
Guerrilla Bike Lanes: San Francisco Makes Illicit Infrastructure Permanent - misnamed
http://99percentinvisible.org/article/guerrilla-bike-lanes-san-francisco-makes-illicit-infrastructure-permanent/
======
brandur
I love 99% Invisible, but in my opinion this piece is far too generous to the
actual SFMTA, who occasionally respond to the SFMTrA's work reasonably (as
covered in the article), but who usually just strip it wholesale, to the
detriment of the safety of thousands of pedestrians and cyclists. For example,
these markers on Folsom St helped improve safety considerably and were
constructed in an incredibly professional way, but are now gone completely
[1].

The group itself puts it best here [2]:

> "The SFMTA is glacially slow to install pedestrian and bicyclist safety
> infrastructure, yet was able to remove our simple safety improvements within
> a week," the group said in a statement sent to SFist. "We call on SFMTA to
> immediately replace these pedestrian safety improvements with protection at
> or above the level installed by SFMTrA."

Everyone who walks or bikes in SF can atest to the truth of this statement
firsthand. Progress _is_ being made, but it's frustratingly slow.

[1] [http://www.sfmtra.org/blog/2016/10/26/the-sfmta-removed-
safe...](http://www.sfmtra.org/blog/2016/10/26/the-sfmta-removed-safety-
infrastructure-on-folsom-st-and-they-need-an-email-from-you)

[2]
[http://sfist.com/2016/10/19/sfmta_says_street_safety_improve...](http://sfist.com/2016/10/19/sfmta_says_street_safety_improvemen.php)

~~~
daodedickinson
It's extremely offensive to me that the people are so powerless to fix things
like this without sneaking it (like that guy that added a much-needed highway
sign in the LA area before it was caught over a year later).

~~~
Hydraulix989
Link to story about LA sign for reference:

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/02/11/guerrilla_publ...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/02/11/guerrilla_public_service_on_99_invisible_richard_ankrom_replaced_a_los_angeles.html)

------
TulliusCicero
I'm all for this kind of citizen action. They're volunteering their own time
to improve public safety. Kind of like how neighborhood watch groups can
supplement police, these volunteers are supplementing departments of
transportation. Of course it'd be even better if they could do it without
breaking the law, but I doubt there are rules in place to permit citizens to
do their own DIY infrastructure improvements.

Also, unlike what some commenters think, this doesn't really go against
democracy. The cities where these groups work have embraced Vision Zero at
least on paper, so they're generally for these sorts of improvements.
Government just tends to move slowly, and they often have to deal with NIMBY
groups that are more concerned with keeping as many parking spaces as possible
in their neighborhood than public safety.

~~~
edblarney
"Also, unlike what some commenters think, this doesn't really go against
democracy. "

It definitely goes against democracy and civility.

Maybe it's for the better, maybe it's for the worse - but a small group of
people taking it upon themselves to decide for everyone else how a city should
operate is a very tricky place for any society to be.

Maybe most people don't want something.

Maybe it makes rescue workers jobs difficult by blocking traffic in a certain
hot spot.

Maybe the situation is more complex than one would imagine (i.e. some lanes
radically affect the flow of traffic, screw up incoming/outgoing traffic/lane
changes).

I can think of quite a few things that 'civic vigilantes' could do that would
be way, way out of bounds.

It would be nice if SF could elect a mayor that could improve efficiency as
opposed to simply encouraging people to make up their own policies.

~~~
mmanfrin

      taking it upon themselves to decide for everyone else how a 
      city should operate
    

How so? They aren't dictating traffic flow, they are adding visibility markers
to existing bike lanes.

~~~
stanleydrew
That's the most generous possible interpretation of the situation. It may be
correct, I'm just noting.

I ride my bike to and from work pretty much every day in SF, and I readily
admit that adding these markers most definitely does interrupt and disrupt
traffic flow.

The fact of the matter is, sometimes delivery vehicles and service vehicles
need to stop and block traffic. They tend to pull over as far as possible to
the right, so as not to impede auto traffic. Often this means pulling over
into the bike lane. (Note that when there is no bike lane, these vehicles
block the right-most lane of auto traffic and cars just go around without
getting too hot and bothered. But I digress.)

Erecting the markers prevents this behavior in many instances. You can decide
to be in favor of the new bike lane markers, but you can't pretend that the
added markers aren't a unilateral alteration to traffic flow that does have an
effect.

~~~
rrdharan
I agree that they change traffic flow. But it is interesting there's an
implicit car-prioritization bias in the behavior you're describing.

The delivery/service vehicles choose to block the bike lane instead of
blocking a lane of traffic.

This gets complicated quickly once you factor in total impact and so on, but I
just want to point out that a person on a bike doesn't necessarily deserve
less priority than a solo driver, for example.

Plus there's the fact that blocking the bike lane is indeed illegal as noted
by the other commenter. Although I sometimes think that we don't really know
how bad it would be if all delivery drivers had to comply with all parking
laws - maybe we'd all be starving in the nicely flowing streets due to a lack
of food.

~~~
BurningFrog
A bicyclist can get past any inconveniently parked vehicle, with some effort.

Cars, OTOH, just have to stand there and wait, and it doesn't take many
minuted for a major gridlock to form.

And that's why I think it's reasonable to block bike lanes over car lanes. Why
you have to block anyone is maybe the more important, but much harder
question.

~~~
TulliusCicero
> A bicyclist can get past any inconveniently parked vehicle, with some
> effort.

The whole _point_ of bike lanes is that mixed traffic with bikes and cars is
highly dangerous for bikes. Frequently blocked bike lanes that force cyclists
to suddenly merge into car traffic defeats the point of having the lanes in
the first place.

Not to mention, there's an implicit assumption on your part that we're
universally talking about confident, healthy adult cyclists. Do you think it's
cool to push pre-teen cyclists in traffic? What about grandma? A parent with
kids on their bike?

If we just accept dangerous infrastructure and behavior, biking for
transportation will always be an activity only for the tiny minority of people
who are highly tolerant of physical danger.

~~~
BurningFrog
> Do you think it's cool to push pre-teen cyclists in traffic?

When you try to choose the lesser evil, there are no "cool" options.

I think the real problem here is that SF streets are so overcrowded that basic
delivery has to be done by blocking live traffic lanes.

------
mmanfrin
When startups skirt entrenched and slow industries, it's disruption; when
bicyclists add traffic cones to already-defined bike lanes, it's an affront to
democracy.

Nice, HN commenters.

~~~
Anasufovic
Entitlement is painful

~~~
moyta
That it is.

------
pavel_lishin
They mention New York in this as well, and Sixth avenue. It's annoying to bike
up due to the lack of a bike lane, but traffic is usually slow enough that you
can get along pretty easily and safely. It's also better than 8th avenue,
which does have one - but is always filled with pedestrians. (And which seems
to disappear around Port Authority, forcing bicyclists to go into traffic
anyway.)

Luckily, you can usually take the Hudson River Greenway by cutting all the way
west. It's a more pleasant ride, but does take you out of your way, and once
you get above 59th street, has limited access eastward and not a lot of
signage to that effect.

If I don't mind pedaling through traffic, I'll take Sixth. If I'm angry and
want to stay that way, I'll take 8th. If I've got time to kill, I'll take the
greenway.

~~~
rrdharan
I'm confused by your comment. Sixth Avenue does have a bike lane for large
sections. Did you mean a protected lane specifically?

See also:
[http://gothamist.com/2016/02/04/sixth_ave_bike_lane.php](http://gothamist.com/2016/02/04/sixth_ave_bike_lane.php)

~~~
avn2109
In NYC, "unprotected bike lane" === "no bike lane at all" in 95% of all cases
and 100% of dangerous cases.

------
doughj3
This seems related to the idea of the Desire Path[0], which some of us may
have heard by the story of the "architect who waited to see which pathways
pedestrians would take through his/her outdoor spaces, and then paved
sidewalks to match those routes."[1]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path)

[1] [https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-architect-who-waited-to-
se...](https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-architect-who-waited-to-see-which-
pathways-pedestrians-would-take-through-his-her-outdoor-spaces-and-then-paved-
sidewalks-to-match-those-routes)

------
helthanatos
I think it would be very good to have bike lanes more separated from the road.
Safer for everyone that cars don't accidentally use bike lanes and bikes don't
affect traffic. It reminds me of those articles that said j-walking is more
safe than crossing at crosswalks. Paying attention is something people seem to
have trouble with. Clear markings are definitely for the best.

~~~
arnarbi
Can't agree enough with this. Here's a safe type of bike lane (note the two
curbs):
[http://therecord.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c465d53ef0133f21e9125...](http://therecord.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c465d53ef0133f21e9125970b-pi)

Here are two incredibly unsafe types, but for some reason the one's being
installed _right now_ in the Bay Area at least:
[http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_bike-...](http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_bike-
lane-parking_1200x675.jpg)
[http://www.executivestyle.com.au/content/dam/images/1/3/i/n/...](http://www.executivestyle.com.au/content/dam/images/1/3/i/n/1/n/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.13hysn.png/1428456608677.jpg)

I just don't get it.

~~~
adrianN
Riding in that second bike lane would be of questionable legality here in
Germany. Cyclist are required to stay far enough away from parked cars that
open doors don't hit them, otherwise they bear part of the responsibility in
an accident. OTOH you're also required to use bike lanes if they exist, so...

~~~
ygra
You're required to use bike lanes within city limits when there's Zeichen 237,
Zeichen 240, or Zeichen 241. Otherwise you're free to use the road. Any other
sign even if it has a bike symbol on it, does not mandate the use of a
specific path.

But indeed, Schutzstreifen next to parked cars often have the problem that you
either have to veer into traffic (or traffic veers into you), or get doored (I
don't recall that it's mandatory to keep your distance to parked cars, though,
it's just in your own best interest). Even though motorists are required to
keep 1.5 m distance to you there, very few do, since apparently the dashed
line implies that you're safe enough from them ...

~~~
adrianN
[http://pdeleuw.de/fahrrad/urteile.html#seitenabstand](http://pdeleuw.de/fahrrad/urteile.html#seitenabstand)
has a reference for the distance to parked cars.

~~~
ygra
I'd say 40 cm is not enough. It may suffice for those who open the door a tiny
bit and then look whether a cyclist is approaching, but those aren't the
problematic kind; rather those who just open the door fully without checking
anything, ruining either a cyclist's face, or a car's mirror.

------
sandworm101
These are not "Guerilla bike lanes". These are guerilla traffic cones. The
lane was there. The only non-permitted part are the improved markers. I doubt
many driver really care. Most probably appreciate them as they keep the bikes
away from the non-bike areas. If people want to spent their own money
installing such devices, more power to them.

Going out and painting new lanes, that is stepping things up a notch. That
will get police involved. That will create liabilities should any accident
occur due to your new lane designations.

------
donretag
The City of West Hollywood has installed delineators on its crosswalks to
prevent further accidents. They have been effective in their goal so far, but
are not going to be maintained since drivers keep hitting them and the cost to
constantly repair them is high.
[http://laist.com/2016/06/29/weho_crosswalks.php](http://laist.com/2016/06/29/weho_crosswalks.php)

~~~
pavel_lishin
I wonder what would happen if they were made out of solid steel and sunk about
six feet down into the concrete.

~~~
prawn
Friend of mine is an urban planner. He talks about letting the environment
inform the speed of cars more than speed limits, which I've always found
interesting. Narrower streets and bollards that encourage drivers to slow down
to avoid damage to their car are good examples of that.

~~~
masklinn
> Narrower streets and bollards that encourage drivers to slow down to avoid
> damage to their car are good examples of that.

Speed bumps, chicanes and chokers have become very common in france over the
last 10 years or so. They used to only be found in centers of pretty large
cities but these days you can find them on any old "local" country road.

~~~
prawn
I was in France for three weeks last month so saw exactly what you're talking
about. They also have very narrow streets in villages, and avenues bordered by
plane trees exceptionally close to the road!

~~~
masklinn
> They also have very narrow streets in villages, and avenues bordered by
> plane trees exceptionally close to the road!

These are more historical remnants, new codes don't really allow for that but
if a village was there at the time people still mostly used horse-drawn carts
(which was very common until post-war) they weren't going to tear down all the
houses to build the road.

It leads to interesting situations e.g. A380 parts heading to the final
assembly line near Toulouse go through Levignac, some parts have inches of
clearance from the houses.

------
deckar01
I think city infrastructure can learn something from the open source software
community in situations like this.

The city has a ton of work to do, but it is really picky about how it is done
and how it gets paid for. If it planned out the work out in advance, community
organizations like the SFMTrA could claim the low hanging fruit and comply
with the official requirements. If it fails inspection the city can tear it
down just like they are doing now.

------
williwu
I really hope that biking SF will improve in the future. It's freaking
dangerous to bike on some of the streets in downtown SF.

------
maerF0x0
IMO this is fantastic. Benevolent, efficient and easily reverted in case it
was wrong. I would love to see many public choices made as such.

------
mzw_mzw
I wonder if the people fed up with the slow pace of infrastructure
development, to the extent that they are _building their own_ , have made any
effort to push for a less sclerotic government structure in their town?

Actually, I bet I can guess the answer.

~~~
ajmurmann
I could see how SF government would now not put separators up even if they
originally planned to just out of spite.

------
thesz
This is more or less how Pyotr Kapitsa helped to plan pedestrian lanes in
Cambridge. He said that officials should wait until pedestrians lay out their
ways and then just move them into official walks plan. So they did, I was
told.

------
hiou
Yeah, fuck democracy. Just do whatever you want to shared resources. Gotta
look out for number 1! /s

~~~
TulliusCicero
I mean, in the primary example given, the bike lane already existed, they just
upgraded it.

Personally I'd say it's more of a reaction to the often glacial pace of
government action. Cities like SF, Seattle, and NYC have embraced Vision
Zero's safety-oriented goals in theory, but are moving very slowly indeed to
meet them.

These groups are actually helping the city meet their own self-imposed
targets. How does that translate to "fuck democracy"? More like "fuck overly
bureaucratic processes" if anything.

~~~
mc32
I totally agree with your, take, but I'd hedge it and say that if these cities
did not enact vision-0, these tactics would occur regardless of tacit approval
or explicit intention by gov. Guerrilla implies it's not seeking govt (or
broadly popular for that matter) approval.

~~~
TulliusCicero
They might still do it, but then in that case the accusation of them being
undemocratic would be accurate.

