All this reminiscing. As you know I grew up in SF (outer Richmond), but my first place when I moved back here after grad school and post-doc was on the corner of Willard and Parnassus. I recall all of the streets you guys mention (I originally looked at a place on Downey, but don't remember why I didn't take it).

SFCity is correct. I remember when growing up, no one in hs had a car. I used to take muni to Candlestick for Giants games throughout adolescence. Seemed pretty easy in those days.

There was a 6 Masonic bus stop at Willard and Parnassus, where I could catch a bus which would take me down into the Haight Ashbury and stop at Masonic, where I could walk four blocks to Lowell High. If I missed the bus, I'd walk down to Cole Street, and catch the 43 Roosevelt bus, which would drop me off at Masonic and Hayes in front of Lowell. Or I could just walk to Lowell, which took 20-25 minutes. After basketball practice, Coach Neff used to wait for me and make me walk home back up the hills with him. Maybe I told the story before, but I had asthma, and I was afraid of telling him, for fear of him kicking me off the team. After practice at 6PM, I was gassed, so I used to hide out in the little grocery store at the corner of Masonic and Hayes, and wait for the coach to pass by, and then I'd catch the bus home.

Willard and Parnassus was 2 blocks from Poly high, which might had more famous athletes and teams to their credit than any City public school. Across the street from Poly was Kezar Stadium, where my dad told me they used to get 50,000 fans for the Lowell-Poly football game on Thanksgiving, and of course the home of the real SF 49ers. A short walk from there was the Golden Gate Park tennis courts, the home of many great tennis players of national fame.

I don't think my generation was as hardy as my father's. We did a lot of walking and riding buses, but not like them. My dad grew up in the Richmond, on 15th Avenue near Geary, and he used to walk all the way to Seals Stadium to watch the Seals play baseball, and then take the bus and streetcar to get home. I remember the old streetcars, with a driver and also a conductor collecting fares, and they rode outside in an open air compartment, while the passengers sat inside, where it was warmer, on comfortable wooden bench seats, unlike today's Muni buses, which are very cramped and all hard plastic seats. As kids, we used to get a card for 10 rides, at a cost of 50 cents, which the conductor or bus driver punched when we boarded. When I first began to ride the N Judah downtown, at age maybe 6 or 7, my mom made me memorize all the streets, so I would get off at the right one. And most of us juvenile delinquents used to hop on the rear bumper of a streetcar or a trolley bus, and ride as far as we wanted without getting caught. And parents NEVER were allowed to pick up their child after school. If my mother wanted to pick me up at school, I'd arrange to have her meet me at least 4 blocks from school, so no one would see my mother picking me up..

Ah, memories, SFCity. I used to take the bus (one transfer) to the bowling alley on 6th Avenue and Clement where we could bowl for 35 a line (10 to rent shoes). And, no parents didn't pick us up after school unless it was for a Dr's appt.I was walking by myself by 2nd grade.

Growing up in Berkeley, we took the bus into San Francisco, most often to see Giants games, which involved transferring onto Muni and winding our way through some not so great neighborhoods, but we did it beginning when I was in 7th grade.

Across from the Transbay Terminal was an arcade, that had adult peep shows. Hilariously, the arcade had a sign outside saying that the peep shows were "For Artists Only," with a paint palette graphic on it. One day, I decided I was an artist of sorts, and ducked in to see what it was all about. I learned more during a dime's worth of footage than I had through an entire semester of Jr High sex ed.

Ah, the good old days.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Ah, memories, SFCity. I used to take the bus (one transfer) to the bowling alley on 6th Avenue and Clement where we could bowl for 35 a line (10 to rent shoes). And, no parents didn't pick us up after school unless it was for a Dr's appt.I was walking by myself by 2nd grade.

---

I walked by myself from Willard down to Grattan Elementary and back home from the first grade on. Basketball in the neighborhood was mainly played in Grattan's schoolyard, with wooden backboards. The City put in a new playground on Stanyan and Rivoli, I think, with steel half-moon backboards, which no one liked, so we played in the schoolyard. We got up a team by the 5th grade, and began playing home and home games with Dudley Stone Elementary on Haight street. The SF Boys Club had a branch in the old Hamilton Methodist Church on Waller st, complete with an indoor gym, where we played some hoops, but it was dangerous with the rusty nails sticking out of the walls. Ernest Ingold, the Chevrolet dealer, put up a lot of money and built us a new Boys' Club on Page St., with a new gym, library, swimming pool, roller skating rink, hobby shop, and a pool and ping pong room. $5 per year dues. It was wonderful. We also had a gym at St Agnes on Page and Masonic, with a boxing ring in the basement. The gym had a great floor and friendly rims, but the walls came almost to the edge of the court, making it tricky to play in.

As to bowling, there was the Park Bowl on Haight street. My uncle was the head of the Southern Pacific Railroad Employee Bowling League, and when I was 7 or 8, he got me to work at the Park Bowl for his league when they bowled there, keeping score, setting pins, and carrying sandwiches for a couple hundred bowlers. I got a dollar a night and a sandwich and a coke, for about 3 hours work. Are we far enough off topic yet?

MSaviolives said:

---

Growing up in Berkeley, we took the bus into San Francisco, most often to see Giants games, which involved transferring onto Muni and winding our way through some not so great neighborhoods, but we did it beginning when I was in 7th grade.

Across from the Transbay Terminal was an arcade, that had adult peep shows. Hilariously, the arcade had a sign outside saying that the peep shows were "For Artists Only," with a paint palette graphic on it. One day, I decided I was an artist of sorts, and ducked in to see what it was all about. I learned more during a dime's worth of footage than I had through an entire semester of Jr High sex ed.

Ah, the good old days.

---

Jr High sex ed? You're just a youngster. I never had the benefit of such a course. I'm sure I would have been kicked out of that class or suspended if they had it at my school I remember in my Junior High, one kid got a hold of a box of condoms, and at a showing of a movie in the auditorium, we blew them up like balloons and tossed them around the room and the teachers abruptly ended the movie, and rounded up some of us and sent us to the principal's office.

SFCityBear said:

---

There was a 6 Masonic bus stop at Willard and Parnassus, where I could catch a bus which would take me down into the Haight Ashbury and stop at Masonic, where I could walk four blocks to Lowell High. If I missed the bus, I'd walk down to Cole Street, and catch the 43 Roosevelt bus, which would drop me off at Masonic and Hayes in front of Lowell. Or I could just walk to Lowell, which took 20-25 minutes. After basketball practice, Coach Neff used to wait for me and make me walk home back up the hills with him. Maybe I told the story before, but I had asthma, and I was afraid of telling him, for fear of him kicking me off the team. After practice at 6PM, I was gassed, so I used to hide out in the little grocery store at the corner of Masonic and Hayes, and wait for the coach to pass by, and then I'd catch the bus home.

Willard and Parnassus was 2 blocks from Poly high, which might had more famous athletes and teams to their credit than any City public school. Across the street from Poly was Kezar Stadium, where my dad told me they used to get 50,000 fans for the Lowell-Poly football game on Thanksgiving, and of course the home of the real SF 49ers. A short walk from there was the Golden Gate Park tennis courts, the home of many great tennis players of national fame.

I don't think my generation was as hardy as my father's. We did a lot of walking and riding buses, but not like them. My dad grew up in the Richmond, on 15th Avenue near Geary, and he used to walk all the way to Seals Stadium to watch the Seals play baseball, and then take the bus and streetcar to get home. I remember the old streetcars, with a driver and also a conductor collecting fares, and they rode outside in an open air compartment, while the passengers sat inside, where it was warmer, on comfortable wooden bench seats, unlike today's Muni buses, which are very cramped and all hard plastic seats. As kids, we used to get a card for 10 rides, at a cost of 50 cents, which the conductor or bus driver punched when we boarded. When I first began to ride the N Judah downtown, at age maybe 6 or 7, my mom made me memorize all the streets, so I would get off at the right one. And most of us juvenile delinquents used to hop on the rear bumper of a streetcar or a trolley bus, and ride as far as we wanted without getting caught. And parents NEVER were allowed to pick up their child after school. If my mother wanted to pick me up at school, I'd arrange to have her meet me at least 4 blocks from school, so no one would see my mother picking me up..

---

I lived in Glen Park for a couple of years on Malta. Glen Park has one of the coolest stations on the system... But I used to love getting off of muni at the Forest Hill Station, which is the oldest subway station west of Chicago, and then taking the 44 O'Shaunessay over to Malta. I always thought that was such a quaint neighborhood, Forest Hill.

I remember the Boys Club. I took swimming lessons there in grade school. The pool/ping pong room was a kick; the tables were segregated by age, with the youngest (my group) having the table with the rips in the felt, etc., while the older kids had the nice ones.

UrsaMajor said:

---

All this reminiscing. As you know I grew up in SF (outer Richmond), but my first place when I moved back here after grad school and post-doc was on the corner of Willard and Parnassus. I recall all of the streets you guys mention (I originally looked at a place on Downey, but don't remember why I didn't take it).

SFCity is correct. I remember when growing up, no one in hs had a car. I used to take muni to Candlestick for Giants games throughout adolescence. Seemed pretty easy in those days.

---

Ursa,

Now you can rent a nice Victorian flat Air Bnb on Downey, for $115 a night. https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/166771?source_impression_id=p3_1583636756_S2lEpfmIkEmydSk3

Oh, how times have changed. I rented my first apartment in the city in Noe Valley on Clipper, a garden studio apartment for $105 per month in 1971. My employer paid me when he got paid, so once I got 3 months behind in my rent. I finally got paid, and walked into the landlord's office with a check for $315, and he asked, "You haven't paid the rent for 3 months?" It was a kinder world back then, too, I think.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

All this reminiscing. As you know I grew up in SF (outer Richmond), but my first place when I moved back here after grad school and post-doc was on the corner of Willard and Parnassus. I recall all of the streets you guys mention (I originally looked at a place on Downey, but don't remember why I didn't take it).

SFCity is correct. I remember when growing up, no one in hs had a car. I used to take muni to Candlestick for Giants games throughout adolescence. Seemed pretty easy in those days.

---

Ursa,

Now you can rent a nice Victorian flat Air Bnb on Downey, for $115 a night. https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/166771?source_impression_id=p3_1583636756_S2lEpfmIkEmydSk3

Oh, how times have changed. I rented my first apartment in the city in Noe Valley on Clipper, a garden studio apartment for $105 per month in 1971. My employer paid me when he got paid, so once I got 3 months behind in my rent. I finally got paid, and walked into the landlord's office with a check for $315, and he asked, "You haven't paid the rent for 3 months?" It was a kinder world back then, too, I think.

---

Although they list it as a Victorian flat, I'm pretty sure that's an Edwardian house. A fireplace in the bedroom sure is a nice touch! I gotta tell you though, $3600 doesn't seem like a bad price for that place.

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

"City of Berkeley may ban cars on part of Telegraph" link? signed, a month later in cupertino

It is interesting. There have been successful ped malls but then a TON of duds (see Sacramento). The key question seems to be.....

A) Do you have sufficient foot traffic most days and times to "activate" the street. If not there is an unvirtuous cycle of vacant retail frontage, people not feeling safe (jane jacobs eyes on the street) and continued declines in activity.

B) How do retailers get deliveries? Malls with alley access work best. Delivery trucks pulling in doen't seem to work because it reduces pedestrian flow - even if just for a momen.

C) Can you landscape and somehow signal to people that it is a closed pedestrian mall. Barricades don't work great. People still stay out of the street.

Lots of good stuff here

https://www.governing.com/columns/urban-notebook/trouble-with-pedestrian-malls.html

But it is City of Berkeley. I have NO DOUBT in their innate and amazing ability to screw things up.

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.

My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.

We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.

I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.

I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.

My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.

---

I don't know which San Francisco you live in, but in the San Francisco I live in, the amount of public space dedicated to car usage is preposterous for such a compact city. The amount of space for bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks is absurdly low compared to the amount of space dedicated to on street parking. The drivers in Cole Valley made such a huge stink about losing a few parking spots that a major N Judah stop at Stanyan street has hundreds of people a day getting on and off with the train doors inches from parked cars instead of a normal sidewalk boarding platform so a few cars can park there all day.

There is no reason the wide through streets like Fell, Oak, Pine, Bush, Franklin, Gough, etc shouldn't have at least one car lane converted to bike only. With e-bikes, you don't even break a sweat going up the hills. Right now, you risk your life biking to work downtown from the outer neighborhoods because there are so few separated bike lanes and a lot of the connections are very unpleasant mixing with raging drivers. I would never bike from the Inner Sunset to downtown but I would if the city actually made it pleasant to do so like in many European cities that have figured out you don't prioritize cars in urban areas. There are so many people that commute within the city to work downtown from areas with good transit that it's simply unbelievable.

Also, those curb cuts on sidewalks that are properly designed are essential. You try pushing a double stroller onto the street and you will never, ever question their value.

---

Dear California Eternal,

Since you are a cyclist, I have a question: Why do so many cyclists (not yourself, hopefully) ignore the vehicle code and blatantly disobey it, committing serious violations? Why, for example, do so many cyclists drive right past STOP signs at intersections, without slowing down? Isn't that almost suicidal?

Last night I nearly killed a cyclist with my car in a San Francisco intersection, and I am still a bit shaken from the experience. I came to the intersection between two busy one lane each way streets, 9th and Kirkham in the Sunset. I made a full stop. I waited until the cars on both sides had passed through the intersection. Then I looked left, looked right, looked left, looked right, and looked left again, and with no vehicles at the stop sign, I cautiously began to accelerate into the intersection. All of a sudden, a bicyclist on a black-painted bike, all dressed in black clothes, at night, traveling at high speed, appeared from behind a car parked immediately to my left on the cross street, and blew right through the stop sign. As quickly as I could for these old reflexes, I slammed on my brakes, and stopped 2-3 feet short of hitting him, and probably killing or maiming him. He rode on down Kirkham in his bike lane, not looking back, perhaps oblivious to what had just almost happened. I though of chasing him down and telling him he nearly got killed, and to please be more careful, but then I thought, no, I'd probably just get myself into a fight with someone 50 years younger than I am, and he would blame me just for trying to drive my car on a street where he was driving his bicycle.

So are cyclists trying to push the envelope with car drivers, or just demand that they be king of the road, or do they have a death wish? Seriously, I'd like to know what you as a cyclist, think about your fellow cyclists, who take big chances like this with their lives? Why are they taking these risks, or do they even know it is a risk to be on a road with cars, even if they are in a bike lane?

I'll appreciate your answer.

SFCB

SFCityBear said:

---

Dear California Eternal,

Since you are a cyclist, I have a question: Why do so many cyclists (not yourself, hopefully) ignore the vehicle code and blatantly disobey it, committing serious violations? Why, for example, do so many cyclists drive right past STOP signs at intersections, without slowing down? Isn't that almost suicidal?

---

This isn't addressed to me but I happen to be an avid cyclist who is appalled at the bad behavior of so many cyclists. I don't understand it but I think adrenaline and lax enforcement might be involved.

Quote:

---

Last night I nearly killed a cyclist with my car in a San Francisco intersection

---

Last night I almost hit someone who ran a red light on a scooter. The scooter was in the bike lane (extreme right) so I didn't see it until it entered the intersection. I was going under 20 mph and came to a (antilock brake assisted) stop a few feet into the intersection. If the scooter had come a second later I would have hit it or it would have hit me. The pilot continued without so much as a swerve or backward glance.

> ..pilot continued without so much as a swerve or backward glance..

speaking out my hat, from the tail end of a loong life, sorry, imo young people just naturally feel immortal, until it happens they're not.
# been there / done that.

The city has jay walkers, bikers going the wrong way, skate boarders, and out of control scooters...and around GG park, a few wobbly roller skaters

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Dear California Eternal,

Since you are a cyclist, I have a question: Why do so many cyclists (not yourself, hopefully) ignore the vehicle code and blatantly disobey it, committing serious violations? Why, for example, do so many cyclists drive right past STOP signs at intersections, without slowing down? Isn't that almost suicidal?

---

This isn't addressed to me but I happen to be an avid cyclist who is appalled at the bad behavior of so many cyclists. I don't understand it but I think adrenaline and lax enforcement might be involved.

Quote:

---

Last night I nearly killed a cyclist with my car in a San Francisco intersection

---

Last night I almost hit someone who ran a red light on a scooter. The scooter was in the bike lane (extreme right) so I didn't see it until it entered the intersection. I was going under 20 mph and came to a (antilock brake assisted) stop a few feet into the intersection. If the scooter had come a second later I would have hit it or it would have hit me. The pilot continued without so much as a swerve or backward glance.

---

I am also wondering if there is a carry-over effect to car drivers, as I seem to be seeing more cars blowing through stop signs as well. When I was learning to drive as a teenager, most people seemed to stop their car at a stop sign (although we used to joke that STOP meant "Slow To Observe Police"), but over the years as law enforcement got lax, and cars got quicker, etc, most drivers, myself included, tended to roll very slowly through stop signs, stopping only when it was not safe to continue, or a policeman was present. But flat out running a stop sign at 25-30 mph was a rarity. Maybe not a rarity now. Making a full stop at a stop sign is now almost a rarity. The tailgater behind me usually gets mad when I do it.

SFCityBear said:

---

I am also wondering if there is a carry-over effect to car drivers, as I seem to be seeing more cars blowing through stop signs as well ...

---

The term "California stop" means slowing down for a stop sign just enough to avoid rolling your car on the right turn. Looking is optional but restricted to your phone.

In Oakland I worry more about occasional cars going through red lights at speed. Here it's is not barely missing the yellow or jumping the green but barreling through in the middle of the red cycle. I see one of those every month or so, enough that I treat green lights like yield signs,

That gave me a chuckle.

I remember a story about the Canseco brothers, Jose and Ozzie, who were at Spring training in Arizona, I think, for the Oakland A's. Jose was notorious for running red lights. The sportscaster Lon Simmons was riding in a car driven by Ozzie Canseco, and Ozzie was blowing through all the red lights at a fast speed. When he came to a green light he slowed down a lot before the intersection, and Simmons asked him why he had slowed down. Ozzie replied that he slowed down for the green light to be safe, because Jose might be coming through the intersection on the cross street.

Speaking of cycling on streets, Berkeley has in a few places (notably Bancroft) enacted one of the dumber plans in which the bike lane abuts the sidewalk with a lane of parking next to the driving lanes (cutting off the bike lane). While this may seem like a good idea, what it does is essentially shield cyclists from view of the traffic (and vice versa). If making a right turn off of Bancroft, it is nearly impossible to see cyclists that might be coming through on your right.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Speaking of cycling on streets, Berkeley has in a few places (notably Bancroft) enacted one of the dumber plans in which the bike lane abuts the sidewalk with a lane of parking next to the driving lanes (cutting off the bike lane). While this may seem like a good idea, what it does is essentially shield cyclists from view of the traffic (and vice versa). If making a right turn off of Bancroft, it is nearly impossible to see cyclists that might be coming through on your right.

---

I tried Bancroft between Dana and Oxford on a bicycle exactly once. I was almost hit by a car making a left turn into a driveway, Now I ride the few blocks between Telegraph and Oxford just outside the bus lane. Oakland has done the same on Telegraph up to 29th St but I don't ride there.

Of course Berkeley being Berkeley couldn't just hide the Bancroft bike lane behind parked cars but also had to put both directions on the south side of the road. You're out of luck if you are heading west and want to make a right turn. Oakland did the same on Broadway near Highway 24 but there it works because there's no parking and they added a bike phase to the signal.

Oakland also replaced 4-way stop signs with circles on Shafter between 51st St and Forest. Plastic pylons near the circles prevent parking but also force bicycles toward the center of the lane. And for some reason they kept stop signs on the side streets but removed them on Shafter, confusing everyone and making it tough to turn onto Shafter. Fortunately that just got fixed, now they're back to 4-way stop signs.

Makes me wonder wonder if traffic engineers ever ride bikes.

stu said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Speaking of cycling on streets, Berkeley has in a few places (notably Bancroft) enacted one of the dumber plans in which the bike lane abuts the sidewalk with a lane of parking next to the driving lanes (cutting off the bike lane). While this may seem like a good idea, what it does is essentially shield cyclists from view of the traffic (and vice versa). If making a right turn off of Bancroft, it is nearly impossible to see cyclists that might be coming through on your right.

---

"Makes me wonder wonder if traffic engineers ever ride bikes."

---

Or walk on sidewalks, or drive cars.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Speaking of cycling on streets, Berkeley has in a few places (notably Bancroft) enacted one of the dumber plans in which the bike lane abuts the sidewalk with a lane of parking next to the driving lanes (cutting off the bike lane). While this may seem like a good idea, what it does is essentially shield cyclists from view of the traffic (and vice versa). If making a right turn off of Bancroft, it is nearly impossible to see cyclists that might be coming through on your right.

---

On JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park, there is the same plan, with the bike lane abutting the curb, and a lane of parking next to the single driving lane. On both sides of the Drive. This is hazardous to everyone. They did not widen the street when they executed this plan, so that the driving lanes for cars are very narrow in both directions, and in some places are not wide enough for large delivery trucks or vans to drive without driving over the centerline. Most normal streets are wide enough so that when someone exits a parked vehicle, a car can pass without hitting person or the door. Now, the driving lane is so narrow, that there is more danger of hitting the person or the door. On the opposite side of the parked car, if someone tries to exit the car, the bicyclist has to be alert not to hit the person or the door, and not injure them, and/or injure the bicyclist himself. Finally, there are a number of crosswalks for pedestrians wishing to cross JFK drive to the other side. These crosswalks all have stop signs for motorists and bicyclists alike. With the lane of parked cars now located out in the street away from the curb, the lead car parked just short of the crosswalk can completely block the diver's view, or the bicyclist's view of shorter pedestrians walking in the crosswalk. To make things worse, the bicyclists seldom, if ever, stop for these stop signs. They just fly right on through. At least I have never seen one stop for any of these pedestrians.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Speaking of cycling on streets, Berkeley has in a few places (notably Bancroft) enacted one of the dumber plans in which the bike lane abuts the sidewalk with a lane of parking next to the driving lanes (cutting off the bike lane). While this may seem like a good idea, what it does is essentially shield cyclists from view of the traffic (and vice versa). If making a right turn off of Bancroft, it is nearly impossible to see cyclists that might be coming through on your right.

---

On JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park, there is the same plan, with the bike lane abutting the curb, and a lane of parking next to the single driving lane. On both sides of the Drive. This is hazardous to everyone. They did not widen the street when they executed this plan, so that the driving lanes for cars are very narrow in both directions, and in some places are not wide enough for large delivery trucks or vans to drive without driving over the centerline. Most normal streets are wide enough so that when someone exits a parked vehicle, a car can pass without hitting person or the door. Now, the driving lane is so narrow, that there is more danger of hitting the person or the door. On the opposite side of the parked car, if someone tries to exit the car, the bicyclist has to be alert not to hit the person or the door, and not injure them, and/or injure the bicyclist himself. Finally, there are a number of crosswalks for pedestrians wishing to cross JFK drive to the other side. These crosswalks all have stop signs for motorists and bicyclists alike. With the lane of parked cars now located out in the street away from the curb, the lead car parked just short of the crosswalk can completely block the diver's view, or the bicyclist's view of shorter pedestrians walking in the crosswalk. To make things worse, the bicyclists seldom, if ever, stop for these stop signs. They just fly right on through. At least I have never seen one stop for any of these pedestrians.

---

This is a perplexing issue. My sense is that bikers are safer with their being moved away from cars.

Drivers or riders in autos should learn to check for bikers or cars before swinging open their doors.

Also, any pedestrian has to assume the worst and proceed with caution when crossing bike or auto traffic lanes...

This thread should probably moved to OT board, but is an interesting one. When considering traffic, these thoughts keep coming to mind:

1. Most road planning and developing was done in the decade or two following WW2. Cars were everything and gas was cheap and environmental impact wasn't a concern.

2. The population was about 1/4 of current levels

3. Any politician that can solve traffic gets my vote and probably everyone else's

4. For more reasons than I can count, Cars will be a diminishing factor in planning going forward. We're probably about 15 years into a 50 year transition, so no need to keep our heads in the sand. There will be many experiments like what Berkeley and other places are doing, until we collectively figure out the best half dozen designs that work.

5. My uncle was born in Manhattan in the 20's. His first job was shoveling Horse Shizz off the streets, before lots of cars were in town. This was Manhattan. In the 20th century. Cars have not always been the center of civilization.

BeachedBear said:

---

This thread should probably moved to OT board, but is an interesting one. When considering traffic, these thoughts keep coming to mind:

1. Most road planning and developing was done in the decade or two following WW2. Cars were everything and gas was cheap and environmental impact wasn't a concern.

2. The population was about 1/4 of current levels

3. Any politician that can solve traffic gets my vote and probably everyone else's

4. For more reasons than I can count, Cars will be a diminishing factor in planning going forward. We're probably about 15 years into a 50 year transition, so no need to keep our heads in the sand. There will be many experiments like what Berkeley and other places are doing, until we collectively figure out the best half dozen designs that work.

5. My uncle was born in Manhattan in the 20's. His first job was shoveling Horse Shizz off the streets, before lots of cars were in town. This was Manhattan. In the 20th century. Cars have not always been the center of civilization.

---

Bit of an exaggeration. SF population in 1950 was about 750,000. Now it's 810,000. US population was around 160,000,000 in 50's and now it's around 330,000,000.

UrsaMajor said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

This thread should probably moved to OT board, but is an interesting one. When considering traffic, these thoughts keep coming to mind:

1. Most road planning and developing was done in the decade or two following WW2. Cars were everything and gas was cheap and environmental impact wasn't a concern.

2. The population was about 1/4 of current levels

3. Any politician that can solve traffic gets my vote and probably everyone else's

4. For more reasons than I can count, Cars will be a diminishing factor in planning going forward. We're probably about 15 years into a 50 year transition, so no need to keep our heads in the sand. There will be many experiments like what Berkeley and other places are doing, until we collectively figure out the best half dozen designs that work.

5. My uncle was born in Manhattan in the 20's. His first job was shoveling Horse Shizz off the streets, before lots of cars were in town. This was Manhattan. In the 20th century. Cars have not always been the center of civilization.

---

Bit of an exaggeration. SF population in 1950 was about 750,000. Now it's 810,000. US population was around 160,000,000 in 50's and now it's around 330,000,000.

---

Ha - I was looking at California, 1950 was about 10 Million and now its about 40 Million. SF has been limited geographically by its 49 sq miles.

south bender said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Speaking of cycling on streets, Berkeley has in a few places (notably Bancroft) enacted one of the dumber plans in which the bike lane abuts the sidewalk with a lane of parking next to the driving lanes (cutting off the bike lane). While this may seem like a good idea, what it does is essentially shield cyclists from view of the traffic (and vice versa). If making a right turn off of Bancroft, it is nearly impossible to see cyclists that might be coming through on your right.

---

On JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park, there is the same plan, with the bike lane abutting the curb, and a lane of parking next to the single driving lane. On both sides of the Drive. This is hazardous to everyone. They did not widen the street when they executed this plan, so that the driving lanes for cars are very narrow in both directions, and in some places are not wide enough for large delivery trucks or vans to drive without driving over the centerline. Most normal streets are wide enough so that when someone exits a parked vehicle, a car can pass without hitting person or the door. Now, the driving lane is so narrow, that there is more danger of hitting the person or the door. On the opposite side of the parked car, if someone tries to exit the car, the bicyclist has to be alert not to hit the person or the door, and not injure them, and/or injure the bicyclist himself. Finally, there are a number of crosswalks for pedestrians wishing to cross JFK drive to the other side. These crosswalks all have stop signs for motorists and bicyclists alike. With the lane of parked cars now located out in the street away from the curb, the lead car parked just short of the crosswalk can completely block the diver's view, or the bicyclist's view of shorter pedestrians walking in the crosswalk. To make things worse, the bicyclists seldom, if ever, stop for these stop signs. They just fly right on through. At least I have never seen one stop for any of these pedestrians.

---

This is a perplexing issue. My sense is that bikers are safer with their being moved away from cars.

Drivers or riders in autos should learn to check for bikers or cars before swinging open their doors.

Also, any pedestrian has to assume the worst and proceed with caution when crossing bike or auto traffic lanes...

---

All good points, Southbender.

I think pedestrians may be more at risk from cars than bikers. I wish there were a way to keep them safer with a barricade of sorts, but the expense would be enormous. They are safer on streets where cars are parked in a long row, but not safe from bicyclists and other motorized vehicles which ride on sidewalks, illegally. There is no way to protect them from crossing the street at an intersection, short of a footbridge above or tunnel below. Stop signs and stop lights are no longer having full intended effect of protecting pedestrians.

When I began riding a bike in the 1950's, we had to get a license from the county. My parents made me take traffic lessons from a famous bike racer, Ernie Ohrt, who had a shop on Stanyan street. He said that most bicyclist injuries take place when someone opens a car door, and told me to pay special attention to parked cars, because one could open at any time with no warning.

My gripe, if I have one, is that other than the general selfish attitude of today of just choosing which laws we want to obey, I decry the tilting of the scales by city governments to give more protection to someone who chooses to take the risk of riding a bicycle in a crowded city, forcing car drivers to behave in a certain way, while bicyclists in general won't reciprocate by obeying laws which protect pedestrians, such as not riding on pedestrian footpaths, where they make themselves a hazard to any who walk there.

UrsaMajor said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

This thread should probably moved to OT board, but is an interesting one. When considering traffic, these thoughts keep coming to mind:

1. Most road planning and developing was done in the decade or two following WW2. Cars were everything and gas was cheap and environmental impact wasn't a concern.

2. The population was about 1/4 of current levels

3. Any politician that can solve traffic gets my vote and probably everyone else's

4. For more reasons than I can count, Cars will be a diminishing factor in planning going forward. We're probably about 15 years into a 50 year transition, so no need to keep our heads in the sand. There will be many experiments like what Berkeley and other places are doing, until we collectively figure out the best half dozen designs that work.

5. My uncle was born in Manhattan in the 20's. His first job was shoveling Horse Shizz off the streets, before lots of cars were in town. This was Manhattan. In the 20th century. Cars have not always been the center of civilization.

---

Bit of an exaggeration. SF population in 1950 was about 750,000. Now it's 810,000. US population was around 160,000,000 in 50's and now it's around 330,000,000.

---

For the sake of accuracy, the Census says the population of SF in 1950 was 775,000. That was actually a high point, as the population of SF grew by a large amount, from 634,000 in 1940. I suspect that the increase was largely due to the war effort, with additional military, and support personnel, and opening of shipyards in the Bay Area. By 1980, the Census showed that the population of SF had dropped steadily to 679,000 . From there, it grew to 879,000 by 2020.

At Cal in about 1962, I had a Civil Engineering roomie who said he was being taught in a class on traffic, that freeways were designed to be 20 years ahead of the current freeways of the day, and by the time they were built and operating, they were already out of date.

The only time I ever had an accident on a bicycle was when I was obeying the law, and was stopped in the left lane on Stanyan st., with my arm out signalling for a left-hand turn. I was hit by a car from behind, travelling at a high speed, and it threw me 50-60 feet, and I would have been thrown clear with no big injury, except the bike came with me, and the handlebar was stuck in my left shoulder. The driver said he didn't see me. He even convinced my parents that I had hit him, and they paid for a new paint job for his old clunker. I wish I'd known Bearister or Oaktown back then to get them to represent me. I tore all the ligaments or tendons in my shoulder (I don't remember which) and had my left arm in a sling for 2-3 months. I had just begun playing basketball, and the way we chose sides was by shooting free throws, and I had to shoot them one-handed. After a few days, I got so I could make the free throws, but nobody wanted me on their team, because as a basketball player, I'd be useless. So I never got to play. It was my desire to play ball again that fueled my recovery. This is my feeble attempt to move the thread back on topic, which is supposed to be basketball.

UrsaMajor said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

This thread should probably moved to OT board, but is an interesting one. When considering traffic, these thoughts keep coming to mind:

1. Most road planning and developing was done in the decade or two following WW2. Cars were everything and gas was cheap and environmental impact wasn't a concern.

2. The population was about 1/4 of current levels

3. Any politician that can solve traffic gets my vote and probably everyone else's

4. For more reasons than I can count, Cars will be a diminishing factor in planning going forward. We're probably about 15 years into a 50 year transition, so no need to keep our heads in the sand. There will be many experiments like what Berkeley and other places are doing, until we collectively figure out the best half dozen designs that work.

5. My uncle was born in Manhattan in the 20's. His first job was shoveling Horse Shizz off the streets, before lots of cars were in town. This was Manhattan. In the 20th century. Cars have not always been the center of civilization.

---

Bit of an exaggeration. SF population in 1950 was about 750,000. Now it's 810,000. US population was around 160,000,000 in 50's and now it's around 330,000,000.

---

That's the resident population only. The total population grows to 2,000,000+ during the week.

south bender said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Speaking of cycling on streets, Berkeley has in a few places (notably Bancroft) enacted one of the dumber plans in which the bike lane abuts the sidewalk with a lane of parking next to the driving lanes (cutting off the bike lane). While this may seem like a good idea, what it does is essentially shield cyclists from view of the traffic (and vice versa). If making a right turn off of Bancroft, it is nearly impossible to see cyclists that might be coming through on your right.

---

On JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park, there is the same plan, with the bike lane abutting the curb, and a lane of parking next to the single driving lane. On both sides of the Drive. This is hazardous to everyone. They did not widen the street when they executed this plan, so that the driving lanes for cars are very narrow in both directions, and in some places are not wide enough for large delivery trucks or vans to drive without driving over the centerline. Most normal streets are wide enough so that when someone exits a parked vehicle, a car can pass without hitting person or the door. Now, the driving lane is so narrow, that there is more danger of hitting the person or the door. On the opposite side of the parked car, if someone tries to exit the car, the bicyclist has to be alert not to hit the person or the door, and not injure them, and/or injure the bicyclist himself. Finally, there are a number of crosswalks for pedestrians wishing to cross JFK drive to the other side. These crosswalks all have stop signs for motorists and bicyclists alike. With the lane of parked cars now located out in the street away from the curb, the lead car parked just short of the crosswalk can completely block the diver's view, or the bicyclist's view of shorter pedestrians walking in the crosswalk. To make things worse, the bicyclists seldom, if ever, stop for these stop signs. They just fly right on through. At least I have never seen one stop for any of these pedestrians.

---

This is a perplexing issue. My sense is that bikers are safer with their being moved away from cars.

Drivers or riders in autos should learn to check for bikers or cars before swinging open their doors.

Also, any pedestrian has to assume the worst and proceed with caution when crossing bike or auto traffic lanes...

---

Yes, it safer away from cars except at intersections, so the parking lane needs to end earlier it sounds like so that bicycles aren't popping out of a blind.

Drivers need to learn to check - well, if wishes were fishes...

I was a pretty hardcore vehicular cyclist and used to be pretty against separate facilities, but speeds and distractions have both gone up and the disparity in speeds creates conflicts whether it is bikes and peds, or bikes and cars.

south bender said:

---

Drivers or riders in autos should learn to check for bikers or cars before swinging open their doors.

---

One easy method: Get used to opening the driver's door with your right hand. That will almost force you to look at the side mirror.