Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

road.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 456 posts

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#391

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

Saline9515 wrote: post #123
daemonologist wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going around a parked car is not merely an inconvenience, it introduces an extra risk of being hit from behind (obviously you should check over your shoulder before moving into the lane, but this is the imperfect real world, and even the act of checking over your shoulder is a small risk) or by a vehicle pulling out of a cross street which didn't see you through the stopped car. However I agree that there isn't an ob…

It's also possible to use a feature that is present on the bikes, even if rarely or never used by urban cyclists: braking and waiting for the passenger to drop off, before continuing for your destination. Something car drivers and pedestrians do, usually.

Not in my city. Taxis and ride shares tell you to get out on the right hand side so that you don’t get swept by cars passing you on the left.

Also often difficult to tell as a bicyclist how long that car will be sitting there. Sometimes it’s a delivery or pickup or something inane that will have you looking like a doofus for waiting.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#392

Post by rsynnott »

retired wrote: post #381
rsynnott wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Are you claiming that there are few or no European cities with extensive separated bike lanes or something?

There is Copenhagen. And Dutch cities. I don't know if there are any other European cities with extensive separated bike lanes. Valencia has some bike lanes but I wouldn't call them extensive. Only 143 kilometers versus 515 kilometers in Amsterdam, which has a similar population.

It likely depends how you're defining separated. Some cities go for completely separate routes, some curb separation, some bollard separation, some on-footpath separation. Some use a chaotic mix (Dublin, say, is building a 300km segregated system, but because this is being delivered by seven local authorities plus the National Transport Authority, it is a mix of seemingly every possible solution, including weird stuff like contraflow bike lanes, and bike lanes between on-street parking and the footpath).

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#393

Post by slibhb »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #333
slibhb wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers generally follow the rules. It's considered bad form when they don't, and they're occasionally ticketed. This doesn't apply to bikers. No one even expects them to follow the rules. I'm not anti-bike. I bike a bit and I got hit by a car last year. Some crackhead turned left across the opposite lane right into me. I'm just reporting what I see -- bikers do not generally follow the rules, and I find this interes…

> Drivers generally follow the rules. No, they don't. They break the rules all the goddamn time. Have you ever been on an American freeway? Most people are going above the speed limit, myself included. Do you think most drivers give the legally required amount of space in front of their car while driving, especially on the freeway? It's not even close. Do people signal for the legally required amount of time before c…

I feel like this is personal for you and you can't discuss it objectively.

Drivers are...not great. But as a general rule they follow the laws (albeit with frequent lapses). Cyclists do not follow the rules to the point where no one expects them to. It's genuinely weird for me to imagine a cyclist stopping at a stop sign.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#394

Post by dangus »

SR2Z wrote: post #382
dangus wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "human driver versus waymo driver," it's "car versus no car" or "10 cars versus 2 cars" or "fast cars versus slow cars."

No, it's the human driver vs the Waymo. I'm not going to entertain fantasies where all the cars magically disappear from the road; there's no political will for that and no politician is dumb enough to try. To be perfectly clear, the difference between an empty road and a Waymo is mostly academic if you're on a bike. The Waymo is just that good at respecting space.

I’m not talking about cars magically disappear from the road, I’m specifically talking about taxis and rideshares versus using another way to get around, which even includes personal car ownership.

Studies have shown repeatedly that rideshares lower transit usage and don’t reduce personal car ownership.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#395

Post by dangus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #323
dangus wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I say we should run subways to every corner? Here’s a nice video about how small suburbs and even farms don’t need to involve deep car dependence: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg Meanwhile, Arlington, Texas has over 200,000 people with no bus system. And before you say “oh it’s Europe it’s old” I will point out that the Netherlands had a huge car dependency problem in the mid-century and deliberately move…

> Here’s a nice video about how small suburbs and even farms don’t need to involve deep car dependence I’ll watch in detail-thank you. An important caveat, though, and it’s not about age but density. The Netherlands ex Amsterdam has just under 1,400 people per square mile. That’s still denser than every single U.S. state. (New Jersey and Rhode Island are the only two that break 1,000, and only the former if we exclud…

> But the layout of America, in part driven by history, in part by our embrace of car culture, forces fundamentally different transport optima than almost anywhere in Western Europe.

It’s worth pointing out here that,

1. Again, this is an ongoing choice and not an inevitability.

2. A large amount of America was built during the railroad era and a lot of urban fabric was actually just removed/demolished and could be replaced. A lot of it sits empty waiting to be rehabilitated (and to many cities’ credit, a lot of it has been rehabilitated).

3. When you watch the video you’ll see it’s not all about density, it’s also about road and street design. It’s about making spaces that feel safe to exist in as a pedestrian or cyclist. Many suburban Americans don’t actually travel that far to get around, they just can’t get places without getting in a car (e.g., a typical big box store area is a dense shopping area just like a typical high street but traversing it on foot is hostile).

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#396

Post by dangus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #327
dangus wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually don’t have to work with what exists. We actively chose and continue to choose what exists. Every day new land is developed that perpetuates these choices. Every day we decide to keep things the same or implement change. Here’s a nice video about how rural towns can be configured to not be car dependent: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg You’ll notice that this isn’t some ancient European pre-automob…

> Every day new land is developed that perpetuates these choices. Every day we decide to keep things the same or implement change This is a great argument. Retrofitting America is one discussion. But building new developments such that they don't require a car–at least within themselves–should be doable.

I still think it’s worth observing the Netherlands as an example because they also had mid-century car-oriented development that they successfully retrofitted.

And of course, also, this doesn’t mean “nobody owns a car in the Netherlands.”

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#397

Post by queenkjuul »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #172
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the fines in the world won’t save you from getting mowed down by a distracted driver on their phone. Drinking and driving has heavy fine deterrents, yet people still do it anyway. You know what stops a drunk or distracted driver from killing someone? A cement barrier

> a distracted driver on their phone Waymos don’t get distracted. Grade separation, ticketing and increasingly favoring AVs in cities is a simpler solution than erecting physical barriers, which have the downside of making cities less walkable.

Grade separation IS building physical barriers lmao what are you even saying

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#398

Post by queenkjuul »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #351
maest wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a real problem, as proven by many countries where cycling is encouraged and supported

I bike in Chicago and curbed bike lanes recently installed are a big problem

Really? I use them all the time without issue, unless someone has decided to park themselves in the intersection

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#399

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

rsynnott wrote: post #388
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berlin certainly qualifies. If not by metric, then by vibe. Lightyears ahead of Chicago which I rate as a good city to bike in the US (and getting better under the current batch of aldercreatures). 143km sounds like quite a bit though, especially since separated bike lanes are usually for main thoroughfares, whereas many low-traffic side streets you simply bike down the middle.

A lot of Berlin's is footpath-based, right? They seem to be talking about segregated bike lanes, so that arguably wouldn't qualify (though it _is_ likely much safer than on-road).

Oh I guess I didn’t know the distinction. As a user of both I actually prefer the footpath based to the segregated bike lanes, although it seems to work best on the widest of Berlins streets where all of the following can coexist laterally:

  - Storefront
  - Outdoor seating 
  - Footpath (room for both ways)
  - Bike lane (one way)
  - Greenery (trees or shrubs)
  - Car door buffer
  - Parking lane
  - One or two lanes one way traffic
  - Green median
  - All the above mirrored for the other side
Example of this is Yorckstr. south of Mitte

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#400

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

retired wrote: post #381
rsynnott wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Are you claiming that there are few or no European cities with extensive separated bike lanes or something?

There is Copenhagen. And Dutch cities. I don't know if there are any other European cities with extensive separated bike lanes. Valencia has some bike lanes but I wouldn't call them extensive. Only 143 kilometers versus 515 kilometers in Amsterdam, which has a similar population.

Malmö has some of the best bike lanes in the world, IMO even better than Amsterdam and Copenhagen, who I'd say are top tier. Literally 2 meters wide at some points and separated by divider from even walking traffic
Post reply on HN