Annie Jacobsen Book "Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military has an interesting take on UFOs. The government actively perpetuated rumors about sightings to keep people from thinking top secret projects flying around the bases were real.
Where are taxis, ride-sharing vehicles, and delivery trucks supposed to stop? I get frustrated when I ride my bike to work and the bike lanes are blocked, but I have always just assumed that will be the case when riding in a commercially dense area.
This is probably rarely the case, but when cops are instigating something (I'm sure 90% of the time they are just getting coffee) and need to park their car, are they supposed to circle the block, or block traffic?
US cities are unfortunately optimized for cars and trucks. It's how stores get resupplied and people get dropped off when not near public transportation.
I'm not trying to stir-the-pot, but I find there is a mildly militant tone to biking activism that makes me not take it very seriously. I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this ha.
After you have had to sit through critical mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass_(cycling)) for the 10th time when you are trying to get home from work or get your car door kicked when trying to make a right turn in the city you develop a visceral reaction to news about cycling outrage.
I would love to be able to get around NYC on a bike without having to fear death, but I don't think software engineers writing ticketing software that targets delivery truck drivers is the best solution. Better civic planning is.
The reality is that there are plenty of places around the world that have transitioned from car-centric to mass-transit centric / self-propulsion-centric cities. Deliveries can happen with bikes and for larger things trucks can use side street. Really, only the elderly or disabled really need to get dropped off right at the door. Others should get fined for blocking traffic. Once you've been to a nice city and you see it all work out like the bike optimists talk of it working you see that they're right about most of it. The only thing I think they get a little wrong is that some of them over-estimate the speed they think they'll be able to bike. Good cities tend to have way more cyclists and this is safer, but slower. Don't get me wrong, I'm a speed demon with my bike, but I'd take a European city over an American one any day of the week.
>"The reality is that there are plenty of places around the world that have transitioned from car-centric to mass-transit centric / self-propulsion-centric cities."
Indeed and I think that is the OPs point. NYC simply has not, that is what I believe is what he meant by saying that "better civic planning" is the answer. NYC simply "bolted on" the promotion of biking in the quickest way possible - using some paint. It's not a holistic solution. Getting mad at violations in the half baked implementations like this seems counter productive. I also don't see much in the way of self-regulating behavior with the biking community. People constantly ignore directional bike lanes on one way street(that's why there's arrow.), run lights at intersections, weave between pedestrian in a cross walk etc. I could walk around with a pedestrian cam and spot just as many violations. My point is that is not productive. The current half-baked system is bad for everyone not just bikers.
If NYC wanted to get serious about biking they would adopt permanent bike only streets say a couple in uptown/downtown direction and couple int he cross town direction.
>Where are taxis, ride-sharing vehicles, and delivery trucks supposed to stop?
taxis, ride-sharing vehicles, and delivery trucks should stop in the car lane. if that's not acceptable, roads should be designed with a designated stopping lane. The majority of the lanes on the road are already dedicated to private motor vehicles, and there's only one bus or bike lane. They shouldn't block a different (and more efficient) mode of transportation that has less road space dedicated to it when they want to stop.
If there isn't a bus lane or bike lane, that's what they do. Why does it suddenly becomes unacceptable to block a private vehicle lane just because there is a bus lane you could block instead?
Most of these bus and bike lanes were ‘built’ by taking away road shoulder, on street parking, and loading zones. with the way the street is currently laid out in for example the video in the article, there is absolutely zero space for vehicles to stop.
Just because a city repaints the lanes doesn’t magically add extra pavement, and ignoring the needs of motorists results in them ignoring the painted lines.
More so it's dangerous when you get out in the middle of the street vs closer to the curb. Because of people pulling into the bus/cycle lane. But also a bus would be scary (and dangerous) if it hit whilst you trying to walk to the curb (or trying to dodge a storm of cyclist).
You stop as far right as possible. It just so happens that the bike lane is often placed as far right as possible as well. It’s not about blocking the bus or bike lane so you don’t block a private vehicle lane, it’s just about getting as far over as possible.
Yes! I don't understand the drivers that think "oh I better not block car traffic so I'll just block bus and bike traffic". And cops are complicit, if you block the car lanes you're much more likely to get a ticket than if you block the bike and bus lanes.
> The majority of the lanes on the road are already dedicated to private motor vehicles
IME, having any lanes dedicated to private motor vehicles is extraordinarily rare. I'm not sure I've ever even seen it, though I do have a vague sense of something like that happening on the NJ Turnpike or one of the interstates going into NYC.
Cyclist here. Where are people supposed to park? Seems pretty obvious to me: legal parking spots.
Having talked to dozens of people parked in the bike lane over the years, it's obvious to me that the vast majority park in the bike lane out of convenience, not necessity. I usually recommend legal spots to park that are nearby, but many drivers are unwilling to walk even an extra 50 feet. People have acted as if my request to park somewhere else was completely unreasonable. (Edited.)
So while sometimes I get this argument, it does not work most of the time. Drivers block the bike lane mostly for convenience, not by necessity.
(My experience comes from living in Austin, Baltimore, and the DC metro area. I suspect NYC is different, but probably not that much different from Baltimore.)
The nearest open and legal street parking space in a city center would likely take 10+ minutes to find and 30+ minutes to walk back from. While it’s true that all wheeled transportation is a matter of convenience (we did, after all, get around exclusively on foot for millennia) this is a dishonest framing: you are still proposing to effectively wipe out delivery and pickup/drop off services.
I’m much more interested in reallocating street parking to loading zones.
The framing is not dishonest. Your experience seems limited to downtowns. In central Austin, the vast majority of the time someone parks in the bike lane, they could have instead parked very close (minute or less walk) legally. I think that is much more typical.
I recall from talking to delivery drivers that many would park in the bike lane even if it saved only a few seconds. It's mostly about convenience to them. They usually have a choice, and they choose to block the bike lane.
And if I was unclear, I'll elaborate: I often talk to drivers who park in the bike lane. I am in the habit of highlighting the most convenient alternative parking spot, but in my experience a large fraction of drivers think that a spot even 50 feet away is too far. To be fair, many if not most drivers will move if you ask. But I should not have to ask.
(I can recall few times the bike lane was blocked during my time in Baltimore. Baltimore may be a bad example in that case. I do think drivers have less choices downtown, but again, most people don't live or commute downtown.)
Problem here, East Bay - SF Bay Area is that parking spots are too cheap/free in most areas (except downtown Berkeley) and taken up all the time by cars that rarely move. The solution isn't current legal parking spots, if you want to run in to grab your takeout you don't want to spend 10-20minutes searching for a spot and 10-15 minutes walking from it. At the moment, sadly, the only reasonable, though you are correct, its not 100% necessary, option is to use the bike lane. We need to make parking expensive so its actually available and limited to short term, with enforcement. Sadly, without extreme fines and enforcement I don't see people changing their behavior, it seems easier to adapt the parking costs to enable good behavior.
I just read a parking meter in SF in a busy area only makes $7000/yr (one example), this seems crazy. Parking was way more expensive in Toronto where I grew up.
note: I cycle to work everyday and dodge cars parked in the Piedmont Ave and 40th St. bike lanes in Oakland constantly. Its very annoying but I also drive places and I understand the issues on both sides.
Thanks for your comment. I think I am learning some important things about cycling to keep in mind when I move in the future.
It appears that local conditions influence how legitimate parking in the bike lane can be viewed. In my opinion there is no shortage of parking in Austin, but that doesn't stop people from parking in bike lanes. It just makes their excuses worse than those of drivers in NYC and the SF Bay Area, for example.
From past experiences with different European cities, I'd guess this may be a case of an old city being forced to adapt to motorized traffic.
I've lived all my life in young cities, where most of the infrastructure seems to have been designed in the 50's or thereafter. Also almost ridiculously strict regulations about how much space a given type of road requires. Generally speaking, there's very little trouble of the sort being discussed here, but you do get people complaining about delivery trucks parking in the bike lanes - in areas built in the 20's.
At the other extreme, go to old towns in a place like Croatia, and there are no bike lanes - delivery trucks park by just stopping in traffic. As far as I could tell, it was just a fact of life.
The point being, I suspect this is a result of trying to cram too much traffic into too small a space, and not being willing to accept the consequences.
It's very hard to change n old city to suit motorized traffic. After a while, I actually felt more comfortable driving in Croatia than I do in my nordic home town, because everyone seemed to have adapted to the suboptimal roads in towns by being very careful.
Possibly, the car was way ahead of the cycle, covered the bike lane to make a turn, had to wait for perpendicular traffic, and the cyclist saw them and decided to kick in anger instead of waiting.
Edit: Sorry, in my hypothetical scenario, I left out waiting very long for perpendicular traffic and the cyclist showing up legitimately lately.
Clearly, I'm just making up this scenario, and most real life complaints are quite legit.
The cycle lane needs to be considered as part of that perpendicular traffic. The fact that so few drivers recognize bike lanes as traffic to be considered when turning is a significant contributor to cycling still being unsafe and mixing zones in particular (where cars turn across bike lanes) prone to cyclist casualties.
That's not how bike lanes work in California, cars must merge into the bike lane on right turns[1]. Bikes should take the the full lane to the left of the bike lane when overtaking cars that are turning right.
Yes, and that's dangerous and what's wrong with mixing zones - forcing cyclists to merge with fast-moving cars endangers them. It's much safer to treat bikes like fast-moving pedestrian traffic crossing with the light; let them keep moving and turn perpendicularly across the bike lane.
Yes, that means the car should come to a stop if there are cyclists oncoming, but you'd do the same in courtesy to pedestrians in the crosswalk or to cars coming he other way while you make a left turn.
When a car is turning right and a bike is continuing straight, the bike is moving much faster than the car, through a narrow and obstructed window, from behind. The chances of the driver seeing you coming are low.
When designed well, the parking lane stops and becomes a turn lane. The car is responsible for merging across the bike lane in one action, and then making the right turn in another. This happens while there is less of a speed differential, and because it pulls over, it's obvious to the bike that it intends to turn right.
The amount of sidewalk you have to scan to see if there will be pedestrians in the crosswalk in the next ~5 seconds is tiny, whereas the amount of bike lane to scan is essentially the whole block.
People don't look right while making a right turn, they just concentrate on cross traffic and run pedestrians over in the crosswalks all the time. Good luck on a bike.
Where I live there's not a whole lot of bike lanes so you mostly have to ride the sidewalks on the major streets if you don't want to die. I just reach down and thump the side of their car as hard as I can when they do that to me -- probably left some impressive dents.
No. I was turning, had to stop because someone started jaywalking. Then an asshole came from behind on a bike and was outraged I crossed into the lane a few feet before the intersection.
You made a mistake in traffic everyone does that, take responsibility and move on don't put the blame on the people you have upset. Calling someone names does not speak well of your attitude in traffic.
Yeah. I think you're right. My cousin drives everywhere in NYC and I think it's INSANE. I can't think of many reasons non-commercial vehicles need to be parked on the street. If you live in Manhatten you probably don't need a car to get to your job or have enough money to justify renting a parking space.
You are basically saying it's ok to park in bicyclist lanes, for some of us that leads to big problems. I choose bicycle lanes because I need them, me and people with cargo bikes, handicaps, kids or just fear of cars.
I agree we need better planning but we still need more tickets, there have to be some consequences for endangering other people.
I've been a part of a few of those critical mass protests, at first glance it appears like a good thing to participate in - increasing awareness of cycling as an option to people that might not be familiar with it.
But the combative mindset that seems to be a core part of the tradition only seemed to polarize people and actually put us further back from our (supposed) goal of increasing accessible cycling infrastructure. At the last one I was almost embarrassed to be there. And some people do legitimately need to get somewhere on time, to take liberties with that is unnecessarily off-putting.
I now think it's much more about feeling like you're part of an in-group, a persecuted and rebellious one at that. I'm now much more a fan of the (boring?) folks calmly working for greater cycling access, and having much more success at it.
Why would you spend all that money to make Bus and Bike lanes that are useless? And why are bike/bus lanes supposed to cover this lack of planning?
Figuring out where the taxis and cops are supposed to stop should've been done before any of this was implemented. For them to just say "we don't have room, so we'll take yours" is disrespectful and clearly causing a major traffic issue. So to answer your question of where cops and taxis are "supposed to stop" the answer is "anywhere else that's legal", and not just assume that bus riders should eat their time cost for being lazy.
I know in Phoenix (and maybe all of Arizona) a taxi/limo/livery vehicle can load and unload anywhere it isn't specifically prohibited. Driving lane, bike lane, whatever.
The cops just stop wherever they want blocking traffic during rush hour or not they don't care. Hell, they closed down one of the highways for a couple hours in the middle of the week around lunchtime for a funeral procession for some fallen officer just because they can.
I think you have some good points in there. I agree that in general i dont like the idea of enforcement as the best solution. Rather good civic planning can make many of these problems go away.
I certainly am physically able to ride around cars etc. But if we want the cities of america to evolve in terms of density etc then we need infrastructure designed so that a grandma on a tricycle feels comfortable enough riding to the store instead of taking a taxi. Its certainly done in other countries.
I don’t think this is even a bike-specific thing. It’s common for busses and delivery vehicles to block travel lanes for cars too. Not all streets have places for them to stop out of the way of traffic, so they just stop in a lane and you have to go around.
Space is limited. Going around a stopped vehicle is a lot easier on a bike than in a car in many cases. Maybe cyclists should just deal with it the way drivers do.
Doesn’t a helicopter serve these needs? I think the problem is there isn’t a market for it yet. There is Blade in NYC and LA but it’s closer to 10x the price. I think the cost could be a lot lower if there was higher demand.
I think there doesn’t need to be new tech to make this work. Helicopters are safe and reliable, but are out of reach financially for most. I don’t see how drones or multirotor would be able to compete on price for a very long time.
Why do you think electric drones have taken off as toys and for filming etc, when remote controlled helicopters have been available for ages?
Because they have better properties for many use cases: much simpler mechanically, cheaper to operate, easier to control, etc. I’d also expect drones to be more reliable, but that remains to be seen.
Don't know about the (8-rotor) eHang, but the 18-rotor Volocopter remains fully controllable with 3 rotor failures (or more, if they're benignly distributed), and has a ballistic rescue chute in addition (which is hard to fit on a heli).
(Of course, you need a certain altitude for the BRS to kick in successfully, so low-level hover is a risk, just as with a helicopter.)
Helicopters are generally safe, but Robinson helicopters are the exception, and are unfortunately incredibly common due to their comparatively low cost.
We don't automatically remove anything. We only remove places when they close for now. We track the popularity and mentions internally but the editorial team has the final say in removing spots.
We're not trying to become critics ourselves, so we err on the side of caution when removing places.
I worry that over time, data will get stale. If a place stops being talked about because its popularity tanks for a righteous reason, it will still show up on the map as a worthwhile place tovisit.
I clear my throat. “Um, yes, I know it’s a little late but is it possible to reserve a table for two at eight-thirty or nine perhaps?” I’m asking this with both eyes shut tight.
There is a pause – the crowd in the background a surging, deafening mass – and with real hope coursing through me I open my eyes, realizing that the maître d’, god love him, is probably looking through the reservation book for a cancellation – but then he starts giggling, low at first but it builds to a high-pitched crescendo of laughter which is abruptly cut off when he slams down the receiver.
If you're into DJing older soul/disco/house/techno you can't get a lot of stuff on ITunes/Spotify. A lot of people end up ripping YouTube uploads for rare cuts.
It's a distribution issue. You can't even get some of these songs as torrents ha. You have to find the physical record or find a high bitrate download.
From a technical point of view I get why the argument is stupid, but playing a well pressed/mixed record has a visceral pleasure that is hard to explain. It's kind of like driving a manual car. Sure, it's dated and we've invented safer, easier ways to change the gearing while driving, but people who like experiences like that all know it's something more than a "hipster" indulgence. It's simply adding a level of complexity to something you love.
I could even argue it's something akin to the reason people use Vim or Emacs over JetBrains or Atom ha
If you're into house/techno/disco all the best records get released (or rereleased) on vinyl first, before eventually getting out as a digital download.
Also for artists, the profit margins are higher selling an LP (or even better a cassette) then releasing it to a small fanbase on Spotify. It's a better way to connect with a band you like than just streaming a track on your iPhone. You get the artwork to look at, and it's fun to read the production notes.
I can't remember the last time I bought an album on iTunes or even beatport. If I really want the digital copy I'll look for it on bandcamp.
Really? Last time I was into listening to new trance (pre ~2006) there were only a small handful of labels that still pressed vinyl. I haven't seen turntables in the wild for years, alas. Maybe it's different with more "underground" house and techno and disco, though.
I'm not sure about trance but "cool" techno/house is all being pressed on limited run distributions ( > 5000) before hitting digital downloads.
I might be in a bubble living in Brooklyn, but I'm seeing more record bags than thumb drives these days.
Sites like themixtapeshop.com and turntablelab.com are putting out great stuff every week so it's easy to build a set. You don't need to go digging through dusty bins to get records these days.
I always find it odd when people make statements like this. Roger Kimball's The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art tries to make the case that modern art has abandoned the past because art historians are now too "PC" to appreciate it.
Modernism did not, and can not fail because it has already happened. You can't change what inspired people.
> At some point The Artist will face up to it, and we can begin repairing the visual world
Statements like that are scary. Sounds like a headline torn from the pages of the National Review's art and literature section. If you don't like the way modern art makes you feel or the way it is critiqued, pick up a paintbrush or open a gallery.
reply