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

431–440 of 456 posts

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

#431

Post by tpm »

ralferoo wrote: post #406
tpm wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The car can stop in the car lane to drop off. Especially with a disabled person on board. Is that not legal in your city?

In the UK (which the article seems to be about, although it keeps talking about other cities too), it depends on the specific road markings. If it's a solid white line between the bike line and the road, absolutely no vehicles are allowed into the cycle line except bikes. If it's a dashed line, they can enter it as long as it's not being used by cyclists. In general though, special affordances for parking and droppin…

Right, but in general, what is a car driver supposed to do when he needs to stop and unload (anything) in a place where there isn't a special provision for that? Here in Slovakia they can stop in the car lane, blocking it, as long as that's not explicitly forbidden by a sign there.

Because we also have streets with a car lane and a bike lane with a solid line where it's forbidden for any other vehicle to enter or stop there, so of course I had to explain to a few drivers what are the rules they should alrady know and follow.

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

#432

Post by atoav »

Saline9515 wrote: post #413
atoav wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyclists, other than motorists (1) build that momentum up with their legmuscles and (2) speed is required for stability on two-wheeled vehicles, meaning stopping with a bicycle is more exhausting and annoying than, say with a car. I am not saying stopping isn't the right option in many situations, what I am saying is that a good bicycle infrastructure is planned in a way that understands that a person on a bicycle ha…

Yes, cycling is a sport. Should we also flatten hills as they have the inconvenience of requiring to push harder on pedals? If the physical aspect of cycling (involving stopping for taxis, pregnant women, children, or distracted pedestrian plebs) is too hard, solutions exist: public transports, walking, or electric bikes (whose riders seem equally annoyed to slow down, for some reason). The problem with "building inf…

> The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.

That was my point, thanks for making it: There is money for building and maintaining 6 lanes of sophisticated road surface that needs to withstand trucks¹ we surely have the money to replace part of it with a cheaper to maintain bicycle path that sees next to no road wear aside from weather effects. I'd argue that we cannot afford to not have bicycle infrastructure.

You appear to be propping up public transportation against cycling, when in reality they are a match made in heaven. Why not both?

¹: weight factors into road wear by power of four. Double weight equals 16 times the road wear

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

#433

Post by tomhow »

xscott wrote: post #407
tomhow wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't do this on HN. It's against the guidelines to post “internet tropes”, and the purpose of HN is for curious conversation, whereas a link to this kind of URL is low-effort snark. Also, your comment upthread breaks several guidelines; particularly the lines “some weird role-play poser fetish I guess” and “But be honest - you don't really care about evidence”. Please make an effort to observe the guidelines…

The actual trope in this conversation is "citation needed". That's a phrase which pretty much everyone here, yourself included, knows is the superficially civil (politely hostile) way of saying "you're full of shit". Telling someone they're sealioning is just using a recently coined word. You also know that person wasn't sincerely asking for evidence - they were sealioning, and very hostile about it. As for mocking c…

> As for mocking cyclist fashion, that's just a case of falling on the wrong side of the fence. It's completely acceptable here, encouraged even, to mock certain groups and not others. In any given conversation, snark is allowed so long as it points in the agreed direction. And it's self-reinforcing, because anyone who goes against the grain is weeded out - as in your moderation here.

People who have conviction about issues with moderation include links to demonstrate what they mean. When people make vague insinuations like this without links, it's an indication that they just want to spray a little poison into the atmosphere, and evade accountability for their own conduct or examination of their claims.

If you have evidence of what you mean, please share links or quotes in the comments or email us (hn@ycombinator.com).

Either way, the guidelines apply to everyone equally, and it is never “acceptable here, encouraged even, to mock certain groups”.

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

#434

Post by ralferoo »

tpm wrote: post #431
ralferoo wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK (which the article seems to be about, although it keeps talking about other cities too), it depends on the specific road markings. If it's a solid white line between the bike line and the road, absolutely no vehicles are allowed into the cycle line except bikes. If it's a dashed line, they can enter it as long as it's not being used by cyclists. In general though, special affordances for parking and droppin…

Right, but in general, what is a car driver supposed to do when he needs to stop and unload (anything) in a place where there isn't a special provision for that? Here in Slovakia they can stop in the car lane, blocking it, as long as that's not explicitly forbidden by a sign there. Because we also have streets with a car lane and a bike lane with a solid line where it's forbidden for any other vehicle to enter or sto…

It depends on the road markings and signage. In general double yellow lines mean no waiting or parking, but there is generally a special exemption for loading/unloading or letting passengers in or out. However, there is frequently additional signage that will restrict hours when loading is permissible, or state no loading.

Double yellow lines (waiting / parking) are different to bike lines however. If a bike line is separated from the road by a solid white lines, motorised vehicles are forbidden from entering at all. If you want to load/unload or drop off passengers, you need to do that somewhere else. If the highways agency considered it safe for vehicles to block the cycle route in that place, they'd use dashed lines instead.

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

#435

Post by xscott »

tomhow wrote: post #433
xscott wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual trope in this conversation is "citation needed". That's a phrase which pretty much everyone here, yourself included, knows is the superficially civil (politely hostile) way of saying "you're full of shit". Telling someone they're sealioning is just using a recently coined word. You also know that person wasn't sincerely asking for evidence - they were sealioning, and very hostile about it. As for mocking c…

> As for mocking cyclist fashion, that's just a case of falling on the wrong side of the fence. It's completely acceptable here, encouraged even, to mock certain groups and not others. In any given conversation, snark is allowed so long as it points in the agreed direction. And it's self-reinforcing, because anyone who goes against the grain is weeded out - as in your moderation here. People who have conviction about…

> People who have conviction about issues with moderation include links to demonstrate what they mean.

Yes, I see you're using extra words to say "citation required". It's borderline clever, and fits the obvious intention of telling me I'm full of shit, except you're making a strong statement that also needs bolstering. How would you know if the alienated people just quietly go away or silence their opinions to fit in?

Regardless, it's acceptable here to mock climate deniers, capitalists (landlords, CEOs, Billionaires), SUV or truck drivers, religious fundamentalists, various flavors of conservatives, fans of "AI slop" (music or art), etc... You've got better search tools than I do to find the links.

I don't particularly want to defend any of those groups. I just wish we could add cyclists to the approved set, because they're frequently self-righteous hypocrites. I can see I'm unlikely to succeed in this endeavor.

> it's an indication that they just want to spray a little poison into the atmosphere

That seems a more than a bit uncharitable. Do you have any evidence to back it up? :-)

> evade accountability for their own conduct or examination of their claims.

I contradicted a jerk in defense/support of someone who said something I agree with. When the jerk doubled down and became truly belligerent, I bowed out of the conversation and let them have the last word before it turned into an actual flame war.

You came in 12 hours later with an "I don't care who started it" approach, looking for a reason to chastise both of us, and the worst crimes you could come up for me was some weird thing about troping and making fun of cyclist fashion.

Is that accountable enough? Am I supposed to feign penitence like the belligerent kid did?

I've wasted enough of your time. Peace!

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

#436

Post by tomhow »

xscott wrote: post #435
tomhow wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As for mocking cyclist fashion, that's just a case of falling on the wrong side of the fence. It's completely acceptable here, encouraged even, to mock certain groups and not others. In any given conversation, snark is allowed so long as it points in the agreed direction. And it's self-reinforcing, because anyone who goes against the grain is weeded out - as in your moderation here. People who have conviction about…

> People who have conviction about issues with moderation include links to demonstrate what they mean. Yes, I see you're using extra words to say "citation required". It's borderline clever, and fits the obvious intention of telling me I'm full of shit, except you're making a strong statement that also needs bolstering. How would you know if the alienated people just quietly go away or silence their opinions to fit i…

> Regardless, it's acceptable here to mock climate deniers, capitalists (CEOs, Billionaires), SUV or truck drivers, religious fundamentalists, various flavors of conservatives, fans of "AI slop" (music or art)

No, it’s not acceptable to mock any of these categories. Never has been in the years I’ve been doing this job. Yes, people do it, in breach of the guidelines, and the community flags them and the moderators warn them then penalize or ban them. This has been consistent for years. What’s also consistent is that people who are strongly partisan towards one position are convinced we are biased towards the opposite of that position.

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

#437

Post by dangus »

SR2Z wrote: post #415
dangus wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Improving transit and allowing Google to blow $100B on making cars drive themselves are not mutually exclusive. In the US, in particular, last mile transportation is mostly done by car. Transit cannot economically serve low-density suburbs. In a city? It depends on price versus convenience. As more and more cars drive themselves, the city can get away with taking back more and more space for transit and cyclists. Peo…

But the studies say that Google blowing $100B on self driving cars changes human behavior to take less transit which then costs taxpayers money because transit ridership and revenues decrease.

This idea that companies have to be allowed to do business however they want is not something we just have to do.

We can as citizens and governments say “no, you’re not allowed to run a robot taxi company because it’s overall bad for our city.”

Laissez Faire capitalism is an ideological cancer to American society.

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

#438

Post by dangus »

retired wrote: post #402
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…

To add, The Netherlands in the 1970s was going full-on towards suburbanization and urban sprawl. Even today it has one of the lowest amounts of apartments in Europe and the most urban sprawl. So if they didn't go for bicycles, it would have been America 2.0. Just look at Ireland. In other countries bicycles aren't really needed because you can just walk everywhere.

Yes! Thank you. People just assume because Netherlands = Europe that it’s all old world walkability.

In a lot of ways the cycling in the Netherlands is almost a band-aid in itself…but it’s a hell of a lot better than depending on the automobile.

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

#439

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

ok_dad wrote: post #330
pandaman wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Pulling into the bike lane for 30 seconds causes bikers to have to unsafely pull around the car Or, hear me out, they could stop if passing the car is unsafe.

Victim blaming right there. They have as right to the lane, cars don’t.

So you're advocating... what exactly? Crashing into the car on purpose because it's their right?

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

#440

Post by amanaplanacanal »

stonogo wrote: post #247
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Street side parking is fine It’s a massive subsidy that takes up space. If you have the space to move it and still permit e.g. delivery trucks from blocking the road, great. Many cities don’t have that space and yet cede it to parking.

Nothing's stopping you from charging for street parking. If it's a subsidy, that's a political decision, not an inherent flaw in street parking.

If the automobile was brand new today, I suspect that it would be a hard sell to convince people that taxpayers should pay to provide free storage for people's private cars.
Post reply on HN