|
Entropist posted:Is that really a source of conflict? Cyclists are flexible, when you see that a car has their right turning signal on, you can go wait on the left side instead to avoid getting in the way. That's how people do it in the Netherlands anyway. Ah yes, we'll just depend on Americans being conscientious and self-aware. I'm pretty sure the AASHTO bike guide has a section on assuming that cyclists and drivers are engaged in a blood feud.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Entropist posted:Is that really a source of conflict? Cyclists are flexible, when you see that a car has their right turning signal on, you can go wait on the left side instead to avoid getting in the way. That's how people do it in the Netherlands anyway. That street is probably part of a designated municipal bike route, which means that it's a secondary road intended to act as a magnet for cyclists in order to deconflict alternate routes. And so it's common to divert vehicular thru-traffic toward main streets in order to make the bike routes safer for cyclists. Eugene, OR has a bunch of intersections that are just like that. Local residents can still drive to and from their homes via alternate routes, but it cuts down on folks who are trying to save time on a commute.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
We've got a couple intersections like that here, people hate them because "how come bikes get to go through but I have to turn! War on cars!". Saw a dude in a tundra just drive over the little island thing and go straight through the other day. The curb is a bit rounded so it was fairly easy to drive over. Is that for emergency vehicles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Entropist posted:Is that really a source of conflict? Cyclists are flexible, when you see that a car has their right turning signal on, you can go wait on the left side instead to avoid getting in the way. That's how people do it in the Netherlands anyway. That particular intersection is blocked for traffic calming reasons, not solely for the benefit of cyclists. There are some fully four-way intersections in the area that have a similar setup, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 00:42
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
Devor posted:I'm pretty sure the AASHTO bike guide has a section on assuming that cyclists and drivers are engaged in a blood feud. It's the same way within the DOT. The bike folks have a major chip on their shoulders, and push really hard for scope changes that would seem crazy coming from any other unit. I understand that bicyclists have been marginalized for decades, and it's their job to look out for them, but we only have a very limited budget and very constrained right-of-way. We can't make everyone happy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
Meanwhile in Europe, http://green.autoblog.com/2013/10/29/bicycles-outsold-cars-all-over-europe-last-year/ Autoblog posted:All across Europe, bicycles outsold cars last year Maybe now in London our lovely mayor will put in some non-lethal cycling infrastructure that is better than some blue paint. e: I mean just look at this it's like the perfect example of how not to do safe shared space. Spot the bike lane:  Did you find it? It was under the bus  The junction pictured is also responsible for at least two deaths http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24539584 Rude Dude With Tude fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's the same way within the DOT. The bike folks have a major chip on their shoulders, and push really hard for scope changes that would seem crazy coming from any other unit. I understand that bicyclists have been marginalized for decades, and it's their job to look out for them, but we only have a very limited budget and very constrained right-of-way. We can't make everyone happy. It isn't happy, it's not dead. Bicyclists don't have 10 tons of steel to protect you against some impatient idiot who thinks it's okay to pass on your left and immediately turn right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
I'm assuming this is an American thing? Don't you guys have litigation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
EtaBetaPi posted:It isn't happy, it's not dead. Bicyclists don't have 10 tons of steel to protect you against some impatient idiot who thinks it's okay to pass on your left and immediately turn right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
EtaBetaPi posted:It isn't happy, it's not dead. Bicyclists don't have 10 tons of steel to protect you against some impatient idiot who thinks it's okay to pass on your left and immediately turn right. Bike lanes don't solve idiot drivers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
grover posted:If you value you life, you don't drive a motorcycle drunk, and you don't ride a bike on a high speed road. You may be happier riding a bike, but you'll be less dead driving a car. That's entirely a problem with the design of the road, not with the concept of bicycling. Forcing people to spend several thousand dollars if they want to get places and also stay alive is the American way, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
EtaBetaPi posted:It isn't happy, it's not dead. Bicyclists don't have 10 tons of steel to protect you against some impatient idiot who thinks it's okay to pass on your left and immediately turn right. Well, here's a situation I ran into today: we have a choice between widening shoulders for bicycles or adding a left turn lane for cars. The rest of the corridor has minimal/no shoulders and there are a lot of left turning accidents here. A life is a life, whether they're in the driver's seat or perched atop a vélocipède. The more we can save, the better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:That's entirely a problem with the design of the road, not with the concept of bicycling. Forcing people to spend several thousand dollars if they want to get places and also stay alive is the American way, though. It's very hard to design an existing road to prevent "dumbass in a car turning into the path of a biker and flattening the guy on the bike".
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
grover posted:If you value you life, you don't drive a motorcycle drunk, and you don't ride a bike on a high speed road. You may be happier riding a bike, but you'll be less dead driving a car. So you're not just a lovely poster and a lovely engineer, but also a lovely person, didn't know that! This occurred in a "high speed" 30 mph zone about 15 feet down from a light where both I and the person who hit me were stopped. Due to poor planning in that area the bike lane I was in stopped dead after the light, and to get around me the person gunned their engine, make an immediate right, and clipped my handle bars, flipping me into the road. The reason why the bike lane ended is because they had to preserve two lanes of straight traffic with a protected right and a protected left and parking on both sides (remember, slow residential/commercial zone), and didn't sign or signal the road properly to drivers so they understand to YIELD TO BIKES, much less enforce that. But gently caress you for comparing driving drunk to having the temerity to bike. EtaBetaPi fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Well, here's a situation I ran into today: we have a choice between widening shoulders for bicycles or adding a left turn lane for cars. The rest of the corridor has minimal/no shoulders and there are a lot of left turning accidents here. A life is a life, whether they're in the driver's seat or perched atop a vélocipède. The more we can save, the better. drat man I'd get pretty depressed in your job. You're basically having to play triage with people's lives due to a lack of funding and could save so many more for just a bit more money that would end up saving lives and money in the long run. drat... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Well, here's a situation I ran into today: we have a choice between widening shoulders for bicycles or adding a left turn lane for cars. The rest of the corridor has minimal/no shoulders and there are a lot of left turning accidents here. A life is a life, whether they're in the driver's seat or perched atop a vélocipède. The more we can save, the better. By making it easier to get around on a bike, you decrease the number of cars on the road and the number of turn conflicts? You could also put in a protected left without a lane? That would hurt your speed, but a life is a life - and you can get both lives saved at the cost of throughput (any maybe not even as you start to get modeshare shifts).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
EtaBetaPi posted:By making it easier to get around on a bike, you decrease the number of cars on the road and the number of turn conflicts? No, not really. Especially not any time soon and without all the other roads around being made more bike friendly first. And even with that there probably won't be a lot of all-time shifts because it's Connecticut and the weather often sucks for biking. EtaBetaPi posted:You could also put in a protected left without a lane? Not really in a situation like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:No, not really. Especially not any time soon and without all the other roads around being made more bike friendly first. And even with that there probably won't be a lot of all-time shifts because it's Connecticut and the weather often sucks for biking. Have to start somewhere! Copenhagen sucks in the winter but it seems to work for them. Traffic engineering as a whole tends to prioritize car safety and throughput to the exclusion of almost everything else, which is why getting pushback from other traffic modes tends to stick out. Why not? Throughput? Increased rear-ends? Aren't those preferable to t-bones?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
EtaBetaPi posted:Have to start somewhere! Copenhagen sucks in the winter but it seems to work for them. Traffic engineering as a whole tends to prioritize car safety and throughput to the exclusion of almost everything else, which is why getting pushback from other traffic modes tends to stick out. Copenhagen in the winter is also a major city. I'm not sure exactly where in CT his particular problem area is but I doubt it has anywhere near the same context of bicycling benefit. The only way you can have a meaningful protected left without turn lanes is to have light schedules where you have it split side road - main road direction a all traffic - main road direction b all traffic. With both main road turn cycles having to be long to manage the actual traffic. That'd frankly just suck and is only suitable for absolute last resort situations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
EtaBetaPi posted:So you're not just a lovely poster and a lovely engineer, but also a lovely person, didn't know that! Personally, I bike exclusively on roads with 25mph speed limit or lower and light traffic, and even then I pull off on the shoulder and stop if a car comes. If I need to actually go somewhere else, I drive. Why? Because I value my life. If you value yours, you should consider this a lesson learned, sue the driver that hit you, and use the money to buy a car. grover fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Copenhagen in the winter is also a major city. I'm not sure exactly where in CT his particular problem area is but I doubt it has anywhere near the same context of bicycling benefit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
grover posted:Personally, I bike exclusively on roads with 25mph speed limit or lower and light traffic, and even then I pull off on the shoulder and stop if a car comes. If I need to actually go somewhere else, I drive. Why? Because I value my life. If you value yours, you should consider this a lesson learned, sue the driver that hit you, and use the money to buy a car. So people who can't afford the costs of purchasing, storing, maintaining, and operating a car don't value their lives. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
EtaBetaPi posted:Sure. I'm more referring to the general problem which is why "bike folks" have a chip on their shoulders - even in areas where bike lanes and bike infrastructure would make sense they get prioritized for things like turning lanes when another solution would solve both problems at some hit to speed and driver comfort. I don't think the bikers would be helped by having to go through a stretch of road where they too are having to wait a whole lot longer to proceed at the multiple lights along the way. Bikers don't get to just blast through intersections against the light after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I don't think the bikers would be helped by having to go through a stretch of road where they too are having to wait a whole lot longer to proceed at the multiple lights along the way. Bikers don't get to just blast through intersections against the light after all. If that's the price to pay for infrastructure and a safer commute?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
EtaBetaPi posted:If that's the price to pay for infrastructure and a safer commute? That doesn't actually create a safer commute, it's merely slightly widening the shoulders for "bike lanes" where you're still going to be subject to things like cars turning without looking and all that. It's barely even infrastructure, since it's just slightly widening an already existing set of shoulders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:drat man I'd get pretty depressed in your job. You're basically having to play triage with people's lives due to a lack of funding and could save so many more for just a bit more money that would end up saving lives and money in the long run. drat... Yeah, it does suck. I've got a bunch of leads on a new line of work, so I might not be a traffic engineer much longer. EtaBetaPi posted:By making it easier to get around on a bike, you decrease the number of cars on the road and the number of turn conflicts? You could also put in a protected left without a lane? That would hurt your speed, but a life is a life - and you can get both lives saved at the cost of throughput (any maybe not even as you start to get modeshare shifts). Even if you reduced the volume by 90%, you'd still merit the left turn lane based on benefit/cost. A protected left without a lane would help, but would push us into LOS F with the attendant high speed rear-end collisions and a massive reduction in air quality. It's not a simple "capacity vs. safety" issue; it never is. Install Windows posted:I don't think the bikers would be helped by having to go through a stretch of road where they too are having to wait a whole lot longer to proceed at the multiple lights along the way. Bikers don't get to just blast through intersections against the light after all. That's the thing, though, we can't make it safer for everyone. The project budget is about $1.5M. We'll need a third of that to build the signal, a third for traffic control, and then we're left with $500k for a half mile of widening a bit past the ROW lines. Anything we can do will improve the existing condition out there, but we can't go nearly as far as we'd like. There are very few bikes out there today, as I said; it's a 45 mph 4-lane road with no shoulders and no sidewalk (no room for them, either). Even if we cut the road down to 2 lanes for half a mile (which would back up onto a freeway, by the way), you have a little stretch of acceptable biking road with nothing on either side. Now if the bike lobby complains that we're not adding bike facilities, the project dies and we won't even be able to save the ~.5 lives per year that we could by putting in left turn lanes. There's just no good way to do this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
How do you feel about Michigan Lefts? Is there a rule of thumb how far past the intersection it should be and how common is it to have a light?Cichlidae posted:Yeah, it does suck. I've got a bunch of leads on a new line of work, so I might not be a traffic engineer much longer. If you have a change of mind about traffic engineering, move to Pima county, we are starting to get one of every traffic set up: a nice new roundabout at a backroad intersection a year ago, jug handle finished earlier this year, and a Michigan Left now, all within 4 miles of each other. Terminal Entropy fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's the thing, though, we can't make it safer for everyone. The project budget is about $1.5M. We'll need a third of that to build the signal, a third for traffic control, and then we're left with $500k for a half mile of widening a bit past the ROW lines. Anything we can do will improve the existing condition out there, but we can't go nearly as far as we'd like. There are very few bikes out there today, as I said; it's a 45 mph 4-lane road with no shoulders and no sidewalk (no room for them, either). Even if we cut the road down to 2 lanes for half a mile (which would back up onto a freeway, by the way), you have a little stretch of acceptable biking road with nothing on either side. Now if the bike lobby complains that we're not adding bike facilities, the project dies and we won't even be able to save the ~.5 lives per year that we could by putting in left turn lanes. There's just no good way to do this. All things being equal, I'd tend to support fundamental cyclist facilities over a mere expansion of vehicular infrastructure. The societal health and economic effects alone make for a compelling case. But that expressway certainly doesn't sound like it'd be a good candidate for being a bike route. It's certainly possible, but you'd need to segregate it - probably with a concrete barrier. A better solution would be to identify and develop an alternate bike route system that would parallel that road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Kaal posted:All things being equal, I'd tend to support fundamental cyclist facilities over a mere expansion of vehicular infrastructure. The societal health and economic effects alone make for a compelling case. But that expressway certainly doesn't sound like it'd be a good candidate for being a bike route. It's certainly possible, but you'd need to segregate it - probably with a concrete barrier. A better solution would be to identify and develop an alternate bike route system that would parallel that road. Pretty much. I'm definitely sympathetic to the bike lobby, but going after little projects like the one Cichlidae's working on is counterproductive as long as cars aren't going away and our built environment isn't being radically changed. Edit: Not to say we shouldn't be considering complete streets-type improvements wherever we can, but getting up in arms about a left turn lane that has tangible safety and air quality benefits is missing the point. Dominus Vobiscum fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Copenhagen in the winter is also a major city. I'm not sure exactly where in CT his particular problem area is but I doubt it has anywhere near the same context of bicycling benefit. Aside from that, Copenhagen and the whole area is actually a bit warmer than the shoreline of CT in winter with much less precipitation(rain or snow), it's also much cooler in the summer. Same with Holland. Not only did Holland/Denmark have the good urban planing and density to have bicycles everywhere, but they also lucked into the perfect geographic locations. It's not too cold or too hot and the land is basically flat. EtaBetaPi posted:and didn't sign or signal the road properly to drivers so they understand to YIELD TO BIKES, much less enforce that. Even when they do it barely help sometimes.  About a year ago the city installed bike lanes along a portion of Dixwell Avenue which I've crudely drawn in blue since they haven't appeared on google maps yet. As you can see where that red car is going, if you're coming south on the left side, the road forks off. In case it wasn't obvious enough with bicycles being on their right side, a sign was even put up before he fork saying "Motorists yield to bicycles". Guess who has had to slam on their brakes more than once to keep a car from hitting them 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
I was visiting my parents in the Phoenix, and took my sister to the movies. I think I discovered the worst intersection in Metro Phoenix. http://goo.gl/maps/6aKUf
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Armacham posted:I was visiting my parents in the Phoenix, and took my sister to the movies. I think I discovered the worst intersection in Metro Phoenix. What's wrong with those roundabouts? I know our traffic guys don't like doing the bypass lanes around the roundabout, but for what would otherwise be a three-lane roundabout those don't look so bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Actually there's not much wrong with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Devor posted:What's wrong with those roundabouts? 1. People in phoenix don't know how to use them, which leads to : 2. During busy time, the traffic flow is primarily from Happy Valley Road, and both roundabouts get completely clogged. Getting off the freeway going south, it took me probably 15 minutes to make it to the otherside of the interchange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Armacham posted:1. People in phoenix don't know how to use them, which leads to : How are people mis-using them? Is the traffic in the circle trying to yield to the approaches? I'm always curious to hear anecdotes for how designs can get fouled up during real operations. It may just be that the intersections are undersized for the actual traffic volumes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Even when they do it barely help sometimes. I've always felt (as a driver) that the bike lanes in New Haven are more like suggestions than law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Devor posted:How are people mis-using them? Is the traffic in the circle trying to yield to the approaches? I'm always curious to hear anecdotes for how designs can get fouled up during real operations. Mostly its because of unequal volumes of traffic from the cross streets. On Friday and Saturday nights, way too many people are trying to get to the shopping center on the east side, with all the shops, movie theatre, and restaurants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Not being a cyclist myself, I've never understood why the law puts them in traffic with motor vehicles. I just don't see how the accident between a bicycle and a pedestrian could be in any way as bad as between a bicycle and a car.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Not being a cyclist myself, I've never understood why the law puts them in traffic with motor vehicles. I just don't see how the accident between a bicycle and a pedestrian could be in any way as bad as between a bicycle and a car. It's apparently still safer to have them on the streets. You're far more likely to be hit by a car by riding on the sidewalk than on the street. Cars aren't excepting something moving almost as fast as them darting off a sidewalk at an intersection, or when they're backing out of their driveway. Also there's just no room, you'd need double-wide sidewalks. I've been in places in europe that have the bikes on sidewalks sometimes and it works out ok because people are used to it and the sidewalks are marked but it's still a pain because pedestrians are constantly getting in the way. They also sort of go on to the street at intersections to be more visible. It's also a lot cheaper to draw some lines on the road than build a whole new curb and sidewalk-based bike lane. Also bikes on the sidewalk are loving annoying as a pedestrian, I've been clipped by idiot sidewalk riders in the past and it hurts. It's always a kid who's idiot parents tell him he has to ride on the sidewalk, or a homeless person. Most sidewalks can't really handle a person and a bike passing each other and idiot hobos riding their bottle-bikes with trailers and poo poo weaving through dense sidewalk traffic is stupid and dangerous. PS Old people on scooters, yes you can travel a little faster than a typical pedestrian but when you're on the sidewalk you don't have some magical scooter-having right to aggressively bump and pass and cut off everyone. Also gently caress you for clipping my shins or driving onto the back of my feet because I didn't dive out of your way fast enough on a crowded sidewalk. Seriously, how to handle these things? Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Nov 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's apparently still safer to have them on the streets. You're far more likely to be hit by a car by riding on the sidewalk than on the street. Cars aren't excepting something moving almost as fast as them darting off a sidewalk at an intersection, or when they're backing out of their driveway. Also there's just no room, you'd need double-wide sidewalks. I've been in places in europe that have the bikes on sidewalks sometimes and it works out ok because people are used to it and the sidewalks are marked but it's still a pain because pedestrians are constantly getting in the way. They also sort of go on to the street at intersections to be more visible. Fast moving bikes can also straight up injure people, or worse. There was a case of someone on an off-road trail in DC blowing past an older woman from behind, warning her "on your left". She apparently didn't understand the convention because she moved left, got hit by the cyclist, and died of her injuries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 20:51
|
|