Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#261

Post by cmurf » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 9:05 PM 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…

This can now be automated. Video the activity, provide the necessary markers (maybe a time based hash or whatever) so the provenance of the video is sound, and follow the general rules for evidence gathering and chain of custody, archive it, and send the car owner a bill. Increasingly municipalities are making these kinds of things civil offenses, not criminal, so they can attach liability to the car owner for some kinds of infractions. Whether that stands up to the state's highest court without a state law, IANAL so I dunno.

Next, eventually there will be just enough autonomous cars, all of which will obviously only ever go the speed limit, and at least in moderate traffic it'll effectively prevent human driven cars from doing the usual bad shit; we'll be left with the edge cases of just really bad shit.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#262

Post by teh_klev » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

diogenescynic wrote: post #255

teh_klev wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like a citation for that, I don't think that's true. I imagine they can legally tow your vehicle away, but I reckon damaging the bodywork of your ambulance or fire appliance to move another vehicle out of the way is not standard operating procedure. There is however an act called the The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 [0] which makes it an offence to obstruct emergency vehicles. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/…

>I reckon damaging the bodywork of your ambulance or fire appliance to move another vehicle out of the way is not standard operating procedure. I think you misread the comment. He's saying the opposite, ambulances and firetrucks could damage a citizen's car if it's blocking the emergency vehicle--not the other way around.

> they have the right to smash your vehicle to get past

Um...I'm pretty sure that reads as "if your car is in the way they get to drive into it to move it out of the way". I like to think our emergency services drivers aren't driving such a reckless manner as to be smashing into stationary vehicles along the way to a shout.

Perhaps GP's comment is poorly worded and they mean that the emergency services have a right to break into a vehicle by way of smashing windows to facilitate its removal.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#263

Post by teh_klev » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:28 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #250

teh_klev wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like a citation for that, I don't think that's true. I imagine they can legally tow your vehicle away, but I reckon damaging the bodywork of your ambulance or fire appliance to move another vehicle out of the way is not standard operating procedure. There is however an act called the The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 [0] which makes it an offence to obstruct emergency vehicles. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/…

Fire And Rescue Services Act 2004 says they can "move or break into a vehicle without the consent of its owner". I don't know if that's sufficient. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

Sure, but GP's comment suggests ramming the vehicle out of the way on the way to a shout.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#264

Post by jpindar » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #247

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…

>A driver doesn't mind stopping for a moment either, This has to be a joke right? Drivers roll through stop signs all the time. Sometimes they don't even stop. And don't get me started on the "Red light means only 2 more cars can go through" attitude. Anytime I cringe at having gone through a yellow-turning-red, I am always surprised/relieved/disappointed to see several cars follow me through.

Sometimes I'm afraid to stop at a just-turning-red light because I know the cars behind me expect to be able to speed up and follow me through the beginning of the red light, and if I stop they might rear-end me.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#265

Post by brokenmachine » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

luca_ing wrote: post #170

adrianratnapala wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> But the 1m rule sounds draconian to me. Germany has even stricter rules in practice: courts have regularly decided that a minimum of 1.5m ... 2m is necessary, depending on the situation. In special cases, even up to 2.8m have been deemed necessary. BTW, even if cars don't actually touch a cyclist, but merely frighten them and cause them to react, it's already a traffic offense. Difficult to enforce in practice, of…

In Australia it's 1m for roads with a speed limit up to 60kph, and 1.5m for any road with a speed limit above that.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#266

Post by aphextron » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:37 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…

>SF could use a lot more of that attitude. I thought the west coast was supposed to be chill.

Doesn't London have one of the highest rates of pedestrian/cyclist deaths in the world?

This is a traffic engineering problem, not an attitude issue.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#267

Post by adrianratnapala » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 5:30 AM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #224

adrianratnapala wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Countries with governments that aren't crap have separate tracks for cyclists, It's not about crap governments. It's about practical responses to the world as it is. Now I live in Munich and enjoy riding on dedicated bike lanes. But these are built on seriously wide roads. In Sydney that space is used for other things. Such land-use decisions were locked in during the early 20th century. Now it's perfectly reasonab…

> Now I live in Munich and enjoy riding on dedicated bike lanes You do realise the lanes in Munich almost certainly weren't built by the Nazis? And the layout of roads, especially major ones, will have been altered since then, and can be altered in the future? I'm not familiar with Munich, but the Netherlands got their bicycle lanes after lots of public campaigning in the 1970s [1]. In many European cities, the stree…

I'm saying there is little relation between quality of current governments and what bicycle lanes you have.

It seems to me that continental european cities often have very wide roads once you get out of the old towns. Given the location, these must have been built around the mid-20th century. By all kinds of governments.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#268

Post by staticelf » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 11:47 AM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #163

staticelf wrote: post #93

Bike lanes in SF: https://www.google.se/search?q=bike+lanes+SF&safe=off&client... Bike lanes in Stockholm: https://www.google.se/search?q=bike+lanes+stockholm&safe=off... Bike lanes in Amsterdam: https://www.google.se/search?q=bike+lanes+amsterdam&safe=off... I guess SF / USA have something to learn from Europeans and that is to build some shit between the bike lane and the car lane. Let it be cones, rails or whateve…

Don't worry, you're not alone. Australia's bike infrastructure also sucks.

Well, I do live in Sweden in a city where everyone bikes. So I am happy :)

I just like to promote our model of society since it's so much better on so many levels.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#269

Post by Symbiote » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 1:55 PM UTC

adrianratnapala wrote: post #267

Symbiote wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now I live in Munich and enjoy riding on dedicated bike lanes You do realise the lanes in Munich almost certainly weren't built by the Nazis? And the layout of roads, especially major ones, will have been altered since then, and can be altered in the future? I'm not familiar with Munich, but the Netherlands got their bicycle lanes after lots of public campaigning in the 1970s [1]. In many European cities, the stree…

I'm saying there is little relation between quality of current governments and what bicycle lanes you have. It seems to me that continental european cities often have very wide roads once you get out of the old towns. Given the location, these must have been built around the mid-20th century. By all kinds of governments.

There is a strong relation between current (or recent) governments and bicycle lanes. For decades, people in London said the streets were too narrow for cycling. Once the mayor declared maintaining car speeds was no longer a priority above everything else, the traffic engineers found space.

I've never visited Sydney, but it seems to have plenty of wide roads — I picked some central roads at random.

Oxford Street has a bus lane on either side, plus two car lanes in each direction. On StreetView, the bus lane is filled with parked cars, and appears to be also a cycle lane. Reducing the width of the car lanes, removing parking from one side, or removing one lane of traffic would provide ample space.

Palmer Street has two lines of parked cars, and enough space for three lanes of cars in between. Plenty of room for a dedicated cycle lane.

Re: Guerrilla Bike Lanes in San Francisco

#270

Post by Frondo » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:04 PM UTC

Someone wrote: post #98

Frondo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"I'm half a block away but I'm going downhill and going pretty fast. I yell, "Watch out!"" At that time, you should have started braking. The road isn't yours, even if others break/bend the rules, like you do, when you 'never' cross the lights.

Oh, I love you motorists.