There is a small, but vocal 'hate bicyclists' lobby out there, mostly right wing Republicans. I see it every few days on the blog in our local newspaper. It is pretty amazing, actually, that they would focus their ire on harmless, defenseless ... bicyclists. But evidently we are the cutting edge of the end of the 'world' as they know it. Cyclists of the apocalypse. Wheels of doom. Bike-huggers. Fit individuals. Non polluting scum. Cheap mothers. Slowers of traffic. Impeders of progress. Tempters of children. Hippies. Freaks. Punks. Pierced Youth. Critical Mass. Tattooed You. Spandex clad skinny people with stupid helmets. (Actually, the last scares me...)

the cyclists would use them!

i can't count the number of times i have almost been hit on the sidewalk because of cyclists not using the street like the law states.

Ah, sonofloud: (supposed) PUMA, (confirmed) Obama hater, and now anti-bicycle troll. Tell me, sono, where do you live? If cyclists ride on the sidewalks hereabouts, they're chancing a big, fat ticket.

There are none to speak of for my short commute to San Francisco State U. And there are none on campus either. Officially, I'm supposed to go all the way around back by the parking lot. Cycling across campus in any way is a ticketable offense.

Nor are there any to speak of on any of my typical recreational rides. There's that one "multi-use path" in the park panhandle, but a bike path with double-wide baby carriages and people walking 4 abreast isn't really a bike path. I do wish they would stick to the parallel path that I'm forbidden from riding on.

I've been able to go "underground" on this a few times (specifics not worth explaining), and although the reasons vary it does seem to exist.

One of the bigger reasons, at least out here on the left coast, seems to be related to guilt. If you ride a bike you'll lose weight, cut down on emissions, save money, etc... and the constant reminder whilst in a car is apparently irritating. Much like someone with their super-sized fries sneering at joggers I suppose - and perhaps even some of the same folks on both sides.

There is also a certain desire, with the recent prices, to give misery more company. It's not as painful if everyone is hurting, and then you can fool yourself into thinking that what your travel requirements have no better options.

This goes for pretty much anything 'alternative', not just bicycles; EVs of any stripe, walking, public transport.

in the few places where there are bike lanes, many cyclists tend to stick to the sidewalks because many drivers seem to think of the bike lane as a convenient, pass-on-the-right lane. Wouldn't surprise me if that's the case in other areas as well.

I lived in San Francisco for the first five years of this century. There were bike lanes, trails and accommodations like parking everywhere. Certainly more than most everywhere else in the U.S..

What happened? Are these things all gone? What has this individual blocked?

I have to admit, I thought this article was hilarious! It's just fine to stop businesses from doing things with environmental law, but not you!

If following the law is so onerous, maybe it's not a good law?!??!?!!!!!

Since you talk about gas prices, maybe you've given some thought to refining and drilling. How frustrated do you think our energy industry is with these obstructionist laws?

Frustrated? I'm glad your frustrated! If we were the only ones, it wouldn't be fair!!!

PS I'm all for biking. I even own a bike!

I too am all for biking yet I can't help but think that San Francisco bikers are getting a bit of karmic payback. They are notoriously rude and self satisfied. Shutting down the entire city for periodic "critical mass" rides where they clog the roads, stop all traffic, and terrorize drivers (including families with small children) is no way to get the public on your side.

Clearly the guy is an obstructionist jackass.

But shouldn't the bike plan go through all the necessary environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act? Those laws are in place to protect our earth, after all, even if they inconvenience a project we like.

I agree with Rob Anderson on one thing. The cyclists in San Francisco are self-centered and treacherous. It is quite possible that this is due to the traffic conditions created by the automobile drivers, but is a nuisance nevertheless.

I have not owned a car since I moved to San Francisco nine years ago, and I encourage alternate modes of transportation whenever I can.

However, cyclist here (gross generalization based in observed behaviour alert) consistently disregard traffic laws running red lights, riding on the sidewalk or on the wrong side of the street, making illegal turns from outside lanes, and generally just taking the path of least resistance for themselves without regard to the other traffic around them (cars, yes, but buses and pedestrians as well). Critical Mass is designed as a form of civil disobedience to target the cars on the road, but more often than not the riders in Critical Mass interfere with the public transportation with as much glee as they do the cars.

I fully embrace any effort to reduce the number of cars on the streets and encourage people to ride bicycles. However, I really wish that San Francisco would begin to enforce the traffic laws for the cyclists as well, and that the cyclists themselves would begin to take a little personal responsibilty and show a sense of cooperation instead of entitlement. Those of us who are pedestrians and public transportation riders are doing just as much to reduce traffic and emissions, but we suffer just as much from the cyclists as most drivers.

I guess I consider myself pro-bike, not-so-pro-car.

But the bias and short-sightedness in this piece is flabbergasting. The California Supreme Court AGREED with Anderson: SF broke the law by not completing an environmental impact report.

That means Anderson was RIGHT. If anything, I think he'd be owed an apology.

We don't get to selectively enforce the law when it gives us a result We The Masses like and ignore it when it doesn't. Who's to say that increasing bike use will provide a benefit to the environment if it hasn't been properly studied? Just because the City says so? Just because they believe in their hearts that it will? Just because it's a common consensus?

Science doesn't work that way. If you hate when the Bushies do this, you gotta hate it when the Newsomes do it, or you're a hypocrite in my book.