Waymos don’t get distracted. Grade separation, ticketing and increasingly favoring AVs in cities is a simpler solution than erecting physical barriers, which have the downside of making cities less walkable.
I know plenty of people in Phoenix for whom it’s their main mode of transport. When I’m there or in San Francisco, it’s certainly mine. (And now, increasingly, in Miami, too.)
Waymo is here and it’s real and it’s so much better than Uber or taxis.
Even once things reach that point reworking an existing place would be a massive undertaking.
Sure. Neither is Phoenix's light-rail system, for the most part. These things take time to play out and gain buy-in.
Americans take about 34 million public-transit trips a day [1]. Assuming 25 rides per day, that's about 1.4 million self-driving cars to rival public transport's impact. Waymo has "about 3,000 robotaxis deployed nationwide" [2]. Doubling fleet size annually–Waymos and non-Waymos, though currently they have no peers–would get us to parity in less than 10 years. (A more-realistic 35% growth rate puts us around 20 years.)
The point of that excercise is to say that within 10 to 20 years, less time e.g. California's HSR or New York's Second Avenue Subway took to get online, we could see as many trips in AVs in America as we do on public transit of all types. That's close enough to start looking ahead to.
[1] https://www.apta.com/news-research/about-the-industry/public...
[2] https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2026/03/30/waymo-speed...
By city and ODD, but if you are in the area and your source and destination for the route are both within the ODD they are just as available as an Uber.
The correct solution to this kind of problems and others is to fix the obviously broken fine system. The first fine for anything should sting and it should make anyone who gets it think twice about doing the thing that they did to get the fine. subsequent reoffenses should make it uneconomical for anyone to reoffend.
Fine should be scaled to your income and have an escalating multiplier for reoffense within the same category of offense with a cool down period of a few years if they don't break the law.
that was among the promises of self-driving cars. Because of ultimately superior sensor suite and reaction time they can be safer than humans, in particular they would never "not see a bicyclist", they wouldn't cut impatiently, etc. . Instead that superiority is used these days to drive more "efficiently", to beat/cut the human drivers in a way not every regular human would be capable of. At least that is my anecdotal observation during the last several months (and these several months experience totally differs from the more than 15 years of having Waymo cars around in MV when they were i'd say among the safest to be around)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46199294
From the more recent - saw again a Waymo cutting like a ninja into a left turn lane at the same intersection as before, and at the other intersection a Waymo car missing the point to get in line for the right turn behind several cars already waiting in line in the bike lane, drives forward on green and makes the right turn as the second layer of the cake in parallel with those cars from the bike lane.
I think all that aggressiveness/"efficiency" comes as a result of the push to increase the customer satisfaction. All these years before driving actual passengers, Waymo (and i guess others) could allow themselves to be the safest, most courteous drivers on the road. Not anymore as such "inefficient" granma-style driving obviously would conflict with the passengers satisfaction.
A lot of things need to be true for a curbside bike path to be safer than a roadside one, most importantly protection against dooring and ensuring visibility at intersections. If these measures are not taken, the result is often less safe.
The concrete barriers being added in Seattle help a lot.
On the bike lane, which is physically separated from the road.
The cop car takes the whole width of the lanes.
It also means the cop had to get on the bike lane here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/frGXL1NpcCW18iRN9?g_st=ac and then drive for a couple of blocks _on the physically separated bike lane_.
143km sounds like quite a bit though, especially since separated bike lanes are usually for main thoroughfares, whereas many low-traffic side streets you simply bike down the middle.
- Storefront
- Outdoor seating
- Footpath (room for both ways)
- Bike lane (one way)
- Greenery (trees or shrubs)
- Car door buffer
- Parking lane
- One or two lanes one way traffic
- Green median
- All the above mirrored for the other side
Comparison with Amsterdam is maybe not fair as Amsterdam has the worst cycling infrastructure of The Netherlands.
Logically equivalent:
> There’s just no reality where a motor vehicle can share the road unimpeded with a bicycle safely.
... or a pedestrian. Those motor vehicles sure are a menace!
Rised bike lanes are also parked onto. I had the displasure of sliding on reentry when a car was blocking the raised bike lane. Next time I'd rather stop and argue with the driver. Also you get to enjoy going up and fown ramps all of the time.
1. https://orcacivil.com.au/products/traffic-management-product...
If you compare that to a country like the Netherlands, which is not only strict, but provides “solutions” so breaking the law isn’t necessary in the first place (they use explicit drop off and pickup locations instead of American chaos).
Like the Netherlands, it is (A) not possible to park in bike paths without going intentionally out of your way, and (B) there are reasonable alternatives, such as specific “loading zones” for passengers on nearly every block, on major roads. On minor neighborhood roads, you can just block the road for a few seconds and it doesn’t matter
The US is happy creating laws for everything that are impossible to follow, but only selectively enforced. It makes it so everyone always must break the law to exist in society, but will only face repercussions at the discretion of a police officer.
It means that there are effectively no laws, because everyone has slightly different definitions of when something is “right” or not, and the police only enforce the most egregious cases, but they can also target you specifically for some other reason (discrimination, bias, etc) with no repercussions, since you were breaking the law after all.
In a few years they'll get to put together a committee to discuss "learnings" and maybe they'll fix it if there are enough complaints, or maybe they'll just spend their time elsewhere as usual.
America suffers from a severe execution problem in the last couple of decades. We just can’t implement and follow through with real solutions anymore.
Do you consider this insane? Your assertions that "everyone always must break the law" and "there are effectively no laws" seem a bit extreme. Ultimately, with any messy human affair, there is always going to be discretion involved, and I don't think implicitly codifying that is a bad thing. It does tend to work by and large. I've personally had much worse experiences with officials following the letter of the law than with them using discretion, but I admit I am not in any class that is often discriminated against.
It's just that other drivers get pissed off if you block a car lane when there's a bike lane next to it. That needs to be trained away by enforcing the rules.
The car stopping in car lane, far enough from the bike lane that its doors won't enter it, and letting the passengers out into the road, is by far the safest. Yes, that means now-pedestrians end up crossing the bike lane. That's a lot better than a car. They move slower, and more predictably, while simultaneously not blocking it for long enough that anyone is motivated to deke (my spellchecker doesn't like that? Is that a word outside Canada?) out into traffic.
Larger scale deliveries (e.g. to malls, grocery store, factories) should have a privately owned off-road, built into the structure place for trucks to park and drop things off. Though things like factories often simply don't belong in the dense part of the city.
This would all be solved if we just had delivery parking spaces and got rid of on street parking for everyone else. Really, just that part is just where everything falls apart quickly. This is why traffic seems so much better in Europe (at least where I've lived, like in Switzerland), deliveries work, cars are not parked on the street except at a few very expensive parking spaces.
The complaint I keep seeing is one of public subsidy. So you're suggesting we subsidize deliveries but not general parking? (To be clear I think it's all just anti-car absurdity.)
Of course merely repurposing a few spots to "commercial deliveries only" every few blocks would probably work. I've seen that done in a few places. I think it comes down to a planning and administration failure.
But ya, if you want to roll back car use, you can do that fastest by restricting free parking. Your community better be prepared for that with adequate public transit investments. Better to just roll back free parking slowly while ramping up public transit investments, but America always messes it up one way or the other.
In which municipality? In most cities and states in the US, it is illegal to obstruct a roadway. Taxis may get some carve-outs for loading and unloading disabled people, but usually, even taxis are supposed to pull over before stopping for a passenger.
... bike lanes are not the only thing that creates this issue. Any road that lacks parking, with or without bike lanes, will have the same problem. Even when there is parking, all of the parking spots may be occupied. In both cases, people may have to walk a few blocks. While they may be grouchy about the lack of (sufficient) parking, you don't see many people blaming motorists for placing a burden on the elderly.
Finally, it is always possible to make accommodations. Having a carve-out for loading and unloading taxis will do far more for safety of everybody than letting people stop anywhere in bike lanes. It is also possible to have exceptions for people with disabilities, as long as non-disabled people don't abuse it.
Drop off/pickup points are the answer, disabled drop off/pickup might be redundant but could make sense in certain high capacity situations.
You have to actually put those drop off points on every street corner, though, and is the lowest priority for city planners, and gets rolled out at a glacial pace over decades--while disabled people have needs today. Having been forced to confront how well designed our infrastructure is for disabled access and put it to the test, I can tell you that a lot of existing ADA infrastructure can best be described as "performative" and a lot of it is entirely missing.
In general though, special affordances for parking and dropping off disabled passengers is only given to those with a blue badge. AFAIK in general taxis carrying disabled passengers without a blue badge have no more rights than any other vehicle. Only companies that specifically care for disabled passengers can get their own company blue-badge rather than relying on their passengers having one.
Because we also have streets with a car lane and a bike lane with a solid line where it's forbidden for any other vehicle to enter or stop there, so of course I had to explain to a few drivers what are the rules they should alrady know and follow.
Double yellow lines (waiting / parking) are different to bike lines however. If a bike line is separated from the road by a solid white lines, motorised vehicles are forbidden from entering at all. If you want to load/unload or drop off passengers, you need to do that somewhere else. If the highways agency considered it safe for vehicles to block the cycle route in that place, they'd use dashed lines instead.
The problem is street-side parking.
It’s a massive subsidy that takes up space. If you have the space to move it and still permit e.g. delivery trucks from blocking the road, great. Many cities don’t have that space and yet cede it to parking.
As much as I might disagree with that, it’s crazy to expect Waymo to obey a law that doesn’t even exist.
https://highwaycode.org.uk/rule-140/
> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply. Law: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984: Sections 5 & 8
Here's a cycle lane with a broken white line: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5159626,-0.1020373,3a,75y,17...
You shouldn't enter, stop or park here unless it is "unavoidable". You're a taxi driver dropping off a passenger? That's not "unavoidable".
Here's a cycle lane with an unbroken line: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5162184,-0.1047894,3a,75y,15...
The latter, no you CAN'T enter it to drop people off, no matter who you are. It is literally illegal to do so.
It's explicitly legal for cabs to drop off passengers cycle lanes in London https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/walking-and-cycling-changes-o...
There are the general laws - the highway code. Transport for London has made special exceptions for black cabs (which are one kind of taxi), and for private hire vehicles (a different kind of taxi - this is what Uber, Lyft and Waymo are), in London.
The GP said "all drivers are allowed" - no, they are not. You're saying it's "legal for cabs" - yes it is.
- No cars can drive along a cycle lane.
- A normal car cannot enter, stop, wait or park in a cycle lane with an unbroken line, per the highway code.
- A normal car can enter a cycle lane with a broken line and may be able to stop, wait or park in it depending on the restrictions posted at the side of the road.
- Black cabs and PHVs in London can, and in fact have to pull over to the kerb to pick-up and drop-off, including into cycle lanes with an unbroken line. They can even do this on double-red lines, which mean "no stopping at any time" to everyone else. But they cannot do it for any longer than to pick-up and drop-off. They cannot wait or park there.
They can also pick-up and drop-off in some bus stops (which again, is an offence for normal cars). The main difference between black cabs and PHVs is that black cabs can drive in bus lanes, enter taxi ranks, and be hailed from the street, while PHVs can't.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-i...
"Advisory and mandatory cycle lanes, marked by a painted line, can be entered into by taxis and PHVs for pick-up and drop-off at the kerb edge"
You are allowed to drop off people in a lot of places you aren't allowed to drive or park.
Yes, they should do that. The fact that others don't follow it is completely irrelevant.
I'm sorry if it doesn't help them meet their quarterly targets, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a Company to follow the fucking law when it comes to human safety.
And if they can't, they should be dissolved and the directors prosecuted.
If they truly can't grow without compromising people's safety and breaking the laws put in place to prevent them, then they shouldn't exist. End of.
This shouldn't even be a discussion. Because someone kills a person, everyone else now needs to kill someone otherwise it breaks expectations? Madness...
Over the last year, the vibe on site has become... concerning.
Yeah, it's always leaned right wing capitalist. That's fine by itself—I like the contrast to my own views at times. I'm a lefty—very left compared to US "left"—but still have some right wing economic sympathies at times and in certain areas. There's actual discussion to be had there!
But recently it seems like this site has gone off the fucking deep end in delusion when it comes to everything. The misogyny and transphobia has started becoming less and less hidden too. This is the first time I've logged in here in over a month, and I've seen my comments today getting flagged for arguing against a person saying that bicyclists have more fatalities on the road—just asking them to cite a fucking source.
What you are saying is not controversial. You're not crazy. This site is just full of fucking idiots who haven't realised they're the next serfs in the reality they're bringing about.
Plenty of drives dont use bike lanes. So, no, this is false issue. Waymo can simply act like literal majority of the drivers.
So to flip it around.....it's not Waymo's fault that they stop in bike lanes, but the fault of traffic enforcement? Is anyone forcing waymos to stop in bike lanes?
There’s a related issue that will become apparent as more cars drive themselves and take responsibility for their actions: speed limits. If traffic engineers want cars to drive 75mph, they should set a speed limit of 75mph.
Like you said - if traffic engineers wanted people to stop there they wouldn't have made it a bike lane.
I don’t really agree, at least not in a broad sense. If Waymo refused to stop and circled the block many times instead, and if Amazon trucks did the same thing, and taxis and such did the same thing, and the big trucks that deliver restaurant supplies did the same thing, etc, then bikes would be able to use their lanes freely but no one else would get much done.
We live in a world where many useful things require people to break rules. Is it the fault of the rule breakers or of the rules?
They’re even bad for drivers as they are more detrimental to traffic than personal car ownership. They take up space on the road even when they aren’t being used to transport anyone.
I think we should spend less time worrying about ride share policy and spend more time working on the root cause of the need to drive so often.
Achieving this goal is not something that necessitates giving up single family homes, or suburbs, or small towns, or the ability to own a personal car, or anything like that.
Both human-driven and robo-driven taxis are financially incentivised to spend as much time as possible carrying fare paying passengers and as little as possible driving empty to pick someone up.
Anyway, I agree that walking, cycling, and public transit, are all IMHO preferable to any form of taxi.
Seriously, Waymos follow at a respectful distance and overtake me safely. They stop at stop signs. Sometimes they even stop and wait for me to make a decision about which way I'm heading.
To be perfectly clear, the difference between an empty road and a Waymo is mostly academic if you're on a bike. The Waymo is just that good at respecting space.
Studies have shown repeatedly that rideshares lower transit usage and don’t reduce personal car ownership.
In the US, in particular, last mile transportation is mostly done by car. Transit cannot economically serve low-density suburbs.
In a city? It depends on price versus convenience. As more and more cars drive themselves, the city can get away with taking back more and more space for transit and cyclists. People should choose mass transit because it's convenient, not because there's no way to call a car.
This idea that companies have to be allowed to do business however they want is not something we just have to do.
We can as citizens and governments say “no, you’re not allowed to run a robot taxi company because it’s overall bad for our city.”
Laissez Faire capitalism is an ideological cancer to American society.
Taxis and Waymos stop in areas that are explicitly marked not to stop or park.
This is nonsense. Even in places with great public transport a lot of people own cars because taxi's and Uber's are unreliable or unavailable. Given Waymo should be available at any time of day and not pick + choose rides as randomly a lot of car owners should be able to give them up.
Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z#Sec8
Anecdote: I take transit way more in San Francisco with Waymo. Because booking is deterministic (it says 20 minutes, it will be there in 20 minutes, even if it’s a short ride), I can connect with the loose network of city and regional rail systems in a way that was tedious with human drivers.
(I lived in New York for 10 years, and eagerly take the subway there.)
Maybe. American suburbs are already spread out. It doesn’t make sense to run subways to every corner the way we do in urban centers. Doing last mile with shared transport—versus cars which park idle for most of the day around train stations—makes sense.
Here’s a nice video about how small suburbs and even farms don’t need to involve deep car dependence:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg
Meanwhile, Arlington, Texas has over 200,000 people with no bus system.
And before you say “oh it’s Europe it’s old” I will point out that the Netherlands had a huge car dependency problem in the mid-century and deliberately moved away from it during/after the oil crisis.
You can see multiple single family home developments that would be right at home in a US suburb in this video. The author even reaches a rural farm without a car.
What about if American transit authorities just did basic stuff like work together and perform actual regional planning rather than working in silos and having conflicts with each other?
For example, there’s zero reason why NJ transit should be a different agency than NYC’s transit authority. They should be the same agency that works toward a comprehensive regional transit system focused on the metropolitan area rather than arbitrary state borders.
Instead, they’re forced to do things like sell $100 World Cup train tickets because they haven’t been empowered to reap the rewards of the economic development they enable.
I’ll watch in detail-thank you.
An important caveat, though, and it’s not about age but density. The Netherlands ex Amsterdam has just under 1,400 people per square mile. That’s still denser than every single U.S. state. (New Jersey and Rhode Island are the only two that break 1,000, and only the former if we exclude each state’s largest city.) The tenth-densest state, Pennsylvania, is still almost 5x less dense than the Netherlands, and again, I’m doing this for the Netherlands ex Amsterdam.
We can absolutely build more transit in our metropolitan centers. But the layout of America, in part driven by history, in part by our embrace of car culture, forces fundamentally different transport optima than almost anywhere in Western Europe.
> there’s zero reason why NJ transit should be a different agency than NYC’s transit authority
Same reason the Dutch and German authorities are separate.
It’s worth pointing out here that,
1. Again, this is an ongoing choice and not an inevitability.
2. A large amount of America was built during the railroad era and a lot of urban fabric was actually just removed/demolished and could be replaced. A lot of it sits empty waiting to be rehabilitated (and to many cities’ credit, a lot of it has been rehabilitated).
3. When you watch the video you’ll see it’s not all about density, it’s also about road and street design. It’s about making spaces that feel safe to exist in as a pedestrian or cyclist. Many suburban Americans don’t actually travel that far to get around, they just can’t get places without getting in a car (e.g., a typical big box store area is a dense shopping area just like a typical high street but traversing it on foot is hostile).
And while The Netherlands as a country is dense, the cities are not, partially due to the massive amount of urban sprawl that The Netherlands has (compared to other European countries).
Amsterdam has a density of just under 5,000 people per square kilometer. That is way less than New York City, and less than any of the Burroughs except Staten Island. Manhattan comes in at 28,000, so over 5 times more. Amsterdam Metropole has only 950 people per square kilometer.
NYC, San Francisco and Boston are massively more dense than Amsterdam. Chicago, Philadelphia and Miami are about the same. Washington D.C. and LA are only slightly less dense.
Are there any major metropolitan areas that cross Dutch and German borders?
Is there a customs border between Hoboken and NYC?
Of course NJ Transit and NYC transit should combine in the NYC metropolitan area, they are serving the same people.
This is something that I found pretty bizarre visiting the US. The transport is _so_ regionalised. San Francisco has a separate bus system to South San Francisco (which is as far as I can see just a suburb for practical purposes), for instance.
It doesn't generally make sense to split transport authorities strictly across administrative geographical lines, particularly where the administrative regions are small. For instance, London basically gets away with TFL occupying the same general geographic area as Greater London, but only because Greater London is _vast_. If you tried this with Dublin, it would never work, because the Dublin City administrative area is tiny (Dublin Bus operates in _seven_ local authorities, and its commuter rail lines all cross at least three).
In other countries bicycles aren't really needed because you can just walk everywhere.
In a lot of ways the cycling in the Netherlands is almost a band-aid in itself…but it’s a hell of a lot better than depending on the automobile.
Here’s a nice video about how rural towns can be configured to not be car dependent:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg
You’ll notice that this isn’t some ancient European pre-automobile city stuff, you’ll see many single family home tract houses in the suburbs and small towns of the Netherlands that would be at home in any American suburb. The Netherlands did struggle with post-war car-oriented development that it has successfully pushed back against.
If you live in Arlington, Texas, you live in a city of over 200,000 people that doesn’t even have bus service.
This is a great argument. Retrofitting America is one discussion. But building new developments such that they don't require a car–at least within themselves–should be doable.
And of course, also, this doesn’t mean “nobody owns a car in the Netherlands.”
Sure we do, by definition.
We can work to change things, sure. But for many places in the US (especially established cities) this is a monumental effort. For example, I live in San Francisco. I wish we had more subways. Our bus system isn't bad, and they've converted/added many bus-only lanes over the past several years, but buses are still at the mercy of traffic (as well as traffic lights). Our light rail has large above-ground portions, some of which has to deal with traffic, some not (but all have to deal with stop signs and traffic lights).
I live a block away from 3rd Street, where the T line runs up and down the eastern side of the city. However, nearly all of it is above-ground. There's an express bus that runs between where I live and Market street, similar to the T's path. The bus is usually significantly faster than the train. If the train was entirely underground, I'd expect it to be as fast as the express bus (at the very least, it would be more consistent than the bus).
How would I, personally, go about changing this? You say "we" actively choose, but what is "we"? I don't have control or even influence over the collective consciousness. I feel entirely powerless to change the status quo. Even if I could get the ball rolling on this, it would likely be 15+ years before the project is completed. Will I even be living here then? I'm not sure.
From your comment, it sounds like your suggestion might be to move to a small town, and work to change things there, where it might be easier for individuals to make a difference. While that's not completely unreasonable... I don't want to live in a small town in a rural area. I grew up in suburbs and semi-rural areas, and while I had a perfectly fine childhood, I much prefer an urban environment. Yes, I'm restricting my options this way, and perhaps missing opportunities to live in a place where I can change things. But I have a finite amount of time left in my life, and I need to be selective in how I spend it.
Intro sentence: We can't change anything, by definition. (This is a strange definition because last I checked the highway system was built, it didn't just fall on the earth from the sky)
Paragraph 1: It's too hard! Weird, because hard stuff like putting a highway underground in Boston seemed to be "worth the price" rather than investing in transit solutions. (The Big Dig cost $2.8 billion, over $7 billion adjusted for inflation, which would have built out a heck of a commuter rail system in Boston. They could have just removed the highway entirely rather than burying it)
Paragraph 2 and 3: How do I change things? Who is "we?" Well, a lot of people ask this very question and join up together in advocacy groups, run for public office, etc.
Paragraph 4: assigning false conclusions to my comments. I am not suggesting you move to a small town, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm not sure why you keep saying you can't change things. Have you tried to change things? How much time do you spend per week advocating for what you want to see in the world? How much physical effort are you putting into it? Change doesn't just manifest.
More examples of citizen-induced change:
https://www.cnu.org/what-we-do/build-great-places/embarcader... (with the help of a major natural disaster making the right choice more obvious)
https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/55
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollan...
It works both ways.
One party to this is a high-inertia, potentially high-velocity metal box that, in an impact with the other party, typically results in an property insurance claim.
The other is a low-inertia flesh bag that, in an impact with the other party, results in a medical insurance claim, and possibly a funeral.
I spent a decade cycling for commute in a capital city in Australia. I’m also a tradesman, so I’m well aware that some people actually work on the road.
By being a pedestrian or cyclist, you’re literally in other people’s workplace.
Delivery drivers, construction workers, breakdown services, road maintenance, electricians, crane operators, cars for hire, emergency services, light rail operators.
As a pedestrian or cyclists, or motorbike rider, you’re particularly vulnerable.
Sometimes you need to get out of the way.
Share the road.
> Working on the road does not give you priority on the roads.
What are you even talking about?
Of course it does. Look at any construction site next to a road where trucks are constantly stopping and cranes are operating. They’ll have part of the road cordoned off, or otherwise under their control.
Signs that say detour / pedestrians use other footpaths.
If there’s a heavy vehicle parked & unloading you don’t just fucking absentmindedly cycle full pelt in to the back of it, do you?
Multiple categories of road users literally share thousands of roads everyday all over the world.
Every day, millions of road users, drivers, pedestrians, cyclists go around cyclists and wait for pedestrians to clear the road before proceeding.
I don’t know what planet you’re from, but the roads are literally a shared resource for the benefit of all.
Share the road.
I’m also open to the possibility that maybe I’m just a cunt.
When you do construction, or any other event, you need to actually ask the city to put signs down monopolizing the road. It's not just there for you to take it. This is because the road is there for cars and bicycles and sometimes pedestrians too. Obviously the nature of being a person capable of thinking means that I should not walk/bike/drive into the intersection just because the light turned green if I see someone blasting through it anyway. But that does not mean they should be there, just like people are not supposed to park in the bike lanes.
Are you actually serious right now? If I'm walking/cycling to work, which I usually am, then what? Is your job more important than mine? How can you possibly tell where I work or where I'm going? Ridiculous.
Or just keep hating on AI. Why let the truth stop you from having a good time?
The same thing can be said for cyclists weaving in and out of traffic, and for good reason: if traffic is moving, it's a good way to kill yourself; if traffic is not moving, there is no need for it. (There is usually enough space on the right to pass. If there isn't enough space on the right to pass, it is unsafe.)
I have seen more motorists barrel the wrong way down a one way street, in reverse, than I have seen cyclists riding down one way streets the wrong way. Proportionally speaking, more cyclists may be breaking the law. In terms of safety, what motorists are doing is far more dangerous.
As for stop signs: other cyclists tend to get the hint when I stop at them on my bike. :) The ones who don't stop tend to do the same as motorists, by doing a "rolling stop". Doing anything less would be a good way to get killed.
So no, I don't agree that cyclists do not follow traffic laws as a general rule. In many cases, motorists are worse. I am not going to pretend that cyclists are better for altruistic reasons. The reality is that cyclists are much more vulnerable than motorists. Cars are made to handle collisions, bikes are not. Motorists pay more attention to cars than bikes, in the most part because other cars are more dangerous to them.
I'm not anti-bike. I bike a bit and I got hit by a car last year. Some crackhead turned left across the opposite lane right into me.
I'm just reporting what I see -- bikers do not generally follow the rules, and I find this interesting. Maybe they're being rational. Or maybe they're not. Either way it's interesting.
No, they don't. They break the rules all the goddamn time. Have you ever been on an American freeway? Most people are going above the speed limit, myself included.
Do you think most drivers give the legally required amount of space in front of their car while driving, especially on the freeway? It's not even close. Do people signal for the legally required amount of time before changing lanes? Again, not close for most drivers.
> I'm just reporting what I see
What you're actually experiencing is that you implicitly accept the status quo of certain rules being ignored for driving, because driving itself is more common (both for you and in general). But biking is different, it's more obscure, so the rule breaking stands out more.
This is very typical of cultures anywhere that driving is more common than biking, which is...well, most places really.
Cars are more dangerous due to size and speed but if we’re just talking about who acts more recklessly and ignores more rules it’s easily bikes, at least in Chicago.
???
How is texting while driving safe? How is going over the speed limit safe? How is driving too close to other cars to stop in time safe?
True, it's not even close because going over the speed limit in a car is a lot more dangerous to others.
Blowing through stoplights on a bike is very stupid, of course, but 99% of the danger is directed towards the cyclist themselves, at least.
Note that the Idaho stop, though, is quite safe.
Drivers are...not great. But as a general rule they follow the laws (albeit with frequent lapses). Cyclists do not follow the rules to the point where no one expects them to. It's genuinely weird for me to imagine a cyclist stopping at a stop sign.
1. Cyclists live and die by inertia. Getting up to speed on a bike requires a lot of effort and every application of brakes erases that spent effort, which feels really bad.
In a car, it doesn't matter — you stop and accelerate with exactly the same trivial effort of pressing a pedal.
So all the grandstanding that cars stop at stop signs (since when, but ok), and cyclists don't is like bragging that you beat a disabled person in a 100m sprint. Good job, I guess.
2. Stop signs and traffic lights are made for cars, because of their speed, how dangerous they are, and how bad their visibility is. Cyclists are like pedestrians in that they do not need traffic lights, they can navigate just fine with just body language.
Telling whether running a red light would be safe in a car is essentially impossible, you're going too fast and can't see much, can't hear anything either. But on a bike you have perfect visibility, there's no box of metal all around you. You can hear quite well too.
Stop signs are an even better example. Literally the only reason for their use instead of yield signs is that the visibility at the intersection is bad enough that you need to stop to be able to yield. But that is only the case because your visibility is so bad in the first place.
Stop signs literally never make sense for bikes — there's no "hood", so your head is basically where the vehicle starts and you can lean forward to make that literally true if really needed, and you've got perfect visibility all around, no blind spots.
Hence why in a lot of places cyclists can legally treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs.
Also, of course bikers don’t follow car rules. Those rules are nonsensical for cyclists.
I cycle myself and see no rules that somehow don't make sense for bikes. In fact, since bikes are much less maneuverable and much more vulnerable, they need to obey all the rules that are there to protect the cars from other cars with more vigilance than cars.
If I do a "proper" stop at a stop sign (0mph, place foot on ground, fortunately I don't clip in), cars will see me stopping and try to blast thru the stop sign when it isn't their turn. So I end up stopping while the first car goes thru the intersection, and while I'm getting resituated on the pedals a second car enters instead of waiting their turn, making my situation more dangerous.
One nice law we have in California is that the "walk" sign applies to pedestrians and bikes. This gives me a chance to assert myself in the intersection before the car across from me tries to sneak in a left turn. It also protects me from cars trying to turn across the bike lane.
If you assert your right to use the road, cars won't try to take advantage of your size/acceleration as much, especially if you have another car run interference for you.
YMMV if you live somewhere where it's common for cars to actually stop at a stop sign.
Anyways, even if you are 100% right and not stopping at stop on a bike will prevent people blowing stop completely (and people who have the right of way will also yield to your bike because they will see you 100%) how is it safer than to stop and proceed when there is no traffic across?
Generally, on a bike you want to be predictable. If you do something weird, like not going when it's your turn, you're increasing your risk. And in many situations if you wait for there to be no cars at a stop sign, you're going to end up holding up cars behind you and be on the receiving end of road rage, or drivers behaving recklessly to get around you. Plus you may be waiting literally hours for all the traffic to dissipate, and I prefer to be home before sunset because riding at night introduces other safety issues.
Anecdotally I've never felt at risk of being t-boned when doing an Idaho stop, but it happens regularly when I do a complete stop (in part because it's unpredictable - drivers don't come to a complete stop at the line so they misbehave and don't know how to respond when they see a cyclist stop).
Beyond my anecdata, there's plenty of more rigorous studies showing the benefits of the Idaho stop.
Absolutely agree. As same as going when it's not your turn. But, first and foremost, you should not be going across a moving vehicle. Even another bike. Just falling off your bike can cause pretty serious trauma. Why do this?
>Plus you may be waiting literally hours for all the traffic to dissipate, and I prefer to be home before sunset because riding at night introduces other safety issues.
I don't know where in California you live that nobody stops at the stop signs, but I lived in LA and cars generally stop at those. You literally need to wait few seconds for the cars to to stop and proceed in most cities in the US.
>Anecdotally I've never felt at risk of being t-boned when doing an Idaho stop, but it happens regularly when I do a complete stop (in part because it's unpredictable - drivers don't come to a complete stop at the line so they misbehave and don't know how to respond when they see a cyclist stop).
I know that feeling. Like people riding against traffic feel safer because they see approaching cars yet regularly get t-boned by the cars not expecting anything coming at them against traffic.
>Beyond my anecdata, there's plenty of more rigorous studies showing the benefits of the Idaho stop
Like what? I tried to search again and found this [1] apparently Idaho is not even in top half of the states in cyclist safety.
When did you live in LA? Especially coming out of COVID lockdowns, what you're saying is not consistent with my daily experience. It's relatively uncommon for cars to actually stop (to the point that when Waymo initially rolled out in LA, people would get mad and honk at them for stopping!)
I tried to keep a count on my commute today. I think I saw 3 cars come to a complete stop (and in each case it was because someone was already in the intersection). On the flip side, dozens of cars blew through stop signs (and red lights!). It may get garbled by Youtube compression, but here's a pretty representative clip of 3 drivers running a stop sign back-to-back-to-back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z6fFnDzfv8
Inadequate dedicated infrastructure for cyclists leads to behavior like "Idaho stops" that look counterintuitive to drivers, but improves safety for cyclists at intersections.
There are tons of cycling specific laws that are separate or different from cars.
Fully stopping at a stop sign just isn't necessary for bicycles. And forcing bicycles to stop can create inefficient or even unsafe situations. It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. On top of that, cars lining up behind bicycles at a stop sign can get impatient and try to go around the cyclist (I've seen this happen); this actually is a safety issue.
(Now, I've seen cyclists blow through stop signs and traffic lights without even slowing down. I'm not saying that's ok.)
> In fact, since bikes are much less maneuverable and much more vulnerable, they need to obey all the rules that are there to protect the cars from other cars with more vigilance than cars.
I don't think this statement is obviously true. Cars and bicycles are very different types of vehicles, and there's no reason to believe that every car-related safety rule has the same safety-related effect when applied to a bicycle.
>It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign.
Having cyclist colliding with each other or other cars in the intersection will improve throughput? Do you ride a bike or drive at all? Stop signs are not just some Big Government ploy to annoy you. Stop signs allow two traffic streams to cross each other without collisions. Without stop sings and people stopping at them you would get cars colliding all the time.
Though it depends on the state and in my experience there are typically some differences, such as bikes are required to share the lane.
Rules of the road are generally designed in the same way — for cars. Nobody cares about carving out obvious exceptions for bikes, like the Idaho stop.
You’re also assuming equity of consequence. Someone not obeying the law on a bike is significantly different than not obeying the law when operating a multi-ton vehicle.
Finally, every single group of people breaks the law. There is no demographic of reasonable size that does not break the law. This argument is silly and pointless. What is your goal with pointing this out? Literally everyone breaks the law, this grandstanding is stupid.
Have you tried driving the speed limit recently? You know, the maximum speed you are legally allowed to drive? Do you always come to a full stop at every stop sign?
[1]: "The frequency illusion is a cognitive bias in which a person notices a specific concept, word, or product more frequently after recently becoming aware of it."
[2]: "The negativity bias, is a cognitive bias that human cognition is relatively more affected by a negative affect than an equally potent positive affect."
The expectations are that if you are driving for profit then you are held to a higher standard. Waymo wants to publicly excuse it's way out of this expectation for their own convenience. The way any common sociopath or selfish child would.
Slow down and stop breaking things.
I've had waymo drop me off in dangerous no-stopping zones with red painted curbs. I've had waymo pick wait for me to get in blocking apartment complex garage entrances. I've seen waymo pass 10 cars in the right lane waiting to turn right and then at the last moment make an illegal right turn left of the right turning cars.
I like the idea of Waymo but they need to fix their shit, no excuses.
Given that human drivers stop in bike lanes, Waymo then has a tradeoff:
1) Be the only ones to follow the letter of the law, break a lot of people's expectations, and catch backlash for disrupting traffic.
2) Follow the most common expectation, even if wrong, and incrementally add to the problem.
IMO, cyclists shouldn't lobby Waymo directly, but should lobby cities to actually enforce the rules on everyone. Then Waymo would fall in line naturally. And if they're inclined to take direct action against Waymo's they should also act against Uber and DoorDash drivers who are a far bigger problem by volume (and wait time for deliveries).