My experience with with most professional drivers is that they're very calm and cerebral in their driving-- deftly anticipating and avoiding accidents, finding other driver's idiocy amusing if they take any special note of it at all. They patently wait rather than taking seconds-shaving risky maneuvers because they've seen it all and know what can go wrong. They drive predictably, use their signals, etc.

So why is it that almost all my experience in taxis is that the driver seems to be a crazed maniac with a presumably diagnoseable rage disorder? They drive like their car has a bomb strapped to it that will go off if they ever yield at any point, unless they signal a temporary disarm code (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) by pulse width modulating their horn immediately after each and every yield event. Any use of their turn signals, however, will block the transmission of the disarm sequence, so they must be used sparingly if at all. Fortunately, their cars are seemingly powered by near misses with pedestrians combined with a form of fusion, so they have little reason to yield in the first place.

This is both my experience as a passenger in these drivers vehicles as well as from sharing the road with them.

It is just that my experience with taxies is mostly in dense city areas and my experience with other professional drivers is in other places with fewer drugs in the water? Is there something about driving a large truck that magically creates more consciousnesses? Is the idea that your life flashing before your eyes repeatedly will convince you of the relative worthlessness of money and cause to to leave a larger tip?

According to an anecdotal sample of taxi drivers, they drive aggressively for the same reason Southwest Airlines has stops. The _flag_ paid when starting a ride is the most profitable part of the ride. For Southwest, they are an expert at the turnaround, and the most they take-off and land, the more passengers, the more profit.

I always thought that this was because taxi drivers wanted to appear, to their passenger, that they were trying to get them there as fast as possible.

Taxis are paid by distance, not time. So if they can cheat the rules and drop you off faster they get the same amount of money from the customer and can go look for the next customer.

> So why is it that almost all my experience in taxis is that the driver seems to be a crazed maniac with a presumably diagnoseable rage disorder?

Payment is based on distance driven right? So more trips, more money. I could see the incentive like that to cause it.

I imagine taxi drivers are much more diverse than the professional drivers you have experience with.

That’s not it. Here in London taxi drivers are stereotypically white, male and over-50, while bus drivers come in a wide variety of race, sex and age groups.

Nonetheless almost all cabbies are a menace to pedestrians, cyclists and each other, while most bus drivers seem to be blessed with saintly patience as well as admirable professional driving skills.

That's the same problem for me in Berlin. Taxi drivers cause the most dangerous situations on our streets.

Second in line are delivery and post vehicles regularly blocking the cycle lanes.

I visited Berlin last year - our taxi driver nearly slammed us head on into a Tram at 40+mph. Scary stuff!

I get the taxi problem but what is the solution do delivery and postal vehicles?

On most pedestrian streets in Europe, delivery vehicles are allowed at particular times.

That's often very early in the morning, but varies according to the street. (One with lots of bars and nightclubs might allow deliveries during the day.)

For example, Copenhagen's main pedestrian streets are restricted to people on foot at all times, except residents at any time, and delivery vehicles between 04:00 and 11:00.

Reserve for them parking lots which don't block bike lanes. Enforce them not parking on bike lanes. When parked there, they are a safety security threat.

Then you'd have to create parking spots and the delivery vehicles would have to be in those spots at specific times of the day? Sounds great for bikes but impractical for the delivery vehicles.

I like how enforcing the law is portrayed as a nice-to-have here and offering to build specialty parking (in a city no less) is a hardship for the benefactors.

Or you could think of it as enforcing the law would kill the businesses in the area, because you're asking them for a huge additional cost.

Loading zones where other cars are aggressively towed. Last mile delivery with cargo bikes.

How do you deliver a pallet of Fruit Loops on a cargo bike to the corner store?

Using a trailer? You can't carry a full pallet, but for a small corner store, 180kg of Fruit Loops (about 350 packages?) might be enough. It's not like they have huge storing space inside anyway.

https://www.fleximodal.fr/pallets

Here's another similar solution: https://1kunva278v7137enrsgbuqym-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...

Basically this problem is absolutely solvable if you actually want to

You don't, you use a dedicated loading zone.

Fruit loops are light. How do you deliver a pallet of bottled water on a bike?

Using one of these? https://1kunva278v7137enrsgbuqym-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...

I find it funny that earlier in another thread I read about how the working conditions in warehouses are terrible. Yet here I see suggestions like this for delivery workers.

Can you imagine working a job like this when it's cold outside and you potentially had ice the night before? And to solve this problem you'd basically reinvent the car/truck.

Why do you consider riding a recumbent bicycle an insurmountable hardship?

In icy conditions, it's likely safer for most citizens to have delivery done by bicycle. They're slower and lower mass compared to a van.

In cold, the delivery person can just add layers. And, they'll be moving more, so in all likelihood, the additional layers required is minimal. It's not like a UPS van is super warm inside - not with the driver constantly opening the doors and hopping in/out.

It simply boils down to priorities. Do we want cheap/easy delivery to merchants or do we want safe pedestrian and bicycle zones for customers. Or, is there a magical balance point in the middle?

I’d honestly vote for cheap easy delivery to merchants first. That being said bikes are important, but not necessarily at the expense of intra-city logistics.

What's so categorically terrible about this? If it's cold you wear warmer clothes, if it's icy you put on studded tires. The point is if you actually wanted to get rid of cars in city centers it would be absolutely doable.

Go cycle around a city, load/unload heavy things for 8 hours in the pissing rain and come back with how it's not terrible.

They don't have to have an 8 hour shift. What about a 6 hour shift with breaks?

So you are telling them to be less productive and/or take less pay?

Seems like if it's that physically taxing they might make slightly more hourly to have the same pay overall. Yes, costs of delivery would go up.

You can't unload a truck to a corner shop from inside the cab anyway.

But you do get back in the nice heated/cooled rain free cab between drop offs to shelter yourself from the elements.

Looks like a small truck to me. You solved nothing.

Also I highly doubt these tiny bicycle tires can handle a pallet of bottled water or beers. They will just get crushed.

How do you deliver eight pallets of bottled water in one hour to eight shops?

By having more than one bike. If we assume 2 km median distance from the re-loading zone to the shop then each bike can easily make 2-3 round trips an hour.

By the way, why is it so important that deliveries get done within an hour?

If in San Francisco: downhill.

Taxis (including Uber+Lyft) are such incredibly bad drivers. They rarely signal turns, often fail to stop at signs, and make sudden unannounced stops inside bike lanes.

It's really no different with most drivers... You just notice the taxis more because they are all one group that stand out.

I'm pretty critical of taxi drivers but they really aren't any worse than most drivers besides the random stopping without signalling at all. Which, no surprise, non-taxis do a lot too if you take enough notice. Taxis just do it more cause they stop more.

> It's really no different with most drivers...

It is because they drive all day and do this for a living so "cutting corners" (literally or figuratively) will save them... something. A private driver may not find any value in doing this regularly since they may drive 30-60 minutes per day. You are more likely to cut corners in your day job because you know it very well and you feel comfortable doing this, even if it's not safe.

"because they are all one group that stand out"

Like BMW drivers?

Not signalling turns is something that I really don't understand. It requires minimal effort, doesn't slow you down in any way, and significantly increases safety. It's something that should be enforced much more.

There’s a significant fraction of drivers that interpret a turn signal as a sign that it’s ok to pass unsafely because the signalling driver is safety-conscious and will act to avoid a colission,

I’ve heard the argument described like this:

Indicating I’d exactly that: indicating your intention to turn, which is useless information because it causes people to assume they know what you will do.

It’s not an entirely flawed argument.

These people are mentally unfit to take part in motorised traffic. Confiscate their driving licence and return it only when they undergo and pass a psychological examination.

It looks like Tesla AI doesn't take the signals into account, but only the car movements.

Why are taxis given special treatment in cities? As a cyclist & public transport user it really frustrates me. In London they serve a tiny minority and cause the bulk of the congestion relative to the population they serve.

What would the outcome be of a total taxi ban in a major city? I imagine strikes, outcries etc, but no major disruption to the net ability for people to get around.

> Why are taxis given special treatment in cities?

Many handicapped people are dependent on (subsidized) taxi services.

Very good point, addressed further down / [here](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269488)

I am a public transit person also, but come on, there are lots of valid reasons for there being taxis, such as minor medical problems, bad weather, unsafe conditions at night, having to transport packages etc.

It is indeed annoying that the rich just use them all the time, but I won't advocate cutting off the nose (preventing the rich from using taxis) to spite the face (letting regular folks using it for an emergency).

> valid reasons for there being taxis, such as minor medical problems, bad weather, unsafe conditions at night, having to transport packages etc.

Agree with these, and have been glad for an on demand ride service for some of these, but I feel that these are the likely a small percentage of the total use, and that the system currently biases towards a catering for a minority indulgence rather than a general public good.

Agree that it is a spiteful proposal. I'm very frustrated by the slow pedestrianisation of London, and the taxis are a key piece of this.

I'm trying to find some example of how other Western European cities have pedestrianised their cities and dealt with the issue of taxis.

Edit: A further thought: In London, taxis are given the same privilege as buses (they can use the bus lane). This comes to the crux of my issues with cabs in the city. I think the service can exist for the reasons indicated, but giving _an empty taxi_ the same privilege as a _full bus_ speaks to a decision made with different priorities. Not only does this slow down the 100x more people in the buses but it encourages use of taxis as a "rich person's bus" alternative to the tube.

>Why are taxis given special treatment in cities?

Because they are point to point transportation for the elderly and disabled.

Very interesting point, it seems that black cabs are specifically required to cater for the disabled [0].

I wonder what the utilisation of taxis by elderly and disabled looks like as a percentage of the total rides. I think finding some mechanism that reduces congestion while catering for this would be attainable.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/transport-disabled/taxis-and-minicabs

What do you mean by tiny minority? I feel like I'd have a problem finding an employed person in London who never used a standard black cab.

A very small percentage earn enough to be able to use them regularly. One five minute trip costs more than a TfL day pass.

Is it possible they all use them once every few months? For example I've gone to a store, bought something rather large, and took it back to my apartment in a cab. I don't take a cab daily be I do take one once or twice a month. Note: I could try to get it delivered, that would generally require me taking a day off from work to be home for the delivery. With a cab I effectively get to choose the time.

Hi you've found me. 11 years working in London without taking a black cab. Taken an Uber once in those 11 years.

I don't know of anyone using them _regularly_, or really at all for that matter.

Ok, fair enough. I understood that as people not using them at all. I'm not surprised though - taxis are great for situations where you can't easily use public transport /for reasons/. Using them all the time is indeed for tiny minority. (And that's... Fine with me)

Then how do you get in and out of London with lots of luggage from the airport? And please don't tell me 'schlepp 40kg up and down the tiny tube corridors and stairs and into crowded Central Line'.

As someone who has been a tourist in London multiple times, I've never done anything other than catch public transport in and out. Be it Heathrow or the other airports, they're all very accessible by public transport. More so than a lot of other international airports (for example Melbourne Tullamarine)

If you fly in internationally the Heathrow Express also quickly deposits you at St Pancras. Unfortunately, despite the speed, it's not worth the additional cost in my opinion.

I've done exactly that, no one's idea of fun, but what if you can't afford the alternative?

Then you don't do it

In theory, in cities without good metro systems, taxis are the train-station-to-business-district-or-hotel link needed for business visitors and tourists to travel by train rather than driving directly.

Whether the same logic applies in London (which has a world-class metro system) is debatable, of course.

because in many cities they companies are held by very influential people who pretty much have a local politician or more in their pocket.

the real danger in my city isn't taxi or uber/lyft, it is the ebike rentals. they are currently banned after dark and have caused over two hundred calls for injury to Atlanta fire services, plus four deaths involving the bikes

That sounds bad but I encourage caution in using statistics this way as Atlanta is a big place.

How many traditional bicycle deaths happen in Atlanta per year? How many calls for bicycle injuries happen a year?

Just saying that e-bikes have 200 injury calls and 4 deaths is insufficient information to hold any opinion on them.

Georgia has over 4 automobile deaths per day.

How many of those injuries and deaths were due to a car?

That is odd. Couldn’t people hail a cab at an intersection instead? Just walk half a block or less.

On a related note, I’ve become more sensitive to the exhaust and engine noise from ICE cars when riding my bike. Nothing like directly breathing in the pollution to sour the trip and dash hope for getting rid of fossil fuels. Glad to hear about the upgrade anyhow.

I think San Francisco is still bitter at Uber and Lyft for succeeding without permission, and has given their competitors a random handout as a poke in the eye. That’s the only way this “no cars on Market except taxis” rule makes any sense.

Taxis have long benefited from special treatment, including the ability to use bus lanes. That predates Uber and Lyft AFAIK.

Other taxis operate on a government license, so this isn't really bitterness.

In Utrecht, Netherlands only busses and taxis are allowed in some parts of the city center, and this predates Uber/Lyft existing (let alone expanding to the Netherlands). It's pretty standard municipal policy.

> I think San Francisco is still bitter at Uber and Lyft for succeeding without permission

Have they succeed though? Last I saw, neither was profitable, and both were hemorrhaging hundreds of millions (and in Uber's case, billions) of dollars every quarter.

Certainly will be happy to not get a shot of exhaust in the face every time I get groceries.

You're assuming that the people in your example actually _can_ walk a half a block.

Almost anyone can walk half a block. Those who can't probably have some form of support, be it a walker, scooter, etc. Regardless, there are lots of places in the world that you can't drive to; it doesn't make sense to me to say that cars should be allowed everywhere because not everyone will be able to walk to get there.

> Those who can't probably have some form of support, be it a walker, scooter, etc

Yeah, mostly something like a car. Who would want to go that far with a walker? Have you ever tried it?

Personal mobility for local areas without cars is a solved problem. People who can't use walkers can use wheelchairs or numerous other options.

Just thinking about my 90 year old dad, who could get out of the house and to a car, just fine with a stick - but not much further.

Your dad would only be affected if he was looking to get an Uber or into his own car while on Market St and unable to get to the other streets.

Yeah, except when winter comes around and using walkers and wheelchairs for even medium distances becomes dangerous.

Are these disabled people really unable to go to the next road for a private car? And if so, are they unable to take the buses, shuttles, taxis and other emergency vehicles that are still allowed on this road?

How close do you need a private vehicle to be exactly? And is Market St in the middle of downtown really the place for someone who needs that accessibility?

Or is this just some out-of-context concern that doesn't really apply to this situation at all?

> And is Market St in the middle of downtown really the place for someone who needs that accessibility?

You should be ashamed for saying this. Sickening.

Really? Spare me the outrage. Accessibility is a factor in deciding where to live. And unless you're either waiting for Uber or driving your own car on Market St (while also unable to reach any intersection), this policy doesn't affect you.

Why do people only picture someone born with a disability when they think of accessibility?

Any one of us could be temporarily or permanently disabled at the drop of a hat. You don't make you decision if where you live with that in mind though based on your comment.

Accessible design doesn't care if you broke your ankle and only have mobility issues until next month, it still helps you.

People have this weird mentality that accessibility is optional because it doesn't affect them. It doesn't affect you until it does.

That's not close to the only reason you should care, but even someone as needlessly cynical as you can at least appreciate that angle of it.

And none of that is affected by this policy either.

We're talking about a specific street banning a few types of vehicles in downtown SF, not accessibility design principles across the world. Perhaps context is more important than outrage?

The context of your original comment doesn't change how disgusting it was.

You're literally questioning someone's right to exist in a location, the fact it's a single street doesn't excuse it, do you really not see that?

This policy has very little negative effects for disabled people. And if it does affect some then yes, that person might consider leaving as one option in response. The world doesn't revolve around you and when things change for the public good, you might have to adapt along with it. Why is this such a radical idea for you?

There is no "right to exist", and nobody can stop you from "existing", whatever that means. This is a nonsequiteur. A vague extremist statement thrown around to make things dramatic but is actually meaningless.

As for context, if you ignore it and just come in with a generic "what about the disabled people" in any possible conversation then there's no productive discussion to be had, which is clear in this case. You seem to be caught in an emotional argument against a position that was never made so I'll end it here.

Yeah, wheelchair is a pretty OK way to get to a car. Anything further? Sorry but I consider that purposefully making disabled people's lives significantly worse. There are probably many disabled people around you that only have a wheelchair, and yet you don't see them on the street - because it's too damn hard to push yourself using your hands while your body is broken. I don't understand the hate against disabled people, is it really that bad to give them a slight advantage?

People don't hate disabled people.

They have little patience when they're rolled out as an excuse against every change of use to a street, almost always by people who aren't disabled but simply want to drive everywhere.

It's the "think of the children!" counter argument for local transport planning.

Again, this is a solved problem in countries that have significantly larger pedestrian areas than San Francisco's Market Street. People use a variety of mobility solutions, including wheelchairs, walkers, and mobility scooters.

Pedestrian streets are, on the whole, beneficial to disabled people. There is more space, fewer chances of collisions, and crossing the street is trivial instead of harrowing. Go look in any city that has larger pedestrianized areas and see for yourself: it works for pretty much everyone.

I’m not even sure what your argument is. That taxis+buses+cars on all adjacent and cross streets to Market are insufficient to get people in wheelchairs where they need to go?

Millions of disabled people use walkers and canes. Or wheelchairs. Or motorized scooters.

We're talking about banning cars on a single main road to make it more people friendly. There are still buses, taxis and shuttles on this road. And there are roads with cars right next to it.

What exactly is so challenging here that you claim is "hate against disabled people"? That those living right on Market St suddenly have to go a tiny bit farther if they want to take Uber?

> because it's too damn hard to push yourself using your hands while your body is broken

There are motorized wheelchairs for people who can’t push themselves. People in wheelchair for life I met have a motorized one.

The approved plan is creating a divided lane for just bikes.

It'll take a decade to build the full protected lane for bikes. But banning taxis would improve safety overnight.

As someone who does just that, it should not take anywhere near a decade. From now, two or three years would suffice for a complete streets design + rebuild. Extras included (eg separating storm+sanitary sewers, or other infrastructure recapitalization) could add a year or two. If it takes them more than 4 years, construction delays inclusive, the issue lies elsewhere than the design and construction. Perhaps things like maintaining traffic flow, etc.

Has CEQA been fixed yet? The Van Ness bus lane project was approved by voters in 2003 after Proposition K, but the CEQA report was finished only in 2014 because one of the eighteen environmental measures that required a full CEQA review was "level of service" for automobiles (so any project that reduced car throughput "hurts the environment" and required a review). Construction is slated to finish in 2021, a full 18 years after the original plan.

For more context: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/07/transit-proje... https://www.sfcta.org/projects/van-ness-improvement-project

I agree that it _shouldn't_ take that long. This project was first started in 2011. Construction won't start until some time in 2020 (optimistically).

From https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-transit-board-approves-ca...:

> Better Market Street will be implemented in three phases: Market from Fifth to Eighth streets is phase 1, Market from Fifth to Second streets is phase 2, and Market from Van Ness to Octavia Boulevard will comprise phase 3.

> The second phase will also include the construction of a loop in the Financial District for the F-Market & Wharves historic streetcar...

> Phase 1 is scheduled to stretch at least until 2022, according to the project’s website. The construction of the streetcar loop is expected in 2023, and future phases of the project are dependent on identifying funding

So 1/3 of this project is projected to be finished by 2022. And the other two portions of market street don't even have funding or a timeline yet. We will be lucky if it's finished by 2026 (no delays, no recession puts funding in jeopardy, etc).

By the time everything is done, it may be _20_ _years_ to build protected lanes. In the meantime, we have sharrows and intermix with taxis.

Can you explain briefly how this could possibly take 3 years? I mean, I don't know anything about street design, but it seems so straightforward adding a protected bike lane. They aren't widening the streets, right? How could it take 3 years?

So if you're just adding some painted bike lanes, or maybe some curb-separated bike lanes at street level, it shouldn't take anywhere near that long.

The situation I'm picturing where it could take a few years is if the bike lanes are raised up to the same level as the sidewalk. Which can take a long time because it means moving existing curbs, which means moving catchbasins (curbs direct water flow) and often light posts (should be near edge of road for accessibility purposes - maintaining clear walking path, having push buttons and audible signals at edge of street). Doing either or both of these things means stuff is getting moved around underground, and underground is a very busy place (sewer, water, natural gas, buried electrical, signal infrastructure, old foundations, ... And all these are at different depths, with different separation requirements, severally limiting what can go where). And add in a busy location like Market Street, and maintaining access all the time, and probably limiting working hours to minimize impact on residents/businesses. The time would add up fast.

> They aren't widening the streets, right? How could it take 3 years?

There's no upper limit to how long you can take to do something.

Lower limits, sure, but no upper ones.

This is San Francisco; construction will always take forever

Did you not see how quickly it happened on Valencia? I mean as a temporary, instant measure they could mostly add paint and more of those plastic separators: https://laecovillage.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/market-st-1...

Safety for cyclists and pedestrians could be significantly improved by lowering the speed limit to 20mph or so and enforcing it.

> taxis are still allowed (except for Uber and Lyft)

You don't need the exception. Uber and Lyft are not taxis.

Dangerous driving and pedestrianisation are separate issues.

So if I sign up for Lyft as a driver, I can drive on Market Street?

No, since Lyft isn't a taxi service, according the city.