4 ms·

> Also to invest in things like [...] protected bike paths for ebikes & trikes These lead to significant problems at intersections. It's best to keep vehicles

by u801e 7y ago

> Also to invest in things like [...] protected bike paths for ebikes & trikes These lead to significant problems at intersections. It's best to keep vehicles of all types on roads where they obey the same set of rules.

acdha 7y ago
Those lead to problems at poorly-designed intersections. I would prefer the answer be to design them correctly, making sure that some users aren't neglected.
- u801e 7y ago
  The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision. This isn't as much of an issue for pedestrians because they're moving slower 3 to 6 mph (4 to 8 feet per second). Also, pedestrians are able to stop much faster than a cyclist. Second, these intersections place a much higher burden on cyclists. That is, they have to check for traffic coming from behind to see if they're going to make a right turn and avoid getting hit. They have to watch for traffic coming from the side to make sure they don't get hit. And they have to watch for left turning traffic far to the left to make sure they don't get hit. If they're riding in the standard road position (center of the lane) instead, then it's much easier to see traffic and it's easier for traffic to see them as they approach an intersection.
  - acdha 7y ago
    > The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision This is why I specified correctly designed: what you're saying is an artifact of a poorly-designed intersection which does not have good visibility or clear traffic flows.
    - u801e 7y ago
      > This is why I specified correctly designed Even the NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) design guide states: >> Driveways and minor street crossings are a unique challenge to cycle track design. A review of crossing facilities and design practice has shown that the following guidance may improve safety at crossings of driveways and minor intersections: >> >> * If the cycle track is parking protected, parking should be prohibited near the intersection to improve visibility. The desirable no parking area is 30 feet from each side of the crossing. >> >> * For motor vehicles attempting to cross the cycle track from the side street or driveway, street and sidewalk furnishings and/or other features should accommodate a sight triangle of 20 feet to the cycle track from the minor street crossings and 10 feet from driveway crossing. The distances quoted should make it evident that, at least in the US, even the guidelines aren't going to lead to "correctly designed" intersections.

by u801e 7y ago

acdha 7y ago

Those lead to problems at poorly-designed intersections. I would prefer the answer be to design them correctly, making sure that some users aren't neglected.

u801e 7y ago
The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision. This isn't as much of an issue for pedestrians because they're moving slower 3 to 6 mph (4 to 8 feet per second). Also, pedestrians are able to stop much faster than a cyclist. Second, these intersections place a much higher burden on cyclists. That is, they have to check for traffic coming from behind to see if they're going to make a right turn and avoid getting hit. They have to watch for traffic coming from the side to make sure they don't get hit. And they have to watch for left turning traffic far to the left to make sure they don't get hit. If they're riding in the standard road position (center of the lane) instead, then it's much easier to see traffic and it's easier for traffic to see them as they approach an intersection.
- acdha 7y ago
  > The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision This is why I specified correctly designed: what you're saying is an artifact of a poorly-designed intersection which does not have good visibility or clear traffic flows.
  - u801e 7y ago
    > This is why I specified correctly designed Even the NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) design guide states: >> Driveways and minor street crossings are a unique challenge to cycle track design. A review of crossing facilities and design practice has shown that the following guidance may improve safety at crossings of driveways and minor intersections: >> >> * If the cycle track is parking protected, parking should be prohibited near the intersection to improve visibility. The desirable no parking area is 30 feet from each side of the crossing. >> >> * For motor vehicles attempting to cross the cycle track from the side street or driveway, street and sidewalk furnishings and/or other features should accommodate a sight triangle of 20 feet to the cycle track from the minor street crossings and 10 feet from driveway crossing. The distances quoted should make it evident that, at least in the US, even the guidelines aren't going to lead to "correctly designed" intersections.