News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Bike Lanes

Started by SkyPesos, October 01, 2021, 11:27:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jeffandnicole

Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2022, 04:17:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2022, 10:18:16 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:53:28 PM
↑ Does the MUTCD have a carveout that allows primary bike signals to be smaller? 12" is the minimum for car signals, so it could be worded in such a way that it applies to bike signals too.

8" signals for standard signals are still permitted in certain circumstances...

Kphoger already shared this a few posts up.

So he did.  I just saw "Yes.  The IA specifically allows smaller sizes to be used for bicycle signals." and glared over the rest, thinking he was posting about signal sizes for bikes.


kphoger

Technically, I didn't include paragraph 01.   :biggrin:
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Amtrakprod

My preference bike signal size wise now is 4" nearside, and 8" far-side, but it all depends on the size of the intersection. If you noticed in that Portland post, there is an addition section on the bike signal that has a countdown to green. Pretty interesting ! https://bikeportland.org/2020/08/07/nifty-new-bike-signal-added-to-broadway-williams-intersection-319054
Roadgeek, railfan, and crossing signal fan. From Massachusetts, and in high school. Youtube is my website link. Loves FYAs signals. Interest in Bicycle Infrastructure. Owns one Leotech Pedestrian Signal, and a Safetran Type 1 E bell.

Georgia Guardrail

I prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.

Bruce

Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PM
I prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.

Shared bike/pedestrian paths suck, especially in built-up areas. Too many points of conflict.

Bridges and underpasses also take too long for cyclists and pedestrians. It's pretty common for them to be bypassed entirely in favor of just running across lanes of traffic.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

SignGeniusPTOE

#130
Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PMI prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.
[/quote

Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PMJust another non-cyclist who acts like they know what is good for real cyclists. Shared use paths are simply glorified sidewalks which force cyclists to dodge pedestrians (including those walking their dogs), stop over and over at every intersection without ever having a right of way, get run over at intersections by right turning vehicles, dodge cars stopped over the "crosswalk" at intersections. Too many points of conflict and they SUCK.


7/8

Quote from: SignGeniusPTOE on November 15, 2024, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PMI prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.
Just another non-cyclist who acts like they know what is good for real cyclists. Shared use paths are simply glorified sidewalks which force cyclists to dodge pedestrians (including those walking their dogs), stop over and over at every intersection without ever having a right of way, get run over at intersections by right turning vehicles, dodge cars stopped over the "crosswalk" at intersections. Too many points of conflict and they SUCK.

^ I fixed your quote attribution.

I think multi-use paths are okay if volumes are low, but otherwise, I definitely agree that they're not fun for either pedestrians or cyclists. The Iron Horse Trail in Kitchener-Waterloo is packed on weekends and the 3m total width is not sufficient for mixed cyclist-pedestrian traffic.

Not sure if this is what you mean, but I despise uncontrolled mid-block crossings like this one (GSV). The median is hardly wide enough for a bike, with two lanes of (realistically) 70 km/h traffic rushing by on either side. Talk about dangerous! Would any parent feel comfortable with their child crossing this road?

algorerhythms

Quote from: 7/8 on November 18, 2024, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: SignGeniusPTOE on November 15, 2024, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PMI prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.
Just another non-cyclist who acts like they know what is good for real cyclists. Shared use paths are simply glorified sidewalks which force cyclists to dodge pedestrians (including those walking their dogs), stop over and over at every intersection without ever having a right of way, get run over at intersections by right turning vehicles, dodge cars stopped over the "crosswalk" at intersections. Too many points of conflict and they SUCK.

^ I fixed your quote attribution.

I think multi-use paths are okay if volumes are low, but otherwise, I definitely agree that they're not fun for either pedestrians or cyclists. The Iron Horse Trail in Kitchener-Waterloo is packed on weekends and the 3m total width is not sufficient for mixed cyclist-pedestrian traffic.

Not sure if this is what you mean, but I despise uncontrolled mid-block crossings like this one (GSV). The median is hardly wide enough for a bike, with two lanes of (realistically) 70 km/h traffic rushing by on either side. Talk about dangerous! Would any parent feel comfortable with their child crossing this road?
I've crossed there before, and I hate it. That crossing is going to get someone killed. I seem to recall Waterloo Region rejecting the idea of putting a crossing light there because it would be too close to the light at Lincoln, despite them not having a problem with there being a light the same distance away at Bridgeport...

And it's similar with the Laurel Trail crossing at Columbia... it was rejected because it's too close to another traffic light, for a parking lot that hasn't seen that much use since BlackBerry left. At least there's the traffic is usually a bit slower than on Weber.

mrsman

Quote from: algorerhythms on November 18, 2024, 01:23:09 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on November 18, 2024, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: SignGeniusPTOE on November 15, 2024, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PMI prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.
Just another non-cyclist who acts like they know what is good for real cyclists. Shared use paths are simply glorified sidewalks which force cyclists to dodge pedestrians (including those walking their dogs), stop over and over at every intersection without ever having a right of way, get run over at intersections by right turning vehicles, dodge cars stopped over the "crosswalk" at intersections. Too many points of conflict and they SUCK.

^ I fixed your quote attribution.

I think multi-use paths are okay if volumes are low, but otherwise, I definitely agree that they're not fun for either pedestrians or cyclists. The Iron Horse Trail in Kitchener-Waterloo is packed on weekends and the 3m total width is not sufficient for mixed cyclist-pedestrian traffic.

Not sure if this is what you mean, but I despise uncontrolled mid-block crossings like this one (GSV). The median is hardly wide enough for a bike, with two lanes of (realistically) 70 km/h traffic rushing by on either side. Talk about dangerous! Would any parent feel comfortable with their child crossing this road?
I've crossed there before, and I hate it. That crossing is going to get someone killed. I seem to recall Waterloo Region rejecting the idea of putting a crossing light there because it would be too close to the light at Lincoln, despite them not having a problem with there being a light the same distance away at Bridgeport...

And it's similar with the Laurel Trail crossing at Columbia... it was rejected because it's too close to another traffic light, for a parking lot that hasn't seen that much use since BlackBerry left. At least there's the traffic is usually a bit slower than on Weber.

Has Ontario (or any of Canada) adopted HAWK signals?  In many places in the US, they would put in a HAWK signal as a pedestrian signal, where pedestrian crossings are legal, but would not otherwise be OK for a full signal.  If DOT feels that too many signals close together is a problem, HAWKs could be a solution, since the cross-traffic would only have to stop when called by pedestrians/bikes and car traffic can proceed when clear, not needing to wait for a full signal cycle.

Rothman

Quote from: mrsman on December 06, 2024, 03:59:07 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on November 18, 2024, 01:23:09 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on November 18, 2024, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: SignGeniusPTOE on November 15, 2024, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PMI prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.
Just another non-cyclist who acts like they know what is good for real cyclists. Shared use paths are simply glorified sidewalks which force cyclists to dodge pedestrians (including those walking their dogs), stop over and over at every intersection without ever having a right of way, get run over at intersections by right turning vehicles, dodge cars stopped over the "crosswalk" at intersections. Too many points of conflict and they SUCK.

^ I fixed your quote attribution.

I think multi-use paths are okay if volumes are low, but otherwise, I definitely agree that they're not fun for either pedestrians or cyclists. The Iron Horse Trail in Kitchener-Waterloo is packed on weekends and the 3m total width is not sufficient for mixed cyclist-pedestrian traffic.

Not sure if this is what you mean, but I despise uncontrolled mid-block crossings like this one (GSV). The median is hardly wide enough for a bike, with two lanes of (realistically) 70 km/h traffic rushing by on either side. Talk about dangerous! Would any parent feel comfortable with their child crossing this road?
I've crossed there before, and I hate it. That crossing is going to get someone killed. I seem to recall Waterloo Region rejecting the idea of putting a crossing light there because it would be too close to the light at Lincoln, despite them not having a problem with there being a light the same distance away at Bridgeport...

And it's similar with the Laurel Trail crossing at Columbia... it was rejected because it's too close to another traffic light, for a parking lot that hasn't seen that much use since BlackBerry left. At least there's the traffic is usually a bit slower than on Weber.

Has Ontario (or any of Canada) adopted HAWK signals?  In many places in the US, they would put in a HAWK signal as a pedestrian signal, where pedestrian crossings are legal, but would not otherwise be OK for a full signal.  If DOT feels that too many signals close together is a problem, HAWKs could be a solution, since the cross-traffic would only have to stop when called by pedestrians/bikes and car traffic can proceed when clear, not needing to wait for a full signal cycle.

HAWKs are never the solution.  Pelican crossings, probably.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

LilianaUwU

Fuck Bruno Marchand and his bike lanes replacing actual lanes on every single already congested street.
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

SectorZ

Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 06, 2024, 05:15:21 PMFuck Bruno Marchand and his bike lanes replacing actual lanes on every single already congested street.

That's very K12 of you. Are you an achy calf person too?

LilianaUwU

Quote from: SectorZ on December 07, 2024, 09:07:10 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 06, 2024, 05:15:21 PMFuck Bruno Marchand and his bike lanes replacing actual lanes on every single already congested street.

That's very K12 of you. Are you an achy calf person too?
I think it's the only time I'll get even close to K12... because it has affected me personally. One of the bus routes I often take now lasts significantly longer because of those barely used bike lanes.
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

1995hoo

What I hate about bike lanes is when I have to cross them as a pedestrian. Even though there is a marked crosswalk and the cyclists have a red light, they typically think they're exempt from stopping. Irony of ironies given how they cry about their rights as against cars.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

hotdogPi

Bicyclists follow the signals where I live, although sometimes they'll switch between "car mode" and "pedestrian mode" (such as crossing during an all-pedestrian phase). They won't cross when cross traffic has the green, though.
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US 13, 50
MA 22, 35, 40, 53, 107, 109, 126, 141, 159
NH 27, 78, 111A(E); CA 90; NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A, 7; CT 32, 320; VT 2A, 5A; PA 3, 51, 60, WA 202; QC 162, 165, 263; 🇬🇧A100, A3211, A3213, A3215, A4222; 🇫🇷95 D316

Lowest untraveled: 36

algorerhythms

Quote from: mrsman on December 06, 2024, 03:59:07 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on November 18, 2024, 01:23:09 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on November 18, 2024, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: SignGeniusPTOE on November 15, 2024, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PMI prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.
Just another non-cyclist who acts like they know what is good for real cyclists. Shared use paths are simply glorified sidewalks which force cyclists to dodge pedestrians (including those walking their dogs), stop over and over at every intersection without ever having a right of way, get run over at intersections by right turning vehicles, dodge cars stopped over the "crosswalk" at intersections. Too many points of conflict and they SUCK.

^ I fixed your quote attribution.

I think multi-use paths are okay if volumes are low, but otherwise, I definitely agree that they're not fun for either pedestrians or cyclists. The Iron Horse Trail in Kitchener-Waterloo is packed on weekends and the 3m total width is not sufficient for mixed cyclist-pedestrian traffic.

Not sure if this is what you mean, but I despise uncontrolled mid-block crossings like this one (GSV). The median is hardly wide enough for a bike, with two lanes of (realistically) 70 km/h traffic rushing by on either side. Talk about dangerous! Would any parent feel comfortable with their child crossing this road?
I've crossed there before, and I hate it. That crossing is going to get someone killed. I seem to recall Waterloo Region rejecting the idea of putting a crossing light there because it would be too close to the light at Lincoln, despite them not having a problem with there being a light the same distance away at Bridgeport...

And it's similar with the Laurel Trail crossing at Columbia... it was rejected because it's too close to another traffic light, for a parking lot that hasn't seen that much use since BlackBerry left. At least there's the traffic is usually a bit slower than on Weber.

Has Ontario (or any of Canada) adopted HAWK signals?  In many places in the US, they would put in a HAWK signal as a pedestrian signal, where pedestrian crossings are legal, but would not otherwise be OK for a full signal.  If DOT feels that too many signals close together is a problem, HAWKs could be a solution, since the cross-traffic would only have to stop when called by pedestrians/bikes and car traffic can proceed when clear, not needing to wait for a full signal cycle.
Ontario uses these flashy yellow light thingamajigs that tell drivers to speed up so they don't have to wait for a pedestrian to cross: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4522759,-80.5159803,3a,56y,240.9h,93.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLQjZfLb3OqvUER8vRQ8ZJQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.5859494090087907%26panoid%3DLQjZfLb3OqvUER8vRQ8ZJQ%26yaw%3D240.90393376471147!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Rothman

e-Bike rentals in my area have increased the cycling scofflaws quite considerably, whether cycling on sidewalks or ignoring traffic lights.

One infamous incident in Syracuse, NY was when their expensive green epoxy painted bike lanes opened along their "connective corridor," a cyclist came right down the sidewalk anyway by where they were having their ceremonial ribbon cutting.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

LilianaUwU

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 07, 2024, 12:33:48 PMWhat I hate about bike lanes is when I have to cross them as a pedestrian. Even though there is a marked crosswalk and the cyclists have a red light, they typically think they're exempt from stopping. Irony of ironies given how they cry about their rights as against cars.
You tell me! They should do as they say, dammit.
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

1995hoo

Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2024, 04:06:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 07, 2024, 12:33:48 PMWhat I hate about bike lanes is when I have to cross them as a pedestrian. Even though there is a marked crosswalk and the cyclists have a red light, they typically think they're exempt from stopping. Irony of ironies given how they cry about their rights as against cars.
You tell me! They should do as they say, dammit.

"Rules for thee but not for me."

Or, as it's sometimes been framed on this forum, "MFFY."
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

hotdogPi

Am I in a different world from everyone else? I'm not seeing this bicyclist craziness that everyone else is.
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US 13, 50
MA 22, 35, 40, 53, 107, 109, 126, 141, 159
NH 27, 78, 111A(E); CA 90; NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A, 7; CT 32, 320; VT 2A, 5A; PA 3, 51, 60, WA 202; QC 162, 165, 263; 🇬🇧A100, A3211, A3213, A3215, A4222; 🇫🇷95 D316

Lowest untraveled: 36

Rothman

Quote from: hotdogPi on December 07, 2024, 04:14:01 PMAm I in a different world from everyone else? I'm not seeing this bicyclist craziness that everyone else is.

Must be.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

LilianaUwU

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 07, 2024, 04:08:52 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2024, 04:06:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 07, 2024, 12:33:48 PMWhat I hate about bike lanes is when I have to cross them as a pedestrian. Even though there is a marked crosswalk and the cyclists have a red light, they typically think they're exempt from stopping. Irony of ironies given how they cry about their rights as against cars.
You tell me! They should do as they say, dammit.
"Rules for thee but not for me."
It's so bad over here that some intersections currently have whole ass posters saying "you don't have the priority, yield to pedestrians" (and even then they're erroneous, bikes cannot go on the pedestrian light):

En vélo au feu piéton by Liliana Vess, on Flickr
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

SectorZ

Quote from: Rothman on December 07, 2024, 02:37:04 PMe-Bike rentals in my area have increased the cycling scofflaws quite considerably, whether cycling on sidewalks or ignoring traffic lights.

One infamous incident in Syracuse, NY was when their expensive green epoxy painted bike lanes opened along their "connective corridor," a cyclist came right down the sidewalk anyway by where they were having their ceremonial ribbon cutting.

At some point, a cyclist like me riding as much as I do, if I had the safety ideals of those people I'd be long since dead by now.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.