Love the channel- stay safe. Small suggestion: put the rear camera view in the bottom left corner. Sometimes it blocks things you are pointing out and you are virtually never pointing out something in the bottom left corner!
In most cases, waiting for red lights is best, but there are some situations where, assuming no oncoming traffic, running the red light can be safer. One such example, let's suppose the intersection itself has no bike lane, but very shortly after, either a bike lane begins, or your route turns into a driveway. If you wait for the light, cars will pile up behind you so, when the light does turn green, everyone is going to try to pass you all at once, leading to potentially dangerous passing maneuvers. On the other hand, if you are able to run the red, you have the potential to be off the road (or at least, out of the car lane) before the light turns green and the cars behind you start to move - conflict avoided.
I just realized, nobody looks at empty parking spots and says "look at all this empty parking. Nobody ever parks here. This could be a bike lane", because they know that sometimes people will park there and it's convenient to have. But every time there's an empty bike lane somebody is saying "Look at this empty bike lane. What a waste of space. Nobody ever uses this bike lane."
As a free lance worker, visiting the buildings along those roads in Mission Valley... I have often been forced to use the street parking (including literally on the section of street that you biked on in your video), and if the street parking were removed, I would have literally nowhere to park, to do my work. The parking lots, believe it or not, as big as they are, are not big enough during the work day, to handle the volume of cars commuting to those high-rise office buildings along Camino Del Rio South. In addition, some of the parking lots are marked as "permit only" with a handful of guest spots only, or sometimes no guest spots at all. Even with the street parking that exists, I have sometimes been forced to park more than half a mile away, and then walk to the building I need to visit... because the street parking is sometimes that impacted, with literally no available street spots for a half mile around, in addition to every parking lot stall being full. Obviously I'm sympathetic to the safety needs of bicyclists. But as somebody who occasionally visits businesses in Mission Valley to fix their computers... if we take away the street parking as you suggest, we also need to force the parking lots that exist to allow sufficient guest/visitor parking to handle the volume of guests and visitors that are needed. And if the parking lots are literally not big enough to support the building (as some of them are not), then require the building owners and/or the city to build bigger multi-level structures to handle the cars, appropriate in size to the buildings which house the office workers and visitors. Then go ahead and remove the street parking.
You're exactly right, @dvdbeattie, that businesses that rely on specific services need to configure their private parking to accommodate those services. Similarly, large residential buildings in the city center need to create a place for delivery trucks to stop and make deliveries. What we have now is real estate that has clear needs, but instead of designing and building for those needs, the burden falls onto the public space. If a private business NEEDS the public space to survive, it's made a mistake. They don't buy or lease the public right of way.
The never mentioned parking... there are so many parking spots for cars and yet it always seems that people complain about how they can't find parking. I always respond with no you can't find parking in front of your destination. In New Year's Eve found parking in downtown Long Beach immediately. It was .2 miles from my destination but guess what I have two feet!
Thanks, @ablackney! People also never talk about how those spots outside the places they want to go are taken up by the people working in those places, too.
1:50 I did wonder why you went trough red, but if you know (which you did) that all other directions are red lights, it is indeed safer to go first. In the Netherlands (where there is cycling infrastructure) shared lights often have a separate light for cyclist, often these light up separate from the car lights, but in some cases where the road is shared by both cyclist and cars the cyclist go ahead first. The action of going ahead on that red light before the cars (when all other lights are red) simulated kind of the same thing (only you have to be familiar with the road) 4:42 the bicycle that points out that the "bike path" (that's more of an buffer) doesn't even fit in it, how can someone think, this tiny strip, with cars both sides in which the symbol to represent what it is used for doesn't even fit would be the best place? why not the whole extra lane used for street parking? the current bike lane can then be a divider and you can make a 2 way bike path on the street parking lane. as pointed out in the video, there are literal parkin lots next to the street parking. It would create a safer way to go to that location, there is more than enough space and parking to make that happen. Paint is not protection is even true in the Netherlands, if it is just paint some drives will drive on it (when there is no cyclist near them), for safe cycling on high speed roads or roads that allow for high speeds proper division of cars and bicycles is needed. Quick question tho, is there a reason you stayed in the bike lane after you saw that there were no parked cars in the uphill? was it just to make sure that in case there is one later on you don't have to merge back towards the street? just curious? and after 6:58 the difference between how cars are kept apart (concrete wall) and how cyclist are kept safe (bendable poles) does say something about the street design and what the priorities are
The way people get bent about the stopping at the read, as if this intersection is designed for anyone outside of a car, gets hilarious. And, as everyone can see, I'm stopped at the next one, because obviously. Thanks for the question, @febstone. The reason I don't hug the curb is because I'd prefer to stay in the space I've been in , thus being more visible and predictable to the drivers who might come up behind me.
I like the channel. Two comments: 1) There is a bike trail ("San Diego River Trail") that runs along the river. It leaves a lot to be desired in some spots (shifts, breaks up, blocked by construction, etc.), but does have some potential to be an east-west connector through Mission Valley (currently only goes from about the 805 to the ocean). I think the idea is that it could potentially extend all the way from the ocean to almost Ramona(?). 2) The big issue with running lights is unpredictability and liability. Same thing with riding the wrong direction on a street, etc., etc. In the end, cars are looking out for other cars and are anticipating other vehicles to be following predictable traffic patterns. If you remain aware of this, you can bend the rules a bit, make sure eye contact is made to ensure they know what is going on. However, in the end, if a collision happens, you will be at fault ("Sucks that dude got run over but he crossed on a red").
The San Diego River trail ends about a mile and a half west of where we start this ride, close to the 5. I'd be a major improvement if they went as far as the 805. If it went all the way out to Alpine, that'd be magical. And, no doubt someone who runs the red would be at fault. Nobody is claiming otherwise. The larger point: when the roads aren't designed for people outside of cars, we sometimes have to do things to keep ourselves safe. Sometimes it's safer for a person on a bike to run a red than it is for them to be in the road on green. But people on bikes often get blamed for simply existing, even when they're following all the rules. If you want to explore liability, just remember that you can kill someone with your car by driving it over the double yellow line and into the bike lane, and not even go to prison. Don't--for one second--act like the law protects people outside of cars. www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/driver-sentenced-to-4-days-in-jail-for-bicyclists-death/509-8fae7841-73fb-47df-ba09-f0203ce5deac
Peopple who complain about bikes running stop signs and red lights have probably never commuted by bicycle. I've been accused of being an aggressive rider and a risk-taker when riding is in itself a risk when there are so many inattentive drivers.
People who complain about bike running stop signs and red lights probably consistently roll stop signs and run yellows that turn red when they're midway through the intersection. It's a lot of double-standard thinking.
Yeah, parking should pretty much be one or the other, however I like on-street parking even if people argue it's storing their private vehicle on government property. I think on-street parking allows for more walkable cities instead of having these crazy big box stores and unwalkable suburban dystopias. It allows more density, along with parking garages and underground parking which is probably the most ideal. But I don't think those car-centric businesses are getting rid of their lots anytime soon, so it should just be a bike lane.
On-Street parking is complicated, and "walkable cities" is also a whole complex topic. Broadly, in an urban core, I'd suggest parking hurts walkability. As an example, I think about how San Diego specifically shuts off J St to cars around Padres games. Having cars there would make it really dangerous for all the folks walking. But nothing hurts a city more than giant parking lots on places that could have buildings with housing and businesses. Mission Valley is, traditionally, a place of just commerce. But the last 10-15 years have brought a LOT of new housing down there. I think that's going to mean a re-thinking of street parking. A person in a condo down there should be able to bike to the nearby grocery store, but that's really difficult at the moment.
I only watched your video once, so excuse me if I missed it, but I did not see any other bike riders out on the road with you. It's probably not realistic to expect so much bike infrastructure to be built just to accommodate an occasional bike rider, not to mention the danger of mixing up bikes and cars in a congested area like Mission Valley.
Thanks, @julianparrish9931, for watching. I'd suggest that the reason you're not seeing anyone else on a bike is because there's no infrastructure. I'd even go as far as saying that Mission Valley is hostile to people on bikes. There are people driving cars and I wonder if they might make different choices if they felt like they had safe options. As the voice in the field said, "If you build it, they will come." If you watch again, you'll see the ghost bike for Matt Keenan at 6:01. Maybe there'd be more people riding if it wasn't known that a driver killed a person here.
Love the channel- stay safe. Small suggestion: put the rear camera view in the bottom left corner. Sometimes it blocks things you are pointing out and you are virtually never pointing out something in the bottom left corner!
Thanks for that feedback! I'll keep it mind. Sometimes I move it, but it depends on what I'm trying to show.
I'd prefer bottom right so subtitles would cover it less
In most cases, waiting for red lights is best, but there are some situations where, assuming no oncoming traffic, running the red light can be safer.
One such example, let's suppose the intersection itself has no bike lane, but very shortly after, either a bike lane begins, or your route turns into a driveway. If you wait for the light, cars will pile up behind you so, when the light does turn green, everyone is going to try to pass you all at once, leading to potentially dangerous passing maneuvers. On the other hand, if you are able to run the red, you have the potential to be off the road (or at least, out of the car lane) before the light turns green and the cars behind you start to move - conflict avoided.
I just realized, nobody looks at empty parking spots and says "look at all this empty parking. Nobody ever parks here. This could be a bike lane", because they know that sometimes people will park there and it's convenient to have. But every time there's an empty bike lane somebody is saying "Look at this empty bike lane. What a waste of space. Nobody ever uses this bike lane."
As a free lance worker, visiting the buildings along those roads in Mission Valley... I have often been forced to use the street parking (including literally on the section of street that you biked on in your video), and if the street parking were removed, I would have literally nowhere to park, to do my work. The parking lots, believe it or not, as big as they are, are not big enough during the work day, to handle the volume of cars commuting to those high-rise office buildings along Camino Del Rio South. In addition, some of the parking lots are marked as "permit only" with a handful of guest spots only, or sometimes no guest spots at all. Even with the street parking that exists, I have sometimes been forced to park more than half a mile away, and then walk to the building I need to visit... because the street parking is sometimes that impacted, with literally no available street spots for a half mile around, in addition to every parking lot stall being full.
Obviously I'm sympathetic to the safety needs of bicyclists. But as somebody who occasionally visits businesses in Mission Valley to fix their computers... if we take away the street parking as you suggest, we also need to force the parking lots that exist to allow sufficient guest/visitor parking to handle the volume of guests and visitors that are needed. And if the parking lots are literally not big enough to support the building (as some of them are not), then require the building owners and/or the city to build bigger multi-level structures to handle the cars, appropriate in size to the buildings which house the office workers and visitors. Then go ahead and remove the street parking.
You're exactly right, @dvdbeattie, that businesses that rely on specific services need to configure their private parking to accommodate those services. Similarly, large residential buildings in the city center need to create a place for delivery trucks to stop and make deliveries. What we have now is real estate that has clear needs, but instead of designing and building for those needs, the burden falls onto the public space. If a private business NEEDS the public space to survive, it's made a mistake. They don't buy or lease the public right of way.
I am the audience for the channel, but I do still stop at all red lights, but I guess that was the exclusive pedestrian phase.
The never mentioned parking... there are so many parking spots for cars and yet it always seems that people complain about how they can't find parking. I always respond with no you can't find parking in front of your destination. In New Year's Eve found parking in downtown Long Beach immediately. It was .2 miles from my destination but guess what I have two feet!
Thanks, @ablackney! People also never talk about how those spots outside the places they want to go are taken up by the people working in those places, too.
1:50 I did wonder why you went trough red, but if you know (which you did) that all other directions are red lights, it is indeed safer to go first. In the Netherlands (where there is cycling infrastructure) shared lights often have a separate light for cyclist, often these light up separate from the car lights, but in some cases where the road is shared by both cyclist and cars the cyclist go ahead first. The action of going ahead on that red light before the cars (when all other lights are red) simulated kind of the same thing (only you have to be familiar with the road)
4:42 the bicycle that points out that the "bike path" (that's more of an buffer) doesn't even fit in it, how can someone think, this tiny strip, with cars both sides in which the symbol to represent what it is used for doesn't even fit would be the best place? why not the whole extra lane used for street parking? the current bike lane can then be a divider and you can make a 2 way bike path on the street parking lane. as pointed out in the video, there are literal parkin lots next to the street parking. It would create a safer way to go to that location, there is more than enough space and parking to make that happen.
Paint is not protection is even true in the Netherlands, if it is just paint some drives will drive on it (when there is no cyclist near them), for safe cycling on high speed roads or roads that allow for high speeds proper division of cars and bicycles is needed.
Quick question tho, is there a reason you stayed in the bike lane after you saw that there were no parked cars in the uphill? was it just to make sure that in case there is one later on you don't have to merge back towards the street? just curious?
and after
6:58 the difference between how cars are kept apart (concrete wall) and how cyclist are kept safe (bendable poles) does say something about the street design and what the priorities are
The way people get bent about the stopping at the read, as if this intersection is designed for anyone outside of a car, gets hilarious. And, as everyone can see, I'm stopped at the next one, because obviously.
Thanks for the question, @febstone. The reason I don't hug the curb is because I'd prefer to stay in the space I've been in , thus being more visible and predictable to the drivers who might come up behind me.
I like the channel. Two comments: 1) There is a bike trail ("San Diego River Trail") that runs along the river. It leaves a lot to be desired in some spots (shifts, breaks up, blocked by construction, etc.), but does have some potential to be an east-west connector through Mission Valley (currently only goes from about the 805 to the ocean). I think the idea is that it could potentially extend all the way from the ocean to almost Ramona(?). 2) The big issue with running lights is unpredictability and liability. Same thing with riding the wrong direction on a street, etc., etc. In the end, cars are looking out for other cars and are anticipating other vehicles to be following predictable traffic patterns. If you remain aware of this, you can bend the rules a bit, make sure eye contact is made to ensure they know what is going on. However, in the end, if a collision happens, you will be at fault ("Sucks that dude got run over but he crossed on a red").
The San Diego River trail ends about a mile and a half west of where we start this ride, close to the 5. I'd be a major improvement if they went as far as the 805. If it went all the way out to Alpine, that'd be magical.
And, no doubt someone who runs the red would be at fault. Nobody is claiming otherwise. The larger point: when the roads aren't designed for people outside of cars, we sometimes have to do things to keep ourselves safe. Sometimes it's safer for a person on a bike to run a red than it is for them to be in the road on green. But people on bikes often get blamed for simply existing, even when they're following all the rules.
If you want to explore liability, just remember that you can kill someone with your car by driving it over the double yellow line and into the bike lane, and not even go to prison. Don't--for one second--act like the law protects people outside of cars. www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/driver-sentenced-to-4-days-in-jail-for-bicyclists-death/509-8fae7841-73fb-47df-ba09-f0203ce5deac
Peopple who complain about bikes running stop signs and red lights have probably never commuted by bicycle. I've been accused of being an aggressive rider and a risk-taker when riding is in itself a risk when there are so many inattentive drivers.
People who complain about bike running stop signs and red lights probably consistently roll stop signs and run yellows that turn red when they're midway through the intersection. It's a lot of double-standard thinking.
Yeah, parking should pretty much be one or the other, however I like on-street parking even if people argue it's storing their private vehicle on government property. I think on-street parking allows for more walkable cities instead of having these crazy big box stores and unwalkable suburban dystopias. It allows more density, along with parking garages and underground parking which is probably the most ideal. But I don't think those car-centric businesses are getting rid of their lots anytime soon, so it should just be a bike lane.
On-Street parking is complicated, and "walkable cities" is also a whole complex topic. Broadly, in an urban core, I'd suggest parking hurts walkability. As an example, I think about how San Diego specifically shuts off J St to cars around Padres games. Having cars there would make it really dangerous for all the folks walking. But nothing hurts a city more than giant parking lots on places that could have buildings with housing and businesses.
Mission Valley is, traditionally, a place of just commerce. But the last 10-15 years have brought a LOT of new housing down there. I think that's going to mean a re-thinking of street parking. A person in a condo down there should be able to bike to the nearby grocery store, but that's really difficult at the moment.
I only watched your video once, so excuse me if I missed it, but I did not see any other bike riders out on the road with you. It's probably not realistic to expect so much bike infrastructure to be built just to accommodate an occasional bike rider, not to mention the danger of mixing up bikes and cars in a congested area like Mission Valley.
Thanks, @julianparrish9931, for watching. I'd suggest that the reason you're not seeing anyone else on a bike is because there's no infrastructure. I'd even go as far as saying that Mission Valley is hostile to people on bikes. There are people driving cars and I wonder if they might make different choices if they felt like they had safe options. As the voice in the field said, "If you build it, they will come."
If you watch again, you'll see the ghost bike for Matt Keenan at 6:01. Maybe there'd be more people riding if it wasn't known that a driver killed a person here.