Bicyclist, 26, seriously injured after crashing into parked car on Gough Street in San Francisco, California

accidentdatacenter – excerpt

A 26-year-old man was bicycling on Gough Street when a vehicle in front of him stopped and switched on her turn signal to turn into a parking space. He crashed into the back of the vehicle, suffering life-threatening injuries which included head trauma, internal bleeding, fractured ribs, and a punctured lung. He was taken to San Francisco General Hospital for treatment of his injuries… (more)

Some people feel that all cyclists should wear helmets. State Senate Bill 192, Bicycle Helmet and Reflectors, sponsored by Senator Carol Liu, would extend the helmet requirement to adults and also require all riders to wear reflective clothing when cycling at night. The bill was referred to the Transportation and Housing Committee. Contact for details.

An extensive  list of state bills related to Transportation and Housing, and CEQA issues can be found here:
Let the state reps know how you feel. Contacts are here:

Accident report site:

Cyclist suffers life-threatening injuries in S.F. crash


Phil Matier: Proposed California Law Requiring Adult Cyclists Wear Helmets Not Gaining Traction With Some Bicycle Advocates

By Phil Matier : cbslocal – excert – (audio track)

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS)— A proposed California state law that would require adult cyclists to wear a helmet while riding or face a fine is not gaining much traction amongst bicycle advocates. SB192 would make California the first state that require helmets for those over the age of 18…

San Francisco has already started to spend $3 million on bicycle awareness and will continue to do so for the next few years. This will include safety campaigns and improvements to bike lane infrastructure. The city has also called to increased citations to motorists by 50 percent in the next two years in an effort to cut down on injuries.

But when you turn it around on the bicycle groups, they don’t want to adhere to things like mandatory helmet wearing or even chipping in money on the new bike lanes. This is making state lawmakers and politicians wonder if this is a one-way street.

Last week I called around to get reaction from Mayor Ed Lee and members from the Board of Supervisors. It’s not necessarily a debate about safety; they just don’t seem to want this to be debated at all… (more)

Be careful what you wish for. The less cars on the road the more cyclists will have to pay. SB 192 is a rational first step.

Helmets not included in bike share program

Open letter:

San Francisco’s poorly implemented bike sharing program is an awful concept from start to finish. We live in a city with dense traffic on all sides and the city is now renting bicycles WITHOUT HELMETS. In 2009, over 600 people were killed while riding their bicycles. Over 500 of them could have survived if they wore a bicycle helmet. Why is San Francisco City Hall enabling this type of bad behavior?
City Hall has emboldened cyclists into believing that there is minimal risk in cycling on busy city streets. Thanks to the disastrous bike share program we now have novice cyclists (and scores of international tourists) rolling around San Francisco who don’t know the California rules of the road. The City Supervisors legislate bottled water and toys in Happy meals but don’t require cyclists to know the California rules of the road, or follow the best practices of cycling?
And what happens the first time someone falls down, cracks their head on the pavement, and their brains go sliding across the street? Oh, I know!  The Bicycle Lobby will swoop in like a pack of vampires and read from their list of prepared statements:
“We need to slow the street down”
“it’s really important to have safe routes to work”
”we need a a redesign plan with two-way streets and separate bike lanes”
“large trucks should be fitted with convex mirrors”
It is not acceptable to sit by while San Franciscans are killed on streets when you have the power to prevent these deaths.
The obnoxious (and disliked) Bicycle Lobby proudly states on their website that they, “led the way for the bicycle share pilot program and are advocating for the launch of a full scale bike sharing system in San Francisco.”  After all of the arguments to reconfigure streets for “safety” the Bicycle Lobby is now willing to make a gigantic exception to cyclists wearing helmets while they are renting taxpayer funded city owned property. I have no pity for anyone who puts themselves in traffic without a helmet or following the best practices of their chosen mode of travel.
When motorists put themselves in busy city traffic we do so with mandatory seat belts, multiple airbags, steel bumpers, liability insurance, and a license to drive. Riding a bicycle on ANY busy San Francisco street can get you crippled, killed, and / or drooling into a cup for the rest of your life. Wake up City Supervisors! All the boo hoo’ing in the world won’t un-break your skull if you slam into a motor vehicle (at any speed) or crack your unprotected head on the pavement. Cycling is impractical and unsafe for families, daily commuting, and in the rain. The taxpayer-funded bicycle lanes and additional cycle traffic have not only increased traffic congestion, they have also brought new danger to pedestrians as well as cyclists themselves.
City Hall’s campaign to inflict bicycle lanes on a public that largely has no use for them has reached a new level of absurdity with this bike share program. Forcing taxpayers to pay for (and subsidize) a mode of transit that sidesteps the “best practices” of bicycle safety and road sharing is hypocritical and short-sided. Shame on you City Hall for AGAIN pandering to the Bicycle Lobby. If you want safer city streets then enforce traffic laws for everyone and require cyclists to register their bikes, wear helmets, and follow the rules of the road.
We encourage you to watch the video:
and then to read statements from the Citizens of Save Masonic , STOP SFMTA, and SAVE Polk Street.
– The San Francisco Coalition of Aging and Disabled Motorists
“Equal rights are not special rights”