Here's a weird tale of yet another car-on-bike hit-and-run at perennial danger spot Octavia and Market, off ABC 7. (More details at CBS 5 too, plus a video clip.)
Last night, around 11 p.m., a car coming off the freeway making the now-standard illegal right turn onto the Octavia Street freeway ramp hit a biker. [edit per CBS 5 story.] Alas, that's not the weird part.
So the driver was about halfway up the onramp and about to take off, when another passing driver got out of his car and grabbed the would-be hit-and-runner's steering wheel so he couldn't drive away. The hit-and-run driver's car then flipped over and pinned the witness underneath it, with the driver still in the car. (Endearingly, a friend of the witness described the car-flipper as "my old man.")
Other bystanders then came by and helped flip the car back up -- at which point the driver made a break for it and zoomed off. Doh! Other drivers followed the hit-and-run guy, at which point he ended up turning himself in to the Emeryville PD, who promptly took him back to SF for booking. That's a lot of trips across the bridge.
Biker and witness were taken to SF General; no word yet as to how they're doing. Dude, how do you manage to flip a car just by holding the steering wheel? And total good karma to all the witnesses who helped! Pedestrians and bicyclists all over town salute you.
Picture of the Octavia/Market off-ramp by SFist Jim.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Holy cow! I'm all about regular folks getting involved, but talk about setting the bar high! I salute the witness (and wish him a speedy recovery and much, much good karma).
Can someone please elaborate on this? I will not be able to move on with my life until I learn how that car flipped over.
Huge kudos to the witness and bystanders!
After the last major accident the SFBC and others firmed on their position that bicyclists absolutely need to be able to ride through this death trap. Instead of removing the bike lane to indicate to cyclists that this intersection isn't safe and to consider taking a different route, they decided to attack the problem by scolding drivers, putting up idiotic pylons and pretending that will somehow reduce the huge temptation for drivers to make the right turn. The bike lane *going through a major highway onramp* gives cyclists a false sense of security implied by its presence, and hence many don't ride to avoid getting "right hooked". I commented on sfist and went to the community meeting at city hall and said that the actions being considered will not eliminate accidents at this intersection and that they should consider removing the bike lane (for now at least). But no, Leah Shahum told me I was wrong, her reasoning being that bikes deserve to be everywhere and we have to fight for our right to be on the road. My guess is that the SFBC will respond to this accident in a similar way by working to make this right turn even more illegal still and hating drivers even more.
I've been car free for a year. And I've been SFBC-free since their reaction to critical mass violence a few months back -- in my eyes that was yet another example of them playing progressive politics over bike safety so I quit. How many more cyclists have to be sent to the hospital so the SFBC can stand their ground? Take out that bike lane unless it's made safe! Colored pavement won't do it. Crime cameras won't do it. I think that only expensive solutions like bike tunnels or tearing apart the ramp will make that intersection safe for cyclists.
Karsty, I don't think accommodating the lawbreakers is good for anyone. I ride down this stretch of Market frequently, and taking away the bike lane at that point would be more confusing than anything. I respectfully understand your point about not throwing bicyclists to the whims of traffic for political gain, but if we thought this way about everything, then in my opinion nothing would ever get done. There is not enough room there for a legal right turn lane- it would back up buses, other traffic, etc. This has all been talked about ad nauseum.
The Octavia freeway plan was bad from the beginning, and bicyclists were not accommodated according to what was promised. I really don't want to be penalized any further.
A bike lane through a freeway? No, I think people who have lived here for more than a year realize that this is a freeway through a bike lane. Bikes have been running this route since it was paved. The Octavia St. ramp is new.
Hey Karsty,
First off, there are lots of other constituencies that want the right turn banned. This includes pedestrians, MUNI and the neighbors who live in the area. There are plans to create an actual concrete barrier that will be a greater barrier to vehicles wanting to make the right turn.
Also, Leah is right..the best solution is to make that intersection safer for bikes, not to just give up and say cyclists shouldn't ride there. What happens when an alternate route becomes unsafe? Should they fold then too until there is no way to safe way to get around the city?
one other thing...
I've been SFBC-free since their reaction to critical mass violence a few months back -- in my eyes that was yet another example of them playing progressive politics over bike safety so I quit.
No idea how you think that the SFBC is playing progressive politics over bike safety, ever. Critical Mass was an appropriate response..violence on both sides is wrong. Thats not playing politics.
Beyond that, they stepped up in favour of street resurfacing that the Mayor wants and that Daly tried to cut. They are also working with the Mayor on the Bike 2010 initiative.
> Karsty, I don't think accommodating the lawbreakers is good for anyone.
It's good for the cyclists that would otherwise get hit. That intersection is confusing in a car and it's non-intuitive not to be able to turn right there. Even good people make that illegal turn (esp. non-locals reading map directions forced to make split-second decisions). No matter what, in the current configuration cars WILL turn right. Cyclists have to be told somehow to expect it. The bike lane tells cyclists not to expect danger. Perhaps if instead of the recently added "no right turn" signs for the drivers there was a "cyclist getting crushed by a car icon" sign for cyclists we wouldn't have another one in the hospital because cyclists would ride at high alert through that intersection? Without a bike lane you're forced to look around and take the lane and then the only way to get right hooked is if a car turns from the left lane. That's how I do it now with the bike lane there when I don't choose to go another route that avoids the intersection. The bike lane is dangerous. There are other dangerous stretches on Market that don't have a bike lane -- why is the lane there at Octavia?
> not to just give up and say cyclists shouldn't ride there.
I'm not saying don't ride there. I'm saying ride there at your own risk until a REAL permanent solution is in place, which should be lobbied for. That's not giving up. If anything it draws more attention to the need to fix it.
> Bikes have been running this route since it was paved. The Octavia St. ramp is new.
Yes, that intersection is a huge mistake but the fact is that it's there and we can't wish it away. I'd love to see them tear it down and have them land the freeway much further south (e.g. Bryant) which won't happen any time soon.
> No idea how you think that the SFBC is playing progressive politics over bike safety, ever.
The SFBC is sending cyclists into this danger zone to make a point!
Karsty, I actually like your point about taking the lane on Market at Octavia instead of using the bike lane. You actually do that? I can imagine cars getting peeved because you aren't in "your lane" but I suppose that's why you want it removed.. hmm, yeah sticky situation.
The SFBC is sending cyclists into this danger zone to make a point!
They are sending people there?!? In this past BTWD, DPT did a count of cyclists and motorists on Market St. crossing Van Ness. They found that for the first time, more cyclists than vehicles were on that stretch for a one hour period during morning rush hour.
Even in previous BTWD and on regular days there are lots of cyclists on Market St. Why? Is it representative of the city? Of course not. The reason that there are lots of bikes on Market St. is that its a popular bike route due to the geography of the city. Its a relatively flat route that gets you straight downtown. Its been a popular route since prior to the freeway being built. Its popular because its logical.
The SFBC isn't sending anybody..cyclists are riding down Market because it makes sense to do so. They've been riding down Market St. since long before the on ramp was built.
What I can't figure... all these drivers who are so pissed we are in the wrong just being out there. If that's the case - one would think they would stand proud after hitting one of us, not run off like a coward...
> The SFBC isn't sending anybody..cyclists are riding down Market because it makes sense to do so.
After the last major accident at Market/Octavia the SFBC's stance was to keep the lane there, add the horrible pylons (arguably making it even less safe) as a stopgap measure until something effective is done, and scowl at drivers. They got cops out and put up some signs for cars to look at -- this tells cyclists that the gas-burning dragon has been slayed and that intersection is now safe. That's the exact wrong message to send. There should have been the equivalent of a "double black diamond, out of bounds, bike at your own risk" type warning. Such as removing the bike line stripes.
I think it "makes sense" to go through that intersection if you *really* know what you're doing. There are other fantastic ways around it that I also enjoy taking (Page, 14th, etc.).
As a regular Market St commuter, I used to see illegal right turns at this intersection 2-3 times a week. Since they made the changes, I've seen them twice, ever. Both times, the car had to slow to nearly walking pace to get around the pylons, backing up traffic and causing drivers to lay on their horns. Now maybe my empirical evidence contradicts statistics, but it seems to me that the changes have made for a safer intersection and reduced "the huge temptation for drivers to make the right turn."
I cross this intersection every day in one of two ways: bike, on my way back from Calrain (other side of market than the accident), or car if I'm too lazy/late to bike to the train.
One thing I can say about the whole Octavia experience: HATE IT. WTF??? There was an awesome off ramp with 0 bike deaths and 3x as fast to get off to Fell until was TORN DOWN IN A MASSIVE DEADLY boondoggle that is now the Octavia SLOWRAMP traffic machine.
The whole project is total bullshit - they should have replaced the onramp at a fraction of the cost and time. The San Francisco voters who approved that ballot are insane in their love for false progressiveness and inefficiency, and irresponsible.
-bitter commuter
Obviously, the cylists were provoking the poor little car driver, just by existing.
We should ban bicylists, pedestrians and everyone else from the streets of San Francisco, because it might inconvenience a lost tourist in an SUV.
After the last major accident at Market/Octavia the SFBC's stance was to keep the lane there, add the horrible pylons (arguably making it even less safe) as a stopgap measure until something effective is done
The city has committed to putting a concrete barrier where the soft hit posts are now. Unfortunately, these things take way too much time to accomplish. Its not as if they could un-stripe the bike lane in a flash even if they wanted to and then get them re-striped when the concrete barrier was put in.
I think they need a big sign at that intersection that says "No right turn - $300 fine." New York has a ban on car honking in some neighborhoods. They just post signs that say "No honking - $250 fine." This seems a lot harder to enforce than no right turn, yet I think the signs work.
There isn't 1 change that is going to solve this problem. Only a combination of changes will help.
Crazy story. I heard the guy who tried to stop the driver got really hurt. There's gonna be a story in the examiner tomorrow about him.
The SF Bike Coalition brought this on themselves. They INSISTED that there by no right turn there. Meanwhile any person who ever drives a car from WEST of that ramp knows that it is the ONLY way to get onto that ramp without going all the way down Duboce to Mission Street.
As for Dufty's new idiotic "concrete wall" for the bike lane... that'll just make it harder for cars to see bicyclists on the other side of the wall. The cars will STILL make the right turn, they'll just do it blindly, guaranteeing the DEATH/Injury of even MORE bicyclists.
I have to say that it brings me a never ending amount of pleasure to see the SFBC members facing injury and/or death because of their stubborn idiocy. SFBC doesn't get to make the laws, and shame on the public officials who let them make this no right turn law. They've created a monstrous problem and nobody is to blame but the SFBC and the politicians that listened to them.
The better response to this terrible intersection is to allow the right turns, but provide a separate traffic signal phase for bicyclists.
Lay out the street so that the left lane of Market goes thru, the right lane of Market forces a right turn onto the onramp, and the bike lane (to the right of the right vehicle lane) goes thru to continue on Market towards Van Ness. Post prominent no turn on red arrow signs.
Assume that the traffic signal phase for Market Street is 40 seconds. So, from 0-20 seconds provide green sraight arrow, red right turn arrow, and walk/flash don't walk for pedestrians. During these 20 seconds, pedestrians and bikes can cross, while right turns are prohibited.
During the second 20 seconds, provide green straight arrow, green right turn arrow, and don't walk for pedestrians. Cars can continue on Market or enter the freeway during this time, and pedestrians and bicyclists must wait at the corner.
The rest of the cycle is for Octavia traffic.