Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Stuart

    > the bike and transit lobby has further reduced that parking

    Please describe the locations along Valencia where significant parking was removed to put in a bike lane, forcing Uber drivers to illegally double park there.

    > Maybe if you slowed down, relaxed, and realized that the world does not revolve around the small minority who freely choose to engage in what is an inherently dangerous form of transportation

    So it revolves around Uber drivers and passengers, who are just as small a minority?

  2.  

    Stuart

    > I can’t blame you for trying to get away with being selfish

    So your argument is that using a bike lane as a bike lane instead of as an illegal double-parking zone is selfish? Now you’re not even trying to make plausible arguments.

    “And I don’t buy the safety issue. If it is not safe to pass then don’t pass.”

    Well if you don’t believe me that obstructing traffic is a safety issue, let’s see what other people in the thread think. Here’s someone who seems to agree: “it’s less safe for other vehicles who will be held up by the stopped car […] and may take risks to pass the obstruction.” Let’s see who wrote that… oh look, it was you.

  3.  

    Stuart

    > If you were that rigid about adherence to the law, then you’d be criticizing cyclists who routinely disobey the law

    I do.

    > And yet you do not

    You’re basing this on… what exactly?

    > which is why if Valencia is not my destination, I never use it.

    Please point me to a nearby north-south artery with a bike lane that cyclists who need to travel that way can use as an alternative.

  4.  

    Stuart

    > No, I was explaining to you why SFMTA has the lenient and liberal de facto legalization of cabs and other similar vehicles briefly taking the bike lane to safely pick up and drop off passengers

    But you weren’t explaining why the SFMTA has that policy. You were explaining why *you* think that should be the policy. What the SFMTA actually says is in the memo is:

    “San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) has been working across multiple divisions to develop a plan that encourages the use and safety of bike lanes, while also acknowledging the need to provide access to the curb for taxi and paratransit van customers with disabilities.”
    and later:
    “In an effort to support cycling as a safe and viable mode of transportation within the City, the SFIVITA has developed a network of bike lanes. Since some disabled taxi customers need direct access to the curb, taxis vehicles may use a bike lane to load or unload disabled passengers ONLY if there are no other safe options.”

    That’s a very different, and much more specific and targeted, rationale.

    > because you did not appear to understand the rationale.

    That’s an interesting way of looking at the fact that I’m basing my understanding of the SFMTA’s rationale on the SFMTA’s description of the rationale, which doesn’t agree with your claims of what you think the rationale is (or should be).

    Let’s also look at your claim that it applies to any “similar vehicles”. Here’s what the memo actually says:

    “All SF taxis will be issued a bumper sticker indicating that the vehicle is authorized to be in the bike lane while loading and unloading disabled customers. It is imperative that only authorized SF taxis have this bumper sticker.”

    Not exactly the same thing as ‘this applies to anything that RichLL is taxi-like’.

  5.  

    chetshome

    “an inherently dangerous form of transportation”

    driving? You’re a troll–please go away.

  6.  

    RichLL

    mx, when cyclists fail to stop at a stop sign isn’t that because it’s convenient and saves them time? How is that kind of law breaking any different from temporarily stopping in a bike lane? You’re being highly selective here.

    The city has failed to provide adequate parking, and the bike and transit lobby has further reduced that parking. So does it really shock you that people are compelled to park sub-optimally? And that the authorities are lenient about that?

    Maybe if you slowed down, relaxed, and realized that the world does not revolve around the small minority who freely choose to engage in what is an inherently dangerous form of transportation, then you’d be able to adopt a more zen-like approach to small impediments to your progress?

    It can’t all be about you.

  7.  

    mx

    Yes, the time and convenience of people who want to proceed straight down a roadway is more important than the time and convenience of people who want to obstruct that roadway. There are always cases where the system has to have a delay for others, such as waiting for a car to parallel park, but if a lane is routinely clogged with double parked cars, it’s ridiculous to say that everybody has just as much right to the space as anyone else. Why have traffic laws at all then?

    Of course there’s a safety issue. Anything that forces anybody to pass, car or bike, is adding risk. Obviously everyone should use their best judgement to pass safely, and cyclists have a strong self-presevational interest in doing just that, but it is inherent in the nature of the road that any obstruction that causes people to need to deviate from their lane will increase risk. As you pass, you have to ensure nobody is coming up too fast from behind (including other cyclists and people who may have suddenly turned a corner or exited a parking space) while simultaneously ensuring there are no hazards in the direction of travel (such as the car you’re passing deciding to start moving again, a passenger in the car you’re passing opening their driver-side door, a pedestrian crossing from in front of the stopped car, another cyclist coming around on the inside). Miss any of these hazards, or spot one but be unable to react within the limits of human reaction time and physics, and you’re probably going to get hurt.

  8.  

    RichLL

    Jym, I love the way you catch up on 2-month old threads. In this case, you really cannot consider all BART locations to be the same. For instance I am not aware of any substantial car parking at any SF BART location.

    On the other hand, go out to the further extremities of the East Bay and you will see a lot.

    Wild guess here. BART responds to customer demand and, in places like Pleasant Hill and Pleasanton, the customer demand is for car-friendly transit. In SF and Oakland, they want building density.

    Know your customer.

  9.  

    Jym Dyer

    ✧ The original whole point of TOD is to prioritize a live/work mix within walking distance of a transit stop. Instead, what I see at both BART and Caltrain is top priority given to parking, quite frequently a parking structure surrounded by a sea of surface parking. After hiking past this gauntlet you’ll get to something mall-like, usually. So I think that the “TOD” wording has been abused in the Bay Area (as well as other places) that can’t think past car-priority patterns.

  10.  

    SingleOccupantDriver

    The Tango has a back seat – the same as tandem bicycles. I would gladly trade my family’s current Nissan Leaf and Honda Civic for two Tangos. That would leave lots of width in our garage for current and more bicycles. For all suburban and city driving, we would drive Tangos. For rare long family trips, we would rent.

  11.  

    RichLL

    All you are really saying is that you think that your time and convenience is more important than some others peoples’ time and convenience. I can’t blame you for trying to get away with being selfish, but then nor can you blame others for the exact same behavior.

    And I don’t buy the safety issue. If it is not safe to pass then don’t pass. If you choose to take a risk then that is on your head, not anyone else. Driving or riding a bike is one big exercize in using judgement and experience to make safe calls. This is just one instance of that.

  12.  

    RichLL

    If you were that rigid about adherence to the law, then you’d be criticizing cyclists who routinely disobey the law requiring cyclists to come to a full stop at every stop sign or light. And yet you do not, which indicates a double standard on your part when it comes to obeying the law.

    If cyclists get a pass for breaking the law when they think it is safe or reasonable, then so do Uber cars and in fact all cars.

    Valencia is itself an “edge case” because there is so much night life there. I agree that the bike lane there is regularly blocked but I don’t see any way around that – the entire street is congested anyway, which is why if Valencia is not my destination, I never use it.

  13.  

    RichLL

    No, I was explaining to you why SFMTA has the lenient and liberal de facto legalization of cabs and other similar vehicles briefly taking the bike lane to safely pick up and drop off passengers, because you did not appear to understand the rationale.

    And the point about the width of a vehicle is that a bike passing a car takes less width than a car passing another car. Therefore double parking is less of a risk to a bike than to another car, even disregarding the fact that a cyclist can always dismount and walk around.

  14.  

    Corvus Corax

    So does the single-width car owner also have to have a standard-size car when he wants to have a passenger? Or his family? Does this sound reasonable? Especially when we already have single-width vehicles: they are called bicycles. We have been expecting science to save us since the 50s. Has that worked? Maybe we need re-orientation more than invention: so many people who think they can’t possibly bike to commute, in fact, can.

  15.  

    Stuart

    > I really do not see the problem with a 60 second drop-off

    I encounter about 2 TNCs per commute home on Valencia alone. On Fridays, 5+ is not uncommon. My whole ride is about 20 minutes. In your fictional world where cyclists should wait, that’s a 10-25+% increase in my commute time so that a handful of people don’t have to walk half a block to a restaurant. In the real world, where I pass them, I’m taking non-zero risk to my safety (yes, I try to pass safely, but let’s not be deliberately obtuse and pretend that there isn’t some inherent risk any time someone is merging into another lane of traffic).

    And usually at rush hour multiple cyclists have to go around each car that stops in the bike lane. So now a bunch of people have had their commutes increased by a significant amount for the minor convenience of a handful of people. You still don’t see the problem?

    > If you cannot wait a minute or safely pass, maybe you should not be on the road at all?

    If you can’t walk half a block at your destination, maybe you shouldn’t take an Uber.

  16.  

    Matt Laroche

    They showed at the meeting that Folsom to Townsend will follow about 6-9 months after.

  17.  

    Stuart

    > it is not reasonable to expect cab passengers to ask to be picked up in a location that doesn’t inconvenience cyclists

    I don’t expect them to. I expect drivers to know and follow the law, and if Uber needs to redirect passengers to make their service work better for users who don’t understand the laws, they should do so. They already have the capability to do it in the app.

    > Likewise an Uber driver want to be service-oriented. He doesn’t want to lose a ride or get a bad review

    Maximizing Uber reviews is not the purpose of public policy and traffic safety laws.

    > There are also safety considerations, especially after dark, say if leaving an expensive neighborhood, with walking onto a side street.

    You’re arguing an extreme edge case. Can this happen? Sure. But if that were the only time TNCs blocked bike lanes, this wouldn’t be a major issue for cyclists.

    The constant stream of TNCs stopping in the Valencia bike lane at rush hour are not doing so because 18th is a hotbed of crime 50 feet from Valencia at 6pm.

  18.  

    Stuart

    > A car (or bus or truck) is much wider and therefore will be less easy to safely pass an obstruction

    The obstruction here is the same either way: the car that’s stopped in a traffic lane.

    > The same does not hold for a bike, which can even be dismounted and walked around an obstruction.

    And a car could sit patiently instead of passing. You seem to always assume that bikes will always do the safest, most inconvenient thing, and cars will do the riskiest thing that’s most convenient, and then compare them as if they are equivalent.

    > From my POV, cabs can block a bike lane for the same reason that […]

    Your question started, “given that cabs can legally move into a bike lane”. I.e., you are talking about the actual “legalization” of cabs stopping in bike lanes by the SFMTA. Your POV is irrelevant to that question, what matters is the rationale for the SFMTA allowing cabs to stop in bike lanes. That rationale is explicitly paratransit needs.

    If you are just going to argue what you think the laws should be from your POV, don’t try to pretend that your argument is about an SFMTA policy that has a completely different basis.

  19.  

    RichLL

    Sorry but the term “paratransit” is helpful here. A vehicle that is operating as a cab should be treated as a cab.

    Now, I agree that it’s better to pull into the curb when you can. I often pick up or set down my teenagers on Valencia Street, and I will usually block a driveway than double park. But that isn’t always possible and so I have to make the judgement call that temporarily stopping in the bike lane is the safest option all round.

    I really do not see the problem with a 60 second drop-off., and evidently nor do SFPD or DPT since I’ve never gotten a ticket even when a cop car has passed at the time. If you cannot wait a minute or safely pass, maybe you should not be on the road at all?

  20.  

    RichLL

    Stuart, it is not reasonable to expect cab passengers to ask to be picked up in a location that doesn’t inconvenience cyclists because the 97% who don’t use a bike regularly will have little understanding of the problem that you claim anyway.

    Likewise an Uber driver want to be service-oriented. He doesn’t want to lose a ride or get a bad review be lecturing his customers about hiking a block or two just because you won’t be very temporarily inconvenienced.

    There are also safety considerations, especially after dark, say if leaving an expensive neighborhood, with walking onto a side street. That is why some high end restaurants have valet service or an outside guard.

    It’s part of being a road user that sometimes you get obstructed. And it’s the same, or worse, for drivers, who have to navigate a much wider vehicle around a double-parked car.

  21.  

    RichLL

    Stuart, the reason why blocking a car is more dangerous than blocking a bike should be obvious. A car (or bus or truck) is much wider and therefore will be less easy to safely pass an obstruction, thereby becoming an obstruction itself. The same does not hold for a bike, which can even be dismounted and walked around an obstruction.

    I still do not see the difference in principle between yellow cabs and other types of cab. In terms of the situation here, both pick up and drop off on the street, and so both have a special need to move as far as out of moving traffic as they can. From my POV, cabs can block a bike lane for the same reason that cars should enter a bike lane to turn right – it’s actually safer for everyone (assuming of course that maneuver is safely executed.

    And I believe that is why such incursions bear a near zero risk of citation.

  22.  

    Stuart

    > And given that cabs are allowed to enter the bike lane [because they are part of the paratransit system], then why not Uber/Lyft, which are [not part of the paratransit system]?

    Fixed that for you, and now the question answers itself.

    Plus, the memo from the SFMTA instructs taxis to “look for other safe locations to stop (such as an open curb space, taxi stand, or side street), using bike lanes as an absolutely last resort”. That’s very different from how many TNC drivers are behaving, so even if these rules were extended to them, they would still be violating them regularly. TNCs often stop in bike lanes very close to of–or even directly next to–open curb space, and constantly stop in Valencia’s bike lanes instead of using any of the many side streets that have at least an order of magnitude less traffic.

  23.  

    Stuart

    > Should 97% be inconvenienced so that 3% are not?

    You are creating a false choice:
    – block car traffic on a major street, inconveniencing (or endangering) a bunch of drivers, or
    – block bike traffic on a major street, inconveniencing (or endangering) a bunch of cyclists.

    There are other options. For instance, instead of making cyclists go around them (or wait for them to do a drop off and then play with their phone for a while looking for the next fare, wasting a bunch of time), they could go to the closest side street, where the only person likely to be inconvenienced is the passenger who has to walk an extra half block.

    At commute hours on Valencia, for instance, it’s common to see 5-10 cyclists go around an Uber who is picking up or dropping off 1-2 people. Should 80% be inconvenienced so that 20% are not?

    (Even ignoring that, your numbers are very misleading. The 3% number you are using comes from a comparison that includes all other modes of transportation, including walking, BART, buses in dedicated lanes, buses on streets without bike lanes, etc. So your “97%” contains a whole lot of people who are not inconvenienced by TNCs blocking car lanes.)

  24.  

    Stuart

    > it is less safe for the passenger who now has to walk into the road

    In another comment here you say that going into the road isn’t a safety issues for cyclists because “cars should never hit cyclists”. Cars should never hit pedestrians either. So which is it: is being in a car lane safe because the law is a magical protection against harm, or is it less safe? The answer is the same for pedestrians and cyclists.

    (Hint: the correct answer is the one that is consistent with the reality that cars hit both pedestrians and cyclists.)

    > and it’s less safe for other vehicles who will be held up by the stopped car in the middle of the road, and may take risks to pass the obstruction.

    In every discussion about cars blocking bike lanes you claim that it’s not a safety issue because bikes should only go around cars when it’s completely safe and there’s no risk at all. So which is it: is blocking a traffic lane a safety issue because people will in practice take some amount of risk to pass the obstruction, or is it not a safety issue because everyone will always wait until passing is absolutely 100% safe? The answer is the same for cars and cyclists.

    (Same hint as before.)

    > Moreover, given that cabs can legally move into a bike lane to pick up or set down passengers, why should Uber be held to a different standard?

    You’re assuming that people who think TNCs shouldn’t stop in bike lanes think the decriminalization of taxis stopping in bike lanes is a good thing. I doubt that’s true in general.

    But let’s leave that aside and answer the question. Reasons include:
    1) Uber is not part of the SF paratransit system, and paratransit was the reason given for the allowance made for taxis. This reason is enough all by itself, because it makes no sense to extend the exemption to Uber when the sole reason for the exemption does not apply to Uber.
    2) The impact on cyclists is proportional to the number of vehicles stopping in bike lanes. The city controls the number of taxis allowed to operate in the city, but not the number of Ubers. Estimates put the number of TNC vehicles in SF at something like 20x taxis, so that would represent a huge increase in impact.
    3) The city mandates training for taxis, including bike safety training, but not for Ubers.

  25.  

    JustJake

    Unfortunately, that model is not being proposed/supported by current players. What we are seeing is increasing regulatory powers & enforcement at regional level, without residents support. It’s big gov., big business, big green… all agreeing to decide whats best for us. Voters and local governments are obstacles, in that model.

  26.  

    RichLL

    Jake, correct, the resultant mayor would be liberal but moderate. Not left-wing like in SF, Oakland and Berkeley. But not right-wing like some of the more suburban and rural areas.

    In other words we’d have more balanced and centrist governance, and less variation from one township to another

  27.  

    RichLL

    Guy, for that to be the case you would have to interview those witnesses. I am guessing that you have not, so you have no idea what they told the cops

  28.  

    RichLL

    Except that there clearly was enough space for the car to pass because Suyama was not hit by the car.

    Frankly it is mystery why she is dead

  29.  

    RichLL

    farazs, I never said they were the same thing. In fact I said they were not. A cyclist taking a lane in face of oncoming overtaking traffic is taking on far more risk.

  30.  

    JustJake

    Well, the up side to that? If 7 million Bay Area residents elected a mayor, it would likely not be one from SF, and people like Ed Lee… no chance whatsoever.

  31.  

    Mario Tanev

    Why not to Townsend? Needed for dignified connection to Caltrain. Think of it as the Twitter Express for bikes.

  32.  

    RichLL

    Sure but part of a unitary government would be making the Bay Area one large county and city.

    If bigger cities like NYC, Chicago and LA can all have one mayor, why does the Bay area have dozens of them?

    I was arguing for LESS government with FEWER layers not more.

  33.  

    RichLL

    Maybe so but it’s still an extra danger for the passenger. Moreover it causes vehicular congestion and risk.

    This really isn’t a safety issue for cyclists. Cars should never hit cyclists regardless of whether there is a bike lane or not.

    What cyclists are really complaining about here is inconvenience – a cab in the bike lane slows them down and annoys them. I get that but cyclists are really asking others to be inconvenienced more so that they can be inconvenienced less.

    Should 97% be inconvenienced so that 3% are not?

  34.  

    RichLL

    Most passengers would neither know nor care, or see that as a good thing if it means being dropped off in a closer and safer location

  35.  

    RichLL

    The problem is that Valencia Street is also a residential street in a residential area. Taking out parking will affect residents and all you really achieve is replacing medium-term parking with short-term parking.

    Loading/unloading zones work best in purely commercial areas.

  36.  

    RichLL

    chetshome, I never said it’s an exception in the vehicle code. I said it is allowed because municipal agencies are free to decide not to enforce certain laws or to allow certain actions where it is considered in the public interest.

    Cyclists should understand that as it is EXACTLY what they wanted for stop signs, although in that case the arguments made did not convince.

    Something is legal either if it allowed by statute or because it is not enforced for good cause. And given that cabs are allowed to enter the bike lane, then why not Uber/Lyft, which are de facto cabs?

  37.  

    David Ly

    More green paint across the entire city and the protected islands will make me feel safer to ride a bike in the city.

  38.  

    Carl Honduras

    You expect morons who dont even tell their own insurance companies what they are doing with their own cars to obey bike safety videos?

  39.  

    mx

    I was thinking that, but feared putting ideas in people’s heads. If someone let slip when the SFMTA staffers were doing the study to determine whether the 90% standard was achieved, a sufficiently eager activist could start driving around the block passing stopped trains (ideally without, you know, hurting anybody) to drag down the average.

    Of course, I would never interfere with a traffic study, nor would I advocate that anybody do the same, and knowing drivers in SF, I suspect the 90% standard won’t be reached even without any such mischief, but this pilot program does create some perverse incentives indeed.

  40.  

    StrixNoctis .

    Either many motorists failed to read the DMV handbook, never took driver’s ed or choose to ignore that traffic law of the requirement to merge into the bike lane prior to making a right turn.

    What irks me more than their failure to merge into the bike lane includes when they don’t use their turn signals, don’t bother to look to make sure there isn’t a cyclist near them or see the cyclist next to them but want the cyclist to slow down and go behind them so they can merge into the lane rather than the driver merging behind and giving the cyclist (or any other vehicle for that matter) the right of way as required by law! Something is seriously wrong with the brains of people on the road these days!

  41.  

    neroden

    Muni continues to burst at the seams. Build actual train service, people take it…

  42.  

    neroden

    Hmm, I see that SF is trying to half-ass the ADA requirements. This is kind of dumb of them and will get them in trouble. Anyway, the ADA stops will be:

    West Portal
    Taraval & 19th
    Taraval & 28th (westbound only, high block with no long platform?!?)
    Taraval & 30th (inbound only?!?)
    Taraval & Sunset
    Taraval & 42nd
    Wawona & 46th

    ….I think you can see where this is heading. In the long run the list of accessible stops may simply become the full list of stops. The spacing is a pittle too wide for my taste and I think they need to do something about the gap between West Portal and Taraval/19th, and the gap between 19th and 30th.

  43.  

    neroden

    All new islands are *required* to be ADA compliant, no exceptions. That’s what the ADA is all about. (There’s actually an exception for stations which board directly from the street, or from the sidewalk, but an island isn’t the sidewalk. It’s best practice to have ADA compliance with sidewalk extensions too, though.)

  44.  

    neroden

    So this is a slightly weird plan.

    West Portal — already has its own platforms
    Ulloa & Forest Side Avenue — remains as dangerous as before.
    Ulloa & 15th — removed
    Taraval & 15th — curb extensions for boarding safely
    Taraval & 17th — removed
    Taraval & 19th — boarding islands, “near side” (before intersection)
    Taraval & 22nd WESTBOUND — closed
    Taraval & 23rd WESTBOUND — boarding island, crosses right in front of 23rd
    Taraval & 21st/22nd EASTBOUND — boarding island, block long
    Taraval & 24th EASTBOUND — closed
    Taraval & 26th WESTBOUND — boarding island, “near side”
    Taraval & 26th EASTBOUND — painted “stop here” markings
    Taraval & 28th — closed
    Taraval & 30th WESTBOUND — boarding island, “near side”
    Taraval & 30th EASTBOUND — painted “stop here” markings
    Taraval & 32nd WESTBOUND — boarding island, “near side”
    Taraval & 32nd EASTBOUND — painted “stop here” markings
    Taraval & 35th EASTBOUND — painted “stop here” markings
    Taraval & Sunset WESTBOUND — boarding island, extending across 36th
    Taraval & Sunset EASTBOUND — boarding island, extending across 37th
    Taraval & 40th WESTBOUND — boarding island, “near side”
    Taraval & 40th EASTBOUND — painted “stop here” markings
    Taraval & 42nd — boarding islands, “near side”
    Taraval & 44th — boarding islands, “near side”
    Taraval & 46th WESTBOUND — boarding island, “near side”
    46th & Ulloa — remains just as dangerous as before
    46th & Vicente (currently only northbound) — remains just as dangerous as before
    Wawona & 46th (Zoo) — already has curb extensions and platforms for boarding

  45.  

    neroden

    More to the point, BOSTON has safety islands for its streetcars, and they’re older than San Francisco’s. So SF really does need to catch up.

    Still, at least in SF it’s just a matter of catching up. The stops without boarding islands have been like that basically forever. It’s not like some of the regional rail stations on SEPTA, where they used to have platforms and the platforms were actually *removed* in the 1960s / 1970s, leaving the trains stopping at asphalt patches on the side of the tracks.

  46.  

    neroden

    Hey, at least it’s better than NYC, where pedestrians get killed and the reaction by DOT, NYPD, and the rest of the government is ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  47.  

    SingleOccupantDriver

    Congestion caused by empty side seats of cars. Fix: single-width electric cars Win for drivers: drive and park faster. Win for bicycles: parked to curb eliminates bike dooring and very pleasant to ride beside http://www.commutercars.com

  48.  

    shotwellian

    SFMTA’s list of planned 2016 bike improvements released in May (http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Executive/Meetings/pnp/2016/05-May/2016SFMTA_BicycleProjects_051716%20%281%29.pdf) included a bike lane on 10th from Market to Folsom. Has anyone heard whether this is still happening? It’s arguably the worst stretch of “official bike route” in SoMa.

  49.  

    mx

    Agreed. It would also help if the apps themselves provided some of this guidance. I’ve occasionally seen the apps offer an alternate spot, but not nearly enough. If a passenger requests to be picked up/dropped off at a location where there’s no legal stopping point (say, right in front of Uber’s HQ on Market), the app ought to know that and suggest someplace else. That way the message comes from the service and not the driver, who has little power to refuse a request lest he/she receive a bad rating.

  50.  

    mx

    Exactly. There are some places that are clear hot-spots for pickups/dropoffs (and the Uber and Lyft apps already know how to direct passengers to these spots for convenience). We have more people who want to be dropped off, but not enough safe places to do it. The trick, of course, is enforcement to ensure that such spaces are kept clear for loading, not just used as free parking spaces.

    As an example, I frequently see Uber/Lyft drivers blocking the bike lane on WB Market near Polk. This is obviously wrong and not ok, but there’s also no legal place to stop for a considerable distance in either direction. Passengers are going to get upset and give the driver a bad rating if he insists on picking them up or dropping them off more than a block and a half away from their chosen spot, so of course they block the bike lane. The design of the street makes this an inevitability.