>Going up 16th St, commonly buses and bicycles hopscotch at each light,
>bicycles go around at the light, bus goes around during the block, then
>all stop at the next light...any suggestions?
This gets even worse on Hayes Street, going uphill.
This came up two years ago at an SFBC-sponsored "Bikes and Muni"
forum. Lots of bike riders, two drivers, and two taxicab operators
couldn't figure out how to make it work.
It's just as unpleasant for me as it is for you, I don't like playing
hopscotch, which is why I avoid riding on Mission Street south of S.
Van Ness.
Logically, if we know we're going to be playing this game, then our
net traveling time is roughly the same, which means instead of
passing each other, one of us should play leader, and the other
follows. Because you know you're going to be making extended stops,
it makes sense for you to follow. The first block of following would
be slower, but over the length of several blocks, the time should be
the same, right?
Like this (pretend the boarding stops are in a real pattern, this is
just a sketch):
hopscotch ("X" = passes other, "O" = boarding stop)
> > > > > > direction of travel > > > > > >
bike -------X -------X -------X -------X -------X
bus -----X-O ----X--O ----X--O ----X--O ----X--O
follow the leader (":" = trailing at safe distance)
bike -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
bus -----::O ----:::O ----:::O ----:::O ----:::O
I *think* in follow the leader, the time you lose mid-block in
trailing is made up in the greater distance the bike covers in not
having to pass you at the light, and you're both a heck of a lot more
comfortable with the situation.
I can think of times this wouldn't work, but is it a start?
Hopscotch is the absolute worst at intersections where the stop is
just beyond the intersection (Rebecca Kresse's situation). I think
the solution is letting the bike go, and then playing blatant "I'm a
bus, I can run the light" if the signal changes while you're trailing
-- the bike has NOTHING like your kind of right of way and sticking
the rider with the cross traffic is rude, to say the least.
That situation by the way is a particularly good example of how
transit-priority signals would make the streets safer for intermodal
operation. Say *that* ten times, fast.
Here's an example of a street design that can solve this problem,
adapted from Amsterdam:
xxxx b x p| | |p xxxx
xxxx i x a| | |a xxxx
xxxx k x r| | |r xxxx
xxxx e x k| | |k xxxx
xxxx x | | | xxxx
xxxx l xxx | xxxxxx
xxxx a xxxx | xxxxxxx
xxxx n xxxx | xxxxxxx
xxxx e xxxx | xxxxxxx
^^ ^ ^^ ^^
sidewalk ^ on-street sidewalk
^ parking w/ & ped/muni
^ bulb for bulb
two-way ped & muni
bike safety
lane
That's a pretty big change. The widths would work out. There are
other ways to do it; the thing is to be creative with looking at how
different users stop and go, and figuring how to reduce conflicts.
* * *
>33 bicycles close enough and long enough that I could tell how they were
>driving. 29 violated at least one traffic law or control ...
You're an angel for counting. Can you break out the law violations?
Did you count stopping in the crosswalk, for instance?
>... Lots of bikes out there running stop signs and red lights
>in the dark with no lights wearing black...
See, doesn't this just scream "information campaign" to you? Not just
"Run a light and DIE!" kind of stuff, either. The SFBC was actually
working on an aspect of this but their grant fell through ... to me
this doesn't make sense as a private campaign, it feels like a
cut-and-dried traffic concern, but DPT has already stated that paying
attention to bikes means cutting into car traffic throughput ("damn
the injuries, full speed ahead").
/ dtp /
-- David Powers san francisco ca usa fax 415 436.9141
chromo@sirius.com <http://www.sirius.com/~chromo/screed/> --
---------- while guns are profitable, hate is good business ----------
----- ooh! sun! <http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981015.html> -----