Month: September 2016

I want to talk about the misuse of the bike lanes in San Francisco, particularly how drivers use the bike as an extra lane when there’s congestion or to turn right. I want to cover any data that the police might have on enforcement of the infraction and maybe talk to the bike coalition to see if they’re doing anything to combat this. I’d like to talk about the number of citations issued for this, and do a study of my own and count how many people abuse the bike lane in a popular area like the Embarcadero. I’d like to compare what I saw to any information the police may have and then see what the city/ locals are doing if anything to inform drivers.

Carlsson argues that here in San Francisco, the only place to find peace is out on the road on a bike. Getting away from work and stress is a very big issue to many people today, but here in San Francisco the hustle and bustle is constant and widespread. At the same time Zimmer argues that this tech and work boom will bring people together in the sharing of resources, most importantly cars. Both writers generally agree that the clutter that has become part of cities today needs to decline for people to be successful. I noticed hints of this in my spacial observation, going to Sunday streets in Golden Gate Park. At the carless festival the bicycle seems to be a prominent feature on the streets, serving to be the fastest and most fun form of transportation when the road is completely free. People really take advantage of the space when they don’t have to worry about traffic or angry people coming screaming by in huge metal boxes. It’s also surprisingly quiet, hundreds if not thousands of people on one street at the same time all just enjoying the fresh air and the peace it brings. I think being car free really is calming, as the two authors argue. It gives you the opportunity to get out and enjoy whats around you without having to rush. 

So far of all the places I’ve traveled to, Twin Peaks at night is by far the best. Theres an amazing view from the Golden Gate Bridge to Berkeley and everything in between. When I first went up there I took a trip with some friends from my floor in the middle of the day, and don’t get me wrong it’s pretty then, but the city lights and life you can see at night makes it so much better. The first time I went up at night no one else wanted to go, so I went alone and wasn’t disappointed. Soon enough I was leading a group of SII students up to the top in the middle of the night to show them just how great it was. 

I start by giving a general overview of the topic that I’m going to talk about, I like to compile basic general facts into the opening and hit the outside of each points very quickly. Then I spend time with each subtopic diving into its issues and how it relates to the overall bigger picture. Ie traffic problems in San Francisco I might briefly mention that traffic lights are on set schedules rather than activated when cars are stopped, and then move on to more general problems with traffic. Then once I’ve finished my general overview I will dive into the implications and issues associated with the traffic light system and how it contributes back to the bigger picture. I don’t necessarily discuss things of more importance first or last, but things that have more effect on the overall topic will get more of my speaking time. I would like to work on being able to plan out which topic I’m going to cover when so I don’t repeat myself or get confused.

We all chose a narrative structure and each expanded off of it into different areas. We thought that using the narrative as a background for expanding other topics worked really well and held our speeches together by having a general overall purpose.

In the bicycle community, there’s only one event that can bring every sub culture together; critical mass.

Founded in 1992 by San Francisco native Joel Pomerantz, who’s become famous for writing numerous articles on the SF bicycle scene and water shortages in the state of california. As a writer he’s been seen as a rule breaker and truth teller, but as a cyclist it seems he’s only seen as lawless. But enough about the man behind it, let’s move on to the mass.

The ride itself, much to the idea of Joel takes on a “We are traffic” mentality. When the mass is coming down the road, they are the law. And in many cities this is true, here in San Francisco cyclists have no set destination and don’t use the police to help shut traffic down as they ride. Depending on the attitude of riders and the particular cops that show up, you may end up arrested depending on how far you push the rules. But in cities like London, Atlanta and Cleveland the ride actually has a set route so the police can help block traffic, and of course that means a lot less arrests. Drivers in cities where the ride is sanctioned seem to have a much larger appreciation of the cause, and it becomes a fun activity for everyone on the streets. In cities like Washington D.C. and London police frequently arrest riders who stray into restricted areas, an issue that could be potentially resolved if the ride were more organized.

The ride itself has good intentions, but the lack of clear structure tends to get riders into trouble. In fact, San Francisco has the most documented conflicts of any participating city. Last August a cyclist who was unhappy with an impatient driver broke the mirrors off her car among other things… credible? It’s hard to say. Looking at incidents around the world it seems like a lot of the incidents start as minor accidents when cars hit bikes and turn into a mob mentality attack on the drivers… Not a great image for something that’s supposed to be so positive. In fact, Joel the co founder has stated that he no longer participates in the ride as it’s not what he imagined it would become; so the credibility of the ride is up to you. As someone who participates in the event I’ve never seen any illegal activity or accidents, and for the most part that doesnt happen. But when it does things end up bad with many people hurt or arrested ruining the reputation of the system. To me the ride has enough good history to be proved legitimate, but I’ll leave it up to you.

Overall my speech went pretty well; I covered a good amount of material that I had lined up to talk about and kept my facts straight. I did get a little ahead of myself at times and came back to certain points because of it, and I think this is why I wound up with some extra dead air at the end. I think I hit a lot of good points and covered what I wanted to do but wish I had hit some things about personal experience like I had planned, but my train of thought got thrown off from the start so oh well. I think I had good voice projection and eye contact with the audience, and I tried to keep it light enough to be relatable and easy to understand for everyone. I talked about the different types of credibility discussed in the articles we read in relation to different legalities of critical mass, but I wish I went a little more in depth on this topic. The concept of perceived credibility was supposed to be the center of my talk, but the background of the ride got in the way of expanding on its credibility.