https://twitter.com/nbcsandiego/status/1510293768146194432
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/youre-playing-chicken-mira-mesa-neighbors-caught-off-guard-by-new-street-striping/2910379/
Has anyone here heard of this kind of setup, and does anyone have any thoughts on it? It seems to be getting a lot of hate. But the concept isn't really that foreign if you've ever used a yield street. This is basically a yield street with bike lanes, so, when two cars are about to meet head-on, one of them has to pull into the bike lane instead of the parking lane. The biggest problem I can foresee, however, is a driver failing to check his or her mirrors when suddenly veering into the bike lane, which could be catastrophic for a bicyclist. I don't know how often this occurs in the real world, though. Another possible problem is that this has a wider travel space than a traditional yield street, which generally entices drivers to go faster, which is definitely not good when they are about to meet head-on or interact with bicyclists.
As for this example in San Diego, I think there could have been at least two possible alternatives for integrating bicycle infrastructure: (1) Remove parking from one side of the street and use normal car lanes and normal bike lanes. (2) Make the street one-way for cars, possibly leaving enough space for a buffered two-way cycle track. Alternative 1 would probably piss some people off, and Alternative 2 would probably piss off more people than Alternative 1. But I think both options would be more familiar to road users.
EDIT: Oh yeah, if you watch the video in the Tweet, that definitely is not a good advertisement for those bike lanes attracting bicyclists, because you can count with no hands the number of bicyclists in that video.
What happens in the (unlikely, but possible) event that there are bikes in both lanes, such that two cars in the car lanes cannot move right to avoid one another?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2022, 10:07:40 PM
What happens in the (unlikely, but possible) event that there are bikes in both lanes, such that two cars in the car lanes cannot move right to avoid one another?
The cars gotta stop and wait for a chance to pull into the bike lane.
That's just about the worst design you could come up with for both parties. Door zone for cyclists, head-on conflicts for drivers.
More bike infrastructure designed by people that haven't been on a bicycle since junior high school.
Two of the comments to the tweet say that the design exists and works in the Netherlands. Since I agree that this is a bad idea, there must be some fundamental differences between this one and the working ones there, but I don't know what they are.
Two of the comments also said that there should be no April Fools' jokes on April 2. (The tweet was posted on April 2, not today.)
^ One fundamental difference is that biking as a means of transport is way more common in the Netherlands. It makes more sense if there's a lot more bike traffic than car traffic.
However, I don't see how this is better than just striping the road normally with "bikes in lane (https://goo.gl/maps/qvChM4JKuiu3Cd9G8)" or similar signage.
Just stripe it like any old street, and then put up some R4-11 signs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/MUTCD_R4-11.svg/240px-MUTCD_R4-11.svg.png)
I was recently in the car with my father in Michigan. We had gone to the wrong address for a township office that took us in the middle of Ann Arbor's university housing for some reason. He was the one driving. As we tried to get out of the neighborhood, we ended up on this street here (https://goo.gl/maps/vdNn7w26cmzaxCXG7). He was extremely confused as to what was supposed to be happening here, and that sign on the right didn't exactly make things much clearer. He is a civil engineer by the way, not your average driver.
It's great to see new things being tried, but something like this just isn't it. I propose just adding the permissive bike symbol (I'm not sure what the official name for it is) and yellow share the road signs to emphasize that this is a bike-friendly street are less confusing and just as effective.
This also sounds like a valid idea:
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2022, 09:48:39 AM
Just stripe it like any old street, and then put up some R4-11 signs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/MUTCD_R4-11.svg/240px-MUTCD_R4-11.svg.png)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 07, 2022, 09:49:52 AM
I was recently in the car with my father in Michigan. We had gone to the wrong address for a township office that took us in the middle of Ann Arbor's university housing for some reason. He was the one driving. As we tried to get out of the neighborhood, we ended up on this street here (https://goo.gl/maps/vdNn7w26cmzaxCXG7). He was extremely confused as to what was supposed to be happening here, and that sign on the right didn't exactly make things much clearer. He is a civil engineer by the way, not your average driver.
This one looks a bit better than the one in the OP (in my opinion) for a few reasons
a) On-street parking is only on side of the street, which makes the road narrower.
b) The actual centre driving lane also looks narrower, which psychologically should encourage slower driving speeds.
c) The large trees close to the roads obscures sight lines to driveways, and again makes the road feel narrower and should slow drivers down.
Honestly, if done right, I think the concept has good potential to encourage slow driver speeds and a safe environment for cycling. Really the key is to have a narrow asphalt road (ideally no on-street parking) and a narrow centre lane for the cars. If cars speeds can be lowered to 30 km/h or less, I think the concept can work. Obviously it's not a design for arterials, but it looks good for low-traffic residential streets.
Yeah, less is more in these situations. If I saw all those different kinds of pavement markings and that confusing sign, my reaction would be this:
Ignore everything, drive down the middle of the street, and move out of the way whenever a conflict arises. So, basically, the same as it would be with no pavement markings and no signs.
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2022, 09:48:39 AM
Just stripe it like any old street, and then put up some R4-11 signs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/MUTCD_R4-11.svg/240px-MUTCD_R4-11.svg.png)
and add sharrows to the pavement marking: https://www.arkansasoutside.com/a-statement-from-bicycle-advocacy-of-central-arkansas/
I feel like this set up has less to do with accommodating bicycles and more to do with controlling speed of vehicles by making the road "narrower."
Quote from: CardInLex on April 07, 2022, 10:44:28 AM
I feel like this set up has less to do with accommodating bicycles and more to do with controlling speed of vehicles by making the road "narrower."
There are far better ways to do that, but they require more than just paint.
Those lanes can work on streets with low ATDs, but I'm not a big fan. We stick to separated bike lanes with flex posts instead, and those lanes are really popular for everyone.
iPhone
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2022, 09:48:39 AM
Just stripe it like any old street, and then put up some R4-11 signs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/MUTCD_R4-11.svg/240px-MUTCD_R4-11.svg.png)
And add in some green shared lane markings. Those are good too. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220408/c2f5a09b7f9635ee3f53b2be04a9ab6b.jpg)
iPhone
Honestly, as a bicyclist, I'd rather have a typical yield street with parking on both sides (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6092067,-122.3108353,3a,31.8y,270.51h,81.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smzJAyINaUigcFTMYPf9zEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en), like most of Seattle's non-arterials. That has a much stronger effect on vehicle speeds and volumes (at least if parking utilization is high) than I imagine painted bike "lanes" could, and avoids the weird interaction of drivers passing bikes but also having to merge into their space (I suppose the fact that cars can't pass bikes could be considered a problem, but neighborhood streets like these are supposed to have low speeds and volumes).
In my opinion, "visually narrowing" the roadway with paint is basically useless, especially on roads primarily for passenger cars. Parked cars, medians, curb extensions, those narrow the roadway. Painted lines don't.
City of San Diego says controversial bike lanes will be repainted after CBS 8 digs into the issue (https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/ontroversial-bike-lanes-will-be-paved-over/509-5cec316a-5afd-4245-a4f8-fd1073bfc7d8).
It's a bad mistake that they changed this configuration without notifying the residents first, so I certainly respect their frustrations. Still, I hope they follow through with some other locations (with proper notification of course) just so we can see how they function over a longer period of time where people get over the initial shock of a new street design.
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2022, 09:48:39 AM
Just stripe it like any old street, and then put up some R4-11 signs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/MUTCD_R4-11.svg/240px-MUTCD_R4-11.svg.png)
The Washington St off-ramp off of MA Route 28 in Somerville MA used to confuse me initially both as a cyclist and driver - I've noticed on this street drivers will not use both lanes until they get to the signal:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3814241,-71.0902546,3a,15.3y,173.42h,84.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBl8Wn3Par2QXsJ2yET_8-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Spot the difference...
(https://aseasyasridingabike.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/dscn9290.jpg)
(https://media.cbs8.com/assets/KFMB/images/41dee21e-17f6-4333-a3e5-6f3a7898e3c9/41dee21e-17f6-4333-a3e5-6f3a7898e3c9_1920x1080.jpg)
The Mira Mesa one is like someone designed it based on someone standing on a Dutch bike boulevard and describing it to them over a very scratchy phone line.
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
If they're so smart, then why did someone apparently buy a Seat?
Someone has never ridden a bike on a road before...
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
D. The parking lane has some trees to make it feel like it isn't as much of a part of the street.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 12, 2022, 12:08:15 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
D. The parking lane has some trees to make it feel like it isn't as much of a part of the street.
E. Raised crosswalk at the intersection.
Quote from: fwydriver405 on April 11, 2022, 02:53:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2022, 09:48:39 AM
Just stripe it like any old street, and then put up some R4-11 signs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/MUTCD_R4-11.svg/240px-MUTCD_R4-11.svg.png)
The Washington St off-ramp off of MA Route 28 in Somerville MA used to confuse me initially both as a cyclist and driver - I've noticed on this street drivers will not use both lanes until they get to the signal:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3814241,-71.0902546,3a,15.3y,173.42h,84.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBl8Wn3Par2QXsJ2yET_8-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I think it's a good compromise.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Plus they're using bikes as a primary form of transportation (unlike the US, where many people still tend to view bikes mainly as recreation/exercise). How practical is it to carry a helmet with you everywhere you go or somehow store it with the bike?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeynqnirofE
Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2022, 12:45:55 PM
How practical is it to carry a helmet with you everywhere you go or somehow store it with the bike?
Off topic to the original thread, but that is the reason why bike sharing programs in Australia, New Zealand, and Seattle fail due to their mandatory helmet laws.
Back on topic, throughout my extensive biking throughout Central Jersey, I've only seen this type installation done on a minor street in Princeton. However, of all the times I've been on that road (mostly as a result of my previous job having a project near there), the cars still tended to drive on the right sides of the road at all times, not drive carefully down the center.
That video highlighted something I was thinking about the other day...
This setup is basically no different from a street with no striping at all. So maybe that's my preferred solution: just get rid of everything.
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Eh, you can have the world's greatest engineers design the world's safest bike lane, and you can still have something like a branch fall on it and a biker go down and hit their head because they weren't paying attention.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 16, 2022, 05:31:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2022, 12:45:55 PM
How practical is it to carry a helmet with you everywhere you go or somehow store it with the bike?
Off topic to the original thread, but that is the reason why bike sharing programs in Australia, New Zealand, and Seattle fail due to their mandatory helmet laws.
The mandatory helmet law was repealed by King County in February (which means it no longer applies to Seattle). But even before that, the free-floating private-run bikeshare and scootershare was booming across the city. The first generation system just had awful stations, clunky bikes with no e-assist, and pricing that wasn't as attractive.
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
We? You're in Arlington Mass.
Which, btw, is next door to Lexington, a place I got in my worst cycling crash ever... with another idiot cyclist on a bike trail who elected to cross the dashed line and hit me partly head-on.
Feel free to actually ride a bicycle to learn what it's actually like.
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Right, so it's impossible to get in an accident.
Too many obvious levels of dumb in your statement here, especially as I was an avid cyclist in my younger years.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2022, 09:28:23 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Eh, you can have the world's greatest engineers design the world's safest bike lane, and you can still have something like a branch fall on it and a biker go down and hit their head because they weren't paying attention.
Same thing is true for cars, or for pedestrians. If my city had only protected bike lanes and off street paths I would not wear a helmet.
iPhone
Quote from: Rothman on April 17, 2022, 09:13:47 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Right, so it's impossible to get in an accident.
Too many obvious levels of dumb in your statement here, especially as I was an avid cyclist in my younger years.
That's extremely rude. I'm just saying the likelihood of crashing decreases with safer infrastructure. Please be a kinder person.
iPhone
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 18, 2022, 05:30:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 17, 2022, 09:13:47 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Right, so it's impossible to get in an accident.
Too many obvious levels of dumb in your statement here, especially as I was an avid cyclist in my younger years.
That's extremely rude. I'm just saying the likelihood of crashing decreases with safer infrastructure. Please be a kinder person.
iPhone
No, you said if you have good infrastructure, you don't have to wear a helmet, which simply isn't true due to the whole host of other reasons why you could get in an accident on a bicycle. Just like there are all sorts of reasons cars get into accidents that don't have anything to do with the infrastructure.
Think of it this way: By your reasoning, motorcyclists shouldn't need to wear helmets on well-paved roads. We had that one put that to the test some years ago in upstate NY when a motorcyclist died during a protest against helmet mandates.
But yeah, I was rude to not to soften my statement up with the usual euphemisms, so I apologize. Let me rephrase:
It is very hard for me to comprehend someone saying helmets are optional while riding bicycles on well-designed infrastructure when there is so much overwhelming hard evidence and public health communication against that notion.
I cycle without a helmet. :fight:
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 18, 2022, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2022, 09:28:23 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Eh, you can have the world's greatest engineers design the world's safest bike lane, and you can still have something like a branch fall on it and a biker go down and hit their head because they weren't paying attention.
Same thing is true for cars, or for pedestrians. If my city had only protected bike lanes and off street paths I would not wear a helmet.
iPhone
Are you serious? Protected bike lanes are still just as dangerous. People walking into your path to get to a car or wherever, hitting large debris because it all ends up near the curb, hitting the curb itself because you're forced to ride right up against it. Getting nailed by someone at an intersection (which is an overwhelming majority of cycling crashes) because you still have intersections. I notice you ignored my comment when responding to everyone else, because you have no logical response to it, other than to double down on saying that off-street paths are a panacea. Personally, I'd like to see you not sustain a head injury because there are a LOT of really f***ing stupid cyclists out there. Pedestrians too.
Fun fact: the only serious injury I've ever had cycling was in my own damn driveway. It was due to avoiding a (parked) car, and being a dumb 14 year old I just played my bets wrong on how to go around it.
I had a cousin who died in a bicycle accident.
Quote from: kphoger on April 18, 2022, 07:00:35 PM
I cycle without a helmet. :fight:
At least you accept it's a risk
Different modes of transportation should have their own ROW. I support bike infrastructure, but sharrows, this or any space where two different speeds of transportation share the same space will lead to accidents.
The reason why you see so many people in Europe ride safely without helmets is that most of their infrastructure separates bikes from cars entirely, which is what we should do here. The problem is how expensive that is, and that most of the funding for our roads stems from gas tax (cars). Not to mention our car culture.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 10:57:30 PM
Different modes of transportation should have their own ROW. I support bike infrastructure, but sharrows, this or any space where two different speeds of transportation share the same space will lead to accidents.
The reason why you see so many people in Europe ride safely without helmets is that most of their infrastructure separates bikes from cars entirely, which is what we should do here. The problem is how expensive that is, and that most of the funding for our roads stems from gas tax (cars). Not to mention our car culture.
So...wide roads. :D
The idea that you are riding safely without a helmet because of the infrastructure is a fallacy simply because of all the other factors that contribute to accidents.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 11:03:50 PM
The idea that you are riding safely without a helmet because of the infrastructure is a fallacy simply because of all the other factors that contribute to accidents.
This exactly. My dad used to be an avid cyclist, and still is to some degree, but in a span of maybe six years he got into four significant accidents:
- A county mosquito sprayer ATV pulled out right in front of him on a multi-use trail. He ran right into the side of it, broke both of his thumbs on the handlebars from the force of the collision, and flipped over the top
- His bike slid out from underneath him where some gravel had been swept out into the street from the side (I think). Whatever it was, it ended up with him breaking his elbow, requiring surgery the next week
- He fell off his bike and broke his wrist when my mom, whom he was riding with, ran into his back wheel because she thought he was turning and he wasn't
- The worst one - he was on a mostly well-maintained dirt road and his front wheel got stuck in a sudden rut he didn't see, upon which he flipped over the handlebars and completely shattered his upper leg. That required two ambulance rides, emergency surgery the next day, and a week stay in the hospital after that followed by an almost yearlong recovery process
Notice anything in common about those? None of them involved cars. At least two of them would probably have resulted in head injuries had he not been wearing a helmet. There are a lot of ways to hit your head or otherwise injure yourself as a cyclist that don't involve conflict with automobile traffic.
If the wide road has curbs or easements separating different modes and narrow lanes for cars, then sure. Wide lanes in an urban setting are just about the worst possible solution.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 11:03:50 PM
The idea that you are riding safely without a helmet because of the infrastructure is a fallacy.
I wasn't recommending not wearing a helmet, but people in Europe do feel safer biking because their bicycle infrastructure is superior.
- dedicated cycle tracks
- consistently different pavement color
- bicycle priority in signals
- raised crosswalk/bicycle track crossings onto motorist lanes
- bicycle underpasses or overpasses to major motorist arterials
- consistent lighting for suburban bike trails
- narrow car lanes and road geometry to force drivers to slow down
The risk is much lower there, so people don't feel the need to wear a helmet. Helmets are essential if a high-speed impact or accident may occur.
One point no one has really discussed is that people in Europe bike much more casually and therefore slower. While the infrastructure protects them from high-speed impacts from cars, they have one-speed bikes that maybe go 10 MPH.
Most people who bike in the US are enthusiasts with high-speed bikes, so hitting a pothole can ruin your day. Absolutely wear a helmet if you're biking above 15 MPH.
On the flipside, the reason why we have high-speed bikes and not everyone wants to ride to work casually is that our infrastructure design makes it almost suicide if you're in a bike lane cruising at 10 MPH with cars blazing past you inches on your left going 30-40 MPH. :bigass:
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 11:45:27 PM
If the wide road has curbs or easements separating different modes and narrow lanes for cars, then sure. Wide lanes in an urban setting are just about the worst possible solution.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 11:03:50 PM
The idea that you are riding safely without a helmet because of the infrastructure is a fallacy.
I wasn't recommending not wearing a helmet, but people in Europe do feel safer biking because their bicycle infrastructure is superior.
- dedicated cycle tracks
- consistently different pavement color
- bicycle priority in signals
- raised crosswalk/bicycle track crossings onto motorist lanes
- bicycle underpasses or overpasses to major motorist arterials
- consistent lighting for suburban bike trails
- narrow car lanes and road geometry to force drivers to slow down
The risk is much lower there, so people don't feel the need to wear a helmet. Helmets are essential if a high-speed impact or accident may occur.
One point no one has really discussed is that people in Europe bike much more casually and therefore slower. While the infrastructure protects them from high-speed impacts from cars, they have one-speed bikes that maybe go 10 MPH.
Most people who bike in the US are enthusiasts with high-speed bikes, so hitting a pothole can ruin your day. Absolutely wear a helmet if you're biking above 15 MPH.
On the flipside, the reason why we have high-speed bikes and not everyone wants to ride to work casually is that our infrastructure design makes it almost suicide if you're in a bike lane cruising at 10 MPH with cars blazing past you inches on your left going 30-40 MPH. :bigass:
So...many...unfounded...generalizations...
I have seen more fat tire enthusiasts than skinny tire high performance nuts...
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 11:48:21 PM
So...many...unfounded...generalizations...
I have seen more fat tire enthusiasts than skinny tire high performance nuts...
The average person isn't going to bike to the grocery store in the US like they do in the Netherlands. The U.S. has car-centric infrastructure that makes casual utility cycling unapproachable. Not sure what our argument is anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpVncWxyMJw&ab_channel=Propel
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 11:57:13 PM
The average person isn't going to bike to the grocery store in the US like they do in the Netherlands. The U.S. has car-centric infrastructure that makes casual utility cycling unapproachable. Not sure what our argument is anymore.
I don't think it's even an issue of car vs. bike infrastructure. Even if you put in a shitload of separate bike lanes and whatnot, I doubt it changes things that much. For a lot of Americans, the closest grocery store is too far and/or the average load of groceries too big to make that trip workable by bike.
Quote from: US 89 on April 19, 2022, 12:22:42 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 11:57:13 PM
The average person isn't going to bike to the grocery store in the US like they do in the Netherlands. The U.S. has car-centric infrastructure that makes casual utility cycling unapproachable. Not sure what our argument is anymore.
I don't think it's even an issue of car vs. bike infrastructure. Even if you put in a shitload of separate bike lanes and whatnot, I doubt it changes things that much. For a lot of Americans, the closest grocery store is too far and/or the average load of groceries too big to make that trip workable by bike.
1950s-era suburban planning around the automobile!
North American suburbs will always be car-dependent mainly by intentional design due to the distances. Urban cores can and should still be improved to accommodate multimodal transportation.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 12:44:28 AM
Quote from: US 89 on April 19, 2022, 12:22:42 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 11:57:13 PM
The average person isn't going to bike to the grocery store in the US like they do in the Netherlands. The U.S. has car-centric infrastructure that makes casual utility cycling unapproachable. Not sure what our argument is anymore.
I don't think it's even an issue of car vs. bike infrastructure. Even if you put in a shitload of separate bike lanes and whatnot, I doubt it changes things that much. For a lot of Americans, the closest grocery store is too far and/or the average load of groceries too big to make that trip workable by bike.
1950s-era suburban planning around the automobile!
For the most part, this is what suburban people want. They don't want a huge supermarket in their backyard. They don't want a small supermarket in their backyard. They want separation from commerical districts. They want it in their town...just not next door.
There are some downtown areas where people can live close to shopping options that they can get to without a car. But being these are vastly outnumbered by "1950s-era suburban planning", it shows what many people actually desire.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2022, 01:20:02 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 12:44:28 AM
Quote from: US 89 on April 19, 2022, 12:22:42 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 11:57:13 PM
The average person isn't going to bike to the grocery store in the US like they do in the Netherlands. The U.S. has car-centric infrastructure that makes casual utility cycling unapproachable. Not sure what our argument is anymore.
I don't think it's even an issue of car vs. bike infrastructure. Even if you put in a shitload of separate bike lanes and whatnot, I doubt it changes things that much. For a lot of Americans, the closest grocery store is too far and/or the average load of groceries too big to make that trip workable by bike.
1950s-era suburban planning around the automobile!
For the most part, this is what suburban people want. They don't want a huge supermarket in their backyard. They don't want a small supermarket in their backyard. They want separation from commerical districts. They want it in their town...just not next door.
There are some downtown areas where people can live close to shopping options that they can get to without a car. But being these are vastly outnumbered by "1950s-era suburban planning", it shows what many people actually desire.
Now that we've pivoted to zoning...
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 12:44:28 AM
Quote from: US 89 on April 19, 2022, 12:22:42 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 11:57:13 PM
The average person isn't going to bike to the grocery store in the US like they do in the Netherlands. The U.S. has car-centric infrastructure that makes casual utility cycling unapproachable. Not sure what our argument is anymore.
I don't think it's even an issue of car vs. bike infrastructure. Even if you put in a shitload of separate bike lanes and whatnot, I doubt it changes things that much. For a lot of Americans, the closest grocery store is too far and/or the average load of groceries too big to make that trip workable by bike.
1950s-era suburban planning around the automobile!
North American suburbs will always be car-dependent mainly by intentional design due to the distances. Urban cores can and should still be improved to accommodate multimodal transportation.
Zoning influences how many grocieries we buy? I suppose Americans just don't want to go shopping every day.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 11:57:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2022, 11:48:21 PM
So...many...unfounded...generalizations...
I have seen more fat tire enthusiasts than skinny tire high performance nuts...
The average person isn't going to bike to the grocery store in the US like they do in the Netherlands. The U.S. has car-centric infrastructure that makes casual utility cycling unapproachable. Not sure what our argument is anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpVncWxyMJw&ab_channel=Propel
False sense of security displayed. The Netherlands has a high rate of head/brain injuries from cycling accidents and that's with statistics some think are greatly undercounted:
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/netherlands-helmets.html#:~:text=Based%20on%20these%20figures%2C%20the,in%20Australia%20in%202005%2F06.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/09/cycling-injuries-three-times-more-than-official-figures/
I live in the suburbs, and I get by without a car. It's healthy to walk 5 miles each day. If the temperature isn't too high or low, and it's not raining, I'lll walk to various places, usually dinner, the grocery store, the pharmacy (these two are 1½ miles away and in the same direction), and/or the bank. When it is too hot or cold or it's raining, I'll take the bus. Near the winter solstice, when it gets dark at 4:30 PM, I'll sometimes walk to dinner and take the bus back. I'll also usually take the bus back if I'm carrying heavy groceries.
Farther away places, such as UMass Lowell and Lahey Hospital in Burlington, are accessible by bus.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 10:57:30 PM
The reason why you see so many people in Europe ride safely without helmets is that most of their infrastructure separates bikes from cars entirely,
So most bike lanes are grade separated from vehicle traffic? Are they elevated or what?
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 10:57:30 PM
The reason why you see so many people in Europe ride safely without helmets is that most of their infrastructure separates bikes from cars entirely,
Really? Most of their infrastructure? I grant you
more of their infrastructure does compared to the USA, but that I think saying
most is a stretch.
I plopped the GSV peg man down in some random locations in the Netherlands, and it's fairly easy to find things like this:
Schiedam: Bike lane doesn't avoid conflict with vehicle movements: https://goo.gl/maps/vmUYbjLvcspEYEQL7
Utrecht: Cyclist in the middle of the street with no helmet: https://goo.gl/maps/Uc5n8N2jBPmNpkpw5
Groningen: Cyclists with no helmets on a narrow street with traffic: https://goo.gl/maps/uLcgDk1ApShrDDaU7
Noordescheschut: Cyclist with no helmet stopped in the path of traffic: https://goo.gl/maps/VrwqHWMCEsiBr8y66
Hoom: Cyclist and motorcyclists without helmets:
oops, lost the linkUtrecht: Cyclist in the travel lane with no helmet: https://goo.gl/maps/8ibhj8RAj6Paj2pZ8
Oss: Cyclists with no helmets riding with traffic: https://goo.gl/maps/ScUg5N87jR5PHQZA7
Roosendaal: Sidewalk, street, it's all good, but no bike lanes and no helmets: https://goo.gl/maps/a8o1DJSvDi9YEeLj7
Amsterdam: Kids with no helmets, cycling on the sidewalk: https://goo.gl/maps/GoHszKuHQLr4wasX7
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2022, 09:52:17 AM
Roosendaal: Sidewalk, street, it's all good, but no bike lanes and no helmets: https://goo.gl/maps/a8o1DJSvDi9YEeLj7
This one right here is the picture I will think of anytime a European calls an American "stupid" for fill-in-the-blank reason.
We all have our dumb choices I guess.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 19, 2022, 12:35:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2022, 09:52:17 AM
Roosendaal: Sidewalk, street, it's all good, but no bike lanes and no helmets: https://goo.gl/maps/a8o1DJSvDi9YEeLj7
This one right here is the picture I will think of anytime a European calls an American "stupid" for fill-in-the-blank reason.
We all have our dumb choices I guess.
If you're referring to the family on the sidewalk, it looks like a dad taking his kids for a "ride". If you pan up and down, you'll notice he isn't actually riding the bike. He's just walking the bike along the sidewalk with his kids on it.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 18, 2022, 07:21:08 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 18, 2022, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2022, 09:28:23 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Eh, you can have the world's greatest engineers design the world's safest bike lane, and you can still have something like a branch fall on it and a biker go down and hit their head because they weren't paying attention.
Same thing is true for cars, or for pedestrians. If my city had only protected bike lanes and off street paths I would not wear a helmet.
iPhone
Are you serious? Protected bike lanes are still just as dangerous. People walking into your path to get to a car or wherever, hitting large debris because it all ends up near the curb, hitting the curb itself because you're forced to ride right up against it. Getting nailed by someone at an intersection (which is an overwhelming majority of cycling crashes) because you still have intersections. I notice you ignored my comment when responding to everyone else, because you have no logical response to it, other than to double down on saying that off-street paths are a panacea. Personally, I'd like to see you not sustain a head injury because there are a LOT of really f***ing stupid cyclists out there. Pedestrians too.
Fun fact: the only serious injury I've ever had cycling was in my own damn driveway. It was due to avoiding a (parked) car, and being a dumb 14 year old I just played my bets wrong on how to go around it.
Yeah there's always people who say that stuff, but if you bike not crazy fast, separated bike lanes are infact safer.
iPhone
Quote from: US 89 on April 19, 2022, 12:22:42 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2022, 11:57:13 PM
The average person isn't going to bike to the grocery store in the US like they do in the Netherlands. The U.S. has car-centric infrastructure that makes casual utility cycling unapproachable. Not sure what our argument is anymore.
I don't think it's even an issue of car vs. bike infrastructure. Even if you put in a shitload of separate bike lanes and whatnot, I doubt it changes things that much. For a lot of Americans, the closest grocery store is too far and/or the average load of groceries too big to make that trip workable by bike.
I mean Cambridge MA has a law that puts in separated bike lanes, and now mode switch is happening. But you're right, there are other issues like zoning and density.
iPhone
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 19, 2022, 03:54:10 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 18, 2022, 07:21:08 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 18, 2022, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2022, 09:28:23 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Eh, you can have the world's greatest engineers design the world's safest bike lane, and you can still have something like a branch fall on it and a biker go down and hit their head because they weren't paying attention.
Same thing is true for cars, or for pedestrians. If my city had only protected bike lanes and off street paths I would not wear a helmet.
iPhone
Are you serious? Protected bike lanes are still just as dangerous. People walking into your path to get to a car or wherever, hitting large debris because it all ends up near the curb, hitting the curb itself because you're forced to ride right up against it. Getting nailed by someone at an intersection (which is an overwhelming majority of cycling crashes) because you still have intersections. I notice you ignored my comment when responding to everyone else, because you have no logical response to it, other than to double down on saying that off-street paths are a panacea. Personally, I'd like to see you not sustain a head injury because there are a LOT of really f***ing stupid cyclists out there. Pedestrians too.
Fun fact: the only serious injury I've ever had cycling was in my own damn driveway. It was due to avoiding a (parked) car, and being a dumb 14 year old I just played my bets wrong on how to go around it.
Yeah there's always people who say that stuff, but if you bike not crazy fast, separated bike lanes are infact safer.
iPhone
So what is the appropriate speed I or others should be riding in them? What is "crazy fast"? Keep in mind when you answer that second question, cyclists are allowed to ride the speed limit, just like cars.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 19, 2022, 04:44:31 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 19, 2022, 03:54:10 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 18, 2022, 07:21:08 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 18, 2022, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2022, 09:28:23 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on April 13, 2022, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 12, 2022, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2022, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
2 differences:
A. Pavement coloring.
B. There's actually enough room for two cars to begin with.
C. Bikes are actually using the street in one of the two photos.
All those enlightened Europeans, not one wearing a helmet...
Because we properly design infrastructure, so it's safe enough to not need to wear a helmet.
Eh, you can have the world's greatest engineers design the world's safest bike lane, and you can still have something like a branch fall on it and a biker go down and hit their head because they weren't paying attention.
Same thing is true for cars, or for pedestrians. If my city had only protected bike lanes and off street paths I would not wear a helmet.
iPhone
Are you serious? Protected bike lanes are still just as dangerous. People walking into your path to get to a car or wherever, hitting large debris because it all ends up near the curb, hitting the curb itself because you're forced to ride right up against it. Getting nailed by someone at an intersection (which is an overwhelming majority of cycling crashes) because you still have intersections. I notice you ignored my comment when responding to everyone else, because you have no logical response to it, other than to double down on saying that off-street paths are a panacea. Personally, I'd like to see you not sustain a head injury because there are a LOT of really f***ing stupid cyclists out there. Pedestrians too.
Fun fact: the only serious injury I've ever had cycling was in my own damn driveway. It was due to avoiding a (parked) car, and being a dumb 14 year old I just played my bets wrong on how to go around it.
Yeah there's always people who say that stuff, but if you bike not crazy fast, separated bike lanes are infact safer.
iPhone
So what is the appropriate speed I or others should be riding in them? What is "crazy fast"? Keep in mind when you answer that second question, cyclists are allowed to ride the speed limit, just like cars.
I wouldn't exceed 15-20 miles per hour in a separated bike lane. People going faster than that can use a shared lane.
iPhone
Quote from: kphoger on April 16, 2022, 06:47:10 PM
That video highlighted something I was thinking about the other day...
This setup is basically no different from a street with no striping at all. So maybe that's my preferred solution: just get rid of everything.
I would tend to agree. No striping would mean that there is two way traffic that would have to slow down to a degree to let cars on the other side pass by. as is common for many yield streets or other narrow streets. I guess the only benefit is that the advisory bike lanes mark out a space for bikes, but that space is in the door zone as someone else mentioned.
So if we are talking about a collector street where biking is encouraged, no striping, and perhaps some speed bumps so that cars drive at a speed that is within safe range for cycling.
Quote from: fwydriver405 on April 11, 2022, 02:53:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2022, 09:48:39 AM
Just stripe it like any old street, and then put up some R4-11 signs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/MUTCD_R4-11.svg/240px-MUTCD_R4-11.svg.png)
The Washington St off-ramp off of MA Route 28 in Somerville MA used to confuse me initially both as a cyclist and driver - I've noticed on this street drivers will not use both lanes until they get to the signal:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3814241,-71.0902546,3a,15.3y,173.42h,84.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBl8Wn3Par2QXsJ2yET_8-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A good implementation of what Somerville is trying to accomplish can be found in Long Beach, CA:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.760341,-118.1349441,3a,37.5y,312.02h,80.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj140DichfmJsNjQtoxRoYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Green boxed sharrows over the right lane, shows that the right lane is to be shared with cars/bikes and that cars should change lanes to pass bikes.
[Take a look at the April 2016 view to see an even wackier earlly adoption. A green stripe through the whole lane. It was probably changed, because people believed that the entire right lane was bikes only, and the city wanted auto traffic to actually use both lanes to avoid back ups.]
Quote from: mrsman on June 13, 2022, 11:04:08 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on April 11, 2022, 02:53:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2022, 09:48:39 AM
Just stripe it like any old street, and then put up some R4-11 signs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/MUTCD_R4-11.svg/240px-MUTCD_R4-11.svg.png)
The Washington St off-ramp off of MA Route 28 in Somerville MA used to confuse me initially both as a cyclist and driver - I've noticed on this street drivers will not use both lanes until they get to the signal:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3814241,-71.0902546,3a,15.3y,173.42h,84.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBl8Wn3Par2QXsJ2yET_8-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A good implementation of what Somerville is trying to accomplish can be found in Long Beach, CA:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.760341,-118.1349441,3a,37.5y,312.02h,80.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj140DichfmJsNjQtoxRoYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Green boxed sharrows over the right lane, shows that the right lane is to be shared with cars/bikes and that cars should change lanes to pass bikes.
[Take a look at the April 2016 view to see an even wackier earlly adoption. A green stripe through the whole lane. It was probably changed, because people believed that the entire right lane was bikes only, and the city wanted auto traffic to actually use both lanes to avoid back ups.]
It's still probably not a comfortable facility though. The city of Cambridge had a set up like that, and in 2020 they switched it to this this year:(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220614/384e4917002b2decf247b73e5a6c881c.jpg)
iPhone
Victoria, BC got its first advisory bike lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.42053,-123.363925,3a,15y,338.5h,87.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDHUSmT7sJ71L05zDT01APA!2e0!5s20210901T000000!7i16384!8i8192) about a year or two ago. The signage is exactly the same as the ones in the US, including the spelling of center.
I'm not a fan. Unlike the previous two-lane configuration where cyclists were entitled to use the whole lane, they are now supposed to ride in the door zone. Also, like before, it offers no physical protection from cars. In addition, other than making drivers more aware of cyclists by being an unusual configuration that draws attention to them, not much else changes. Two cars travelling in opposite directions will still use the exact same space as before, and a driver passing a cyclist will still be at least partially on the left half of the road. The only thing that changes is, unless there is a car coming in the opposite direction, cars go in the middle.
Advisory bike lanes totally unnecessary. Vancouver has a ton of bike routes that are just regular, usually narrow, residential streets with no line in the middle, but slow down and restrict vehicle traffic by using things like traffic circles, speed bumps, and "mode filters." (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2571959,-123.1483688,3a,36.1y,361.5h,82.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWTbn6OeLCttuJzOGwLLWKg!2e0!7i16384!8i81922)
Quote from: bcroadguy on July 01, 2022, 06:22:03 AM
Victoria, BC got its first advisory bike lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.42053,-123.363925,3a,15y,338.5h,87.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDHUSmT7sJ71L05zDT01APA!2e0!5s20210901T000000!7i16384!8i8192) about a year or two ago. The signage is exactly the same as the ones in the US, including the spelling of center.
I'm not a fan. Unlike the previous two-lane configuration where cyclists were entitled to use the whole lane, they are now supposed to ride in the door zone. Also, like before, it offers no physical protection from cars. In addition, other than making drivers more aware of cyclists by being an unusual configuration that draws attention to them, not much else changes. Two cars travelling in opposite directions will still use the exact same space as before, and a driver passing a cyclist will still be at least partially on the left half of the road. The only thing that changes is, unless there is a car coming in the opposite direction, cars go in the middle.
Advisory bike lanes totally unnecessary. Vancouver has a ton of bike routes that are just regular, usually narrow, residential streets with no line in the middle, but slow down and restrict vehicle traffic by using things like traffic circles, speed bumps, and "mode filters." (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2571959,-123.1483688,3a,36.1y,361.5h,82.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWTbn6OeLCttuJzOGwLLWKg!2e0!7i16384!8i81922)
I agree. There really are few safety benefits to the arrangement. if one assumes that car traffic is likely heavier, then the default is to have both directions sharing the same space, and moving to the side so long as bikes aren't present. Better to just have the cars on different sides of the street.
And you are correct that this doesn't really help bikes as they are basically restricted from using the center of the street, since that space belongs to both directions of car traffic.
THe Vancouver approach is one that makes sense. On a less busy street, bikes and cars are to share the street. Traffic calming measures, like road narrowing or speed bumps can help reduce car traffic and/or speeds. On busier roads, the only solution is a full bike lane (ideally protected) but this generally means taking away 1 or more lanes from driving or parking.
Advisory bike lanes were recently installed on a portion of Ludlow St (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressherald.com%2F2022%2F08%2F23%2Fnew-traffic-pattern-sparks-confusion-in-deering-center%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3wLxKkWlGzDw0nId-8JGVwviGgyw2Ib9_qm3bdIiqW4tpXNYTKMUQwZwQ) in Portland, Maine a few days ago and many people around there are mixed about it (Location (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ludlow+St,+Portland,+ME,+USA/@43.6753436,-70.30679,15.26z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4cb29bbb501c95ab:0xe49c285a30b885c3!8m2!3d43.6748968!4d-70.3035912)). I'll have to take a look at those lanes tomorrow on my way up to Orono.
(https://multifiles.pressherald.com/uploads/sites/10/2022/08/20220822_striping0430-1024x682.jpg)
Quote from: Portland Press HeraldPortland recently painted “advisory bike lanes” on Ludlow Street in Portland. The pattern has been used in cities around the world to improve safety on narrow, low-speed streets with low and moderate traffic. A lack of outreach and a discrepancy between the signage and the stencils on the road have left some users confused about how to navigate the road. Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Staff Photographer
If that's actually a photo from that street, why are the bike symbols in the car lane? They completely failed here.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on August 27, 2022, 09:44:48 AM
If that's actually a photo from that street, why are the bike symbols in the car lane? They completely failed here.
Agreed. This is confusing !
iPhone
Quote from: JoePCool14 on August 27, 2022, 09:44:48 AM
If that's actually a photo from that street, why are the bike symbols in the car lane? They completely failed here.
It's a sharrow with extra steps.