SF resident here.
I've had quite a few close calls, and the same holds true for many of my friends who bike.
These typically happened on these "shared bike lanes" - it's where the city takes the right-most car lane, draws a bike sign on it, and tell cars and bicyclists to "get along" (since cars are still allowed full use of it).
This, of course, doesn't work.
Cars are much faster than bikes, and asking these two vastly different transportation methods to share a lane is nuts.
Should the cars just drive 6mph? Should they go around, try to merge and hope they don't misgauge the distance?
The problem here is that the city didn't put any real thought into the bikes lanes, and the result is a terrible and incredibly dangerous system.
Personally, I've given up on bike lanes in many areas of the city. It's simply not safe.
" … try to merge and hope they don't misgauge the distance?"
This isn't a rant at you eiopa, but FFS! Would anybody accept a driver merging into another car (or a bus or a semitrailer or a pedestrian) with some poor attempt at evading responsibility by saying "Sorry, I 'misgauged the distance'"? Is it somehow "acceptable" to "misgauged the distance and merge into a bicycle"? Or is that, as I see it, a completely negligent action for which losing the privilege of having a driving license a completely appropriate response?
I don't think this site is "the right answer" (as admitted by the owner/developer in a seperate comment), but "the right answer" involved holding people responsible for what they do in their cars - which is going to be an outrageously difficult political sell, unless _someone_ does the job of collecting the data to show a) that this is happening, b) that it happens a lot, and if it's true c) that a small but identifiable number of car drivers are responsible for a significant number of incidents.
As a friend of mine keeps saying (mostly in regards to motorcycle and mpotorcycle/car "accidents"):
There's no such thing as an accident. There are only fuckups. Crashing because you got hit by a meteorite - that'd be an accident, everything that actually happens in the real world is a fuckup. Calling things "accidents" is purely a way of shirking responsibility on someone's part.
It doesnt matter. Cars always think they can push the bike away on the right side of the street if they arent fast enough to return. Happens all the time. And indeed the bike will move (or.crash/die so the bike always moves)
I'm astonished at how ignorant otherwise intelligent bicyclists often are of the rule common in most US states that they can and should take the traffic lane (and should take the center of the lane to block cars from edging around to their left) when they are stopped at a red light where there is a shared right turn/bike lane.
I often see bikers who have helmets, lights, visibility vests, etc., all signs of being clear thinking riders, parking themselves squat in the middle of the shared turn lane at a red, when they should be in the main stream of traffic for the duration of the wait (in fact the recommendation is to ride with traffic if your speed matches it, absent bike lanes).
When the light turns green, cars are stationary, and bikes accelerate plenty fast in the first few seconds. One or two turns of the pedal gets you over back into the right side, and onward into the continuing bike lane as you cross the street. This can happen in a couple of seconds without significantly slowing down any cars (unless it's a Tesla P85D, maybe).
Joining the main stream of traffic in front of a car at a red light (assuming you beat that car to the red) may miff some ignorant drivers (ignorance all around, right?) but they'll be pleasantly surprised that you are out of their way in no time when the light turns green. Obviously this doesn't apply if you're a super slow rider... in which case, people just need to be patient for a few seconds. The point is, if you are blocking a shared right turn lane, you are doing it wrong.
I had to educate my wife on this one while we were living in the UK. If you are going the speed of the traffic, use the lane just like any other vehicle. Doing anything else is dangerous. A good example is when turning right (in the UK, left in most of the world). Get into the proper position before your turn so that you don't have to cut over a whole line of traffic in order to turn.
We've returned to Japan now, but unfortunately the laws here are different. You must be in the left side of the lane and they even encourage you to ride on the sidewalk :-P. If you want to turn right, you have to wait at the left side of the road until there is a break in traffic and then cut across all the lanes of traffic. I wish someone would update the laws here...
On the other hand, scooters are have a speed limit of 30 km/h where as push bikes have no speed limit :-) I'm a bit afraid of the day that the powers that be realize that cyclists often go faster than 30...
This varies a lot by country even in Europe. In Denmark it is not legal for a cyclist to enter the car lanes to make a left turn (unless it's a road with no bike lanes at all). The standard left-turn method is to stay in the bike lane on the right, continue straight across the intersection, then stop on the other side, turn your bike 90º to the left, and line up to go straight across in the other direction when the light changes. This is sometimes called a "Copenhagen left" or a "box turn" [1]. It feels a lot safer to me than having to merge across car lanes to make a turn.
Maybe safer but also a way to tell cyclists to be very patient and don't think of going anywhere quickly. Cycling on sidewalks is only a little worse than that.
I prefer doing like cars, waiting in the middle of the road. There are usually cars waiting there too and they act as a sort of shield. Obviously on large roads it can be difficult to make it to the center of the road and in that case I do a Copenaghen left myself.
In Belgium, you are allowed to do this. When I moved to Copenhagen I was seriously annoyed for the reasons you mentioned when I realized I had to first cross, wait and only then go on with my ride. However, I started realizing that the Copenhagen way actually works very well, and it is a LOT safer, and so much more relaxed (not slower). Merging into traffic and crossing the street to get to the lane to turn left can be a stressful affair. I used to bike in Brussels and I can assure you that is a jungle over there: you have to be reckless as a biker (and so I was) if you want to get anywhere at all. On the upside: a fast morning ride through Brussels from home to work was one big adrenaline shot. Once behind my desk, I was awake, sharp and ready to start working :-)
Additionally, cars going for a left turn usually have a separate traffic light which is red when the main direction has green. The time you gain using that lane compared to the "box turn" is minimal as such.
A lot is also context: Copenhagen has a very extensive bicycle lane network that does not involve any cars that is constantly expanding. Cykelslangen is a nice example of such a bike only short cut https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmKXYZZy6dI, http://www.dw.dk/cykelslangen/, http://classiccopenhagen.blogspot.dk/2014/06/cykelslangen.ht.... When going around the city, you are just faster with a bike because you take more direct routes (away from car lanes) with less traffic lights. If I have to take a left turn on big busy car street, I couldn't car less if I had to wait for making a box turn: I am faster anyway, and the properly tuned and fast switching red-green lights minimize the wait.
I agree the quick light cycles are a big help, also for pedestrians. You rarely wait more than 15-30 seconds on the other side for the light to change, so it's not really much of a delay. I do find the really long light cycles in many American cities annoying as a pedestrian.
Another reason few people in Copenhagen mind the "Copenhagen left" is that since cycle lanes are usually physically separated from the car lanes, it doesn't even occur to anyone that entering the car lanes to turn would be an option. You'd have to physically cross the barrier separating the bike and the car lanes (sometimes a row of parked cars, sometimes a curb, occasionally bollards), which would not be an obvious or convenient thing to do. That part of the arrangement also seems much safer to me. I don't like riding in a bike lane that is essentially just a repainted shoulder, lacking any means to physically exclude cars from the lane.
That's the way cars turn right in some major intersections in the CBD of Melbourne, Australia. In this application it's called a hook turn[2]. They're used in Melbourne because the city streets are unusually wide and it stops trams from being blocked.
Do you even bike? I don't want to cross over a lane of traffic right out of an intersection. That sounds like the most dangerous thing I could do. I'll happily sit in the turn lane during a red light. If someone wants to turn, they can wait to till it's green. I'm not going to risk my life so that someone can get to their destination 1.5 seconds sooner. If someone has an issue, they can get out of their car and confront me about it.
Ultimately, this is the fault of whoever planned the streets so badly.
What? No one said anything about “crossing over a lane of traffic”. You start in front of the cars in the regular go-straight lane, and then when the light turns green, you ride straight across the intersection. If there’s a bike lane on the other side of the intersection, you aim for the bike lane.
This is safer for everyone involved than your suggestion of parking your bike in the turn lane.
I think you misunderstand him, he saying if you are proceeding straight then you shouldn't wait in the right turn lane to proceed straight. which makes sense
I worry that by the time you merge back in, a car from the right could take you down. Merging is terrifying as a bicyclist.
Those "shared lanes" are a disaster, and even the non-physically separated bike lanes are dangerous, since you can both get door'd by a parked car from the right, and you can hit on the left by a car.
I've noticed that they've been adding physical separation on Market st, but most of the bike lanes here are still incredibly dangerous.
Why would there be a car on the right? When you are in the go-straight main traffic lane (or the rightmost main traffic non-turn lane) then any car on the right is in the right turn lane, and is therefore, by definition, turning right, away from you. How would that take you down? I think you are misunderstanding the scenario.
In the UK we quite often have a designated cyclist area across all lanes in front of the cars at traffic lights. This makes things much safer since you can position yourself correctly for the turn and most drivers are sensible enough not to attempt an overtake as you turn.
Yea, you're not wrong - there's a very real issue around respecting cyclist spaces on roads and this is just another example. It's probably just another example of people considering themselves exempt from the rules though, you see it when drivers stop carelessly at box junctions or cyclists ignore a red light because nobody's crossing.
Unlike the myth that the Netherlands is 100% covered in separate bike lanes, such constructs are perfectly normal. Here's an example of a busy Amsterdam street that doesn't even have as much as a dotted line on the ground: http://media.schlijper.nl/high/07/03/30/070330-raadhuisstraa...
No, it's not "nuts" to expect drivers to behave with caution, certainly a lot less nuts than to expect gun owners to act responsibly and not use unarmed civilians for target practice. It's a matter of law, culture and common sense.
Driving a car should not give you the right to run over cyclists and civilians. It's not that complicated. And although well designed streets are incredibly important in increasing safety, they are also a red herring when it comes to addressing the #1 problem: drivers. (Second only to the complete BS about cycling being unsafe without helmets.)
Also, once you make drivers responsible, there will be broader support for better infrastructure, because drivers themselves feel way more comfortable when bikes lanes are separated.
Amsterdam has way more separate bike lanes than SF.
Also, Amsterdam roads tend to be a lot calmer compared to SF.
The street in the screenshot is one lane per direction with a lot of curves.
San Francisco roads are often straight and 2 per direction (so higher traffic + speed), which dramatically increases the friction on sharrows, with a culture that's unused to bike traffic, so they are unsure about how to behave.
You're right, driving a car does not give you the right to run over cyclists, but the city could put more thought into the bike handling. I've been to Amsterdam a few times, and it's NOTHING like here.
Sharrows are misused almost everywhere, and until I moved to Portland I would've agreed that they were a stupid idea. Here, there's been a lot of thought put into their use, and it shows. Specifically, they're not just thrown up to show that the city's "doing something" about bicycle safety. They're used only on certain, designated, low-volume/low-speed corridors designated as "bike boulevards."
This works surprisingly well, because it ends up that a sharrow in Portland doesn't mean "get along"--it means "bikes have priority." For the most part, drivers along the bike boulevards seem willing to drive slowly behind a bicyclist puffing up a hill and wait until they have plenty of space to pass.
Culture may play a big role here too, but I think sharrows can play a very helpful role if used carefully.
>the city takes the right-most car lane, draws a bike sign on it, and tell cars and bicyclists to "get along"
I bike commute daily in Somerville and Cambridge MA. My routes have dedicated bike lanes for about 1/2 the distance, "sharrows" (bike sign + >>> symbol) for about 1/4 and nothing on the rest. I'll agree that the sharrows don't seem to do much, but we seem to get along pretty well with cars anyway - with occasional friction. I feel pretty safe.
I rarely see bikes impede traffic. They either ride with the flow of traffic or stay right if they can't keep up. Once in a while when the road is very narrow or torn up they might slow traffic a bit, but then get right ASAP.
In 2 years of daily commutes I've seen only 1 instance where a bike impeded a car for more than a few seconds, and that's because the road was so torn up on the right hand side that it wasn't usable, forcing bikes into the middle of the lane for about 10-20 seconds. The driver tailgated closely the whole time and started honking - in ignorance of the law that bikes have 100% right to the lane if there's not room to share it with a 3 foot margin.
Bikes often won't go super close to parked cars for fear of being "doored", but they generally seem to ride at least 10 mph, especially where they need to occasionally weave into the main traffic flow, e.g. for double-parked vehicles.
On my route the only place it gets a little crazy is where you're in 4 full lanes of traffic and have to cross from right to left in about 200 feet. All the bikes ride between lanes and generally weave their way over in the heavy but fairly slow traffic.
I've never had a reportable close call or seen an accident, but there are plenty of annoyances. Busses seem to make it a sport to brush close to you or cut you off - much worse than even large trucks do. Taxis are jerks. They blast by with inches of room. Expensive german SUVs are next worst. Always in a hurry. Oddly I've noticed prius drivers are pretty bad too, pedal to the metal. I don't get it. [edit - these are gross generalizations, and even then only apply to a small fraction of the driving population. The vast majority are careful and polite!]
My fellow bikers are not always prize material either. For too many, red lights seem not to exist at all and they blow through with barely a glance. There are the invisible bikers too, riding at night with no lights no reflectors, and wearing dark clothes. Freakin' morons. I look like a total dork/xmas tree, but I'm visible.
I get very annoyed at people who drive right over my bike lane when there's plenty of room not to. They'll go past me then get slowed by traffic and block my lane - which is painted bright green btw, with white borders. Pretty hard to miss if you're not on the GD phone. I've even yelled at them "bike lane!" a few times. (dumb, I know, and I'm trying hard to chill. Yelling doesn't help) Another pet peeve drivers who stop way right in the lane so I can't even squeeze by. It's only a few rare cars that do this, but it only takes one to screw you over. Drivers - please leave me at least a measly 2 feet!
All in all, I love my bike commute. It's honestly my favorite part of every day - at least when it's above freezing :). And I strongly wish more people felt safe to ride, because I like the company, and feel even safer in a pack than alone. It actually gets pretty congested in places during rush hour (a dozen bikes at a light isn't uncommon) but I say the more the merrier.
Motorists don't know the laws you're citing so to add those laws to an analysis of the actual goings on in traffic seems fairly hypothetical.
Motorists also actually don't want to kill anyone, even that rogue bicyclist running the red light. However motorists as a whole exhibit a relatively predictable behavior pattern that bicyclists usually violate. The leading cause of "incidents" IMHO is mismatched velocity vectors, and common occurances like truckers abusing their momentum vector, lane-splitting motorcyclists, and humans accompanied by insignificant tubular structures often fail to accomodate their velocity vectors to the one the flow of traffic exhibits.
My experience driving and cycling tells that the major cause for close encounters with people driving is smartphone use. People should put the fucking phone away when they're on the wheel. Otherwise, they can kill or get killed.
I totally agree. Pedestrians on foot are often guilty of this, too. As a motorist I also would like motorists to engage in the driving task so it is easier for me to avoid hitting them.
These typically happened on these "shared bike lanes" - it's where the city takes the right-most car lane, draws a bike sign on it, and tell cars and bicyclists to "get along" (since cars are still allowed full use of it).
This, of course, doesn't work. Cars are much faster than bikes, and asking these two vastly different transportation methods to share a lane is nuts. Should the cars just drive 6mph? Should they go around, try to merge and hope they don't misgauge the distance?
The problem here is that the city didn't put any real thought into the bikes lanes, and the result is a terrible and incredibly dangerous system.
Personally, I've given up on bike lanes in many areas of the city. It's simply not safe.