FBinNY 

Sorry, I just don't argue in the subjunctive mood.

In any case, it's absolutely clear that we live in.different worlds.

In any case, this is a FORUM, so people post their opinions, and obviously we won't all agree.

In any case, it should be obvious that I truly don't care much about this stuff, so if it's important to you to "win", it's yours.

PhilFo 

Here in Philly, we have a lot of folks who will go into alleys and backyards to test fire handguns; they shoot down the alley and sometimes shoot across yards. If no one gets hurt does that fall under "no harm, no foul"?

Back maybe 12 years ago, there was a prominent case here where a cyclist killed a pedestrian due to negligent riding, then rode off committing a hit and run. The city clamped down on enforcing laws, but only against cyclists, not the thousands of automobiles which regularly threaten, injure, and kill pedestrians and cyclists every year. There was a chilling effect that the hit and run incident had on bicycling and advocacy; riders were actually getting tickets, people rode less, folks who previously wanted into the activity for whatever probably took the bus or drove a car. Regardless, there was less riding and due to a us-vs-them mentality.

The reason is because of stupid S*** like we see in the OP video.

Only last month we just got back to a place in bicycle advocacy where a car parked in a bike lane can get ticketed. That was in effect back in 2011 and then the attitude in the city changed because of one rider, who punished us all for his stupidity and blatant disregard for the safety of others.

JoeyBike

And motorists use all of us as meat pylons as a rule yet I see ppl cycling all the time without a care in the world as if the cars were made of cotton candy.

As one pearl clutcher to another!

tungsten

It would be helpful if those here who agree the OP video displays inappropriate behaviour simply used u-tubes reporting function. As I have twice already.
My e-mail to Propain bikes in Vancouver, Wash. was met with a pat on the head "it'll be fine" response.
Next step is an angry e-mail to parent co. in France.
Thinking of reaching our to S.F. by-law dept. ..... ?

FBinNY 

Assuming you live in San Francisco, and given it's current problems, I wonder if there aren't much more important things to focus on.

But, that's just me.

tungsten

I don't.

And yeah, that's just you.

retswerb

I'm curious what you said in your email.

I-Like-To-Bike

My guess - it was phrased like the typical anti-motorist rant posted on A&S - and received the same typical response such rhetoric arouses among the non-true believers.

livedarklions

So let's see, are you saying that writing to a bicycle company to tell them that you don't think they should sponsor videos showing bicyclists flying by directly in front of people's front doors is a "typical anti-motorist rant"? What the hell are YOU ranting about?

I-Like-To-Bike

You must have been cc'd on the gratuitous email complaint to the bicycle company to be so sure that it was phrased politely and respectfully suggested a resolution to a perceived problem, and was not an irate or irrational rant about somebody's riding/driving as seen so often on this list.

livedarklions

You phrased this such that you made it look like you were accusing this of being a "typical anti-motorist rant" which made literally no sense when you are implicitly accusing OP of going on some sort of anti-cyclist(?) anti-stunt(?) anti-sidewalk riders(?) rant. Obviously, you need so badly to get your usual cookie-cutter rant about "true believers" that you couldn't help inserting it into something literally having nothing to do with that.

I'm not the one posting my "guess" at the tone and content of OP's email and stating it was "gratuitous", you are. I think it's pretty hilarious that you're now accusing me sarcastically of being "cc'd" on it. Projecting your own faults much?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that his email was not "respectful" and didn't just ask them to pull their sponsorship from the video?

mschwett 

my family and i ride hundreds of miles a month in san francisco, and i can confidently state that the number of cyclists riding on sidewalks is incredibly low compared to the number of motorists behaving in any number of dangerous ways. running red lights and stop signs, blocking bike lanes or traffic lanes to load/unload, passing unsafely, pulling in or out of driveways without looking, etc. i'd estimate i see some of the latter perhaps once every few blocks, vs the former.... maybe once every few days?!

the danny m video was obviously filmed with permission/permits and in controlled circumstances, as others have noted.

also as noted, the law allows children to ride on sidewalks. my older daughter (now 11) does so from time to time when we're riding up a hill that has significant car traffic and no bike lane. she's been yelled at a dozen or so times by selfish, entitled, and just frankly mean people, almost always elderly, usually with dogs. "get off the sidewalk," "that's illegal," "you almost hit me!" "my dog!" etc. about one in three times it upsets her enough that i stop and tell the kindly neighbor that she's entirely within her rights and not putting anyone at risk riding up a hill at 4mph on a sidewalk with room for comfortable passage in both directions.

262 people have been killed by motor vehicles within the city limits (exclusive of freeways) since 2014 - the vast majority pedestrians. in that same time, zero people have been killed by cyclists, e-scooters, etc. so while i don't condone riding on sidewalks and it is illegal for adults, to say it's somehow a significant problem is without factual basis.

livedarklions

I think the issue here is the posting of a video that promotes this use of these sidewalks in particular, and the idea of poaching on city sidewalks in general.

It's been decades since I've last ridden in SF, but I'm pretty sure I never saw an adult riding on a sidewalk there. It just wouldn't be a sane thing to do if you actually want to get anywhere. The problem with a video like this is it invites imitation, and if you have been following what happens with stunt and prank videos, there's a strong tendency for the IRL stakes to escalate as competing "contributors" get more and more extreme to attract clicks.

Maybe your daughter needs an "I'm 11" sign on her bike (joking). That level of Karening is really annoying when it's aimed at your kid. Been there a couple decades ago. Good on her for taking those hills!

mschwett 

true, true. the vast majority of where they are riding are not sidewalks though. most are streets or mixed use paths. some are public stairways (the steps around russian hill and telegraph hill they bomb down) and that's DEFINITELY not kosher. the paths (and stairs) into the new park at francisco reservoir are off limits to bikes also - but they shouldn't be and they are not sidewalks. still some bad behavior, but 90% of those segments are completely legal/acceptable places to ride a bike. i ride many/most of them weekly. the thread title and video are a little misaligned.

i'm actually kind of curious now about the public stairs - while i can't imagine it's legal to ride a bike on them, many apartments/flats/condos/townhouses only open onto those stairs. i guess you just carry your bike up or down. https://www.sfstairways.com/stairways/

tungsten

Not much, it was late. Will compose more thorough e-mail to parent Co.

scott967

So in the time period after the guy doing a downhill strava segment killed a ped, so it's not never but unlikely.

scott s.
.

livedarklions

It's also what they do when they get to the bottom of the stairs which is extremely illegal and reckless. Watch the video between about 3:15 and 5:15. he's flying past a bunch of blind entrances onto the sidewalk, none of which could be properly scouted without posting someone at every doorway, and at one point actually startles a pedestrian by coming up behind him.