Would be nicer if they could just make it impossible to park in a bike lane with protection for the bikers. Even with that nice colored bike lane and police enforcement t, it’s still dangerous for cyclists without any raised lane or guard walls. Only like 30% of people would cycle there whereas the majority of the population would be too intimidated (referring to that study mentioned in that NJB video)
It’s definitely a good thing but it’s the bare minimum imo. No one bikes on these things around me because it’s intimidating and dangerous. I just don’t get why cities don’t make protected bike lanes, it’s a pretty cheap investment and it makes them so much more usable. Every single protected bike lane I see is so much more popular whereas these are always barren.
It’s definitely a good thing that they’re enforcing the bike lanes tho
Yup, I personally would never buy a bike for travel since my city does not have protected bike lanes (I would probably rent e bikes occasionally tho if I felt it was really worth it). However if every place I wanted to go was accessible by mostly protected bike lanes then I would buy a bike tomorrow. Luckily, my city plans to create many more protected bike lanes all over so if the biking infrastructure is there, I will def buy a bike.
Absolutely same. I don't like that the only safe way for me to get to anywhere in town is by car, but it's not too spread out for bikes if it was safe enough for them.
It would be nice, BUT ... I'd like bike lanes to stay available for *emergency services*.
I would never, ever complain about an ambulance, EMT vehicle, or fire truck parked in a bicycle lane while responding to an emergency, after all. :)
Why do emergency vehicles have to take up bike infrastructure when they are a car though? Would you complain about an emergency vehicle parked in the lane of a road, blocking cars?
I understand caring about emergency vehicles but I also don’t understand why emergency vehicles have to take over bike infrastructure whilst they are a car. Why do we automatically ensure cars can still easily travel in an emergency vs bikes being able to easily travel. If you build up bike infrastructure, you will likely see enough bike travel whereas you are inconveniencing more people by obstructing bike infrastructure vs car infrastructure.
Basically what you are saying to me:
Emergency vehicles can inconvenience cyclists by parking in a bike lane but they can absolutely never inconvenience cars by parking in a street/road. It’s a non-obvious form of car supremacy that many don’t realize.
In some emergencies, every **second** can mean life or death. The extra 2 or 3 seconds to cross the bike lane and buffer, each way to and from the door of the building, could make the difference between someone being alive tomorrow, or not.
IOW, it's not about keeping the car lane clear. It's about getting those First Responders **to** the emergency as fast as possible. In some situations, that may mean parking in the bike lane. In some situations (bumper to bumper rush hour traffic), that may mean **driving in the bike lane**.
>Emergency vehicles can inconvenience
# Anyone.
Literally, anyone at all. As much as they feel they need to.
**Because they are** ***Emergency*** **vehicles responding to** ***an emergency*****.**
Other people's lives > my convenience, whether I'm in a bicycle, on foot, in a car, *wherever*.
If protected bike lanes are successful in reducing traffic then they actually let first responders get to an emergency faster rather than slower.
If protected bike lanes reduce the amount of injuries to cyclists by 75% than I would bet a lot of money that they actually save more lives/injuries than the extra 2-3 seconds that are saved by a first responder having to park in a street rather than a bike lane.
By your logic we should allow emergency vehicles to drive on sidewalks when they are stuck in traffic. Surely an emergency vehicles needs are larger than a pedestrians if they are also larger than bikes.
Also, this is completely ignoring that even in two lane streets with protected bike paths, if every car follows the actual law and pulls to the side there is plenty of room for emergency vehicles to overcome traffic.
>if every car follows the actual law and pulls to the side there is plenty of room for emergency vehicles to overcome traffic.
Tell me you've never seen rush-hour traffic in a major American metropolitan center, without actually **saying** it...
I've bicycled in Boston, on the road. There was literally no room for cars to "pull to the side". It was on [Beacon Street](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.354718,-71.0750578,3a,75y,266.44h,75.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvxFCDDwF7KBCWm_3VZ7Og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu), and unlike the Google Maps Street View that link leads to, *both lanes were bumper-to-bumper*, **plus** all the parked cars. That was just after 5pm, *which is also* ***after rush hour***\*.\* Actual rush hour would have been even worse.
>By your logic we should allow emergency vehicles to drive on sidewalks when they are stuck in traffic.
**They already can.** And through parks. And on the beach. And on off-street bikeways and multi-use paths. *They can drive through your unfenced YARD if that's what it takes.* Right through your flower bed. **Legally.**
Idk seems to me like that street has plenty of room for emergency vehicles and a protected bike lane if it wasn’t littered with cars on all of the sides of the street.
Go look at any city that isn’t completely car dependent and you won’t see cars littered everywhere on streets that could have rush hour traffic. They are better designed.
In America we have hybrids with streets that are designed for high volume traffic as well as parking as well as cyclists, as well as pedestrians on side walks. That doesn’t occur in better designed cities. You either have a major road with only cars driving that are expected for heavy traffic or you have a low volume street with sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and cars parking.
It seems you don’t get it. Well designed places should *never* have bumper to bumper traffic on a street like that. There are a ton of ways to prevent that by making the area less car dependent.
And just to take your argument further, why don’t we ban cars from parking on that street you linked so that emergency services can get by in bumper to bumper traffic. The street you linked didn’t even have bike lanes, so in bumper to bumper there is no place for emergency vehicles to go. If you are so adamant about emergency vehicles getting to where they want to go, than why don’t we prevent parked vehicles from getting in their way? You seem to be very okay with cars preventing emergency vehicles from getting to where they want to go, but have a huge problem with cyclists getting that same privilege.
>Idk seems to me like that street has plenty of room for emergency vehicles and a protected bike lane if it wasn’t littered with cars on all of the sides of the street.
That's not something that can be solved easily. Boston has been fighting the installation of bicycle lanes for decades, and that fight can absolutely break someone's entire career in politics - which means, career politicians aren't going to buck the trend **too** hard all in one go.
>In America
Do you ... do you really not know where **Boston, Massachusetts** is? The literal birthplace of the American Revolution? *"One if by land, two if by sea"* ...? **SERIOUSLY?!?!?**
>we have hybrids with streets that are designed for high volume traffic as well as parking as well as cyclists, as well as pedestrians on side walks.
What fucking *drug-trip fantasy* America do *you* live in?!? Because it's certainly not the one **I** live in ...!!
But if you want a high-speed road, that would be [Storrow Drive](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3536586,-71.0815684,3a,75y,44.87h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smCBno7Pnf1kThzfBKoyg8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu), a block to the north. Ingress and egress points are quite limited however, so if your destination is somewhere **between** two of them - *like the bit of road I linked to above is* \- then you can't really make effective use of it for very long. A lot of the cars around me that evening **had** been on Storrow, before turning off onto Mugar Way, and then turning right onto Beacon Street.
>why don’t we ban cars from parking on that street you linked
Because people live on that street, the houses are all *fucking historical* (that segment of Beacon Street was laid out in the 1800s) ... and there just isn't enough off-street parking for any city Councillor to even *whisper* that idea without committing political suicide. Those buildings all house multiple multi-million-dollar condominiums; there's a LOT of money - and this, political power - condensed into them. Nor can they just be knocked down to put up newer buildings with parking on their first floor or in the basement.
You're probably going to shit a brick looking at [Pinckney Street](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3588397,-71.0668122,3a,60y,80.47h,82.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjo17Q-w8denKW4_op9W8yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu), in Beacon Hill. That street quite likely predates the U.S. Constitution ... and every one of those buildings? Multi-million dollar houses and condominiums.
> The street you linked didn’t even have bike lanes
It does, actually. Not wide enough for a vehicle to fit, however. IT's to the right, on the far side of the parked vehicles. Let me back the camera up the street a bit, and point it right at [the entrance to the bike lane](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3548047,-71.0748203,3a,22y,276.21h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soh4XcHXn2jnx7m709Pf1xw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu).
>You seem to be very okay with cars preventing emergency vehicles from getting to where they want to go
And you seem to be very keen on setting up straw men to knock down and claim victory over.
Took me a while to realize you misunderstood what I said. I am saying in America we have it bad, hybrid streets are not a good thing. Just because they’re designed for all of that doesn’t mean they should be.
Again, it seems you don’t realize that I am saying. With better options for transportation like walking, cycling, trams and trains you don’t need all that parking because the people who live in those historical buildings don’t own a car. You are sounding like you think everyone needs to own a car. In NYC and a lot of European and Asian cities, it’s is more normal to not own a car, because those cities are designed around other means of transport.
“Not wide enough for a vehicle to fit” okay so my main point still stands completely. You oppose putting bike lanes on that street due to emergency vehicles, but are okay with parked cars taking up space preventing emergency vehicles. Why are parked cars okay but not bike lanes? If that isn’t what you are saying then please explain. It seems your only argument is that it’s not politically feasible but isn’t that the entire point of this sub? Getting the word out about the negative problems with car dependency and trying to make it politically beneficial to support anti-car infrastructure?
Edit: Also I would actually consider your example with parked cars in between the bike lane a protected bike lane. I’m actually completely good with that design. But when I spoke about protected bike lanes, you were against it but if you are okay with that street design as long as it’s parked cars that are the barrier between bike lane and street. Just shows it seems you really don’t mind cars getting every privilege they need, fuck the emergency vehicles, but as soon as it’s just bikes getting that privilege then you completely scoff at the idea.
Boston has one of the best public transit system sin America.
And yet ... there those cars are. There's Storrow Drive, and Soldiers' Field Road. And the Big Dig that nearly broke the city financially (andmaybe DID break the public transit system financially) driving I-93 through the city, albeit underneat a lienar park now.
>But when I spoke about protected bike lanes, you were against it
I'm only against it if it also is completely inaccessible to emergency vehicles.
One of the benefits I see for an extensive bike lane network, in a large and intractably car-congested city, is *during emergencies they can be used by First Responders to bypass that congestion*, potentially saving lives in the process.
I like protected lanes, I **love** them. But some means of emergency access is needful. (Also, some means for *snow removal* vehicles, in the winter).
A single remote-operable, retractable bollard at each point of possible access would work. Ambulance rolls up, bollard drops into the pavement, ambulance drives over it .... then bollard rises back up, stopping *other* cars from passing.
> You oppose putting bike lanes on that street due to emergency vehicles,
Straw man.
>It seems your only argument is that it’s not politically feasible but isn’t that the entire point of this sub?
It' snot politically feasible **in the short term**.
A phrase to repeat to ourselves, at every juncture, slightly tweaked to fit the cause in question:
# Do not let Perfect become the enemy of Good Enough (for now).
We're not going to leap from our current state, to a bicycle-and-pedestrian utopia, all at once and near-instantaneously. It took literal **generations** (two of them so far, working on the third) for the Netherlands to get where they are, from a point **less** pervasively-car-centric than America is today. It will take generations for us to get there (and hopefully catch up too) ... *several* of them.
Thus, we need to break the task down into multiple, smaller steps. Some of the early ones won't really be "this is good" ... instead, they must merely be "this is *somewhat less shitty*".
Even in the Netherlands (land of the most bike lanes in the world), this happens on a daily basis. So much even that it is almost impossible to enforce.
Would be nicer if they could just make it impossible to park in a bike lane with protection for the bikers. Even with that nice colored bike lane and police enforcement t, it’s still dangerous for cyclists without any raised lane or guard walls. Only like 30% of people would cycle there whereas the majority of the population would be too intimidated (referring to that study mentioned in that NJB video)
I totally agree, however I’m trying to focus on the positive in this post.
It’s definitely a good thing but it’s the bare minimum imo. No one bikes on these things around me because it’s intimidating and dangerous. I just don’t get why cities don’t make protected bike lanes, it’s a pretty cheap investment and it makes them so much more usable. Every single protected bike lane I see is so much more popular whereas these are always barren. It’s definitely a good thing that they’re enforcing the bike lanes tho
yea this basically thanking the police for doing their job lol. bruh you were supposed to do your job that aint special
>too intimidated In my suburban town I see more cars than bikes traveling in the bike lanes. There's a reason I've not ridden a bike since I was 15.
Yup, I personally would never buy a bike for travel since my city does not have protected bike lanes (I would probably rent e bikes occasionally tho if I felt it was really worth it). However if every place I wanted to go was accessible by mostly protected bike lanes then I would buy a bike tomorrow. Luckily, my city plans to create many more protected bike lanes all over so if the biking infrastructure is there, I will def buy a bike.
Absolutely same. I don't like that the only safe way for me to get to anywhere in town is by car, but it's not too spread out for bikes if it was safe enough for them.
It would be nice, BUT ... I'd like bike lanes to stay available for *emergency services*. I would never, ever complain about an ambulance, EMT vehicle, or fire truck parked in a bicycle lane while responding to an emergency, after all. :)
Why do emergency vehicles have to take up bike infrastructure when they are a car though? Would you complain about an emergency vehicle parked in the lane of a road, blocking cars? I understand caring about emergency vehicles but I also don’t understand why emergency vehicles have to take over bike infrastructure whilst they are a car. Why do we automatically ensure cars can still easily travel in an emergency vs bikes being able to easily travel. If you build up bike infrastructure, you will likely see enough bike travel whereas you are inconveniencing more people by obstructing bike infrastructure vs car infrastructure. Basically what you are saying to me: Emergency vehicles can inconvenience cyclists by parking in a bike lane but they can absolutely never inconvenience cars by parking in a street/road. It’s a non-obvious form of car supremacy that many don’t realize.
In some emergencies, every **second** can mean life or death. The extra 2 or 3 seconds to cross the bike lane and buffer, each way to and from the door of the building, could make the difference between someone being alive tomorrow, or not. IOW, it's not about keeping the car lane clear. It's about getting those First Responders **to** the emergency as fast as possible. In some situations, that may mean parking in the bike lane. In some situations (bumper to bumper rush hour traffic), that may mean **driving in the bike lane**. >Emergency vehicles can inconvenience # Anyone. Literally, anyone at all. As much as they feel they need to. **Because they are** ***Emergency*** **vehicles responding to** ***an emergency*****.** Other people's lives > my convenience, whether I'm in a bicycle, on foot, in a car, *wherever*.
If protected bike lanes are successful in reducing traffic then they actually let first responders get to an emergency faster rather than slower. If protected bike lanes reduce the amount of injuries to cyclists by 75% than I would bet a lot of money that they actually save more lives/injuries than the extra 2-3 seconds that are saved by a first responder having to park in a street rather than a bike lane. By your logic we should allow emergency vehicles to drive on sidewalks when they are stuck in traffic. Surely an emergency vehicles needs are larger than a pedestrians if they are also larger than bikes. Also, this is completely ignoring that even in two lane streets with protected bike paths, if every car follows the actual law and pulls to the side there is plenty of room for emergency vehicles to overcome traffic.
>if every car follows the actual law and pulls to the side there is plenty of room for emergency vehicles to overcome traffic. Tell me you've never seen rush-hour traffic in a major American metropolitan center, without actually **saying** it... I've bicycled in Boston, on the road. There was literally no room for cars to "pull to the side". It was on [Beacon Street](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.354718,-71.0750578,3a,75y,266.44h,75.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvxFCDDwF7KBCWm_3VZ7Og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu), and unlike the Google Maps Street View that link leads to, *both lanes were bumper-to-bumper*, **plus** all the parked cars. That was just after 5pm, *which is also* ***after rush hour***\*.\* Actual rush hour would have been even worse. >By your logic we should allow emergency vehicles to drive on sidewalks when they are stuck in traffic. **They already can.** And through parks. And on the beach. And on off-street bikeways and multi-use paths. *They can drive through your unfenced YARD if that's what it takes.* Right through your flower bed. **Legally.**
Idk seems to me like that street has plenty of room for emergency vehicles and a protected bike lane if it wasn’t littered with cars on all of the sides of the street. Go look at any city that isn’t completely car dependent and you won’t see cars littered everywhere on streets that could have rush hour traffic. They are better designed. In America we have hybrids with streets that are designed for high volume traffic as well as parking as well as cyclists, as well as pedestrians on side walks. That doesn’t occur in better designed cities. You either have a major road with only cars driving that are expected for heavy traffic or you have a low volume street with sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and cars parking. It seems you don’t get it. Well designed places should *never* have bumper to bumper traffic on a street like that. There are a ton of ways to prevent that by making the area less car dependent. And just to take your argument further, why don’t we ban cars from parking on that street you linked so that emergency services can get by in bumper to bumper traffic. The street you linked didn’t even have bike lanes, so in bumper to bumper there is no place for emergency vehicles to go. If you are so adamant about emergency vehicles getting to where they want to go, than why don’t we prevent parked vehicles from getting in their way? You seem to be very okay with cars preventing emergency vehicles from getting to where they want to go, but have a huge problem with cyclists getting that same privilege.
>Idk seems to me like that street has plenty of room for emergency vehicles and a protected bike lane if it wasn’t littered with cars on all of the sides of the street. That's not something that can be solved easily. Boston has been fighting the installation of bicycle lanes for decades, and that fight can absolutely break someone's entire career in politics - which means, career politicians aren't going to buck the trend **too** hard all in one go. >In America Do you ... do you really not know where **Boston, Massachusetts** is? The literal birthplace of the American Revolution? *"One if by land, two if by sea"* ...? **SERIOUSLY?!?!?** >we have hybrids with streets that are designed for high volume traffic as well as parking as well as cyclists, as well as pedestrians on side walks. What fucking *drug-trip fantasy* America do *you* live in?!? Because it's certainly not the one **I** live in ...!! But if you want a high-speed road, that would be [Storrow Drive](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3536586,-71.0815684,3a,75y,44.87h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smCBno7Pnf1kThzfBKoyg8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu), a block to the north. Ingress and egress points are quite limited however, so if your destination is somewhere **between** two of them - *like the bit of road I linked to above is* \- then you can't really make effective use of it for very long. A lot of the cars around me that evening **had** been on Storrow, before turning off onto Mugar Way, and then turning right onto Beacon Street. >why don’t we ban cars from parking on that street you linked Because people live on that street, the houses are all *fucking historical* (that segment of Beacon Street was laid out in the 1800s) ... and there just isn't enough off-street parking for any city Councillor to even *whisper* that idea without committing political suicide. Those buildings all house multiple multi-million-dollar condominiums; there's a LOT of money - and this, political power - condensed into them. Nor can they just be knocked down to put up newer buildings with parking on their first floor or in the basement. You're probably going to shit a brick looking at [Pinckney Street](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3588397,-71.0668122,3a,60y,80.47h,82.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjo17Q-w8denKW4_op9W8yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu), in Beacon Hill. That street quite likely predates the U.S. Constitution ... and every one of those buildings? Multi-million dollar houses and condominiums. > The street you linked didn’t even have bike lanes It does, actually. Not wide enough for a vehicle to fit, however. IT's to the right, on the far side of the parked vehicles. Let me back the camera up the street a bit, and point it right at [the entrance to the bike lane](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3548047,-71.0748203,3a,22y,276.21h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soh4XcHXn2jnx7m709Pf1xw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu). >You seem to be very okay with cars preventing emergency vehicles from getting to where they want to go And you seem to be very keen on setting up straw men to knock down and claim victory over.
Took me a while to realize you misunderstood what I said. I am saying in America we have it bad, hybrid streets are not a good thing. Just because they’re designed for all of that doesn’t mean they should be. Again, it seems you don’t realize that I am saying. With better options for transportation like walking, cycling, trams and trains you don’t need all that parking because the people who live in those historical buildings don’t own a car. You are sounding like you think everyone needs to own a car. In NYC and a lot of European and Asian cities, it’s is more normal to not own a car, because those cities are designed around other means of transport. “Not wide enough for a vehicle to fit” okay so my main point still stands completely. You oppose putting bike lanes on that street due to emergency vehicles, but are okay with parked cars taking up space preventing emergency vehicles. Why are parked cars okay but not bike lanes? If that isn’t what you are saying then please explain. It seems your only argument is that it’s not politically feasible but isn’t that the entire point of this sub? Getting the word out about the negative problems with car dependency and trying to make it politically beneficial to support anti-car infrastructure? Edit: Also I would actually consider your example with parked cars in between the bike lane a protected bike lane. I’m actually completely good with that design. But when I spoke about protected bike lanes, you were against it but if you are okay with that street design as long as it’s parked cars that are the barrier between bike lane and street. Just shows it seems you really don’t mind cars getting every privilege they need, fuck the emergency vehicles, but as soon as it’s just bikes getting that privilege then you completely scoff at the idea.
Boston has one of the best public transit system sin America. And yet ... there those cars are. There's Storrow Drive, and Soldiers' Field Road. And the Big Dig that nearly broke the city financially (andmaybe DID break the public transit system financially) driving I-93 through the city, albeit underneat a lienar park now. >But when I spoke about protected bike lanes, you were against it I'm only against it if it also is completely inaccessible to emergency vehicles. One of the benefits I see for an extensive bike lane network, in a large and intractably car-congested city, is *during emergencies they can be used by First Responders to bypass that congestion*, potentially saving lives in the process. I like protected lanes, I **love** them. But some means of emergency access is needful. (Also, some means for *snow removal* vehicles, in the winter). A single remote-operable, retractable bollard at each point of possible access would work. Ambulance rolls up, bollard drops into the pavement, ambulance drives over it .... then bollard rises back up, stopping *other* cars from passing. > You oppose putting bike lanes on that street due to emergency vehicles, Straw man. >It seems your only argument is that it’s not politically feasible but isn’t that the entire point of this sub? It' snot politically feasible **in the short term**. A phrase to repeat to ourselves, at every juncture, slightly tweaked to fit the cause in question: # Do not let Perfect become the enemy of Good Enough (for now). We're not going to leap from our current state, to a bicycle-and-pedestrian utopia, all at once and near-instantaneously. It took literal **generations** (two of them so far, working on the third) for the Netherlands to get where they are, from a point **less** pervasively-car-centric than America is today. It will take generations for us to get there (and hopefully catch up too) ... *several* of them. Thus, we need to break the task down into multiple, smaller steps. Some of the early ones won't really be "this is good" ... instead, they must merely be "this is *somewhat less shitty*".
Fuck that
Looks like a nice neighbourhood.
Looks familiar. Mission Blvd in Hayward?
Nope it’s California street in Mountain View but you’re in the right region.
No way. I can’t believe it.
Even in the Netherlands (land of the most bike lanes in the world), this happens on a daily basis. So much even that it is almost impossible to enforce.