Solo Drivers should be appreciative of buses, bicyclists, pedestrians and carpoolers -not resentful
1) Non solo drivers aren't in a car on the road with you, slowing you down as much as if everyone were driving solo would.
2) They won't be competing with you for parking wherever you're going
3) They are reducing their carbon footprint which is reducing their impact on the environment, likely more than you are, by using alternative means of transportation
4) They are helping reduce local air pollution and downwind air pollution by reducing their contribution to the precursors to Ozone (smog) and particulates.
5) You shouldn't be upset with pedestrians with walk signals who aren't walking "fast enough" for you. That may be difficult for them, they may have a hidden disability or health condition, they may simply be walking a long distance or simply not walk fast.
As someone who spends a lot of time in a high density downtown area, while I understand the frustration of driving in such a place filled with cars, trucks, construction, mass transit, people on foot and bicyclists, the most common danger we all face, is from other people driving cars.
So it's incumbent upon drivers, above the others to change their behavior and attitudes in these environments the most because they are the greatest sources of danger (for the moment).
(in California, a car doing this would be doing something illegal)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #11)
First, I'm singling out drivers to not be hostile or resentful of non-drivers on the road (not to "not be morons"
. Second, I'm pointing out that drivers should appreciate non-drivers because
a) they aren't slowing traffic as much as they would if they drove
b) there are environmental benefits of not driving, or driving less and we all, including drivers, benefit from people making that choice --even when we do not.
I said reduce one's carbon footprint, not eliminate. Heating and cooling are fairly universal to people, but those who don't drive are the rarity, and thus, really do reduce their carbon footprint compared to people who drive or drive regularly.
The broadside broad-brush animosity towards families with children seems unnecessary.
Perhaps you'd like to send a note to the families of the victims hit in the Millbrae crosswalks on ECR to inform them that their beloved family members were hit through their own fault.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Millbrae-crosswalk-claiming-more-victims-4104091.php
Again, blaming pedestrians for being hit is pretty crass on your part. I can forgive you for that.
What I can't forgive you for is saying it ignorantly, which you are. Crosswalks on El Camino for example have been the scene of multiple pedestrian deaths. Crosswalks in San Francisco are the scenes of hit pedestrians all the time, some 40% of them are elderly.
Your insensitivity and ignorance of this topic hasn't produced caution in posting on the topic.
You probably don't care about my posts that have pointed out how crosswalks are in fact unsafe by design to pedestrians and how they should be improved.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112739730
Most signaled intersections are unsafe for pedestrians, here's why (we need to encourage walking!)
How does a bicyclist avoid the blindspot of a car? Cars move fast, cars come up unseen from behind, cars speed up quickly in ways that bicycles cannot. Again, the hostility and frankly, blame towards pedestrians and bicyclists for being hit is what animates your post --and it's ignorant.
I like my car too. Not having an interest in not hitting anyone is not sufficient to be safe, it takes more than that. Also, the easiest way to get hit isn't to walk against a red light, it's to walk with a "walk signal" and a green light and have a car overtake you while turning behind you. You don't seem to know this, and yet, you speak as an expert. Nothing required you to speak on this, nothing required you to make misstatement after hostile misstatement about pedestrians, you chose to.
But you are wrong, and actually, incredibly anti-environmental and anti-safety in your post.
Not really, but you are responding to a straw man of your own creation.
Your hostility to anyone who doesn't roll over and kow tow to you is a wonder to behold. No one is obligated to stick to your narrow focus when you present a topic; to react with such anger to mere words on a screen makes me wonder if you wrote the OP as a reminder to yourself when you are faced with an actual inconvenience.
If I told you the distances to the crosswalks in the specific areas I mentioned where pedestrians risk their lives as well as those of motorists (coming to a sudden stop in the middle of the street is dangerous to the cars behind), I have no doubt that reasons why that 25' is too far, or too much of a burden to any potential disabled drinkers who are climbing over the median to dart over to the Alibi or the package liquor store (which also sells cigarettes) would be thought up, just as you manufactured out of thin air my 'crapping' on non-motorized transport. You know perfectly well I did nothing of the sort, but that seems to be a rhetorical device you favor.
I stand by my original point: Califorians, no matter their means of conveyance, need to stop being morons on the roads.
And to you, because you seem to need it so very badly: 
Proud pedestrian and subway commuter here. 
...I arrive early and take the dogs for a walk in the neighborhood of the coffee shop. A couple of blocks away there's a ghost bike, that we pass by on the walk.
I didn't fully emotionalize the bike until I heard Jim Page perform this song in concert:
Song about white-painted bicycles memorializing victims of auto vs. bike collisions.
Performed March 6, 2010 at Tsunami Books in Eugene OR.
We are people in motion. We all need to get where we're going. We all need to travel by means that suit us, our lives, our budgets, our circumstances, our convictions. We all need to recognize that other people may not share our particular concerns, we need to respect them and yield when appropriate - whether we're walking, on a bike, or in a car. Dying, or killing someone, is not worth a few mph, or a few seconds gained.
The changes I've advocated for here will speed traffic and pedestrians and make it less frustrating to drive and less dangerous to walk.
Here's a post where I talk about some needed changes to intersection design that should be made in busy areas (these changes are used, just not widespread enough at this point):
Most signaled intersections are unsafe for pedestrians, here's why (we need to encourage walking!)
Signals force cars and pedestrians to occupy the crosswalks at the same time, and in fact, don't require cars to slow or stop at all.
Also, to be safe for pedestrians, the pedestrian needs to LOOK BEHIND them to be sure no car is coming, even with a walk signal.
The flaw is that pedestrians have the green/walk in the crosswalk while cars have the same, the only thing protecting the pedestrian is if the car sees them in time to stop, or sees them and attempts to stop at all prior to hitting them.
Intersections everywhere need to be updated to give a red signal to cars while pedestrians have a walk signal for the crosswalk. Signals need to segregate car access from pedestrian access.
This can be done through an all red that lets pedestrians cross in any direction all at once and the rest of the time is for cars to access the intersection. The benefit of this for cars is that instead of two cycles that let pedestrians cross, there is just one, for pedestrians the benefit is that they never have to cross more than once, and can do so diagonally, saving time and distance.
Safety can also be accomplished through red and green arrows for turning, giving a walk signal with a red turn signal followed by a don't walk signal and a green turn signal for right or left turns through a crosswalk.
As our intersections get busier with more cars and more people, there is an inevitable conflict, the only time for cars to legally make a turn is when pedestrians have a walk signal, which puts pressure on cars to cut between people, or be left blocking the intersection until the red signal is against them.
We can do this. These changes can be made at busy intersections and increasingly applied to areas based on the rates of pedestrian injuries and deaths.
CAR ATTEMPTING TO PASS THROUGH CROSSWALK WHILE PEDESTRIANS ARE WITHIN IT
CARS WITH GREEN SIGNAL CAN TURN THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHILE HAS SIMULTANEOUS WALK SIGNAL
do you think ANY of the drivers that need to change think they are breaking ANY laws?
i mean, what am i going to do, post an OP and say, "hey, if you are a bad driver, take heed..."
but the truth is, it's not just bad drivers, per se. lots of people violate the laws that protect pedestrians. people who are quite capable drivers often, but they just think they can creep into the crosswalk when people are there, that they can nudge a cyclist to the side so they can get around, etc.
i guarantee none of those folks, including the guy in the Lincoln Town Car behind me yesterday who honked at me because I was waiting for pedestrians to cross...he wanted me to drive between the small space between a few of them in the crosswalk. he laid on his horn, just laid on it, so i pointed to them and he honked again.
that kind of crap is incredibly common. it's why i address drivers in general to deal with the attitude and remind them that people on foot and bicycle and on transit are not clogging their streets or their air, so give them a break and protect their safety.
