22 ms·

Guerrilla Bike Lanes: San Francisco Makes Illicit Infrastructure Permanent

257 points by misnamed 10y ago

pavel_lishin 10y ago
They mention New York in this as well, and Sixth avenue. It's annoying to bike up due to the lack of a bike lane, but traffic is usually slow enough that you can get along pretty easily and safely. It's also better than 8th avenue, which does have one - but is always filled with pedestrians. (And which seems to disappear around Port Authority, forcing bicyclists to go into traffic anyway.) Luckily, you can usually take the Hudson River Greenway by cutting all the way west. It's a more pleasant ride, but does take you out of your way, and once you get above 59th street, has limited access eastward and not a lot of signage to that effect. If I don't mind pedaling through traffic, I'll take Sixth. If I'm angry and want to stay that way, I'll take 8th. If I've got time to kill, I'll take the greenway.
- prions 10y ago
  Don't forget the disaster that's the 2nd ave "shared" bike lane, especially from the Queensboro Bridge and below.
  - avn2109 10y ago
    It's a deathtrap. The trick is to go over to 1st Avenue and ride south (against traffic) in its protected bike lane.
    - phil_s_stein 10y ago
      Biking against traffic (even in a bike lane) is a bad idea. It forces someone into traffic, either the guy going the wrong way or a bicyclist going the correct way. It surprises pedestrians jaywalking and it surprises cars pulling out of parking spots both of whom assume they only need to look one way. It's just a bad idea all around.
      - stbtrax 10y ago
        contraflow bike lanes are common in paris
        phil_s_stein 10y ago
        Some bike lanes in NYC have two lanes as well. I don't believe 1st Ave does though. edit: I misunderstood. Yes, if the bike lane is contraflow of course use it that way. Everyone expects bikes from the "wrong way" in that situation. It's all about minimizing surprises to anyone in or near the street.
      - avn2109 10y ago
        Yup definitely a bad idea. But a less bad idea than getting murdered by a cabbie on 2nd avenue while riding with traffic in the nonexistent bike lane.
        phil_s_stein 10y ago
        Not really no. You increase the chance that you'll kill yourself and someone else. Ride in the lanes and with traffic. Everyone is safer when everyone can anticipate what's going to happen. This is especially true in the chaos of NYC traffic. If there is no bike lane. Take the whole lane.
        allengeorge 10y ago
        As a pedestrian it's a horrible idea. I've almost been struck 5 times (and counting) by cyclists riding the wrong way down avenues. It's incredibly frustrating - and definitely gives me a very jaded view of cyclists and their respect for traffic rules.
        thrownblown 10y ago
        this is the thing about cyclists is they are scarier than they are dangerous. in a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian there is an almost equal potential for harm for both the cyclist and the pedestrian. the rates of rapid deceleration are just as forceful as the rate of acceleration. the pedestrian could potentially be struck with a metal part of the bike. an almost equal potential exists for the cyclist to be injured by a metal part of the bicycle hitting the ground or a parked car before the cyclist does. So while i'm sure that your close encounter with a scofflaw cyclist was scary, it was just as dangerous for you as it was for them.
- glu 10y ago
  I'll take the open street any day. Zombie pedestrians, head down in phone, step off the curb and into the protected lane thinking that they can get 1/5 of the way across the street without looking up. Oncoming auto traffic reduces this likelihood significantly, but disturbingly, not completely. If you learn the traffic pattern of your route, you can reduce your concern primarily to red light runners.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    Don't take away my fast-walker lanes on Sixth and on Broadway!
- rrdharan 10y ago
  I'm confused by your comment. Sixth Avenue does have a bike lane for large sections. Did you mean a protected lane specifically? See also: http://gothamist.com/2016/02/04/sixth_ave_bike_lane.php http://gothamist.com/2016/02/04/sixth_ave_bike_lane.php
  - avn2109 10y ago
    In NYC, "unprotected bike lane" === "no bike lane at all" in 95% of all cases and 100% of dangerous cases.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    I genuinely didn't remember it having one, but it's been awhile since I've biked that way. And in any case, here's what it tends to look like in a lot of places: https://goo.gl/6nGUfz https://goo.gl/6nGUfz * Open car door with a guy probably unaware of any bicyclists coming up behind him. I would 100% have to go into traffic to avoid him, to make sure he doesn't step back and elbow me. * A truck half in the bike lane. I'd probably risk just riding up against it, since I can see them unloading - unless they're standing right next to the bike lane. * Lady getting into a taxi cab. I have to either stop and wait, or cross an entire lane of traffic to go around them. * Black SUV up ahead is also parked - in the intersection - doing god knows what with a passenger: http://goo.gl/3jYdOb http://goo.gl/3jYdOb * http://goo.gl/gCkKVT http://goo.gl/gCkKVT Fresh Directly In The Bike Lane * http://goo.gl/1cXmLX http://goo.gl/1cXmLX Goodbye, bike lane, and good riddance. Now, you can say I cherry-picked the bad examples, and you'd be correct. But I cherry picked them by going down 6th Ave in Google Streetview. These are all examples I would run into on my daily bike commute. These aren't once-a-week or once-a-day examples; if I rode down today and counted, I'd probably see more examples of things that directly impact my safety.
donretag 10y ago
The City of West Hollywood has installed delineators on its crosswalks to prevent further accidents. They have been effective in their goal so far, but are not going to be maintained since drivers keep hitting them and the cost to constantly repair them is high. http://laist.com/2016/06/29/weho_crosswalks.php http://laist.com/2016/06/29/weho_crosswalks.php
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  I wonder what would happen if they were made out of solid steel and sunk about six feet down into the concrete.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Maybe something like this, although that would be much more expensive: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hCSsope5vOA https://youtube.com/watch?v=hCSsope5vOA (The signs are extremely clear on the approach to this.)
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      An oldie which I saw many times. BTW, I only more recently realized why the latter couple is in such a hurry to take their child out of the back seat: it's the gunpowder smoke in the car after the airbags have deployed. The smell is quite strong and you could think the car is burning.
  - prawn 10y ago
    Friend of mine is an urban planner. He talks about letting the environment inform the speed of cars more than speed limits, which I've always found interesting. Narrower streets and bollards that encourage drivers to slow down to avoid damage to their car are good examples of that.
    - masklinn 10y ago
      > Narrower streets and bollards that encourage drivers to slow down to avoid damage to their car are good examples of that. Speed bumps, chicanes and chokers have become very common in france over the last 10 years or so. They used to only be found in centers of pretty large cities but these days you can find them on any old "local" country road.
doughj3 10y ago
This seems related to the idea of the Desire Path[0], which some of us may have heard by the story of the "architect who waited to see which pathways pedestrians would take through his/her outdoor spaces, and then paved sidewalks to match those routes."[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path [1] https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-architect-who-waited-to-see-which-pathways-pedestrians-would-take-through-his-her-outdoor-spaces-and-then-paved-sidewalks-to-match-those-routes https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-architect-who-waited-to-se...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
brandur 10y ago
I love 99% Invisible, but in my opinion this piece is far too generous to the actual SFMTA, who occasionally respond to the SFMTrA's work reasonably (as covered in the article), but who usually just strip it wholesale, to the detriment of the safety of thousands of pedestrians and cyclists. For example, these markers on Folsom St helped improve safety considerably and were constructed in an incredibly professional way, but are now gone completely [1]. The group itself puts it best here [2]: > "The SFMTA is glacially slow to install pedestrian and bicyclist safety infrastructure, yet was able to remove our simple safety improvements within a week," the group said in a statement sent to SFist. "We call on SFMTA to immediately replace these pedestrian safety improvements with protection at or above the level installed by SFMTrA." Everyone who walks or bikes in SF can atest to the truth of this statement firsthand. Progress _is_ being made, but it's frustratingly slow. [1] http://www.sfmtra.org/blog/2016/10/26/the-sfmta-removed-safety-infrastructure-on-folsom-st-and-they-need-an-email-from-you http://www.sfmtra.org/blog/2016/10/26/the-sfmta-removed-safe... [2] http://sfist.com/2016/10/19/sfmta_says_street_safety_improvemen.php http://sfist.com/2016/10/19/sfmta_says_street_safety_improve...
- schoen 10y ago
  Wow, I was wondering why those soft-hit posts got removed suddenly; I just assumed that they had been placed by the City because they looked 100% identical to official ones (in a place where I've been concerned about safety for a while). Edit: in fact, I was previously thinking of writing to SFMTA to thank them for placing them (!!).
  - dyim 10y ago
    You should write that letter, and let SFMTA know that some ruffians have removed the posts ;)
    - schoen 10y ago
      Before the posts were, um, posted, I was thinking of writing to them about that intersection (Folsom and Division) because there's a parking space or a maybe-parking-space which forces cyclists out of the bike line if it's in use, especially by a large vehicle. Now that this has happened I guess they might react a bit differently to correspondence about it. Also, I feel like SFMTA may not be super-great about responding to correspondence about specific intersections and traffic design (which is not to say that they don't read it or don't think about what people have to say); I've written to them twice about 17th and Sanchez after someone I know had an accident making a left turn onto the Muni Metro tracks, and I never got a reply.
hiou 10y ago
Yeah, fuck democracy. Just do whatever you want to shared resources. Gotta look out for number 1! /s
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  I mean, in the primary example given, the bike lane already existed, they just upgraded it. Personally I'd say it's more of a reaction to the often glacial pace of government action. Cities like SF, Seattle, and NYC have embraced Vision Zero's safety-oriented goals in theory, but are moving very slowly indeed to meet them. These groups are actually helping the city meet their own self-imposed targets. How does that translate to "fuck democracy"? More like "fuck overly bureaucratic processes" if anything.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I totally agree with your, take, but I'd hedge it and say that if these cities did not enact vision-0, these tactics would occur regardless of tacit approval or explicit intention by gov. Guerrilla implies it's not seeking govt (or broadly popular for that matter) approval.
    - TulliusCicero 10y ago
      They might still do it, but then in that case the accusation of them being undemocratic would be accurate.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    It's more like.... New street features that don't have an engineer's stamp and may not be compliant with any of a thousand regulations? Time to fucking sue.
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  s/democracy/bureaucracy/
helthanatos 10y ago
I think it would be very good to have bike lanes more separated from the road. Safer for everyone that cars don't accidentally use bike lanes and bikes don't affect traffic. It reminds me of those articles that said j-walking is more safe than crossing at crosswalks. Paying attention is something people seem to have trouble with. Clear markings are definitely for the best.
- arnarbi 10y ago
  Can't agree enough with this. Here's a safe type of bike lane (note the two curbs): http://therecord.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c465d53ef0133f21e9125970b-pi http://therecord.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c465d53ef0133f21e9125... Here are two incredibly unsafe types, but for some reason the one's being installed right now in the Bay Area at least: http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_bike-lane-parking_1200x675.jpg http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_bike-... http://www.executivestyle.com.au/content/dam/images/1/3/i/n/1/n/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.13hysn.png/1428456608677.jpg http://www.executivestyle.com.au/content/dam/images/1/3/i/n/... I just don't get it.
  - thmsths 10y ago
    I would say extreme cost cutting.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    The cheap type fulfil a requirement to create bike lanes, without any of the "inconvenience" of actually having people use them. They're common in Britain, where the national government talks about cycling, tells local government to implement it, but doesn't require a minimum standard. You can also go one better with the bike lanes, with a kerb between the road and the lane: http://portlandtribune.com/images/artimg/00003517543605.jpg http://portlandtribune.com/images/artimg/00003517543605.jpg (Copenhagen). In fact, the street in your first picture (also Copenhagen) has been improved, with this arrangement on one side: https://www.google.dk/maps/@55.6733243,12.5605277,3a,75y,218.19h,81.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4maWCosnYSW8ipPQGkLv_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.dk/maps/@55.6733243,12.5605277,3a,75y,218... -- it looks like some parking has been removed to achieve this.
maerF0x0 10y ago
IMO this is fantastic. Benevolent, efficient and easily reverted in case it was wrong. I would love to see many public choices made as such.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
I'm all for this kind of citizen action. They're volunteering their own time to improve public safety. Kind of like how neighborhood watch groups can supplement police, these volunteers are supplementing departments of transportation. Of course it'd be even better if they could do it without breaking the law, but I doubt there are rules in place to permit citizens to do their own DIY infrastructure improvements. Also, unlike what some commenters think, this doesn't really go against democracy. The cities where these groups work have embraced Vision Zero at least on paper, so they're generally for these sorts of improvements. Government just tends to move slowly, and they often have to deal with NIMBY groups that are more concerned with keeping as many parking spaces as possible in their neighborhood than public safety.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Also, unlike what some commenters think, this doesn't really go against democracy. " It definitely goes against democracy and civility. Maybe it's for the better, maybe it's for the worse - but a small group of people taking it upon themselves to decide for everyone else how a city should operate is a very tricky place for any society to be. Maybe most people don't want something. Maybe it makes rescue workers jobs difficult by blocking traffic in a certain hot spot. Maybe the situation is more complex than one would imagine (i.e. some lanes radically affect the flow of traffic, screw up incoming/outgoing traffic/lane changes). I can think of quite a few things that 'civic vigilantes' could do that would be way, way out of bounds. It would be nice if SF could elect a mayor that could improve efficiency as opposed to simply encouraging people to make up their own policies.
  - mmanfrin 10y ago
    taking it upon themselves to decide for everyone else how a city should operate How so? They aren't dictating traffic flow, they are adding visibility markers to existing bike lanes.
    - lubujackson 10y ago
      Maybe the markers are too high and will hit some car mirrors. Maybe they impede lane access for turning vehicles. Maybe they are too close together, too far apart or too distracting to drivers or too close to bicyclists. Maybe they are not well grounded and if hit one will fly into traffic causing an accident. That being said, these are probably completely fine. But there's lot of reasons why having a process for infrastructure changes makes sense. At the same time, I applaud SF for being pragmatic about it and accepting of these people while working toward a long term solution.
mmanfrin 10y ago
When startups skirt entrenched and slow industries, it's disruption; when bicyclists add traffic cones to already-defined bike lanes, it's an affront to democracy. Nice, HN commenters.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Not that I agree withe affront bit, but HN is forum of many people, don't assume hypocrisy where there might just be disagreement. Many comments have taken the contrary positions on both issues.
- resu_nimda 10y ago
  It's almost as if different people might be commenting at different times... Recent Uber/AirBnB threads have had plenty of negative sentiment, and there is clearly support for the cycling activism in this thread. You can cherry-pick comments to support whichever sweeping narrative about HN commenters you want.
- Anasufovic 10y ago
  Entitlement is painful
  - moyta 10y ago
    That it is.
williwu 10y ago
I really hope that biking SF will improve in the future. It's freaking dangerous to bike on some of the streets in downtown SF.
deckar01 10y ago
I think city infrastructure can learn something from the open source software community in situations like this. The city has a ton of work to do, but it is really picky about how it is done and how it gets paid for. If it planned out the work out in advance, community organizations like the SFMTrA could claim the low hanging fruit and comply with the official requirements. If it fails inspection the city can tear it down just like they are doing now.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
I wonder if the people fed up with the slow pace of infrastructure development, to the extent that they are building their own, have made any effort to push for a less sclerotic government structure in their town? Actually, I bet I can guess the answer.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  I could see how SF government would now not put separators up even if they originally planned to just out of spite.
sandworm101 10y ago
These are not "Guerilla bike lanes". These are guerilla traffic cones. The lane was there. The only non-permitted part are the improved markers. I doubt many driver really care. Most probably appreciate them as they keep the bikes away from the non-bike areas. If people want to spent their own money installing such devices, more power to them. Going out and painting new lanes, that is stepping things up a notch. That will get police involved. That will create liabilities should any accident occur due to your new lane designations.
thesz 10y ago
This is more or less how Pyotr Kapitsa helped to plan pedestrian lanes in Cambridge. He said that officials should wait until pedestrians lay out their ways and then just move them into official walks plan. So they did, I was told.

257 points by misnamed 10y ago

They mention New York in this as well, and Sixth avenue. It's annoying to bike up due to the lack of a bike lane, but traffic is usually slow enough that you can get along pretty easily and safely. It's also better than 8th avenue, which does have one - but is always filled with pedestrians. (And which seems to disappear around Port Authority, forcing bicyclists to go into traffic anyway.) Luckily, you can usually take the Hudson River Greenway by cutting all the way west. It's a more pleasant ride, but does take you out of your way, and once you get above 59th street, has limited access eastward and not a lot of signage to that effect. If I don't mind pedaling through traffic, I'll take Sixth. If I'm angry and want to stay that way, I'll take 8th. If I've got time to kill, I'll take the greenway.

prions 10y ago
Don't forget the disaster that's the 2nd ave "shared" bike lane, especially from the Queensboro Bridge and below.
- avn2109 10y ago
  It's a deathtrap. The trick is to go over to 1st Avenue and ride south (against traffic) in its protected bike lane.
  - phil_s_stein 10y ago
    Biking against traffic (even in a bike lane) is a bad idea. It forces someone into traffic, either the guy going the wrong way or a bicyclist going the correct way. It surprises pedestrians jaywalking and it surprises cars pulling out of parking spots both of whom assume they only need to look one way. It's just a bad idea all around.
    - stbtrax 10y ago
      contraflow bike lanes are common in paris
      - phil_s_stein 10y ago
        Some bike lanes in NYC have two lanes as well. I don't believe 1st Ave does though. edit: I misunderstood. Yes, if the bike lane is contraflow of course use it that way. Everyone expects bikes from the "wrong way" in that situation. It's all about minimizing surprises to anyone in or near the street.
    - avn2109 10y ago
      Yup definitely a bad idea. But a less bad idea than getting murdered by a cabbie on 2nd avenue while riding with traffic in the nonexistent bike lane.
      - phil_s_stein 10y ago
        Not really no. You increase the chance that you'll kill yourself and someone else. Ride in the lanes and with traffic. Everyone is safer when everyone can anticipate what's going to happen. This is especially true in the chaos of NYC traffic. If there is no bike lane. Take the whole lane.
      - allengeorge 10y ago
        As a pedestrian it's a horrible idea. I've almost been struck 5 times (and counting) by cyclists riding the wrong way down avenues. It's incredibly frustrating - and definitely gives me a very jaded view of cyclists and their respect for traffic rules.
        thrownblown 10y ago
        this is the thing about cyclists is they are scarier than they are dangerous. in a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian there is an almost equal potential for harm for both the cyclist and the pedestrian. the rates of rapid deceleration are just as forceful as the rate of acceleration. the pedestrian could potentially be struck with a metal part of the bike. an almost equal potential exists for the cyclist to be injured by a metal part of the bicycle hitting the ground or a parked car before the cyclist does. So while i'm sure that your close encounter with a scofflaw cyclist was scary, it was just as dangerous for you as it was for them.
glu 10y ago
I'll take the open street any day. Zombie pedestrians, head down in phone, step off the curb and into the protected lane thinking that they can get 1/5 of the way across the street without looking up. Oncoming auto traffic reduces this likelihood significantly, but disturbingly, not completely. If you learn the traffic pattern of your route, you can reduce your concern primarily to red light runners.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  Don't take away my fast-walker lanes on Sixth and on Broadway!
rrdharan 10y ago
I'm confused by your comment. Sixth Avenue does have a bike lane for large sections. Did you mean a protected lane specifically? See also: http://gothamist.com/2016/02/04/sixth_ave_bike_lane.php http://gothamist.com/2016/02/04/sixth_ave_bike_lane.php
- avn2109 10y ago
  In NYC, "unprotected bike lane" === "no bike lane at all" in 95% of all cases and 100% of dangerous cases.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  I genuinely didn't remember it having one, but it's been awhile since I've biked that way. And in any case, here's what it tends to look like in a lot of places: https://goo.gl/6nGUfz https://goo.gl/6nGUfz * Open car door with a guy probably unaware of any bicyclists coming up behind him. I would 100% have to go into traffic to avoid him, to make sure he doesn't step back and elbow me. * A truck half in the bike lane. I'd probably risk just riding up against it, since I can see them unloading - unless they're standing right next to the bike lane. * Lady getting into a taxi cab. I have to either stop and wait, or cross an entire lane of traffic to go around them. * Black SUV up ahead is also parked - in the intersection - doing god knows what with a passenger: http://goo.gl/3jYdOb http://goo.gl/3jYdOb * http://goo.gl/gCkKVT http://goo.gl/gCkKVT Fresh Directly In The Bike Lane * http://goo.gl/1cXmLX http://goo.gl/1cXmLX Goodbye, bike lane, and good riddance. Now, you can say I cherry-picked the bad examples, and you'd be correct. But I cherry picked them by going down 6th Ave in Google Streetview. These are all examples I would run into on my daily bike commute. These aren't once-a-week or once-a-day examples; if I rode down today and counted, I'd probably see more examples of things that directly impact my safety.

donretag 10y ago

The City of West Hollywood has installed delineators on its crosswalks to prevent further accidents. They have been effective in their goal so far, but are not going to be maintained since drivers keep hitting them and the cost to constantly repair them is high. http://laist.com/2016/06/29/weho_crosswalks.php http://laist.com/2016/06/29/weho_crosswalks.php

pavel_lishin 10y ago
I wonder what would happen if they were made out of solid steel and sunk about six feet down into the concrete.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Maybe something like this, although that would be much more expensive: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hCSsope5vOA https://youtube.com/watch?v=hCSsope5vOA (The signs are extremely clear on the approach to this.)
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    An oldie which I saw many times. BTW, I only more recently realized why the latter couple is in such a hurry to take their child out of the back seat: it's the gunpowder smoke in the car after the airbags have deployed. The smell is quite strong and you could think the car is burning.
- prawn 10y ago
  Friend of mine is an urban planner. He talks about letting the environment inform the speed of cars more than speed limits, which I've always found interesting. Narrower streets and bollards that encourage drivers to slow down to avoid damage to their car are good examples of that.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > Narrower streets and bollards that encourage drivers to slow down to avoid damage to their car are good examples of that. Speed bumps, chicanes and chokers have become very common in france over the last 10 years or so. They used to only be found in centers of pretty large cities but these days you can find them on any old "local" country road.

doughj3 10y ago

This seems related to the idea of the Desire Path[0], which some of us may have heard by the story of the "architect who waited to see which pathways pedestrians would take through his/her outdoor spaces, and then paved sidewalks to match those routes."[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path [1] https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-architect-who-waited-to-see-which-pathways-pedestrians-would-take-through-his-her-outdoor-spaces-and-then-paved-sidewalks-to-match-those-routes https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-architect-who-waited-to-se...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

brandur 10y ago

I love 99% Invisible, but in my opinion this piece is far too generous to the actual SFMTA, who occasionally respond to the SFMTrA's work reasonably (as covered in the article), but who usually just strip it wholesale, to the detriment of the safety of thousands of pedestrians and cyclists. For example, these markers on Folsom St helped improve safety considerably and were constructed in an incredibly professional way, but are now gone completely [1]. The group itself puts it best here [2]: > "The SFMTA is glacially slow to install pedestrian and bicyclist safety infrastructure, yet was able to remove our simple safety improvements within a week," the group said in a statement sent to SFist. "We call on SFMTA to immediately replace these pedestrian safety improvements with protection at or above the level installed by SFMTrA." Everyone who walks or bikes in SF can atest to the truth of this statement firsthand. Progress _is_ being made, but it's frustratingly slow. [1] http://www.sfmtra.org/blog/2016/10/26/the-sfmta-removed-safety-infrastructure-on-folsom-st-and-they-need-an-email-from-you http://www.sfmtra.org/blog/2016/10/26/the-sfmta-removed-safe... [2] http://sfist.com/2016/10/19/sfmta_says_street_safety_improvemen.php http://sfist.com/2016/10/19/sfmta_says_street_safety_improve...

schoen 10y ago
Wow, I was wondering why those soft-hit posts got removed suddenly; I just assumed that they had been placed by the City because they looked 100% identical to official ones (in a place where I've been concerned about safety for a while). Edit: in fact, I was previously thinking of writing to SFMTA to thank them for placing them (!!).
- dyim 10y ago
  You should write that letter, and let SFMTA know that some ruffians have removed the posts ;)
  - schoen 10y ago
    Before the posts were, um, posted, I was thinking of writing to them about that intersection (Folsom and Division) because there's a parking space or a maybe-parking-space which forces cyclists out of the bike line if it's in use, especially by a large vehicle. Now that this has happened I guess they might react a bit differently to correspondence about it. Also, I feel like SFMTA may not be super-great about responding to correspondence about specific intersections and traffic design (which is not to say that they don't read it or don't think about what people have to say); I've written to them twice about 17th and Sanchez after someone I know had an accident making a left turn onto the Muni Metro tracks, and I never got a reply.

hiou 10y ago

Yeah, fuck democracy. Just do whatever you want to shared resources. Gotta look out for number 1! /s

TulliusCicero 10y ago
I mean, in the primary example given, the bike lane already existed, they just upgraded it. Personally I'd say it's more of a reaction to the often glacial pace of government action. Cities like SF, Seattle, and NYC have embraced Vision Zero's safety-oriented goals in theory, but are moving very slowly indeed to meet them. These groups are actually helping the city meet their own self-imposed targets. How does that translate to "fuck democracy"? More like "fuck overly bureaucratic processes" if anything.
- mc32 10y ago
  I totally agree with your, take, but I'd hedge it and say that if these cities did not enact vision-0, these tactics would occur regardless of tacit approval or explicit intention by gov. Guerrilla implies it's not seeking govt (or broadly popular for that matter) approval.
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    They might still do it, but then in that case the accusation of them being undemocratic would be accurate.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Spooky23 10y ago
  It's more like.... New street features that don't have an engineer's stamp and may not be compliant with any of a thousand regulations? Time to fucking sue.
nothrabannosir 10y ago
s/democracy/bureaucracy/

helthanatos 10y ago

I think it would be very good to have bike lanes more separated from the road. Safer for everyone that cars don't accidentally use bike lanes and bikes don't affect traffic. It reminds me of those articles that said j-walking is more safe than crossing at crosswalks. Paying attention is something people seem to have trouble with. Clear markings are definitely for the best.

arnarbi 10y ago
Can't agree enough with this. Here's a safe type of bike lane (note the two curbs): http://therecord.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c465d53ef0133f21e9125970b-pi http://therecord.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c465d53ef0133f21e9125... Here are two incredibly unsafe types, but for some reason the one's being installed right now in the Bay Area at least: http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_bike-lane-parking_1200x675.jpg http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_bike-... http://www.executivestyle.com.au/content/dam/images/1/3/i/n/1/n/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.13hysn.png/1428456608677.jpg http://www.executivestyle.com.au/content/dam/images/1/3/i/n/... I just don't get it.
- thmsths 10y ago
  I would say extreme cost cutting.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  The cheap type fulfil a requirement to create bike lanes, without any of the "inconvenience" of actually having people use them. They're common in Britain, where the national government talks about cycling, tells local government to implement it, but doesn't require a minimum standard. You can also go one better with the bike lanes, with a kerb between the road and the lane: http://portlandtribune.com/images/artimg/00003517543605.jpg http://portlandtribune.com/images/artimg/00003517543605.jpg (Copenhagen). In fact, the street in your first picture (also Copenhagen) has been improved, with this arrangement on one side: https://www.google.dk/maps/@55.6733243,12.5605277,3a,75y,218.19h,81.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4maWCosnYSW8ipPQGkLv_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.dk/maps/@55.6733243,12.5605277,3a,75y,218... -- it looks like some parking has been removed to achieve this.

maerF0x0 10y ago

IMO this is fantastic. Benevolent, efficient and easily reverted in case it was wrong. I would love to see many public choices made as such.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

I'm all for this kind of citizen action. They're volunteering their own time to improve public safety. Kind of like how neighborhood watch groups can supplement police, these volunteers are supplementing departments of transportation. Of course it'd be even better if they could do it without breaking the law, but I doubt there are rules in place to permit citizens to do their own DIY infrastructure improvements. Also, unlike what some commenters think, this doesn't really go against democracy. The cities where these groups work have embraced Vision Zero at least on paper, so they're generally for these sorts of improvements. Government just tends to move slowly, and they often have to deal with NIMBY groups that are more concerned with keeping as many parking spaces as possible in their neighborhood than public safety.

edblarney 10y ago
"Also, unlike what some commenters think, this doesn't really go against democracy. " It definitely goes against democracy and civility. Maybe it's for the better, maybe it's for the worse - but a small group of people taking it upon themselves to decide for everyone else how a city should operate is a very tricky place for any society to be. Maybe most people don't want something. Maybe it makes rescue workers jobs difficult by blocking traffic in a certain hot spot. Maybe the situation is more complex than one would imagine (i.e. some lanes radically affect the flow of traffic, screw up incoming/outgoing traffic/lane changes). I can think of quite a few things that 'civic vigilantes' could do that would be way, way out of bounds. It would be nice if SF could elect a mayor that could improve efficiency as opposed to simply encouraging people to make up their own policies.
- mmanfrin 10y ago
  taking it upon themselves to decide for everyone else how a city should operate How so? They aren't dictating traffic flow, they are adding visibility markers to existing bike lanes.
  - lubujackson 10y ago
    Maybe the markers are too high and will hit some car mirrors. Maybe they impede lane access for turning vehicles. Maybe they are too close together, too far apart or too distracting to drivers or too close to bicyclists. Maybe they are not well grounded and if hit one will fly into traffic causing an accident. That being said, these are probably completely fine. But there's lot of reasons why having a process for infrastructure changes makes sense. At the same time, I applaud SF for being pragmatic about it and accepting of these people while working toward a long term solution.

mmanfrin 10y ago

When startups skirt entrenched and slow industries, it's disruption; when bicyclists add traffic cones to already-defined bike lanes, it's an affront to democracy. Nice, HN commenters.

icebraining 10y ago
Not that I agree withe affront bit, but HN is forum of many people, don't assume hypocrisy where there might just be disagreement. Many comments have taken the contrary positions on both issues.
resu_nimda 10y ago
It's almost as if different people might be commenting at different times... Recent Uber/AirBnB threads have had plenty of negative sentiment, and there is clearly support for the cycling activism in this thread. You can cherry-pick comments to support whichever sweeping narrative about HN commenters you want.
Anasufovic 10y ago
Entitlement is painful
- moyta 10y ago
  That it is.

williwu 10y ago

I really hope that biking SF will improve in the future. It's freaking dangerous to bike on some of the streets in downtown SF.

deckar01 10y ago

I think city infrastructure can learn something from the open source software community in situations like this. The city has a ton of work to do, but it is really picky about how it is done and how it gets paid for. If it planned out the work out in advance, community organizations like the SFMTrA could claim the low hanging fruit and comply with the official requirements. If it fails inspection the city can tear it down just like they are doing now.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

I wonder if the people fed up with the slow pace of infrastructure development, to the extent that they are building their own, have made any effort to push for a less sclerotic government structure in their town? Actually, I bet I can guess the answer.

ajmurmann 10y ago
I could see how SF government would now not put separators up even if they originally planned to just out of spite.

sandworm101 10y ago

These are not "Guerilla bike lanes". These are guerilla traffic cones. The lane was there. The only non-permitted part are the improved markers. I doubt many driver really care. Most probably appreciate them as they keep the bikes away from the non-bike areas. If people want to spent their own money installing such devices, more power to them. Going out and painting new lanes, that is stepping things up a notch. That will get police involved. That will create liabilities should any accident occur due to your new lane designations.

thesz 10y ago

This is more or less how Pyotr Kapitsa helped to plan pedestrian lanes in Cambridge. He said that officials should wait until pedestrians lay out their ways and then just move them into official walks plan. So they did, I was told.