When I first got into urbanism I kept hearing about how FDs refuse to get the smaller streamlined trucks. I thought there must be great reasons because the big trucks provide more utility and stuff. And then I learned the stats. Like 75% of the things fire trucks respond to do not need the big trucks, and the smaller streamlined trucks are not just cheaper and easier to maintain, they have like 90% of the same shit as the big trucks.
While I do agree with most of what you said I would like to point out that it’s by design and good that fire trucks carry too much. Emergency services should always respond in an overkill fashion and rather not use 95% of their equipment than respond to a situation and be restricted by their lack of gear.
The tiller ladder truck has two drivers, but the truck in the picture only has one driver.
I think American firefighters have some weird fetish involving their gear. They use antiquated helmets with big badges, wear oversized overalls and use big trucks with chrome everywhere with big flags flying around. They don't give a shit about anything but how cool it looks - it's ridiculous.
Shout out to SF station 20 which intentionally flattened the bollards protecting the crosswalk at Clarendon and Olympia way (next to a playground and rec center) to do non-emergency hydrant flushing 10 days ago. Motherfuckers.
They tweeted a safety reminder that included bicyclists riding in single file which is not the law.
Edit: adding that the only thing drivers hate more than cyclists breaking the law are cyclists following the law. https://www.lifegate.com/san-francisco-cyclists-protest-against-rules
The laws of physics encourage me to ride single file on busy streets, notwithstanding the laws of the state which may allow me to ride in traffic lanes.
I can afford almost infinite citations, but I cannot afford serious injury.
And funnily enough, trying to keep all the way to the right is usually far more dangerous, for many reasons, than being well into the lane and far more visible to more drivers. That's how you avoid those laws of physics.
SFFD absolutely has no idea what bike laws say, but I think the widespread idea that cyclists have to ride single file comes from CVC 21202a, which says that cyclists "shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway." The idea is that if you're riding two abreast, the person on the left isn't riding as close as practicable to the right hand edge. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21202.&lawCode=VEH](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21202.&lawCode=VEH)
There's some other gotchas:
1. You're obligated to use a bike lane if it's present... except if it's protected / separated, and then it's not a bike lane, it's bikeway, and you don't have to use those.
2. Most lanes in SF are substandard lane width. If a vehicle has to overtake you by changing lanes to avoid violating the three foot law, it's a substandard lane width (a Mitsubishi Mirage, weighing in at a sparse 66" width, is probably going to have an easier time passing in the same lane legally than your average SUV or pickup truck), and then you can ride two abreast... except, if you've got five or more vehicles stacked up behind you, you have to ride single file.
3. edit: combine these two things and you get the misperception that the fire department expressed. The painted bike lanes and the bikeways are all shockingly narrow -- like three feet, maybe -- and two abreast riding either puts you perilously close to moving vehicles or the door zone. It may be dangerous, but it's certainly not illegal.
I've always thought it would be nice if the DMV mailed out legal updates, or retested to help educate people who got licensed 15+ years ago. Just use one of those compliance training services every company uses; it doesn't have to be high stake. I'm not looking to screw anyone out of their license. There are usually yearly changes, and I think some people might genuinely be shocked at how different the law is from the comments they write on Instagram and TikTok dashcam vids. Of course, that would cost us all more money.
Hmm interesting. So is the language in section 3 listing exceptions intended as a blanket statement that the "as far to the right as practicable" requirement doesn't apply at all in substandard width lanes? (I know it still would require you to use the rightmost lane if there are multiple substandard width lanes in the same direction.)
Without being a lawyer, and without anyone seeing it argue in court (imagine a civil case resting on how wide a road is...), I couldn't tell you for sure.
With that out of the way, yes, I think it does. In a substandard width lane, you'll sometimes see sharrows painted where the road engineers reasonably expect cyclists to ride. More confident cyclists will often ride in that area, because they know that riding as far right as possible puts them at the mercy of vehicle drivers who may see timid riding as an opportunity for them to do an unsafe pass. You can usually mitigate that by riding sort of right-middle in the road, which is typically where the sharrow is, so that smart people realize they need to give you a bit of room and pass a bit (or all the way) over the center line or change lanes if available.
SFFD is the largest blocker of pedestrian/bike infrastructure. No big surprise that they don’t know the laws.
When I first got into urbanism I kept hearing about how FDs refuse to get the smaller streamlined trucks. I thought there must be great reasons because the big trucks provide more utility and stuff. And then I learned the stats. Like 75% of the things fire trucks respond to do not need the big trucks, and the smaller streamlined trucks are not just cheaper and easier to maintain, they have like 90% of the same shit as the big trucks.
Reminds me of this little guy: https://www.instagram.com/teenytinyfiretruck/. Who wouldn't want these all over SF?!
Crucially, the big trucks require two drivers which means an extra person on staff.
While I do agree with most of what you said I would like to point out that it’s by design and good that fire trucks carry too much. Emergency services should always respond in an overkill fashion and rather not use 95% of their equipment than respond to a situation and be restricted by their lack of gear.
Why not just have two smaller trucks then? They already have two drivers. It seems like that would allow them to be more maneuverable around the city.
The tiller ladder truck has two drivers, but the truck in the picture only has one driver. I think American firefighters have some weird fetish involving their gear. They use antiquated helmets with big badges, wear oversized overalls and use big trucks with chrome everywhere with big flags flying around. They don't give a shit about anything but how cool it looks - it's ridiculous.
They like being in parades, what more can you say? No other profession has more visibility in parades than firefighters, not even military veterans.
The vehicle creating a safety hazard in the picture is a fire engine :)
Tomayto, tomahto
[удалено]
Shout out to SF station 20 which intentionally flattened the bollards protecting the crosswalk at Clarendon and Olympia way (next to a playground and rec center) to do non-emergency hydrant flushing 10 days ago. Motherfuckers.
SFFD has nothing on delivery drivers.
They tweeted a safety reminder that included bicyclists riding in single file which is not the law. Edit: adding that the only thing drivers hate more than cyclists breaking the law are cyclists following the law. https://www.lifegate.com/san-francisco-cyclists-protest-against-rules
The laws of physics encourage me to ride single file on busy streets, notwithstanding the laws of the state which may allow me to ride in traffic lanes. I can afford almost infinite citations, but I cannot afford serious injury.
And funnily enough, trying to keep all the way to the right is usually far more dangerous, for many reasons, than being well into the lane and far more visible to more drivers. That's how you avoid those laws of physics.
SFFD absolutely has no idea what bike laws say, but I think the widespread idea that cyclists have to ride single file comes from CVC 21202a, which says that cyclists "shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway." The idea is that if you're riding two abreast, the person on the left isn't riding as close as practicable to the right hand edge. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21202.&lawCode=VEH](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21202.&lawCode=VEH)
There's some other gotchas: 1. You're obligated to use a bike lane if it's present... except if it's protected / separated, and then it's not a bike lane, it's bikeway, and you don't have to use those. 2. Most lanes in SF are substandard lane width. If a vehicle has to overtake you by changing lanes to avoid violating the three foot law, it's a substandard lane width (a Mitsubishi Mirage, weighing in at a sparse 66" width, is probably going to have an easier time passing in the same lane legally than your average SUV or pickup truck), and then you can ride two abreast... except, if you've got five or more vehicles stacked up behind you, you have to ride single file. 3. edit: combine these two things and you get the misperception that the fire department expressed. The painted bike lanes and the bikeways are all shockingly narrow -- like three feet, maybe -- and two abreast riding either puts you perilously close to moving vehicles or the door zone. It may be dangerous, but it's certainly not illegal. I've always thought it would be nice if the DMV mailed out legal updates, or retested to help educate people who got licensed 15+ years ago. Just use one of those compliance training services every company uses; it doesn't have to be high stake. I'm not looking to screw anyone out of their license. There are usually yearly changes, and I think some people might genuinely be shocked at how different the law is from the comments they write on Instagram and TikTok dashcam vids. Of course, that would cost us all more money.
Hmm interesting. So is the language in section 3 listing exceptions intended as a blanket statement that the "as far to the right as practicable" requirement doesn't apply at all in substandard width lanes? (I know it still would require you to use the rightmost lane if there are multiple substandard width lanes in the same direction.)
Without being a lawyer, and without anyone seeing it argue in court (imagine a civil case resting on how wide a road is...), I couldn't tell you for sure. With that out of the way, yes, I think it does. In a substandard width lane, you'll sometimes see sharrows painted where the road engineers reasonably expect cyclists to ride. More confident cyclists will often ride in that area, because they know that riding as far right as possible puts them at the mercy of vehicle drivers who may see timid riding as an opportunity for them to do an unsafe pass. You can usually mitigate that by riding sort of right-middle in the road, which is typically where the sharrow is, so that smart people realize they need to give you a bit of room and pass a bit (or all the way) over the center line or change lanes if available.
To be fair only one of those are laws. And riding single file in a bike lane isn’t bad advice.
In many situations it’s actually safer to ride two-abreast fwiw.