6 ms·

It's natural to feel upset about bike lanes being over-capacity, but maybe look at it this way: Now there is demonstrated need for expanded capacity, and a deep

It's natural to feel upset about bike lanes being over-capacity, but maybe look at it this way: Now there is demonstrated need for expanded capacity, and a deep-pocket lobby (Amazon) on your side. Perhaps getting a larger coalition of users on board is exactly what we need to expand bike infrastructure. The scarcity of bike lanes is wholly artificial and easily fixed by transitioning more automobile infrastructure.

clairity 5y ago
yup, i read that and thought, "yes, a reason to double-wide the bike lanes!" i mean, i get it, someone abusing the commons is annoying, but it means we need more human-oriented commons (vs. the car-oriented). cars get too much of our shared space. we should consider repurposing most city streets, such as: one lane (each way) for cars, 1 lane for buses, and 1 protected lane for bikes. most lanes are about 10 feet wide, so we can take a foot away from the car lane and give it to the bus lane to promote traffic calming, while the protected (with curb or bollard) bike lane can be split in two to provide a passing lane.
- Steltek 5y ago
  Interesting. Micro-cars will come to the US - not by beginning with sharing the road with lethal pickups and SUVs - but by "bike" lanes annexing road space.
  - clairity 5y ago
    to be clear, i don't particularly like the trailerduck (outside being a novel application of technology) as a solution to moving large amounts of stuff in the bike lanes, which potentially would be a precursor to that future. i think microcars (up to ~45mph, not highway legal) belong in car lanes in the city, while e-bikes/scooters should be able to utilize double-wide bike lanes (up to ~25mph, primarily in the passing lane).
    - y4mi 5y ago
      People drive 25 mp/h or 40 km/h on bike lanes? I routinely drove about 27-30km/h without assist and was already getting worried about breaking speed and people entering the bike lane. Going so much faster would be terrifying to me
      - clairity 5y ago
        i do see e-bikers doing 20-25mph (up to ~40km/h) occasionally, and a determined pedal biker can reach those speeds as well. "terrifying" seems a little hyperbolic though. certainly you're likely to get hurt if you crash a bike at those speeds, but that's why safety gear exists, and why we need protected bike lanes to segregate speeds/vehicles. crashing a car at high speed is similarly terrifying, yet we drive cars at high speed orders of magnitude more often. but that's also why we need double-wide lanes, so that faster micro-vehicles have space too. city streets should support a full gradient of travel speeds/vehicles, from walking to car, the normalization of which should reduce the incidence of people blindly entering bike lanes (just as we don't have people jumping in front of cars all the time).
        u801e 5y ago
        > i do see e-bikers doing 20-25mph (up to ~40km/h) occasionally, and a determined pedal biker can reach those speeds as well. At that speed, why not just use the road instead of the narrow bike lanes/paths?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        You're not allowed, and people will be absolutely furious at you for doing it. Also drivers rear-ending you.
        u801e 5y ago
        > You're not allowed VAT 1234 [1] only applies when going less than the normal speed of traffic, which isn't the case on an e-bike. > people will be absolutely furious at you for doing it. People do a lot of things that make other people furious. Riding on the road isnt anything special > Also drivers rear-ending you. It's far less likely than getting hit by a turning vehicle because the cyclist was in the motorist's blind spot. [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234
- u801e 5y ago
  > one lane (each way) for cars, 1 lane for buses, and 1 protected lane for bikes. most lanes are about 10 feet wide, so we can take a foot away from the car lane and give it to the bus lane How will intersections be managed for each lane? Will we have an exclusive traffic light signal phase for each lane? I imagine that would significantly reduce throughput.
  - clairity 5y ago
    you'd group the bike lane with pedestrians, while cars and buses go together, so it wouldn't be any different. you can still have dedicated left and right turn lanes where needed, which micro-vehicles could optionally use too, just like now. you wouldn't need a separate light cycle for micro-vehicles, as they'd have the flexibility to use either existing option.
    - u801e 5y ago
      If both vehicles are approaching a green light, the driver of the car needs to make a right turn and the bus lane is to the right of the car lane, how is it supposed to work? How does the car get to the dedicated right turn lane without crossing the bus lane? What if there is no dedicated right turn lane?
      - clairity 5y ago
        just like now, the car does cross the bus lane. in some places, the bus lane is used by cars as a right turn lane, or if there's a dedicated right turn lane, the bike lane is routed around it, and the cars still merge into it across the bus lane, while yielding to bikes (and buses) as need be.
        u801e 5y ago
        The problem is that the system you're proposing introduces an extra step before turning. That is, yield to a bus, then to a cyclist, then to pedestrians. The more steps there are, the more likely one will make a mistake and fail to yield because they failed to account for one of the steps necessary to successfully make a turn. The traditional system where a right turning vehicle moves as far right as practical in advance of making a right turn reduces the number of step necessary to complete the turn. That is, they only need to account for yielding to pedestrians instead of 3 streams of traffic (bus, then cyclist, then pedestrian). That's why I asked about having separate traffic light phases for each lane. That would ensure that only a single lane is allowed to enter the intersection and complete their turn without having to yield to any other traffic stream. But, doing that would reduce instersection throughput by a significant amount.
omgitsabird 5y ago
Is there any evidence at all that this is going to happen? Speculation doesn't craft reality.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Road and highway capacity is expanded based on usage. Why would bicycle lanes be different?
u801e 5y ago
> The scarcity of bike lanes is wholly artificial and easily fixed by transitioning more automobile infrastructure. Wouldn't it just be easier to just have all vehicle types share the same infrastructure (roads)? They're already built out and can be used by any wheeled vehicle by following the rules of the road. Roads are designed to be used by any type of vehicle, not just automobiles.
- piperswe 5y ago
  Unfortunately, different classes of vehicle have difficulty co-existing on one piece of road infrastructure. I'm going to consider cars, trucks, etc. as high speed/high momentum vehicles and bikes, pedestrians, etc. as low speed/low momentum vehicles. - High speed, high momentum vehicles are a larger danger to low speed, low momentum vehicles than they are to other high speed vehicles. - Infrastructure that can be used by high speed vehicles must be designed for high speed vehicles, and that design often conflicts with design decisions that make a piece of infrastructure more useful to low speed vehicles. For instance, roundabouts can alleviate high speed vehicle traffic but pose issues for low speed vehicles. - Humans aren't rational - segregated infrastructure is much more appealing to users of the low speed vehicles, even if we were to somehow mitigate the risks of desegregated infrastructure.
  - u801e 5y ago
    > High speed, high momentum vehicles are a larger danger to low speed, low momentum vehicles than they are to other high speed vehicles. The danger is only relevant if a collision occurs. Motorcyclists also use the roads and they're signicantly lighter than the average passenger vehicle. The average passenger vehicle is signficantly less massive compared to a bus, dump truck, or tractor-trailer. The key to avoiding collisions is to follow the rules of the road in terms of right-of-way rules, signaling in advance one's intention to change course, and positioning when preparing to make a turn at an intersection. > Infrastructure that can be used by high speed vehicles must be designed for high speed vehicles Except that typical surface streets are not designed for high speeds. There are numerous intersections, vehicles waiting to turn, traffic control devices that require one to slow or stop before proceeding, etc. The only infrastructure that meets the criterion you mention are limited access highways where exit and entry are via interchanges as opposed to at grade intersections. > Humans aren't rational - segregated infrastructure is much more appealing to users of the low speed vehicles While it is, it also encourages unsafe behaviors at intersections. Pedestrian rules of movement rely on the assumption that a pedestrian moving at 2 to 4 mph will be close enough to an intersection such that the driver of a vehicle has time to see them and yield to them. Someone on a bicycle moves much faster than a pedestrian. Even casual cyclists go between 6 to 12 mph which is at least twice to four times as fast as a typical walking pedestrian. This means they can be twice to four times as far from an intersection and out of the area a driver of a vehicle normally scans before exiting an intersection when turning. This increases the risk of a collision.

clairity 5y ago

yup, i read that and thought, "yes, a reason to double-wide the bike lanes!" i mean, i get it, someone abusing the commons is annoying, but it means we need more human-oriented commons (vs. the car-oriented). cars get too much of our shared space. we should consider repurposing most city streets, such as: one lane (each way) for cars, 1 lane for buses, and 1 protected lane for bikes. most lanes are about 10 feet wide, so we can take a foot away from the car lane and give it to the bus lane to promote traffic calming, while the protected (with curb or bollard) bike lane can be split in two to provide a passing lane.

Steltek 5y ago
Interesting. Micro-cars will come to the US - not by beginning with sharing the road with lethal pickups and SUVs - but by "bike" lanes annexing road space.
- clairity 5y ago
  to be clear, i don't particularly like the trailerduck (outside being a novel application of technology) as a solution to moving large amounts of stuff in the bike lanes, which potentially would be a precursor to that future. i think microcars (up to ~45mph, not highway legal) belong in car lanes in the city, while e-bikes/scooters should be able to utilize double-wide bike lanes (up to ~25mph, primarily in the passing lane).
  - y4mi 5y ago
    People drive 25 mp/h or 40 km/h on bike lanes? I routinely drove about 27-30km/h without assist and was already getting worried about breaking speed and people entering the bike lane. Going so much faster would be terrifying to me
    - clairity 5y ago
      i do see e-bikers doing 20-25mph (up to ~40km/h) occasionally, and a determined pedal biker can reach those speeds as well. "terrifying" seems a little hyperbolic though. certainly you're likely to get hurt if you crash a bike at those speeds, but that's why safety gear exists, and why we need protected bike lanes to segregate speeds/vehicles. crashing a car at high speed is similarly terrifying, yet we drive cars at high speed orders of magnitude more often. but that's also why we need double-wide lanes, so that faster micro-vehicles have space too. city streets should support a full gradient of travel speeds/vehicles, from walking to car, the normalization of which should reduce the incidence of people blindly entering bike lanes (just as we don't have people jumping in front of cars all the time).
      - u801e 5y ago
        > i do see e-bikers doing 20-25mph (up to ~40km/h) occasionally, and a determined pedal biker can reach those speeds as well. At that speed, why not just use the road instead of the narrow bike lanes/paths?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        You're not allowed, and people will be absolutely furious at you for doing it. Also drivers rear-ending you.
        u801e 5y ago
        > You're not allowed VAT 1234 [1] only applies when going less than the normal speed of traffic, which isn't the case on an e-bike. > people will be absolutely furious at you for doing it. People do a lot of things that make other people furious. Riding on the road isnt anything special > Also drivers rear-ending you. It's far less likely than getting hit by a turning vehicle because the cyclist was in the motorist's blind spot. [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234
u801e 5y ago
> one lane (each way) for cars, 1 lane for buses, and 1 protected lane for bikes. most lanes are about 10 feet wide, so we can take a foot away from the car lane and give it to the bus lane How will intersections be managed for each lane? Will we have an exclusive traffic light signal phase for each lane? I imagine that would significantly reduce throughput.
- clairity 5y ago
  you'd group the bike lane with pedestrians, while cars and buses go together, so it wouldn't be any different. you can still have dedicated left and right turn lanes where needed, which micro-vehicles could optionally use too, just like now. you wouldn't need a separate light cycle for micro-vehicles, as they'd have the flexibility to use either existing option.
  - u801e 5y ago
    If both vehicles are approaching a green light, the driver of the car needs to make a right turn and the bus lane is to the right of the car lane, how is it supposed to work? How does the car get to the dedicated right turn lane without crossing the bus lane? What if there is no dedicated right turn lane?
    - clairity 5y ago
      just like now, the car does cross the bus lane. in some places, the bus lane is used by cars as a right turn lane, or if there's a dedicated right turn lane, the bike lane is routed around it, and the cars still merge into it across the bus lane, while yielding to bikes (and buses) as need be.
      - u801e 5y ago
        The problem is that the system you're proposing introduces an extra step before turning. That is, yield to a bus, then to a cyclist, then to pedestrians. The more steps there are, the more likely one will make a mistake and fail to yield because they failed to account for one of the steps necessary to successfully make a turn. The traditional system where a right turning vehicle moves as far right as practical in advance of making a right turn reduces the number of step necessary to complete the turn. That is, they only need to account for yielding to pedestrians instead of 3 streams of traffic (bus, then cyclist, then pedestrian). That's why I asked about having separate traffic light phases for each lane. That would ensure that only a single lane is allowed to enter the intersection and complete their turn without having to yield to any other traffic stream. But, doing that would reduce instersection throughput by a significant amount.

omgitsabird 5y ago

Is there any evidence at all that this is going to happen? Speculation doesn't craft reality.

stickfigure 5y ago
Road and highway capacity is expanded based on usage. Why would bicycle lanes be different?

u801e 5y ago

> The scarcity of bike lanes is wholly artificial and easily fixed by transitioning more automobile infrastructure. Wouldn't it just be easier to just have all vehicle types share the same infrastructure (roads)? They're already built out and can be used by any wheeled vehicle by following the rules of the road. Roads are designed to be used by any type of vehicle, not just automobiles.

piperswe 5y ago
Unfortunately, different classes of vehicle have difficulty co-existing on one piece of road infrastructure. I'm going to consider cars, trucks, etc. as high speed/high momentum vehicles and bikes, pedestrians, etc. as low speed/low momentum vehicles. - High speed, high momentum vehicles are a larger danger to low speed, low momentum vehicles than they are to other high speed vehicles. - Infrastructure that can be used by high speed vehicles must be designed for high speed vehicles, and that design often conflicts with design decisions that make a piece of infrastructure more useful to low speed vehicles. For instance, roundabouts can alleviate high speed vehicle traffic but pose issues for low speed vehicles. - Humans aren't rational - segregated infrastructure is much more appealing to users of the low speed vehicles, even if we were to somehow mitigate the risks of desegregated infrastructure.
- u801e 5y ago
  > High speed, high momentum vehicles are a larger danger to low speed, low momentum vehicles than they are to other high speed vehicles. The danger is only relevant if a collision occurs. Motorcyclists also use the roads and they're signicantly lighter than the average passenger vehicle. The average passenger vehicle is signficantly less massive compared to a bus, dump truck, or tractor-trailer. The key to avoiding collisions is to follow the rules of the road in terms of right-of-way rules, signaling in advance one's intention to change course, and positioning when preparing to make a turn at an intersection. > Infrastructure that can be used by high speed vehicles must be designed for high speed vehicles Except that typical surface streets are not designed for high speeds. There are numerous intersections, vehicles waiting to turn, traffic control devices that require one to slow or stop before proceeding, etc. The only infrastructure that meets the criterion you mention are limited access highways where exit and entry are via interchanges as opposed to at grade intersections. > Humans aren't rational - segregated infrastructure is much more appealing to users of the low speed vehicles While it is, it also encourages unsafe behaviors at intersections. Pedestrian rules of movement rely on the assumption that a pedestrian moving at 2 to 4 mph will be close enough to an intersection such that the driver of a vehicle has time to see them and yield to them. Someone on a bicycle moves much faster than a pedestrian. Even casual cyclists go between 6 to 12 mph which is at least twice to four times as fast as a typical walking pedestrian. This means they can be twice to four times as far from an intersection and out of the area a driver of a vehicle normally scans before exiting an intersection when turning. This increases the risk of a collision.