But guess where SFPD is focusing its enforcement energy? That's right — on cyclists.

Look, we're not anti-enforcement. Traffic laws exist for a reason, and cyclists who blow through red lights at busy intersections deserve what they get. Public safety matters, and so does accountability for everyone sharing the road. No argument there.

The problem is one of priorities. While officers write up cyclists for Idaho-stop-style infractions, the actual danger to pedestrians — motorized scooters and souped-up e-bikes ripping across sidewalks at terrifying speeds — goes largely unaddressed. As one SF resident put it, "They're ticketing the guy on a Trek while someone on a 40-mph Sur-Ron practically clips my dog every morning."

This is a textbook case of enforcing what's easy rather than what's effective. A traditional cyclist is slow, visible, and generally cooperative during a stop. An e-scooter rider going full throttle on a crowded sidewalk is harder to catch and more confrontational — but also vastly more dangerous to the public.

San Francisco has limited law enforcement resources. That's not controversial; it's math. Every officer-hour spent on low-risk cycling infractions is an officer-hour not spent on the motorized vehicles genuinely threatening pedestrian safety. And in a city that endlessly preaches Vision Zero — the plan to eliminate traffic deaths — you'd think the priority matrix would reflect, you know, actual risk.

We're not asking SFPD to ignore traffic law. We're asking them to enforce it where it counts. Go after the real sidewalk menaces. Ticket the e-scooters doing highway speeds in pedestrian zones. Deploy resources where the danger is highest.

Otherwise, this isn't public safety enforcement. It's theater.