3 ms·

> What was awful was the lack of infrastructure On lower speed roads with frequent intersections, that infrastructure causes more problems than it's worth beca

by u801e 6y ago

> What was awful was the lack of infrastructure On lower speed roads with frequent intersections, that infrastructure causes more problems than it's worth because it makes intersection navigation far more hazardous than just using the roadway like any other vehicle.

yohannparis 6y ago
Bike infrastructure does not mean separate path ways. It can simply be normal 6' lanes for cars, and 4' lane for unmotorized vehicle (bike, skateboard, rollerblades, etc.)
- u801e 6y ago
  Are you using ' to denote feet? Most general travel lanes are 10 to 14 feet wide. The 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities states that the minimum operating width for a cyclist is 4 feet with a preferred operating width of 5 feet. A lot of bike lanes, in my experience, are of substandard width and, as a consequence, result in closer passes/overtakes by cars in the adjacent general purpose lane because of the lack of sufficient width in the bike lane and the fact that motorists tend to drift from side to side within their lane during the normal course of driving (especially when the road has a curve). So, riding in the bike lane actually makes things worse for the cyclist in terms of dealing with overtaking traffic compared to riding in the center of the general purpose lane.
  - yohannparis 6y ago
    I agree with you. But until drivers can handle cyclist in the middle of the lane without road rage and dangerous behaviour, and that we stop considering vehicle manslaughter has "accident", then I'm all for it.
    - u801e 6y ago
      > But until drivers can handle cyclist in the middle of the lane without road rage and dangerous behaviour My personal experience (over the last 15 years) has been that the vast majority of drivers will treat it as a non-event and just change lanes to pass/overtake. The real danger is a motorist who doesn't notice you until it's too late to avoid a collision. If someone uses their horn or shouts at you, then at least you know they've seen you.

by u801e 6y ago

yohannparis 6y ago

Bike infrastructure does not mean separate path ways. It can simply be normal 6' lanes for cars, and 4' lane for unmotorized vehicle (bike, skateboard, rollerblades, etc.)

u801e 6y ago
Are you using ' to denote feet? Most general travel lanes are 10 to 14 feet wide. The 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities states that the minimum operating width for a cyclist is 4 feet with a preferred operating width of 5 feet. A lot of bike lanes, in my experience, are of substandard width and, as a consequence, result in closer passes/overtakes by cars in the adjacent general purpose lane because of the lack of sufficient width in the bike lane and the fact that motorists tend to drift from side to side within their lane during the normal course of driving (especially when the road has a curve). So, riding in the bike lane actually makes things worse for the cyclist in terms of dealing with overtaking traffic compared to riding in the center of the general purpose lane.
- yohannparis 6y ago
  I agree with you. But until drivers can handle cyclist in the middle of the lane without road rage and dangerous behaviour, and that we stop considering vehicle manslaughter has "accident", then I'm all for it.
  - u801e 6y ago
    > But until drivers can handle cyclist in the middle of the lane without road rage and dangerous behaviour My personal experience (over the last 15 years) has been that the vast majority of drivers will treat it as a non-event and just change lanes to pass/overtake. The real danger is a motorist who doesn't notice you until it's too late to avoid a collision. If someone uses their horn or shouts at you, then at least you know they've seen you.