Capitalizing on A Bicyclist Fatality
More Disgrace from Streetsblog
Last week Ethan Boyes, a record-breaking professional track cyclist, was killed while cycling in the Presidio of San Francisco, a former military post in the shadows of the Golden Gate Bridge, now operated by the National Park Service (NPS) as part of Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA). The U.S. Park Police, the entity which has jurisdiction in the GGNRA, as of this moment maintain the crash is still under investigation and have provided few details.
Stephanie Wald, a resident of a nearby SF neighborhood posted on social media site Nextdoor that she witnessed a “horrific accident” on Arguello and Inspiration Point in the Presidio on the same day. She noted a “speeding car was heading North careened into the opposite lane and hit a cyclist.” Law enforcement have yet to say whether drugs or alcohol were a factor but Wald also said, “The driver was on the side of the road looking dazed and bloody.”
Naturally Streetsblog has capitalized on Boyes fatality to call for so-called “protected bike lanes,” the term used by platitude-driven bicycling activists to refer to on-highway bicycle infrastructure that is physically separated from motor traffic. Their safety record is dubious and highly dependent on context and their design - the truth is they benefit the pocketbooks of unaccountable rent-seeking bureaucrats and activist non-profit groups far more than any bicyclist. The author of the article, Roger Rudick writes, “The portion of Arguello where Boyes was killed is controlled by the Presidio Trust. Nevertheless, both the Presidio and the city of San Francisco’s portion of Arguello are known danger spots with speeding traffic and no physical protection for cyclists.”
Can it be any surprise that the Pravda of the bicycling Platitude-Driven Vision Elect is demanding something that will benefit their ideology and their cronies?
That doesn’t dismiss the fact that some motorists are likely to speed on the road. While this road is technically under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service who operate their own agency, it’s a good thing SF itself has such as strong traffic/law enforcement. (sarcasm)
Or that the state’s largest “bicycling advocacy” organization has called for “defunding the police” as have “urban planners” - the goons who primarily benefit from Streetsblog. Ignore reality with caution.
Rudick fails to provide evidence to support his claims reducing the strength of his case for “protection” from the start. Rudick then complains the Arguello Blvd “safety upgrades project” within the boundaries of San Francisco - not the Presidio Park itself - was done leaving “cyclists unprotected in a door-zone lane” in order “to preserve parking and prioritize driver convenience over safety.” 1
But nevertheless, he uses Google Streetview image in the opening of the piece showing a grey crossover crossing into the bike lane. The caption reads, “Not the location of the crash but this car in the bike lane on Presidio Blvd. nearby, captured on Google Streetview, underscores why real protected bike lanes need to be a default safety measure on fast-moving roads.” He identifies “another reckless driver” - this time a black Audi crossing over into the bicycle lane apparently close to the site of last week’s fatality. It’s true, this driver can be seen on Streetview in multiple angles.
Google Maps shows up upcoming intersection within 200’ of the Audi driver’s location so their presence in the bicycle lane cannot be attributed to the legal requirement in all states except Oregon (the “right-hook capital”) for (most) drivers to merge into the right-most lane - which includes bicycle lanes.
“Nevertheless, it appears there are no plans for concrete-protected bike lanes or a parallel bike path on Arguello,” writes Rudick, paraphrasing someone representing the Presidio itself - presumably after he asked this individual something specific about concrete barriers.
It’s probably without saying that a concrete barrier to separate motor traffic from bicycle traffic would keep at least any passenger car from intruding into the bikeway.
But is there any good reason to add “protection?” Is it even feasible?
The answer to that first question may easily be answered with, “if it only saves one life,” a fair reply on the surface but one that may be ignoring tradeoffs.
Speaking of ignoring Rudick as typical with Streetsblog propagandists are skilled at such things. A prime example of this is of their coverage of Mz Stacey, covered in Just Stop Killing Us! Or how to spot a Cluster B(ike) Activist. In a stunning bit of irony, she was “interviewed” by none other than Streetsblog’s own Rudick , but of course important context - such as that she was caught operating her car while using a mobile phone was left out of the article.
That’s getting off topic though.
What else does Rudick ignore in the case of this road in the Presidio?
Drainage for one. Does he really want to virtually force bicyclists to operate in a confined space which makes it difficult to pass or avoid hazards such as standing water?
What about debris, or to pass other bicyclists?
Only a portion of Arguello is wide enough to contain the two general-use lanes and bicycle lanes too. Other parts of the road - closer to the northern terminus are too narrow - a portion has a bicycle lane in one direction and shared-lane markings (“sharrows”) in the other. Intersection design would be difficult - something proponents of “protected bike lanes” ignored at first but have now come back with elaborate, overcomplicated, and expensive “designs.” The harsh truth is that most car-bike collisions occur at driveways and intersections. Bicyclists who take a legitimate safety course are instructed on how to mitigate these risks.
In these sections with reduced right of way it would be next to impossible to maintain the general-use travel lanes and build a “protected” bike facility too.
The changes of the National Park Service expanding the right of way to grab more lane space is slim. Not to mention this is literally at the tip of the NIMBY capital of the country.
It’s one thing to mourn for the loss of another human and even to discuss the broad topic road safety but to make specific suggestions ignoring both reality and one’s revenue stream is despicable. Rudick offers little more than a narcissism-driven “thoughts and prayers” here.
Principled bicyclists have been railing for years against hazardous door zone bike lanes while many platitide-driven activists have supported them or have failed to address their presence as acceptable forms of bicycle lanes in design standards. The National Association of City Transportation Officials, an activist organization who promote alternative mobility, still allowed for them in their “design guide.”
As someone who both rides motorcycle, and drives tractor trailers, I guarantee that it's critical for people at the lower end of that scale to recognize that no matter the laws of man, the laws of physics will always take precedence.