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

211–220 of 274 posts

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#211

Post by phicoh »

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…

When I'm on a bike, I just hate public transport with a passion. Why, because some enlightened person decided it was a good idea for traffic lights to give priority to trams and busses. Net effect is waiting for a red light while the tram is still at a stop not even ready to cross the intersection.

Beyond that, give and take space within the rules. There is no need to go out of your way to make space for cars, but also don't be a jerk and take priority just because you are on a bike.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#213

Post by manarth »

m0nty wrote: post #206
manarth wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. > As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time I'd suggest an experiment: find a central location in a city, and sit down next to a traffic light. Ideally during a commuter period. Watch for an hour, recording the number of cyclists who jump a red light, and the number of motorised vehicles which jump a red light. Which would you expect to have the m…

> Which would you expect to have the most? Cars, by a significant proportion - because there are far more of them than bikes. But what I would "expect" is neither here nor there. (You can find examples of both kinds of law-breaking if you look on youtube, for example.) The main point is: when bikes do this, it is obnoxious but far less dangerous than when motor vehicles do it. This is reflected in KSI statistics. It…

> > Which would you expect to have the most?

> Cars, by a significant proportion - because there are far more of them than bikes.

Personally, I would expect bikes, based on what I routinely see whilst walking to and from work.

There are factors which make it less likely for motorised vehicles to jump red lights. Firstly, they're identifiable (number-plate) and can be tracked down after the incident without needing to immediately chase them down. This increases the likelihood that they're held accountable. Secondly, as you pointed out, it only takes one motorist to obey the law, and the others are forced to follow suit, whilst it's easy for cyclists to filter to the front, then break the law.

I understand when you point out that the consequences of a motorist jumping the lights are much more severe, and I do agree with that, but I disagree with the idea that motorists jump red lights as often or more often than cyclists.

Whether cyclists should be permitted to jump red lights, cycle the wrong way on a one-way road, and be exempted from similar traffic controls is another question. There's a lot to suggest that the anger at cyclists is the routine brazen law-breaking, so exempting them from the law would go some way to defuse that anger. As the regulations were aimed at the more serious consequences of vehicular impact, exempting cyclists wouldn't have the same level of risk.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#214

Post by Symbiote »

manarth wrote: post #194
m0nty wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time but we don't seem to notice, for some reason. If you'd been hit by cars this year, you would have suffered far more serious injuries and possibly death. That hardly ever happens with bikes. My figures for KSI are possibly a little out of date, there are actually 180,000 of them each year in the UK: https://e…

> > Cyclists need to learn red lights apply to them to. > As do motorists. Cars go through red lights all the time I'd suggest an experiment: find a central location in a city, and sit down next to a traffic light. Ideally during a commuter period. Watch for an hour, recording the number of cyclists who jump a red light, and the number of motorised vehicles which jump a red light. Which would you expect to have the m…

If you do this, divide the number of people who run a red light out of the number of people who have the opportunity to run that red light.

Once one car stops, no following cars have a chance to run the light.

Any bicycle that stops somewhere within a few car-lengths of the junction could wiggle round and run the light.

In my experience in London, a higher proportion of cars run the lights.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#215

Post by Symbiote »

pyb wrote: post #189
oarsinsync wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 40k deaths from impact from car, or 40k deaths from pollution? The two are not the same. Cars produce a lot of pollution. So do offices. So do busses. So does the underground tube network. Impact from car I'm sure is cause for a lot of injuries and deaths, use t…

> Here's an anecdote, since this already isn't an argument based on numbers and facts. I've never been hit by a car in London. In the space of a year, I've been hit by two cyclists and lost my takeaway dinner on account of a third. That's pretty much my experience too. However, my comment was downvoted to the death, as it doesn't make sense in statistical terms. Anyway, one very real issue here is that the average Lo…

Can I counter your anecdote with my sister's friend, who was killed by a car on an urban, residential road? He's not able to post on HN.

Arguments on anecdotes are pointless, when there are statistics available.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#216

Post by collyw »

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…

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-h...

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#217

Post by Symbiote »

Thlom wrote: post #154
gambiting wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

In both cities, you'll see lots of "Except cyclists" plaques beneath prohibition signs.

That leads to more respect for the rules where the prohibition includes cyclists. (Though it's not 100% followed — but it isn't by drivers either.)

In the UK, where cyclists are generally ignored, I'd regularly ignore one-way restrictions. Most have clearly been implemented to direct cars, without any thought to cyclists.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#218

Post by Symbiote »

bsimpson wrote: post #34
toomanybeersies wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fre…

> Passengers seem to be less trained to watch for bicycles than drivers, so I wonder if it's actually safer overall.

It's the driver's responsibility to remind the passenger — or for children, use the child lock function.

As an obvious foreigner in Denmark, I've been reminded by taxi drivers in Copenhagen to check for bicycles before opening the door. A colleague told me his children are taught to open the car door with their opposite hand, which means you look through the window naturally.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#220

Post by collyw »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #155
brokenmachine wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-h...
Post reply on HN