[Slow_Hand]

As a cyclist and a driver it’s not immediately apparent which Waymo behavior I prefer for passenger dropoffs/pickups.

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.

I suppose I’d rather suffer the inconvenience of going around a parked car than risk the devastation of being doored.

[scarmig]

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. (The tradeoff, as there are always tradeoffs, is that the passenger having more skin in the game means that they'll likely be physically hit more often.)

[avidiax]

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.

Whereas in the bike lane, you can slow down a bit anticipating that a door may open.

Waymo does at least warn the occupants if there's a vehicle or bicycle approaching.

[Saline9515]

It is well known that by stopping, the cyclist will burn and be consumed in flammes in mere seconds.

[atoav]

Cyclists, other than motorists (1) build that momentum up with their legmuscles and (2) speed is required for stability on two-wheeled vehicles, meaning stopping with a bicycle is more exhausting and annoying than, say with a car.

I am not saying stopping isn't the right option in many situations, what I am saying is that a good bicycle infrastructure is planned in a way that understands that a person on a bicycle having to stop is not the same as a person in a car having to stop (unless you use a car where you have to pedal with your legs).

Building traffic infrastructure in a way that avoids (potentially dangerous and thus costly to society) conflicts between different participants should be a no-brainer. It is not secret knowledge how to do that, you just put a barrier and space inbetween each mode of transportation: Road, curbstone up, small pedestrian platform, curbstone down, bicycle path, curbstone up, actual pedestrian area. This way the waymo can stop on the road, where cars belong, guests can exit safely and without pressure into a pedestrian area and have s curb-shaped reminder they enter a bicycle path when they cross over. Additionally both pedestrians and motorists can be reasonably sure cyclists won't suffenly cross over into their domain.

Why is this not the norm? One of the main reasons is space. In most existing infrastructure this would likely mean one or two car lanes have to get either narrower or be sacrificed. It would also mean taking bicycling (and other vehicles using that infrastructure) as a mode of transportation seriously, which a certain group of people appears to be deeply allergic to. You know, the type of person who nearly commits vehicular manslaughter and then does as if the cyclist had it coming by merely existing.

In the end everybody would profit from better infrastructure, especially since good bicycle infrastructure is also usable for children and older people. And that is the test good bicycle infrastructure needs to pass: Would you send your 9 year old kid down that path. If not, than it has been done incorrectly at the cost of cyclists.

[Saline9515]

Yes, cycling is a sport. Should we also flatten hills as they have the inconvenience of requiring to push harder on pedals?

If the physical aspect of cycling (involving stopping for taxis, pregnant women, children, or distracted pedestrian plebs) is too hard, solutions exist: public transports, walking, or electric bikes (whose riders seem equally annoyed to slow down, for some reason).

The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.

Space is also not infinite in cities, so you can't change the infra without sacrificing other users, be they pedestrians, delivery vehicles, or car users.

Last, cycling is mostly for a specific type of people, who are alone, fit and with a small cargo. It excludes older and younger ones, disabled plebs, and families. Those people are better served with quality public transport - which could be improved with the money used to make costly bicycle road arrangements. Public transport is also always convenient, not just when it's sunny. I live in a city with temperatures under 0 celsius for 4 months of the year, including some days at -20. I'm glad I can use my car in winter to take my children to school. Apparently, other cyclists seem to think the same since no one uses a bike in winter (the new urban equestrian class seems a bit shy when it's cold?).

Helsinki is a city I like, because while there are mostly non-invasive bike lanes on large arteries, it's easy to go around by car and by walk. The secret is that the public transport system is top-notch, so a pregnant woman can use it to go to the maternity ward - something that you can't do by cycling (but who is stupid enough to have kids nowadays in city centers, right?).

[atoav]

> The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.

That was my point, thanks for making it: There is money for building and maintaining 6 lanes of sophisticated road surface that needs to withstand trucks¹ we surely have the money to replace part of it with a cheaper to maintain bicycle path that sees next to no road wear aside from weather effects. I'd argue that we cannot afford to not have bicycle infrastructure.

You appear to be propping up public transportation against cycling, when in reality they are a match made in heaven. Why not both?

¹: weight factors into road wear by power of four. Double weight equals 16 times the road wear

[Saline9515]

Google maps is your friend to discover that most cities of the world don't have 6 lanes in every street!

And ready to invest in your shipping container-on-a-cargo-bike startup, which will be used to make deliveries to supermarkets in the city centers (for the last plebs who don't order their slop on Uber Eats ofc)! Or cement deliveries using drones!

[expedition32]

Why should cyclists be inconvenienced by taxis? They have just as much right to get to their destination.

[Saline9515]

Because taxis and cyclists are road users like others, car drivers also have to stop if a taxi has to drop off someone as long as it's quick. Same with buses, also. Or trams.

It's the same with pedestrians : if an old person walks on a small sidewalk, I will stop or slow down. Or if I see two guys carrying a washing machine.

As a pedestrian, I don't see cyclists stopping often when they ride on the sidewalk, though.

[derwiki]

How often do you see two guys carrying a washing machine?

[Saline9515]

It depends how lively/busy the street is, but in towns like Paris, every day I would have to accommodate fellow pedestrians unloading trucks or doing deliveries in the street. The macha lattes doesn't appear magically in your favorite coffee shop.

[daemonologist]

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.

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 everyone parks in it (Uber, taxis, delivery drivers, etc.).

[Saline9515]

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.

Something car drivers and pedestrians do, usually.

[datsci_est_2015]

Not in my city. Taxis and ride shares tell you to get out on the right hand side so that you don’t get swept by cars passing you on the left.

Also often difficult to tell as a bicyclist how long that car will be sitting there. Sometimes it’s a delivery or pickup or something inane that will have you looking like a doofus for waiting.

[crazygringo]

No. Going around a parked car is a basic ability you need to have as a cyclist.

If you can't do that safely, then you have no business riding in the first place.

Looking behind you is not optional, as you seem to suggest it is. And if it is actually a "small risk", then you are going way too fast.

Again -- if you don't have the environmental awareness to go around a parked car, then you shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place. Full stop.

[defrost]

This comment assumes a high mix of cars and bikes in an environment of unseparated traffic.

With literal decades of near daily bike riding behind me I've rarely had to maneuver a bike or a car around a parked car in regular (not US) traffic flow.

[crazygringo]

It doesn't matter how often you have to do it. It's still a basic ability you need to possess.

And yes, my own experience comes from Manhattan, where that's something pretty much everyone has to do on a daily basis. You've got double-parking everywhere.

But even if you don't need to often (lucky you), the idea that this is somehow something unusually unsafe just doesn't hold any water. If it's unsafe for you, you have no business being on the road. You are a danger to others if you are unable to look behind you when changing lanes.

[Benji_San]

I agree here that it can depend on the infrastructure which option is better. But one way to look at it is that if a car is parked in the bike lane then the bike will be in the car lane == more risk for the bike. The bike is also at risk for being doored from either side when passing the taxi.

The best option would actually be to have some indicators on the taxi which shows which doors are "hot" and expected to open. A taxi with closed doors is always a huge risk and will always need to be passed outside the dooring range.

[II2II]

> While it’s annoying in the moment to pedal around a parked car, I’m fine with it.

Personally, I'm fine with it too. Problem is, a lot of motorists are not fine with that. Whether I get stuck on the road because the bike lane is curb separated or because there is an excessive number of cars parked in the bike lane, motorists start screaming at me. A few months back, I had one aggressively pass me. I checked to ensure the road was clear before entering it, the only way they could have passed me in that manner is if they accelerated (i.e. they created an issue out of something that shouldn't have impacted them).

The sense of entitlement of some motorists is dangerous. They are willing to behave in a manner that puts people's lives at risk.

[datsci_est_2015]

Just had someone speed up and blow a stop sign on a right turn in a residential area (known for being walkable with young children) to cut in front of me my bike to make sure they wouldn’t have to wait for me to pass them at the stop sign. Full-sized SUV whose grill was at my chest height. Fairly routine and simultaneously completely unhinged behavior.

I also enjoy playing chicken on runs with the SUVs in another rather entitled urban neighborhood where if they begin accelerating into the intersection after a rolling stop while I’m still in the crosswalk (to “anticipate” me getting across the road and save 2-5 seconds), I’ll simply stop running and force them to actually come to a complete stop.

[curiousgal]

Even if you go around the parked car, you still risk getting doored on the other side.

[jlebar]

> 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.

Note that Waymos will alert you if a cyclist is approaching so you don't door them. Not saying it's perfect, you can still open the door if you want, but they are very consistent about this.

[tmnvix]

Except for the example in the article where the warning failed and an exiting passenger doored a cyclist resulting in brain injury.

[skybrian]

For a Waymo unloading passengers, it seems like stopping and waiting would be safest?