3 ms·

Yeah, I guess that’s the non-thinking, car-driving traffic engineers solution to “if we put two bollards on the sides of the trail, there’s enough space for a c

Yeah, I guess that’s the non-thinking, car-driving traffic engineers solution to “if we put two bollards on the sides of the trail, there’s enough space for a car to go between them, so we’ll save some money while we make things SAFER.” The amount of stupid cycling infrastructure I see is pretty mind-blowing. It’s very obvious traffic engineers have zero interest in actually building multi-model infrastructure, instead just doing a box-checking exercise to get those federal road dollars.

adrianmonk 3y ago
> the non-thinking, car-driving traffic engineers solution to “if we put two bollards on the sides of the trail, there’s enough space for a car to go between them, so we’ll save some money while we make things SAFER.” That doesn't make sense to me. The entire reason the bollard exists is to stop cars from turning into the bike path. It has nothing to do with non-thinking engineers. It has nothing to do with saving money. It's because if there's space for a car to fit between them, then the bollards will not fulfill their one and only purpose. EDIT: Note that I'm not saying that it's a good design. But I am saying it didn't come about for the reasons you're saying.
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  It sounds like GP is assuming that a car is wider than the bike lane, so putting bollards on each side of the bike lane would stop cars, without blocking bikes from using the centre of the lane?
  - adrianmonk 3y ago
    If so, then "there’s enough space for a car to go between them" is a funny way to say it.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      I'm imaging the thought process was something like... - Let's put bollards on the bike path to prevent car entry - Ok, lets put them on the sides, out of the way. - Oh no, that won't work, the trail is 10' wide, so cars can fit through - Ok, lets put one in the middle, that'll keep cars out. - Thought process ends here, no thought given to other users of the infrastructure.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Sure, they managed to keep cars off the path, but killed/maimed cyclists in the process. IE, they didn't think the design all the way through, they only thought about the cars, not other users of the system.

adrianmonk 3y ago

> the non-thinking, car-driving traffic engineers solution to “if we put two bollards on the sides of the trail, there’s enough space for a car to go between them, so we’ll save some money while we make things SAFER.” That doesn't make sense to me. The entire reason the bollard exists is to stop cars from turning into the bike path. It has nothing to do with non-thinking engineers. It has nothing to do with saving money. It's because if there's space for a car to fit between them, then the bollards will not fulfill their one and only purpose. EDIT: Note that I'm not saying that it's a good design. But I am saying it didn't come about for the reasons you're saying.

rahimnathwani 3y ago
It sounds like GP is assuming that a car is wider than the bike lane, so putting bollards on each side of the bike lane would stop cars, without blocking bikes from using the centre of the lane?
- adrianmonk 3y ago
  If so, then "there’s enough space for a car to go between them" is a funny way to say it.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    I'm imaging the thought process was something like... - Let's put bollards on the bike path to prevent car entry - Ok, lets put them on the sides, out of the way. - Oh no, that won't work, the trail is 10' wide, so cars can fit through - Ok, lets put one in the middle, that'll keep cars out. - Thought process ends here, no thought given to other users of the infrastructure.
alistairSH 3y ago
Sure, they managed to keep cars off the path, but killed/maimed cyclists in the process. IE, they didn't think the design all the way through, they only thought about the cars, not other users of the system.