8 ms·

"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 be

"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.
  - moyta 10y ago
    If your door mirror is getting hit, you are driving way too close to the markers and they are doing their job. Hug the shoulder less, unless you like no mirrors & damage to the side of your car.
- stanleydrew 10y ago
  That's the most generous possible interpretation of the situation. It may be correct, I'm just noting. I ride my bike to and from work pretty much every day in SF, and I readily admit that adding these markers most definitely does interrupt and disrupt traffic flow. The fact of the matter is, sometimes delivery vehicles and service vehicles need to stop and block traffic. They tend to pull over as far as possible to the right, so as not to impede auto traffic. Often this means pulling over into the bike lane. (Note that when there is no bike lane, these vehicles block the right-most lane of auto traffic and cars just go around without getting too hot and bothered. But I digress.) Erecting the markers prevents this behavior in many instances. You can decide to be in favor of the new bike lane markers, but you can't pretend that the added markers aren't a unilateral alteration to traffic flow that does have an effect.
  - alwaysdoit 10y ago
    You mean, sometimes delivery vehicles and service vehicles illegally choose to stop and block traffic.
    - stanleydrew 10y ago
      Sure, and sometimes I illegally jaywalk. These are common occurrences that, I believe, are generally accepted with grace and understanding by the rest of us and keep our society running smoothly.
      - voxic11 10y ago
        But it's undemocratic. A small number of people are determining how best to keep society running smoothly. Shouldn't they follow the democratically decided rules?
      - jdavis703 10y ago
        But when you jaywalk you make sure the road is clear, no? How can the delivery driver ensure no one else uses the bike lane while they make their drop off?
      - 10y ago
tdfischer 10y ago
> 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. good thing we don't have small groups of organized opposition showing up to these things and blocking progress while calling themselves "concerned neighbors" or "neighborhood coalitions" oops no wait thats whats happening now.
myowncrapulence 10y ago
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 You realize, you just described the government right?
- edblarney 10y ago
  The government is elected and acts for and in the behest of the plebes, they're not just an arbitrary group doing as they think best. Well, unless you're very cynical :)
megablast 10y ago
> 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. This already happens, unless you imagine that we are voting on every single issue such as new stop signs or changed traffic flows?
- qq66 10y ago
  At least in SF, there is a public hearing for any new permanent stop sign.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
> 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. The actions these groups are taking line up with city goals. Not only that, most of the time they're upgrading infrastructure that already exists, not creating something entirely new.

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.
- moyta 10y ago
  If your door mirror is getting hit, you are driving way too close to the markers and they are doing their job. Hug the shoulder less, unless you like no mirrors & damage to the side of your car.
stanleydrew 10y ago
That's the most generous possible interpretation of the situation. It may be correct, I'm just noting. I ride my bike to and from work pretty much every day in SF, and I readily admit that adding these markers most definitely does interrupt and disrupt traffic flow. The fact of the matter is, sometimes delivery vehicles and service vehicles need to stop and block traffic. They tend to pull over as far as possible to the right, so as not to impede auto traffic. Often this means pulling over into the bike lane. (Note that when there is no bike lane, these vehicles block the right-most lane of auto traffic and cars just go around without getting too hot and bothered. But I digress.) Erecting the markers prevents this behavior in many instances. You can decide to be in favor of the new bike lane markers, but you can't pretend that the added markers aren't a unilateral alteration to traffic flow that does have an effect.
- alwaysdoit 10y ago
  You mean, sometimes delivery vehicles and service vehicles illegally choose to stop and block traffic.
  - stanleydrew 10y ago
    Sure, and sometimes I illegally jaywalk. These are common occurrences that, I believe, are generally accepted with grace and understanding by the rest of us and keep our society running smoothly.
    - voxic11 10y ago
      But it's undemocratic. A small number of people are determining how best to keep society running smoothly. Shouldn't they follow the democratically decided rules?
    - jdavis703 10y ago
      But when you jaywalk you make sure the road is clear, no? How can the delivery driver ensure no one else uses the bike lane while they make their drop off?
    - 10y ago

tdfischer 10y ago

> 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. good thing we don't have small groups of organized opposition showing up to these things and blocking progress while calling themselves "concerned neighbors" or "neighborhood coalitions" oops no wait thats whats happening now.

myowncrapulence 10y ago

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 You realize, you just described the government right?

edblarney 10y ago
The government is elected and acts for and in the behest of the plebes, they're not just an arbitrary group doing as they think best. Well, unless you're very cynical :)

megablast 10y ago

> 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. This already happens, unless you imagine that we are voting on every single issue such as new stop signs or changed traffic flows?

qq66 10y ago
At least in SF, there is a public hearing for any new permanent stop sign.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

> 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. The actions these groups are taking line up with city goals. Not only that, most of the time they're upgrading infrastructure that already exists, not creating something entirely new.