|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
Ireland.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Interesting vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G24x26s3Hjg Takeaways: - Roundabouts are great to solve certain traffic situations, but much much less effective if they're just slapped on top of a broken system compared to when they're part of a holistic traffic design from the start. - Traffic design yields much better results when you treat it like a science with unknowns that can be tested and improved upon than based on an immutable 'traffic bible' that everyone takes as absolute law.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2023 11:20
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Remember when the thread title was "me love make red light"? That's still in the OP's avatar.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2023 07:56
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:And the Netherlands aren't that great, they just have a couple of cities with solidly good bike infrastructure. Alright, I'll bite. Which cities in the Netherlands would you say have good bike infrastructure and which have bad bike infrastructure?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
I've been there and it's terrible. Lots of roads don't even have separated bike paths! You have to do that weird "turn right to go left" thing because they don't have protected crossings. The place feels unsafe to cycle with all the cars right next to you. There is barely any "this way to town X" signage for cyclists either. Yeah, you're either trolling hard or you've never been to the Netherlands outside of Amsterdam.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2023 08:11
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Even when they're originally designed for cars? It is better for drivers too, actually. By limiting through-drivers to certain roads designed for going fast, with a very limited number of exits and no direct access to houses of parking lots, and having residential streets all set up as one-way or cul-de-sacs with a lot of traffic slowing measures, you improve the car flow through the entire city and you remove the number of accidents (stroads are "designed" to go fast, are actually slow because of all the turning traffic, and are a prime location for car collisions. Now, those streets in Oakland are still way too wide. These changes don't stick unless you change the street design itself. A design similar to this could work quite nicely for streets like that:   That second one is an artist impression of a redesign they're planning in Amsterdam. Still definitely possible for cars who need to be there to access their properties, but space for lots of greenery to keep the street cool in summer, and for all kinds of non-car traffic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 07:49
|
|
|
Devor posted:Edit: The only use case I can brainstorm is a purely utilitarian bike facility that connects two non-pedestrian destinations and I cannot even imagine what that would be Your imagination must be rather limited. Have a few examples.   There's a way for cars to reach the backyard of these houses in case any big loading/unloading needs to be done.    All of these do have a sidewalk as well, but the distances may be quite far for that if you're not planning to go on a long walk. Perfect distance for cycling though. In more rural areas, like the last photo, you have longer bike paths connecting towns for those who cycle to work or school in another town. Often for those they don't bother putting in a sidewalk, to save some costs. But, of course, that means a higher risk of pedestrian/fast cyclist collissions. I cycled about 30 mins each way on a path like that to school starting from age 12. My primary school was closer, only about a 15 min ride. Cycled there on my own since, I don't know, 3rd grade or so?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Interesting vid about a perspective of Dutch road design I haven't seen before - why the good design naturally flows from some very unusual legislation, as well as the lack of legislation that's common in other countries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ya3V-s4I0
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:What do traffic engineers make of the plan presented here? It is great. They have clearly done their research. You can invest as much as you want in one single bicycle track that dumps you into car roads at both ends... and then find out nobody is using it except lycra-clad racers. Like many places in America and elsewhere have done. Or you can invest to have a fully connected city-spanning network of safe bicycle paths that gets you from any location to any other location, and suddenly you'll see everyone cycling there. Parents with their children. Business people in suits. People going grocery shopping. Because if you build it (and it's useful), people will come. Especially because within cities, these routes tend to be faster than rush hour traffic jams. A new balance will naturally be found, where the rush hour traffic jams actually significantly decrease because so many people will choose to take the bike instead. Until both are about equally fast. Cars might stay a little bit slower because of course heavy trucks will never be replaced by bicycles. I also really like how the author proposes to do this with minimal investments. This is true in general: bicycle infrastructure only costs a tiny fraction of car infrastructure. Without heavy vehicles damaging the surface all the time, it requires less maintenance too. I believe that if this plan were to happen, Sydney would suddenly be boosted from mediocre to a worldwide top-tier bicycle city, and it would legit be able to compete with the famous bicycle friendly places in the world such as the cities of the Netherlands.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2024 12:33
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:E-Bike speed limits are a good question though. Currently the assistance cuts out at 25 km/hr here, but I think it should be raised to at least 30 km/h, and ideally 35 km/h. (15, 19, and 22 mph for the imperialists). There's a big discussion here in the Netherlands about bicycles with electric assistance as well as e-bikes that can go even faster and can go without pedalling. - Should they be required to wear helmets or not? - If they go very fast, they cause dangerous situations on bicycle paths. Does that mean that instead we should push them into car traffic? Make a whole separate network for them? It's somewhat of an unsolved question, but the general rule is if they go up to 25 km/h, they count as a bicycle and get to use bicycle lanes. If they go faster, they're in the category of moped-likes, meaning they need insurance, the driver needs a moped driver's license and a helmet. Inside town limits, when a bicycle path is next to a road, the moped-likes have to use the car road. On 80 km/h roads outside of town limits they get to use the bicycle paths. Bucky Fullminster posted:Ah, so it's still giving you "Road / Car" vibes? The "Cycle" prefix doesn't affect that? To me, (a non-traffic engineer!), a "bike-path / cycle-way" is a route that's protected, but it still has to stop for intersections. Like a Street. A "Highway" is something that "connects far away places, without interruptions". We don't say "Car Highway", cos that's obviously the default, but a "Cycle Highway" seems to communicate what I'm trying to convey here for the individual segments. In the Netherlands we do have the term "cycle highway" but we use it for an uninterrupted cycle route BETWEEN two major cities (often connecting commuter towns along the way). It is not used for routes within cities. I think the term might even scare residents who live along a proposed "cycle highway" because they associate the term 'highway' with lots of traffic noise (I saw a vid once of someone complaining of TALKING CYCLISTS passing by their house and it was horrible because it had gotten so noisy. NIMBYs exist everywhere). Instead, our inner-city traffic design terminology is based around "disentangling" the "main car network" from the "main bicycle network" so that main through-routes for either network don't interfere with the other. The networks only combine for like, the last mile to any destination. This NJB vid explains this concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1l75QqRR48 Carbon dioxide fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Mar 19, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2024 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
vanity slug posted:Most people in the Netherlands cycle around 15 km/h. Yes, this is important. That means allowing 35 km/h on bicycle paths means you're allowing a 20 km/h speed difference, maybe more in some cases. Which is quite dangerous, and would scare away casual cyclists, kids going to school, people going about their business, in favour of race cyclists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 21:53
|
|