Wheeling and Dealing
Do the bike path math: I appreciate the attempt at evenhandedness ["Path to Civility," Matt Smith, Column, 6/30], but this statistic is highly misleading: "According to the report, fewer than 1 percent of recent moving violations were issued to cyclists, even though the S.F. Municipal Transportation Agency estimates that in 2008, San Franciscans took 6 percent of all trips by bicycle."
Most bike trips are a lot shorter than most car trips. On a longer trip, you have more opportunities to break a traffic law. A meaningful statistic might compare moving violations per mile. The comparison still would not mean much, as driving in a car offers more opportunities for moving violations (you can't really break the speed limit on a bicycle).
Hunter Smith
San Francisco
Cops aren't cowed by bikers: Smith points out that the police rarely enforce laws involving cyclists. They don't police the bike lane; nor do they issue many tickets for running red lights. This may be true, but Smith's claimed reason — that cyclists "complain so insistently that cops have all but given up on enforcing laws" — is quite a leap of logic. A more likely explanation for the police's lack of interest in citing bike infractions is that bicycles are not a public safety threat.
The number of injuries and the amount of property damage that result from cyclists running red lights must be infinitesimal, compared to the damage caused by motorized traffic scofflaws. Police choose not to enforce those laws because their energies are better spent elsewhere. That, at least, seems more likely than the idea that the police are intimidated by bikers eager to contest their citations.
Hugh D'Andrade
San Francisco
Snitch Blog Commentsof the Week
In response to a blog post about a possible ban on pet sales: I would like to point out that rabbits are the number one animal Animal Care and Control gets. They have been illegal to sell in San Francisco for decades, yet despite legislation, the problem persists. Will making small animals and birds illegal to sell be any more successful, or will it cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars more to enforce?
This will put a dent in small businesses and cause layoffs of pet store employees when unemployment is high. It will affect the local economy at a time many storefronts stand bare; I see more places for sale than new businesses. There are other, more credible solutions: Raise the fines for abandonment and cruelty to animals. Add a tax to help support Animal Care and Control.
The only thing this piece of legislation is good for is bedding for my pet mice.
Kim Thelen
In response to a blog post about a ban on selling sugary drinks in vending machines on city property: This is only the beginning. Next, restaurants and stores won't be able to sell soda; it'll be treated like an illegal drug. Candy will be outlawed. French fries and burgers will have to go. Fried foods will all be illegal.
Then you get these nutrition experts saying that juice and milk aren't much better than soda because they still contain calories and natural sugars, so they'll get rid of those too. I just want to know who gets to make the call on what foods are fattening and shouldn't be allowed. Because you'll get very different answers depending on whether you ask Dr. Atkins, Dr. Ornish, or Dr. Oz, or whoever.
Despite what the "experts" say, it's clearly not a mature science, or we wouldn't have so many supposed experts with conflicting opinions. So shouldn't I get to decide which expert advice to follow instead of the government picking one for me?
Anonymous
