"McMike" (mcmike)
01/21/2019 at 15:14 • Filed to: None
0
25|
"McMike" (mcmike)
01/21/2019 at 15:14 • Filed to: None | 0
| 25 |
No, this has nothing to do with cars vs cyclists. It’s the design.
I have seen some striping that has been confusing the hell out of me
lately, and I’m hoping there are some cyclists (or urban/highway/city
engineers) here in Oppo who can shed some light on this.
The two images below are from a long, wide street that rolls through a
few neighborhoods that has been repaved in sections over the last few
years. There weren’t stripes on it at all before, and when I noticed
the addition of the a dedicated bike lanes I only gave it a,”Cool, I
guess. I’m not sure why they needed them on such a wide 25mph street,
but whatever.”
This one makes perfect sense.
This one, however... Same street, just further down the road.
There also is another street local to me that has been repaved, two lines added, and put the bike lane markers on the curb side.
Why the hell would you put the bike lane at the curb that allows street
parking? Isn’t that the exact opposite of what cyclists want?
RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 15:27 |
|
Because they’re just paying lip service to bike lanes.
ranwhenparked
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 15:31 |
|
If its anything like the bike lanes they’re putting in around me, its intended to be mostly decorative anyway.
Urambo Tauro
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 15:37 |
|
Street parking is still allowed there? I bet they changed their mind about that, and will put the signs up as soon as you park there. Do you feel lucky?
|
McMike
> Urambo Tauro
01/21/2019 at 15:40 |
|
Street parking is allowed all along that road, and it’s been a few years since they striped it.
Milky
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 15:42 |
|
Detroit’s looks better but still are a bit messed up. All of the lanes are newish but the switched to protected bike lanes half way through.
4kc
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 15:48 |
|
The double lines for bikes are supposed to be a reminder for the 3-4 feet of “safety space” that urban planners think is a “ fair compromise” to creating a separate roadway for cyclists while still “ encouraging alternative transportation”
|
McMike
> Milky
01/21/2019 at 15:48 |
|
At least none of those have bikes and parked cars sharing the same lane.
I like the one on the top better. Probably cuts down on road rage.
|
Urambo Tauro
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 15:50 |
|
Have you noticed anyone parking there since the re-stripe ? Or is everyone afraid of blocking the bi k e lane?
|
McMike
> Urambo Tauro
01/21/2019 at 15:53 |
|
Yup, all the time.
Lack of “No parking” signs = Free game
For Sweden
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 15:56 |
|
“Isn’t that the exact opposite of what cyclists want?”
uh, yeah
|
McMike
> For Sweden
01/21/2019 at 16:07 |
|
Hope you’re ready to Dodge.
facw
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 16:08 |
|
In TX, cars are allowed to park in bike lanes unless they are specific ally signed as no parking. It’s dumb, but on the other hand, it avoids local opposition to bike lanes from people who are freaked out about losing their street parking. If street parking is rare, because most people have driveways/garages/etc. , that’s not a bad deal. But situations where the cyclist has to merge into traffic because of something in a bike lane are dangerous, so should be avoided if at all possible.
In any event, the second one is obviously create separation. Few drivers (even good ones) pass with the required separation, so if you can enforce it, all the better. Protected bike lines are generally considered a very good option (they can even be safer than fully separated lanes because turning cars tend not to look for things that far away from the street). The problem is street parking sharing room with the lane. It’s probably still a good deal to have the lane, but motorist shouldn’t get upset with cyclists not using the bike lane if there are a bunch of cars in it.
|
Milky
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 16:14 |
|
Yea they switched to top version soon after starting the project, just weird timing.
SPAMBot - Horse Doctor
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 16:15 |
|
It looks like that second picture is to give some buffer for a car to move over that is turning at the T. Whether this is to actually give space for other cars to get around or is done to buy a cyclist more time from a car drifting over, I’m not sure. But If you look, it goes back to normal after the intersection.
Cash Rewards
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 16:19 |
|
I'm gonna hazard a guess that the increased emphasis and distance in the second picture relates to the hazard on the curb for the cyclists (sewers)
Dogsatemypants
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 17:04 |
|
I fail to understand bike lanes that try to push bikes into traffic. I am less tolerant of people who claim bikes “ share” the road. Bikes occupy the road and impede the smooth flow of traffic.
In general I am of the opinion that if you cannot keep apace of traffic, you qualify as a pedestrian and belong on the sidewalk. If the sidewalk is full of people, go on grass/ dirt or walk your bike.
|
Dogsatemypants
> Milky
01/21/2019 at 17:05 |
|
That would work for me.
Honeybunchesofgoats
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 18:46 |
|
With the second one, I think the idea is to get the bikes out of the blind spot for anyone turning right, but I’ve never seen turn lanes handled that way. In New Jersey, they usually break the outer lane with a broken line and put a sign to alert drivers that it’s a shared bike/turn lane.
Frank Grimes
> McMike
01/21/2019 at 20:22 |
|
jugalo intensifies.
pip bip - choose Corrour
> McMike
01/22/2019 at 04:03 |
|
ask this genius
|
McMike
> pip bip - choose Corrour
01/22/2019 at 05:40 |
|
Need a little more, I know less about Australian bike lanes than I do US bike lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/ShqaznnH74U2
There are six travel lanes, a bus lane, and a breakdown lane
.
I see that the cyclist
was in the bus lane
, but
what lane should he have been in? Are there no bikes allowed on that bridge?
|
pip bip - choose Corrour
> McMike
01/22/2019 at 05:52 |
|
off to the far left near the pedestrians
|
McMike
> pip bip - choose Corrour
01/22/2019 at 06:05 |
|
Oh shit, I didn’t even see that lane.
However.... if you follow it back to the
North side
access point, I found this sign. :(
|
pip bip - choose Corrour
> McMike
01/22/2019 at 06:22 |
|
buggered of i know then
|
McMike
> pip bip - choose Corrour
01/22/2019 at 08:30 |
|
I’m not trying to bust your balls here, it’s just that some of this stuff is frustrating for cyclists (not a cyclist), and it’s never as simple as “streets are for cars and not for bikes.” I figured since there was a news story about that dummy, he had to be wrong... Then I started looking around..
The article said “ Cyclists are required to ride on the dedicated cycleway on the western side of the bridge, which provides a safe journey across the Sydney Harbour Bridge.”
There’s a chance that sign wasn’t for the cycleway (since they called it a “cycleway”) but I still question everything. :)