Personal Injury Lawyer

The personal injury lawyers at Rahman Law PC are powerful advocates for people who have been injured through no fault of their own.  These personal injury blogs contain articles with information relating to personal injury law, personal injury lawyers, and personal injury cases of interest.

Speed Limit for Bikers on the Golden Gate Bridge

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman
The Plan
In the past couple of weeks, there has been a lot of talk about how officials with the Golden Gate Bridge District are planning on imposing a biking speed limit of 10 mph on the regular path and to 5 mph near the towers. Highway patrol will be using radar guns to monitor passing cyclists’ speed. Violators will be fined $100.
GGB spokeswoman Mary Currie told the Chronicle that this plan is to prevent bike and pedestrian accidents that are, according to GGB officials, commonplace on the bridge. A study showed that in the past ten years, there has been a total of 164 accidents, 39% of which involved excessive speeding. The solo bike crash happened 5 times more often than collisions between bikes and pedestrians.
The GGB’s Board of Directors will vote on the approval of this new project on May 13th. If it’s approved, the limit would most likely be in effect by the end of the summer.
Cyclists’ Criticisms
So far, the response has been generally negative. Hunter Ziesing of local cycling group ZTeam calls the plan a “smart” idea, but thinks the fine is too high and the speed too slow.
However, most others are not so agreeable. In contrast to the safety concerns raised by the GGB officials, many cyclists are arguing that this speed limit is unwarranted and unnecessary. In another article by the Chronicle, recreational cyclist P.J. Gallagher, who often bikes the Golden Gate, calls this plan “a joke” because “it’s a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.”
Other cyclists have raised the complaint that it will be difficult for them to know what speed they’re travelling because most bikes are not equipped with speedometers. According to the study, the current average speed of cyclists on the bridge is 13-17 mph.
And even more have complained about the singling out of bicyclists when tourists are “the real problem” because, according to daily-commuter Lew Ketcher, “There are people coming right at you with a camera in one hand, looking out at the water. There are people stopping right in the middle of the path to take a picture.”
It’s too bad that, with money as the concern, tourists and unnecessary fines are the city’s best friends.

If you ever need a bicycle accident attorney in San Francisco, Paso Robles, or the surrounding Central California Coast area, contact us for a free consultation.

“HowFuckedIsMuni.Com”

Posted on by Rahman Law PC
When you’re standing at a bus stop for far too long and you have no idea whether the bus passed by earlier than schedule or if it’s just extremely late, would you say that ignorance is bliss or just really, really annoying?

Well, considering the popularity of NextBus.com—the handy site that tracks your buses and their estimated time of arrival to all stops—I’d bet you’re more likely to be standing at that bus shelter with a frown on your face than a smile. If you haven’t checked out NextBus, I would recommend giving it a try so you never again have to stand in the cold, wracked with will it/won’t it questions. And instead, you’ll know exactly when the bus is coming in real-time and plan accordingly.


How Fucked Is Muni? is a site inspired by Is the L Train Fucked? which tells New Yorkers if the L Train is late enough for them to splurge on a cab ride home. HFIM combines the L Train model with NextBus.com real-time technology to tell you how delayed your ride is. So instead of waiting impatiently for your late bus, now you can know exactly how fucked you are because of Muni.

Bike Boxes: Good Idea?

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman
In light of the new Market Street bike boxes, the SFMTA has provided a handy infographic on how to safely use them:

In their press release, the SFMTA said that bike boxes are “designed to improve the visibility and positioning of bicyclists at intersections with traffic signals and to prioritize bicycles as they move through intersections. Bicyclists stopped in a bike box are easily seen by motorists, improving safety at intersections. Bike boxes provide a separated waiting area for bicyclists and can increase pedestrian safety by improving visibility and decreasing both motorist and bicycle encroachment into crosswalks.”
Also included in the press release was additional guidelines to using these bike boxes. Whether you bike, walk, or drive, it’s very important to know these rules.
What Motorists Should Know
When the traffic signal is red, motorists must stop behind the white stop line behind the green bike box. Motorists should not stop on top of the bike box, but rather keep it clear for cyclists to use. Right turns on a red signal will not be allowed at these intersections.
When the light turns green, motorists and cyclists may move through the intersection as usual, with cyclists going first. Motorists turning right on green should signal and watch for cyclists to the right.
What Bicyclists Should Know
When a traffic signal is red, bicyclists must enter the bike box from the approaching bike lane and stop before the crosswalk.
When the light is green, bicyclists should proceed as normal through the intersection. Bicyclists should be aware of right-turning motorists, especially while in the crosswalk and the intersection.
What are your thoughts on these bike boxes? Do they seem more helpful than potentially harmful?

If you ever need a bicycle accident attorney in San Francisco, Paso Robles, or the surrounding Central California Coast area, contact us for a free consultation.

The People Plan

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

In preparation for the 2013 America’s Cup yacht race taking place on our city’s waterfront, Mayor Ed Lee is working towards improving Embarcadero’s pedestrian, bike, and transit congestion.

The People Plan lays out the possible changes city officials can make. According to SF Streetsblog, these changes include:
  • Extending the F-line to Fort Mason
  • Implementing a bike share program with safe parking systems
  • New wayfinding signs on biking and walking routes
  • Prioritizing Bike Plan projects and adding more bike lanes

These changes can really make a big difference to the waterfront, not just for the event, but permanently. If there are any changes you want to see, this is the time to suggest them. And hopefully, after the tourists have all gone home, they’ll leave behind a more commuter-friendly Embarcadero.

MTA Calls Slow Street Safety Improvement “Paralysis by Analysis”

Posted on by Rahman Law PC
The Confusion

A meeting at City Hall on Tuesday discussed the climbing political pressure to bring about a quick fix to pedestrian danger. The problem has long been established and addressed, so what’s taking so long to solve it?

Well, according to MTA’s Board of Supervisors David Chiu, “We are experiencing a little bit of paralysis by analysis.” With so many different agencies conducting studies and presenting plans and statistics, Chiu claims that it is the bureaucracy that is preventing any real action.
Deputy Director of Planning for the SFCTA (San Francisco County Transportation Authority) Tilly Chang calls this problem a problem of “fragmented responsibility.” And it is unsurprising that responsibility is so difficult to delegate because, in the SFCTA’s “Update on Citywide Pedestrian Safety Efforts“, the Authority is listed as “one of 12 agencies currently participating in the City’s newly-established Pedestrian Safety Task Force.” Despite the confusion, Chang says that the responsibility falls mostly on the MTA because they are “arguably” the lead agency on pedestrian safety.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Stampe of Walk SF doesn’t think it’s that simple, saying, “In some ways having the MTA be the agency where it’s centered makes sense, but in some ways the work that the other agencies are doing gets translated into real action on the streets faster and in a way that satisfies people more.”
But while everyone is trying to figure out who’s running the show, reps from all agencies agree that immediate action needs to be taken–if not because it’s been long overdue, then because the political pressure is getting to be too much.
A Few Results
From the meeting’s confusion arose a few key ideas for improvement:
  1. Data integration.
  2. Better enforcement efforts by the SFPD.
  3. Reducing the speed of automobiles. According to Rajiv Bhatia of the SF Department of Public Health, “We’ve calculated that serious injuries could be reduced by over 50 percent from a 5 mile an hour reduction in the travelling speed.” However, he also noted that traffic laws might impede the realization of the plan. And I think it’s safe to say that we don’t need anything else impeding real action.

Source: http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/03/22/san-francisco-pedestrian-safety-efforts-mired-in-city-bureaucracy/


Nathaniel Ford: Soon to be jobless?

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

Last we heard of him, Nat Ford was on his way to being the new head of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. But, according to theWashington Post, late Wednesday, Ford received a message from DC informing him that they’ve “reopened the search” for potential candidates.

And should they deny him the position, it is not guaranteed that Ford will continue as the director of the SFMTA. In fact, many board members are now questioning his loyalty and dedication to the SFMTA.
According to SF Streetsblog, Supervisor Scott Wiener said, “I like and respect Nat Ford but it’s also very important that we have an executive director of the MTA who is completely focused on the agency, and who wants the job. And it seems like Mr. Ford is looking elsewhere and we need a complete focus on MTA.”
Chairman Ross Mirkarimi also pointed out that the pay history of directors has risen because they “are always looking for the next best thing.” He said that this system is a “self-perpetuating cycle [created] by the transit directors themselves and by the industry that supports the rotation of these transit directors so that they keep earning more money each time they relocate, and there is no end in sight. The theory behind this is, in order to get someone that’s competitive and comparable to the industry standard, we have to spend $50,000 more each time we get a new director. Pretty soon we’re gonna be at $400,000 for a new director. I find that absurd.”
It seems that members of the SFMTA board itself are fed up with their directors’ preoccupation with their wallets rather than our transit system. If Nathaniel Ford is booted from the SFMTA, let’s hope that his replacement won’t just be another addition to this self-perpetuating cycle.

New Chief of the SFMTA?

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

A month from now, Nathaniel Ford will be finding out whether or not he has been offered the spot as the new president and CEO of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

Should he get the job, the city will have 60 days to find his replacement.
According to the SF Chronicle, the top candidates for replacing him as the future chief of the SFMTA (and future earner of the highest salary on the city payroll) are:
  1. Edward Reiskin – Director of the SF Public Works Department who “has no direct transportation background but a deep well of management experience is well liked by supervisors and the mayor.”
  2. Carter Rohan – Deputy Executive Director for the Municipal Transportation Agency and and former Capital Projects Director, described as a “a veteran transportation executive.”
  3. Stuart Sunshine – Currently working for a “private-sector construction management and engineering firm” and “held several senior positions in city government, including the top job at Muni on an interim basis.”
  4. Debra Johnson – Director of Administration at the MTA who is “leading contract negotiations with Muni operators.”
The SF Chronicle article also goes on to list the several, multi-faceted problems the new chief would face in this time of transition and scrutiny for the SFMTA. To read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/06/BA7T1I4CJO.DTL
Who do you think would be the best chief? What qualifications and experience should we expect from them?

Bike-Friendly Candidate for Mayor

Posted on by Rahman Law PC
On Monday, President of SF’s Board of Supervisors David Chiu announced his candidacy for mayor. Running on a platform of improving “sustainable transportation”, Chiu declared on the steps of City Hall: “We’re the city that invented the cable car, but while we call ourselves a Transit-First city, we are sick of gridlock, we are sick of potholes and we’re sick of Muni.”

Chiu is presenting himself as the “candidate for mayor who doesn’t own a car, who gets to City Hall either on the number 49 or on [his] bicycle” and as the candidate who firmly believes that “we can do better” when it comes to public transportation and protecting pedestrians and cyclists on the streets.
We’ll be sure to keep an eye for what he’s got planned!

SFMTA Under Investigation for Multiple Muni Safety Violations

Posted on by Rahman Law PC
In response to The California Public Utilities Commission‘s allegation of Muni’s safety hazards, SFMTA spokesperson Nathaniel Ford had this to say: “We have a very safe system. We’ve had our challenges over the years…but we have a good track record. It could always be better, but more recently over the past few years we’ve been slowly but surely improving our safety record.”

While the SFMTA’s optimism plays on and on like a broken record, everyone has gotten sick of hearing the same old tune. Luckily, there’s some good news for those of us who have been waiting far too long for someone to change the song.

During 20 inspections conducted between July 2009 and January of this year, The CPUC discovered repeated safety violations that might potentially endanger Muni’s passengers. In their official press release, the CPUC said that they are particularly concerned with “the material condition of the light rail system, SFMTA’s failure to initiate or complete Corrective Action Plans to address known problems, late reporting or non-reporting of incidents, and failure to respond to CPUC inspection findings.”


As a result, the CPUC has voted to open penalty clauses, meaning an Administrative Law Judge will listen to the testimony regarding these safety violations and rule whether or not the SFMTA will incur a fine for their conduct.

The CPUC has listed 8 safety violations as strong evidence for why they have taken these punitive measures:
  • The track at Church and Duboce Streets has deteriorated and has numerous defects. The track was inspected on August 12, 2009, and re-inspected on October 20, 2009. CPUC staff have yet to receive any plan for correction.
  • Sunset Tunnel has numerous violations including that the Automatic Train Control System (ATCS) is not operating in the tunnel. The SFMTA is not following its own regulations regarding speed restrictions in a non-functioning ATCS area. The SFMTA responded to a CPUC staff inquiry stating that the ATCS never functioned in the tunnel; however, the SFMTA did not provide any documentation to verify the claim. The SFMTA has yet to provide a plan for restoration of the ATCS.
  • A June 3-4, 2010 inspection of the Church Portal noted numerous deficiencies including induction damaged loop cable supports, cable not properly supported, cables rubbing switch rods, junction box problems, and others. A follow-up inspection on January 7, 2011, noted the same deficiencies.
  • The ATCS functions poorly in the Market Street Tunnel and appears not to operate at the Embarcadero Station. The SFMTA continues to delay replacing the induction loop cable. The situation may have contributed to an incident on October 1, 2010, in which one Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) hit another LRV at the Embarcadero Station. This accident caused major damage to both LRVs. Both train operators had minor injuries and were transported to a hospital.
  • SFMTA did not have a blue flag/blue light procedure in place until January 2011. This is a safety procedure required to prevent injury to personnel working underneath or around LRVs. Despite a May 12, 2010 SFMTA bulletin and a December 7, 2010 SFMTA memorandum requiring this procedure, on December 14, 2010, CPUC staff witnessed Muni employees working without a blue flag or blue light.
  • The last Triennial Audit of the SFMTA occurred in October 2008. Of the 49 Corrective Action Plans created by the SFMTA, 17 remain open. Several of these are significant and relate to the SFMTA’s track inspection program and the documentation of that program. In several recent meetings with CPUC staff, the SFMTA has not been able to provide a status report on the open Corrective Action Plans.
  • In the CPUC staff inspections of SFMTA from July 17, 2009 through January 2011, numerous material problems with SFMTA are documented. Of the 29 inspections, 26 required responses and Corrective Action Plans, which have not yet been received. The inspection reports required a response within 30 days.
  • SFMTA must submit final accident investigation reports within 60 calendar days of the accident. The SFMTA has eight accident investigation reports still outstanding for 2009 (some 13 months late) and 25 accident reports from 2010. Each of these late reports is a separate violation.

Despite these penalty threats, the SFMTA is optimistic and have expressed their confidence in being exonerated of all accusations.


And while it would be a great step forward to have the SFMTA take responsibility for their mistakes, if they are fined a large sum of money, they might make this another excuse for budget cuts and fare hikes, even if a large part of their financial woes is due to the ever-increasing pay checks the higher-ups receive. Even if the CPUC forces the SFMTA to assume responsibility for their sins in safety violations, it won’t guarantee that the SFMTA will also own up for their fiscal incompetence.

A Rising Problem In Need of a Speedier Solution

Posted on by Rahman Law PC

The Bay Citizen recently reported on rising bike accidents and their leading causes and locations, using data reported to the SFPD within the last two years. With helpful infographics, the article provides statistics and viewpoints both bicyclists and drivers should be aware of.

Accident Hot Spots
For 2009-2010, these most dangerous neighborhoods averaged the following number of accidents:
The Mission: 96 accidents
South of Market: 85 accidents
Downtown: 68 accidents
Western Addition: 41 accidents
Financial District: 34 accidents
Inner Richmond: 27 accidents
Castro-Upper Market: 27 accidents
Haight-Ashbury: 22 accidents
Outer Mission: 16 accidents
North Beach: 15 accidents
Bernal Heights: 13 accidents
Lakeshore: 12 accidents
Bayview: 11 accidents
Outer Sunset: 11 accidents
…while the most dangerous streets and intersections were:
  1. Market and Octavia: 14 accidents
  2. Market and 5th: 14 accidents
  3. Market and New Montgomery: 8 accidents
  4. Geary and Polk: 8 accidents
  5. Powell and Masonic: 8 accidents
Reported accidents increased from 554 in 2009 to 593 in 2010.
One suggested explanation is that there is an ever-increasing number of riders. According to the SFMTA, the number of cyclists increased 70% (from the count in 2006) at the 5th and Market intersection, 75% at 17th and Valencia, and more than 100% at Fell and Scott.
However, between 2009-2010, the increase in cyclists was only 3% while the increase in accidents went up by 8%, showing that accidents are, in fact, climbing at a faster rate than ridership.
Assigning Fault


According to these graphs (created by The Bay Citizen) a shocking 50% of accidents are the fault of the cyclist, with cars in a close second at 40% of the time.

However, it is important to keep in mind that it’s the SFPD that “determines fault”, and that cyclists feel very strongly that the cops often favor the drivers. Take for example, Kate McCarthy’s story:

Kate McCarthy, 31, was biking up Mission Street in February 2009 when a recreational vehicle going the opposite direction made an illegal left turn right in front of her. She swerved, but still collided with the giant vehicle, crashing her bike and cutting her face. After a police officer showed up to take the report, he refused to cite the driver, even though there were several witnesses, according to McCarthy. The officer would not write up a police report assigning fault.

McCarthy filed a complaint with the city’s Office of Citizen Complaints. Three months later, the body ruled that the police department should have issued a report.


Measures for Safety and Prevention?
A situation like Ms. McCarthy’s is concerning for cyclists because it raises the question, “Who is protecting me from being run down on the streets?” If not the cops, then who?

In response to this important question, cyclists and organizations like the SF Bike Coalition have successfully lobbied for protection in street medians and more bike lanes. But these small successes have not been enough.

Take, for instance, the Market and Octavia streets:

While six accidents happened in 2009, eight occurred in 2010 — all of them taking place after the improvements were made. Almost every crash here is caused by cars making illegal right turns.

“The more things they try there, it doesn’t really help,” said Shaana Rahman, a lawyer who has represented two cyclists in Market/Octavia crashes. “I feel like the answer is to let the cars go right and move the bike lane to a mid-bike lane.”

It is clear from this data–which does not include unreported accidents–that the danger is very much real and very steadily building. So the only question that remains is: How much longer do we have to wait for the city to catch up with these dangers and provide reliable solutions?