Commentary on a highly experimental bike lane pilot on Valencia Street in San Francisco California. I don't have a decided opinion on this configuration because it's still being tweaked, and...
Commentary on a highly experimental bike lane pilot on Valencia Street in San Francisco California. I don't have a decided opinion on this configuration because it's still being tweaked, and real-world safety data for this new design is not yet known. It's interesting at least.
We have one of these in our city in an incredibly busy intersection (south bay, California) where there are multiple businesses and grocery stores within the 2 block radius leading to Caltrain. I...
We have one of these in our city in an incredibly busy intersection (south bay, California) where there are multiple businesses and grocery stores within the 2 block radius leading to Caltrain.
I can't tell you how many bicyclists I have seen nearly become meat crayons because they will sit in these lanes, or they will fly through them (because red lights don't apply to bicyclists?), but it's more than the other intersections where there is either no dedicated bike lane or the bike lane is on the sidewalk side of the intersection. Something about being blocked by two cars in the middle of the lane makes them even harder to see or prepare for, especially when they're running red lights, regardless of whether they have the right of way.
The number of fully kitted out cyclists I’ve seen blow through a red light or some similar dangerous move is much higher than anyone else. Now granted we don’t have a ton of bike riders but it...
The number of fully kitted out cyclists I’ve seen blow through a red light or some similar dangerous move is much higher than anyone else.
Now granted we don’t have a ton of bike riders but it always blows my mind when these kind of people make a bad situation worse.
I've seen all manner of insane cyclists doing all sorts of illegal/entitled things like texting and biking, using no hands, blowing stops and red lights, not wearing helmets, weaving in between...
I've seen all manner of insane cyclists doing all sorts of illegal/entitled things like texting and biking, using no hands, blowing stops and red lights, not wearing helmets, weaving in between cars....
I'm always so confused why they think they can do that around multi-ton killing metal boxes...
I'm more of a fan of riding or walking in forests or parks, but they rebuilt a bridge near me recently that has something similar down the middle of the bridge for bikes and pedestrians They used...
I'm more of a fan of riding or walking in forests or parks, but they rebuilt a bridge near me recently that has something similar down the middle of the bridge for bikes and pedestrians They used 3.5-4 foot concrete barriers that I would be much more comfortable with if I were riding down the middle of the road.
I'd say distance and general American car culture do more to dissuade people than lane separation. Every weekend (and plenty of week days) I see the Lycra army go down busy four lane, 45mph roads....
I'd say distance and general American car culture do more to dissuade people than lane separation. Every weekend (and plenty of week days) I see the Lycra army go down busy four lane, 45mph roads. Which to me reads that plenty of bikers are okay with using the road.
Now the fact that my old job was a 20+ mile commute and that I needed to be able to pack up my gear and travel equal distances in a short amount of time meant I'd need my car, not even counting family emergencies.
If the option is to pave a path through what little green space is in-between the suburbs and 'business districts' or to take space away from cars, I'm going to make the interstate one big bike lane.
It feels more complex than what cyclists would expect, and confusing at first glance. Bad as a barrier of entry, I'd say, but something to get used to. One of the complaints, if I understood...
It feels more complex than what cyclists would expect, and confusing at first glance. Bad as a barrier of entry, I'd say, but something to get used to.
One of the complaints, if I understood correctly, is the loss of convenience. Cyclists getting closer to the pathways of other road vehicles, unable to move as freely. This I feel as a compromise that I'd get behind. Less freedom, more respect.
The biggest thing we could do to help cyclists in the country is force them off the sidewalks. Particularily the kids. Force them on the road with everyone else. The death count would sadly be...
The biggest thing we could do to help cyclists in the country is force them off the sidewalks. Particularily the kids. Force them on the road with everyone else.
The death count would sadly be very high initially, but eventually people would get the hint and treat cyclists as people. Or at least those whom don't could have a nice attempted murder charge.
This doesn't really give much solace if you're the one who was hit. If my bones are shattered or I end up paralyzed or such, my thinking isn't likely to be "Well I wasn't all that comfortable on...
Or at least those whom don't could have a nice attempted murder charge.
This doesn't really give much solace if you're the one who was hit. If my bones are shattered or I end up paralyzed or such, my thinking isn't likely to be "Well I wasn't all that comfortable on the street to begin with, but I feel better knowing someone else is in prison for a few years". All the worse when you're talking about negligence, generally it's not like people are out there hunting you down in their cars. I don't find any solace in this idea at all.
If we go with your suggestion, then I'll just stay off the roads with my bike until hundreds of kids die and then see if things improve first. They're the better sacrificial lamb, because it won't be as influential to hearts and minds if I get hit.
You're not wrong. But what I was getting at is that foisting the cyclists/pedestrians farther from the roads is just gonna make roads that much more dangerous, you know? The problem is that car...
You're not wrong. But what I was getting at is that foisting the cyclists/pedestrians farther from the roads is just gonna make roads that much more dangerous, you know?
The problem is that car culture is sick. Moving the not-cars away is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Negligence puts people in jail all the time. And frankly, being negligent with a car is no less dangerous than being negligent with a gun. People don't get off easily for leaving loaded guns around the house, and they shouldn't for injuring/killing people either.
In the country where I live, the bike lanes and the sidewalks are together, separate from the roads the cars drive on. It seems to work pretty well. The death toll from vehicular accidents is...
In the country where I live, the bike lanes and the sidewalks are together, separate from the roads the cars drive on. It seems to work pretty well. The death toll from vehicular accidents is like, 1/20th of my home country despite having half the population. There are other factors involved but it seems like the best solution to me.
Cyclists and pedestrians should both be separated from automobile traffic most of the time, however that ends up looking. Many cyclists and pedestrians are not keen on shared-use paths because...
Cyclists and pedestrians should both be separated from automobile traffic most of the time, however that ends up looking.
Many cyclists and pedestrians are not keen on shared-use paths because cyclists want to go faster than pedestrians and leisure walkers in particular want to walk side-by-side to chat. While it isn't really a safety hazard (there are so few instances of cyclists killing pedestrians that it's almost negligible), it is annoying, and that friction discourages people from taking either mode.
Philadelphia's Schuylkill River Trail is a shared-use path which is so popular that it's almost useless for cycling at peak times. Of course this is less of an issue on low-traffic paths.
The paths I'm describing are separate, they're just next to each other and separated more from the road than from each other. People do walk on the cycling side and cycle on the walking side when...
The paths I'm describing are separate, they're just next to each other and separated more from the road than from each other. People do walk on the cycling side and cycle on the walking side when there's very little traffic, but if things get busy everyone uses the designated path.
This only works when cyclists are respectful of their surroundings and situation. You can't be weaving in and out of traffic and blowing through lights with a bunch of metal murder boxes. The...
This only works when cyclists are respectful of their surroundings and situation. You can't be weaving in and out of traffic and blowing through lights with a bunch of metal murder boxes. The respect goes both ways.
Commentary on a highly experimental bike lane pilot on Valencia Street in San Francisco California. I don't have a decided opinion on this configuration because it's still being tweaked, and real-world safety data for this new design is not yet known. It's interesting at least.
We have one of these in our city in an incredibly busy intersection (south bay, California) where there are multiple businesses and grocery stores within the 2 block radius leading to Caltrain.
I can't tell you how many bicyclists I have seen nearly become meat crayons because they will sit in these lanes, or they will fly through them (because red lights don't apply to bicyclists?), but it's more than the other intersections where there is either no dedicated bike lane or the bike lane is on the sidewalk side of the intersection. Something about being blocked by two cars in the middle of the lane makes them even harder to see or prepare for, especially when they're running red lights, regardless of whether they have the right of way.
Only to the people that also probably don't wear helmets. I can forgive blowing through a 4-way stop sign, but cmon people...
The number of fully kitted out cyclists I’ve seen blow through a red light or some similar dangerous move is much higher than anyone else.
Now granted we don’t have a ton of bike riders but it always blows my mind when these kind of people make a bad situation worse.
In the city I live in, bikes don't have to stop at lights or signs. That doesn't make it a good idea, though.
I've seen all manner of insane cyclists doing all sorts of illegal/entitled things like texting and biking, using no hands, blowing stops and red lights, not wearing helmets, weaving in between cars....
I'm always so confused why they think they can do that around multi-ton killing metal boxes...
I'm more of a fan of riding or walking in forests or parks, but they rebuilt a bridge near me recently that has something similar down the middle of the bridge for bikes and pedestrians They used 3.5-4 foot concrete barriers that I would be much more comfortable with if I were riding down the middle of the road.
Cycling/walking for leisure and using it to commute are two very different things.
They don't have to be. It seems like that dichotomy helps to discourage folks from bike commuting.
I'd say distance and general American car culture do more to dissuade people than lane separation. Every weekend (and plenty of week days) I see the Lycra army go down busy four lane, 45mph roads. Which to me reads that plenty of bikers are okay with using the road.
Now the fact that my old job was a 20+ mile commute and that I needed to be able to pack up my gear and travel equal distances in a short amount of time meant I'd need my car, not even counting family emergencies.
If the option is to pave a path through what little green space is in-between the suburbs and 'business districts' or to take space away from cars, I'm going to make the interstate one big bike lane.
It feels more complex than what cyclists would expect, and confusing at first glance. Bad as a barrier of entry, I'd say, but something to get used to.
One of the complaints, if I understood correctly, is the loss of convenience. Cyclists getting closer to the pathways of other road vehicles, unable to move as freely. This I feel as a compromise that I'd get behind. Less freedom, more respect.
The biggest thing we could do to help cyclists in the country is force them off the sidewalks. Particularily the kids. Force them on the road with everyone else.
The death count would sadly be very high initially, but eventually people would get the hint and treat cyclists as people. Or at least those whom don't could have a nice attempted murder charge.
This doesn't really give much solace if you're the one who was hit. If my bones are shattered or I end up paralyzed or such, my thinking isn't likely to be "Well I wasn't all that comfortable on the street to begin with, but I feel better knowing someone else is in prison for a few years". All the worse when you're talking about negligence, generally it's not like people are out there hunting you down in their cars. I don't find any solace in this idea at all.
If we go with your suggestion, then I'll just stay off the roads with my bike until hundreds of kids die and then see if things improve first. They're the better sacrificial lamb, because it won't be as influential to hearts and minds if I get hit.
You're not wrong. But what I was getting at is that foisting the cyclists/pedestrians farther from the roads is just gonna make roads that much more dangerous, you know?
The problem is that car culture is sick. Moving the not-cars away is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Negligence puts people in jail all the time. And frankly, being negligent with a car is no less dangerous than being negligent with a gun. People don't get off easily for leaving loaded guns around the house, and they shouldn't for injuring/killing people either.
In the country where I live, the bike lanes and the sidewalks are together, separate from the roads the cars drive on. It seems to work pretty well. The death toll from vehicular accidents is like, 1/20th of my home country despite having half the population. There are other factors involved but it seems like the best solution to me.
Cyclists and pedestrians should both be separated from automobile traffic most of the time, however that ends up looking.
Many cyclists and pedestrians are not keen on shared-use paths because cyclists want to go faster than pedestrians and leisure walkers in particular want to walk side-by-side to chat. While it isn't really a safety hazard (there are so few instances of cyclists killing pedestrians that it's almost negligible), it is annoying, and that friction discourages people from taking either mode.
Philadelphia's Schuylkill River Trail is a shared-use path which is so popular that it's almost useless for cycling at peak times. Of course this is less of an issue on low-traffic paths.
The paths I'm describing are separate, they're just next to each other and separated more from the road than from each other. People do walk on the cycling side and cycle on the walking side when there's very little traffic, but if things get busy everyone uses the designated path.
This only works when cyclists are respectful of their surroundings and situation. You can't be weaving in and out of traffic and blowing through lights with a bunch of metal murder boxes. The respect goes both ways.