I’m going to Davis this weekend to attend this symposium and spend time with other byclists. I’ll be biking there – pics will follow!
In the meantime, here is a picture of a turtle sunbathing in Stowe lake.
Monday
Great Highway was closed on that beautiful windy day so I had it all to myself.
An honest debate
At the SFMTA meeting last Tuesday, director Ed Reiskin unabashedly stated that safety will have to be traded off to minimize parking loss (at 0:36:10). His priorities are shameful, but at least things are clear.
I’ll comment on only one of the other many questionable points: he states that while 15% of people arrive on Polk by car, that percentage is still substantial and that to affect it would negatively impact businesses whose profit margins are already low (at 1:14:27). Aside from demonstrating the ludicrous and morally corrupt perspective that I’ve already discussed, that statement is also plainly obtuse. Even if people in cars were to visit Polk street in smaller numbers, this would be more than made up by the increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians.
Hence, all is good, money will still be made.
Exactly what I’m talking about. SFBC says no more excuses on Fell and Oak, safety is priority, enough with the bullshit.
Polk street Saga
There were some gleeful tweets flying around yesterday with this news: 85% percent of people on Polk street arrive without a car. Why would this be trumpeted with glee? Because it throws a wrench in the arguments of the merchants of Polk street who are trying – with apparent success – to decimate the plans for a separated bike lane on Polk street.
It’s great that their doomsday predictions of business dying off under the oppression of safer streets are being countered by hard data, but it’s also confusing – nay, disturbing – that their framing of the issue is so wholly accepted. Regardless of how many times this notion that bike lanes kill business has been debunked, the SFMTA and the SFBC seem willing to engage with the merchants on this matter and try to convince and reassure and woo them. They need to be told to bugger off because they talk bullshit and their profits do not lead the game.
It’s a happy, or at least convenient, fact that business isn’t actually harmed by livable streets because, given the implicit acceptance of the importance of that concern, it gives advocates more ground on which to stand. But what the city should be doing is send a clear message that the profits or parking of a few do not trump the safety of the people or the aim to reduce carbon emissions and dependence on oil that fuels wars and costs lives.
Seat thieves
You read that right. Thieving thieves are thieving seats. The least I would like to do is kick their shins but since I don’t know who they are and I am a bit of a coward, a rant on a blog will have to do.
On Sunday, I went to Rainbow Grocery in the middle of the afternoon and parked my bike at their bike parking on Folsom street. When I was done with my shopping, my bike seat had disappeared! Wtf! Granted, it was a quick-release but people shouldn’t take other peoples’ bike seats just because they can.
That evening I went back to Rainbow (my companions and myself have many collective sweet teeth which require frequent trips for treats) and walking out I saw another bike at the Folsom parking with its seat missing.
Now, I’m still in my positive constructive SF mode so this post will actually end with a very constructive piece of advice: according to the empathetic security guard who seemed happy that I relieved him from his boredom, there is bike parking inside the Rainbow parking lot and if you park your bike there there is no risk of theft because the entrance is always dutifully guarded. I dutifully took note and shall always park my bike there and I am also dutifully passing the tip on to you, dear handful of readers. Although maybe you have more common sense/less trust than me and already do this anyway.
