3 ms·

The fact that it is distracting for drivers is the point. Making the street appear dangerous to drivers is the positive outcome. In the specific case of the Oak

The fact that it is distracting for drivers is the point. Making the street appear dangerous to drivers is the positive outcome. In the specific case of the Oakland bike lanes and associated junk in KONO and Temescal, all objective indications of safety are better. """OakDOT found that the protected lanes caused cars to slow down, addressing the most critical factor in surviving collisions. The speed of the fastest cars went down to about 24 mph, while the pace of most other vehicles went down to 17 mph. Collisions between bicyclists and cars also fell by 40% in the first year the protected lanes were in place. The number of pedestrians on Telegraph Avenue also went up 103%, and the number of bicyclists using the street nearly doubled."""

lacker 3y ago
Huh, this area is more controversial than I had realized. I think you're grabbing that quote from this article: https://oaklandside.org/2021/07/08/protected-bicycle-lanes-telegraph-avenue-transportation-department-oakland/ https://oaklandside.org/2021/07/08/protected-bicycle-lanes-t... But even the head of OakDOT is quoted as agreeing with me here, that their project turned out to be too unsafe! And yet many of the statistics, as you point out, look good. I dunno, I guess we'll see. It's a nice area, regardless, I just have fundamental doubts about the theory of "if we distract drivers, they will slow down, thus making the roads safer".