Bicyclists run a red light at Powell and Market streets in San Francisco on Monday. The city is cracking down on bicyclists who break rules.
Rachel Swan / S.F. Chronicle
Regarding “San Francisco’s new safety strategy: A crackdown on bikes” (San Francisco, SFChronicle.com, April 6): I understand that cyclists feel they’re fighting an unjustified perception problem. However, complaining about having to consistently follow inconvenient traffic laws will only make that worse.
When driving a car, saying “but no one was coming” after running a stop sign or red light won’t cut it. Why should it be different for anyone else sharing the road?
As a pedestrian, I’m as worried about being run down by a cyclist as by a car. In most cases, drivers are predictable; cyclists, far less so. Some use a bell or call out when passing, while others zip by without warning. Some, including those on e-bikes, ride on the sidewalk even when bike lanes are available.
Article continues below this ad
Bikes are likely less life-threatening than cars, but I still don’t want to be hit by one at high speed.
Cyclists are not wholly to blame. Until recently, we didn’t expect strict adherence to the law, and enforcement is (understandably) limited.
San Francisco Chronicle Logo
Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.
Add Preferred Source
If we want safe roads, everyone sharing them — including pedestrians — needs to behave predictably by following traffic laws.
Article continues below this ad
Enforce all road rules
Regarding “San Francisco’s new safety strategy: A crackdown on bikes” (San Francisco, SFChronicle.com, April 6): It would be nice if the San Francisco Police Department took the same steps — any steps — to target rule-breaking cars, trucks, scooters and e-bikes, which present a more serious threat to life and limb than human-powered bicycles.
Robert Goodman, San Francisco
Layoffs unnecessary
Regarding “S.F. begins to lay off 127 workers as Mayor Lurie takes ‘painful but necessary’ steps to close deficit” (San Francisco, SFChronicle.com, April 6): Layoffs should be a last resort to balance San Francisco’s budget.
Article continues below this ad
There are smarter ways to balance the budget besides cutting essential city workers.
Mayor Daniel Lurie should oppose cutting the city’s real estate transfer tax, which would be a windfall for corporate landlords.
The mayor should support Proposition D on the June ballot, which would tax overpaid CEOs and could raise over $250 million annually for public services.
Lurie should also tap into the city’s reserve fund to avoid unnecessary layoffs.
If layoffs are absolutely unavoidable, then the only positions that should be cut are the four high-paying “policy chief” positions he created in 2025.
Article continues below this ad
Kurt Lemko, San Francisco
Trump’s real motive
Regarding “US and Iran agree to 2-week ceasefire as Trump pulls back on threats” (News, SFChronicle.com, April 7): Once again, President Donald Trump chickens out, delaying his deadline to attack Iran and destroy its “civilization” by two weeks.
Delay has been Trump’s modus operandi his entire life. Glad he did this time, but that still leaves him without cards. Trump will continue to lie, hoping that it will extricate him from the consequences of a war he started and one for which there is no off-ramp.
In the end, Trump will be accountable for the loss of lives and treasure. Moreover, the Iran nuclear problem will remain, and there will be constraints — perhaps monetary — on the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to ship traffic.
Article continues below this ad
Perhaps the military persuaded Trump to postpone the attacks over concerns about the administration committing war crimes. Perhaps the president believed the military would refuse to hit the civilian targets he wanted to bomb.
It is equally plausible that the price of oil was his motive. I find it hard to believe Trump cares about war crimes. For Trump and his wealthy cronies, the issue has always been making money.
Richard Cherwitz, Camas, Wash.
Paris does it right
Regarding “No one did density better than 19th century Paris. This S.F. neighborhood rediscovered that magic formula” (Opinion, SFChronicle.com, April 5): There’s one important difference between Paris and San Francisco: One quarter of the residents of Paris live in public housing.
Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.
Read more about our transparency and ethics policies
This is “part of an aggressive plan to keep lower-income Parisians — and their businesses — in the city,” according to the New York Times.
If Paris can do this, why can’t San Francisco?
Marc Norton, San Francisco