|
SO! Since we've been talking about bike lanes and pedestrian crossings and such, here is an experimental ped crossing we've been building in West Hartford. Specifically, it involves the first Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) in the state. What's an RRFB? Well, they look like this:  The RRFB is a sort of traffic engineering sweetheart these days. They were installed in Washington, DC, Miami-Dade County and St Petersburg, Florida, Las Cruces, NM, and Mundelein, Illinois. In all of these locations, there was a profound effect: while most pedestrian crossing beacons only get 20-50% compliance, RRFBs got 80-90%. That compliance lasted a year, too, showing they're not simply getting people to stop due to their novelty. The only thing that gets higher compliance is signals that incorporate red lights, like a HAWK. Of course, drivers in Connecticut are very aggressive. These flashers are incredibly bright (about as bright as the white strobe atop a cop car), but we said, "heck, let's double them. One on each side of the road." That's two sets of flashers in each direction. Hard to miss, eh?  The installation isn't complete yet, but so far, things don't look good. My coworkers went out in the field to test them out, and compliance was exactly 0%. Not a single car even tapped the brakes. That's for a guy in a reflective hat and vest, too, so it's not like the pedestrian wasn't visible. Here, check out his shakycam video of one of the tests. Cars in both directions are supposed to yield. As it was, even with the reflective equipment, the engineer couldn't get a good gap to cross the road. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnZYCayCI3Q So what does this mean? Even if compliance rates skyrocket to 50% when the signs and advance signs are up, that's very, very bad. Either drivers here are more aggressive or less attentive - probably a combination of the two.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
That definitely has a deep "Pedestrians? That's MY road dammit!" vibe to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The RRFB is a sort of traffic engineering sweetheart these days. They were installed in Washington, DC, Miami-Dade County and St Petersburg, Florida, Las Cruces, NM, and Mundelein, Illinois. In all of these locations, there was a profound effect: while most pedestrian crossing beacons only get 20-50% compliance, RRFBs got 80-90%. That compliance lasted a year, too, showing they're not simply getting people to stop due to their novelty. The only thing that gets higher compliance is signals that incorporate red lights, like a HAWK. Are these beacons flashing constantly or are the activated by the pedestrian? In Toronto, the crosswalks with flashing lights activated by the pedestrian have very good compliance rates in my experience. I can imagine that if the lights were constantly flashing they'd be much less effective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Vaginal Engineer posted:Are these beacons flashing constantly or are the activated by the pedestrian? In Toronto, the crosswalks with flashing lights activated by the pedestrian have very good compliance rates in my experience. I can imagine that if the lights were constantly flashing they'd be much less effective. They only flash when a pedestrian hits the button. At night, they're blinding; I wish they were attenuated to match ambient light levels. They're also strobes, so they may trigger epilepsy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Have the township assign a police officer to park there for a couple of days. Compliance will either skyrocket, or the town will make back the cost of having the cop sit there. Also, looking at that video, I'm not at all surprised that no one stopped. There's a couple of strobe lights and a guy on the side of the road; I'd have thought that some rear end in a top hat was having a fire sale and just blown past too. Your engineer needed to put his feet out in the road to announce his attentions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Is there even a zebra crossing? I saw the strobes but just seemed like random flashing lights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
I'm guessing some of the low compliance is from not understanding what the strobe lights mean. The first picture looks like a warning, rather than an order to yield. (We have a similar situation here with a pedestrian crossing on a local highway, and I think cars are supposed to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, but then the pedestrians wait on the sidewalk for an opening in traffic before crossing, so the big neon green signs basically say "hey, just FYI, there may be pedestrians around here.") And then there's a small flashing amber light where the green should be. What does that mean? Also probably a healthy dose of "What does that mean? Nobody's doing anything different, guess it's not important." Bow TIE Fighter fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Aug 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The installation isn't complete yet, but so far, things don't look good. My coworkers went out in the field to test them out, and compliance was exactly 0%. Not a single car even tapped the brakes. That's for a guy in a reflective hat and vest, too, so it's not like the pedestrian wasn't visible. If you want people to stop once that button is hit, I think you need to put in an actual stop-light. grover fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Sep 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Remember, this isn't complete yet. The contractor said that it was all up and running, but it's clearly not up to spec yet. We'll do plenty more trials once everything is ready. Volmarias posted:Have the township assign a police officer to park there for a couple of days. Compliance will either skyrocket, or the town will make back the cost of having the cop sit there. This won't do anything for long-term compliance, which is what we're looking for. Volmarias posted:Also, looking at that video, I'm not at all surprised that no one stopped. There's a couple of strobe lights and a guy on the side of the road; I'd have thought that some rear end in a top hat was having a fire sale and just blown past too. Your engineer needed to put his feet out in the road to announce his attentions. The video's not great, unfortunately. There are TWO guys at the crossing. Clearly, though, they're not IN the road, which doesn't help. Also, as you can see, visibility is blocked by the utility poles. smackfu posted:Is there even a zebra crossing? I saw the strobes but just seemed like random flashing lights. Nope, the stripes haven't been put in yet. The contractor hosed up all the pavement markings in the area and probably will get away with it, unfortunately, even though we specifically did a change order and paid extra to have them meet the 2009 MUTCD. Bow TIE Fighter posted:I'm guessing some of the low compliance is from not understanding what the strobe lights mean. The first picture looks like a warning, rather than an order to yield. (We have a similar situation here with a pedestrian crossing on a local highway, and I think cars are supposed to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, but then the pedestrians wait on the sidewalk for an opening in traffic before crossing, so the big neon green signs basically say "hey, just FYI, there may be pedestrians around here.") And then there's a small flashing amber light where the green should be. What does that mean? Thing is, this exact setup works brilliantly in other states. Everyone here has high hopes for it, but we may need some additional reinforcement. grover posted:Signs like that don't say "STOP!" to the typical driver, but more akin to "WARNING, SLIPPERY ROAD" or "WARNING, LOOK OUT FOR DEER!" and I'd hope would make them more alert to pedestrians, but it's quite plain in that video why nobody stopped. I doubt any of us here would have stopped either, because your coworker did not look like he was trying to cross the road, it looked like he was just standing there he was 5' away from the curb, and facing the other direction. He wasn't showing any of the body language someone shows when they're about to step into the crosswalk. I think you'd have much different results if he actually started walking or at least stepped up to the curb and showed body language like he wanted to cross. I would've expected people to at least tap the brakes upon seeing a pair of really bright strobes turn on. The signs aren't up yet, so nobody knows it's for a ped crossing, but if I saw something like that, I'd certainly want to be cautious. grover posted:If you want people to stop once that button is hit, I think you need to put in an actual stop-light. We're going to try this out for a long period and see how it goes. A signal really wouldn't work here, because the firehouse is 100 feet away, and there's another signal a couple hundred feet in the other direction. Too many signals in a short space causes rear-ends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I would've expected people to at least tap the brakes upon seeing a pair of really bright strobes turn on. The signs aren't up yet, so nobody knows it's for a ped crossing, but if I saw something like that, I'd certainly want to be cautious. grover fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Sep 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
grover posted:Pedestrians have the right-of-way on most military bases, and everyone driving on base knows it. It's not an issue generally at crosswalks at intersections, but we have quite a few crosswalks in the middle of a street where the signage slowly progressed from painted crosswalks, to signs, to giant blinking signs with button activation. The exact same thing happens with all the above: traffic invariably yields to pedestrians in the crosswalk, or when it looks to the driver like the pedestrian is going to step into the road right in front of them. Occassionally someone will stop and wave you through, but people rarely stops if pedestrians are simply standing beside the road. I don't get what you're trying to get at here. That kind of setup has worked elsewhere so it wasn't doomed from the outset. They're putting up this stuff precisely so drivers do heed people waiting on the side of the road to cross. Pedestrians shouldn't have to almost/actually step into live traffic to get the opportunity to cross the road. In any way. I'm curious to see how it develops and what it actually takes to get the local drivers to actually act appropriately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Munin posted:I don't get what you're trying to get at here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I would've expected people to at least tap the brakes upon seeing a pair of really bright strobes turn on. The signs aren't up yet, so nobody knows it's for a ped crossing, but if I saw something like that, I'd certainly want to be cautious. So you put up a couple of strobe lights, with no crosswalk, no ped signs, no one in the street, in a visually busy section, and you're surprised that no one stopped at the crosswalk-that-wasn't?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:So you put up a couple of strobe lights, with no crosswalk, no ped signs, no one in the street, in a visually busy section, and you're surprised that no one stopped at the crosswalk-that-wasn't? I wasn't there, so all I have to go on is my coworker's experiences and video. I intend to check it out myself once everything is up and running. Unfortunately, it'll be hard to tell how much of an improvement the RRFB will make vs. narrowing lanes and putting in a pedestrian refuge island and signs. We're installing both at once, and we don't have a pre-RRFB baseline to go off, so I will only get to see the final percentage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Could you find out WHERE in Las Cruces, NM these things were installed? I do a fair bit of driving around there and have never seen it. The google search turns up one of the main roads I take through town, too. Google doesn't help as much as I'd like, since the Roadrunner Food Bank shares an acronym.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
There is a regular crosswalk here in town with just a sign and the zebra striping. a few weeks ago they removed the zebra striping but left the signs (i guess just for maintenance or something) and people didn't stop at the crosswalk anymore. They put in the zebra striping again and now people stop again. Personally i also wouldn't stop for some bright flashing light and a dude in workman gear by the road (not making any indication he wants to cross), i would probably just assume "construction ahead". As a driver if part of the road markings are missing i am going to ignore the confusing or half finished signs you put up. Shouldn't you disable the strobes until the crosswalk can be finished to spec?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 12:05
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Could you find out WHERE in Las Cruces, NM these things were installed? I do a fair bit of driving around there and have never seen it. The google search turns up one of the main roads I take through town, too. Google says the El Paseo Road corridor. NihilismNow posted:There is a regular crosswalk here in town with just a sign and the zebra striping. a few weeks ago they removed the zebra striping but left the signs (i guess just for maintenance or something) and people didn't stop at the crosswalk anymore. They put in the zebra striping again and now people stop again. They're not enabled yet; they were just connected to make sure everything was wired properly, then turned off again. The curb ramps are there, though, so as soon as the signs + lines are added, it should be ready to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 13:56
|
|
|
That sounds much better, and people probably will stop when everything's finished.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
http://goo.gl/maps/XGu1N These two signals are less than 100' apart and are always out of phase with each other.  Oh and it's also the town's main artery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
I can't imagine cars not stopping at crosswalks. Here in Victoria peds are super aggressive and even at a big wide arterial road in the bubs people will pretty much just stare down cars and step out into the road with a "come at me bro!" posture. Crosswalks without any special technology I'd say get around 75-80% and ones with an overhead sign or flasher get 100%. But I guess it really is a cultural and engineering thing. Here we have a very strong pedestrian culture plus all our infrastructure is designed for peds first, cars second. Also I saw some bike boxes yesterday! I had no idea they existed until I saw that video from Toronto, then I go for a walk and notice a couple at some intersections. The one I saw in use had some american rear end in a top hat with a huge "classic" american muscle car take up the entire bike box and some cyclists pulled in front of him he looked super pissed and confused and when the light turned green he honked at them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:SO! Since we've been talking about bike lanes and pedestrian crossings and such, here is an experimental ped crossing we've been building in West Hartford. I drive past the one in Mundelein quite frequently. I don't know about the others, but I can tell you exactly why it gets 90% compliance. They are located around a 2 block area where there is a High School and Middle School on the same intersection, with a speed limit dropped to like 15MPH when children are present, with a Cop that sits in the parking lot 50% of the time you drive by.  Edit: Pic & I used MSPAINT so I couldn't move the CROSSING text without loving everything up. The one on Hawley is probably closer to the cop. High_Life fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Sep 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Still on page 64. This thread is great though. I saw this roundabout death trap in Taiwan. https://maps.google.com/?ll=25.037966,121.54892&spn=0.00278,0.004823&t=w&z=18 (Or maybe a traffic circle death trap?)  East - West name: 3rd Blvd North - South name: 12th Ave Is there a reason they would make a roundabout inside a roundabout, or was it just a bad idea from the beginning? mamosodiumku fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Sep 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
What does it take to get permission to close a stretch of interstate? Who has the authority to do that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:Is there a reason they would make a roundabout inside a roundabout, or was it just a bad idea from the beginning? Looking at the satellite pictures and Street View, there are stop lines and signals all over that circle, so I don't think it really works like a regular roundabout. Looks like the drivers in the circle would yield to traffic entering it! That is so confusing. Ninja edit: Looks like they also have the bike boxes, but for motorbikes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 13:59
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Looking at the satellite pictures and Street View, there are stop lines and signals all over that circle, so I don't think it really works like a regular roundabout. Looks like the drivers in the circle would yield to traffic entering it! That is so confusing. I've not had a look at it so I don't know if it's the same, but in the UK when roundabouts become busy we do tend to signalise them. Do these carry any of the benefits of unsignalised roundabouts, or are they just a convenient way of making a junction of several roads (and obviously avoiding the cost of rebuilding everything?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 14:14
|
|
|
I've been trying to find out more information about that crazy roundabout but can't really find anything. It has changed slightly from its original layout in the 60/70s: So additional "roads" used to connect with the inner circle from the 4 diagonal minor roads. I think the design was primarily aesthetics, the two major routes here are highly decorated with trees, each consisting of 3 or 4 carriageways, with each direction having a different lane direction set up (the one to the west is all one way but has a contra flow bus lane in the middle of the road, to the east the same road now only has 3 carriageways in one direction). So if you have this double divided highway thing coming in you need a double roundabout? Also it provides slightly better access to the buildings that front the roundabout I guess. Maybe you could think of it as a local/express system as well, with the inner carriageways going slightly faster. This probably doesn't work these days with the amount of traffic though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:Still on page 64. This thread is great though. A few overpasses could really help out there. Use the outer circle for local traffic (the outer roadways on those avenues), and the inner circle just for the central, express lanes. That would be a Good IdeaTM. The pavement quality there is AMAZING. It could just be the way the satellite photos are processed, but it appears Taiwan isn't afraid to spend money keeping their roads in good shape. grover posted:What does it take to get permission to close a stretch of interstate? Who has the authority to do that? It's not hard, believe it or not. Everything is done via direct contact with someone at the DOT, so you don't have to wade through the red tape the State normally throws around like confetti. http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1394&Q=259552 http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1394&Q=396820 http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1394&Q=259556 In Connecticut, the maximum fine for unlawfully closing a road is $100, so even if you have no permission, the penalty is extremely low. Jonnty posted:I've not had a look at it so I don't know if it's the same, but in the UK when roundabouts become busy we do tend to signalise them. Do these carry any of the benefits of unsignalised roundabouts, or are they just a convenient way of making a junction of several roads (and obviously avoiding the cost of rebuilding everything?) This depends on expertise! At one extreme (circulating traffic always has green, entering traffic always has red, RTOR allowed), it operates exactly the same as a roundabout. At the other (majority of green time allocated to entering traffic), it will cause gridlock. Signalization can be beneficial if there is a very unbalanced flow. For example, one or two cars circulating from a side street might block four lanes of entering traffic from an artery. A signal will provide the necessary gaps. Additionally, if the roundabout is in the middle of a coordinated corridor, signals are necessary to maintain the proper progression.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
grover posted:Oh, I'm not saying that; it's going to get drivers to heads-up and pay attention. But if the signs and blinking lights aren't accompanied by pedestrians actually exercising their right-of-way, cars aren't going to stop. What do you mean by "exercising their right of way"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Ninja edit: Looks like they also have the bike boxes, but for motorbikes? The boxes are for motorbikes. Apprently they put those in since motorbikes can squeeze themselves to the front regardless and get a better start when the light turns green. Less car vs motorbike accidents this way (or so they say). On a side note, motorbikes are banned from the inner roundabout (from the writting on the street). Now that I think about it, maybe that's why they have two rings. Edit: Also, motorbike galore! Cichlidae posted:The pavement quality there is AMAZING. It could just be the way the satellite photos are processed, but it appears Taiwan isn't afraid to spend money keeping their roads in good shape. Having temperatures in the 20~35C range all year probably helps. But you should see the freeways. They've paved those as well as the autobahn. It's unfortunate they have speed cameras everywhere. Is there a name for that kind of crazy roundabout? mamosodiumku fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Sep 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:Is there a name for that kind of crazy roundabout? I don't know of an official name, but a concentric roundabout or nested roundabout would probably describe it just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Munin posted:What do you mean by "exercising their right of way"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Ah wait I think I understand now: http://goo.gl/maps/IZcMf
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Not really, though a big part of that is because we have so much infrastructure for cars, and so little for bicycles. I know I have nowhere to park a bike at home or at work. When the weather is bad, I wouldn't be able to bike, anyway. In some rare places (like Portland, maybe), they do make an appreciable difference, but for most of the country, it's done at a loss. Yeah, to build on what Cichlidae is saying, think of bike trails like ADA access: only used be a small fraction of the population but it makes everything accessible to almost everyone. Retrofitting is expensive but if we build the bike facilities in as we go, it's going to get cheaper. quote:It's great, if you have the room to spare. Keeps a lot of local traffic off the freeways. They offer some cool interchange options, too, but they can be impediments to later growth if you don't make provisions early on. The allow development along side freeways that yo don't see in states without access roads. And most of Texas does have a lot of room. quote:Texas has nothing but room. There are some trucks that are very tall, by the way. When I worked in France, transporting nuclear reactors and windmills required a ton of space. Those things had to be at least 20' wide and 20' tall. 50' is a bit much, but if there's another bridge nearby, cutting through at 25', that could easily be the cheapest design. I'm pretty sure that 50' figure is hyperbole, TxDOT's standard is 17.5' clearence, 16.5' is it's tight. With the depth of substructure, particularly on flyovers, you might be looking at 30' from one level to another. Of course, if you have multi-level interchanges, that top level is gonna be pretty high. Back when I did structures, I worked on the proposed Kelly Parkway in San Antonio and I seem to recall there was a 4 level interchange which had pretty high flyovers. quote:SO! Since we've been talking about bike lanes and pedestrian crossings and such, here is an experimental ped crossing we've been building in West Hartford. Personally, I don't think RRFBs do poo poo, unless maybe you're in a low volume residential area adjacent to a prominently labeled school for blind children. We've been installing PHBs (pedestrian hybrid beacon, kinda a modified HAWK) like they're oging out of style and they're doing brilliantly. Pedestrians love them and we're getting much better compliance in places where we historically had a ton of dangerous pedestrian behavior. And they really don't eff up signal timing that much. The biggest hurdle is getting drivers used to them, it's taken them a while to realize they can go when it's a flashing red if the pedestrian has cleared their half of the roadway. Here's on eof our oldest ones. We've changed the signage to be more clear that you stop on solid red and then may proceed on flashing red.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I can't imagine cars not stopping at crosswalks. Somebody's never been to Asia. (Japan doesn't count) In Korea I get death glares from people who ran the red light and had to stop because I had the temerity to cross in the crosswalk when I had a green walk signal. Even had one lean out the window and cuss me out for it--it was the very first complete sentence I understood in Korean!  Admittedly I do enjoy making red light runners stop for me by walking very slowly. This will likely be how I die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
t_violet posted:Yeah, to build on what Cichlidae is saying, think of bike trails like ADA access: only used be a small fraction of the population but it makes everything accessible to almost everyone. Retrofitting is expensive but if we build the bike facilities in as we go, it's going to get cheaper. grover fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Sep 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 12:38
|
|
|
t_violet posted:The allow development along side freeways that yo don't see in states without access roads. And most of Texas does have a lot of room. That's right, they're excellent for access management. They're even used on some arterials (not just freeways), and provide many of the same benefits. A backage road is similar, only the businesses are located between the backage road and the freeway, which gives them a lot more visibility for advertising. It's somewhat more efficient, because you can fit more development in the same footprint, but it complicates ramp arrangement and god help you if you need to widen in the future. t_violet posted:Personally, I don't think RRFBs do poo poo, unless maybe you're in a low volume residential area adjacent to a prominently labeled school for blind children. We've been installing PHBs (pedestrian hybrid beacon, kinda a modified HAWK) like they're oging out of style and they're doing brilliantly. Pedestrians love them and we're getting much better compliance in places where we historically had a ton of dangerous pedestrian behavior. And they really don't eff up signal timing that much. The biggest hurdle is getting drivers used to them, it's taken them a while to realize they can go when it's a flashing red if the pedestrian has cleared their half of the roadway. Here's on eof our oldest ones. We've changed the signage to be more clear that you stop on solid red and then may proceed on flashing red. I was never too keen on hybrid beacons, but it's good to hear them working, regardless. If people mistake the flashing red for a stop beacon, the worst that'll happen is some rear-ends, whereas not stopping at all could lead to ped fatalities. Grand Fromage posted:Somebody's never been to Asia. (Japan doesn't count) poo poo, man, people get shot for that stuff in some places. My Russian coworker explained to me how ped crossings work in Moscow. I don't know how much was hyperbole, but I'm pretty sure I will never cross the street in Russia now. grover posted:Bike lanes are like ADA, because much like bicyclists, handicapped people can always just stand up and walk up a flight of stairs if there isn't an elevator? The accessibility guidelines for someone in a wheelchair and someone on a bicycle are different, but that doesn't mean they're incomparable. Instead of providing curb ramps, turnouts on slopes, and elevators, you're looking at lifting signs a foot and a half higher, providing wider shoulders, bike racks on buses, and bike parking areas. It might seem bizarre to some, but I can definitely see Federal mandates for bike accessibility in the next ten years. Right now, they're just guidelines, but the language is getting stronger and stronger. Not everyone can drive a car, so for many people, biking is the only feasible option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
grover posted:Bike lanes are like ADA, because much like bicyclists, handicapped people can always just stand up and walk up a flight of stairs if there isn't an elevator? No, there are roadways where we don't want cyclists at all and it would be dangerous for them to go. Or roads where cyclists could legally ride but most would feel intimidated. Adding bike facilities makes more roads more accessible to more people, even though it's a relatively small percentage of the overall population. I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy but I think it's similar. I am all for accessibility but I do find it frustrating sometimes that we sometimes can't build things (I'm talking about facilities in the ROW such as trails) that would be used by over 99% of the population because it would be prohibitively expensive to make it accessible to a very small disabled population. Bike lanes are similar, we've decided as a culture (or in my case, a municipality) that it's important to make our streets accessible for bikes. It leads to some expensive decisions that can make things expensive and that I don't always agree with but it's our current trend. Don't agree with it or like it? You're an American, vote and lobby your representatives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:They've paved those as well as the autobahn. It's unfortunate they have speed cameras everywhere. Sidenote: Autobahnen are garbage, at least nearer to me in Niedersachsen. There's lots of places where the paving is uneven but there's stuff way worse than that. The Germans have a huge backlog of construction works and instead of a fast but thorough job where everyone is happy while the government only needs to compress their spending into a shorter timespan these projects on average take years if not more than a decade. So you either get 'roving' lane closures along the same corridor lasting for years or a 4+0 setup on a single carriageway, both of which take the 'Schnell' out of Schnellstrasse. I think their major problem has been the fact that they did massive investments in the former East German states at the cost of planned works in the original FRG states since they were of course (a) very much needed (you could drive on broken concrete freeways, without shoulders and inaugurated by Hitler himself, back in the early nineties there) and worse as (b) a great sop towards the Ossies for pretty much annexing their country and towards the Wessies for showing how great of a development job the government was doing in these newly acquired Third World territories (this coming from a NL Fahrer so you Germans can take all of this with the appropriate grain of salt). So what you get are routes like the A1 between Bremen and Hamburg hosed up for years since it needed expansion 20 years ago and only got around to doing it now in the slowest way possible since the financing got shot to poo poo because they 'had to do' the A9 around loving Leipzig first. Also, everything is old, especially their current design standards. I take the train nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Sidenote: Autobahnen are garbage, at least nearer to me in Niedersachsen. There's lots of places where the paving is uneven but there's stuff way worse than that. As a German major, this is quite fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I can't imagine cars not stopping at crosswalks. Here in Victoria peds are super aggressive and even at a big wide arterial road in the bubs people will pretty much just stare down cars and step out into the road with a "come at me bro!" posture. Crosswalks without any special technology I'd say get around 75-80% and ones with an overhead sign or flasher get 100%. But I guess it really is a cultural and engineering thing. Here we have a very strong pedestrian culture plus all our infrastructure is designed for peds first, cars second. Isn't there one at hillside and douglas (that crazy 5 way intersection)? Or maybe it was removed when they where doing work there...
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 19:32
|
|
