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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.