If you live in San Francisco, you might consider getting a bike and/or using public transportation instead of ride-sharing services. Either of them are better for the city by reducing congestion and pollution, and biking in particular is surprisingly fast and convenient.
If you are interested in getting introduced to biking, there are a bunch of free classes by the SF Bicycle Coalition that I highly recommend you look into:
So I cycle around SF, but am considering stopping. The data varies depending on which source you use, but it seems like cycling is about 3 times less dangerous than motorbiking, and considerably (at least ~5-10x) more dangerous than driving. Most people who've lived in SF have plenty of anecdotal evidence of friends who've been hurt, often seriously, by bike accidents.
I'd love to be proven wrong about this: I love cycling and particularly like getting built-in exercise in my routine. And I'll continue to donate to the SF bicycle coalition, and vote for improving infrastructure to support cyclists. It just seems most rational to stop actually cycling.
I've ridden my bike to and from work in SF nearly every day for the past 4 years and have only once come close to being in an accident with a car.
But every day I see plenty of other cyclists making overly-aggressive moves that put themselves and other people in danger. You may claim that I'm blaming the victim, but from what I've observed many cyclists kind of enjoy a little (in their opinion) justified indignation at the behavior of car drivers. And they'll intentionally put themselves in positions to feel that justified rage.
How many times have you seen a cyclist in the right-hand bike lane try to overtake a car signaling for a right turn while both are approaching an intersection, rather than yielding to the car who will clearly reach the intersection first? And then the cyclist acts surprised and offended when the driver begins to turn into them.
Of course this is a recipe for disaster, and I see it multiple times per week from my position a safe distance back from the turning car, which I can observe and then safely pass on the left.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be safe on a bike. Just use your head and ride a bit defensively.
The fact that bikes want to be treated as "cars" on the road (as in they want space and respect), but when their light is red all of a sudden they become tiny little passengers that can illegally cross the red light. I'm not talking about the ones that stop and look. I mean the ones that just fly straight through the light because they believe they have a few seconds before the cross traffic comes, which is true about 99% of the time. Then you get the 1% of the time a car decides to jump the light and goes early.
Bikes are also extremely rude to pedestrians. I have never heard drivers yelling at pedestrians when they are crossing a cross-walk. I have however, been exiting a bus after there was an accident ahead and have had a bike barely stop in front of all the exiting passengers and scream, "HEY IM TRYING TO GET TO WORK HERE" as though everybody needs to get out of the way because he is very important. Also seen bikes try to go through when the pedestrians are trying to cross the street. Luckily it is nothing like that idiot that rammed his bike through the pedestrian crosswalk and killed a man just so he wouldn't have to slow down.
Maybe the cyclists (in general) should stop being so aggressive, arrogant, and consider the actual people that have no protection from cyclists. Maybe then there won't be so many bike accidents.
PS. It's a _BAD_ idea to cross your bike in front of a MUNI bus just so you can make it over to the intersection you somehow overbiked. Let the MUNI bus win.
Maybe you should stop making so many generalizations?
There is the odd total idiot on a bike who blows through stop signs and stop lights without stopping and doesn't have a headlight and is dressed in all black without a helmet. There are a ton of other bicyclists who have flashing headlights, dress in bright yellow jackets, wear helmets and stop at intersections. What do you want the latter to do about the former? Its not like there's a meeting of bicyclists where we all get together and draw lots for who gets to be the idiot this week, and just because I ride my bike to work doesn't imbue me with any magical abilities to police the idiots out there.
I suspect that you're not really looking for any kind of workable solution, though, and you're just butthurt about the one guy who did that one dumb thing to you, though, so please continue to vent uselessly about what "cyclists (in general)" should all do to appease your indignation.
> I have never heard drivers yelling at pedestrians when they are crossing a cross-walk.
That's because they're inside soundproof boxes. They do it too, you just can't hear them. I know because I've done it. Same with motorcyclists and pedestrians yelling at bikers and cars. People get frustrated when they're trying to get someplace and can't, so they vent. This can't come as a surprise.
As a cyclist, driver, and pedestrian in SF this really is a tough city to be in. Drivers frequently stop in bike lanes, run red lights and roll through stop signs. I've also had many near misses in bike to bike collisions from other cyclists who don't think they need to stop ever. When I used to Caltrain, I've seen cars turn right without warning forcing me to a stop as often as I've seen cyclists try to overtake a signaling vehicle. When I jog on the embarcadero, road bikes whiz past in either direction despite the bike lanes right off the sidewalk.
SF seems to be perpetually in a rush...you need to get around defensively and safely no matter how you are getting around,
Ugh, this is so true. As a (grad) student who bikes to campus, I hate dealing with drivers who have been conditioned by the inconsiderate other cyclists. I personally always yield to cars in right turn lanes and that sort of thing, but sometimes they also slow down because they're used to asshole cyclists cutting in front of them, so it just causes confusion and tension from both sides. Well, tension mostly on my side, because a mistake is much more costly to me than to the driver :(. I don't get why other people don't bike more defensively, it's terrifying to me.
I've been going downhill at a reasonable clip and taking the center of the lane (because of speed and the hazards of card doors opening up suddenly) and had cars behind me be so impatient to pass me that they'll forget to check for oncoming traffic and nearly get into head on collisions with other cars. I also started pulling fully into the lane because even though I'm travelling at speed downhill I've had cars pass me, with about an inch to spare when there was oncoming traffic and they were nearly pulling into the other lane -- I've had to take the tactic to force them to choose between flat out murdering me or else getting into a head on collision if there's oncoming traffic. Another time there was construction with cones out and I went inside most of the cones and let cars by, but had to merge into traffic around a cone where the actual construction was happening -- and a car decided they couldn't be slowed down for a second by a bike in front of them and they passed me and ate a traffic cone and dragged it under their car for 2 blocks.
Some people just completely lose it when they have a bike in front of them that is going to slow them down for even a second or two. I don't know if its rage or stupidity, but they get really, really dumb.
I can't wait until manual driving on freeways and in major cities is just banned and everyone has to have their cars on computer control. All the road rage goes away, all the inattention, all the derp would just go away, and traffic would move faster, and all the headgames would be gone -- replace it all with google algorithms that know how to pass a bike safely.
It has been shown that the biggest factor in bike safety is the number of cyclists on the road. The more bikes, the more aware drivers are of our presence. In SF, Critical Mass had (I've learned) a huge impact in breaking ground for bike infrastructure. Currently, the Bay Area Bike Share has become a strong factor. If we stop biking now until it's safer, it might never be so.
I agree: more cyclists is good. But risking my own health and safety to make SF drivers more aware of cyclists just doesn't work for me.
I think this is called a "social trap" by sociologists. I'm not sure there's an easy solution. But for my part if I stop cycling, I'll make sure to up my donations to the bicycle coalition.
I grew up riding my bike in Amsterdam, it was there my main method of transportation, as it is here in SF. I never ever wore a helmet in Amsterdam, but here I do.
Main reason: not my driving capabilities, but car drivers that don't think about cyclists, whereas in Amsterdam they do. Opening their door next to the bike lane? Looking to their right hand side when turning left? Using their turning signal, especially when taking a right turn at a red light?
Second, roads are obviously way more laid out for cars and not for bicycles. Four way stops are a pain. Roads with no designated bike lane means you are passed by cars that actively have to avoid you, while driving 3-4x as fast. Traffic lights leave too little time between one side turning red and the other turning green.
In the Netherlands, if you hit a bicycle with your car you are automatically responsible. That will make you more aware of bikes.
I always compare the advent of bicycles to snowboarders entering the slopes over the last 30 years that were ruled by skiers. Different ways of moving, where the new people are seen as the odd ones. Yes to dare to enter you have to love a bit of adventure and sometimes bend the rules, but it is mostly perception. We just have to get used to each other and work it out
There's also been shown to be an inverse correlation between wearing a helmet and safety. It seems that motorists correlate "having a helmet on" with being safe, and so are more aggressive around those who are wearing.
Probably referring to the study in the uk to examine how overtaking distances of passing vehicles is affected by the attire of the cyclist [1].
There's suggestions that making helmets compulsory reduces cyclists, which in turn makes cycling unsafer.
I cycle in London every day (for the past 10 years) and personally don't wear a helmet (though plenty of my friends do). I tried, but found for me it was a mild occasional obstruction to my peripheral vision - something I value highly on the road.
Interesting, but not really definitive. Seems like there's a big factor related to the size of the bike lane as well. There could also be a bias towards male and female cyclists, since this experiment was conducted using a wig to make the rider look female with no helmet on. Would still like to see more.
My current ride gives me a pretty huge bike lane, and so far I've felt better with a helmet on than without.
I live in Seattle, and gave up biking on the streets years ago. Just too dangerous.
I remember a public service commercial on TV in the 60's which would exhort people to drive defensively, even when they were in the right. The tag line was "don't be dead right".
I see more and more cyclists on the road, and too many ride like they're invulnerable if they're in the right. They'll do things like stop in the middle of the road around a blind corner. They'll ride on the stripe that separates the bike lane from the road. They'll force overtaking drivers to move into oncoming traffic to get around them.
I've talked to local bike activists, and their attitude is if they're in the right, it's the car driver's problem. I just don't get it. What good is being in the right if you're dead?
There is no doubt that biking is more dangerous than driving. However, biking is still extremely safe.
And for the safety conscious person, especially for a beginner, I'd suggest only biking routes that you are familiar with and that include safe bike lines. For many people, especially people working in SOMA, this could probably include your daily commute. If you don't believe there are safe options, or you are unfamiliar with the route, then don't bike it and use another transportation option.
I don't want to pretend that biking is safer than it is, but there is a big difference in difficulty between biking on market st at 4:30pm on a weekday vs biking through GGP on a sunday. So I'd say instead of giving up biking entirely, just perhaps phase out a the trips that you are uncomfortable with, or try to find a different route for those.
Also Google's biking directions deserve a shout-out for generally giving directions that are 90% covered in bike lanes. It's rare that I'm able to find a better route than it suggests in SF.
I just started biking to/from caltrain and in the first week, I've already had someone try to steal my bike off the train and have nearly been hit by several cars in completely un-extraordinary circumstances.
I'm sticking with it, but it doesn't paint a great picture for biking over other forms of convenient, readily available transport. Also the initial cost of biking, even when going for a super cheap bike and gear was ~$400, which will only pay for itself after ~6 months assuming I don't need to buy more gear (I already know I will, to deal with rain, and repairs).
My alternative was paying $50 for monthly parking at the caltrain station. My cost estimate includes the price of gas to get to and from the caltrain station.
I was going to say that $400 is going to pay for itself in dramatically less than six months if you're paying City prices for parking. $50/mo for CalTrain is a steal -- if you're parking _in_ SF anywhere near downtown or SOMA / South Park, that's a couple of day's charges, possibly a week's worth if you're walking a few blocks.
I'd factor in a few other points on cycling in that you're getting exercise, replacing at least some of a gym or other cost. And your bike will almost certainly last more than six months. A decent bike will last a lifetime, or at least a good ten years. You'll want to factor in service and parts but if you're spending more than $100-$200/year, you're likely using it for more than just casual commuting. That's a few tanks of gasoline for a car.
You're right. I definitely would have done this even if the cost didn't make too much sense. The exercise is one reason, another is that the caltrain lot fills up before about 7:45 am, so even if I'm catching an 8:15 train, I need to be there early. With a bike, I can ride for 10-15 minutes and get there on time. My bike won't last a year, or a lifetime, it's not decent, I've had to do a bunch of bolt tightening even after a few weeks, but that's OK, I didn't pay a lot.
Bolt-tightening (especially on a recently-purchased bike) is hardly unexpected. On a new bike, there's a lot of general stretching and breaking-in of components over the first few days/weeks of use.
A used $400 bike _should_ last you a long time, if you've selected properly. Though replacing components is fairly typical -- chain and freewheel, cables, tires, wheels. I've gone through a number of other components as well over various bikes under heavy use, though I've still got two frames that I've had for decades.
I bought a new $350 bike so my expectations are low. I'm ok with that. I wasn't sure the bike commute would stick so I didn't want to go all in right away.
Sunk cost, so, well, roll with it. But a used purchase in this case is almost always going to be more appropriate.
There's a serious inflection point at the lower end of the bike market where you get very low-quality kit. I've not bought new for such a long time I'm not sure where it is any more, but ~$400 - $800 is likely around the range for a basic city bike (e.g., "mountain bike" type stance but geared for city streets).
Figure paying half that for a lightly used model, of which there are generally many to choose from for numerous reasons.
City biking does have a bit of a learning curve, and I do highly recommend you look into those classes that I linked to above (or find similar ones in your area).
You will get better with experience though, and the better you get the more you'll be able to understand how to bike defensively and reduce any sort of close calls.
I wish more people would take your advice and learn how to ride defensively. I really feel like most people who get in accidents on their bicycles probably aren't paying attention to what's going on around them.
You're right! I come from a very bike-dense country (The Netherlands, we have more bicycles than inhabitants.) My son is 4 and he rides his bike to school. I'll cycle next to him, but he does know all the rules and basics about defensive riding.
I bicycled in and around NYC last year and it was crazy. Car drivers didn't really pay attention to bikers, but that was actually much less dangerous than I anticipated. The cyclists however were flipping mad! No rules, no courtesy, aggresive riding, running red lights, cutting off cars... Madness! Not all,of them, of course, but considerably more than you would see in, say, Amsterdam.
The bike lanes is NYC were fantastic, though. NYC seems perfect for bike transportation, I never got why you don't see more cyclists. SFO with all those hills (like I said, I'm dutch, no hills here...) and cable cars seems more challenging!
This sounds like victim shaming. Possibly the drivers of the cars are not paying attention, maybe both, but to assume that people are somehow doing something wrong (many may be) just because they are in an accident seems overly presumptuous.
You can advocate for learning more about defensive riding without making it seem like those who are in accidents are just ignorant or unaware.
My first two car accidents were completely unavoidable and unrelated to my awareness. I would have hated to have someone tell me these accidents could have been avoided with further training, knowing nothing else about the accident except that I had one.
edit: I see your other comment in this thread, it has more information, thanks for that, all the same, it definitely seems to ignore a lot of complex factors and use anecdotal evidence (4 years of that, though, is pretty reasonable).
My main gripe with any car/bike interactions are that they are orders of magnitude different. A car slams on its brakes to respond to something in the road, or swerves, and they can do that an order of magnitude faster and more powerful than a person on a bike can. As long as bikers share the road with cars, there will be an imbalance of power which is unavoidable, so they should feel a bit of indignation.
If you are interested in getting introduced to biking, there are a bunch of free classes by the SF Bicycle Coalition that I highly recommend you look into:
https://www.sfbike.org/resources/urban-bicycling-workshops/
For public transportation, here are a couple of "far too specific" guides for different types of public transit:
Light Rail: http://fartoospecific.tumblr.com/post/63733141599/fartoospec...
BART: http://fartoospecific.tumblr.com/post/100628937344/fartoospe...