taking it upon themselves to decide for everyone else how a
city should operate
taking it upon themselves to decide for everyone else how a
city should operate
I ride my bike to and from work pretty much every day in SF, and I readily admit that adding these markers most definitely does interrupt and disrupt traffic flow.
The fact of the matter is, sometimes delivery vehicles and service vehicles need to stop and block traffic. They tend to pull over as far as possible to the right, so as not to impede auto traffic. Often this means pulling over into the bike lane. (Note that when there is no bike lane, these vehicles block the right-most lane of auto traffic and cars just go around without getting too hot and bothered. But I digress.)
Erecting the markers prevents this behavior in many instances. You can decide to be in favor of the new bike lane markers, but you can't pretend that the added markers aren't a unilateral alteration to traffic flow that does have an effect.
How's that working out for them.
The delivery/service vehicles choose to block the bike lane instead of blocking a lane of traffic.
This gets complicated quickly once you factor in total impact and so on, but I just want to point out that a person on a bike doesn't necessarily deserve less priority than a solo driver, for example.
Plus there's the fact that blocking the bike lane is indeed illegal as noted by the other commenter. Although I sometimes think that we don't really know how bad it would be if all delivery drivers had to comply with all parking laws - maybe we'd all be starving in the nicely flowing streets due to a lack of food.
I don't know if everyone would necessarily be safer if vehicles who decide to stop did so by blocking a lane of auto traffic while leaving the bike lane clear. It would introduce a visibility issue which would prevent cyclists from seeing anyone walking in front of the stopped vehicle to and from the curb, for instance.
Cars, OTOH, just have to stand there and wait, and it doesn't take many minuted for a major gridlock to form.
And that's why I think it's reasonable to block bike lanes over car lanes. Why you have to block anyone is maybe the more important, but much harder question.
A car has to go from one lane to another lane.
I'm afraid to get doored. I'd be stuck in between car and raised sidewalk with nowhere to go. Whenever possible, I pass such vehicle using opposite (or 2nd) car lane.
Passengers/workers getting in/out vehicles or loading/unloading vehicles frequently stand on bike lane during process. Or put their stuff on bike lane. Which is totally fine by me, they do what they gotta do.
I'd rather have them parked in bike lane and pass it in car lane. IMO it's safer and less stressful both for them and me.
There are few places in SF where a car can pass a vehicle that's half in the car lane and half in the bike lane where the car couldn't also pass if the illegally parked vehicle was completely in the car lane.
The whole point of bike lanes is that mixed traffic with bikes and cars is highly dangerous for bikes. Frequently blocked bike lanes that force cyclists to suddenly merge into car traffic defeats the point of having the lanes in the first place.
Not to mention, there's an implicit assumption on your part that we're universally talking about confident, healthy adult cyclists. Do you think it's cool to push pre-teen cyclists in traffic? What about grandma? A parent with kids on their bike?
If we just accept dangerous infrastructure and behavior, biking for transportation will always be an activity only for the tiny minority of people who are highly tolerant of physical danger.
When you try to choose the lesser evil, there are no "cool" options.
I think the real problem here is that SF streets are so overcrowded that basic delivery has to be done by blocking live traffic lanes.
but i really feel for the delivery guys. if they park on the right they have angry bike riders screaming at them and shooting past them at high speed when they are trying to work. if they park in the middle of the street they have to somehow negotiate pallet jacks full of food across active traffic.
so sure, lets make it harder for single occupancy vehicles. they use the most resource and are arguably impossible to sustain going forward. but the bikes are directly in conflict with deliveries, contractors, busses, subway riders, and pedestrians. how do we deal with that?
I haven't seen a transit system yet where bikes are allowed to ride on the rails in underground tunnels, so I don't see how bikes are directly in conflict with subway riders?
How are bikes more in conflict with pedestrians than cars already are?
I'm furious for my own safety when drivers block the bike lane on Fell St. Cars are pouring down the hill at 40mph+ and not expecting a cyclist to take the lane, yet cyclists don't have a choice when their only other infrastructure is blocked by a selfish driver.
Yes, parking in San Francisco sucks. We can all agree on that. But, if you're going to park illegally, use a driveway. It's way less dangerous than blocking a bike lane, and it inconveniences fewer people too.
I'm not sure what part of Fell St you are talking about, since the only part with a bike lane that I'm aware of is the section between Scott and Baker and there's no hill on that part. But I think you probably mean the section leading up to the left turn merge at Divisidero where there's also a lot of cars waiting in line for the gas station on the corner. I do sympathize, since as a cyclist myself I don't find that to be very safe either.
I guess I don't understand the part that makes you "furious for my own safety" though. You have the power to be safe in this situation. Just stop behind the blocking vehicle until it's safe to go around. The traffic light at Scott will eventually be red, which will block the traffic on Fell "pouring down the hill at 40mph+".
My own frustration with my fellow bicyclists' behavior is that a lot of us seem to think we deserve to never have to stop for any inconvenience ever. That we for some reason deserve to never have our feet touch the ground.
Sometimes traffic slows or stops in front of you. Sometimes you have to wait until it's safe to go around. Automobiles do this all the time and don't often complain by slamming on the horn or endangering themselves and others by suddenly swerving and taking the lane. Those that do take those actions in response to the minor inconvenience that is stopping and safely waiting are rightly derided as jerks.
I do find it funny the number of illegal lefts onto fell from bikers, when most get caught at the divisidero light anyway. I feel bad for the driver who inevitably is going to hit a biker there.
So putting other people in danger while breaking the law is okay as long as you're doing it as a part of your business?
Why is it okay for them to block the bike lane, but not okay to block the car lane?
- Never take a taxi, Uber, or Lyft unless both ends of your trip have parking or passenger loading zones available?
- Never have food, a package, or mail delivered unless your building has a dedicated cargo loading zone?
- Never shop at a store or eat at a restaurant which lacks a dedicated cargo loading zone?
Short term double parking is okay because living in a dense area would be totally infeasible if no one broke that law.
That being said, these are probably completely fine. But there's lot of reasons why having a process for infrastructure changes makes sense. At the same time, I applaud SF for being pragmatic about it and accepting of these people while working toward a long term solution.