Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#61

Post by jacalata » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 4:52 AM UTC

pacala wrote: post #47

shard972 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a driver it's the main reason I refuse to ride a bike, I don't want to die. Even here in perth that is generally trying to help bike riders I just don't see how it's safe to ride around at 20-30km when the speed limit is 70km and there isn't enough room to overtake without going into the other lane. I just don't see how you can be safe when people are trying to overtake you in giant utes going twice your speed try…

The speed differential is what make me scratch my head as well, from both safety and traffic engineering perspective. In the USA lots of mountain highways have turnouts and "Slow vehicles must use turnouts" signs [0]. On the flip side, once in a city, a single cyclist is entitled to slow down everybody else, traffic fluidity be damned. [0] http://www.aaroads.com/forum/?topic=12036.0

It's not "on the flip side" at all. On a highway, a cyclist and other slow vehicles are obligated to use the turnouts. But in the city, there are no turnouts or "slow vehicles must use turnouts" signs. So cyclists and other slow vehicles are not obligated to use non existent turnouts there. Why don't you complain about giant slow trucks not using imaginary turnouts in the city as "the flip side"?

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#62

Post by brokenmachine » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 4:59 AM UTC

adrianratnapala wrote: post #56

brokenmachine wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NSW it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist. I ride to work, and every single day people ignore that rule. I have never seen anyone fined for it. Our police/government just doesn't care, and attitudes like yours don't help. Cycling on the road is legal and until it isn't, just saying, "I don't see how it's safe" is irrelevant. I also drive, but I'm capable of not losing my mind and putting other people's live…

Now I cycle to work and recently let my drivers license lapse. But the 1m rule sounds draconian to me. It means drivers have to keep about two metres from the kerb. That's not always possible on Sydney roads. Sure, if the cars are moving fast then I would like a wide space. But in heavier / slower traffic (which was the common case when I lived in London), then I only need a "lane" wide enough for me to ride through.…

That's the law, draconian or not. I personally don't want to come within 1m of a 1500kg vehicle, probably driven by someone playing with their phone, going faster than I am.

It is possible on Sydney roads if drivers wait until there's an overtaking lane, which is actually the only legal solution.

Anyway, it's never enforced so what difference does it make? Drivers will continue to only care about themselves and cyclists will continue to be maimed and die.

Countries with governments that aren't crap have separate tracks for cyclists, which is really the only safe solution.

We have painted pictures of bikes in car lanes right in the door zones for parked cars. And that's in the good places. It's an absolute joke.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#63

Post by cmurf » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 5:01 AM UTC

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…

I've had bad experiences with maybe 1:1000 drivers. But when it's bad, it's really bad.

I've had the same exact, "Do you know you're going to get someone killed driving like that?" Followed by, "Good. I hope you all die." WITH A KID IN THE CAR!

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#64

Post by underwater » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 5:02 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #45

SomeHacker44 wrote: post #44

As a life-long New Yorker (Manhattan and more recently Brooklyn) I just don't understand why anyone would ever ride a bike in NYC, period. I even stopped rollerblading in NYC when some asshole driving backwards (presumably to get a parking spot) nearly killed me and did knock me silly. I have a motorcycle license I got one summer when I had free time. I learned that cars and pedestrians are your enemy, and that you w…

Heh, just today I was biking down a hill in a segregated lane. Green lights ahead of me, all the way to the waterfront. Some guy in the crosswalk, going against the signal (I have green lights for several blocks), left to right across the street. I'm half a block away but I'm going downhill and going pretty fast. I yell, "Watch out!" He keeps moving, so I start to veer to the left to go around him to the left. THEN h…

That sucks, but it's not really a surprise that someone who is startled reacts poorly.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#65

Post by toomanybeersies » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 5:04 AM UTC

wwalser wrote: post #31

toomanybeersies wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I feel like you are living in bizzaro-land over there, where you can get life in prison without parole for stealing a pair of socks [0], yet shoot someone in the head and get 4 months. Deal a couple of rocks and get 42 years in federal prison [1], rip off millions of dollars from thousands of people, get off scot-free.

[0] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-...

[1] http://famm.org/atiba-parker/

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#66

Post by brokenmachine » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 5:08 AM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #46

brokenmachine wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NSW it is illegal to pass within 1m of a cyclist. I ride to work, and every single day people ignore that rule. I have never seen anyone fined for it. Our police/government just doesn't care, and attitudes like yours don't help. Cycling on the road is legal and until it isn't, just saying, "I don't see how it's safe" is irrelevant. I also drive, but I'm capable of not losing my mind and putting other people's live…

Yeah, but the last few weeks they've been heavily enforcing their new-ish $375 penalty for not wearing a helmet... Who would've guessed that NSWPolice would selectively apply the new laws and penalties???

I actually have no problem with those fines but they should be enforcing the 1m rule as well.

Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway?

It sucks that NSWPolice are more interested in fining cyclists and are ignoring people actually putting other people's lives in danger.

When I drive and I see people riding with no helmet, I can't help but think to myself, "well you obviously don't care about your own safety at all, why should I?"

As a cyclist, I cringe when I see other cyclists breaking road rules. There is already much too little respect for us on the road, and doing stuff like that will erode the little respect we do get.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#67

Post by wwalser » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 5:10 AM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #55

wwalser wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't anymore, relocated, but I did commute for years in Sydney and I couldn't find a trace of unhelpful attitude in this person's post. They just stated facts. Didn't say that they agreed or disagreed. They didn't say that they passed people in an unsafe way or that they felt the need to or desire to. They just said that _people_ do. Which is true. We've both experienced it… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12…

Reading it back, I did sound overly aggressive to the poster. I didn't mean that. The attitude I was talking about is, "I don't see how it's safe because drivers can't get past". The way I see it, the only ones in the wrong in that situation are the impatient drivers who are breaking the law by trying to pass when it is not legal or safe. The main reason cycling isn't safe is because drivers are overtaking unsafely w…

All good, good luck and stay safe out there. Roundabouts always scared me more than cars overtaking. Also, the occasional parking lot was a surprisingly good place to get backed over very slowly.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#68

Post by oasisbob » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #42

As a former bicyclist, and a current motorcyclist and "cager", let me give one piece of advice that has kept me alive to this day. Your safety and protection is entirely up to you. No government, painted lines or traffic cones are going to save you on the road. When you're on the road, the only thing that matters is "the right of weight". If you're hit by a car, and you're not in a protective cage of steel, it's not…

> If you're hit by a car, and you're not in a protective cage of steel, it's not going to matter if the other person was in the right or the wrong. You're still dead.

I get the point you're trying to make, but you're papering over some big trends.

If the car that hits you is going 20 MPH, you've got a 5% chance of being dead. At 40 MPH, you're looking at more like a 85% chance.

Ride defensively - sure, but remember that those government painted lines and rules and street design help influence behavior that could very easily save your life.

A huge proportion of accidents happen when the cyclist is hit from behind. You think you're alive because of your defensive riding alone? You're also alive because you were never plowed into by a distracted driver that one day, a situation you would have very little control over.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#69

Post by eyelidlessness » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #42

As a former bicyclist, and a current motorcyclist and "cager", let me give one piece of advice that has kept me alive to this day. Your safety and protection is entirely up to you. No government, painted lines or traffic cones are going to save you on the road. When you're on the road, the only thing that matters is "the right of weight". If you're hit by a car, and you're not in a protective cage of steel, it's not…

The cones aren't a placebo, they actually alter driver behavior. It's important when challenging an idea not to exaggerate its flaws. No practical number of orange cones will physically protect cyclists in a collision, but the psychological impact of well-designed infrastructure can have substantially better outcomes, which is why some places are much safer for cyclists than others.

That said, not all bike infrastructure is equal. Some of the new "protected" lanes in Seattle, for instance, are quite dangerous and I prefer to remain in general traffic.

You're right that cyclists should ride as if everyone driving a car is trying to kill them. But one effective way to do that, if designed well, is to actually separate car drivers from cyclists. Even an artificial separation can save lives, if it's done right.

One more bone to pick: making cyclists feel safer isn't necessarily dangerous. One of the reasons cycling is unsafe is because so few people do it, and one of the reasons so few do it is because they fear for their safety. There are even people who suggest that helmets are in aggregate counterproductive to bike safety for this reason (and I think they have a point, but I wear a helmet for other obvious reasons). Better perceived safety leading to more cyclists on the road will almost certainly result in better real safety outcomes.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#70

Post by wwalser » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 5:17 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #65

wwalser wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I feel like you are living in bizzaro-land over there, where you can get life in prison without parole for stealing a pair of socks [0], yet shoot someone in the head and get 4 months. Deal a couple of rocks and get 42 years in federal prison [1], rip off millions of dollars from thousands of people, get off scot-free. [0] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-... [1] http://famm.org/atiba-parke…

Yeah, I don't think anyone can strongly disagree. At the end of the day it's mostly people trying and failing to get a fair shake and give others a fair shake. Along the way we tend to overestimate what a fair shake is for ourselves and those like us and underestimate similarly for "the other". There are some that take advantage of such a system by playing into those biases but by and large I genuinely believe most people are trying to do right.

Things that seem bizzaro from time to time may be the price for living in a plurality.