CVC 21950(a)

SF Citizen poses a question for those of you who travel through SF behind a windshield: What do you do when you approach an intersection - no stoplight - with some poor abuelita waiting, stranded on the median for a chance to cross the street?

This is hardly an academic issue; there are hundreds, if not thousands of intersections in this city where at least one direction of traffic has no signal or sign. What do you do? No stop sign, no stop light, no stop - right? No.

California Vehicle Code (that thing you had to pretend to have read when you were 15) Section 21950 (a) states unambiguously:

The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

So, since you like totally knew that, you stop.

But these uncontrolled intersections usually occur at broad, multi-lane expressways. What, then, asks SF Citizen, of the cars that just keep on cruising past, preventing the pedestrian from crossing? Law of the jungle? My car is bigger and faster so I crush you if you try to slow me down? Once again we can turn to that obscure tome, the CVC. This time Section 21951:

Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.

I suppose it's unreasonable to hold drivers to the rules of the CVC. We certainly don't enforce it's provisions to any reasonable extent. Since there's almost no chance of getting a ticket for violating CVC 21950 (a) or 21951, it's to be expected that nobody abides by them.

Well that's not okay! Enforcement of these and other laws protecting pedestrians has to be some kind of a priority.

SF Citizen suggests signalizing these intersections, at least the most dangerous of them. I completely support that idea. Good street design works as a compliment to law enforcement. It's past time to get some action from our civic leaders on this issue. Since our lovely mayor actively violates the vehicle code I suggest contacting your member of the Board of Supervisors, or writing a letter to the editor of the Chronicle, Examiner, Guardian, or other newspaper of choice.

No Points for Honesty

While walking to the bus stop the other day I witnessed this exchange between an older guy in a silver car of some sort and a younger woman in a boxy sort of car on Second between Bryant and Brannan. The older guy was still in the process of pulling into a parking space, and the woman pulled up alongside him and rolled down her window to talk to him:

Younger Woman: "Hey, how do you feel about that bicyclist you almost hit there."

Older Man: "I don't see bicyclists."

YW: "You don't see bicyclists? You almost hit someone!"

OM: "I don't see bicyclists."

The man admitted he was not qualified to be behind the wheel of a car, and felt no remorse about almost crashing into someone.

As Stephen Colbert would say, a tip of the hat to the woman who went out of her way to confront the guy, and a wag of the finger to the accident-waiting-to-happen in the silver car of some sort. It's a shame, but perfectly understandable that he's not afraid of any punishment for such callous disregard of the California Vehicle Code. Vulnerable Users law, anyone?

A Privilege, Not a Right

Drop a flower pot off a high-up windowsill and kill someone, you might face criminal charges. Slam into a pedestrian in the middle of a crosswalk and what happens, exactly?

WalkBikeCT has a spot-on analysis of modern American transportation pathology. Despite words to the contrary (words, I might add, that every would-be young driver is supposed to learn and take to heart) we treat driving as a god-given right in this country, and especially here in California. And as long as we keep thinking that way we can expect atrocities like these to keep happening.

Portland has a Vulnerable Users Law that puts responsibility on the operators of more dangerous vehicles for the safety of more vulnerable road users. Bikes have to look out for the safety of pedestrians and cars have more responsibility to look after bicyclists. San Francisco needs a law like this. Otherwise we will continue to tacitly discourage walking and biking because of what is essentially bullying by motorists - the threat of physical harm if we don't give up our lunch money right of way.

And we need to enforce laws already on the books protecting that right of way. DPT needs to actually respond to calls about cars parked on the sidewalk. The police need to ticket drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. And in the unfortunate instances where vulnerable roadway user is hurt or killed by a vehicle, appropriate criminal charges need to be filed. It's against the law to kill people. Why doesn't law enforcement act like it?

Sidewalk Parking - 4th and Freelon

PG&E truck blocking the sidewalk on 4th St. and Freelon in SoMa

To report sidewalk parking in SF, call DPT at (415) 553-1200
Hit 1 for English
4 for "more options"
3 for "sidewalk parking"

Forgive them, they know not what they do?

I ran across this gem while looking through the draft of the Better Streets Plan:

The California motor vehicle code requires drivers to yield to
pedestrians in marked or unmarked crosswalks, but many drivers
are unfamiliar with the details of the vehicle code.

Awesome. Part of creating a safer, more pedestrian-friendly street environment rests on infrastructure and policy making, but I really hope we can also re-develop a culture of personal responsibility. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Everyone behind the wheel of a car was required to take a test of their knowledge of the CVC, and they need to be held responsible for violating the code.