A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
It's nice to see the traffic bollards, but they really couldn't put any on the corner that the biker turns right on at the end?
It's definitely nice to see effort put into separating it from the rest of the street, which is the safest option for cyclists.
That’s a crosswalk, you can’t stick a bollard there because it would block the ramp for a wheelchair-bound person. Designing this shit that works for everyone is hard when cars are in the mix…would be a lot easier to just ban the cars to come up with a design that works for everyone else.
This is, emphatically, not a crosswalk, and is the bit I am talking about. It's a raised curb which still protects the biker and extends between the two crosswalks but not crossing over them.
I guess my point is an out of control vehicle can still fly over that curb and cream a biker and/or pedestrians so it seems (to me) like a good place for bollards.
Wider view showing in context with the crosswalks:
I guess my point is an out of control vehicle can still fly over that curb and cream a biker and/or pedestrians so it seems (to me) like a good place for bollards.
But that would be unsafe because it might injure the drivers of the out-of-control cars.
(This really is the 'logic' traffic engineers often use. The cyclist or pedestrian that might be on the other side of the bollard is rarely considered.)
Those aren't bollards. They're just thin plastic tubes with reflective tape on them to help drivers see where they aren't supposed to drive better.
What you're seeing this is one that already got run over or removed.
Yes, that's my point, there are actual bollards elsewhere on this stretch of bike lane, and I'm proposing actual bollards on this curb.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, how are so many people misunderstanding this?
These are the actual bollards I'm referring to. Fuck me. Why does everyone assume I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. I know what a fucking actual bollard looks like. It's a concrete post with a rebar center that extends down into the base concrete/asphalt underneath. It's the whole reason I used the word "bollard."
I'm definitely not talking about these worthless things:
My point is those curb markers are not enough, as evidenced by one already being run over and torn away. Which is once again why there should be actual bollards there.
Using this logic we should have bollards at all pedestrian crossings/intersections.
Its strange how a person on a bike highlights how unsafe streets and roads are because of cars
Also, these bollars that you are referring to here are actually only called curb markers. These are to show cars or snow plows where the curb is in low visibility. They are very similar to the marlers you may see for center curbs like these.
No, these are the bollards I'm talking about, they have actual bollards at various places on this stretch of bike lane.
My point is they could be effectively used in more places. I'm not a fucking idiot, I know what an actual bollard is. I'm talking about a concrete post with a rebar center firmly affixed to the base concrete/asphalt. Why would I even be using the word "bollard" if I didn't know what the fuck it was?
I'm not talking about these:
Ah. Yeah that seems like it would be a good idea.
It makes sense for Southern California to use bicycles as transportation. There's great weather and little rain most of the year.
The entire country of the Netherlands have proven that infrastructure, not weather, makes cycling the most popular mode of transportation. Hell, most of Nordic big cities are cycling heavens despite their shitty snowy/rainy weather.
I live in Copenhagen. I confirm: great cycle infrastructure, even in snow.
Same and same (almost always, I mean 2 weeks ago there was a day or two where the bike lane was too full of slushy crap)
Sure, but great weather just makes it that much more appealing. It’s not a prerequisite but it’s a huge plus. So, not having great bicycle infrastructure in a place with great weather seems like such a loss.
Infrastructure not weather makes bicycling great.
Similarly having great trails and sidewalks makes walking great, not the weather.
People have been walking in the rain and snow for millennia.
Oulu, Finland is a massive biking center. The weather is winter most of the year. Their infrastructure for bikes is amazing so people use it, even when it's cold.
The only criticism I have is that the bicycle path is too narrow to let another person pass. You'd ideally want a bicycle path of at least 2.5 m wide, not just 1 m.
3.5 m would be even better, then you can have a couple bike next to each other, with another passing.
Was expecting something terrible to happen. Whole time, I'm thinking "wow this is super nice and everything seems well done and fairly safe.
IKR, I've been watching too many videos of bad news.
Damn, that’s a nice bike lane!
look how it protects riders and jeans into the existing public transit infrastructure!
If only the rest of the country had such thoughtful urban planning.
What's really sad about that is how this is really the bare minimum needed
Tons of this all over Portland! Love to see the growth
THAT'S how you do a bike lane!
Looks generally okay-ish, especially with all the proper protection. But isn't that awfully narrow for all but a very few bikes? If we learned some thing from the car-brain planning then that induced demand indeed exists.
Just like yet another lane does not reduce but in fact increase car traffic, one proper bike lane will increase bike traffic (and reduce car traffic)... and will quickly outgrow the capacity of these narrow green strips.
Can’t wait for there to be congestion in these bike lanes…
Okay, it's still a step into the right direction.
Its a step in the right direction, and you would not build a 10 lane highway right away, lanes would be added on and expanded as time progress.
What does the red paint on the curb mean?
It means that cars cannot stop or park in those sections.
It looks like they painted still on curb just in case the drivers would claim that didn't see it or it doesn't apply because the curb wasn't painted.
Red paint and yellow paint both mean parking against it is forbidden. Red is typically, but not exclusively, used for fire lanes, which are spaces which must not be obstructed because they are where the fire trucks park in the event of a fire.
Additionally, in the Los Angeles area, green paint is used to indicate that parking is allowed there, but there is a low time limit (such as 30 minutes).
probably "don't fucking hit it"
Wish more cities would use these types of markings, they usually mean red/yellow being no parking and blue being accessible parking. In some European cities they use zigzag markings meaning no parking.
I do feel like the S bends are a bit tight, seems like it would make it hard to keep a consistent speed if you have to slow down for every intersection. Specifically thinking of e-cargo trikes and trailers that can’t lean into corners like a regular bike can, and take longer to get up to speed.
I'm not sure if it was intended as behavioral engineering to encourage slowing down at crosswalks, but even if it's unintentional, I consider it a feature.
I would agree, but if cars can just drive straight, why should bikes be slowed down?
Fast road bike drivers will then just drive in the road instead, because there they can just keep their speed unhindered.
If bike lanes have a worse experience then driving on the road, for instance sharp curves, steeper hills, worse maintained asphalt or less optimal ways to turn into a side road, then bicycle drivers will want to continue to use the road. Because they are treated as a second class traffic participant.
Cars instead should be treated as a second-class vehicle, because it requires more space, infrastructure and is less efficient.
Looks pretty good actually. A little narrow, maybe, but the separation is nice :D
Car brains see that and complaint about removing parking spaces.
Needs more chicanes.
Try that in the North with ICE and you're deported.
Hey, check it out-!
Homie's hittin' the skinny!
This is positive, so it's just a matter of time until idiots want to get rid of it.
This looks quite cool. We don't have anything like this here.
Ours come in 2 forms.
The first is just a designated shoulder - a line on the side of the road, no physical barrier, but formally designated with markings. These are meaningless to cars and I'm certain that almost all drivers (and cyclists) don't realise that there's any difference between this and an ordinary road shoulder.
The second is really daft. It's basically a lane marked on the pavement in the right of this video. It stops at every intersection, so each section is only 1 block long and then you just become pedestrian traffic and have to negotiate intersections.
No solution is perfect and I can see some potential issues here but it's pretty good.
It looks like the lane either ends or someone parked in it at the end of the video..
I see bike banana's and I upvote!