Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The cycleway has priority here, but so many things suggest otherwise. The kerb-line, for example, curves around and across the cycleway. The yellow lines do the same, creating vagueness in priority.
Quote:
This is real cycle infrastructure, and real walking infrastructure – genuine, proven to be safe, tried-and-tested design, quite unlike the type of tokenistic rubbish we’re used to getting.
Here, the whole area doesn’t look like a road, it looks like footway, with a cycleway running through it. It’s clear that this isn’t the domain of motor vehicles. Nobody is “on the road” when cycling or walking through here – quite the opposite, it’s motor vehicles that are guests “on the path”.
The whole junction area is raised up to footway level (rather than people on bikes and on foot having to drop down to carriageway level) and motor vehicles must mount a ramp to enter the junction.
This ramp, plus sharp corners, slows cars right down. It also provides better visibility between drivers and those whose path the drivers are crossing – nobody needs to look back over their shoulder. It works in all weather, 24 hours a day.
There's not always enough room to put in a 40 foot strip for a bike line that's not generally even used nor does there need to be. That works okay in the later example as there is room (some of it doubling for horizontal parking). In the former example, there's no room. The infrequently used bicycle lane would take up the entire roadway.
As to ambiguity, I don't really know. It's pretty much common since that you can't drive over a bicyclist going straight because you want to make a turn. I really don't buy that you'd get that far with your "but the lines confused me, officer, so I thought I could just drive over him since the lines went over his lane" excuse. I sure wouldn't rely on an absence of paint (second picture from your link) in providing any safety as the author does. Lack of paint won't make any difference. If a car isn't paying attention to a bicyclist, they're certainly not going to pay attention to an absence of paint.
There's not always enough room to put in a 40 foot strip for a bike line that's not generally even used nor does there need to be. That works okay in the later example as there is room (some of it doubling for horizontal parking). In the former example, there's no room. The infrequently used bicycle lane would take up the entire roadway.
Agreed on premise, but the author argues that is the A+ of infrastructure. In the former example, as the author argued:
Quote:
Further along the same road, a different junction is much better. Yes, it is still flawed, but the priority is much clearer:
Note how the surface of the cycleway is unbroken by kerbs or painted lines. (This junction would be much better with a continuous footway too.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
As to ambiguity, I don't really know. It's pretty much common since that you can't drive over a bicyclist going straight because you want to make a turn. I really don't buy that you'd get that far with your "but the lines confused me, officer, so I thought I could just drive over him since the lines went over his lane" excuse. I sure wouldn't rely on an absence of paint (second picture from your link) in providing any safety as the author does. Lack of paint won't make any difference. If a car isn't paying attention to a bicyclist, they're certainly not going to pay attention to an absence of paint.
In the US, through laws and street design, we've established a clear superiority of cars over cyclists and pedestrians. And, as both a driver and a cyclist, I've witnessed drivers' anger as cyclists or pedestrians "take" their roadway away from them and upend that superiority.
You're right, drivers should be paying attention. But, as 50 years of roadway design has proven in the US, drivers don't pay full attention. The more a given roadway is designed to accommodate the driver, the faster cars tend to be driven, the more likely we are to see incidents, and the more likely we are to see serious injury or fatalities, especially between cars and other modes. While I want to agree with you, I sympathize with the message of the author because we have to work with people as they are, not as we'd prefer them to act.
There's not always enough room to put in a 40 foot strip for a bike line that's not generally even used nor does there need to be. That works okay in the later example as there is room (some of it doubling for horizontal parking). In the former example, there's no room. The infrequently used bicycle lane would take up the entire roadway.
As to ambiguity, I don't really know. It's pretty much common since that you can't drive over a bicyclist going straight because you want to make a turn. I really don't buy that you'd get that far with your "but the lines confused me, officer, so I thought I could just drive over him since the lines went over his lane" excuse. I sure wouldn't rely on an absence of paint (second picture from your link) in providing any safety as the author does. Lack of paint won't make any difference. If a car isn't paying attention to a bicyclist, they're certainly not going to pay attention to an absence of paint.
I agree that the design probably won't have much of an effect on how the driver reacts if he sees a bicyclist, but do you think it could affect how carefully they check for bicyclists as they prepare to cross the bike lane?
Agreed on premise, but the author argues that is the A+ of infrastructure. In the former example, as the author argued:
In the US, through laws and street design, we've established a clear superiority of cars over cyclists and pedestrians. And, as both a driver and a cyclist, I've witnessed drivers' anger as cyclists or pedestrians "take" their roadway away from them and upend that superiority.
You're right, drivers should be paying attention. But, as 50 years of roadway design has proven in the US, drivers don't pay full attention. The more a given roadway is designed to accommodate the driver, the faster cars tend to be driven, the more likely we are to see incidents, and the more likely we are to see serious injury or fatalities, especially between cars and other modes. While I want to agree with you, I sympathize with the message of the author because we have to work with people as they are, not as we'd prefer them to act.
Bike lanes have helped a lot here in Portland, which this city does probably the best I have personally seen at putting pedestrians and bikes first, and even then we still have incidents with cars being careless. Though that doesn't mean we also have pedestrians and cyclists who are also careless, they just cause more damage than the cars do.
The title of the blog does not reflect the discussion. The title suggests the topic is prioritizing aesthetics over utility or anything else in infrastructure design. This is really more appropriately designated bad signage for traffic.
Local governments have been rushing to spend taxpayer dollars in many jurisdictions to alter existing infrastructure. The alteration is supposed to give the appearance of "cycle friendly" or "pedestrian friendly". The alteration in pursuit of dubious desgnations has led to signage in numerous areas that is confusing, high maintenance, and visually distracting - even to the point of operating wholly opposite to the supposed purpose of the signage to begin with.
I agree that the design probably won't have much of an effect on how the driver reacts if he sees a bicyclist, but do you think it could affect how carefully they check for bicyclists as they prepare to cross the bike lane?
That seems thin to me. I don't think the fog line wrapping around the turn or simply terminating would have any difference at all on what people see. People don't pay attention to paint, like this driver driving in the bike lane.
Something more noticeable, yeah. Sharrows and pigmented bike lanes might cause you to be more on lookout for bicycles, even though they're largely ignored anyway. But something subtle like the fog line wrapping around the turn I don't think is going to make any difference to anyone in anyway one way the other. Having the fog line not wrap around won't cause anyone to be on any greater lookout than the absence of the fog line wrapping. Anyone that is going to right-hook a cyclist making a turn is likewise going to do it whether or not the fog line wraps or terminates. It's just too subtle to be meaningful either way. Sharrows might help reinforce that bikes also are entitled to the road but the law is already clear on that. It's just reinforcement of that point.
That seems thin to me. I don't think the fog line wrapping around the turn or simply terminating would have any difference at all on what people see. People don't pay attention to paint, like this driver driving in the bike lane.
Something more noticeable, yeah. Sharrows and pigmented bike lanes might cause you to be more on lookout for bicycles, even though they're largely ignored anyway. But something subtle like the fog line wrapping around the turn I don't think is going to make any difference to anyone in anyway one way the other. Having the fog line not wrap around won't cause anyone to be on any greater lookout than the absence of the fog line wrapping. Anyone that is going to right-hook a cyclist making a turn is likewise going to do it whether or not the fog line wraps or terminates. It's just too subtle to be meaningful either way. Sharrows might help reinforce that bikes also are entitled to the road but the law is already clear on that. It's just reinforcement of that point.
Well, the idea is to visually reinforce the hierarchy of right-of-way in any given context. Continuous sidewalks and bike lanes, visually unbroken by streets and driveways, create the idea that drivers are leaving "their" space and entering the pedestrian's or cyclists space. And, frankly, the idea of using visual cues to introduce to drivers that the context has changed--say, from freeways to city streets--isn't new and has been studied and shown to matter; where streets are designed like freeways--wide lanes, long curves, long sightlines--drivers drive closer to freeway speeds, regardless of posted limit.
And, as I have alluded to previously, I've had driver get mad at me, while as a cyclist, for being (legally) on the road; I've been told I should be riding on the sidewalk by drivers mad that they had to wait to change lanes to pass me; I've seen drivers fail to yield to pedestrians making legal crossings. Seems like people take the idea of ownership of street space very serious and that anything to establish and reinforce who has legal right-of-way is a good thing. Obviously, just my own anecdotes.
06-19-2018, 03:45 AM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 8 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,919,105 times
Reputation: 4052
Functionality remains vital. Although, that factor is literally able to collectively combine smoothly within principles of aesthetics. Accompanying equal alliance. Relevant cash funds original source delivery ending up an obstacle or is the situation not that bad? Never fatally discourage these improving resources onto society. Are governing entities failing for what they can offer? Minimal costs stunners is realistic. Isn’t ever overly lofty or wrongly fantastical. Evenly practical motives that is solid guarantee to final results.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
