Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#171

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 10:59 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #84

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…

It's kind of strange to see the intensity of London driving described as "chill". I wonder if the huge difference in availability of public transport has something to do with it; most Londoners and many of the commuters into London simply don't drive on a daily basis and probably won't even own a car (where would you keep it?) So the traffic is much more likely to be commercial.

The medieval street layout also makes it hard to get up speed in London.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#172

Post by Twisell » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:01 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…

Jerks happen to use various ways of moving around. Some happen to use a bike, please don't use generalization.

While momentum argument is real, my personal philosophy as a daily commuting biker in France is "I'm the more exposed to risk and the more hated road user, so don't get in the way of cars and don't ever dare touch pedestrians"

That being said, yes I do pass red light when I have good clearance and I don't "emergency brake by courtesy" for pedestrians that are not already engaged in crosswalks or clearly far from my course.

Theses two paragraphs are perfectly compatible IMHO. It's just that in order to play with the rules you must know and accept them and be aware that you are doing something borderline. And by borderline I mean something specifically NOT dangerous to others and yourself. If it's dangerous it's just plain dumb and irresponsible.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#173

Post by throwanem » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:01 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #113

dasil003 wrote: post #84

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…

Baltimore is surprisingly much the same, with the delightful twist of cyclists who cheerfully (and ubiquitously) ride on the sidewalks, and who then try to act like you're the asshole when you explain politely to them that they need to get off the God damn sidewalk and into the God damn road. Don't even get me started on cyclists who use the light rail. They're worse than football fans, which is saying a lot; football fans pregame and travel in packs, but at least they are susceptible to an authoritative baritone instructing them to move into open space rather than packing up by the doors, and to make way when passengers need to board and disembark. Football fans don't try to be rude; they just don't know any better, and are willing enough to be told. People with bikes are just likely to act like they own the whole damn train, and take great offense to the news that they do not.

Cars are fine. As a pedestrian, I love cars. They behave predictably and their drivers are often polite to a fault - I've developed a whole physical language to explain that, while I greatly appreciate a driver's consideration and courtesy, I also feel it benefits no one for a much faster-moving vehicle to await someone on foot, and therefore to please go ahead and make the turn or whatever, so you don't have to wait and I don't have to hurry, but thanks again for looking out.

This is tough to fit in a single gesture, but I think I've got it taped now. The key is not to mind hamming it up a little, because it does after all have to be easy to read from a distance, and to get the whole upper part of your body involved - you want to combine a smile of thanks with a forward incline of the head, connoting a degree of deference, with a rather sweeping motion of the arm across the billboard of the torso and out to full extension in the direction the driver was about to go anyway, to convey the intended outcome. Laugh all you like, but this works; I rarely have to repeat myself even once, and I usually get an answering smile and wave from the driver besides.

So yeah, cars are great. Cars are whales. Bicycles are sharks, fast and deadly and hard to hear coming up from behind. Usually piloted by assholes, too, which I guess sharks aren't, but when I'm just trying to get to work in one piece and I'm having to deal with the adrenaline shock of yet another near miss, I get a little loose with my metaphors.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#174

Post by allengeorge » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:03 AM UTC

revelation wrote: post #161

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…

The number of deaths in bicycle - pedestrian collisions is about 1 (one) every few years. I'm sure there are idiots cycling just as there are idiots driving, but if I get a choice between an idiot on a bike and an idiot in his truck potentially hitting me I'll take the bike every time. These things quite frankly don't compare .

Yeah, but the number of cyclists compared to motorists is probably a couple of orders of magnitude lower as well.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#175

Post by Asooka » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:03 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…

If you had recorded that exchange, can't you sue him for attempted homicide and endangering the lives of minors?

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#176

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

jacalata wrote: post #61

pacala wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Aren't cyclists and other vehicles that can't sustain a minimum speed of 40mph not allowed on highways? In Europe there's a minimum speed you need to drive at on the highway and you're not allowed otherwise.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#177

Post by distances » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:15 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #126

dasil003 wrote: post #84

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…

The thing we need in the United States are traffic tickets. A lot of people get tickets on freeways (where there is a dedicated highway patrol that exists only to write speeding tickets), but nobody gets ticketed on surface streets, no matter how badly they drive. I see garbage trucks barrelling through red lights at 45mph. I see taxis driving the wrong way down one-way streets. I see black cars driving 60mph down na…

> There was an interesting pilot program to give $50 tickets to people exceeding the speed limit by 30mph in school zones. Tons of opposition.

This sounds way, way too little. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I'd expect you to lose your driving license for a violation like this in Finland, temporarily at least.

Just for comparison, exceeding the speed limit by 15-20 km/h in a low-speed zone results in a fine of 200€ (~$225), and in excess of 20 km/h (~13 mph) gets you day-fines.

And yes, if you make millions, the day-fine ticket can get expensive; the current record is €112,000 for exceeding the speed limit by 14 mph. Which I think is fine -- $50 slap for a millionaire doesn't provide much of a deterrent, does it?

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#178

Post by allengeorge » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:15 AM UTC

apathy wrote: post #92

Larrikin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bicycles are banned on sidewalks in most major cities because a head on collision can still easily cause a fatality. When the existing traffic laws on bikes are rarely enforced, this becomes a much more likely outcome as the laws are ignored.

Who the hell rides on the sidewalk in a major city? It's faster to ride in traffic in major cities, and since the drivers are usually stuck in heavy traffic, they're less likely to suddenly do something idiotic. It's probably safer for everyone if cyclists ride in the road where they belong downtown, which by itself should be reason enough to ticket lawbreakers. (Of course I'm sure you'll agree that anyone doing 56 i…

As an anecdote I've seen this happen a few times (in New York of all places!) and it's incredibly annoying. My observation is that the riders who tend to do this are often inexperienced, which makes the entire situation worse: they wobble on the sidewalk and disrupt pedestrian flow dramatically because everyone gives them way wider berth.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#179

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

PeterSmit wrote: post #164

Symbiote wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to avoid inconveniencing drivers I used to cycle like that, in London. I moved to Copenhagen, and quickly had to change my behaviour. Drivers are firmly at the bottom of the heap here, and everyone knows it. It's inefficient and confusing to others to disrupt this.

And that is how it should be. Cars are great to go between cities fast, but inside cities they should behave like guests. Ironically, most drivers are guests to a city as well, coming from the suburbs. Pedestrians, cyclists and public transportation are the most efficient mode of transportation inside a city, and should be honored as such. In most medium to big Dutch cities this is the case, although there is always…

"Cars are great to go between cities fast, but inside cities they should behave like guests"

No, especially in north american cities where you can walk few places, cares are another form of transit, like anything else.

Relatively few people actually ride bikes.

"Pedestrians, cyclists and public transportation are the most efficient mode of transportation inside a city" this is completely false in most situations, especially in North America.

You cannot reasonably walk 5Km to work every day and back. The vast majority of people live far from work.

Even with cities that have good public transit, it's not optimal in tons of cases.

Cars - or things like them - are going to stay. They are not going away.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#180

Post by jomamaxx » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:26 AM UTC

URSpider94 wrote: post #151

igf wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

"Cycling is a well-established form of transit that many people participate in,"

Many do, but it's very small about 2%. In SF it's 4$, NY it's 1%. And overall in America - it's negligible (outside of cities it's impractical).

So - bikes are a distant 4th after cars, public transit and walking. It's not going to change.