Haters

COLD BEER COLD WATER ARRESTED

Prison bars are simulated (via MSpaint)

Outrage! At 12:54 on Saturday, Dolores Park icon James (aka “Cold Beer, Cold Water” aka “Cold Beer Dude” aka Dad?) was needlessly busted by The Man.  Seriously.

Joe Kowalke was on the scene and witnessed it all go down:

It was sunny and close to 80 degrees on Saturday and Dolores Park was packed. Cold Beer was maneuvering his way through the Fruit Shelf announcing what he had for sale - Cold Beer. Cops who were watching from atop the Shelf took note. They approached him and asked him to join them at the squad car double parked on 19th Street. He was handcuffed and taken away.

The same thing happened to a hippy girl selling Jell-O shots to raise funds for the upcoming AIDS Lifecycle.

SFPD priorities.

PD Bird (we're using birds as sources now? fuck) also chatted with James and got some details:

James came up to me and told me and showed me a citation to appear in court. “For sale PBR.”  He was pretty bummed, they walked up to him and told him to come with them, then cuffed him at car and took him to 17th, released with that citation.  I told him to maybe play it low, he said that he was going to just sell water.

Water? Fuck that shit.

But seriously, James has to be one of the most non-violent bartenders in the Mission.  And how many times has he saved our ass from a trek to the corner store when we're in a deep people-watching trance?

Are we really going to let this shit stand?

#FREECBCW

[Original Pic by Mission Mission]

Mr. Dipshit

Mr. Mission Competition Promoters Happen to be Homophobic

I’ve been receiving some flack for calling the Mr. Mission Competition (which also happens to be a fundraiser for the respectable Leukemia Lymphoma Society) “obnoxious.”  The argument, as it has been argued, is that it’s a fundraiser for cancer research, so the organizers deserve a pass no matter how lame of an idea it might be.  CLASH SF’s illustrator, Stacey Toth, even went so far as to draw up a lovely illustration depicting me as a monkey under the headline “People Like to be Mean.”

And maybe they’re right.  Maybe an awkward, highly-suspect competition run by bros and burners and marketing types deserves that pass because it’s raising money for a good cause.  And if my criticism was in any way interpreted as discouraging people from donating to cancer research, I offer my sincerest apologies.

However, when the promoters essentially call people ‘faggots’ for criticizing them, it gives me pause.  Are these people really noble do-gooders hoping to rid the world of cancer, one questionable event at the time? Or are they just out-of-touch, backwards-thinking homophobic pricks capitalizing on a culture for self-promotion?

I’ll leave you to be the judge of that.

C.W. Nevius Changes Course, Perpetuates Prejudice Toward Bicyclists

Chronicle writer C.W. Nevius can't seem to make up his mind.

In July, Nevius penned an ode to the Wiggle — the popular bike path that is the only reasonable way for cyclists to move from the east side of town to the west without climbing up and over a giant hill. In the July piece, Nevius claimed to have a conversion experience while riding the Wiggle, suddenly realizing that “bikes are the future,” and that recognizing this “cultural shift… means letting go of the old angry biker model.” Given the revelation that bikes are an inevitable part of any 21st century city, Nevius further proclaims “it's time for us all to start getting along — bikers, walkers, and drivers” and quotes a citizen saying, “Needless antagonism doesn't help anybody.”

This was of course a welcome message to the city's community of bicyclists, the vast majority of whom are mild-mannered, considerate riders simply trying to move around the urban landscape in a safe and efficient manner, and, yes, one that is also better for their body and for the planet as a whole. For years, bicyclists have suffered the indignation of being unjustly portrayed as a group of people who are reckless, insolent, and dangerous on the road — adjectives that can only be fairly applied to the very worst of the cycling community. That someone who as recently as 2009 wrote a piece entitled “A bike-friendly SF? Don't hold your breath” was now coming out against the “needless antagonism” and downright bigotry regularly directed at cyclists made this call for sanity particularly encouraging.

Unfortunately, Nevius' moment of clarity seems to have been particularly short-lived. Last week Nevius saw occasion to write not one, but two negative articles about the Wiggle and the community of cyclists who use it.

The first piece was published on Tuesday and focused on the “vociferous” reaction from the bicycle community at the sting operation along the Wiggle which featured the SFPD “improving safety” by ticketing cyclists who don't come to full stops while taking right turns in completely vacant intersections. Instead of taking the opportunity to explore the chasm between the ad hoc laws the city has imposed on cyclists (i.e. treating them as automobiles when they clearly are not) and the safe, reasonable manner in which thousands of cyclists actually use the streets (i.e. treating stop signs as yield signs — a solution reasonable enough for the progressive hotbed of Idaho to adopt it as state law), Nevius followed up his dismay at the “touchiness” of the bicycling community by unfairly perpetuating negative stereotypes in his highlighting of the “speed racer” cyclist and the guy texting while cycling instead of the 90-95% of the cycling community that is riding with the utmost respect for other users of the public right-of-ways.

When his Tuesday article generated such a strong response, Nevius decided to write another article on the Wiggle, this time taking the highly unusual step of actually going out and doing some research on his topic. Showing that he himself is not immune to exhibiting exaggerated touchiness in response to criticism, Nevius ratcheted up the very “needless antagonism” he once derided by deciding, apparently mid-week, that the Wiggle was no longer in need of capitalizing (demonstrating the height of pettiness), and then proceeding to claim that riders of the Wiggle regularly “steam through the stop signs, swoop around corners, and scatter pedestrians in the crosswalk.” If that weren't enough, Nevius would have us believe that the average Wiggle rider will “often” verbally berate pedestrians by yelling “Fuck you. Mind your own business” as they ride by.

I applaud Nevius for getting out on the Wiggle and spending five whole minutes doing research on the activity of Wiggle riders. And I don't doubt that of the 19 bikers that came through the intersection of Waller and Steiner that only one stopped at the stop sign. What I do reject is his claim that those 18 bikers who didn't stop are dangerous and each one represents a “potential accident.” Let us examine this disconnect.

Obviously the biggest problem here is the traffic code itself. I think we can all agree a bike is not an automobile. Owing to this, bikes and automobiles are often expected to follow different laws (cyclists can ride in bike lanes, cars cannot; people under the age of 13 can ride a bike on the sidewalk or the street but they cannot drive a car anywhere until age 16; etc). However, when it comes to stop signs, the bicycle is expected to follow the exact same rules as a car, despite the fact that they operate very differently and pose very different levels of risk. The simple fact is stop signs should be treated as yield signs for cyclists, something that occurs de facto hundreds of thousands of times every day in San Francisco without incident and has been a successful law for almost 30 years in the state of Idaho.

The second biggest problem in this situation is the very small minority of cyclists who seem to not understand the concept of yielding the right-of-way. These people do in fact exist. They represent about 5-10 percent of the total cycling population, and pedestrians and drivers are not alone in being upset with them.

Cyclists themselves have particular contempt for this small faction of riders because they contribute to the third problem in this scenario, namely that there are a great number of people — pedestrian, driver, cyclist and Nevius among them — who equate the actions of this very small minority of riders with the entire bicycling community. The reality is that at least 90% of the riders of the Wiggle do in fact yield to pedestrians. Unfortunately, the unpleasantness of the occasional jerk on a bicycle naturally overshadows the vast majority of experiences when bicyclists behave just as they should — and a headline of “95% of Cyclists Excellent Riders” doesn't help much in the way of selling newspapers.

What was particularly discouraging about Nevius' article, other than his hit-piece being preceded by his sensible admonition to “let go of the old angry biker model,” is that he ends the editorial by suggesting that “the more accommodations the city makes for bicyclists the more entitled the riders become,” a claim that has been proven over and over again to be the exact opposite of the truth. In reality, the more you actually consider the experience of the bicycle rider and plan the streets with some modicum of awareness of their existence and proliferation, the more you will see a respect for the rule of law amongst cyclists and an improved street experience for everyone, particularly pedestrians (hint for the gentleman who “plays peek-a-boo” with cyclists: you have to do that because a car is parked too close to the intersection, not because people ride bikes. Try contacting the MTA to have the spot removed).

Garbage laws engender garbage behavior: when you deem by law that every cyclists must come to a full stop at every stop sign regardless of the situation, you're going to get a scoff-law attitude because that law doesn't truly reflect what it takes to safely ride a bike. If you change the law while putting in some basic bike infrastructure so cyclists don't have to rely on their own wits just to keep from getting run over on Oak Street, then you will start to see cyclists being less aggressive and holding each other to a higher standard.

Of course Nevius isn't interested in solutions to the problem — he's only interested in cultivating more comments on his articles. Last week's second op-ed yielded over 230 comments within 24 hours, the majority of which are characterized by misinformed, vile hatred and some of which openly call for unprovoked lethal violence to cyclists. Nevius is clearly aware of this effect — after all, it was the strong reaction that compelled him to write his second piece.

Now he has a choice to make: either he can heed the advice of July-C.W. Nevius and publish a retraction of his latest contribution to “needless antagonism” and the false perpetuation of the “angry biker model” or he can continue to throw misinformed gasoline on the raging fire of the perceived conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.

Here's hoping that C.W. Nevius remembers what he realized in July — that bicycles are not only the future, but, for those of us who are aware of climate change, soon-to-be $5 gallons of gas, and impending economic crisis, bicycles are an essential part of the present. It is in all our interests to maintain a healthy, respectful dialogue and work together to help stamp out the small group of cyclists who are inconsiderate on the road. More bicycles means a more efficient Muni, more open parking spaces for those who can afford a car, a healthier more active citizenry, and less carbon in the atmosphere heating up our planet.

But we aren't going to stand around and wait for Nevius' apology — to borrow a phrase: A bike-friendly S.F. Chronicle columnist? We're not holding our breath.

[photo by David Gartner]

This Deranged Sourpuss Cut Down Valencia's Beloved Tree Swing

According to SFist and the Brass Knuckle Food Truck, taker of the above photos, this shitty Lucille Bluth wannabe cut down the beloved tree swing at 19th and Valencia with a box cutter yesterday afternoon, only to then call the cops on the hordes of outraged onlookers, whom she allegedly felt very threatened by.

Reportedly after this box cutter-wielding crazyperson chewed out the swing's defenders, calling them “occupiers” and suggesting they get a shave (perhaps a nice rose-water-and-eucalyptus-infused shave with a neck and hand massage down the street?), the cops let both the tree swing hater and its “harassing” supporters go, citing his unfamiliarity with tree swing laws.

Another day for justice…

[SFist | Mission Mission]

And This is What SFPD Busting Up a Rad Time Looks Like

sftlltr just posted a bunch of photos of SFPD cracking down on October's “bouncy ball party turned street melee” (as SF Appeal dubbed it, anyway) on 24th St.  A little refresher:

According to SFPD spokesperson Officer Albie Esparza, who to his credit confirmed my questions about this incident as professionally and seriously as he does those of far more significant crimes, SFPD received calls reporting a “melee” at the 2900 block of 24th Street at 1:15 AM on October 23rd.

Callers reported “150 subjects in a physical and verbal fight in street,” says Esparza. When “multiple officers” from both the Bayview and Mission stations arrived at the scene, they discovered that there was indeed a crowd on the street, “due to an over-capacity party.” […]

Esparza confirms that when police arrived, the bouncy balls were still in play, and that when SFPD attempted to detain one party goer who, after the order to disperse was given, still attempted to “push his way back into the premises…the crowd turned on police and turned hostile, with people from the crowd throwing plastic balls and bottles at the police.”

Of course, the pictures seem to tell a bit of a different story…

[sftlltr / SF Appeal]

Pages