3 ms·

I agree that the taking away the lane would likely be a problem for traffic, the special light for cyclists works very well over here in The Netherlands. Once e

I agree that the taking away the lane would likely be a problem for traffic, the special light for cyclists works very well over here in The Netherlands. Once every few minutes the green light turns on for all cyclists and is red for all cars -- cyclists can manage having a "free for all" while crossing the intersection where cars cannot. Before you say "but that means that there is less time for cars to cross the intersection", consider the fact that a lot of the people using bikes would otherwise have to use other means of transportation, resulting (at least partially) in reduced traffic.

micro_cam 12y ago
Does the bike free for all really work that well on popular routes? In my old bike commute there were a couple spots where lots of cyclists would pile up (draw bridges, stop lights on a bike path) and I can't imagine having that many cyclists having to wait and then crossing each others direction of travel at every intersection.
- stingraycharles 12y ago
  Well most of the time it does. Whether to go for a free for all or more "complex" strategies depends upon the complexity of the intersection. For a lot of the less popular intersections, free for alls work good enough and trying to be clever would be a premature optimization. In other situations, there are generally two approaches: * implement a more complex routing strategy that can route both cyclists and cars concurrently; an example would be [1], where the blue line is how the cyclist should travel. * avoid the intersection al together with tunnels[2] or bridges[3] -- this is the most desirable strategy, but probably the most expensive one. It is used fairly often in popular-by-cycle cities such as Utrecht and Amsterdam. [1] http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg [2] http://www.n246.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg http://www.n246.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg [3] http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeelding1.jpg http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeeldi...

micro_cam 12y ago

Does the bike free for all really work that well on popular routes? In my old bike commute there were a couple spots where lots of cyclists would pile up (draw bridges, stop lights on a bike path) and I can't imagine having that many cyclists having to wait and then crossing each others direction of travel at every intersection.

stingraycharles 12y ago
Well most of the time it does. Whether to go for a free for all or more "complex" strategies depends upon the complexity of the intersection. For a lot of the less popular intersections, free for alls work good enough and trying to be clever would be a premature optimization. In other situations, there are generally two approaches: * implement a more complex routing strategy that can route both cyclists and cars concurrently; an example would be [1], where the blue line is how the cyclist should travel. * avoid the intersection al together with tunnels[2] or bridges[3] -- this is the most desirable strategy, but probably the most expensive one. It is used fairly often in popular-by-cycle cities such as Utrecht and Amsterdam. [1] http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg [2] http://www.n246.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg http://www.n246.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg [3] http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeelding1.jpg http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeeldi...