16 ms·

> A possible disadvantage is low social safety. It is important that cyclists can see out of a tunnel before they enter it. There should be no turns within the

> A possible disadvantage is low social safety. It is important that cyclists can see out of a tunnel before they enter it. There should be no turns within the tunnel, no-where for a potential mugger to hide. Obviously tunnels should also be well lit. I feel like this is something that's often neglected. Just recently here in Finland there was a case where a cyclist died because a roadblock made of concrete was brought to the middle of a dark tunnel. The goal was to block cars from using the tunnel, but for the summer the tunnel's lights were turned off. The cyclist hit the roadblock at a relatively high speed, was basically launched forward and pretty much immediately died on impact to the ground. Now of course maybe the cyclist shouldn't have been going that fast, but the decision to bring a roadblock to the middle of a dark tunnel is also questionable. Maybe two roadblocks at each end (where there is natural light)? I feel tunnels are much more dangerous than bridges. They're dark and the downhills leading to them encourage high speeds. Link to the news article: (in Finnish) https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12456122 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12456122 Google translate seems to do well on the article: https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12456122?_x_tr_sl=fi&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12456122?_x_tr_sl=fi... Although maybe concrete piglet/pig should be just "concrete roadblock" edits: added the news articles

usrusr 4y ago
Was just about to write something similar, just without the bloody evidence: the "no turns!" part should be right at the start where benefits of inertia-assisted climbing is advertised, because that all turns into the opposite when there are turns that force inhertia loss (or, more likely: some in-between of inertia loss and risk taking).
- jaclaz 4y ago
  In theory (but not always in practice) the steepness of the road accessing the underpass should be within the limits stated for the type of road (so - again in theory - not too steep). A good example of how NOT to design an underpass (very steep AND curve in the middle), this is Florence (Italy): https://www.google.it/maps/@43.7754979,11.2351912,3a,75y,53.75h,76.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0r6y2c47jot1b-LU6HqqRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-IT https://www.google.it/maps/@43.7754979,11.2351912,3a,75y,53.... But they did put on a sign to prevent pedestrians to access it, so the mugglers won't go hiding there ;).
  - anttiharju 4y ago
    At first glance that underpass didn't seem that steep, but then I went to look for the underpass which I feel is super steep, I realized, maybe it's just difficult to get a good sense of the steepness from streetview. Here's one I've gone through and feel is a rather dangerous one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/pU36XG6J89QL2nqJA https://maps.app.goo.gl/pU36XG6J89QL2nqJA The view is from top of the underpass, but if you look to the back left you can see there's a downhill and then a really sharp 90° turn which might lead to really dangerous situations due to poor visibility and high speed.
    - jaclaz 4y ago
      Yes, streetview does not convey the actual situation, in person it is steep (though I have seen steeper ones). That underpass is just after a bridge (over the river) so they couldn't make it less steep by making the ramp longer, but the cyclists (those that know the area) can turn on the right right before the ramp and use the "normal" roads/streets, someone that isn't already familiar with it is taken by surprise. This view from a bit further renders a little better the situation: https://www.google.it/maps/@43.7752485,11.2348264,3a,75y,22.62h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smmRqgMTgxsNtmO1gmXLSFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-IT https://www.google.it/maps/@43.7752485,11.2348264,3a,75y,22....
- usrusr 4y ago
  Some more thoughts about the risk taking: that inevitably happens to everyone, even the least reckless. Magnitudes certainly differ, but it's always far from gone. Because when cycling, the brain unavoidably enters a state that would be called hypermiling if it happened while driving. The bad thing about stopping or slowing down isn't so much the time lost, it's the exertion required to get going again. And that logic does not just happen on the conscious level, it's much deeper. You'll hate applying the brakes even if, on the conscious level, exertion is the only goal of the ride because you're not going anywhere but doing a workout. "Stopping leads to exertion, don't stop" must be some preset circuit in our brains that has been there since before bipedalism. It's certainly also noticeable when driving (we hate the red light even when not in a hurry at all) but it's much stronger when the exertion isn't just a gentle touch with the right foot. Back to that straight tunnel from the picture: something like that is extremely rare, because bike roads are rarely built completely separate from other roads and when they are not separate, the descent/ascent parts inevitably get folded into wherever they fit.
FastMonkey 4y ago
Tunnels are also significantly more expensive, which is why they're so rare. With a tunnel, you generally have significant earthworks, possibly a permanent groundwater issue (you may have essentially created a boat that you do not want to float), and you still have to build a bridge capable of carrying whatever traffic the bikes are bypassing. A bicycle bridge is just the bicycle bridge, a relatively light structure, easy to construct and maintain.
benj111 4y ago
>Now of course maybe the cyclist shouldn't have been going that fast Now replace cyclist with motorist. Would it be in anyway acceptable for someone to plonk an unmarked concrete block in the middle of an unlit road?
- anttiharju 4y ago
  Probably no. But there is a guideline that you should only go at the speed from which you can stop from within the visible part of the road.
  - usrusr 4y ago
    And yet roads are full of highly visible warning signs whereverr there is a turn that might not be safe at slightly beyond general maximum speed in some weather conditions.
    - anttiharju 4y ago
      I'm not sure I've seen weather condition specific warning signs, apart from the speed limits being lowered for the winter season by swapping the signs themselves. Can you link to an example?
      - seszett 4y ago
        They're pretty common in some places. The E17/A22 entering France for example has these overhead signs[0] that go from 110 in good conditions down to 70 in very bad conditions or even 50 if there's congestion. There are also similar signs in Belgium but they're more rarely adjusted depending on weather, it's usually just according to traffic. [0] https://maps.app.goo.gl/pbCArbN5yraJZFBw9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/pbCArbN5yraJZFBw9
      - solar-ice 4y ago
        The UK's "smart motorways" project does this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_motorway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_motorway Actually turns out they're a terrible idea, tbh.
matsemann 4y ago
Yeah, destroying pedestrian and cycle infrastructure to keep cars out is a pet peeve of mine. It's often dangerous, makes the path inaccessible, and just plain ugly. Like the "concrete pigs" you mention. Often not marked properly, and cyclists have to slow down to a crawl to pass. Often 90% of the road is blocked with a boom barrier, and pedestrians and cyclists all have to share the remaining part to squeeze through. That only increases conflict. Also pretty hard for bigger cargo bikes, wheelchairs etc to pass. During winter, the booms are opened for the snow plow and then closed. Which means that as a cyclist I still have to cycle around on the un-plowed part... It's insane the lengths one has to go to avoid cars destroying everything. Edit: An example pic https://imgur.com/a/FmDd5Ve https://imgur.com/a/FmDd5Ve Nice wide road, have to close it off with a boom because of cars. Pedestrians and cyclists have to pass on the icy parts...
- null_object 4y ago
  At the end of this article (translated from Swedish) are a whole bunch of deadly obstacles placed in the way of cyclists “for their own safety”: https://bicycling-se.translate.goog/blogg/bilhindren-som-dodar-cyklister/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://bicycling-se.translate.goog/blogg/bilhindren-som-dod...
  - matsemann 4y ago
    Yeah, those pictures are quite crazy. I follow him on Twitter and saw the thread asking for examples, I think he got hundreds of images!
  - checkurprivlege 4y ago
    worst are the iron chains hanging 30 cms over the ground
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Some drunk mistakes the bike path for their turn and the municipal planner shows up to work on Monday with an inbox that's been blown up by a million Karens screeching about "gotta keep cars out" So he goes through the catalog of typical off the shelf solutions that exist in his trade, selects a reasonable one and has it installed. 6mo later his inbox gets blown up by the same million Karens screeching about how the barrier made the bike path suck. A large subset of the public is made up of people that don't understand that everything is tradeoffs and think they can have their cake and eat it too. And because these people can't wrap their minds around the tradeoffs it's impossible to have the adult dialog regarding which tradeoffs they dislike least that needs to be had if the least worst solution is to be reached. There's no winning when dealing with this kind of customer base unless you creatively define "winning" to exclude customer satisfaction. But when you do that you get other failure modes. You can sometimes money your way around the problems but that's just a constant factor improvement on something that's exponentially crap.
silvestrov 4y ago
Dark underpasses can be avoided by splitting the "bridge" into multiple smaller bridges. Example of a "6 lane" split into 6 smaller bridges: https://goo.gl/maps/V84SqmbjkASapyxQA https://goo.gl/maps/V84SqmbjkASapyxQA This allows for a lot of light and no overhead lights are needed. (my gut tells me this design was used to improve maintainability: you cannot completely close the bridge or highway as the city is too dependent. But they could get away with closing 1-of-5 bridges for some time).
- Symbiote 4y ago
  Five of the six bridges carry railway lines. I think the design is more likely because the tracks are very close to a station, so they're spaced widely to allow for the platforms.
  - silvestrov 4y ago
    The station is very small and cheaply built, so it might have been cheaper to make two tracks on one bridge and then have the "people platform" on each side of the tracks instead of between. Just like this place: https://goo.gl/maps/gwfGxdxDs4sbpF2S7 https://goo.gl/maps/gwfGxdxDs4sbpF2S7 Or this with a station on a curve: https://goo.gl/maps/Eo5fZK5E8kYoFAuW8 https://goo.gl/maps/Eo5fZK5E8kYoFAuW8
_ph_ 4y ago
Admittedly, bike lighting is a solved problem by now, one shouldn't bike where you cannot see. There is always the risk of an obstacle you wouldn't expect, could be even an injured person blocking the way. But of course, this doesn't justify any of those ridiculus and dangerous artificial blocks. Just clearly marking the bike paths with color should be good enough. If an car ever is caught there, well, rip apart the drivers license. Or just leave it to the bicyclists :p I have seen too many of those blockages myself, they are dangerous and often enough I cannot pass them with my bicycle.

usrusr 4y ago

Was just about to write something similar, just without the bloody evidence: the "no turns!" part should be right at the start where benefits of inertia-assisted climbing is advertised, because that all turns into the opposite when there are turns that force inhertia loss (or, more likely: some in-between of inertia loss and risk taking).

jaclaz 4y ago
In theory (but not always in practice) the steepness of the road accessing the underpass should be within the limits stated for the type of road (so - again in theory - not too steep). A good example of how NOT to design an underpass (very steep AND curve in the middle), this is Florence (Italy): https://www.google.it/maps/@43.7754979,11.2351912,3a,75y,53.75h,76.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0r6y2c47jot1b-LU6HqqRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-IT https://www.google.it/maps/@43.7754979,11.2351912,3a,75y,53.... But they did put on a sign to prevent pedestrians to access it, so the mugglers won't go hiding there ;).
- anttiharju 4y ago
  At first glance that underpass didn't seem that steep, but then I went to look for the underpass which I feel is super steep, I realized, maybe it's just difficult to get a good sense of the steepness from streetview. Here's one I've gone through and feel is a rather dangerous one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/pU36XG6J89QL2nqJA https://maps.app.goo.gl/pU36XG6J89QL2nqJA The view is from top of the underpass, but if you look to the back left you can see there's a downhill and then a really sharp 90° turn which might lead to really dangerous situations due to poor visibility and high speed.
  - jaclaz 4y ago
    Yes, streetview does not convey the actual situation, in person it is steep (though I have seen steeper ones). That underpass is just after a bridge (over the river) so they couldn't make it less steep by making the ramp longer, but the cyclists (those that know the area) can turn on the right right before the ramp and use the "normal" roads/streets, someone that isn't already familiar with it is taken by surprise. This view from a bit further renders a little better the situation: https://www.google.it/maps/@43.7752485,11.2348264,3a,75y,22.62h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smmRqgMTgxsNtmO1gmXLSFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-IT https://www.google.it/maps/@43.7752485,11.2348264,3a,75y,22....
usrusr 4y ago
Some more thoughts about the risk taking: that inevitably happens to everyone, even the least reckless. Magnitudes certainly differ, but it's always far from gone. Because when cycling, the brain unavoidably enters a state that would be called hypermiling if it happened while driving. The bad thing about stopping or slowing down isn't so much the time lost, it's the exertion required to get going again. And that logic does not just happen on the conscious level, it's much deeper. You'll hate applying the brakes even if, on the conscious level, exertion is the only goal of the ride because you're not going anywhere but doing a workout. "Stopping leads to exertion, don't stop" must be some preset circuit in our brains that has been there since before bipedalism. It's certainly also noticeable when driving (we hate the red light even when not in a hurry at all) but it's much stronger when the exertion isn't just a gentle touch with the right foot. Back to that straight tunnel from the picture: something like that is extremely rare, because bike roads are rarely built completely separate from other roads and when they are not separate, the descent/ascent parts inevitably get folded into wherever they fit.

FastMonkey 4y ago

Tunnels are also significantly more expensive, which is why they're so rare. With a tunnel, you generally have significant earthworks, possibly a permanent groundwater issue (you may have essentially created a boat that you do not want to float), and you still have to build a bridge capable of carrying whatever traffic the bikes are bypassing. A bicycle bridge is just the bicycle bridge, a relatively light structure, easy to construct and maintain.

benj111 4y ago

>Now of course maybe the cyclist shouldn't have been going that fast Now replace cyclist with motorist. Would it be in anyway acceptable for someone to plonk an unmarked concrete block in the middle of an unlit road?

anttiharju 4y ago
Probably no. But there is a guideline that you should only go at the speed from which you can stop from within the visible part of the road.
- usrusr 4y ago
  And yet roads are full of highly visible warning signs whereverr there is a turn that might not be safe at slightly beyond general maximum speed in some weather conditions.
  - anttiharju 4y ago
    I'm not sure I've seen weather condition specific warning signs, apart from the speed limits being lowered for the winter season by swapping the signs themselves. Can you link to an example?
    - seszett 4y ago
      They're pretty common in some places. The E17/A22 entering France for example has these overhead signs[0] that go from 110 in good conditions down to 70 in very bad conditions or even 50 if there's congestion. There are also similar signs in Belgium but they're more rarely adjusted depending on weather, it's usually just according to traffic. [0] https://maps.app.goo.gl/pbCArbN5yraJZFBw9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/pbCArbN5yraJZFBw9
    - solar-ice 4y ago
      The UK's "smart motorways" project does this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_motorway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_motorway Actually turns out they're a terrible idea, tbh.

matsemann 4y ago

Yeah, destroying pedestrian and cycle infrastructure to keep cars out is a pet peeve of mine. It's often dangerous, makes the path inaccessible, and just plain ugly. Like the "concrete pigs" you mention. Often not marked properly, and cyclists have to slow down to a crawl to pass. Often 90% of the road is blocked with a boom barrier, and pedestrians and cyclists all have to share the remaining part to squeeze through. That only increases conflict. Also pretty hard for bigger cargo bikes, wheelchairs etc to pass. During winter, the booms are opened for the snow plow and then closed. Which means that as a cyclist I still have to cycle around on the un-plowed part... It's insane the lengths one has to go to avoid cars destroying everything. Edit: An example pic https://imgur.com/a/FmDd5Ve https://imgur.com/a/FmDd5Ve Nice wide road, have to close it off with a boom because of cars. Pedestrians and cyclists have to pass on the icy parts...

null_object 4y ago
At the end of this article (translated from Swedish) are a whole bunch of deadly obstacles placed in the way of cyclists “for their own safety”: https://bicycling-se.translate.goog/blogg/bilhindren-som-dodar-cyklister/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://bicycling-se.translate.goog/blogg/bilhindren-som-dod...
- matsemann 4y ago
  Yeah, those pictures are quite crazy. I follow him on Twitter and saw the thread asking for examples, I think he got hundreds of images!
- checkurprivlege 4y ago
  worst are the iron chains hanging 30 cms over the ground
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Some drunk mistakes the bike path for their turn and the municipal planner shows up to work on Monday with an inbox that's been blown up by a million Karens screeching about "gotta keep cars out" So he goes through the catalog of typical off the shelf solutions that exist in his trade, selects a reasonable one and has it installed. 6mo later his inbox gets blown up by the same million Karens screeching about how the barrier made the bike path suck. A large subset of the public is made up of people that don't understand that everything is tradeoffs and think they can have their cake and eat it too. And because these people can't wrap their minds around the tradeoffs it's impossible to have the adult dialog regarding which tradeoffs they dislike least that needs to be had if the least worst solution is to be reached. There's no winning when dealing with this kind of customer base unless you creatively define "winning" to exclude customer satisfaction. But when you do that you get other failure modes. You can sometimes money your way around the problems but that's just a constant factor improvement on something that's exponentially crap.

silvestrov 4y ago

Dark underpasses can be avoided by splitting the "bridge" into multiple smaller bridges. Example of a "6 lane" split into 6 smaller bridges: https://goo.gl/maps/V84SqmbjkASapyxQA https://goo.gl/maps/V84SqmbjkASapyxQA This allows for a lot of light and no overhead lights are needed. (my gut tells me this design was used to improve maintainability: you cannot completely close the bridge or highway as the city is too dependent. But they could get away with closing 1-of-5 bridges for some time).

Symbiote 4y ago
Five of the six bridges carry railway lines. I think the design is more likely because the tracks are very close to a station, so they're spaced widely to allow for the platforms.
- silvestrov 4y ago
  The station is very small and cheaply built, so it might have been cheaper to make two tracks on one bridge and then have the "people platform" on each side of the tracks instead of between. Just like this place: https://goo.gl/maps/gwfGxdxDs4sbpF2S7 https://goo.gl/maps/gwfGxdxDs4sbpF2S7 Or this with a station on a curve: https://goo.gl/maps/Eo5fZK5E8kYoFAuW8 https://goo.gl/maps/Eo5fZK5E8kYoFAuW8

_ph_ 4y ago

Admittedly, bike lighting is a solved problem by now, one shouldn't bike where you cannot see. There is always the risk of an obstacle you wouldn't expect, could be even an injured person blocking the way. But of course, this doesn't justify any of those ridiculus and dangerous artificial blocks. Just clearly marking the bike paths with color should be good enough. If an car ever is caught there, well, rip apart the drivers license. Or just leave it to the bicyclists :p I have seen too many of those blockages myself, they are dangerous and often enough I cannot pass them with my bicycle.