9 ms·

> As a dutch person I would absolutely NOT want to ride a bike in the US, it's simply too dangerous. I understand this perspective, but as a counter to this, i

> As a dutch person I would absolutely NOT want to ride a bike in the US, it's simply too dangerous. I understand this perspective, but as a counter to this, if no one bikes in the US then this won't change. I ride all over San Francisco. In the last 18 years of me living here things have gotten better and better for the cyclist, but there are still many areas that can be improved. I encourage you to support local organizations, like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, which can pressure local governments to make changes that improve safety for all cyclists. For too long in the US we've designed our roads with the idea that cars have some right to the road that others do not. We're finally starting to rectify that in cities across the country, and it's only getting better.

wpietri 8y ago
Agreed. I don't blame anybody for not wanting to ride in the city. But I've been in SF since 2000 and I'm amazed at the progress that has been made in this direction. (Thanks in no small part to the SFBC.) And these improvements are happening all over the US. I've been pleasantly surprised to re-visit places and see how much progress has been made.
jseliger 8y ago
In the last 18 years of me living here things have gotten better and better for the cyclist, but there are still many areas that can be improved I just visited SF, and it was notable to me how much of the city's infrastructure is given over to cars and parking: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/08/19/what-santa-barbara-says https://jakeseliger.com/2018/08/19/what-santa-barbara-says. The rhetoric on the Internet made me think the reality on the ground would be different.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  Knowing what it was like before, and how much improved it is since then, definitely shouldn’t be taken to mean that it’s ideal by any means. The point I was making is how much things like SFBC and Critical Mass over the years improved things because of the community involvement. I’d like to see bicycle boulevards and dedicate roads to bikes, but what we have is better than when I got here, and feels like it’s improveing at a rapid pace now.
neivin 8y ago
You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. However, this isn't the case if you do your test elsewhere. SF has pretty good bike infrastructure and awareness. I just did my driving test in the city, and this was drilled into my head by my instructor.
- u801e 8y ago
  > You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. Infrastructure shouldn't be designed in a way to cause these types of turning conflicts. The general rule of the road is that vehicles on the right make right turns. Vehicles on the left make left turns, and vehicles in the middle proceed straight through the intersection. Turning conflicts, like what you're describing, are a significant hazard to cyclists. Cars need to check for traffic[1] on their right, move to the right, and then make their right turn. Cyclists need to pass right turning traffic on the left. [1] Cyclists are traffic.
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    Drivers often make mistakes here, and especially bicyclists. A lot of cars try to turn from the middle lane, which makes passing on the left more dangerous for cyclists. On top of that, many cyclists attempt to pass on the right, while cars are turning right. You are absolutely correct, but so many people don’t know the rules well enough to even realize they’re breaking them.
    - schlumpf 8y ago
      Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Stop signs are generally regarded as ornamental, and even lightly traveled red lights. I am reminded of this every time my seven year-old cycling companion asks why such and such a person hasn't followed the rules when they blow past us. Both classes of vehicles have to be diligent.
      - beefield 8y ago
andys627 8y ago
Change will happen faster if the decision makers realize induced demand - building car capacity (supply) induces more demand of drivers... building safe bike infrastructure induces more people to ride.
ebikelaw 8y ago
I've lived here for 20 years and I think you probably just have Stockholm Syndrome. The built environment is still trash and hasn't changed noticeably the entire time. There have been a few tiny marginal improvements, such as a handful of signals for bikes. Bike share I guess. Otherwise total stasis.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  Which area of the city do you live in? I’ve seen numerous improvements to major commuter corridors over the years. Some examples: - Valencia street being narrowed and bike lanes on both sides, improved protection is being worked on. - protected lanes continue to be improved on Market, but it’s still not great. - the wiggle through the lower haight is nearly a bike boulevard - Ceasar Chavez, still not very safe, but traffic has been slowed down and bike lanes added on both sides. - folsom street now has protected or very wide bike lanes to third street, and Howard now has wide bike lanes starting at 6th. I mean yeah, it’s not amazing, but it is safer and is continuing to be improved. It will be a long time before we’re like Holland.
  - sxv 8y ago
    Not to mention the coast, Embarcadero to Marina to the presidio, all super bike friendly. In general I think the city is quite bikeable. Sure I wouldn't want my kids to bike around it, but I wouldn't want them in SF in general lol.
  - shafyy 8y ago
    Completely agree. I've lived and biked in SF for over a year, and have seen great improvements in this short time.
mcv 8y ago
> For too long in the US we've designed our roads with the idea that cars have some right to the road that others do not. This used to be the case too in Netherland. Until the 1990s, cars had right of way over bikes in most (not all) situations. A car coming from the left would have right of way over a bike coming from the right. This was only fixed in the 1990s. Bikes have always been popular, but quite a lot of the things described in this article have been fairly recent developments.
ab71e5 8y ago
Biked all my life in the Netherlands, now in (suburbs of) Toronto. It's completely different here, I wear a helmet, go much faster, have a much nicer bike, have to pay more attention and would never ride drunk. I still take it over sitting in traffic any day.

wpietri 8y ago

Agreed. I don't blame anybody for not wanting to ride in the city. But I've been in SF since 2000 and I'm amazed at the progress that has been made in this direction. (Thanks in no small part to the SFBC.) And these improvements are happening all over the US. I've been pleasantly surprised to re-visit places and see how much progress has been made.

jseliger 8y ago

In the last 18 years of me living here things have gotten better and better for the cyclist, but there are still many areas that can be improved I just visited SF, and it was notable to me how much of the city's infrastructure is given over to cars and parking: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/08/19/what-santa-barbara-says https://jakeseliger.com/2018/08/19/what-santa-barbara-says. The rhetoric on the Internet made me think the reality on the ground would be different.

bluejekyll 8y ago
Knowing what it was like before, and how much improved it is since then, definitely shouldn’t be taken to mean that it’s ideal by any means. The point I was making is how much things like SFBC and Critical Mass over the years improved things because of the community involvement. I’d like to see bicycle boulevards and dedicate roads to bikes, but what we have is better than when I got here, and feels like it’s improveing at a rapid pace now.

neivin 8y ago

You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. However, this isn't the case if you do your test elsewhere. SF has pretty good bike infrastructure and awareness. I just did my driving test in the city, and this was drilled into my head by my instructor.

u801e 8y ago
> You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. Infrastructure shouldn't be designed in a way to cause these types of turning conflicts. The general rule of the road is that vehicles on the right make right turns. Vehicles on the left make left turns, and vehicles in the middle proceed straight through the intersection. Turning conflicts, like what you're describing, are a significant hazard to cyclists. Cars need to check for traffic[1] on their right, move to the right, and then make their right turn. Cyclists need to pass right turning traffic on the left. [1] Cyclists are traffic.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  Drivers often make mistakes here, and especially bicyclists. A lot of cars try to turn from the middle lane, which makes passing on the left more dangerous for cyclists. On top of that, many cyclists attempt to pass on the right, while cars are turning right. You are absolutely correct, but so many people don’t know the rules well enough to even realize they’re breaking them.
  - schlumpf 8y ago
    Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Stop signs are generally regarded as ornamental, and even lightly traveled red lights. I am reminded of this every time my seven year-old cycling companion asks why such and such a person hasn't followed the rules when they blow past us. Both classes of vehicles have to be diligent.
    - beefield 8y ago

andys627 8y ago

Change will happen faster if the decision makers realize induced demand - building car capacity (supply) induces more demand of drivers... building safe bike infrastructure induces more people to ride.

ebikelaw 8y ago

I've lived here for 20 years and I think you probably just have Stockholm Syndrome. The built environment is still trash and hasn't changed noticeably the entire time. There have been a few tiny marginal improvements, such as a handful of signals for bikes. Bike share I guess. Otherwise total stasis.

bluejekyll 8y ago
Which area of the city do you live in? I’ve seen numerous improvements to major commuter corridors over the years. Some examples: - Valencia street being narrowed and bike lanes on both sides, improved protection is being worked on. - protected lanes continue to be improved on Market, but it’s still not great. - the wiggle through the lower haight is nearly a bike boulevard - Ceasar Chavez, still not very safe, but traffic has been slowed down and bike lanes added on both sides. - folsom street now has protected or very wide bike lanes to third street, and Howard now has wide bike lanes starting at 6th. I mean yeah, it’s not amazing, but it is safer and is continuing to be improved. It will be a long time before we’re like Holland.
- sxv 8y ago
  Not to mention the coast, Embarcadero to Marina to the presidio, all super bike friendly. In general I think the city is quite bikeable. Sure I wouldn't want my kids to bike around it, but I wouldn't want them in SF in general lol.
- shafyy 8y ago
  Completely agree. I've lived and biked in SF for over a year, and have seen great improvements in this short time.

mcv 8y ago

> For too long in the US we've designed our roads with the idea that cars have some right to the road that others do not. This used to be the case too in Netherland. Until the 1990s, cars had right of way over bikes in most (not all) situations. A car coming from the left would have right of way over a bike coming from the right. This was only fixed in the 1990s. Bikes have always been popular, but quite a lot of the things described in this article have been fairly recent developments.

ab71e5 8y ago

Biked all my life in the Netherlands, now in (suburbs of) Toronto. It's completely different here, I wear a helmet, go much faster, have a much nicer bike, have to pay more attention and would never ride drunk. I still take it over sitting in traffic any day.