... and because of this, I don't think they should follow the same traffic laws. Here in Minneapolis a local state rep presented a bill in the House to allow bikers (and pedestrians) to walk/ride against red lights or stop signs if there was no traffic.

I.E. makeing jaywalking/jayriding legal. Now here in Minneapolis they do not enforce jaywalking / jayriding laws anyway, unless you do something unsafe. So it is, untechnically, legal.

I thinks this makes sense because it will promote riding/walking, and it will also reduce the finger pointing by motorists who never ride.

Bicycles can be ridden on sidewalks, carried in elevators, walked with and ridden on streets. Just because they have wheels does not mean they are motorcycles or scooters. The dividing line should not be the presence of a wheel, but the presence of a 'motor' of some kind. I.E. skateboards and push scooters and roller blades are clearly more like pedestrians, and bicyles are really closer to that. The bicycle is closer to them than a 150CC scooter, which cannot be ridden on sidewalks, walked, carried - is heavy, and has a gas or electric engine.

The key is categorizing bicycles properly, and then writing laws with pedestrians and bikers in mind, instead of just cars.

"Presumably, this man lives in The City and has a car."

--jebldmm

Ugh! Try reading the ENTIRE article before commenting! It very clearly says that he hasn't owned a car in 20 years. Seriously, why do you people comment on articles you clearly have not bothered to read?

Andrew Leonard claims Rob Anderson is bucking "the will of his community." Did Leonard take a poll? I'm in the community and Anderson is my hero! The bike nazis be damned!

Ok, I don't get it. Why was an environmental review required? The link to the plan makes it look like the bulk of the bike project is repainting lines on the street and some alterations to curbs.

Presumably, this man lives in The City and has a car. Where does he park it? Parking is a major problem in San Francisco. There must be sympathetic city councilpersons who would be willing to consider proposals to change the parking regulations on his street. Nothing too egregious. The neighbors will take care of the rest. But while you're at it - tone down some of the more aggressive bicycling advocates. War between cars and bikes is not really in anybody's interest. No driver ever became more sympathetic to bicyclists while they were stuck in a traffic jam for hours while bicycling activists actively blocked traffic.

any article about urban biking always devolves into commentary about how cyclists are arrogant, entitled, rule-breaking bastards who want to kill everyone else on the roads. Sigh.

I mostly drive. Yes, I've probably seen more cyclists whiz past stop signs than motorists -- but I've seen PLENTY of motorists do the exact same thing, and you know what? When the cyclists broke the law, I DIDN'T ALMOST DIE. In fact, part of the reason that I mostly drive is because I've tried biking and been nearly mowed down far too many times -- and that's when using quieter side streets and being careful to obey all the laws.

The bike laws out there DO NOT protect cyclists. THAT'S why they are often ignored, and you know what? I've got no problem with that. It's not always malicious intent on the part of drivers; I've nearly hit bikers before myself. They were following the rules. I was following the rules. I just didn't see them.

As a pedestrian, I've never had issue with cyclists on the sidewalks. I'm getting rid of my car next month and going to a full-time biking/walking/public transportation combo (I do frequent public transportation, in spite of having a car), and I'm pretty nervous about the biking element. It is possible to plan cities wherein pedestrians, motorists, cyclists, and public transportation can all coexist -- BUT such planning is absolutely, 100%, non-negotiably dependent upon de-emphasizing the car as the primary mode of transport.

High gas prices might suck when it comes to one's bank account (and I say this as someone who makes poverty wages), but let's all hope they can keep going up and up and force some restructuring upon our current unsustainable lifestyles.

I cannot find an analysis or critique of this logic. What if it is correct?

Well, first of all i think studying it is fine so i'm not really sure what the big deal is. Why has it taken two years to study this stuff? That being said, I think his objections are based on some assumptions that may or may not really be valid...

More bike lanes means less car lanes. I think this depends on which roads you are talking about. In many cases it means fewer parking places rather than fewer lanes, or more narrow pedestrian areas. You also could widen the roads in question. I really don't know much about the specifics of this plan so I can't say for sure. But it seems like you could prove whether this is the case or not by just looking at the maps or whatever...Which is the point of doing a study right?

This leads to more (motor) traffic congestion. This in turn leads to more air pollution.

This only holds true if you assume that the number of people driving vs. number of people biking stays the same despite these changes. If biking in the city was safer and easier it's possible that a lot more people would do it. A lot of this is just conjecture. Like the previous poster said, just assuming that because the status quo is bad we shouldn't try to fix it is hardly a solution. I mean, if you take it to the extreme and make all roads only 1 lane, eventually it would be frustrating enough to drive here (like, make it so the city can only handle 25% of the number of cars it does currently) then you cut pollution by 75% and people stop driving here. Sucks for drivers but then maybe they would bike or take MUNI instead. It's clear from the interview with Anderson that his motivation is not because he's strongly in favor of reducing pollution as much as having an axe to grind with cyclists for personal reasons. Not only is this guy costing the taxpayers tons of money for wasted court time and 'study' time but he also is a freeloader who lives off of government sustenance, so it's hard for me to really believe that he has to commute to work or regularly leave the house where this would affect him anyway.

Finally, the number of cars will always be vastly greater than the number of bicycles in San Francisco.

This is probably true, unless they never really get electric cars going, in which case 20-30 years from now gas will be so expensive that only the very wealthy will be able to afford driving..

But either way, I don't really care. I use public transit, I would like to bicycle to work but I feel like it's risky enough that I don't want to feel like i'm putting my life into the hands of a bunch of cellphone using suv drivers. And.. I would have to commute through an area where there aren't many bike paths.

What I don't understand is what the big deal is about having them just do the study? Doesn't seem like it should take more than a month or two for someone with city-planning or transit experience to crunch some numbers on this.. If it is only taking years because they are afraid of more legal challenges that is ridiculous.