So is the problem that there’s too much support for non-car infrastructure, or that there’s so little they get away with half-assing it, and not slowing the cars down enough that the road is safe?
As far as mopeds in traffic, the problem is obviously the cars running them over, wtf?
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
It is my assertion that bike lanes, as implemented, are a rock chewing stupid idea.
For about a century now, we’ve had two kinds of travel lane: Sidewalks, and traffic lanes. Sidewalks are for WALKING, traffic lanes are for all vehicles of every description. Every vehicle is supposed to behave the same way following the same rules, regardless of performance. A bicycle, moped, motorcycle, car, truck, all of them are supposed to follow the same rules.
When there are traffic lanes only, no sidewalks, we have rules for how traffic flows. For example, right-turn only lanes at an intersection are right-most, followed by turn-or-straight lanes, then straight only lanes, then straight or left lanes, then left only lanes. Having a lane that goes straight to the right of a right-turning lane is a recipe for collisions.
We do that all the time with sidewalks. Pedestrians are expected to exercise a lot of caution when entering crosswalks to avoid conflict with vehicle traffic. Pedestrians are expected to treat EVERY intersection as if it has a stop sign for them, or they are expected to obey crosswalks with signal devices that are interlocked with traffic lights.
Bike lanes as I have seen them implemented are a lot like sidewalks; slower traffic is placed to the right of traffic lanes…except they do not expect to treat every intersection as a stop sign, and they interpret green lights for straight through as for them, even in conflict with right turning traffic.
So we have a travel lane positioned similarly to how sidewalks are positioned relative to roads, but without the rules that make sidewalks safe. It doesn’t help that, where they do implement lights or whatnot, they increasingly do so in non-standard ways that generations of drivers have not been trained on. There are new kinds of lights at crosswalks, new and weird nomenclature at intersections rather than "No Right On Red 🔴 " signs that have been around for years. It’s not implemented well, and it’s getting people killed.
As for e-bikes: They’re basically not regulated, there’s supposedly a classification system for them, which people ignore. There’s no enforcement, and they do whatever the hell they want, including riding at travel lane speeds on sidewalks, which causes collisions because no other traffic, vehicle or pedestrian, is expecting 20+mph traffic on the sidewalk. They either need to be regulated like mopeds, or they need to go away. “But the motor is electric not gas” fucks with people’s brains. Somehow people aren’t riding Honda Metropolitans or Yamaha Zumas on the sidewalks at 20 or 30mph but that’s happening with e-bikes.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 month ago
The issues you are identifying aren’t the fault of attempting to add non-car modes of transit, those people are just the victims. The issues is that they add them while fearing slowing down drivers or taking away parking or lane space. If drivers are swerving into unprotected bike lanes, you don’t go “guess bike lanes can’t work”, you protect the bike lane. If drivers are hitting bicyclists when there’s no bike lanes, build more bike lanes and slow the traffic down. Ride a bike in HCMC or Hanoi some time. There’s literally thousands of bikes on the road, swarming cars, trucks, buses, and pedestrians. Serious accidents are very rare in the city, and typically involve texting or drinking. If drivers in your area drive too dangerously for mixed traffic, the problem is the drivers driving dangerously, not their victims.
So implement them better, either ban right on reds or start ticketing drivers who don’t come to a complete stop.
Design sidewalks better. Couriers use bikes on sidewalks across east asia, except Japan, nobody cares. You can slow heavy ebikes via pavers, or block them entirely by requiring they be lifted a certain height.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Why the fuck would you have right turns on the same signal as straight? Why the shit wouldn’t you make protected intersections.
Your argument is basically “poorly designed roads are dangerous”. Yeah, they are, stop making them
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Your parents didn’t even try to educate you, did they?
There are a lot of different kinds of intersections. Simple two-lane meets two lane where each kind has a stop-go light, up to hugely complicated intersections with multiple turn lanes in each direction.
At a small stop-go light, like you might find in a residential neighborhood, there’s one travel lane in all four directions, and each one is a left, straight and right lane. Going left is a yield across oncoming traffic, a green light gives you right of way to go straight or right.
A more medium size intersection might have left and right turn lanes in addition to one or two travel lanes. Let’s say Some Road (N/S) is crossing Another Street (E/W). Some Road is a four-lane divided highway, and at this intersection it has both right and left turn lanes. Another Street is a 2 lane road with much less traffic than Some Road, so it comes out to a left turn lane and a straight/right turn lane.
A typical light cycle will go Some Road gets green circles and green right arrows. Straight lanes bound North and South get to go, as well as those turning right onto Another Street. The through traffic on Some Road blocks any other right of way that could collide with those right turn lanes.
The through lights will turn red, possibly the turn lights will stay green, and the left turn lanes on Another Street will turn green. They can now make a protected left across the intersection, again this blocks any other traffic from colliding with the right turns from Some Road to Another Street, so they retain the right of way.
Finally, those will turn red (or sometimes flashing yellow meaning yield) and Another Street’s straight/right lanes get to go. This cycle will then repeat.
This is for an intersection that doesn’t have sidewalks. You’ll find these out in the middle of nowhere where a state route crosses a federal highway. Interstates and highways built like them will have overpasses and non-blocking intersections.
Where you DO have sidewalks, such as larger intersections inside cities, there are signals for the crosswalks. Those are interlinked with the traffic signals, and depending on the implementation there won’t be any straight and turn signals because “cars go straight” is when the pedestrians cross. When turn lanes are on, all pedestrian traffic is stopped.
Note that these are two different environments; at an intersection in a city center, the speed limits are often 20mph, and frankly, bicycles should not have their own lanes there. By law they’re vehicles, they should be in traffic behaving the same as cars and have the right of way that cars do. Where they get themselves killed is trying to weave in and out of traffic, or insisting on putting in a parallel bike lane pretending it turns off friendly fire. “Just add to every driver’s cognitive load and make them responsible for my safety.” Fuck off.
Meanwhile, back out on Some Road and Another Street, these have 45 and 55 mph speed limits, you’re traveling from town to town here, and these places pretty much should not see bicycle traffic. Here we’re really in the realm of discussing better public transportation and rail service than pedestrian and cycle routes.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I have a bachelor’s in civil engineering, and that’s part of the reason why I’m able to pierce through the deep coating of carbrain induced status-quo thinking.
You’re making all the wrong assumptions right from the start.
These shouldn’t even exist. A residential neighborhood shouldn’t have traffic lights, and it should have a low enough speed and low enough volume of cars (only the people who live there should be driving there) that accidents should be rare and low risk.
The fact that you assume there’s a traffic light here starts from the basic assumption that there is so much car traffic that it needs managing. You’ve already designed your residential street wrong then.
Skipping this, because these intersections shouldn’t have ANY bicycle interactions at all. If bikes are crossing your 4-lane divided highway, you’ve already designed your roads wrong. I would argue if you’re putting a full streetlevel crossing in, you’re also not doing great unless you get paid per traffic jam.
A protected bike path and protected intersection REDUCE everyone’s mental load because it makes it practically impossible to hit a bike. And it separates bikes from traffic too, so they can’t weave.
The problem with American bike gutters with painted lines is that cars enter them constantly, by design. Cars cross the bike lane to park, they cross it to turn right, and something they just drive in it because the drivers are idiots. Or cars park in it because they’re idiots. And every time a car enters the bike path, the bike needs to move or die. So they move, creating more risks.
All of those problems go away with a raised barrier between the bikes and the cars. You can just stop thinking about them, because they’re in an entirely different lane that you physically can’t even get to. And if you turn right, you can treat them like any other vehicle again, where they’ll have the right of way or there’s a traffic light.
Depends. A 20km bike ride is totally fine, an 80km one isn’t. But if there’s cars going 55mph right next to me, I won’t be taking a bike because that’s super dangerous. There should be a seperate bike path there as well, removing all risks.
Of course, only if it’s actually inhabited in that distance.