I hadn’t considered that. I was still pretty car-brained when i watched the cgp grey video on them, but now that you mention it, i definitely agree
Comment on xkcd #2929: Good and Bad Ideas
eksb@programming.dev 4 months agoDiverging diamonds are great if your only consideration is car throughput.
If you are considering people walking or riding bicycles, they are shit.
Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
eksb@programming.dev 4 months ago
This is expensive to address because you have to separate cyclists out to the right before the right car lane splits for right turns before the crossover. And then you have to build a bridge or tunnel for cyclists and pedestrians. On each side.
Really, any road busy enough to justify a diverging diamond probably already needed separated bike lanes. But in America (motto: “If you aren’t in a car, you don’t matter”), there almost certainly was not any cycling infrastructure there before.
There is one of these near me. Their solution for pedestrians is to make them cross the high speed outer lanes where drivers are encouraged to not slow down FOUR times. Their solution for cyclists is take the lane and pray or get off and do what the pedestrians have to do.
Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
where drivers are encouraged to not slow down FOUR times
Wtf, thats insane
eksb@programming.dev 4 months ago
To be clear, it is four times that pedestrians have to cross, not four times that drivers are encouraged to not slow down. Drivers are not explicitly encouraged to not slow down, but the point of the diverging diamond is to make drivers not have to slow down.
Oinks@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
It doesn’t help that US diverging diamonds seem to insist on having pedestrians walk through the median.
But honestly all interchanges are varying degrees of horrible and if you want your city to be bearable to navigate as a pedestrian/cyclist you just really don’t want to do urban highways, or roads above a certain size in general.