Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#151

Post by URSpider94 » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:05 AM UTC

igf wrote: post #127

andrewem wrote: post #40

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…

> 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 Where do we stop? Should we have skateboard lanes as well? Unicycle lanes? Lanes for people who wish to taxi down the road in a Learjet? We can't accommodate every form of trans…

Would you agree that we should choose which forms of transit to accommodate based on their needs and their utility? Cycling is a well-established form of transit that many people participate in, and which can serve a large portion of the transit needs of a city in relatively little space and with zero carbon footprint.

Getting more people out of cars (and off of buses) and onto bikes requires making them feel safe and unstressed. The best way to do that is to create dedicated bikeways. The Dutch have been doing this for 70 years or so, it works amazingly well, so much so that people don't even wear bike helmets!

Also, nobody is saying that Segways, skateboards, inline skates, unicycles, etc. wouldn't be welcome in the bike lane, if they can stay in their lane and move predictably at a speed compatible with cycling.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#152

Post by Thlom » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:05 AM UTC

igf wrote: post #125

ubernostrum wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bicycles are a tool for turning ordinary people into selfish jerks, jealously guarding their precious forward momentum. A pedestrian doesn't mind if they have to stop for a moment, it's no big deal. A driver doesn't mind stopping for a moment either, it's easy to get back up to speed again. But for a cyclist, having to stop is a minor disaster requiring a massive effort to get back up to speed, so they start behaving…

I'm a pretty relaxed cyclist. I ride more or less upright, but the forward momentum is precious. It's no problem to stop while walking, it takes no more energy to start walking than to continue walking. Same goes for driving a car. On a bike on the other hand, starting to cycle requires much more energy than keeping momentum.

That said, some "avid cyclists" are total jerks.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#153

Post by tonyedgecombe » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:07 AM UTC

shard972 wrote: post #8

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…

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…

Yet I don't think that's where the accidents happen, the biggest risk for cyclists seems to be traffic (in particular lorries) turning into and out of junctions.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#154

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

gambiting wrote: post #129

andrewem wrote: post #40

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…

>> bicyclists should have to follow exactly the same rules as drivers I mean....where the hell do you live where they do not? Everything about giving priority, obeying traffic lights, one-way streets, should absolutely apply to bicycles, how can it possibly not?

Copenhagen? Amsterdam?

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#155

Post by tonyedgecombe » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:11 AM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #66

bigiain wrote: 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…

Isn't there evidence that drivers give you more room if you don't wear a helmet.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#156

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:12 AM UTC

Thlom wrote: post #152

igf wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bicycles are a tool for turning ordinary people into selfish jerks, jealously guarding their precious forward momentum. A pedestrian doesn't mind if they have to stop for a moment, it's no big deal. A driver doesn't mind stopping for a moment either, it's easy to get back up to speed again. But for a cyclist, having to stop is a minor disaster requiring a massive effort to get back up to speed, so they start behaving…

I'm a pretty relaxed cyclist. I ride more or less upright, but the forward momentum is precious. It's no problem to stop while walking, it takes no more energy to start walking than to continue walking. Same goes for driving a car. On a bike on the other hand, starting to cycle requires much more energy than keeping momentum. That said, some "avid cyclists" are total jerks.

On a bike on the other hand, starting to cycle requires much more energy than keeping momentum.

To which I have to say: that's on you. The only way to have multiple modes of transportation -- motorized, pedal, and foot -- coexist is for everybody to give a little. Which means there are times when you will have to stop and yield and wait for someone else, even if it costs you "momentum".

(and this is the polite version of the response; the impolite version points out that your argument is no better than a driver who gets impatient in stop-and-go traffic; manual transmissions are horrendous to drive in those conditions, but nobody suggests manual drivers should get legal exemptions to red lights and stop signs the way people suggest -- and some places have even established -- for cyclists)

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#157

Post by soneil » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:17 AM UTC

gaff33 wrote: post #132

oarsinsync wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 should have to follow exactly the same rules as drivers In the UK, all vehicles on the road are required to abide by the highway code. Yep, that means bicycles have to follow the same rules as drivers. In the 1990s, schools in the UK ran cycling courses to ensure th…

This is what happens when bikes follow rules designed for cars: http://archives.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/07/30/this-is-wh... It's patently stupid to have the same rules for bikes as it is for cars since they are completely different vehicles. Now perhaps this is a case of semantics: The Highway Code has rules for all users of highways, but obviously within those rules some apply to cars, some to pedestrians, and s…

This is the crux of the issue. Many of the laws we're supposed to follow aren't fit for purpose.

I do stop at red lights - and I can tell you it pisses people off no end. People want to gun it off the lights, and instead they're stuck behind me. I have been involved in an 'accident' where the driver behind me tried to overtake off the lights, through the junction, and into the traffic island on the other side.

At the same time, it's obvious cyclists don't get carte blanche either. Anyone who's seen a bicycle plow through a pedestrian crossing like a god-given right, can see that much.

We need rules that make sense, and then enforce them. Meet us in the middle. Trying to enforce rules that don't make sense doesn't work (and not just for us - many of these cause us to frustrate or hinder other road users too)

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#158

Post by luca_ing » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:18 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 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 would've slammed into it and possibly fallen into traffic.

A friend's ex-wife killed a cyclist by carelessly opening the door and hitting them. Not even another vehicle involved, they just collided with the door or the ground in a very unfortunate way.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#159

Post by Flimm » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:31 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…

> Your safety and protection is entirely up to you.

This is just not true. There are ways to persuade cyclists and drivers to behave more safely without saying things that are obviously untrue.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#160

Post by pjbster » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:38 AM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #119

pjbster wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Turns out it was only a proposal which was never tried after all:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/27/cyclists-run-...

Johnson and Transport for London requested permission for a trial back in 2009, but it never took place. TfL has concentrated instead on remodelling junctions to allow “early release” (where cyclists get a green light before cars) and “hold the left-turning traffic” (keeping cyclists and cars apart on left turns).