A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
The sheer number of people that simply (out of ignorance or malice) will use these as a turn lane... parking space... what have you probably has a bit to do with it.
Tangentially related: theres a lot of distracted and shitty drivers out there. Putting something physical between you and them tends ro make people feel safer.
I'm pretty sure this study probably could have been replaced by common sense. That said - if the presence of a study results in better handling of bike lanes... good on it.
Most studies are to quantify common sense π
People that park in bike lanes should lose their license and car. Selfish and hazardous behavior.
I genuinely think they need more than a painted bike and a single white line every quarter mile... and the occasional solitary sign every couple miles. Different colored paint or better signalling would go a long way in solving actual mistakes and would also kill off "willful ignorance." If its obvious and clearly marked you can be more aggressive with tows and tickets which, in a perfect world, could finance more of the same. Open lanes could work in places where its not as easy or convenient to 'be that guy .'
when you ride your bike and encounter a obstacle like this, be safe!
4 is best replaced by taking out the u lock from your belt and hitting the side mirror or window with it as you pass
Studies are used to increase funding and change infrastructure. This is good.
Paint is not infrastructure, no surprises there.
If they widened the roads to be able have space to make the lane id say it is. If they just threw it in there and made a uncomfortable spot to bike id say not.
And millions of drivers would disagree. The study is clear. If a driver doesn't fear hitting something they mostly disregard painted lanes. Without protection, bikers fear the lane with good reason.
I didnt say they wouldn't. But its still infrastructure if they widened the roads for it.
But since automobiles use it and bicyclist don't, the point is that makes it more car infrastructure not bicycle infrastructure
And important that the bike lane doesn't go over sewer grates π€¦
That sir is not a bike lane hahaha.
Cyclists trust New Yorkers to drive like New Yorkers, yes.
Unsurprising that actually feeling safe increases use over βtrust everyone bro, even the people who threaten you, painted lines will stop them!β
Not surprising, looking at the photo of the painted bike lane in the study. That's just a death trap.
I mean, even in countries with a huge number of protected lanes such as the Netherlands there are (fully) painted bike lanes as well, but not with cars rushing by on both sides at high speeds.
I'm Dutch and those ""painted"" and "sharrow"" wouldn't even count as bicycle lanes. You're surrounded by cars on both sides, there's no clear markings it's for bicycles, nothing nada.
If I were an urban designer/mayor I'd fire whoever thought it'd be a good idea to build it that way.
In my view, these would be requirements:
Painted:
Protected:
edit: added last point, and added to first point of 'protected'.
I mention 30 km/hr. This is crucial, because above that speed, the mortality for anyone (regardless of whether they wear a helmet or not) increases rapidly. Especially if the car is tall, and has a flat end, rather than sloped. If you then get ran over, you don't get crushed under, but 'glide' onto the car's front. That is safer.
And for either kind of bike lane/path, I think it'd help that if a motorised vehicle crashes into a bicyclist or pedestrian, then the fault should be assumed 100% on the driver and the driver should pay all damages, unless if it's shown that the bicyclist or pedestrian was at fault, in which case it's 50/50. This is important, since motorised vehicles are much heavier and can cause deaths while the others don't really do so. It helps to deter drivers from driving over others and going off scot-free.
The rule is also, in all areas where there's only a painted bikelane with non-continuous lines going like - - -, and the road has a single car lane, this is what you do. When you see a bicyclist, you'll have to slow down to 30 km/hr, but then can overtake them (temporarily driving on the bike lane). You're not allowed to park or stop there, however.
If the line is continuous, such as ββ, then you cannot drive over on the bike lane.
You'll also need to motivate a lot of car drivers to try out bicycling, decoupling the fiction of a "car driver" identity as separate from a "bicyclist" identity. At the end of day, they are both merely modes of transportation, though the latter is generally much better. Tell them for example that bicycling makes you healthier, costs less, and gives you independence.
All of the above
I don't think you mean this do you? Or do you really think there shouldn't be any kind of bike path when the speed limit is greater than 30 km/h, or the road has more than 2 lanes?
What @EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone said, goes. But as for the amount of lanes, I do think I overlooked that one, so I edited my comment just now. I do think it's worth in general to reduce the amount of car lanes (given that induced demand's a thing).
Still, for protected bike lanes that are fully separate from car lanes, by a strong barrier (not just an elevation), I think you could do with 4, maybe 6 lanes. More would be unnecessary or dangerous for all, though.
We also have 'bicycle main pathes' where car drivers are 'guests'. That is, cars must drive behind bicyclists and not overtake them. They generally are in 30 km/hr zones, and the width of 2-3 car lanes (so about 7-10 m). Sidewalks are also present there, of course.
Typically, those are in residential-heavy areas where a lot of people bicycle (often near the city centre where most stores are). They provide that cars can drive around the centre, while bicyclists can easily go in and out of the centre.
Not sure if they edited their comment, but after "all of the above" they specify the 30kph as "if it's only a raised border" and not a full size wall/barrier.
Side note: Honestly, slapping a 2-3in stepped concrete block and keeping the cycling lane raised to match that step would go a long way in keeping people off it. People don't like driving on cracks, they'll avoid a large contrasting colored step like the plague
after βall of the aboveβ they specify the 30kph as βif itβs only a raised borderβ
Yes, that's why I asked if they really meant "all of the above" - I rather suspect they were just referring to the other measures that do make sense for both protected and unprotected cycle paths (only bicyclists allowed, distinctive paint schemes etc).
a 2-3in stepped concrete block and keeping the cycling lane raised
pretty sure this is what is meant by protected cycle lane - some kind of kerb between the cycle lane and the motor vehicle lane. There are many cycle lanes like this in Europe and they are unquestionably way safer. FYI you don't need to have the cycle path raised to the same height as the kerb - many do not do that, and just have a line of raised kerb stones on the traffic side of the bike lane.
Problem with the plants is that eventually they become a hazard for bicycles. Best not to put something there that requires weekely maintenance
You can have slow-growing hedges at a slight distance (~0.5 m to 1 m) from the path, or the plants could be in boxes.
Something like this is also possible:
The hedges typically don't really require weekly maintenance - once every few months suffices.
Alternatively, trees could be used, with grass and flowers inbetween.
Do that in a city that doesn't care about bicycles, and the plants will be trimmed literally never.
I've seen it too often. You get one person to install a bike lane. It's a major win. But the city doesn't consider it real infrastructure, so they just ignore it and never maintain it.