My experience cycling regularly in NYC: bike lanes separated by curb, stoppers, or poles are more dangerous as cars stop at their entrances/exits and I am literally trapped or cannot enter them before/after an intersection. I'm not against them in principle, but without extremely strict enforcent of laws (let's say a ticket 5% of someone's annual income and a loss of DL on a repeated offense - this stuff endangers people's lives), they are sadly counterproductive. :(

People undoubtedly said this was not realistic in many car-clogged European cities before some actually did it. “Realism” here is just a measure of the current number of votes you have for making things better.

The thing which I think would really help with bike lanes would be to standardize on placing underground utilities beneath them --- they'd be less expensive to dig up than a roadway structured for cars, and when maintenance is necessary, a cyclist can easily be diverted either onto the roadway (if staying on the bike) or to the sidewalk (if temporarily dismounting).

Bike lanes on a curb are significantly more dangerous due to turning car drivers often not seeing them (due to parked cars in the way) or interpreting them as “just a sidewalk” and not properly looking for cyclists.

I've seen people park in these curbed bike lanes too, completely blocking it off.

Agree with this.

The concrete barriers being added in Seattle help a lot.

Or they could fine them. And increase fine for each repetition so rich can't just pay to be jerks.

Bike lanes with curbs aren’t great. On garbage days trash cans often get parked in the bike lane and cyclists have no way of going around since the curb block their way. I’m perfectly comfortable with just lines for bike lanes.

Yes! Concrete please!

>There’s just no reality where a bicycle can share the road unimpeded with a motor vehicle safely.

that was among the promises of self-driving cars. Because of ultimately superior sensor suite and reaction time they can be safer than humans, in particular they would never "not see a bicyclist", they wouldn't cut impatiently, etc. . Instead that superiority is used these days to drive more "efficiently", to beat/cut the human drivers in a way not every regular human would be capable of. At least that is my anecdotal observation during the last several months (and these several months experience totally differs from the more than 15 years of having Waymo cars around in MV when they were i'd say among the safest to be around)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46199294

From the more recent - saw again a Waymo cutting like a ninja into a left turn lane at the same intersection as before, and at the other intersection a Waymo car missing the point to get in line for the right turn behind several cars already waiting in line in the bike lane, drives forward on green and makes the right turn as the second layer of the cake in parallel with those cars from the bike lane.

I think all that aggressiveness/"efficiency" comes as a result of the push to increase the customer satisfaction. All these years before driving actual passengers, Waymo (and i guess others) could allow themselves to be the safest, most courteous drivers on the road. Not anymore as such "inefficient" granma-style driving obviously would conflict with the passengers satisfaction.

Yes, in sane countries the rules are attempted to be defined in a fair way, and you can follow them. Not perfectly of course, but with that goal.

Like the Netherlands, it is (A) not possible to park in bike paths without going intentionally out of your way, and (B) there are reasonable alternatives, such as specific “loading zones” for passengers on nearly every block, on major roads. On minor neighborhood roads, you can just block the road for a few seconds and it doesn’t matter

The US is happy creating laws for everything that are impossible to follow, but only selectively enforced. It makes it so everyone always must break the law to exist in society, but will only face repercussions at the discretion of a police officer.

It means that there are effectively no laws, because everyone has slightly different definitions of when something is “right” or not, and the police only enforce the most egregious cases, but they can also target you specifically for some other reason (discrimination, bias, etc) with no repercussions, since you were breaking the law after all.

Blocking the right car lane for a drop off is perfectly legal outside of No Stopping zones. This is how taxis have always worked.

It's just that other drivers get pissed off if you block a car lane when there's a bike lane next to it. That needs to be trained away by enforcing the rules.

One question the city probably can't answer is what disabled persons in the taxi are supposed to do. If you strictly enforce bike lanes the result is probably the rider needing to walk a few blocks. If the rider is disabled, that could actually be a huge burden. Since I've got an 80+ year old disabled parent with a walker this is an issue for me that does compete pretty aggressively with my support for bikes.

> The problem isn’t really enforcement

The problem is street-side parking.

This is not the case. As you just read in the article:

https://highwaycode.org.uk/rule-140/

> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply. Law: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984: Sections 5 & 8

Here's a cycle lane with a broken white line: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5159626,-0.1020373,3a,75y,17...

You shouldn't enter, stop or park here unless it is "unavoidable". You're a taxi driver dropping off a passenger? That's not "unavoidable".

Here's a cycle lane with an unbroken line: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5162184,-0.1047894,3a,75y,15...

The latter, no you CAN'T enter it to drop people off, no matter who you are. It is literally illegal to do so.

I regularly see more motorists run red lights in a given day than I have seen cyclists run red lights in a decade. Cycling is sufficiently common in my area to state outright that, proportionally speaking, more motorists run red lights than cyclists.

The same thing can be said for cyclists weaving in and out of traffic, and for good reason: if traffic is moving, it's a good way to kill yourself; if traffic is not moving, there is no need for it. (There is usually enough space on the right to pass. If there isn't enough space on the right to pass, it is unsafe.)

I have seen more motorists barrel the wrong way down a one way street, in reverse, than I have seen cyclists riding down one way streets the wrong way. Proportionally speaking, more cyclists may be breaking the law. In terms of safety, what motorists are doing is far more dangerous.

As for stop signs: other cyclists tend to get the hint when I stop at them on my bike. :) The ones who don't stop tend to do the same as motorists, by doing a "rolling stop". Doing anything less would be a good way to get killed.

So no, I don't agree that cyclists do not follow traffic laws as a general rule. In many cases, motorists are worse. I am not going to pretend that cyclists are better for altruistic reasons. The reality is that cyclists are much more vulnerable than motorists. Cars are made to handle collisions, bikes are not. Motorists pay more attention to cars than bikes, in the most part because other cars are more dangerous to them.

Drivers generally don't follow traffic laws. They text on their phone while they drive. They routinely go over the speed limit. They go through red lights. They go into or park in bike lanes. They tailgate other drivers. They don't signal before turning or changing lanes.

Cars don't follow traffic laws. Cars roll through stop signs and run red lights. Cars speed and weave through traffic. They go the wrong way down one-way streets. Since cars are much bigger, this is much more dangerous.

Yet cyclists rarely kill others. Car drivers on the other hand are one of the most prolific unnatural causes of death.

That seems irrelevant, we’re talking about cars.

Also, of course bikers don’t follow car rules. Those rules are nonsensical for cyclists.

Seems like something else worth working on.

Being around a Waymo makes me feel WAY safer than being around a human driver. If more cars were replaced, I would probably bike even more.

Seriously, Waymos follow at a respectful distance and overtake me safely. They stop at stop signs. Sometimes they even stop and wait for me to make a decision about which way I'm heading.

> Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilization

Anecdote: I take transit way more in San Francisco with Waymo. Because booking is deterministic (it says 20 minutes, it will be there in 20 minutes, even if it’s a short ride), I can connect with the loose network of city and regional rail systems in a way that was tedious with human drivers.

(I lived in New York for 10 years, and eagerly take the subway there.)

Personal cars also take up space on the road when they aren't being used. It would be much easier to build physically separated, safe biking lanes and drop off areas if we could use all the space we currently dedicate exclusively to personal vehicle parking on public streets.

Taxis (and Uber etc) also take up space on the road when they only have their driver and no fare paying passenger on board, so I don't see that a Waymo is any worse than that.

Both human-driven and robo-driven taxis are financially incentivised to spend as much time as possible carrying fare paying passengers and as little as possible driving empty to pick someone up.

Anyway, I agree that walking, cycling, and public transit, are all IMHO preferable to any form of taxi.

>> Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilisation and providing more ways to walk and cycle that feel and are safe.

This is nonsense. Even in places with great public transport a lot of people own cars because taxi's and Uber's are unreliable or unavailable. Given Waymo should be available at any time of day and not pick + choose rides as randomly a lot of car owners should be able to give them up.

> The fact that others don't follow it is completely irrelevant.

This shouldn't even be a discussion. Because someone kills a person, everyone else now needs to kill someone otherwise it breaks expectations? Madness...

Many cities would stop functioning if everyone followed traffic laws — the whole system is built around drivers ignoring many rules. Businesses need deliveries to be unloaded and delivered. Customers need to get where they are going. And many cities do not actually leave space for loading and unloading.

There’s a related issue that will become apparent as more cars drive themselves and take responsibility for their actions: speed limits. If traffic engineers want cars to drive 75mph, they should set a speed limit of 75mph.

Maybe drivers should stop thinking they're the center of the universe and consider pedestrians and bicyclists around them. It's more dangerous to block a bike lane, with the more vulnerable user, than a car lane. Other drivers can wait.

...I don't know why you think that a majority of drivers respect bike lanes. They don't. Nearly every driver has parked a car in a bike lane at some point. At least in the US it's uncontroversial - the bike lanes tend to be so poorly designed and thought out that it's much easier for cars to use them than cyclists.

It can't be so uneven. The other drivers will react irrationally if only a few cars obey those rules. Try doing your own drop offs in the car lane, when there's a bike late there, with traffic behind you. They'll often react dangerously.

Go to any city with driverless service and ask cyclists how they feel about Waymo vs humans.

Or just keep hating on AI. Why let the truth stop you from having a good time?

It does not work both ways.

One party to this is a high-inertia, potentially high-velocity metal box that, in an impact with the other party, typically results in an property insurance claim.

The other is a low-inertia flesh bag that, in an impact with the other party, results in a medical insurance claim, and possibly a funeral.