Live data from Hacker News

Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

fastcoexist.com

111–120 of 274 posts

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#111

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…

Rider skill is a huge factor that receives almost no attention. I constantly see shockingly poor cycling skills, because most cyclists have received little or no training. Those riders are a hazard to themselves and to other road users. They don't know how to position themselves on the road, they make poor observations and signals, their basic bike handling skills are inadequate.

If you're going to ride on the roads, you need to know how to do it safely. I don't know what the situation is in the rest of the world, but here in the UK we have a national network of accredited trainers; courses are often free or very inexpensive, subsidised by employers or the local government. If cycle skills training isn't available in your area, write to your representative and ask why.

http://bikeability.org.uk/

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#112

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 roadw…

You will like this website: http://cyclingfallacies.com/

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#113

I've spent most of my life with cycling as my primary mode of transportation, living in Minneapolis, Santa Fe, London and SF/Oakland. I ride fast and generally try to go with the flow to avoid inconveniencing drivers while also being considerate to pedestrians. I think this traffic cone thing is pretty cool, but I have a larger observation to make: Here's the thing about SF: everyone is way too fucking agro. Drivers…

Want some fun? Try being someone who commutes in the Bay area via a combination of walking and public transit.

Cars give me very little trouble. Bicycles, though.. at least a couple times a week I nearly get killed by one.

At crosswalks, typically I'm in a crowd of people and drivers know better than to try to make a turn through the crowd. Cyclists, though, will blow through, even just flat running a red light, and seem to have blind trust they'll be able to avoid hitting anyone even at high speed. One recent example: a guy on a bike, coming off a downhill stretch and towing something behind him, ran a red while I was in a crosswalk, close enough that I literally had to jump back. He was doing easily 30mph, and I'd be dead or seriously injured if he'd hit me, but did he care? Nope, he had places to be!

Same thing happens with bikes zooming down the wheelchair ramps off the Caltrain platforms; there are signs telling cyclists to dismount and walk the bike, but they know nobody's going to enforce it on them.

The one and only time I've seen anything done was about three months ago when a bike, stuck in traffic on the street, suddenly hopped onto the sidewalk and scattered a bunch of pedestrians in doing so. Lucky for them and unlucky for the cyclist, he did it right in front of a motorcycle cop who ran over, grabbed him, and gave him an earful and a citation.

And don't even get me started on trying to get home the nights Critical Mass does its rides. I just leave early and hope to avoid them.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#114
Several problems, which could be solved my municipalities, and illustrated by this twitter feed: https://twitter.com/lyoncorrompu

- Cars stop on the bike lane: It may sound reasonable to stop on the rightmost lane, but in fact they obstruct both the bike lane and the car lane. It would be more reasonable for cars to stop on the car lane.

- Red lights: It's less dangerous for cyclists to ride the red light than the green light. It's incredible, but there are less accidents, even if the cyclist does it every day and isn't fully aware of his surroundings. But car drivers go crazy when they see a cyclist burning the red light (which isn't surprising because it's a penal infraction in France, like drunk-driving).

- Bikes riding in the sidewalk or the wrong lane, sometimes in the opposite direction, by night, when there are other solutions. Most infractions could easily be sorted out by the police, but they're more busy acting like they're fighting terrorism (by stationing under the Town Hall palace with weapons drawn out) than checking for traffic infringements.

- Pedestrians walking on the cycle lane, which is prone to injury, often due to cars who park on the sidewalk.

- Bikes without lights: That's not much of a risk for the cyclist, because they know very well they may die from their own mistake and get a Darwin Award of stupid deaths. No, I'd rather focus on the risk for the car drivers, who will be considered guilty of killing a cyclist, even though he was in the dark without light, sometimes in the opposite direction than he's supposed to be. Bikers without lights are a jail threat for all car drivers around.

- Also note the counter-intuitive feat that not requiring the helmet saves more lives across a country than the compulsory helmet law.

All in all, if justice were served, cars should be given the short end of everything because they kill massively in four ways (accidents, immediate pollution, carbon emissions, driver's health) and occupy more space.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#115
post #105
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…

This post shows two huge flaws in the way car traffic works: - You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound! - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users. I don't own a car but sometimes have a ride with other people and it's scary to notice how aggressive some people are towards the other road users. And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just…

> - You don't have a right to drive at 70 km/h! It's the upper bound!

Sure that's fine but when 1 lane is going 70 and another 30 for whatever reason you have an objectively more dangerous situation. You can't just expect people to sit and in the 30 lane, be happy and not try and pull out in front of others to get into the fast lane.

> - Cyclists are seen as obstacles and not as road users.

I would say that most people see elderly/drunk/wtf drivers who drive around well under the speed limit as obstacles too. Have you ever tried driving home after work at half the speed limit? I haven't but from my limit experience seeing others do it you don't exactly get a nice reaction from people.

We can sit around saying how unfair, dehumanising and whatnot it is to people to see cyclists as an obstacle but I don't see how you can just stamp that out without real changes to how the system currently works, I just don't see how logically the culture can change without an complete overhaul in values.

> And I'm even more frightened by those people who drive too fast (for their skills) just because they don't want to get in the way of the aggressive ones.

To be honest, the aggressive drivers aren't the scariest, it's the clueless ones that are much more scarier. They sit in lanes daydreaming until the realize they need to move somewhere and just make it happen, merge now, blinker in a second then check my blind spot.

Fast drivers usually have much better awareness of who is around them and because of that do stupid things which can end up bad, most accidents though are caused through negligence rather than fast drivers.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#116
post #19
post #5

Mostly unrelated, but does anyone have (or has seen?) an opinion on self driving cars and how that may impact cyclists on the road? Do you think the shift to autonomous vehicles will make the road safer for people on bikes?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/2... I can't imagine how autonomous vehicles could make cycling less safe. The only thing I'm coming up with is that the side profile of a bike at night could get "filtered" as noise and ignored. That same scenario must happen just as often with human drivers though. My biggest concern while cycling in Sydney was going through roundabouts at night. Cars in fr…

At least in Germany reflectors on the spokes are mandatory. And most tyres have a reflective strip built in, so the night-time side profile of a cyclist should usually clearly mark the shape, even if the cyclist isn't reflective.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#117
post #102

I've spent most of my life with cycling as my primary mode of transportation, living in Minneapolis, Santa Fe, London and SF/Oakland. I ride fast and generally try to go with the flow to avoid inconveniencing drivers while also being considerate to pedestrians. I think this traffic cone thing is pretty cool, but I have a larger observation to make: Here's the thing about SF: everyone is way too fucking agro. Drivers…

Agreed, but the funny thing about London is that cyclists tend to be more of a menace than cars. There is a noticeable minority who just don't want to stop for pedestrians.

> cyclists tend to be more of a menace than cars

That must be why bikes injure 60,000 people per annum in the UK, and kill ~2,000. Then there's the ~40,000 deaths from pollution. Oh wait, that's the cars.

Maybe you need to rethink what you mean by "menace"? Annoying and inconvenient (even threatening) is not the same as deadly.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#118
post #33
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I grew up in NSW where cyclists were not allowed to ride on the footpath (even though nobody uses them on the central coast) and I always made sure to overtake using another lane or if the cyclist had his own clearance on the side to ride in.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#119
post #83
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I seem to remember a trial which was piloted in London (UK) a few years back which permitted a cyclist to go through a red light if turning left. Can anyone shed any light on how this worked out?

Presumably fine? It's perfectly acceptable for any sort of vehicle to turn right after stopping at a red light in Alberta, Canada and I've never heard of it causing a problem.

I know that seems weird for people where right on red is illegal, but it's really no different than what happens at a stop sign.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#120
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 safet…

I used to live in Sydney and commute daily by bike. Now live in Amsterdam and I've never have worn a helmet, along with what seems like 99% of the locals.

I now realise the helmet thing is mainly about cars and just the way one needs to ride in Sydney to survive. Lanes end abruptly, major pot holes in roads etc.

It's anecdotal but you get the feeling progress and freedom is not really Australia's strong point these days!

Post reply on HN