So why is it that almost all my experience in taxis is that the driver seems to be a crazed maniac with a presumably diagnoseable rage disorder? They drive like their car has a bomb strapped to it that will go off if they ever yield at any point, unless they signal a temporary disarm code (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) by pulse width modulating their horn immediately after each and every yield event. Any use of their turn signals, however, will block the transmission of the disarm sequence, so they must be used sparingly if at all. Fortunately, their cars are seemingly powered by near misses with pedestrians combined with a form of fusion, so they have little reason to yield in the first place.
This is both my experience as a passenger in these drivers vehicles as well as from sharing the road with them.
It is just that my experience with taxies is mostly in dense city areas and my experience with other professional drivers is in other places with fewer drugs in the water? Is there something about driving a large truck that magically creates more consciousnesses? Is the idea that your life flashing before your eyes repeatedly will convince you of the relative worthlessness of money and cause to to leave a larger tip?
Nonetheless almost all cabbies are a menace to pedestrians, cyclists and each other, while most bus drivers seem to be blessed with saintly patience as well as admirable professional driving skills.
Payment is based on distance driven right? So more trips, more money. I could see the incentive like that to cause it.
Second in line are delivery and post vehicles regularly blocking the cycle lanes.
That's often very early in the morning, but varies according to the street. (One with lots of bars and nightclubs might allow deliveries during the day.)
For example, Copenhagen's main pedestrian streets are restricted to people on foot at all times, except residents at any time, and delivery vehicles between 04:00 and 11:00.
Basically this problem is absolutely solvable if you actually want to
By the way, why is it so important that deliveries get done within an hour?
Can you imagine working a job like this when it's cold outside and you potentially had ice the night before? And to solve this problem you'd basically reinvent the car/truck.
In icy conditions, it's likely safer for most citizens to have delivery done by bicycle. They're slower and lower mass compared to a van.
In cold, the delivery person can just add layers. And, they'll be moving more, so in all likelihood, the additional layers required is minimal. It's not like a UPS van is super warm inside - not with the driver constantly opening the doors and hopping in/out.
It simply boils down to priorities. Do we want cheap/easy delivery to merchants or do we want safe pedestrian and bicycle zones for customers. Or, is there a magical balance point in the middle?
Also I highly doubt these tiny bicycle tires can handle a pallet of bottled water or beers. They will just get crushed.
I'm pretty critical of taxi drivers but they really aren't any worse than most drivers besides the random stopping without signalling at all. Which, no surprise, non-taxis do a lot too if you take enough notice. Taxis just do it more cause they stop more.
Like BMW drivers?
It is because they drive all day and do this for a living so "cutting corners" (literally or figuratively) will save them... something. A private driver may not find any value in doing this regularly since they may drive 30-60 minutes per day. You are more likely to cut corners in your day job because you know it very well and you feel comfortable doing this, even if it's not safe.
Indicating I’d exactly that: indicating your intention to turn, which is useless information because it causes people to assume they know what you will do.
It’s not an entirely flawed argument.
What would the outcome be of a total taxi ban in a major city? I imagine strikes, outcries etc, but no major disruption to the net ability for people to get around.
Because they are point to point transportation for the elderly and disabled.
I wonder what the utilisation of taxis by elderly and disabled looks like as a percentage of the total rides. I think finding some mechanism that reduces congestion while catering for this would be attainable.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/transport-disabled/taxis-and-minicabs
It is indeed annoying that the rich just use them all the time, but I won't advocate cutting off the nose (preventing the rich from using taxis) to spite the face (letting regular folks using it for an emergency).
Agree with these, and have been glad for an on demand ride service for some of these, but I feel that these are the likely a small percentage of the total use, and that the system currently biases towards a catering for a minority indulgence rather than a general public good.
Agree that it is a spiteful proposal. I'm very frustrated by the slow pedestrianisation of London, and the taxis are a key piece of this.
I'm trying to find some example of how other Western European cities have pedestrianised their cities and dealt with the issue of taxis.
Edit: A further thought: In London, taxis are given the same privilege as buses (they can use the bus lane). This comes to the crux of my issues with cabs in the city. I think the service can exist for the reasons indicated, but giving _an empty taxi_ the same privilege as a _full bus_ speaks to a decision made with different priorities. Not only does this slow down the 100x more people in the buses but it encourages use of taxis as a "rich person's bus" alternative to the tube.
Many handicapped people are dependent on (subsidized) taxi services.
the real danger in my city isn't taxi or uber/lyft, it is the ebike rentals. they are currently banned after dark and have caused over two hundred calls for injury to Atlanta fire services, plus four deaths involving the bikes
How many traditional bicycle deaths happen in Atlanta per year? How many calls for bicycle injuries happen a year?
Just saying that e-bikes have 200 injury calls and 4 deaths is insufficient information to hold any opinion on them.
Georgia has over 4 automobile deaths per day.
If you fly in internationally the Heathrow Express also quickly deposits you at St Pancras. Unfortunately, despite the speed, it's not worth the additional cost in my opinion.
Whether the same logic applies in London (which has a world-class metro system) is debatable, of course.
On a related note, I’ve become more sensitive to the exhaust and engine noise from ICE cars when riding my bike. Nothing like directly breathing in the pollution to sour the trip and dash hope for getting rid of fossil fuels. Glad to hear about the upgrade anyhow.
Have they succeed though? Last I saw, neither was profitable, and both were hemorrhaging hundreds of millions (and in Uber's case, billions) of dollars every quarter.
In Utrecht, Netherlands only busses and taxis are allowed in some parts of the city center, and this predates Uber/Lyft existing (let alone expanding to the Netherlands). It's pretty standard municipal policy.
Yeah, mostly something like a car. Who would want to go that far with a walker? Have you ever tried it?
They have little patience when they're rolled out as an excuse against every change of use to a street, almost always by people who aren't disabled but simply want to drive everywhere.
It's the "think of the children!" counter argument for local transport planning.
Pedestrian streets are, on the whole, beneficial to disabled people. There is more space, fewer chances of collisions, and crossing the street is trivial instead of harrowing. Go look in any city that has larger pedestrianized areas and see for yourself: it works for pretty much everyone.
There are motorized wheelchairs for people who can’t push themselves. People in wheelchair for life I met have a motorized one.
We're talking about banning cars on a single main road to make it more people friendly. There are still buses, taxis and shuttles on this road. And there are roads with cars right next to it.
What exactly is so challenging here that you claim is "hate against disabled people"? That those living right on Market St suddenly have to go a tiny bit farther if they want to take Uber?
How close do you need a private vehicle to be exactly? And is Market St in the middle of downtown really the place for someone who needs that accessibility?
Or is this just some out-of-context concern that doesn't really apply to this situation at all?
You should be ashamed for saying this. Sickening.
Any one of us could be temporarily or permanently disabled at the drop of a hat. You don't make you decision if where you live with that in mind though based on your comment.
Accessible design doesn't care if you broke your ankle and only have mobility issues until next month, it still helps you.
People have this weird mentality that accessibility is optional because it doesn't affect them. It doesn't affect you until it does.
That's not close to the only reason you should care, but even someone as needlessly cynical as you can at least appreciate that angle of it.
We're talking about a specific street banning a few types of vehicles in downtown SF, not accessibility design principles across the world. Perhaps context is more important than outrage?
You're literally questioning someone's right to exist in a location, the fact it's a single street doesn't excuse it, do you really not see that?
There is no "right to exist", and nobody can stop you from "existing", whatever that means. This is a nonsequiteur. A vague extremist statement thrown around to make things dramatic but is actually meaningless.
As for context, if you ignore it and just come in with a generic "what about the disabled people" in any possible conversation then there's no productive discussion to be had, which is clear in this case. You seem to be caught in an emotional argument against a position that was never made so I'll end it here.
For more context: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/07/transit-proje... https://www.sfcta.org/projects/van-ness-improvement-project
There's no upper limit to how long you can take to do something.
Lower limits, sure, but no upper ones.
The situation I'm picturing where it could take a few years is if the bike lanes are raised up to the same level as the sidewalk. Which can take a long time because it means moving existing curbs, which means moving catchbasins (curbs direct water flow) and often light posts (should be near edge of road for accessibility purposes - maintaining clear walking path, having push buttons and audible signals at edge of street). Doing either or both of these things means stuff is getting moved around underground, and underground is a very busy place (sewer, water, natural gas, buried electrical, signal infrastructure, old foundations, ... And all these are at different depths, with different separation requirements, severally limiting what can go where). And add in a busy location like Market Street, and maintaining access all the time, and probably limiting working hours to minimize impact on residents/businesses. The time would add up fast.
From https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-transit-board-approves-ca...:
> Better Market Street will be implemented in three phases: Market from Fifth to Eighth streets is phase 1, Market from Fifth to Second streets is phase 2, and Market from Van Ness to Octavia Boulevard will comprise phase 3.
> The second phase will also include the construction of a loop in the Financial District for the F-Market & Wharves historic streetcar...
> Phase 1 is scheduled to stretch at least until 2022, according to the project’s website. The construction of the streetcar loop is expected in 2023, and future phases of the project are dependent on identifying funding
So 1/3 of this project is projected to be finished by 2022. And the other two portions of market street don't even have funding or a timeline yet. We will be lucky if it's finished by 2026 (no delays, no recession puts funding in jeopardy, etc).
By the time everything is done, it may be _20_ _years_ to build protected lanes. In the meantime, we have sharrows and intermix with taxis.
You don't need the exception. Uber and Lyft are not taxis.