3 ms·
Yeah, in more and more places I think they're sending everything above 25 km/h to the road. At the same time, we see "bicycle streets" emerging more and more, w
by Vinnl 5y ago
Yeah, in more and more places I think they're sending everything above 25 km/h to the road. At the same time, we see "bicycle streets" emerging more and more, which are just as wide as regular streets (and which can be used by cars), but where the bicycle is the primary vehicle. I think they mostly rose in popularity in response to congestion on regular bike paths, but I feel like they also help with the width and speed issues - although above 25km/h is still quite fast. As I get more used to them though, the ones with a limit of 25 feel less problematic to me.
- mrsuprawsm 5y agoI quite like the bicycle streets, for example in places where there isn't room for a proper segregated bike path, it still makes it clear that drivers are guests in the street (and explicitly calls this out on signs), which definitely makes me feel safer when cycling on such streets, versus regular roads.
- petre 5y agoThat doesn't quite for without speed bumps, not in Eastern Europe anyway. Interrupted speed bumps every 100 meters can be a solution for bikes, yet keep cars under 25 kph. Residential areas should effectively be bicycle streets.
- Vinnl 5y agoI did not expect it to work either, but it does. I'm sure they've got a runbook documenting which traffic situations lend themselves to cycle streets (probably some combination of heavy flow of cycle traffic combined with nudges to car drivers to take a different road if possible), but the ones in my city all work great without speed bumps.