I don’t have a strong opinion about slow streets one way or another. But what I do love about this issue is that it’s an unpartisan local issue with strong arguments on both sides. That is, this issue represents exactly what politics *should* be
That women is your classic nimby. She would want people to be able to work on her house/apartment, but could care less about how nearly impossible it can be to park construction cars in that neighborhood. When parking is near impossible, guess what? The price of the job goes up! The inability for everyone to put themselves into each others shoes is destroying society. Everyone needs to work together instead of tearing each other apart.
Watching from the Netherlands, I can assure you that the notion of a "slow street" is not new in my country. In fact, virtually all city centres are free of cars! Where people can drive, the speed limit is low. No problem. People here walk or cycle. With the arrival of e-bikes, cycling is particularly easy. Some San Franciscans clearly find the new changes exasperating, and their feelings are understandable. Change is never easy. Nonetheless, the basic idea is a good one. With time, people will largely learn to appreciate the change. (By the way, I grew up in the Bay Area in the '60s and '70s.)
Hey dipshit for brains. The Bay Area has 8 million people inside it, which is about half the size of your entire nation. Taking streets away from cars and giving them to people arbitrarily does absolutely nothing except pander to NIMBY shitheads who want the poors to stay away from them. Consider that there are sidewalks on the sides of every single street, and people have been able to walk on them since forever. Combine that with the fact that cyclists dont have to obtain a drivers license to use these roads(along with cars that DO have to obtain one), and the fact that children have NEVER had the luxury of playing in the middle of a working roadway, and you get a totally ridiculous situation where nobody but rich assholes are pleased, and everyone else suffers for it.
Spot on, and the same here in Japan where most all residential streets are "slow streets"... The trade off of reclaiming space from car-centric development is an increase in everyday quality of life (I also grew up in the Bay Area and SF).
They should just make these streets for pedestrian/cycling only (exception of first responder vehicles). Really no reason to prioritize cars in the city.
Honestly, owning a car in SF is silly. Fewer cars, fewer parking lots, more stores(jobs), more housing. So simple and yet the boomer brain cannot comrehend it
stupid to still have this, most of the pedestrians on these streets feel entitled without letting cars go down the road. there's an entire functioning sidewalk on these "slow" streets. As a motorcyclist, I've come nearly head on in almost hitting drivers trying to turn on the opposite side to avoid the signs. STUPID!!!
It's a SHARED Street, pedestrians are allowed to be in the middle of the road. According to slow street rules, pedestrians should yield to cars, but cars also need to give pedestrians and cyclists enough space to maneuver in. Pedestrians absolutely belong in the middle of a slow street. If you don't like it, you could always use one of the hundreds of other streets you can speed on.
@@dASHsnucky your entire statement doesn't make sense. Pededstrian should yield to cars and cars should yield to pedestrians. Uh, what - are we playing a game of chicken?
@@roundingcorners It is understandable that cars and pedestrians sharing the road may seem strange in a car-centric society like the US, but in many other industrialized countries in the world, sharing the road in residential areas (where cars should be decreasing speed anyway) is very normal. What is necessary is simply being aware (free of distraction) and being patient, the most basic requirements for driving safely. Regarding the safety of motorcyclists (I see you), there will always be jerks on both sides of an issue, but they do not represent the majority of people in this case. Additionally, research shows that collisions at reduced speeds are less dangerous, so these streets are safer for everyone. Let the residents decide.
@@michaelmoraga2926 I get kids playing in the middle of a residential street, heck - I grew up in the bay area during the 80's where it was the norm in any suburb to play out on the street. Now what doesn't make sense is continuing to have people walk in the street. The only reason safe streets was put in place was to distance from each other to allow for exercise and the mere fact that auto-traffic was non-existent. To me it's just a sense of entitlement when there's plenty of nice sidewalk space. We tell cyclists to use the road because the sidewalk is meant for pedestrian use only. Now we tell pedestrians it's ok to walk in the street. Logic?
@@roundingcorners I see your point. I also grew up as a child in the SF Bay Area (in the 70s and 80s) enjoying the privileges of playing in the streets (Friends calling out "Car!" to each other). My parents also rode. I understand the seeming sense of entitlement and conflicting messages to cyclists and pedestrians. I think it is sad that quality of life issues in the US seem to be the privilege of the wealthy, and that so many solid ideas become problematic with poor implementation (Most shared streets in residential areas tend to be made more narrow, or at least one-way, requiring everyone to slow down, and don't have that weird blocked entry). That said, research about slow, shared residential streets support an increase in safety and quality of life for everyone, which are the main goals, regardless of how people are using the streets. I know from experience living abroad for many years (as a simple teacher) in places in Europe and Asia with shared residential streets that the benefits outweigh the hassles... There will always be hassles, but being able to walk down the street without stressing over being hit by a car can be enjoyed by everyone, from whatever income level. Whether shared residential streets are possible in the States remains to be seen. Maybe Americans cannot or do not want to adapt. Regardless, I think the ultimate choice should be up to the residents. (I appreciate this exchange of ideas. I think this is how problems start to get solved)
Just close streets for the weekend... Common practice in asia, Vietnam for example would close major intersections on Sunday for the community to hang out. The community always show up
I'm a native San Franciscan, born and raised here, age 76, living in the Richmond district. Slow streets are the stupidest idea I've ever seen. They just block up streets, based on the false idea that pedestrians needed more space. But most of our blocks have only 1 - 3 pedestrians on them at any one time, so there's always an abundance of space, regardless of the time of day. The slow street signs just create obstacles the force cars to do weird things to get around them, making otherwise safe streets suddenly dangerous.
I'm also a native San Franciscan - Born & Raised, and a product of SFUSD. Cabrillo slow streets are hardly ever used. If it's not being used, please just save the entire neighborhood the trouble of having to deal with this eyesore - just remove them.
I love how SF encourages people to wonder around in the street with the false sense of security that it is a safe zone even though cars still drive down these streets. The Streets are not completely blocked to traffic.
Slow Streets = congested streets for those not wealthy or lucky enough to live on them. If they are to remain, they should be rotated among all streets.
@@michwashington Nah, in this case, facts demand data based on research. That said, yes, living in purely residential streets in SF is out of reach for working class people, but research shows that making cities less car-centric increases everyone's quality of life. Let the residents decide.
I want slow street back on Kirkham Street between 19th to 48th. The moving vehicles treat pedestrians as invisible! Just because the sign was taken out it does not mean moving vehicles could speed down Kirkham. Please observe Kirkham and 26th Ave where moving vehicles do not stop to let the pedestrians cross the street. I have made numerous calls to 311 that cars are not stopping!
Get out of the street. THere is a sidewalk and prescribed crossing areas. Is it that hard to follow simple laws? Or perhaps just to use your eyes when jaywalking? cars don't owe you room on the road, you aren't a funking car.
@@jaydee2072 I NEED to cross the street! How can I cross the street without stepping down from the sidewalk to cross the other side! SLOW down Kirkham is in a residential area. I don’t dare to jaywalk with all the race car drivers down on Kirkham! I am at the crosswalk where there is no stop sign on Kirkham and 26th. I WANT the slow street back!
The only tourists on these "slow" residential streets are lost. In that case, they would benefit from being able to pull over and ask someone walking by for directions. Being forced to drive more slowly and be aware does not make living in the city hard. The cost of living and high rents, as well as the fast pace of city living, are what make living in the city hard. That said, the majority of the people living the neighborhood should decide if streets are "slow" or not.
The necessary alternative transportation routes could cycle, one out of every five streets as a slow street once a week posted like the Street Cleaning program? Give everyone a break once in a while.
Raise your hand if you've ever almost collided with another car because you have to constantly swerve to the oncoming lane, especially when making right turns.
@@dASHsnucky What happens is you look left and then right, check for pedestrians, check for cars, turn right, and BAM! A car has already arrived in the opposite lane where I should I not be going into in the first place. And by the way, that car has to turn into the wrong lane too because those plastic bollards are in their way, so their attention is also split.
@@Terrakinetic I feel your pain. I always drive on slow streets and I never go around pedestrians or bicyclist due to the rules of the road and safety from any coming cars or bicyclist. I merely follow quietly behind them at 5 MPH. Also driving on slow streets saves fuel for me. I encourage more motorcyclists and private vehicles to drive on slow streets.
This seemed pretty one sided. This makes driving horrible. Every decision the city takes for street causes more and more traffic. Seems like they need to put some people who actually live and drive in the city in charge instead of people who like out of the city and bart in.
How about cutting all the BS and actually start writing tickets to people speeding and performing illegal movements?
I'm so happy I don't live in SF anymore
Thats because most locals there are terrible drivers.
Yeah they are rushing through those stop signs - slow streets are needed, especially in noe
15 miles per hour is actually faster than the speed you can normally drive on SF's streets
I don’t have a strong opinion about slow streets one way or another. But what I do love about this issue is that it’s an unpartisan local issue with strong arguments on both sides. That is, this issue represents exactly what politics *should* be
That women is your classic nimby. She would want people to be able to work on her house/apartment, but could care less about how nearly impossible it can be to park construction cars in that neighborhood. When parking is near impossible, guess what? The price of the job goes up! The inability for everyone to put themselves into each others shoes is destroying society. Everyone needs to work together instead of tearing each other apart.
Watching from the Netherlands, I can assure you that the notion of a "slow street" is not new in my country. In fact, virtually all city centres are free of cars! Where people can drive, the speed limit is low. No problem. People here walk or cycle. With the arrival of e-bikes, cycling is particularly easy. Some San Franciscans clearly find the new changes exasperating, and their feelings are understandable. Change is never easy. Nonetheless, the basic idea is a good one. With time, people will largely learn to appreciate the change. (By the way, I grew up in the Bay Area in the '60s and '70s.)
Hey dipshit for brains. The Bay Area has 8 million people inside it, which is about half the size of your entire nation. Taking streets away from cars and giving them to people arbitrarily does absolutely nothing except pander to NIMBY shitheads who want the poors to stay away from them. Consider that there are sidewalks on the sides of every single street, and people have been able to walk on them since forever. Combine that with the fact that cyclists dont have to obtain a drivers license to use these roads(along with cars that DO have to obtain one), and the fact that children have NEVER had the luxury of playing in the middle of a working roadway, and you get a totally ridiculous situation where nobody but rich assholes are pleased, and everyone else suffers for it.
Spot on, and the same here in Japan where most all residential streets are "slow streets"... The trade off of reclaiming space from car-centric development is an increase in everyday quality of life (I also grew up in the Bay Area and SF).
Are you calling me slow?
rush hour is still going to be The Purge no matter how many signs you put up
You mean more cars take the adjacent streets? Astonishing.
God forbid you use the sidewalk or sit on or in the property you're paying a fortune for
They should just make these streets for pedestrian/cycling only (exception of first responder vehicles). Really no reason to prioritize cars in the city.
Honestly, owning a car in SF is silly. Fewer cars, fewer parking lots, more stores(jobs), more housing. So simple and yet the boomer brain cannot comrehend it
Get your chair off the street 😆
stupid to still have this, most of the pedestrians on these streets feel entitled without letting cars go down the road. there's an entire functioning sidewalk on these "slow" streets. As a motorcyclist, I've come nearly head on in almost hitting drivers trying to turn on the opposite side to avoid the signs. STUPID!!!
It's a SHARED Street, pedestrians are allowed to be in the middle of the road. According to slow street rules, pedestrians should yield to cars, but cars also need to give pedestrians and cyclists enough space to maneuver in. Pedestrians absolutely belong in the middle of a slow street. If you don't like it, you could always use one of the hundreds of other streets you can speed on.
@@dASHsnucky your entire statement doesn't make sense. Pededstrian should yield to cars and cars should yield to pedestrians. Uh, what - are we playing a game of chicken?
@@roundingcorners It is understandable that cars and pedestrians sharing the road may seem strange in a car-centric society like the US, but in many other industrialized countries in the world, sharing the road in residential areas (where cars should be decreasing speed anyway) is very normal.
What is necessary is simply being aware (free of distraction) and being patient, the most basic requirements for driving safely.
Regarding the safety of motorcyclists (I see you), there will always be jerks on both sides of an issue, but they do not represent the majority of people in this case. Additionally, research shows that collisions at reduced speeds are less dangerous, so these streets are safer for everyone.
Let the residents decide.
@@michaelmoraga2926 I get kids playing in the middle of a residential street, heck - I grew up in the bay area during the 80's where it was the norm in any suburb to play out on the street. Now what doesn't make sense is continuing to have people walk in the street. The only reason safe streets was put in place was to distance from each other to allow for exercise and the mere fact that auto-traffic was non-existent. To me it's just a sense of entitlement when there's plenty of nice sidewalk space. We tell cyclists to use the road because the sidewalk is meant for pedestrian use only. Now we tell pedestrians it's ok to walk in the street. Logic?
@@roundingcorners I see your point. I also grew up as a child in the SF Bay Area (in the 70s and 80s) enjoying the privileges of playing in the streets (Friends calling out "Car!" to each other). My parents also rode.
I understand the seeming sense of entitlement and conflicting messages to cyclists and pedestrians. I think it is sad that quality of life issues in the US seem to be the privilege of the wealthy, and that so many solid ideas become problematic with poor implementation (Most shared streets in residential areas tend to be made more narrow, or at least one-way, requiring everyone to slow down, and don't have that weird blocked entry). That said, research about slow, shared residential streets support an increase in safety and quality of life for everyone, which are the main goals, regardless of how people are using the streets.
I know from experience living abroad for many years (as a simple teacher) in places in Europe and Asia with shared residential streets that the benefits outweigh the hassles... There will always be hassles, but being able to walk down the street without stressing over being hit by a car can be enjoyed by everyone, from whatever income level.
Whether shared residential streets are possible in the States remains to be seen. Maybe Americans cannot or do not want to adapt. Regardless, I think the ultimate choice should be up to the residents.
(I appreciate this exchange of ideas. I think this is how problems start to get solved)
Just close streets for the weekend... Common practice in asia, Vietnam for example would close major intersections on Sunday for the community to hang out. The community always show up
What a goofy palace SF has become
I'm a native San Franciscan, born and raised here, age 76, living in the Richmond district. Slow streets are the stupidest idea I've ever seen. They just block up streets, based on the false idea that pedestrians needed more space. But most of our blocks have only 1 - 3 pedestrians on them at any one time, so there's always an abundance of space, regardless of the time of day. The slow street signs just create obstacles the force cars to do weird things to get around them, making otherwise safe streets suddenly dangerous.
All facts💯
I'm also a native San Franciscan - Born & Raised, and a product of SFUSD. Cabrillo slow streets are hardly ever used. If it's not being used, please just save the entire neighborhood the trouble of having to deal with this eyesore - just remove them.
I love how SF encourages people to wonder around in the street with the false sense of security that it is a safe zone even though cars still drive down these streets. The Streets are not completely blocked to traffic.
True, SF should block all car traffic
Slow Streets = congested streets for those not wealthy or lucky enough to live on them. If they are to remain, they should be rotated among all streets.
FACTS
@@michwashington Nah, in this case, facts demand data based on research. That said, yes, living in purely residential streets in SF is out of reach for working class people, but research shows that making cities less car-centric increases everyone's quality of life.
Let the residents decide.
Rich san franciscans always complaining and never happy 😂
FUNNY!!! did those signs cost 10 to 50K each
Umm no, they're pretty simple and generic.
@@e5b7-wr811ouhih So 5K per sign
I want slow street back on Kirkham Street between 19th to 48th. The moving vehicles treat pedestrians as invisible! Just because the sign was taken out it does not mean moving vehicles could speed down Kirkham. Please observe Kirkham and 26th Ave where moving vehicles do not stop to let the pedestrians cross the street. I have made numerous calls to 311 that cars are not stopping!
Get out of the street. THere is a sidewalk and prescribed crossing areas. Is it that hard to follow simple laws? Or perhaps just to use your eyes when jaywalking? cars don't owe you room on the road, you aren't a funking car.
@@jaydee2072 I NEED to cross the street! How can I cross the street without stepping down from the sidewalk to cross the other side! SLOW down Kirkham is in a residential area. I don’t dare to jaywalk with all the race car drivers down on Kirkham! I am at the crosswalk where there is no stop sign on Kirkham and 26th. I WANT the slow street back!
San Francisco. Keep getting worse and worse
Debating slow streets actually feels positive. Most residents are in favor of them, but they do impact surrounding streets negatively..
5:32 I’m voting 🗳️ against every slow street ‼️
You make it hard for people to live in the city or visit it and then wonder why is SF not coming back from the pandemic 🤦♂️
What are you talking about? Tourists LOVE slow streets!
The only tourists on these "slow" residential streets are lost. In that case, they would benefit from being able to pull over and ask someone walking by for directions.
Being forced to drive more slowly and be aware does not make living in the city hard. The cost of living and high rents, as well as the fast pace of city living, are what make living in the city hard.
That said, the majority of the people living the neighborhood should decide if streets are "slow" or not.
Drive on whatever street is convenient. Screw these stupid signs.
The necessary alternative transportation routes could cycle, one out of every five streets as a slow street once a week posted like the Street Cleaning program? Give everyone a break once in a while.
Slow Streets = Nonsense Get Rid of slow streets Now! No Nonsense!
Ban cars in SF
love that guy with the birds lol
These people really don't have any innovative ideas.
Funny how none of the black neighborhoods have this policy. All in rich white areas.
You don't want them, trust me
Slow streets are all over San Francisco including neighborhoods with more minorities like the Mission and the Richmond.
@@HanginInSF most residents actually do, and even set up websites like slowlakestreet
@@e5b7-wr811ouhih Minority. But not black neighborhoods
exactly ...
Slow Streets = Slow Economy
Raise your hand if you've ever almost collided with another car because you have to constantly swerve to the oncoming lane, especially when making right turns.
✋
If you're "almost colliding", maybe you need to slow down.
@@dASHsnucky What happens is you look left and then right, check for pedestrians, check for cars, turn right, and BAM! A car has already arrived in the opposite lane where I should I not be going into in the first place.
And by the way, that car has to turn into the wrong lane too because those plastic bollards are in their way, so their attention is also split.
@@Terrakinetic I feel your pain. I always drive on slow streets and I never go around pedestrians or bicyclist due to the rules of the road and safety from any coming cars or bicyclist. I merely follow quietly behind them at 5 MPH. Also driving on slow streets saves fuel for me. I encourage more motorcyclists and private vehicles to drive on slow streets.
This seemed pretty one sided. This makes driving horrible. Every decision the city takes for street causes more and more traffic. Seems like they need to put some people who actually live and drive in the city in charge instead of people who like out of the city and bart in.
Slow Street has nothing do with safet but to pander to 1 group which is anti car groups...for their own personals agenda
❤la verdad de los controladores de los umanos y como ser libres jonas l.mamani Hipnosis❤yeshua❤la muerte no existe❤todos vamos acender ala 5 D❤❤