Cities that want to keep cars out of bike lanes should keep all cars out of them, autonomous or not, by ticketing them. But they don't, so taxis and delivery drivers stop in them. That's traffic enforcement's fault.<p>Given that human drivers stop in bike lanes, Waymo then has a tradeoff:<p>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.<p>2) Follow the most common expectation, even if wrong, and incrementally add to the problem.<p>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).
Cities who want to keep cars out of bike lanes should stop offering “mom says we have bike lanes at home” repainting of streets. Create a curb and raise the bike lanes. It’s the only safe solution. I understand this is not realistic in a lot of scenarios but it is basically the only way you can achieve actual safety short of cement separators at the road level, which is basically a curb anyway. There’s just no reality where a bicycle can share the road unimpeded with a motor vehicle safely. No, plastic bollards are not enough. It needs to be either raised or a barrier enough that a car sideswiping it won’t cause the barrier to fail
Or they could fine them. And increase fine for each repetition so rich can't just pay to be jerks.
I've seen people park in these curbed bike lanes too, completely blocking it off.
I’m pretty sure it went something like “so where are we allowed to pickup and drop off riders” and the city couldn’t answer. The problem isn’t really enforcement, the problem is that there are simply no alternatives, and the city shies away from enforcement because they know that. If they started enforcing the rules strictly, people would again ask questions that they aren’t prepared to answer.<p>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).
Yes, in sane countries the rules are attempted to be defined in a fair way, and you can follow them. Not perfectly of course, but with that goal.<p>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<p>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.<p>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.
It's because the bike lanes are great PR but bad for votes, at least in the short term. City leaders love the greenwashing effect, but in the short term the percentage of people actually biking everywhere is very low, so it doesn't make sense for them to spend a ton of time and money to do it right.<p>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.
Blocking the right car lane for a drop off is perfectly legal outside of No Stopping zones. This is how taxis have always worked.<p>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.
Per discussions elsewhere on the internet about this story, it appears that “the letter of the law” in London, where is article is about, is that all drivers are allowed to enter the bike lane to drop off passengers.<p>As much as I might disagree with that, it’s crazy to expect Waymo to obey a law that doesn’t even exist.
Hmm the problem is many cities don’t treat bike lanes for exclusive bike use. It’s “suggestive” at best. Though I don’t know enough about SF rules to weigh in on this specific issue.
But AI apologists told me that we should allow driverless cars because they are safer...
> 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<p>Yes, they should do that. The fact that others don't follow it is completely irrelevant.<p>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.<p>And if they can't, they should be dissolved and the directors prosecuted.<p>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.
Tickets are a discouragement. But physical barriers actually work.
>>Cities that want to keep cars out of bike lanes should keep all cars out of them, autonomous or not, by ticketing them. But they don't, so taxis and delivery drivers stop in them. That's traffic enforcement's fault.<p>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?
Many cities would stop functioning if everyone followed traffic laws — the whole system is built around drivers ignoring many rules. Businesses need deliveries to be unloaded and delivered. Customers need to get where they are going. And many cities do not actually leave space for loading and unloading.<p>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.
> 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.<p>Plenty of drives dont use bike lanes. So, no, this is false issue. Waymo can simply act like literal majority of the drivers.
Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilization and providing more ways to walk and cycle that feel and are safe.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
Taxis (and Uber etc) also take up space on the road when they only have their driver and no fare paying passenger on board, so I don't see that a Waymo is any worse than that.<p>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.<p>Anyway, I agree that walking, cycling, and public transit, are all IMHO preferable to any form of taxi.
Humans are flawed and need punishment to correct their behaviour. Waymos are autonomous and can have their behaviour corrected with a software update. These are not the same.
It can't be so uneven. The other drivers will react irrationally if only a few cars obey those rules. Try doing your own drop offs in the car lane, when there's a bike late there, with traffic behind you. They'll often react dangerously.
[flagged]
Maybe drivers should stop thinking they're the center of the universe and consider pedestrians and bicyclists around them. It's more dangerous to block a bike lane, with the more vulnerable user, than a car lane. Other drivers can wait.
It’s not dangerous to block a bike lane. The bikers can wait. They are fewer in number and inconveniencing them is less problematic. If they’re worried about being vulnerable, they are free to ride at low speeds on the sidewalk, or just not use a bicycle.
Share the road.<p>It works both ways.
It does not work both ways.<p>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.<p>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 won't comment on the pick up / drop off situation, but another important scenario is right turns. In California, drivers are <i>legally required</i> to merge into the bike lane when making a right turn. This is for the safety of the bicyclists, to avoid the dreaded "right hook" collision.<p>Dylan Taylor, a beloved Menlo-Atherton High School football coach, was killed last year in one of these collisions:<p><a href="https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2025/05/08/m-a-athletic-coach-killed-in-traffic-collision/" rel="nofollow">https://www.almanacnews.com/atherton/2025/05/08/m-a-athletic...</a><p>(Scroll down to the comment by "T R" which describes better than the article itself what likely happened.)<p>Unfortunately, I've almost never seen a driver follow this law. Everyone studiously avoids the bike lane and then cuts across it.<p>The bike lane marker changes from a solid white stripe to a dashed line as you approach an intersection. This is supposed to be a hint to merge into the bike lane. It isn't working.<p>I post a reminder on Nextdoor once or twice a year about this. I'm taking the opportunity to also post it here for my California neighbors.<p>It would be interesting to see if the Waymo Driver follows this law. My bet is that it does.<p>The San Francisco Bike Coalition has an excellent page on this topic:<p><a href="https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/" rel="nofollow">https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/</a>
In the nearest fairly large city, there's a (sometimes separated) bike lane, a bus lane, traffic lane, and turning lane which all intersect to various degrees. It's all clear as mud especially after dark when both bicycles and pedestrians are frequently darting into traffic from behind cars without lights. I'm just surprised there aren't <i>more</i> accidents.
I don’t live there, but for what it’s worth, this seems to be followed fairly consistently in the San Diego area whenever I’ve visited.
huh i didn't know about a specific bike lane law. but i do know the law that right turns must be taken as "close as practicable" to the right side of the roadway. plus there's the hint of the dashed line. Sneaking into the extra space to the right isn't a shortcut -- it's required by law, ie even without a bike lane.<p>in california, which is where the incident in TFA occurred.
As a cyclist and a driver it’s not immediately apparent which Waymo behavior I prefer for passenger dropoffs/pickups.<p>While it’s annoying in the moment to pedal around a parked car, I’m fine with it. However, having a Waymo dropping off clear of the bike lane sounds good, until the exiting passenger accidentally doors a cyclist who isn’t prepared for that possibility.<p>I suppose I’d rather suffer the inconvenience of going around a parked car than risk the devastation of being doored.
One thing we should be happy about: Waymo's next gen Zeekr cars have sliding doors, eliminating the traditional risk of dooring. Passengers might still jump out without paying attention, but my expectation is that they'll be more cautious than opening the door; cyclists will have more forewarning than an opening door; and even if they do get hit, it will be a less catastrophic accident if a collision does occur.
For a Waymo unloading passengers, it seems like stopping and waiting would be safest?
Going around a parked car is not merely an inconvenience, it introduces an extra risk of being hit from behind (obviously you should check over your shoulder before moving into the lane, but this is the imperfect real world, and even the act of checking over your shoulder is a small risk) or by a vehicle pulling out of a cross street which didn't see you through the stopped car.<p>However I agree that there isn't an obvious solution without making major improvements to infrastructure - right now where the bike lane is just paint <i>everyone</i> parks in it (Uber, taxis, delivery drivers, etc.).
It's also possible to use a feature that is present on the bikes, even if rarely or never used by urban cyclists: braking and waiting for the passenger to drop off, before continuing for your destination.<p>Something car drivers and pedestrians do, usually.
You can get doored on either side of the car, and when you are forced to pass, you have to enter the traffic lane, which pressures you to maintain speed.<p>Whereas in the bike lane, you can slow down a bit anticipating that a door may open.<p>Waymo does at least warn the occupants if there's a vehicle or bicycle approaching.
Even if you go around the parked car, you still risk getting doored on the other side.
Looks like busy times ahead for Cycling Mikey [0]!<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyclingMikey" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyclingMikey</a>
this is a pointer to <a href="https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2026/04/22/waymo-is-not-in-the-vision-zero-toolbox-data" rel="nofollow">https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2026/04/22/waymo-is-not-in-the-v...</a><p>In San Francisco, the vehicles often pull into bike lanes to pick up and drop off passengers — because that’s what they’re programmed to do, according to advocates who’ve asked the company for an explanation.<p>Waymo has told advocates that expecting it to respect bike lanes is “too high a bar” because customers expect to be dropped off in them, said Christopher White, executive director of the San Francisco Bike Coalition.<p>“People always point out that unlike human driven cars, the AVs stop at lights and obey the speed limit. However, they are really only as good and effective and safe as they are programmed to be,” White said. “Waymos pull over into bike lanes all the time for pickups and drop-offs and that’s neither legal nor safe but the companies say that is a normal practice and that’s what customers expect.”<p>Can't find a Waymo article about this, but Lyft and Uber (let alone trad taxis) also do this. I'm not sure that this is a particularly autonomous-car-shaped sin.
I think the main context of the article is that this is in London though, where the rule is that you don't do that, and Waymo somehow seem to think that it should be OK anyways:<p>> The Google-owned company, which officially launched its self-driving fleet in London earlier this month, has told cycling campaigners that it is “normal practice” for their taxis to veer into and block cycle lanes<p>> According to the Highway Code, motorists “must not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation” or block a bike lane marked by a broken white line “unless it is unavoidable”.<p>Better would be for Waymo to adapt themselves to the locale and instead program it to find safer pickup/dropoff points, rather than blocking and endangering bike traffic.
Yes but if you read the article closely, what it's saying is that Waymo, which launched in London earlier this month, told cycling campaigners <i>in San Francisco</i> that it is normal practice (and this is according to the campaigners, not a direct statement from Waymo). The article has a lot of useful information and context, but the headline framing is misleading IMO. The article at least does not suggest any data on whether this is actually happening in London. The closest it gets is "remains to be seen":<p>> <i>“Waymo claims they’re far safer in the US than traditional taxi services. But whether that is still the case on London’s infamously complex, congested and contested streets, remains to be seen.”</i>
"it's too hard" should never be an excuse to break the law
The difference is that Uber/Lyft use external contractors who are liable for their driving. Waymo is directly liable for the driving as they directly own and operate the cars and the driver.
> Can't find a Waymo article about this, but Lyft and Uber (let alone trad taxis) also do this. I'm not sure that this is a particularly autonomous-car-shaped sin.<p>Yeah I think it'd probably actually be easier to prevent Waymo from doing this. Once you change the programming, they all stop doing it.
What that means is that Waymo is intentionally choosing illegal behavior, at a corporate level. Uber/Lyft are merely turning a blind eye to the illegal behavior of their employees... er, "contractors".
> the vehicles often pull into bike lanes to pick up and drop off passengers<p>FWIW after ~150 Waymo rides I don't think I've had a car pick me up or drop me off <i>in</i> a bike lane. This must depend highly on exactly where you ride to/from.
> Can't find a Waymo article about this, but Lyft and Uber (let alone trad taxis) also do this. I'm not sure that this is a particularly autonomous-car-shaped sin.<p>It depends on expectations. If the pitch is (and, let's face it - it is) that automs will be less violent, then this is a problem. If we're OK with them just adopting the existing levels of misery and death visited upon our communities by cars, then the upside is far less than we've been sold.
I want to hear how you equate "misery and death" with "unloading a passenger in the bike lane for 30 seconds".<p>I can't tell if you intend this a real analogy or if you are overcome with rage when thinking about motor vehicles
Pulling into the bike lane for 30 seconds causes bikers to have to unsafely pull around the car, possibly causing accidents. In some cities and lanes you may be endangering dozens of bikers during the 30 seconds.<p>I had to commute by foot for two years into a city, and I have to say I understand the rage. Cars nearly killed me a dozen times and I was always more safe than the law required of me as a pedestrian. Most drivers don’t understand their power with today’s massive cars.
> Waymos pull over into bike lanes all the time for pickups and drop-offs and that’s neither legal nor safe.<p>While perhaps drop-offs are often relatively quick (though perhaps more risky; see the dooring accident description in the article), I'm also really annoyed by Waymos waiting and blocking for pick-ups, which can be multiple minutes.
I could give you dozens of examples of 30 seconds in a bike lane leading to cyclist life altering injuries and deaths.
Cars pulling into cycling lanes injure and kill cyclists. Simple as.
How do you know it’s “violent?” It might not technically be allowed but that doesn’t mean they’re doing it unsafely.<p>There’s quite a difference between violent and illegal and they shouldn’t be confused.
A) I see no evidence this is creating death or misery. Autonomous still seems safer.<p>B) even if in this one aspect they remain status quo, overall it would still be an improvement.
The source article describes an incident where a cyclist was seriously injured after Waymo's cyclist detection system failed while it was parked in a bike lane, allowing the passenger to hit her with the door. I don't think this represents some terrible sin where Waymo executives should all go to prison, but I do think we can reasonably expect and if necessary demand that Waymo take action to prevent similar incidents in the future.
If the cyclist was doored by an exiting passenger, would t that imply it should further block the bike lane to increase safety as it is not safe for a bike to pass while a passenger is exiting? If the car door opening is what injuries the cyclist it wasn't really in the bike line very far.
> Waymo's cyclist detection system failed<p>I did a quick search on this, but was nothing but PR articles about how they lower cyclist/pedestrian collisions. Are you suggesting the Waymo car sees oncoming cyclists and somehow prevents the rider from opening the door? This would be interesting in how it could be done. Does it indicate in any way that the door will not be able to be opened until the cyclist clears, or is the rider left wondering why the damn car won't let them out?
From my experience, a tiny alarm sounds, a voice says cyclist approaching and the door clicks to locked. At least I believe it did, I heard a sound. I didn't check the handle.<p>I don't believe the car was specifically in a bike lane at this time but I'm new to the city and may have missed the markings.
In general, Waymo keeps track of all nearby vehicles and pedestrians and shows them on the car's nav system. I've been in one before when it detected a cyclist coming from behind, and it gave clear warnings both audibly and visually, although I don't know whether it actually locked the door.
It sees oncoming cyclists but only warns the passengers inside via visual cue on the displays and an audible cue through the speakers. Apparently external cues to the cyclist are also given that a door may open (blinking lights?)?<p><a href="https://waymo.com/community/articles/advocacy-meets-innovation-the-league-of-american-bicyclists/" rel="nofollow">https://waymo.com/community/articles/advocacy-meets-innovati...</a>
>allowing the passenger to hit her with the door.<p>the bar is absurdly high if we're blaming the car manufacturer for mistakes human make after the car stops
Cars are violence now.<p>What next?
I can't wait to carry a set of orange cones on me at all times so that I can put any misbehaving autonomous cars in Road Jail. After all, expecting cyclists not to resort to vigilantism to keep themselves safe from billion-dollar companies is unrealistic.
Are you going to cone the Uber drivers too?
That, and wear a sweater with a stop sign on it.
I'm going to put an orange cone on the back seat of my bicycle.
We can keep autonomous cars out of bike lanes like we keep normal drivers, keep fining them for every incident. It’s not like they don’t keep the video evidence.
Are you proposing or saying this is how it already works? Because in my experience, it doesn’t work like this at all. The countries that have good bike infrastructure like the Netherlands seem to focus on actual physical separation. They do fines also, they just don’t rely on fines (and lawsuits) like Americans seem to.
Do they get 1 point per infraction and have license suspend after so many points?(like human rivers)? If so, it'd be rather quick for the full fleet suspension.
And base the fines on the companies valuation, otherwise it'll just be written off as an operating expense. Normal fines and penalty points work as deterrents for everyday people, not multi-billion dollar companies. I also would not count on the availability of video evidence - see Tesla's withholding of evidence from investigators and courts.<p><a href="https://electrek.co/2025/08/04/tesla-withheld-data-lied-misdirected-police-plaintiffs-avoid-blame-autopilot-crash/" rel="nofollow">https://electrek.co/2025/08/04/tesla-withheld-data-lied-misd...</a>
If I was struck by an autonomous vehicle while riding in the bike lane I would sue and sue like I was taking aim at a corporation rather than an individual driver. I -or my partner, assuming I died- would retire very early on that money.
>respect cycle lanes is “too high a bar”<p>Maybe just run over cyclists & pedestrians too while you're at it because it makes the code simpler?<p>Kinda had it with these shitty big tech companies that feel they don't need to respect local laws when they're not convenient.
At least here in SF the ideal thing would be that any vehicle dropping off in the bike lane gets fined or ticketed. This includes Waymo, Uber, cabs, personal cars, whatever. In practice it's very rare to get a ticket for this, which is why customers expect it from both Waymo and Uber.
I thought the point of driverless cars is that they are supposed to be better than humans.<p>This should be excepted fork that goal. If this is accepted, what would be the next thing to be deemed unrealistic?
I think Waymo expecting people to avoid flipping Waymo cars and burning them is unrealistic.
As a pedestrian, I fear cyclists the most. Please do block the bike lane while I am getting in and out so cyclists won't hit me. I have been almost killed by cyclists many more times than cars. My office building hires someone with a sign to stand in the crosswalk in front of the building where cyclists almost never respect the crosswalk.<p>Cyclists here regularly ignore red lights and also go the wrong way on streets and even in bike lanes.
This is the same Waymo that outright refuses to honor No Thru Traffic and No U-Turns signs in favor of “I was ticketed at coordinates xyz” reports. I assume eventually one’s going to get crushed by an oncoming train after willfully ignoring a No Turn On Red sign. Not only are they saying that unenforced laws are void, they’re also having people do ticketable things in order to collect enforcement data for others.<p>Weirdly, the U.S.-nationwide enemy behind the curtain here is AAA, the driver’s association that’s spent member fees for decades lobbying against automated ticketing systems that would force <i>everyone</i>, not just <i>Waymo</i>, to start honoring the traffic laws it avoids. How crass of Waymo to so brazenly exploit that, but certainly their argument lacks fault from a corporate non-person’s “you can’t hurt me in any way that matters” viewpoint.
Otherwise, you'd be doored during passenger drop-off.
We know how to keep cars out of bike lanes (curbs, barriers), and we already know that bike lanes co-located with on street parking is dangerous. We (well Americans) also don’t believe in creating pick up and drop off spots on our roads.
As a bicyclist I kinda agree with Waymo. Unless there is a strong separation (physical barrier) between the car lane and the bike lane, the rules of the road is that one always overtakes on the left; this implies that if a car is stopped, one has to overtake on the left. If the car is stopped within the bike lane, I can bike into the car lane and overtake. If the car is stopped in the car lane, well then I have to merge across two car lanes in order to overtake. I don’t stay in the bike lane because I could be doored, and my expectation is that the car could decide to drive into the bike lane to make room for overtaking traffic.<p>So the solution is either make it impossible for a car to drive into the bike lane through barriers, or just allow cars into the bike lanes anyways.
This article is about London, but it's a problem in SF too. The problem is that cities aren't made for ride sharing, robo or otherwise. If the cities actually wanted to make ride sharing less annoying they'd have designated drop off zones on streets and make an effort to build truly separate bike lanes. That requires actual work though, so very cities will proactively do this.
I wonder if cities would want to create even more short term pick up and drop off points on the road for USPS, UPS, FedEx, DoorDash, Uber, Lyft, Waymo and other similar short term parking needs, this would mean removing some long term street parking options and potentially conflict with some bike lanes in some areas.<p>Would cities be willing to give up on the parking fines revenue they are generating right now? How should cities be incentivized to change with the changing mobilities needs of the people living inside dense cities?
How do other countries solve this?<p>I have a fuzzy memory of lanes being shared in the UK. Overlapping bike, parking, bus stops, etc. Not claiming that's better, only that's what I recall.<p>I don't recall what Amsterdam does, but the bike lanes were mostly separated, so I imagine they have dedicated short-term parking. They also have a good light rail system in the city, so much less need for taxis.
The uk has both, so it depends.<p>There is going to be more of this though.<p>In London you really have to force your way out at junctions. This is not legal, but without it a waymon might never make progress.<p>I don’t see this being solved.<p>It relies on human eye contact to work.
Other countries have public transit that works, such that taxis are only needed in specific situations warranting an expensive private chauffeur, autonomous or meatbag.
does it matter? we already gave cars unnecessary leeway in designing cities; should we continue bowing to the least efficient mode of transport because a technology cant actually replace thw already extravagent allowances it is afforded?
This really makes me angry and more sympathetic towards the tyre extinguishers
This is ridiculous - passengers want to be dropped off in the zig zag lines either side of pedestrian crossing too, but that's illegal. Just because sneaky minicab drivers do it should not be justification for self driving cars - they need to be designed to obey the laws of the road.<p>I want Waymo to succeed but you don't do that by bending over to the passengers' whim!
To what extent is the data of these driverless vehicle companies available to external researchers?
Bicycles and automobiles should not share the same roads at all.
Not an entirely unreasonable goal.<p>But also not present reality.<p>Share the road.<p>It works both ways.
Yes the bikes belong on the sidewalk, restricted to walking speeds for safety.
bit of an absolutist argument in california. can't speak to the UK.<p>it's obviously safer (for cyclists) for taxis or even carpools to drop off and pick up at the far right, ie into the bike lane. i think we can generally consider it to be "parking" not "driving" and thus within the letter of the law as well. (parking is explicitly allowed.)<p>we know this very well, and that's why there are curb-separated lanes and they tried a center lane on van ness for awhile.<p>it just generally sucks to share bikes and cars and we have to live with compromises.
People need to understand that this is a corporate-friendly variation of, “there are no incentives for us to stop that outweigh the profits we make from the harm caused, and so we won’t.” A “fuck you and fuck off”, in other words.<p>Asking companies nicely to stop being dickbags is never going to work. You have to regulate them - directly via new and targeted laws, or indirectly via accountability for existing laws. If Waymo started getting tickets for obstructing bike lanes every time it happened, they’d stop immediately.<p>This is why I’m generally in favor of citizen reward schemes like NYC does for some violations. Give citizens a slice of the fine, and you’ll both reduce bad behavior and improve civic engagement, all without creating creepy mass surveillance systems like Flock.
What the actual fuck? Customers' expectations shouldn't matter at all if the things they expect is illegal.<p>And this is already a solved problem.<p>The city I live in (Bratislava, Slovakia) has some pedestrian-only zones in the "old town", and if you're in one of them, calling an Uber/Bolt forces you to pick a pickup spot where cars can go...<p>(arguably this still has issues with Uber/Bolt allowing you to choose bus stops as pickup spots, which is explicitly illegal - only buses can stop on bus stops, but it's still better than driving onto a road which does not allow cars in the first place).<p>EDIT: i mistakenly thought this was about driving on dedicated bike paths, idk why, but this is still a solved problem, the applications already allow to designate some roads as places which can't be picked as pickup/dropoff points...
Separated bike lanes. It is time.
Yeah screw them. Respect the rules of the road or GTFO.<p>And the AI peddlers are amazed why people seem to hate them. That right here is the answer.
Most of driving is being predictable to other drivers and pedestrians and cyclists. Waymos do that very well in their respective cities, and by programmed they mean the training set of drivers in that city<p>If waymos are dropping off in bike lanes, it’s because that’s the behavior in that city<p>It’s far better that the robots aren’t literal pedants. They act far smarter than a neurodivergent savant trying to do everything literally legal because being unadaptable is not intelligence
[dead]
Eh. Just start removing bike lanes. They're destroying businesses and making life worse for everyone.<p>And yes, I have numbers. In Seattle, the business receipts from areas with bike lanes declined faster than receipts from areas nearby that do NOT have bike lanes.<p>Correlation shmorellation.... I bet you were going to cite studies that were showing how bike lanes improved the business and how proprietors were surprised at the percentage of customers on bikes, right?
Yep, I have friends who ran small businesses who sold in cities (Seattle, Portland, SF) specifically because of how bike lanes destroyed their business.<p>People who are busy need to get around quickly and aren’t going to tolerate biking around. And it’s especially impractical with kids - not that this stops bike activists from trying to gaslight everyone into saying it’s totally possible and exactly the same effort. The bikes lanes almost always either displace traffic lanes or parking, so driving gets worse. And customers realize they have better things to do and alternative choices on where they spend money.<p>The bike lanes themselves are of course, often very poorly utilized. So traffic gets worse, businesses suffer, and it’s all for nothing. Now all these cities have left is intentionally crippling driving with low speed limits, speed bumps, and other hostile designs. It’s a way to try and claim that driving is no faster, even though it is trivial to keep driving fast and efficient.
So the real statement is "Following the law is unrealistic".<p>Well if waymo was in my city, I will make sure I ride my bike in the middle of the lane in front of a waymo vehicle. Doing that is legal were I am.
Sharing a lane with a car is a recipe for disaster.<p>If there isn’t space to overtake, take the middle of the lane or get off the road. It’s 30,0000km since I was last hit by a car, it’s working for me.<p>People who can’t judge the width of their own vehicle are common, and they commonly buy huge vehicle.<p>Also, buy a bike radar like a Garmin Varia or similar. They vastly improve your awareness in traffic.
As a cyclist, I'm sure you're tolerant and polite to people walking in the middle of the multi-use paths, right? /s<p>For a long time I thought cyclists were hypocrites because they play the victim when they're on roads while being complete jerks on walking paths. But really, it's not hypocrisy - it's self-entitlement in both cases. It's honestly very consistent behavior.
Expecting bike riders to follow traffic laws is also unrealistic. This is why they often have a massively higher rate of fatalities, including in localities with good bike infrastructure.
> Expecting bike riders to follow traffic laws is also unrealistic.<p>Can you cite the research to back up your claim? Because I have the research claiming the opposite the cyclists are more compliant with traffic rules than cars [0]. Including in US [1]<p>[0] <a href="https://www.bicycling.com/news/a46443761/science-proves-motorists-break-traffic-laws-a-lot-more-often-than-cyclists/" rel="nofollow">https://www.bicycling.com/news/a46443761/science-proves-moto...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers/" rel="nofollow">https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/cycli...</a>
> This is why they often have a massively higher rate of fatalities<p>It wouldn't perhaps be because they're (a) forced to share a space with cars and (b) cars have crumple zones, unlike cyclists?
> Expecting bike riders to follow traffic laws is also unrealistic. This is why they often have a massively higher rate of fatalities,<p>This is an unconscionable degree of victim-blaming. Psychotic-level.
Victims are not the ones running red lights, cutting across pedestrian sidewalks/pavements at 20+ mph, going down one-way-streets the wrong way, screaming at pedestrians to get out the way so they don't have to slow down when pedestrians are crossing on a green man etc etc etc.<p>At least in London the cyclists are absolutely lawless. Yes a lot are injured and some sadly die, but many many many <i>totally</i> ignore the rules (assuming they've even bothered to find out what the rules actually are).<p>It's only got worse with ebike hire (Lime at al) as people will hop on after drinking, or have never even got a driving license etc so have no actual idea on the rules that car drivers have to prove etc before they're let behind the wheel at all. And when they're done with their lime bike they literally just dump them wherever they're done with it, blocking sidewalks/pavements for everyone.<p>This antisocial cycling social-ill is very much at a "scourge" stage in London and is getting a lot of press.
Apart from the obvious whataboutism:<p>> [...] they often have a massively higher rate of fatalities<p>Higher than what?
Periodic reminder to the Americans..<p>Self driving cars are only safer than regular cars in the US because your standards of driving are so bad.<p>It’s very unlikely to be the case in the UK.
I live in the U.S.<p>road.cc seems to be a cycling news site primarily for U.K.<p>When I am driving a car or use a rideshare I expect to share the bike lane when turning or getting off.<p>I wish the title had included these additional words "In some situations..."
Bike lanes exist to protect cyclists from drivers and to limit how cyclists affect the flow of traffic. Cars stopping in the bike lane shit all over that, just like they would if they parked on the sidewalk.<p>I wish drivers (and now leaders of a company) would have more empathy toward people on the road that can be squashed like a bug.
I live in the US and bike lanes are not shared lanes for turning or stopping where I live.
If you're making a right-hand turn in the US as a driver and there's a protected bike lane you're crossing through that lane to turn. And, when I sit outside in the summer at one of my usual restaurants with sidewalk seating, there are any number of horrifying combinations of bicycles, ebikes, escooters, and things that look like electric motorcycles routinely blowing through the red light at the adjacent intersection--cause they're in a bike lane I guess.
They are where I live