Honestly unsure what they were thinking with a 5 mile bike lane where the major population centers are a few miles from each end of the bridge and with no safe bike infrastructure between the bridge and those pop centers. Sure you can ride across the bridge but…to where? This project almost feels designed to fail and make bikes look bad.
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
201 points (98.1% liked)
Not The Onion
17117 readers
943 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
201
Bike lanes on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge are contributing to pollution, drivers say
(www.cbsnews.com)
I'll bet the lane is there purely to satisfy some requirement for including non-car infrastructure, regardless of whether it makes sense in this particular location. It's the same way we get fun bike lanes like these:
Sometimes it's to artificially narrow the lane to slow traffic. That's what they did here.
that photo feels like the bike lanes in my city that literally merge the right lane of car traffic into the bike lane at traffic lights. it's like they are trying to kill bicycle riders on purpose
Talking with cyclists it's actually the opposite. It works in the sense that if someone is turning right they will get into the right lane and essentially self block a bicycle from pulling past them on the right side (if a cyclist did that they have a high likelyhood of getting hit as they are pulling into the cars blind spot... Then traffic starts moving and the right turning car just goes and suddenly there could be a bike there).
Some years ago now, a bunch of bike lanes got added to the streets in my city. The city did a big project of adding them and afterwards proudly declared that X number of kilometers of bike lanes had been made.
When an investigation was done into how the decision process had gone for where to add them it turned out that the only consideration had been "how cheap is it to add bike lanes in these locations?" Not "would bike lanes actually be used in these locations?" They were solely trying to maximize the kilometers-of-lane-per-dollar-spent so that they could put out that headline with as big a number as possible.
Subsequent studies showed that a lot of those lanes weren't being used by bikes in any significant number. Bike lanes had been added on streets that ran alongside sidewalks that were already designated bike paths. I'm a bike rider myself, some lanes were added in my neighborhood but they somehow managed to put them everywhere except the routes I usually took. The city wound up spending a bunch more money to remove a bunch of the bike lanes that were doing nothing but increasing congestion.
It may be that this was a similar situation, where someone wanted to proudly show off headlines of how they'd pushed for bike access and got X numbers of kilometers installed and those were the only real metrics that mattered.
i noticed this in sf too.
Your argument seems to be that nobody should ever start anything unless it's a complete, end-to-end solution at the end of Phase 1.
When the period of evaluation is only 4 years and nothing is done to integrate the solution, then yeah, you probably shouldn’t waste time/money on it.
It has been proven time and again that adding lanes does not reduce traffic, but reducing number of lanes actually can.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/adding-freeway-lanes-traffic-20390021.php
If my math is correct - those sick bikers are just carbo-loading & farting so much they don't even use pedals.
(It's the only way it would make sense.)
I can't say anything about your math, but I can say that you didn't read the article.
(Oh, did the fart-propulsion give it away? I'll add the "/s" next time.)
the core issue is that there is too little road space for the number of cars that ply that route and too much road space for the bikes that are ridden there.
it seems to one that an easier fix would be for more people to give up driving in favour of riding bikes.
You’re out of your mind if you think taking out car lanes is going to make people start a 15 mile bike commute to work.
That bike lane is 100% recreational.
Imagine moving your body to do something. Not in my america
Our founding fathers fought for my right to sit on the couch all day
Well, that's exactly what I do since last year. I use an electric bike (converted from a mechanical one), and if it takes time, it is actually faster than taking my car (40 minutes vs 1h+).
And I do it even in the winter, when we get bellow zero temperatures. I just dresses warmly.
Edit : The bike (Le Petit Porteur Longtail, wasn't yet electrified at the time of this picture)
No such thing as bad weather, only insufficient/bad gear/clothing.
I would partially agree. No cloth can protect you from strong wind. In such case, I work from home 😅.
But that's like... once or twice a year.
No cloth can protect you from strong wind.
lots of layers and the outermost as leather, is my go-to. But yeah, wind is a bitch. I live in SW Finland, on the coast of the Baltic Sea, at the sort of "outernmost" part of continental Finland in the part where the Baltic Sea makes that sort of Y-shape.
If you just go 50-100 km inland, the weather is way different. You get nice calm winters. Here? It's wet and freezing all the time in the winter, with winds raping your face. It's like tiny ice crystals sand blowing your face. I won't have a single bit of skin exposed when I bike to the store in the winter. Sometimes maybe a part of my face depending on how bad the goggles fog up depeding on the scarf(ves) I'm wearing.
But if I had like 5000e to spend on outdoors gear, none of that would remotely be an issue.
The saying is basically from my army days. As a Finn, we have conscription, so pretty much all males go (and quite a decent part of females as well) [and I'm using "male" and "female" and not "man" and "woman" because that's how the goverment would look at it despite your personal gender identity]. And learning the proper way to gear up is a large part of the military service in Finland.
One night I spent in -40 outside (no need for F or C they converge at that temp). One night I spent sleeping in a tent that I wouldve drowned in had I slept face down. Shit like that. Although you can't really do anything when there's just too much water. Multiple layers and keeping dry is key.
But yeah tldr I prefer a leather outerlayer. Proper leather jacket will keep the wind out. Although usually they're not designed to cover all of you, so you'll need good gloves, scarf, and something to counter the wind through the zipper.
I mean our wind speeds are not like in America I don't think The record gust recorded in my local area is 41.6 m/s (approximately 93 mph) I think. But dammit my windows used to bang like crazy when I lived some 100m above sea level in a place from which I could literally see the harbor in Turku. And the people who owned it were cheap cunts who didn't remodel it after I moved out. (I had a thermometer in my kitchen which topped out at 50C and it hit the top. I had candles in my kitchen melt. and they weren't in direct sunlight.)
That's pretty much what I do daily.
I'm genuinely too fatigued to figure out the logic behind this brainfart.
Can someone eli5 pls
Entitled people will grasp at any straw to blame everyone but themselves. While very blue, the Bay Area is still very car centric and people lose their minds over the slightest inconvenience against driving. I suspect their rationale here is that taking a lane away for driving and giving it to bikers means more traffic on the bridge and more pollution. Let’s not forget that all the people in Marin county routinely block initiatives to expand large scale public transit (ie our subway system BART) from SF and Contra Costa counties. They just want to drive their car and keep the “undesirables” out of their neighborhood.
Makes sense, thanks.
For balance this should also be cross posted to Fuck Bikes.