Hey folks, Before we have this conversation about a possible "people's bike plan" effort, I need to make something clear. I would hate for my complaints about the SFBC to disparage that organization unfairly. I think I overstated when I said they put tourists over everyday working people. The only reason I said that is because their main effort to increase funding for bicycle infrastructure is for the bay bridge multi-use path, while our everyday urban bicycling infrastructure is woefully underfunded. I'll defend them, as they probably won't bother to do because they have more important things to do. Their main effort at every level in their staff is to improve conditions for everyday residents. They spend a small fraction of their time on the bridge issue. And the bridge won't serve just tourists or recreational purposes, and even though that's it's primary purpose, isn't that important? It will be hugely popular, and is absolutely essential to supporting car-free living in the Bay Area. If the SFBC can work the politics to get a portion of the costs of that bridge funded with the governor's upcoming bond, the rest of the money is almost sure to follow, perhaps from revenue generated by the new development on Treasure Island (a revenue bond, say, funded by a parking tax or toll on T.I. car traffic). If the bay bridge path is funded, it will be the largest bicycle/pedestrian project in the history of the United States, and isn't that cool? I still would like to see more attention paid to the everyday bicycle network in S.F., I don't appreciate being insulted for criticizing the SFBC, though I can take it and dish it out both, so fair enough, and I still think you're a fucking freeloader if you ride a bike in S.F. and don't pay your dues to the SFBC, whether you agree with their every strategy or not. Dave