Bourne et al.  have suggested that the interseismic velocity profile at the surface across a transform plate boundary is a replica of the secular velocity profile at depth in the plastosphere. On the other hand, in the viscoelastic coupling model the shape of the interseismic surface velocity profile is a consequence of plastosphere relaxation following the previous rupture of the faults that make up the plate boundary and is not directly related to the secular flow in the plastosphere. The two models appear to be incompatible. If the plate boundary is composed of several subparallel faults and the interseismic surface velocity profile across the boundary known, each model predicts the secular slip rates on the faults which make up the boundary. As suggested by Bourne et al., the models can then be tested by comparing the predicted secular slip rates to those estimated from long-term offsets inferred from geology. Here we apply that test to the secular slip rates predicted for the principal faults (San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, Calaveras, Rodgers Creek, Green Valley and Greenville faults) in the San Andreas fault system in the San Francisco Bay area. The estimates from the two models generally agree with one another and to a lesser extent with the geologic estimate. Because the viscoelastic coupling model has been equally successful in estimating secular slip rates on the various fault strands at a diffuse plate boundary, the success of the model of Bourne et al.  in doing the same thing should not be taken as proof that the interseismic velocity profile across the plate boundary at the surface is a replica of the velocity profile at depth in the plastosphere.