that won't stop me from using it every single chance I get!
image found here.

Question 4: This report really doesn't mesh with the latest article about Citi bikes. "After 23 million rides, no deaths in U.S. bike share programs" and only 40 people have been injured.  Doesn't this suggest that the more people bike the safer they are in numbers?  Isn't that cause enough to conclude that we need better infrastructure and more people out on bikes?  Haven't you seen other cities and countries where the crash rate is incredibly low?  Could this suggest there's different kinds of biking that contribute to injury (eg. cyclo-cross, long distance, daredevils?:

Bababui's Answer: Those are in different cities and countries, so I absolutely and conveniently cannot comment on them.  It has nothing to do with my inability to see outside of my own bias and weigh evidence from various points of view.

Question 5: The study also mentions "Surveillance data from both police records and hospital records will enable a better understanding of the needs for cycling infrastructure and public health education through evidence based research on both national and international scales." Are you suggesting that they're intelligent when it comes to uncovering the facts, but they're terrible interpreting the facts and making recommendations?

Bobboy's Answer: Shut up!  The government should be scaring the shit out of anyone who bikes in the city! They should actively discourage people from foolishly attempting to travel a densely packed 50 square mile city by bike.  Here's a picture of a mangled bike.  Put on your "Everything was Amazing in the 50s" glasses and read that study again!

DOOOOOM!!!  I show it because I ~care~ about you all very much. xoxo