Bicycles

Geico Believes Cyclists Are At Fault For Being Doored

— By Erika Kali |

Cyclist? Sorry 'bout it

As cyclists in this city know, getting doored happens more often that you think it does. Just last weekend our very own fearless blogger KevMo was doored by taxi on Sanchez St, which resulted in a swollen knee and a higher than usual bar tab later that night. I was doored by SFPD on my birthday 2 years ago. Commuters and messengers get doored on Market street on a weekly basis. But not everyone walks away with only minor injuries and a dented front wheel when they get doored. Recently, San Francisco resident Melissa Moore had a harrowing experience on Polk Street which left her in immense pain. As she told Streetsblog:

Just before 9am, I was going east on McAllister about to turn left onto Polk Street. I waited for a car to take a right onto Polk before I made my turn. About halfway up the block, the car pulled into the bike lane in front of me and then parked (despite the fact that there was an available driveway less than 10 feet in front of him). I maneuvered out into the street to circumvent the car. When I reached the driver side, he swung open his door into my bike. (I later learned that the door caught my right pedal.) I crashed into the street, pretzeled with my bike. There was a white flash and a feeling of something snapping, then darkness. I heard muffled voices asking if I was okay. Unable to speak or move for a couple minutes, I searched for my breath and assessed if the snapping was my spine breaking. It hurt immensely and I expressed that to the anonymous voices. The driver asked if I wanted him to call the police and I said “yes.” Then I felt hands on me, pulling me up off the ground.

Melissa goes on to recount when the police came, her going to the hospital, etc., but the worst is what happened when she filed a claim with the drivers insurance company, Geico. They claimed that she was 20% at fault in this accident because, as Geico puts it, she “failed to control [her] speed in order to avoid an accident and lost control of [her] bicycle.”

Let that sink in for a minute. A cyclist, going uphill on Polk street, failed to control her speed, and crashed into a door.

I don't personally know Melissa, so I don't know how fast she is on a bike or how strong a of climber she is, but I'm betting that she did not accelerate into the door while sprinting uphill on her mountain bike. And I know that I am not wrong because there is a video of the entire accident. Watch for yourself:

As you can see, she suddenly accelerates to Lance Armstrong on EPO speeds and completely rips off the drivers side door due to the force of the impact, all while screaming HULK SMASH. Or at least that's what Geico sees this as. Unbelievable.

I'd also like to point out that California Vehicle Code 22517, as mentioned in the Streetsblog article, is very ambiguous. While the code states that you cannot open your car door into traffic unless it's safe to do so, it offers no protection for cyclists who have to weave in and out of traffic because of drivers that do stop in the bike lane, taxi or private car. It does, however, does apply when a cyclist is riding to the right of the car in a non-designated bike lane, like on Market St.  This law was made to protect cyclists, but it cannot protect cyclists in all situations, so what could be changed to better protect cyclists like Melissa and everyone else who rides bikes?

[Streetsblog]

Zipcar's Bold Stand On Bike Parking

— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |

When it was announced last month that Avis was buying Zipcar for half an Instagram, I couldn't help but (briefly) wonder what their contribution to the ride-sharing service would be.  Now we have a little bit of a hint: a nice, light sprinkling of “no bike parking” signage around the Mission!

While it instinctively seems 'pretty fucking dick' to be down on bikes in one of the most bike-friendly neighborhoods in a remarkably bike-friendly city, it does make pretty sound marketing sense.  After all, it's pretty rude to remind their customer's that their business will be obsolete once we run out of oil.  Or something.

[Photo by Zaius]

Biking of Divisadero: Dick Move

— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |

I've always found biking along Divis to be quite nice, actually.  It's got a vibrant street life, only a semi-spoiled array of shops and businesses, folks hanging out at the Mojo Bicycle Cafe parklet, traffic moving at a seasoned commuter's pace—plus, it's one of the flatter ways to get to… Lower Pac Heights?

But, see, Divisadero doesn't have a bike lane. So the nay-saying rabblerousers at the SF Weekly aren't so down, writing that while intentionally running over a cyclist marginally inconveniencing Divisadero's traffic is illegal, that rider is committing the very worst of all bro crimes: a dick move.

“So if I'm driving down Divisadero,” [my dumbass friend] said, setting the scene from her previous afternoon, “And there's a bicyclist pedaling in front of me, and she's going really slowly along the entire length of the street, and there's a line of cars forming behind me, and there's traffic speeding by to our left, and the bicyclist has planted herself in the middle of the lane, and there's a perfectly good bike lane just a few blocks over — it still my fault if I accidentally run her over?”

I like to think of myself as a fair-minded person and, in any event, I am conflict-averse above all. So, after careful consideration, I responded to her question as dispassionately as possible, with one of my own:

“Do you mean, legally or morally?”

Damn.  I was thinking “You're a goddamn psychopath! Go surrender your license to the authorities! Seriously, I'm downgrading you to 'acquaintance' on Facebook” would have been a slam dunk.  Then again, not everyone spent their formative teenage years spitting at Hummers that carelessly edged them off New England's narrow roads.

But our fair-minded SF Weekly columnist gently explained—as to not upset his jumpy friend—that, no, you can't just (legally) drive over a person riding a bike.  But he did concede in the court of public opinion:

Obviously, I don't know the cyclist who was slowing down my coworker. Maybe she had a perfectly good reason to be moseying down the full length of one of the busiest thoroughfares in the city. But given that she had the alternative of a quieter street with a bike path within a few blocks ride and given that there was a line of cars cropping up behind her waiting to get by, I will join my coworker in pronouncing that choice to be both absolutely within a cyclist's legal rights and kind of a dick move.

And now you know.

[Photo by Gavin Newsom | via Streetsblog]

Intrepid Journalist Captures Hoodlum Cyclists BLAZING Through Harrison Street Stop Sign At Multiple MPH

— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |

Evil-doer.

Our all-time favorite TV journalist Stanley Roberts has turned his nanny cam back onto San Francisco's ever-increasing population of two-wheeled criminals.  But this time he's not waging war on the Wiggle; rather, taking a look at the the 3-way intersection at 18th and Harrison.  Witness:

Now, it might be worth pointing out that the offending bike lane and ghost rider in question doesn't actually cut through traffic, as they ride beside parked cars like it was any old stretch of road. (Might I add that it's incredibly common for motorists not to be required to stop in such cases either.)  But I suppose nuance and reason is irrelevant in the media's war on bikes.

Previously on Uptown Almanac: 

How Not to Lock Your Bike

— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |

After seeing all the media hullabaloo about Dear Mom's new bike racks, I eagerly threw on my favorite ill-fitting flannel and rushed over to check it out.  Yup, it's a bike rack all right.  A well used one at that, but not used well.

See, after some years living in San Francisco, I've seen all sorts of lousy locking jobs: u-locks around quick-release front wheels, locking around seat posts and handle bars, cable locks around fire hydrants… real smooth stuff.  However, none quite so bad as this fellow's quality lock-up of simply discarding their bike on the pile.

That's not to say that simply abandoning your bike for the thieving masses isn't a good locking strategy should you be fishing for an excuse to hit up your parents for a new ride.  But for everyone else, might I recommend at least zip tying it to a thin tree?

Previously on Uptown Almanac: 

Update: Biking on Valencia Is Still Kinda Not Great

— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |

As most Mission cyclists have known for years, riding along Valencia at rush hour is the real life cycling equivalent of Frogger.  The only way not to get doored, squished, swiped, or furious at everything is to just forgo the bike lane entirely and just take the lane.  It's a bummer experience that usually leaves motorists hostile over the perception we're slowing them down, but it's better than the alternative mouth full of blood and bill for a new front wheel.

Fortunately for us, the usually cycling-adverse watchdogs over at The Chronicle are now on the case:

[Cyclists] feel that heightened enforcement, especially during the evening hours, could help send the message that cars and bikes need to share the road and make all parties more aware of each other.

“I don't think they're doing enough to protect cyclists,” said Walsh, the registered nurse. “Why don't they hang a sign on every stoplight telling drivers to share the lane?”

Leaders of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition said they hope eventually to have separated bikeways on Valencia like the city already has in Golden Gate Park and is establishing along Fell and Oak streets.

“Simple white posts are really easy for the city to install,” said Leah Shahum, the bicycle coalition's executive director. “Anything to have full separation between moving car traffic. We hear anecdotally from folks it's a big difference.”

Separated bike lanes sure do sound great, but hopefully they are more of a Manhattan-style separated lane through the middle of traffic, rather than Golden Gate Park's that put us between the curb and row of parked cars (because, between aloof pedestrians, opening doors with no way to dodge them, slow cyclists you cannot get around, and sketchy navigation of stop signs, those lanes on Valencia would be a total disaster).

For more on the subject, see Stanley Roberts' always delightful People Behaving Badly segment on the topic, which coincidentally aired a few weeks ago:

Previously on Uptown Almanac: 

SFPD, Google Hosting Class on How to Improperly Lock Up Your Bike

— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |

Let us be totally clear here: this post isn't intended to rag on either organization for bicycle locking ignorance.  One organization is a government service tasked with crime prevention and security, the other parses vast amounts of information to provide us with the best resources available on any given subject, so it makes total sense that they'd be blanketing San Francisco with posters incorrectly telling people how to properly lock their bicycles.  I mean, neither is a bike company, so how would they know?

Therefore, in the interest in preventing anyone who may have seen this from being duped into this subpar locking strategy, we'd like to remind everyone how to actually lock their bike (via Sheldon Brown):

People tend to buy the big clunky U-locks because they don't know how to use them properly. A U-lock should go around the rear rim and tire, somewhere inside the rear triangle of the frame. There is no need to loop it around the seat tube as well, because the wheel cannot be pulled through the rear triangle.

Some will object that felons might cut the rear rim and tire to remove the lock. Believe me, this just doesn't happen in the real world. It is indeed possible to cut the rim with a hacksaw, working from the outside to the inside, but first, the tire must be removed or cut through. It would be a lot of work to steal a frame without a usable rear wheel, the most expensive part of a bike, after the frame.

The main reason SFPD/Google's suggested strategy doesn't work is the same reason cable locks just plain don't secure bikes: every thief has a pair of cutters that make quick work of the cable. If you use their locking suggestion, not only are you carrying around a relatively useless, bulky cable, you're likely to find both your wheels stolen, as opposed to just your front wheel.

Google it if you don't believe me.

Update: Matt Friedman of SFPD tells us the SF Bike Coalition is behind the poster and locking recommendation. Yikes.

New Bike Lanes to Help Cyclists Crossing Muni Tracks Not Fall On Their Faces

— By Kevin Montgomery (@kevinmonty) |

Striking a blow to the schadenfreude of watching fellow cyclists eat it while biking across Muni tracks, SFMTA has decided to experiment with new bike lanes that cross 17th and Church's front wheel slip-n-slide:

The SFMTA added guidance markings this week to the intersection of 17th and Church Streets, where the 17th Street bike lane meets Muni’s F-Market and J-Church streetcar lines. Car parking spots near the corners were also removed to improve visibility and provide more room for cyclists to maneuver safely.

The dashed lines and sharrows direct cyclists to cross the tracks at nearly a perpendicular angle, which minimizes the risk that bike wheels will get caught in the track crevices — a common bicycling hazard in San Francisco. Similar treatments have been used in Seattle.

More pics of paint and people not falling over at Streetsblog.

Pages