I dunno. The fixie hipster/messenger-wannabe crowd in SF has seemingly gotten worse and worse the last few years. "If I'm not gonna get respected by drivers, I don't give a crap about others and the rules" is the mindset I feel they've adopted.
I was driving at speed limit, slowly passing a taxi on Harrison a few weeks back, and saw two fixies ahead a block away in the right lane, riding abreast. Mind you, this is a 5-lane, one way street, and I'm on the fourth lane to the left. Approaching them, they both shoulder checked, we had eye contact, and I was already almost parallel to them, passing.
Bam, five seconds later, one of them decides to not even look and cut straight across me to the left lane, causing me to lock my brakes. Pissed, but thinking "whatever" I start again... only to have the other guy do the exact same thing. Both times I hit the brakes loud enough to break loose the tires a bit.
BOTH of them flip me the bird.
BOTH of them have tell-tale white earbuds of 'listening to the tunes'
BOTH of them have no brakes, gears, helmet.
As a motorist, I found it almost amusing to think that if one of them ended up under my car, I'd have easily walked away with my description of the situation.
As a cyclist, I feel these f'heads end up escalating the anger motorists and pedestrians have for cyclists in general.
I am not running a single red light or stop sign for the next month.
But I don't think SF cyclists are any better or worse than any other area. I like to say that I see a lot of dumbasses, but usually riders are paying attention and only break the law when it is safe.
The only notable story is one time I was waiting at a light on Van Ness & Market and I saw a fixie run the red and cut off literally 6 lanes of traffic. He didn't notice the cop stopped next to me and the po-po went right after him.
This reminds me of that incident down in Capitola/SC a few weeks ago. Kid on a skateboard blew through an intersection, hit some old lady, and I think she had life-threatening injuries too.
Sad life. Self-entitled dumbasses, drunk-driving towners, lack of "common" sense....
Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
Please someone explain to me (and others) how to insert a screen captured quote as my sig. line. TIA.
This reminds me of that incident down in Capitola/SC a few weeks ago. Kid on a skateboard blew through an intersection, hit some old lady, and I think she had life-threatening injuries too.
She sadly died. Why not ditch the board and sustain the road rash and possible broken bones instead of killing someone.
But I don't think SF cyclists are any better or worse than any other area. I like to say that I see a lot of dumbasses, but usually riders are paying attention and only break the law when it is safe.
Hmmm... I could agree about cyclists here being no worse than in other places, but I don't think I'm with you on that bolded part of your statement. Cyclists are clearly the most vulnerable participants in city traffic in terms of crash protection/survivability, yet they are the ones exhibiting the highest level of risky behavior and recklessness by far. This is mystifying to me. It's inexplicable when you think of it that way. (And it makes me respect natural selection that much more...)
Seriously, I think there could be a good topic for some serious psychological research somewhere in there for figuring this out. I usually observe that the safer the vehicle in traffic is to its own operator (usually meaning "the more heavyweight"), the more responsible and safe is the behavior of its driver. I wonder if this is an indication that your recklessness is a function of the perception of how much damage your mistakes would cause to others, rather than to yourself. A cyclist might be thinking "if I screw up, I'm the one who gets hurt; and I know I'm good enough not to get hurt", whereas a truck driver might be thinking "if I screw up, I could flatten a dozen other people, so I'd better be extra cautious".
Of course, the perception of that cyclist in that hypothesis is not exactly accurate: If a cyclist screws up and causes some vehicles to slam on the brakes or swerve, the chain reaction from that could involve vehicles of any size in a serious accident.
Years ago when I worked in the city, I would either park @ Daly City (or Colma) BART and bike in through the bay mouth, or up in Twin Peaks and bike down Market. I never worried about the cars, they seemed to respect the bikers. The two most dangerous elements were -- other bikers and MUNI.
At least, back then, I felt like a few bikers were more aggressive/flagrant in the city than other areas I would ride.
At least, back then, I felt like a few bikers were more aggressive/flagrant in the city than other areas I would ride.
I also wonder if part of this is stemming from a perception by bikers of "I'm constantly getting wronged in traffic; if I start behaving aggressively and obnoxiously, maybe then I might start getting some respect".
I'm honestly trying to figure this one out. The behavior of some bikers in the city are fascinatingly nonsensical!
Hmmm... I could agree about cyclists here being no worse than in other places, but I don't think I'm with you on that bolded part of your statement. Cyclists are clearly the most vulnerable participants in city traffic in terms of crash protection/survivability, yet they are the ones exhibiting the highest level of risky behavior and recklessness by far. This is mystifying to me. It's inexplicable when you think of it that way. (And it makes me respect natural selection that much more...)
Seriously, I think there could be a good topic for some serious psychological research somewhere in there for figuring this out. I usually observe that the safer the vehicle in traffic is to its own operator (usually meaning "the more heavyweight"), the more responsible and safe is the behavior of its driver. I wonder if this is an indication that your recklessness is a function of the perception of how much damage your mistakes would cause to others, rather than to yourself. A cyclist might be thinking "if I screw up, I'm the one who gets hurt; and I know I'm good enough not to get hurt", whereas a truck driver might be thinking "if I screw up, I could flatten a dozen other people, so I'd better be extra cautious".
Of course, the perception of that cyclist in that hypothesis is not exactly accurate: If a cyclist screws up and causes some vehicles to slam on the brakes or swerve, the chain reaction from that could involve vehicles of any size in a serious accident.
Or just due to the fact that bikes are smaller and way more agile than even the smallest car on the streets? Also, it's pretty irritating to wait at an intersection on a bike and have some cars pass you as they accelerate, only to pass them back up at the light and repeat the whole intersection acceleration sequence again.
I've seen plenty of truck and bus drivers pulling dangerous maneuvers in traffic. It's just that they're so large that it makes it seem much less a dangerous stunt than pulling rank and bullying their way through traffic.
Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
Please someone explain to me (and others) how to insert a screen captured quote as my sig. line. TIA.
Or just due to the fact that bikes are smaller and way more agile than even the smallest car on the streets? [...]
I've seen plenty of truck and bus drivers pulling dangerous maneuvers in traffic. It's just that they're so large that it makes it seem much less a dangerous stunt than pulling rank and bullying their way through traffic.
There's probably some of that, too.
But, even when you reduce the comparison to just cars and cyclists and the amount of responsible behavior observed from each (and there are plenty of small and fast cars in traffic that could move just as zippily and recklessly as cyclists), it's hard to dispute the fact that if as large a proportion of car drivers behaved as recklessly as do the corresponding proportion of cyclists, then SF traffic would have been a blood bath every single day.
But, even when you reduce the comparison to just cars and cyclists and the amount of responsible behavior observed from each (and there are plenty of small and fast cars in traffic that could move just as zippily and recklessly as cyclists), it's hard to dispute the fact that if as large a proportion of car drivers behaved as recklessly as do the corresponding proportion of cyclists, then SF traffic would have been a blood bath every single day.
Totally agreed.... *Shudder....
Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
Please someone explain to me (and others) how to insert a screen captured quote as my sig. line. TIA.
Spent the day in SF driving for work, share the road is out the window, I honestly nearly had a breakdown from all the *******s on cycles winding around me. doing their stupid skidding ****, more than a couple ran into other cars or hit them (with their hands)... just ridiculous.
I've driven downtown san jose daily for the better part of 6 months, during SJSUs peak commute hours ETC, nothing will compare to that miserable monday.
This is just stupid...and the people who so blatantly go through intersections against lights are stupid..or have a death wish. It is bad enough that cyclists that ride this way have no regard for their own lives (and the cost to all of us of putting their bodies back together) but to put others at risk is just makes me sick to think about it.
This poor woman could have been any one of us...or worse our wife, or daughter or son, mother or father. It just doesnt make any sense why people have such disregard for others
Originally Posted by XC62701
Agreed...make it longer. I want to know death is an option
1) In big, busy cities, it's almost certain that cross traffic is coming when they have the green light. In some areas, there are times of day when the lights serve more purpose than others. I see a lot of cyclists do stupid things around here too (N. Oakland), but I do not see the aggro speed through crowded spaces that I see in S.F. The idiocy here is of a different sort -- how and when to cross intersections, mostly. I don't agree that all cyclists need to stop at every stop sign; context is everything. Ultimately, it's as simple as "If something is, or will likely be, in your way, slow down, stop or even get out of the way as needed." But the ability to see it, or predict it seems lost on many cyclists (and many more drivers, as well). The context in S.F. often seems similar to that of crotch-rocketeers on Skyline Rd(s) -- some read it well and respond accordingly, keeping safe speeds & safe distances. Others, not so much. Reading some interesting stuff about how adolescents assess or don't assess risk (book called Nurture Shock), and a lot of what is described sounds a lot like how I used to act and drive before I turned 18 (or 20?). Some of the things I see grown adults doing on bicycles makes me wonder.
I have no other information about the accident mentioned in the paper. Do we know it was a "hipster," or a fixie? I thought "they" dumped their fixies because it turned too trendy 2-3 years ago, and started riding old ten-speeds instead, no? Might it have been one of the roadies that don't know how to share space on the West side of the GGB? Maybe a guy in a suit on a fold up bike? I too am glad the cyclist stopped, and I too hope the victim heals quickly.
I dunno. The fixie hipster/messenger-wannabe crowd in SF has seemingly gotten worse and worse the last few years. "If I'm not gonna get respected by drivers, I don't give a crap about others and the rules" is the mindset I feel they've adopted.
etc...
Yeah, some of those guys ride like total tools, it's true. But the bike in the article is a triple crank road bike-- looks like an '11 Bianchi Brava or '10 Imola.
...so it sort of shows that non-fixie riders are equally guilty of dumb-a$$ traffic habits.
At least they stayed at the scene.
"I think it's cool how the best line is also usually the most beautiful line" --Kurt F, Tamarancho, Safety Meeting
I have no other information about the accident mentioned in the paper. Do we know it was a "hipster," or a fixie? I thought "they" dumped their fixies because it turned too trendy 2-3 years ago, and started riding old ten-speeds instead, no? Might it have been one of the roadies that don't know how to share space on the West side of the GGB? Maybe a guy in a suit on a fold up bike? I too am glad the cyclist stopped, and I too hope the victim heals quickly.
A
I was going to say something about this. Why are people assuming he is a hipster because it was in San Francisco? They show his bike around 1:20 and they show him around 1:35 in the video but did everyone watch it before making the hipster judgement?
I think most of you guys have it totally wrong. The article says the "northbound" Embarcadero was closed and that the accident happened at Mission St. Which makes me think that the cyclist ran the light because it was a T-intersection and he wouldn't actually be crossing any car traffic since he was in the bike lane. I do that all the time and I bet most of you do too. His mistake was forgetting to watch for pedestrians.
Not to blame the victim, but even when you have the right of way, you should ALWAYS look both ways when crossing the street. You may have had the right of way, but if a car runs the light, you are dead.
While we are venting, I see too many pedestrians in SF jaywalking without even looking, often with their heads down texting on their phones. Talk about trusting in the kindness of strangers!
I was going to say something about this. Why are people assuming he is a hipster because it was in San Francisco? They show his bike around 1:20 and they show him around 1:35 in the video but did everyone watch it before making the hipster judgement?
I did watch. He looked like a punk-ass wannabe with his flipped-up lid.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
Originally Posted by erik1245
