Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
road.cc
road.cc
Given that human drivers stop in bike lanes, Waymo then has a tradeoff:
1) Be the only ones to follow the letter of the law, break a lot of people's expectations, and catch backlash for disrupting traffic.
2) Follow the most common expectation, even if wrong, and incrementally add to the problem.
IMO, cyclists shouldn't lobby Waymo directly, but should lobby cities to actually enforce the rules on everyone. Then Waymo would fall in line naturally. And if they're inclined to take direct action against Waymo's they should also act against Uber and DoorDash drivers who are a far bigger problem by volume (and wait time for deliveries).
If you compare that to a country like the Netherlands, which is not only strict, but provides “solutions” so breaking the law isn’t necessary in the first place (they use explicit drop off and pickup locations instead of American chaos).
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.
In a few years they'll get to put together a committee to discuss "learnings" and maybe they'll fix it if there are enough complaints, or maybe they'll just spend their time elsewhere as usual.
America suffers from a severe execution problem in the last couple of decades. We just can’t implement and follow through with real solutions anymore.
Do you consider this insane? Your assertions that "everyone always must break the law" and "there are effectively no laws" seem a bit extreme. Ultimately, with any messy human affair, there is always going to be discretion involved, and I don't think implicitly codifying that is a bad thing. It does tend to work by and large. I've personally had much worse experiences with officials following the letter of the law than with them using discretion, but I admit I am not in any class that is often discriminated against.
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.
The car stopping in car lane, far enough from the bike lane that its doors won't enter it, and letting the passengers out into the road, is by far the safest. Yes, that means now-pedestrians end up crossing the bike lane. That's a lot better than a car. They move slower, and more predictably, while simultaneously not blocking it for long enough that anyone is motivated to deke (my spellchecker doesn't like that? Is that a word outside Canada?) out into traffic.
Larger scale deliveries (e.g. to malls, grocery store, factories) should have a privately owned off-road, built into the structure place for trucks to park and drop things off. Though things like factories often simply don't belong in the dense part of the city.
This would all be solved if we just had delivery parking spaces and got rid of on street parking for everyone else. Really, just that part is just where everything falls apart quickly. This is why traffic seems so much better in Europe (at least where I've lived, like in Switzerland), deliveries work, cars are not parked on the street except at a few very expensive parking spaces.
The complaint I keep seeing is one of public subsidy. So you're suggesting we subsidize deliveries but not general parking? (To be clear I think it's all just anti-car absurdity.)
Of course merely repurposing a few spots to "commercial deliveries only" every few blocks would probably work. I've seen that done in a few places. I think it comes down to a planning and administration failure.
But ya, if you want to roll back car use, you can do that fastest by restricting free parking. Your community better be prepared for that with adequate public transit investments. Better to just roll back free parking slowly while ramping up public transit investments, but America always messes it up one way or the other.
In which municipality? In most cities and states in the US, it is illegal to obstruct a roadway. Taxis may get some carve-outs for loading and unloading disabled people, but usually, even taxis are supposed to pull over before stopping for a passenger.
... bike lanes are not the only thing that creates this issue. Any road that lacks parking, with or without bike lanes, will have the same problem. Even when there is parking, all of the parking spots may be occupied. In both cases, people may have to walk a few blocks. While they may be grouchy about the lack of (sufficient) parking, you don't see many people blaming motorists for placing a burden on the elderly.
Finally, it is always possible to make accommodations. Having a carve-out for loading and unloading taxis will do far more for safety of everybody than letting people stop anywhere in bike lanes. It is also possible to have exceptions for people with disabilities, as long as non-disabled people don't abuse it.
Drop off/pickup points are the answer, disabled drop off/pickup might be redundant but could make sense in certain high capacity situations.
You have to actually put those drop off points on every street corner, though, and is the lowest priority for city planners, and gets rolled out at a glacial pace over decades--while disabled people have needs today. Having been forced to confront how well designed our infrastructure is for disabled access and put it to the test, I can tell you that a lot of existing ADA infrastructure can best be described as "performative" and a lot of it is entirely missing.
In general though, special affordances for parking and dropping off disabled passengers is only given to those with a blue badge. AFAIK in general taxis carrying disabled passengers without a blue badge have no more rights than any other vehicle. Only companies that specifically care for disabled passengers can get their own company blue-badge rather than relying on their passengers having one.
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.
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.
The problem is street-side parking.
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.
It works 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.
I spent a decade cycling for commute in a capital city in Australia. I’m also a tradesman, so I’m well aware that some people actually work on the road.
By being a pedestrian or cyclist, you’re literally in other people’s workplace.
Delivery drivers, construction workers, breakdown services, road maintenance, electricians, crane operators, cars for hire, emergency services, light rail operators.
As a pedestrian or cyclists, or motorbike rider, you’re particularly vulnerable.
Sometimes you need to get out of the way.
Share the road.
> Working on the road does not give you priority on the roads.
What are you even talking about?
Of course it does. Look at any construction site next to a road where trucks are constantly stopping and cranes are operating. They’ll have part of the road cordoned off, or otherwise under their control.
Signs that say detour / pedestrians use other footpaths.
If there’s a heavy vehicle parked & unloading you don’t just fucking absentmindedly cycle full pelt in to the back of it, do you?
Multiple categories of road users literally share thousands of roads everyday all over the world.
Every day, millions of road users, drivers, pedestrians, cyclists go around cyclists and wait for pedestrians to clear the road before proceeding.
I don’t know what planet you’re from, but the roads are literally a shared resource for the benefit of all.
Share the road.
I’m also open to the possibility that maybe I’m just a cunt.
When you do construction, or any other event, you need to actually ask the city to put signs down monopolizing the road. It's not just there for you to take it. This is because the road is there for cars and bicycles and sometimes pedestrians too. Obviously the nature of being a person capable of thinking means that I should not walk/bike/drive into the intersection just because the light turned green if I see someone blasting through it anyway. But that does not mean they should be there, just like people are not supposed to park in the bike lanes.
Are you actually serious right now? If I'm walking/cycling to work, which I usually am, then what? Is your job more important than mine? How can you possibly tell where I work or where I'm going? Ridiculous.
So to flip it around.....it's not Waymo's fault that they stop in bike lanes, but the fault of traffic enforcement? Is anyone forcing waymos to stop in bike lanes?
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.
Like you said - if traffic engineers wanted people to stop there they wouldn't have made it a bike lane.
I don’t really agree, at least not in a broad sense. If Waymo refused to stop and circled the block many times instead, and if Amazon trucks did the same thing, and taxis and such did the same thing, and the big trucks that deliver restaurant supplies did the same thing, etc, then bikes would be able to use their lanes freely but no one else would get much done.
We live in a world where many useful things require people to break rules. Is it the fault of the rule breakers or of the rules?
They’re even bad for drivers as they are more detrimental to traffic than personal car ownership. They take up space on the road even when they aren’t being used to transport anyone.
I think we should spend less time worrying about ride share policy and spend more time working on the root cause of the need to drive so often.
Achieving this goal is not something that necessitates giving up single family homes, or suburbs, or small towns, or the ability to own a personal car, or anything like 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.
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.
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.
Studies have shown repeatedly that rideshares lower transit usage and don’t reduce personal car ownership.
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. People should choose mass transit because it's convenient, not because there's no way to call a car.
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.
Taxis and Waymos stop in areas that are explicitly marked not to stop or park.
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.
Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z#Sec8
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.)
Maybe. American suburbs are already spread out. It doesn’t make sense to run subways to every corner the way we do in urban centers. Doing last mile with shared transport—versus cars which park idle for most of the day around train stations—makes sense.
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 moved away from it during/after the oil crisis.
You can see multiple single family home developments that would be right at home in a US suburb in this video. The author even reaches a rural farm without a car.
What about if American transit authorities just did basic stuff like work together and perform actual regional planning rather than working in silos and having conflicts with each other?
For example, there’s zero reason why NJ transit should be a different agency than NYC’s transit authority. They should be the same agency that works toward a comprehensive regional transit system focused on the metropolitan area rather than arbitrary state borders.
Instead, they’re forced to do things like sell $100 World Cup train tickets because they haven’t been empowered to reap the rewards of the economic development they enable.
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 exclude each state’s largest city.) The tenth-densest state, Pennsylvania, is still almost 5x less dense than the Netherlands, and again, I’m doing this for the Netherlands ex Amsterdam.
We can absolutely build more transit in our metropolitan centers. 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.
> there’s zero reason why NJ transit should be a different agency than NYC’s transit authority
Same reason the Dutch and German authorities are separate.
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).
And while The Netherlands as a country is dense, the cities are not, partially due to the massive amount of urban sprawl that The Netherlands has (compared to other European countries).
Amsterdam has a density of just under 5,000 people per square kilometer. That is way less than New York City, and less than any of the Burroughs except Staten Island. Manhattan comes in at 28,000, so over 5 times more. Amsterdam Metropole has only 950 people per square kilometer.
NYC, San Francisco and Boston are massively more dense than Amsterdam. Chicago, Philadelphia and Miami are about the same. Washington D.C. and LA are only slightly less dense.
Are there any major metropolitan areas that cross Dutch and German borders?
Is there a customs border between Hoboken and NYC?
Of course NJ Transit and NYC transit should combine in the NYC metropolitan area, they are serving the same people.
This is something that I found pretty bizarre visiting the US. The transport is _so_ regionalised. San Francisco has a separate bus system to South San Francisco (which is as far as I can see just a suburb for practical purposes), for instance.
It doesn't generally make sense to split transport authorities strictly across administrative geographical lines, particularly where the administrative regions are small. For instance, London basically gets away with TFL occupying the same general geographic area as Greater London, but only because Greater London is _vast_. If you tried this with Dublin, it would never work, because the Dublin City administrative area is tiny (Dublin Bus operates in _seven_ local authorities, and its commuter rail lines all cross at least three).
In other countries bicycles aren't really needed because you can just walk everywhere.
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.
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-automobile city stuff, you’ll see many single family home tract houses in the suburbs and small towns of the Netherlands that would be at home in any American suburb. The Netherlands did struggle with post-war car-oriented development that it has successfully pushed back against.
If you live in Arlington, Texas, you live in a city of over 200,000 people that doesn’t even have bus service.
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.
And of course, also, this doesn’t mean “nobody owns a car in the Netherlands.”
Sure we do, by definition.
We can work to change things, sure. But for many places in the US (especially established cities) this is a monumental effort. For example, I live in San Francisco. I wish we had more subways. Our bus system isn't bad, and they've converted/added many bus-only lanes over the past several years, but buses are still at the mercy of traffic (as well as traffic lights). Our light rail has large above-ground portions, some of which has to deal with traffic, some not (but all have to deal with stop signs and traffic lights).
I live a block away from 3rd Street, where the T line runs up and down the eastern side of the city. However, nearly all of it is above-ground. There's an express bus that runs between where I live and Market street, similar to the T's path. The bus is usually significantly faster than the train. If the train was entirely underground, I'd expect it to be as fast as the express bus (at the very least, it would be more consistent than the bus).
How would I, personally, go about changing this? You say "we" actively choose, but what is "we"? I don't have control or even influence over the collective consciousness. I feel entirely powerless to change the status quo. Even if I could get the ball rolling on this, it would likely be 15+ years before the project is completed. Will I even be living here then? I'm not sure.
From your comment, it sounds like your suggestion might be to move to a small town, and work to change things there, where it might be easier for individuals to make a difference. While that's not completely unreasonable... I don't want to live in a small town in a rural area. I grew up in suburbs and semi-rural areas, and while I had a perfectly fine childhood, I much prefer an urban environment. Yes, I'm restricting my options this way, and perhaps missing opportunities to live in a place where I can change things. But I have a finite amount of time left in my life, and I need to be selective in how I spend it.
Intro sentence: We can't change anything, by definition. (This is a strange definition because last I checked the highway system was built, it didn't just fall on the earth from the sky)
Paragraph 1: It's too hard! Weird, because hard stuff like putting a highway underground in Boston seemed to be "worth the price" rather than investing in transit solutions. (The Big Dig cost $2.8 billion, over $7 billion adjusted for inflation, which would have built out a heck of a commuter rail system in Boston. They could have just removed the highway entirely rather than burying it)
Paragraph 2 and 3: How do I change things? Who is "we?" Well, a lot of people ask this very question and join up together in advocacy groups, run for public office, etc.
Paragraph 4: assigning false conclusions to my comments. I am not suggesting you move to a small town, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm not sure why you keep saying you can't change things. Have you tried to change things? How much time do you spend per week advocating for what you want to see in the world? How much physical effort are you putting into it? Change doesn't just manifest.
More examples of citizen-induced change:
https://www.cnu.org/what-we-do/build-great-places/embarcader... (with the help of a major natural disaster making the right choice more obvious)
https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/55
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollan...
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.
I know plenty of people in Phoenix for whom it’s their main mode of transport. When I’m there or in San Francisco, it’s certainly mine. (And now, increasingly, in Miami, too.)
Waymo is here and it’s real and it’s so much better than Uber or taxis.
Even once things reach that point reworking an existing place would be a massive undertaking.
Sure. Neither is Phoenix's light-rail system, for the most part. These things take time to play out and gain buy-in.
Americans take about 34 million public-transit trips a day [1]. Assuming 25 rides per day, that's about 1.4 million self-driving cars to rival public transport's impact. Waymo has "about 3,000 robotaxis deployed nationwide" [2]. Doubling fleet size annually–Waymos and non-Waymos, though currently they have no peers–would get us to parity in less than 10 years. (A more-realistic 35% growth rate puts us around 20 years.)
The point of that excercise is to say that within 10 to 20 years, less time e.g. California's HSR or New York's Second Avenue Subway took to get online, we could see as many trips in AVs in America as we do on public transit of all types. That's close enough to start looking ahead to.
[1] https://www.apta.com/news-research/about-the-industry/public...
[2] https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2026/03/30/waymo-speed...
By city and ODD, but if you are in the area and your source and destination for the route are both within the ODD they are just as available as an Uber.
The correct solution to this kind of problems and others is to fix the obviously broken fine system. The first fine for anything should sting and it should make anyone who gets it think twice about doing the thing that they did to get the fine. subsequent reoffenses should make it uneconomical for anyone to reoffend.
Fine should be scaled to your income and have an escalating multiplier for reoffense within the same category of offense with a cool down period of a few years if they don't break the law.
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.
A lot of things need to be true for a curbside bike path to be safer than a roadside one, most importantly protection against dooring and ensuring visibility at intersections. If these measures are not taken, the result is often less safe.
The concrete barriers being added in Seattle help a lot.
On the bike lane, which is physically separated from the road.
The cop car takes the whole width of the lanes.
It also means the cop had to get on the bike lane here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/frGXL1NpcCW18iRN9?g_st=ac and then drive for a couple of blocks _on the physically separated bike lane_.
Logically equivalent:
> There’s just no reality where a motor vehicle can share the road unimpeded with a bicycle safely.
... or a pedestrian. Those motor vehicles sure are a menace!
Rised bike lanes are also parked onto. I had the displasure of sliding on reentry when a car was blocking the raised bike lane. Next time I'd rather stop and argue with the driver. Also you get to enjoy going up and fown ramps all of the time.
1. https://orcacivil.com.au/products/traffic-management-product...
As much as I might disagree with that, it’s crazy to expect Waymo to obey a law that doesn’t even exist.
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.
It's explicitly legal for cabs to drop off passengers cycle lanes in London https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/walking-and-cycling-changes-o...
There are the general laws - the highway code. Transport for London has made special exceptions for black cabs (which are one kind of taxi), and for private hire vehicles (a different kind of taxi - this is what Uber, Lyft and Waymo are), in London.
The GP said "all drivers are allowed" - no, they are not. You're saying it's "legal for cabs" - yes it is.
- No cars can drive along a cycle lane.
- A normal car cannot enter, stop, wait or park in a cycle lane with an unbroken line, per the highway code.
- A normal car can enter a cycle lane with a broken line and may be able to stop, wait or park in it depending on the restrictions posted at the side of the road.
- Black cabs and PHVs in London can, and in fact have to pull over to the kerb to pick-up and drop-off, including into cycle lanes with an unbroken line. They can even do this on double-red lines, which mean "no stopping at any time" to everyone else. But they cannot do it for any longer than to pick-up and drop-off. They cannot wait or park there.
They can also pick-up and drop-off in some bus stops (which again, is an offence for normal cars). The main difference between black cabs and PHVs is that black cabs can drive in bus lanes, enter taxi ranks, and be hailed from the street, while PHVs can't.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-i...
"Advisory and mandatory cycle lanes, marked by a painted line, can be entered into by taxis and PHVs for pick-up and drop-off at the kerb edge"
You are allowed to drop off people in a lot of places you aren't allowed to drive or park.
Plenty of drives dont use bike lanes. So, no, this is false issue. Waymo can simply act like literal majority of the drivers.
Yes, they should do that. The fact that others don't follow it is completely irrelevant.
I'm sorry if it doesn't help them meet their quarterly targets, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a Company to follow the fucking law when it comes to human safety.
And if they can't, they should be dissolved and the directors prosecuted.
If they truly can't grow without compromising people's safety and breaking the laws put in place to prevent them, then they shouldn't exist. End of.
This shouldn't even be a discussion. Because someone kills a person, everyone else now needs to kill someone otherwise it breaks expectations? Madness...
Over the last year, the vibe on site has become... concerning.
Yeah, it's always leaned right wing capitalist. That's fine by itself—I like the contrast to my own views at times. I'm a lefty—very left compared to US "left"—but still have some right wing economic sympathies at times and in certain areas. There's actual discussion to be had there!
But recently it seems like this site has gone off the fucking deep end in delusion when it comes to everything. The misogyny and transphobia has started becoming less and less hidden too. This is the first time I've logged in here in over a month, and I've seen my comments today getting flagged for arguing against a person saying that bicyclists have more fatalities on the road—just asking them to cite a fucking source.
What you are saying is not controversial. You're not crazy. This site is just full of fucking idiots who haven't realised they're the next serfs in the reality they're bringing about.
Or just keep hating on AI. Why let the truth stop you from having a good time?
Also, of course bikers don’t follow car rules. Those rules are nonsensical for cyclists.
I cycle myself and see no rules that somehow don't make sense for bikes. In fact, since bikes are much less maneuverable and much more vulnerable, they need to obey all the rules that are there to protect the cars from other cars with more vigilance than cars.
If I do a "proper" stop at a stop sign (0mph, place foot on ground, fortunately I don't clip in), cars will see me stopping and try to blast thru the stop sign when it isn't their turn. So I end up stopping while the first car goes thru the intersection, and while I'm getting resituated on the pedals a second car enters instead of waiting their turn, making my situation more dangerous.
One nice law we have in California is that the "walk" sign applies to pedestrians and bikes. This gives me a chance to assert myself in the intersection before the car across from me tries to sneak in a left turn. It also protects me from cars trying to turn across the bike lane.
If you assert your right to use the road, cars won't try to take advantage of your size/acceleration as much, especially if you have another car run interference for you.
YMMV if you live somewhere where it's common for cars to actually stop at a stop sign.
Anyways, even if you are 100% right and not stopping at stop on a bike will prevent people blowing stop completely (and people who have the right of way will also yield to your bike because they will see you 100%) how is it safer than to stop and proceed when there is no traffic across?
Inadequate dedicated infrastructure for cyclists leads to behavior like "Idaho stops" that look counterintuitive to drivers, but improves safety for cyclists at intersections.
Generally, on a bike you want to be predictable. If you do something weird, like not going when it's your turn, you're increasing your risk. And in many situations if you wait for there to be no cars at a stop sign, you're going to end up holding up cars behind you and be on the receiving end of road rage, or drivers behaving recklessly to get around you. Plus you may be waiting literally hours for all the traffic to dissipate, and I prefer to be home before sunset because riding at night introduces other safety issues.
Anecdotally I've never felt at risk of being t-boned when doing an Idaho stop, but it happens regularly when I do a complete stop (in part because it's unpredictable - drivers don't come to a complete stop at the line so they misbehave and don't know how to respond when they see a cyclist stop).
Beyond my anecdata, there's plenty of more rigorous studies showing the benefits of the Idaho stop.
Absolutely agree. As same as going when it's not your turn. But, first and foremost, you should not be going across a moving vehicle. Even another bike. Just falling off your bike can cause pretty serious trauma. Why do this?
>Plus you may be waiting literally hours for all the traffic to dissipate, and I prefer to be home before sunset because riding at night introduces other safety issues.
I don't know where in California you live that nobody stops at the stop signs, but I lived in LA and cars generally stop at those. You literally need to wait few seconds for the cars to to stop and proceed in most cities in the US.
>Anecdotally I've never felt at risk of being t-boned when doing an Idaho stop, but it happens regularly when I do a complete stop (in part because it's unpredictable - drivers don't come to a complete stop at the line so they misbehave and don't know how to respond when they see a cyclist stop).
I know that feeling. Like people riding against traffic feel safer because they see approaching cars yet regularly get t-boned by the cars not expecting anything coming at them against traffic.
>Beyond my anecdata, there's plenty of more rigorous studies showing the benefits of the Idaho stop
Like what? I tried to search again and found this [1] apparently Idaho is not even in top half of the states in cyclist safety (or "friendliness" whatever that means).
When did you live in LA? Especially coming out of COVID lockdowns, what you're saying is not consistent with my daily experience. It's relatively uncommon for cars to actually stop (to the point that when Waymo initially rolled out in LA, people would get mad and honk at them for stopping!)
I tried to keep a count on my commute today. I think I saw 3 cars come to a complete stop (and in each case it was because someone was already in the intersection). On the flip side, dozens of cars blew through stop signs (and red lights!). It may get garbled by Youtube compression, but here's a pretty representative clip of 3 drivers running a stop sign back-to-back-to-back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z6fFnDzfv8
There are tons of cycling specific laws that are separate or different from cars.
Fully stopping at a stop sign just isn't necessary for bicycles. And forcing bicycles to stop can create inefficient or even unsafe situations. It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. On top of that, cars lining up behind bicycles at a stop sign can get impatient and try to go around the cyclist (I've seen this happen); this actually is a safety issue.
(Now, I've seen cyclists blow through stop signs and traffic lights without even slowing down. I'm not saying that's ok.)
> In fact, since bikes are much less maneuverable and much more vulnerable, they need to obey all the rules that are there to protect the cars from other cars with more vigilance than cars.
I don't think this statement is obviously true. Cars and bicycles are very different types of vehicles, and there's no reason to believe that every car-related safety rule has the same safety-related effect when applied to a bicycle.
>It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign.
Having cyclist colliding with each other or other cars in the intersection will improve throughput? Do you ride a bike or drive at all? Stop signs are not just some Big Government ploy to annoy you. Stop signs allow two traffic streams to cross each other without collisions. Without stop sings and people stopping at them you would get cars colliding all the time.
Though it depends on the state and in my experience there are typically some differences, such as bikes are required to share the lane.
Rules of the road are generally designed in the same way — for cars. Nobody cares about carving out obvious exceptions for bikes, like the Idaho stop.
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 interesting. Maybe they're being rational. Or maybe they're not. Either way it's interesting.
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 changing lanes? Again, not close for most drivers.
> I'm just reporting what I see
What you're actually experiencing is that you implicitly accept the status quo of certain rules being ignored for driving, because driving itself is more common (both for you and in general). But biking is different, it's more obscure, so the rule breaking stands out more.
This is very typical of cultures anywhere that driving is more common than biking, which is...well, most places really.
Cars are more dangerous due to size and speed but if we’re just talking about who acts more recklessly and ignores more rules it’s easily bikes, at least in Chicago.
???
How is texting while driving safe? How is going over the speed limit safe? How is driving too close to other cars to stop in time safe?
True, it's not even close because going over the speed limit in a car is a lot more dangerous to others.
Blowing through stoplights on a bike is very stupid, of course, but 99% of the danger is directed towards the cyclist themselves, at least.
Note that the Idaho stop, though, is quite safe.
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.
1. Cyclists live and die by inertia. Getting up to speed on a bike requires a lot of effort and every application of brakes erases that spent effort, which feels really bad.
In a car, it doesn't matter — you stop and accelerate with exactly the same trivial effort of pressing a pedal.
So all the grandstanding that cars stop at stop signs (since when, but ok), and cyclists don't is like bragging that you beat a disabled person in a 100m sprint. Good job, I guess.
2. Stop signs and traffic lights are made for cars, because of their speed, how dangerous they are, and how bad their visibility is. Cyclists are like pedestrians in that they do not need traffic lights, they can navigate just fine with just body language.
Telling whether running a red light would be safe in a car is essentially impossible, you're going too fast and can't see much, can't hear anything either. But on a bike you have perfect visibility, there's no box of metal all around you. You can hear quite well too.
Stop signs are an even better example. Literally the only reason for their use instead of yield signs is that the visibility at the intersection is bad enough that you need to stop to be able to yield. But that is only the case because your visibility is so bad in the first place.
Stop signs literally never make sense for bikes — there's no "hood", so your head is basically where the vehicle starts and you can lean forward to make that literally true if really needed, and you've got perfect visibility all around, no blind spots.
Hence why in a lot of places cyclists can legally treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs.
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.
You’re also assuming equity of consequence. Someone not obeying the law on a bike is significantly different than not obeying the law when operating a multi-ton vehicle.
Finally, every single group of people breaks the law. There is no demographic of reasonable size that does not break the law. This argument is silly and pointless. What is your goal with pointing this out? Literally everyone breaks the law, this grandstanding is stupid.
Have you tried driving the speed limit recently? You know, the maximum speed you are legally allowed to drive? Do you always come to a full stop at every stop sign?
[1]: "The frequency illusion is a cognitive bias in which a person notices a specific concept, word, or product more frequently after recently becoming aware of it."
[2]: "The negativity bias, is a cognitive bias that human cognition is relatively more affected by a negative affect than an equally potent positive affect."
The expectations are that if you are driving for profit then you are held to a higher standard. Waymo wants to publicly excuse it's way out of this expectation for their own convenience. The way any common sociopath or selfish child would.
Slow down and stop breaking things.
I've had waymo drop me off in dangerous no-stopping zones with red painted curbs. I've had waymo pick wait for me to get in blocking apartment complex garage entrances. I've seen waymo pass 10 cars in the right lane waiting to turn right and then at the last moment make an illegal right turn left of the right turning cars.
I like the idea of Waymo but they need to fix their shit, no excuses.
Dylan Taylor, a beloved Menlo-Atherton High School football coach, was killed last year in one of these collisions:
https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2025/05/08/m-a-athletic...
(Scroll down to the comment by "T R" which describes better than the article itself what likely happened.)
Unfortunately, I've almost never seen a driver follow this law. Everyone studiously avoids the bike lane and then cuts across it.
The bike lane marker changes from a solid white stripe to a dashed line as you approach an intersection. This is supposed to be a hint to merge into the bike lane. It isn't working.
I post a reminder on Nextdoor once or twice a year about this. I'm taking the opportunity to also post it here for my California neighbors.
It would be interesting to see if the Waymo Driver follows this law. My bet is that it does.
The San Francisco Bike Coalition has an excellent page on this topic:
in california, which is where the incident in TFA occurred.
I would bet you an arbitrary sum of money that 51% of cyclists are not rude and don't act like they own the road. (Same for drivers.)
Where I live, the pro-cyclist mayor (whose husband owns a bike rental shop, by pure coincidence) closed a road for cars without consultation, now the firemen along with residents are protesting because emergency and delivery vehicles can't access a large part of the city (car parked can't get out!). This is the average behavior you can expect from militant cyclists, from my experience.
You can see a picture of the genius arrangement here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HGpgA1pXEAEuFLn?format=jpg&name=...
Look, I have a bicycle that I love riding. I have nothing against bicycles. But (primary transport) bicyclists are, in general, AHs.
If you're in SF, watch on Gough or Franklin that people don't pull in the far right or left lane to make a turn, they illegally turn from one lane over. Literally 9 of 10 cars do this.
It happens all over. My guess is they don't perceive it as a right lane because 100-200 feet back there were cars parked in it but it's clearly marked as a lane and the law makes it clearly illegal to make right turn if you're not in the right lane.
There's lots of other less illegal? but dangerous things 95% of drivers do. 2 left turn lanes, curved line drawn through intersection to guide the lanes. 95% of cars in the 2nd left turn lane cut the guide line effectively cutting off the people in the #1 left turn lane.
It’s a now third-hand paraphrase from an SF bike advocate who says he heard it from some unnamed representative of Waymo.
If someone has something more direct, happy to read it, since this seems to be clickbait napalm at the moment.
While it’s annoying in the moment to pedal around a parked car, I’m fine with it. However, having a Waymo dropping off clear of the bike lane sounds good, until the exiting passenger accidentally doors a cyclist who isn’t prepared for that possibility.
I suppose I’d rather suffer the inconvenience of going around a parked car than risk the devastation of being doored.
However I agree that there isn't an obvious solution without making major improvements to infrastructure - right now where the bike lane is just paint everyone parks in it (Uber, taxis, delivery drivers, etc.).
Something car drivers and pedestrians do, usually.
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.
If you can't do that safely, then you have no business riding in the first place.
Looking behind you is not optional, as you seem to suggest it is. And if it is actually a "small risk", then you are going way too fast.
Again -- if you don't have the environmental awareness to go around a parked car, then you shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place. Full stop.
With literal decades of near daily bike riding behind me I've rarely had to maneuver a bike or a car around a parked car in regular (not US) traffic flow.
And yes, my own experience comes from Manhattan, where that's something pretty much everyone has to do on a daily basis. You've got double-parking everywhere.
But even if you don't need to often (lucky you), the idea that this is somehow something unusually unsafe just doesn't hold any water. If it's unsafe for you, you have no business being on the road. You are a danger to others if you are unable to look behind you when changing lanes.
Whereas in the bike lane, you can slow down a bit anticipating that a door may open.
Waymo does at least warn the occupants if there's a vehicle or bicycle approaching.
It's the same with pedestrians : if an old person walks on a small sidewalk, I will stop or slow down. Or if I see two guys carrying a washing machine.
As a pedestrian, I don't see cyclists stopping often when they ride on the sidewalk, though.
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 having to stop is not the same as a person in a car having to stop (unless you use a car where you have to pedal with your legs).
Building traffic infrastructure in a way that avoids (potentially dangerous and thus costly to society) conflicts between different participants should be a no-brainer. It is not secret knowledge how to do that, you just put a barrier and space inbetween each mode of transportation: Road, curbstone up, small pedestrian platform, curbstone down, bicycle path, curbstone up, actual pedestrian area. This way the waymo can stop on the road, where cars belong, guests can exit safely and without pressure into a pedestrian area and have s curb-shaped reminder they enter a bicycle path when they cross over. Additionally both pedestrians and motorists can be reasonably sure cyclists won't suffenly cross over into their domain.
Why is this not the norm? One of the main reasons is space. In most existing infrastructure this would likely mean one or two car lanes have to get either narrower or be sacrificed. It would also mean taking bicycling (and other vehicles using that infrastructure) as a mode of transportation seriously, which a certain group of people appears to be deeply allergic to. You know, the type of person who nearly commits vehicular manslaughter and then does as if the cyclist had it coming by merely existing.
In the end everybody would profit from better infrastructure, especially since good bicycle infrastructure is also usable for children and older people. And that is the test good bicycle infrastructure needs to pass: Would you send your 9 year old kid down that path. If not, than it has been done incorrectly at the cost of cyclists.
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 infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.
Space is also not infinite in cities, so you can't change the infra without sacrificing other users, be they pedestrians, delivery vehicles, or car users.
Last, cycling is mostly for a specific type of people, who are alone, fit and with a small cargo. It excludes older and younger ones, disabled plebs, and families. Those people are better served with quality public transport - which could be improved with the money used to make costly bicycle road arrangements. Public transport is also always convenient, not just when it's sunny. I live in a city with temperatures under 0 celsius for 4 months of the year, including some days at -20. I'm glad I can use my car in winter to take my children to school. Apparently, other cyclists seem to think the same since no one uses a bike in winter (the new urban equestrian class seems a bit shy when it's cold?).
Helsinki is a city I like, because while there are mostly non-invasive bike lanes on large arteries, it's easy to go around by car and by walk. The secret is that the public transport system is top-notch, so a pregnant woman can use it to go to the maternity ward - something that you can't do by cycling (but who is stupid enough to have kids nowadays in city centers, right?).
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
And ready to invest in your shipping container-on-a-cargo-bike startup, which will be used to make deliveries to supermarkets in the city centers (for the last plebs who don't order their slop on Uber Eats ofc)! Or cement deliveries using drones!
1. Even with a single lane the upkeep for a bicycle path is lower than for a road lane. There being more or less lanes doesn't change the math. The only difference is that for single lane road a bicycle path may be unnecessary to begin with since maybe it is a calm backwater anyways. Modal splits can be a good idea then.
2. Do you think trucks magically lose their ability to drive when there are bicycle paths nearby? Or which strawman variant of my argument are you arguing against? I said: a decent network of bicycle paths is needed, not that all roads should be torn up. If this is your style of arguing for your position, it doesn't really reflect well on you or the position.
The way it works is very simple: a better and safer network of bicycle infrastructure means everybody can more easily use the bicycle and public transport, of course people coming with the public transport and locals get the most out of it. That means less cars on the road, that means less road wear, noise, dirt and other bad side effects that mostly just affect the people living there. And who is going to decide how to use the space a city owns? Ideally the people who live there.
I live 2 hours from Kopenhagen and it works perfectly fine there. I visited the Netherlands quite often ot works fine there. Trucks also still work and you can still buy stuff at the grocery store, crazy huh? It is also a thousand times more enjoyable to get around than in some brutalist hellscape where you need to go everywhere with the car. In my own city my commute is 15 mins with bike, 20 mins with subway and 30 mins with car. Guess which one I pick most often.
The best option would actually be to have some indicators on the taxi which shows which doors are "hot" and expected to open. A taxi with closed doors is always a huge risk and will always need to be passed outside the dooring range.
Note that Waymos will alert you if a cyclist is approaching so you don't door them. Not saying it's perfect, you can still open the door if you want, but they are very consistent about this.
Personally, I'm fine with it too. Problem is, a lot of motorists are not fine with that. Whether I get stuck on the road because the bike lane is curb separated or because there is an excessive number of cars parked in the bike lane, motorists start screaming at me. A few months back, I had one aggressively pass me. I checked to ensure the road was clear before entering it, the only way they could have passed me in that manner is if they accelerated (i.e. they created an issue out of something that shouldn't have impacted them).
The sense of entitlement of some motorists is dangerous. They are willing to behave in a manner that puts people's lives at risk.
I also enjoy playing chicken on runs with the SUVs in another rather entitled urban neighborhood where if they begin accelerating into the intersection after a rolling stop while I’m still in the crosswalk (to “anticipate” me getting across the road and save 2-5 seconds), I’ll simply stop running and force them to actually come to a complete stop.
In San Francisco, the vehicles often pull into bike lanes to pick up and drop off passengers — because that’s what they’re programmed to do, according to advocates who’ve asked the company for an explanation.
Waymo has told advocates that expecting it to respect bike lanes is “too high a bar” because customers expect to be dropped off in them, said Christopher White, executive director of the San Francisco Bike Coalition.
“People always point out that unlike human driven cars, the AVs stop at lights and obey the speed limit. However, they are really only as good and effective and safe as they are programmed to be,” White said. “Waymos pull over into bike lanes all the time for pickups and drop-offs and that’s neither legal nor safe but the companies say that is a normal practice and that’s what customers expect.”
Can't find a Waymo article about this, but Lyft and Uber (let alone trad taxis) also do this. I'm not sure that this is a particularly autonomous-car-shaped sin.
Yeah I think it'd probably actually be easier to prevent Waymo from doing this. Once you change the programming, they all stop doing it.
It depends on expectations. If the pitch is (and, let's face it - it is) that automs will be less violent, then this is a problem. If we're OK with them just adopting the existing levels of misery and death visited upon our communities by cars, then the upside is far less than we've been sold.
There’s quite a difference between violent and illegal and they shouldn’t be confused.
B) even if in this one aspect they remain status quo, overall it would still be an improvement.
the bar is absurdly high if we're blaming the car manufacturer for mistakes human make after the car stops
I did a quick search on this, but was nothing but PR articles about how they lower cyclist/pedestrian collisions. Are you suggesting the Waymo car sees oncoming cyclists and somehow prevents the rider from opening the door? This would be interesting in how it could be done. Does it indicate in any way that the door will not be able to be opened until the cyclist clears, or is the rider left wondering why the damn car won't let them out?
https://waymo.com/community/articles/advocacy-meets-innovati...
I don't believe the car was specifically in a bike lane at this time but I'm new to the city and may have missed the markings.
What I’m hearing is that the system that creates a higher safety bar failed and the result was the same as you’d get with a human driver. It’s fun to lie with anecdotes when you don’t include stories and statistics of uber passengers dooring bicyclists. See how easy it is to draw the wrong conclusion?
It’s a big enough problem that personal injury industry actively seeks plaintiffs because there’s so many:
https://www.personalinjurysandiego.org/practice-areas/ridesh...
https://saslawgroup.com/hit-by-an-uber-pedestrian-and-cyclis...
https://www.bicyclelaw.com/about-bicycle-accidents-involving...
From the last one:
> As ride share vehicles have skyrocketed in popularity, we are increasingly seeing bicycle crashes involving ride share vehicles
The conclusion itself is biased and wrong claiming that uber lacks the markings of cabs without actually presenting any evidence that cabs are involved in fewer such incidents per passenger driven. They’re also doing the same thing you’re doing but at least it’s likely a website by cab drivers looking to actively paint Uber in a bad light. Oh, and Waymo taxis are actually branded clearly as taxis thus by that argument already they outperform ride shares.
I can't tell if you intend this a real analogy or if you are overcome with rage when thinking about motor vehicles
I had to commute by foot for two years into a city, and I have to say I understand the rage. Cars nearly killed me a dozen times and I was always more safe than the law required of me as a pedestrian. Most drivers don’t understand their power with today’s massive cars.
Or, hear me out, they could stop if passing the car is unsafe.
While perhaps drop-offs are often relatively quick (though perhaps more risky; see the dooring accident description in the article), I'm also really annoyed by Waymos waiting and blocking for pick-ups, which can be multiple minutes.
I didn't say that.
I'm saying that the toll of traffic violence is unacceptable - tens of thousands of unanticipated and often gruesome fatalities, along with much larger numbers of injuries and traumatic experiences. So we look to autonomous vehicles to be better-behaved - particularly in terms of speed and attention, but also in the little things, like lawful/traditional engagement with lanes for smaller conveyances.
I'm an avid cyclist and I kinda hate bike lanes; I don't blame cars for not knowing how to treat them. I much prefer either a shared lane with a slow pace or a totally separated trail for bikes.
But at the end of the day, the standard for autonomous vehicles isn't parity with the negligence and aggression that cars currently foist upon society, it's much higher.
What next?
FWIW after ~150 Waymo rides I don't think I've had a car pick me up or drop me off in a bike lane. This must depend highly on exactly where you ride to/from.
It's also a lot different with a permanent installation that is verified once than this kind of tragedy-of-the-commons temporary minor abuse of public space.
But either way, it is the responsibility of the regulatory body to enforce. As other people have noted, this is not a Waymo problem, they're just following the status quo.
Exactly the case with the ADA. Since GOOGL is responsible for Waymo behavior, they will be liable in a class action suit where they willfully violated the law, putting others in danger, in selling their product.
There is not any way around it. You can avoid this issue like Lyft does, by having divers make that decision and by them being not worth suing, but GOOGL is worth suing, and you can’t intentionally violate the law and put folks in danger without it giving you massive amounts of liability.
> The Google-owned company, which officially launched its self-driving fleet in London earlier this month, has told cycling campaigners that it is “normal practice” for their taxis to veer into and block cycle lanes
> According to the Highway Code, motorists “must not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation” or block a bike lane marked by a broken white line “unless it is unavoidable”.
Better would be for Waymo to adapt themselves to the locale and instead program it to find safer pickup/dropoff points, rather than blocking and endangering bike traffic.
> “Waymo claims they’re far safer in the US than traditional taxi services. But whether that is still the case on London’s infamously complex, congested and contested streets, remains to be seen.”
"Advisory and mandatory cycle lanes, marked by a painted line, can be entered into by taxis and PHVs for pick-up and drop-off at the kerb edge"
https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/walking-and-cycling-changes-o...
Consider it a two lane road, where you give way when you merge into the other lane and you slow down behind slower traffic that's in your lane. Except that when both lanes are available each type of traffic prefers "their" lane due to the speed difference.
That speed difference is decreasing in the bigger cities recently. Ebikes drive 25 km/h and many shared streets are reducing from 50 to 30 km/h for cars. It probably helps that a lot of the bigger streets aren't shared, there are many separated bike lanes here.
https://electrek.co/2025/08/04/tesla-withheld-data-lied-misd...
Assuming we can’t significantly reduce car usage (and noting that you can still prioritize bike/pedestrian-friendliness and assume this), we really need regular car equivalents to bus stops. For Waymo or human rideshare drivers, or just non-transactional human families, say, dropping grandma off at a brunch restaurant. And significant fines + license points for anyone who stops anywhere outside them, like they do now, once established. The idea is no different than frequent trash cans and significant littering fines, really.
(I’m just spitballing here and am open to being wrong, just putting the idea out there as someone who’s noticed how much worse driving in cities has become over time.)
Unfortunately, with the rise of bike lanes, those spots are not quite dangerous, as the delivery person has to cross the lane to access the sidewalk and bicycles refuse to slow down, as usual.
The principal thing that changes in this story is that Waymo centralizes the responsibility for the risk-taking, and therefore is easier to hold accountable than a horde of interchangable gig workers, impulsive teenagers, etc. When a Waymo car actually does damage, they don't enjoy the same cost structure as the rest of us. The probability is high that they reached a utilitarian conclusion on the bike lane issue favoring their current approach as "the best across all key metrics". Those metrics can be changed by enforcement, or by fixing the streets. They can use words like "unrealistic" but they are mostly speaking within a particular legislative and infrastructural reality. That reality can change if we expect it to, but it means going back on the individual-responsibility outlook.
So the solution is either make it impossible for a car to drive into the bike lane through barriers, or just allow cars into the bike lanes anyways.
Maybe just run over cyclists & pedestrians too while you're at it because it makes the code simpler?
Kinda had it with these shitty big tech companies that feel they don't need to respect local laws when they're not convenient.
This should be excepted fork that goal. If this is accepted, what would be the next thing to be deemed unrealistic?
Also seeing a lot of ignorance about cycling here in the comments. Would recommend some people to watch some Not Just Bikes videos. Building better cycle infrastructure is better for everyone, cars and cyclists included. Less people die, and cars don't have to deal with cyclists on the road. Ex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
The law is the law. Passengers should be dropped off somewhere where the car can legally pull over and let them out. The law doesn't allow any other car to stop in a bike lane to drop off passengers, why should a robo-taxi be given an exemption to do so?
I have a fuzzy memory of lanes being shared in the UK. Overlapping bike, parking, bus stops, etc. Not claiming that's better, only that's what I recall.
I don't recall what Amsterdam does, but the bike lanes were mostly separated, so I imagine they have dedicated short-term parking. They also have a good light rail system in the city, so much less need for taxis.
There is going to be more of this though.
In London you really have to force your way out at junctions. This is not legal, but without it a waymon might never make progress.
I don’t see this being solved.
It relies on human eye contact to work.
This can done with carve outs/ gaps for public service buses, a somewhat cheap implementation are Pop-Up bikelanes but concrete barriers of 10-15 cm also do the job well.
(Submitted title was "Waymo says expecting driverless taxis to stay out of bike lanes is unrealistic", but this leaves out the reason they give.)
Would cities be willing to give up on the parking fines revenue they are generating right now? How should cities be incentivized to change with the changing mobilities needs of the people living inside dense cities?
I live in a city with bike lanes. But some of them are one-lane (well, one vehicle lane, one bike lane), one-way streets. If a car or taxi or delivery vehicle or anything at all is going to pull over, it's necessarily going to be in the bike lane. (It's either that, or stop literally all traffic on the street.)
As a cyclist, I quickly stopped getting mad at it. I just, you know, go around it. Most streets don't have bike lanes. So turning into the regular lane is not a problem. Even when I drive a car, sometimes I'll have to drive around a car stopped in a regular lane. Such is life.
Obviously if Waymo is pulling over into a bike lane when there's no other place to pull over, it's fine. The highway code in the article literally says it's allowed when it is "unavoidable".
Without seeing examples of where Waymo is actually pulling over, and if there are safer alternatives it should be using instead, I can't judge whether it's misbehaving or not.
A lot of streets simply don't have separate shoulders to pull over on. Or if they do, they're 100% occupied by on-street parking. The bike lane is effectively doing double-duty as the shoulder. Is Waymo supposed to drop you off 5 blocks away after circling for 20 minutes looking for an available parking spot, just to stop for 30 seconds to let you out?
This is less of an issue for Waymo, because the passenger rating doesn’t mean as much except customer satisfaction with the service as a whole.
I'm sure they just get away with it because of the low chance of 'getting caught', getting a ticket.
But in fact the evidence is in the GPS logs, so they should be either required to stop doing something illegal, or prosecuted using that data.
The YouTube Channel "Not Just Bikes" calls these abominations 'Painted Bicycle Gutters'. They should be completely abolished in favor of multiuse pathways.
Weirdly, the U.S.-nationwide enemy behind the curtain here is AAA, the driver’s association that’s spent member fees for decades lobbying against automated ticketing systems that would force everyone, not just Waymo, to start honoring the traffic laws it avoids. How crass of Waymo to so brazenly exploit that, but certainly their argument lacks fault from a corporate non-person’s “you can’t hurt me in any way that matters” viewpoint.
“Waymo won’t avoid bike lanes…” would be much more accurate.
obviously the can’t part would be nonsense. they can avoid lanes where traffic flows the opposite direction so obviously they can.
to me this means we should take their license away. if they said “we won’t avoid oncoming traffic, we would take their license away. just like one way streets are for cars traveling in one direction, bike lanes are for bikes.
if you or i drove the wrong way down a one way repeatedly we would rightfully be in trouble. why do these companies keep behaving like they don’t have to follow the same rules you and i do?
it's obviously safer (for cyclists) for taxis or even carpools to drop off and pick up at the far right, ie into the bike lane. i think we can generally consider it to be "parking" not "driving" and thus within the letter of the law as well. (parking is explicitly allowed.)
we know this very well, and that's why there are curb-separated lanes and they tried a center lane on van ness for awhile.
it just generally sucks to share bikes and cars and we have to live with compromises.
And the AI peddlers are amazed why people seem to hate them. That right here is the answer.
There is a lot, waymo gives out a bunch of data.
You can see people testing it in videos like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNwCDacDE2g
Google gives out a massive amount of data from many of their parts for free, so not sure why you would think they wouldn't do so here. They don't give out all of it but large parts, they are very research friendly.
But also not present reality.
Share the road.
It works both ways.
I want Waymo to succeed but you don't do that by bending over to the passengers' whim!
Well if waymo was in my city, I will make sure I ride my bike in the middle of the lane in front of a waymo vehicle. Doing that is legal were I am.
If there isn’t space to overtake, take the middle of the lane or get off the road. It’s 30,0000km since I was last hit by a car, it’s working for me.
People who can’t judge the width of their own vehicle are common, and they commonly buy huge vehicle.
Also, buy a bike radar like a Garmin Varia or similar. They vastly improve your awareness in traffic.
For a long time I thought cyclists were hypocrites because they play the victim when they're on roads while being complete jerks on walking paths. But really, it's not hypocrisy - it's self-entitlement in both cases. It's honestly very consistent behavior.
If cyclists got off the roads every time a car comes by, that would be consistent with their expectations for walking paths.
Asking companies nicely to stop being dickbags is never going to work. You have to regulate them - directly via new and targeted laws, or indirectly via accountability for existing laws. If Waymo started getting tickets for obstructing bike lanes every time it happened, they’d stop immediately.
This is why I’m generally in favor of citizen reward schemes like NYC does for some violations. Give citizens a slice of the fine, and you’ll both reduce bad behavior and improve civic engagement, all without creating creepy mass surveillance systems like Flock.
If waymos are dropping off in bike lanes, it’s because that’s the behavior in that city
It’s far better that the robots aren’t literal pedants. They act far smarter than a neurodivergent savant trying to do everything literally legal because being unadaptable is not intelligence
And this is already a solved problem.
The city I live in (Bratislava, Slovakia) has some pedestrian-only zones in the "old town", and if you're in one of them, calling an Uber/Bolt forces you to pick a pickup spot where cars can go...
(arguably this still has issues with Uber/Bolt allowing you to choose bus stops as pickup spots, which is explicitly illegal - only buses can stop on bus stops, but it's still better than driving onto a road which does not allow cars in the first place).
EDIT: i mistakenly thought this was about driving on dedicated bike paths, idk why, but this is still a solved problem, the applications already allow to designate some roads as places which can't be picked as pickup/dropoff points...
> if(scofflaw) { .. }
And yes, I have numbers. In Seattle, the business receipts from areas with bike lanes declined faster than receipts from areas nearby that do NOT have bike lanes.
Correlation shmorellation.... I bet you were going to cite studies that were showing how bike lanes improved the business and how proprietors were surprised at the percentage of customers on bikes, right?
People who are busy need to get around quickly and aren’t going to tolerate biking around. And it’s especially impractical with kids - not that this stops bike activists from trying to gaslight everyone into saying it’s totally possible and exactly the same effort. The bikes lanes almost always either displace traffic lanes or parking, so driving gets worse. And customers realize they have better things to do and alternative choices on where they spend money.
The bike lanes themselves are of course, often very poorly utilized. So traffic gets worse, businesses suffer, and it’s all for nothing. Now all these cities have left is intentionally crippling driving with low speed limits, speed bumps, and other hostile designs. It’s a way to try and claim that driving is no faster, even though it is trivial to keep driving fast and efficient.
Cyclists here regularly ignore red lights and also go the wrong way on streets and even in bike lanes.
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/collisio...
As a father, I think that the odds are quite high that a 3 years old child will get hit by a cyclist, especially if they ride on the sidewalk. I have had several stressful close calls with my son, and my pregnant wife was hit by a cyclist who didn't respect the red light (as it is the custom among the high lords of the road).
You should see the odds of a child being hit by a car! Here in the US, about 6 children a day are hit and killed by a motor vehicle. And yet the number of children hit and killed by bicycles is unavailable -- perhaps because it is close to 0?
I understand that "as a father" you may become paranoid about things that are objectively unlikely. But if you are more worried about getting killed by a bicycle than by a car -- something 160 times more likely to kill you! -- then perhaps you need to recalibrate.
So, your statistics are worthless if you don't take the context into account. And even if "there is no risk" (virtually), I'm allowed to say that cyclists going at 25km/h have no business on the sidewalk where I walk at 5km/h.
Cyclists think just like car drivers, and find it totally fine, since they themselves "feel unsafe from cars who go too fast". Of course the feelings of the pedestrian plebeians don't count for the new noble equestrian and morally righteous class.
Self driving cars are only safer than regular cars in the US because your standards of driving are so bad.
It’s very unlikely to be the case in the UK.
Some business just don’t translate.
Where is my factual error?
US driving is objectively appalling.
road.cc seems to be a cycling news site primarily for U.K.
When I am driving a car or use a rideshare I expect to share the bike lane when turning or getting off.
I wish the title had included these additional words "In some situations..."
I wish drivers (and now leaders of a company) would have more empathy toward people on the road that can be squashed like a bug.
> [...] they often have a massively higher rate of fatalities
Higher than what?
This is an unconscionable degree of victim-blaming. Psychotic-level.
At least in London the cyclists are absolutely lawless. Yes a lot are injured and some sadly die, but many many many totally ignore the rules (assuming they've even bothered to find out what the rules actually are).
It's only got worse with ebike hire (Lime at al) as people will hop on after drinking, or have never even got a driving license etc so have no actual idea on the rules that car drivers have to prove etc before they're let behind the wheel at all. And when they're done with their lime bike they literally just dump them wherever they're done with it, blocking sidewalks/pavements for everyone.
This antisocial cycling social-ill is very much at a "scourge" stage in London and is getting a lot of press.
Can you cite the research to back up your claim? Because I have the research claiming the opposite the cyclists are more compliant with traffic rules than cars [0]. Including in US [1]
[0] https://www.bicycling.com/news/a46443761/science-proves-moto...
[1] https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/cycli...
It wouldn't perhaps be because they're (a) forced to share a space with cars and (b) cars have crumple zones, unlike cyclists?