Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

fastcoexist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 274 posts

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#31

Post by wwalser »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #28
apathy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've biked to work in New York, SF, and LA for years. The only reason I don't still do so daily is that I got lazy (I suck). Most cities have ways to make it safer if you're clever (LA in particular has bikeways along its rivers). SF is a "plaintiff friendly jurisdiction" as the phrase goes, but I've had knives and guns pulled on me there too (usually for having the nerve to ask "WTF" after being doored). I'm not hap…

You've had guns pulled on you for riding a push bike? Only in America. The worst I ever got when I rode my bike (I also got lazy) was a driver threatening to beat me up (while his wife and kids were in the car) after I had the nerve to turn from the turning lane at the traffic lights. On the other side, my brother pulled a screwdriver on a cyclist once (he's a real piece of work).

Pulling a gun is one thing. Actually pulling the trigger though? Four whole months in prison…

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-...

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#32

Post by cardamomo »

Etzos wrote: post #24
apathy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because a 20 pound bike does exactly the same damage as a 6000 pound car. Both to driver and victim. Excellent thought process. Also slapping plates on bikes will totally fix the issue of theft. Cars never ever get stolen, because they have plates. I disagree with your underlying assumptions and your suggestions. What you are suggesting would penalize the sorts of people who rely upon their bicycles to get to wor…

I think the bigger problem is that people on bicycles don't always obey the laws which are in place to protect both them and motor vehicle drivers. The parent mentioned cyclists who run through traffic lights and similar infrastructure with wanton disregard for the situation (I have witnessed this many times myself). This creates a situation that is dangerous to everyone involved and is quite illegal. However, there…

> people on bicycles don't always obey the laws which are in place to protect both them and motor vehicle drivers

I'm willing to buy an argument that "vehicular cycling" (using the road in a way that's similar to a car) can be safer in certain circumstances and that obeying traffic lights, stop signs, and so on can help cyclists and drivers share the road more safely. I have certainly felt that way when I've cycled in communities that aren't used to many bikes on the road.

On the other hand, the idea that traffic laws are there to protect cyclists just doesn't make sense to me. By and large, traffic laws in the U.S. seem to privilege the material concerns and safety of drivers.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#33

Post by steveax »

dpark wrote: post #23
steveax wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about as a driver, you don't pass cyclists when it's not safe?

1) Why do you assume he's passing cyclists when it's not safe? 2) It doesn't help unless all drivers do this, which they don't, which is the problem and the point.

I probably could have been clearer, but my "as a driver..." Was not meant to single the poster out individually, but to apply broadly to all drivers. Many drivers seem to feel that it's their God given right to pass whenever they want to.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#34

Post by bsimpson »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #29
bsimpson wrote: post #17

As a well-traveled cyclist, I yearn for the truely separated roadways my peers ride in other places. In Holland, for instance, their cycletrack treatment is closer to a special sidewalk for bicycles than a repainted stretch of highway. Each mode of transportation (walking, riding, driving, mass transit, etc.) has its own path. This separation of concerns (segmented by both mass and speed) makes getting around safer a…

We're just starting to get separated bike lines in New Zealand, where the bike lane is on the other side of the parked cars, so the parked cars essentially make a barrier. It's not perfect, you can still get doored by the parked cars, but at least you aren't going to get run over at the same time.

We have those in the Park here. Passengers seem to be less trained to watch for bicycles than drivers, so I wonder if it's actually safer overall.

But that's not the problem I'm pointing out above. So long as cars park in garages under houses and need to cross the sidewalk and cycletrack to get to the street, it will need to be physically possible for a car to cross the cycletrack. So long as that's true (without frequent police intervention) San Francisco drivers will pull into the cycletrack and idle there, trapping cyclists in the path or forcing them into traffic that has even less room for them than it did before the protected path.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#35

Post by brokenmachine »

apathy wrote: post #18
steveax wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about as a driver, you don't pass cyclists when it's not safe?

Hard to blame non cyclists, they just have no fucking idea. Once you've seen it from the other side of the barrel it's hard to remember how you saw it beforehand.

It is not hard to blame drivers here in NSW because it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist.

Nobody ever gets fined though, cyclists still just get killed.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#36

Post by steveax »

Etzos wrote: post #24
apathy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because a 20 pound bike does exactly the same damage as a 6000 pound car. Both to driver and victim. Excellent thought process. Also slapping plates on bikes will totally fix the issue of theft. Cars never ever get stolen, because they have plates. I disagree with your underlying assumptions and your suggestions. What you are suggesting would penalize the sorts of people who rely upon their bicycles to get to wor…

I think the bigger problem is that people on bicycles don't always obey the laws which are in place to protect both them and motor vehicle drivers. The parent mentioned cyclists who run through traffic lights and similar infrastructure with wanton disregard for the situation (I have witnessed this many times myself). This creates a situation that is dangerous to everyone involved and is quite illegal. However, there…

Stop sign/light honoring daily bike commuter here who often scolds cyclists that do not obey the law, but I think you'll find that the statistics do not bear out the danger you present. How many fatalities (or even serious injuries) result from cyclists blowing through stop signs? If you remove the offending cyclist from that stats, I'd guess you're looking at about zero. I do remember a case in PDX a few years ago where a reckless cyclist struck and killed a man, but it is exceedingly rare.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#37

Post by rootusrootus »

I would support a true separation of all vehicle modes. As an avid walker, I've had far more run-ins with speeding bicycles nearly hitting me (and a few which did hit me) than I have with cars. If it were easy to create a solid separation that would keep cars and bikes separate, and prevent bikes from using sidewalks, count me in, you have my vote and my tax dollars to make it happen.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#38

Post by bigiain »

zo7 wrote: post #3

I don't think non-cyclists realize how much risk you take on when you ride in the city. In my town we really only have bike lanes on the two main roads that go up and down the bulk of the city, and they ride dangerously close to lines of parked cars. I was riding downhill once when someone opened their door in front of me without looking -- luckily I managed to get past, but had they opened it a few moments earlier I…

"Hey were you trying to kill me?" "Yeah, I was"

And people wonder why revenge fantasy is so appealing: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mjh/spike.html

(I would have at least turned to the kids and said "Hey did you hear that? Your Dad's an asshole!")

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#39

Post by sampo »

I googled for some statistics:

USA

    1% of all trips is by cycle [1]
    743 cyclist fatalities per year (2013) [2]
    population 320 million.
Denmark

    17% of all trips is by cycle [3]
    33 cyclist fatalities per year (2013) [3]
    population 5.6 million.
Cyclist fatalities per 1 million people:

    USA:      2.3
    Denmark:  5.9
...per cycling frequency:

    USA:      232
    Denmark:   35
I guess I was expecting worse. American cyclists die only 7x more than Danish cyclists.

[1] http://www.bikewalkalliance.org/storage/documents/reports/20...

[2] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

[3] http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/facts-about-cycling-in-denmark...

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#40

Post by andrewem »

I don't have time now to write a comment laying out a comprehensive rebuttal of all the foolishness that some people have suggested here (bicyclists need to be licensed! bicyclists should have to follow exactly the same rules as drivers! we shouldn't have bicyclists on many roads because cars go too fast!).

Instead, I'll say that just as people walking need physically protected infrastructure on essentially all roadways - these are called sidewalks - so too people on bicycles need physically protected infrastructure on essentially all roadways - these are called protected bike lanes, or cycle tracks, or various other names.

For some recent commentary on this topic from Boston, see the following. The first is from a columnist, and the second from the President of the Boston City Council:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/08/12/bikes/yOFRBYH...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/11/the-road-fear...

Post reply on HN