|
MrYenko posted:Not being a cyclist myself, I've never understood why the law puts them in traffic with motor vehicles. I just don't see how the accident between a bicycle and a pedestrian could be in any way as bad as between a bicycle and a car. This actually comes down to something of an ideological schism within the cycling advocacy community. John Pucher argues that, particularly in North America, this is due to the influence of John Forester's vehicular cycling movement on traffic planning over the past 3-4 decades. Forester posited that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". This is not bad advice where infrastructure is limited, and a cyclist's best bet is to be as visible and predictable as possible, for example taking the lane to prevent motorists from crowding them off the road, or going through intersections the same way cars do so as to be in the places a motorist would normally look for other vehicles. However, as Pucher argues, this has gotten twisted around into an argument that, because cyclists are best off acting like cars, they don't need any special infrastructure at all, and that this is how a lot of North American traffic planning has gone until fairly recently. Pucher is much more in favour of the (continental) European system of separated cycle tracks, although he isn't especially opposed to the North American compromise of Bike Boulevards -- roads with quite low speed limits and traffic calming where cyclists ride with low levels of slow-moving motor traffic. But, as Baronjutter pointed out, ped-cyclist accidents can be pretty dangerous, and cycling on sidewalks is especially dangerous for the cyclist because of vehicle interactions when crossing side streets/driveways. One other interesting data point, though: multi-user paths (ie shared cyclist/pedestrian infrastructure) are really bad. In a very recent study (of emergency room visitors) conducted in Vancouver and Toronto, the only type of infrastructure more likely to send cyclists to the ER turned out to be major roads with parked cars on the side. The same study showed that cyclists all think they're super-safe, too. By contrast, in the Netherlands/Denmark, cycling and pedestrian tracks are always separated. http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/the-bice-study/
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Yeah, clearly the ideal system is 3 fully separated systems (with cars at the lowest in the hierarchy in terms of funding and priority  ). But if bikes can't have their own system they do much better on the road than a sidewalk. Pedestrians don't follow any sort of rules and are frustrating and unpredictable enough as a fellow pedestrian, let alone trying to not smash into them as a cyclist. That was the same problem in Berlin I found, the sidewalk bike lanes were constantly ignored or just not understood by people so cyclists were always ringing their bells or shouting at people to move, or slamming on their breaks when someone runs into the lane. Not a good mix at all.The only times I hear people actually seriously advocating cyclists go on the sidewalk it's invariably in small towns or suburban areas that basically have zero cyclist or pedestrian mode share so why not ride on those empty sidewalks almost no one uses?? Places cars would actually get angry/confused at seeing a bike on a major road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Hey wait, when did the thread tag change  I like Kevin Lynch's idea of having two separate rights-of-way, and swapping between them every couple decades, so you get a brand new transportation web optimized for the current mode share. If we're going with ideal systems, I'll take that one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
In the Netherlands, bikes are like other vehicles (except that they can't go on controlled access roads), though with special facilities where they exist. And if there is such a bike path, you are required to use it and get out of the car lane. It's also illegal to bike on a sidewalk or walking path. Coming from that system, everything else just seems impractical! Basically there is this hierarchy car > bike > pedestrian, and you can move up in it if there are no other options (walk on the road or bike path) but not down (drive on the sidewalk)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
The US is in a weird position since on one hand we advocate treating cars and bikes like they're the same. On the other hand though, there's almost no overlap. In Holland, something like what, 30% of trips nationally are made by bike? Regardless of the exact number, everyone driving will probably also bike at one point in the near future and vice versa, so there's some congeniality. In the US it's maybe 1%, and statistically non existent outside of cities. Even in cities it's small. Portland, the supposed Mecca of bikes in the US, has 6% of people commuting to work on bike according to a statistic I recently saw. Here in New Haven where we have one of the lowest rates of commuting to work by self driving in the country, the number is just below 4%. And those are pretty high numbers compared to even other cities. This makes cyclists often militant against cars(even when they themselves are car drivers), which in turn makes drivers hate cyclists even more than they already do. We want them to treat each other as equals and share the road while, to quote some posts up, also assuming they're in a constant blood feud with each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Historically, bikes came on the scene just before cars - there's an argument that motor cars would've taken longer to become practical if there weren't already flat paved roads for them to drive on - which came about because of agitation by cyclists. (I wonder about the validity of that argument, since horse-driven carriages and buggies would've needed such roads as well, but anyway.) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That street is probably part of a designated municipal bike route, which means that it's a secondary road intended to act as a magnet for cyclists in order to deconflict alternate routes. And so it's common to divert vehicular thru-traffic toward main streets in order to make the bike routes safer for cyclists. Eugene, OR has a bunch of intersections that are just like that. Local residents can still drive to and from their homes via alternate routes, but it cuts down on folks who are trying to save time on a commute. It's exactly that. Here's the Google maps link: http://goo.gl/maps/DRznT Two blocks east is Cambie Street, a multi-lane arterial. Two blocks west is Oak Street, also a multi-lane arterial. Given the proximity of better roads for cars, there is no reason not to have it blocked off. Also, north and south along Heather are a bunch of features you don't want motorists zooming past, including a hospital, old age home and two parks. Entropist posted:Is that really a source of conflict? Cyclists are flexible, when you see that a car has their right turning signal on, you can go wait on the left side instead to avoid getting in the way. That's how people do it in the Netherlands anyway. In that Google maps street view you can see the problem: the crossing button for cyclists is placed on the right hand side of the intersection (note that in the new intersection design it is on the left). This forces cyclists to pull over to the right while going straight, and motorists to pull up on their left while turning right. Pretty much all the intersections where a bike route crosses a major road in Vancouver are like this. Fortunately they are steadily shifting to buttons on the left. Amused to Death posted:We want them to treat each other as equals and share the road while, to quote some posts up, also assuming they're in a constant blood feud with each other. You know, I find that the "blood feud"/"war on cars" thing tends to only come up when some populist politician wants to use cycling as a wedge issue (see for example Rob Ford in Toronto, or the NPA and their tame columnists in Vancouver). There were some pretty good articles written about this two years ago: http://thetyee.ca/Life/2011/06/15/WarOnCars/ http://daily.sightline.org/2011/01/03/war-on-cars-a-history/ Eric de Place posted:There’s something almost laughably overheated about the “war on cars” rhetoric. It’s almost as if the purveyors of the phrase have either lost their cool entirely, or else they’re trying desperately to avoid a level-headed discussion of transportation policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:You know, I find that the "blood feud"/"war on cars" thing tends to only come up when some populist politician wants to use cycling as a wedge issue (see for example Rob Ford in Toronto, or the NPA and their tame columnists in Vancouver). I mean yeah if it's brought up in any kind of even half serious fashion it's probably by some idiot politician or local column writer. The sentiment is very much about there on the road though among cyclist and drivers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Also remember that if in Holland someone driving in a 'protected' vehicle (i.e. car) hits someone on a lower-tier unprotected vehicle (bicycle), the person driving the car is automatically fully responsible for any damages, even if they had right of way. They have to pay up unless they can prove it was actively the cyclists fault, and even then the judge may decide 50/50 because of circumstances. They say it's fair because the cyclists is in the weaker position. I don't know if that's true. I do know that it makes cars drive a lot more cautious than they would, otherwise. That's a very good thing. Of course, there's some bicyclists who figure no monetary damages = not possible to get hurt, so this law makes them cocky. Well, you just can't help every single idiot, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The only times I hear people actually seriously advocating cyclists go on the sidewalk it's invariably in small towns or suburban areas that basically have zero cyclist or pedestrian mode share so why not ride on those empty sidewalks almost no one uses?? Places cars would actually get angry/confused at seeing a bike on a major road. When I advocate bicycling on the sidewalk, this is exactly what I mean, because this is what represents like 90% of america. Would be stupid to have a cyclist barreling through crowds in NYC, but makes all the sense in the world for a bicyclist pedaling happy along a deserted suburban sidewalk with nary another cyclist or pedestrian in sight, and not that 45mph street with 55mph traffic beside it. I can see how there may still be potential for accidents or injury on a sidewalk, but surely it's safer than sharing a road with 35+mph traffic? What we're really looking at is the danger in closing speed in both cases. Bike vs Pedestrian or Bike vs Car. If the bike were to slow to walking speeds or speed up to car speeds, there wouldn't be an issue. Why can't we just legislate that? What about a hybrid law, like allowing bikes on sidewalks but with strict speed limits (10mph) that get stricter when passing pedestrians (like no more than 5mph delta to pass a pedestrian)? And likewise, minimum speeds on public roads, and outright prohibition from roads with speed limits higher than a bicycle can reasonable go. With such provisions enacted, bicyclists could be permitting on both sidewalks and roads depending on conditions and speeds. grover fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Sidewalks are not intended for bicycle usage, and therefore are often not flat, straight or unimpeded, and do not have the visual clearance necessary to bike safely. A more practical idea would be to improve sidewalks along expressways and convert them into segregated multi-use paths - which remain very dangerous to cyclists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Sidewalks are not intended for bicycle usage, and therefore are often not flat, straight or unimpeded, and do not have the visual clearance necessary to bike safely. A more practical idea would be to improve sidewalks along expressways and convert them into segregated multi-use paths - which remain very dangerous to cyclists. I think most of this could be fixed by not barreling along flat-out. Kinda like cars. If the road you're on has lovely visibility, curves a lot, etc, you aren't going to go as fast as you would on a three lane divided highway with huge medians through a flat cornfield. Similarly, in the city, the bicyclist shouldn't be tearing-rear end through town like he's on the Tour de France. I can't imagine being a cyclist and riding in traffic in the US. gently caress. That.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I think most of this could be fixed by not barreling along flat-out. Sidewalks are fundamentally unsafe for bicycles at any speed. It's the equivalent of asking cars to drive along grassfields instead of roads because it's cheaper - yes they're technically capable of it, but that doesn't make it safe to do. edit: And it should go without saying that banning bicycles from the roads and installing urban expressways everywhere is terrible and outdated public policy. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I think most of this could be fixed by not barreling along flat-out. No, like the sidewalks here. Some sidewalks(I assume the newer ones, newer being relative) slope down to the street, making it okay for something with wheels. Others don't, some are like a bulkhead against the street 8 inches high. I can't go over that with my bike(if I had mountain bike tires it'd probably be doable), I'd just go flying off it. Also sometimes slabs of cement pop up at awful angles if tree roots have done a number under a portion of sidewalk. And again, the easiest place to get mowed down by a car is in fact on the sidewalk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:No, like the sidewalks here. Some sidewalks(I assume the newer ones, newer being relative) slope down to the street, making it okay for something with wheels. Others don't, some are like a bulkhead against the street 8 inches high. I can't go over that with my bike(if I had mountain bike tires it'd probably be doable), I'd just go flying off it. Also sometimes slabs of cement pop up at awful angles if tree roots have done a number under a portion of sidewalk. Right. There's also the ever-present dangers of telephone poles, decorative patches of grass or rocks, misaligned access ramps, poor quality concrete, unpatched potholes, temporary obstructions like parked cars or garbage bins, semi-permanent obstructions like bushes or signs, hidden alleyways and doorways, overly steep sections, heavily twisting sections, graveled areas, sudden ends, inadequate lighting, lack of vehicular protection, insufficient breadth ... I mean hell, there's areas of sidewalk in my town where I can't even go running safely, much less try to bicycle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
grover posted:I can see how there may still be potential for accidents or injury on a sidewalk, but surely it's safer than sharing a road with 35+mph traffic? Traffic uses sidewalks too: when a driveway crosses it. When I'm on foot, I can hear and see a car pulling in or out with enough time to decide whether to continue through the driveway or wait for the car to go. At the same time, I'm moving slow enough that I've already been noticed by the driver if I'm in the driveway. Riding a bike on a sidewalk, you have too much speed and inertia to notice a car and react appropriately, and the driver of the car might not even be able to due to visual obstructions and the hood of their car: https://www.google.com/maps?ll=25.7...241535&t=m&z=12 On the street, you have a fighting chance because drivers are looking for fast-moving vehicles that can't stop on a dime anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
grover posted:
How would you ever enforce this? For one most bicycles aren't even equipped with a speedo. Even if it has one it is not calibrated. Enforcement would be hell, most police departments do not have equipment for enforcing such rules, even if they had it the calibration would probably not be valid at such low speeds. Since your suggestion specifically mentions a difference in speed we not only need to laser/radar the bicycle but also the pedestrian, at exactly the same time. Sidestepping the question if moving bicycles to the sidewalk is desireable it is clearly not practical. The only real goal of such a law could be to throw up as many barriers to entry for cyclists as possible. 35mph is not that fast, fastest roads you are expected to share with cars in the Netherlands is 60kph (37mph) (often not even with a painted bike lane). Perfectly safe if drivers are well educated. I personally don't feel unsafe biking on a 37 mph road without a helmet. edit: Not that your rule would help for these roads, these are mostly country roads and farm acces roads, they don't have a sidewalk either. My solution for your suburban scenario is to reduce the speed limit of the road to 35 or 40 mph, narrow the lanes and put in a painted (not fully segregated) bicycle lane. Should cost no more than repainting the road surface. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:How would you ever enforce this? For one most bicycles aren't even equipped with a speedo. Even if it has one it is not calibrated. People get ticketed for speeding on bikes in New York City (the speed limits are set identical for cars and bikes, and it's easy to tell if you're on a bike and easily outpacing free flowing traffic). Plus your average police-issue rader equipment in the states is more than capable of reading down to 10 mph and working against bikes - the cops in my hometown used to let kids do speed-tested races with the cops announcing winners based on the radar gun results and that even worked for like 8 year old kids running on their own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:People get ticketed for speeding on bikes in New York City (the speed limits are set identical for cars and bikes, and it's easy to tell if you're on a bike and easily outpacing free flowing traffic). Plus your average police-issue rader equipment in the states is more than capable of reading down to 10 mph and working against bikes - the cops in my hometown used to let kids do speed-tested races with the cops announcing winners based on the radar gun results and that even worked for like 8 year old kids running on their own. It is not just a question of can it read down to 5 or 10 mph but what is the margin of error at those speeds? I've only had tickets with hard proof before because for a cop to actually write a ticket based on eyeballing or pacing you you need to be speeding a lot. Even if this is common practice in the US does anyone really believe a cop can look at a pedestrian, look at a bicycle passing the pedestrian at the same time and accurately estimate the difference in speed? This seems very incredible. Especially since the difference between a correct speed and speeding 50% is only ~3 mph. edit: a fixed 10mph speed limit would be enforceable, but i don't see how you can enforce the 5mph difference rule. How would you write a speed ticket for a bike anyway, not like they have license plates. Chase down and stop every single person speeding? That seems kind of expensive. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:It is not just a question of can it read down to 5 or 10 mph but what is the margin of error at those speeds? Pedestrians are walking, a dude booking it on a bike is fast. It's not hard. The intention of the 10 mph limit would be that reckless bikers are going to do significantly more than that. The same way you write a ticket for jumping a turnstile on the subway or for any other kind of crime not committed in a motor vehicle? Cop restrains you, you put up ID, they hand you a ticket and you've got whatever 30 days to pay the fine or go to court. Oh and of course if you try to escape you're resisting arrest and that'll get ya locked up. It's not like everyone biking is already doing things in contravention of safety to begin with, they mostly know to keep speed down on crowded sidewalks and poo poo. You just need to start putting the awareness of consequences into the jerks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Pedestrians are walking, a dude booking it on a bike is fast. It's not hard. The intention of the 10 mph limit would be that reckless bikers are going to do significantly more than that. But you know a cop is just going to park near a busy sidewalk and just ticket every single biker. So why not keep the law as it is (bikes don't get to use the sidewalk)? Since appearently "From a distance of 400 yards and a angle of 30 degrees i estimated you were doing 10 mph and the person you were passing was doing 3 mph, here is your ticket" is sufficient proof. The solution to people using a healthy environmentally method of transportation that don't have a place to go on the road is not to make that method of transportation less appealing by restricting their speed and making them subject to arbitrary fines and require them to purchase additional equipment (a speedometer). Why not let them continue to use the road? Just because it annoys some drivers? They will get used to it. edit: As someone who drives a car motorcycles annoy me, i'm not lobbying to have them moved to the sidewalk or bicycle path and restricted to 20mph. And i don't think anyone is going to argue motorcycles are way more dangerous than either bicycles or cars. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Realistically cops are never going to enforce some kind of bicycle speed limit law. I mean, there are already laws cyclists break constantly that are more important(going through reds, riding on the sidewalk in most places), and in most places no one cares. Even here we have a decent amount of cyclists to actually ticket no one cares. I'm pretty sure the fake bike police have 'ticketed' more people. Some months back a cycling group set up people to wave down cyclists without lights, write them fake tickets(since its illegal to ride without lights at night for a cyclist), and then give them free lights. They stopped 30 or so people I think in that one night. That's probably more fake tickets in one night than the police department has handed out against cyclists in the past 3 years combined. e: quote:. And i don't think anyone is going to argue motorcycles are way more dangerous than either bicycles or cars. Actually statistically they are, I think they may even have high fatality rates per trip than bicycles.(but that might be backwards) I mean more dangerous being relative though, cars, bicycles and motorcycles are all overall quite safe. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:But you know a cop is just going to park near a busy sidewalk and just ticket every single biker. So why not keep the law as it is (bikes don't get to use the sidewalk)? It's not actually the law in most places that you can't bike on the sidewalk. But they probably should ticket everyone who's going fast at all on a bike on a sidewalk with even a few pedestrians around due to the danger. Again, you'd have no need to purchase a speedometer. Such a law would be about general requiring people on the sidewalk to go slow and you don't need a speedometer for that. Plus I don't know how you'd think it could make biking less appealing, seeing the appeal is already less than zero in most places for most people. Incidentally, it's just about universal among the states that bikes shall obey normal vehicle rules of the road, so I don't think it would actually be practical to ban them from the roads in general. Even though they can obviously be banned from certain forms of road in general and streets in particular. Amused to Death posted:Realistically cops are never going to enforce some kind of bicycle speed limit law. They do it in NYC against people biking above the 25 and 30 mph car speed limits...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:They do it in NYC against people biking above the 25 and 30 mph car speed limits... NYC is in fact a special snowflake case given the high volume of cars, insane taxi drivers, pedestrians and cyclists all intermingling in very crowded streets. Even in NYC I have a feeling its more centered around Manhattan, the lower Bronx and western Brooklyn, does anyone really care say out in Murray hill or Jamaica? Plus the sheer number of cyclists make it a tempting ticketing target. It's like drinking in public. In most places, you can be arrested or fined, but it almost never happens as long as you're not being belligerent in public. New York? Nah, they walk around with giant pads full of $25 fines ready to hand out. e: Also, NYC has the problem with motorized bicycles zipping all over the place which is probably the main reason cyclists are getting ticketed now that I think about it. I mean if you're doing over 25mph on a bike and are not a professional athlete, you probably have a motor on your bike.(which I think they made illegal? They at least wanted to because people were pissed particularly at delivery riders who loved them the most) Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:They do it in NYC against people biking above the 25 and 30 mph car speed limits... Is that downhill or during a sprint or something? Either that or you have a lot of pro level cyclists in New York. 30mph is around TdF time trials speed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Is that downhill or during a sprint or something? Either that or you have a lot of pro level cyclists in New York. 30mph is around TdF time trials speed. It's probably motorized bicycles, which have become a favorite of delivery men.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Is that downhill or during a sprint or something? Either that or you have a lot of pro level cyclists in New York. 30mph is around TdF time trials speed. It's quite easy to exceed 25 mph and even 30 mph in a lot of places yeah. The city is hillier then a lot of people expect and there is often ample room to get up above 30 mph. These same people tend to blow through red lights and yellow lights on their way up to that speed too, and don't like to slow back down, hence why they make sure to enforce that now. Amused to Death posted:NYC is in fact a special snowflake case given the high volume of cars, insane taxi drivers, pedestrians and cyclists all intermingling in very crowded streets. Even in NYC I have a feeling its more centered around Manhattan, the lower Bronx and western Brooklyn, does anyone really care say out in Murray hill or Jamaica? Plus the sheer number of cyclists make it a tempting ticketing target. It's like drinking in public. In most places, you can be arrested or fined, but it almost never happens as long as you're not being belligerent in public. New York? Nah, they walk around with giant pads full of $25 fines ready to hand out. Well yeah but the thing is anywhere that you actually get a lot of people biking, and a lot of those bikers being jerks and flouting laws, enforcement is going to follow on. I mean, we barely had car traffic laws the first couple decades cars around just because few places had enough people driving to make it necessary. People do care wherever you are though, so long as there are cyclists pulling dangerous poo poo and being a danger to themselves and others. That you don't tend to have Jimmy Jackass blasting through lights and running into people on his bike in Jamaica or Murray Hill is why there isn't enforcement out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Does anyone know if this type of street (boulevard with frontage... lanes?) has some more specific name? A friend in the planning council asked me this because Helsinki, Finland is currently discussing turning the innermost portions of its entry highways to boulevards to free up land for infill development. Having through lanes with very sparsely spaced intersections like that could help preserve some capacity lost in the process, but the problem is that nobody seems to have any idea what's the proper way to arrange intersections since we haven't built streets like that since the 1940s. Knowing what to look for would be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
I'd also be interested in the general opinion of such streets. While it definitely takes up a whole lot of room, it seems like a very nice way allow relatively high speed traffic, along with street parking, and a mostly separate space for pedestrians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 02:02
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:Does anyone know if this type of street (boulevard with frontage... lanes?) has some more specific name? A friend in the planning council asked me this because Helsinki, Finland is currently discussing turning the innermost portions of its entry highways to boulevards to free up land for infill development. Hard to tell from just a map, but it looks like a pretty standard arterial expressway + frontage roads. It's a flexible arrangement that leaves plenty of room for future changes. You'll see quite a few of them in France.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
How are signs made? I got to visit the sign shop today, and though I didn't have my camera handy, I did have my phone. Keep in mind that this is a $20 phone from 3 years ago, so there isn't much quality to be had. I apologize in advance! One thing to note - the sign shop only does sheet aluminum. Extruded aluminum signs are similar, except they're on a different backing.  All the signs start out as bare aluminum, whether in precut blanks like this or in big 5' x 12' sheets. They can be 40, 80, 100, or 125 mils thick.  This is a stack of about 150 school crossing signs blanks. They're about as heavy as they look.  I bet you can tell what these are going to become.  In the foreground is a sign destined for the Merritt Parkway. Because the original signs were made of wood, all the Merritt signs need to have the weird triangles on the edge to achieve the same effect. In the background, a pretty awesome machine...  ... that CUTS IT LIKE A GIANT SCISSOR!   Sometimes, you need a weird-shaped sign. This is a bandsaw. You can see a cardboard template for a CT-shaped sign in the background.  Aluminum sheets only come in 5' maximum width. If you want a bigger sign, you have to make it in small parts and then connect them together. That color green, by the way, is only allowed to be used on the Merritt. Nowhere else in the US has it.  This is a box of retroreflective sheeting. Not all sheeting is made equal; this stuff is pretty beefy and hard to cut.  It's pressure-sensitive, so it gets rolled onto the sheet aluminum and then cut to size. This method is used for one-off signs, and gets tedious if you're making more than a couple.  This is a half-finished sign. Still missing its border, which is a huge pain to put on since it has to be cut out in 8 tiny pieces.  If you need to apply sheeting to a lot of signs at once, this feeds the blanks in sequentially.  And this is the result.  These signs will go on the Q Bridge when it's finally done. Rather than cut out the letters and border, they just apply a big brown vinyl overlay with the letters cut out.  This is essentially a computerized cutting machine that cuts the proper shapes into vinyl and sheeting.  Rip off the useless parts and toss 'em in the bin.  The cut sheeting is covered in transfer tape and carried over to the sign.  And affixed like so! The rest of the letters on that sign were silk-screened.  Yes, most signs use the same technique you learned in art class.  Put the screen on and push ink through the holes. Very simple.  Here are hundreds of old screens that may or may not get used again.  Finished signs! That's all there is to see. Any questions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Finished signs! That's all there is to see. Any questions? I see that you have stacks of block School Crossing signs. Do you also keep stacks of pre-printed common signs, or do you only print them on-demand?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I see that you have stacks of block School Crossing signs. Do you also keep stacks of pre-printed common signs, or do you only print them on-demand? There's currently a 1-year backlog of signs, so the only signs they keep around are some spare Stop, Yield, and Do Not Enter signs for emergencies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
I'm surprised it's mainly done by hand. Like why not a bunch of automated cutters and printers or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm surprised it's mainly done by hand. Like why not a bunch of automated cutters and printers or something? Since there's a bunch of different designs that would either require more or fancier automation, it's because labor is cheaper than capital.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Texas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb5iqB7_PtA Welp, at least it's impressive!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm surprised it's mainly done by hand. Like why not a bunch of automated cutters and printers or something? We have probably a thousand different kinds of signs, and only a few of each are made at a time. Consider them artisanal!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
So imagine you were designing a city where there were no private vehicles allowed in the city centre. What would the streets look like? Obviously emergency and service/delivery vehicles still need access, but what would the streets look like? I'm guessing more "shared" spaces with more fuzzy delineations between sidewalk and roadway? How would say a tram line be integrated into a street like that? How would you safely and correctly build a street for primarily pedestrians but also bikes, trams, and some very limited vehicle access?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So imagine you were designing a city where there were no private vehicles allowed in the city centre. What would the streets look like? Obviously emergency and service/delivery vehicles still need access, but what would the streets look like? I'm guessing more "shared" spaces with more fuzzy delineations between sidewalk and roadway? How would say a tram line be integrated into a street like that? http://goo.gl/maps/fr9SS Large sidewalks on both sides, 2 narrow concrete lanes for electric trolleys (and for people to freely cross when path is clear) and restrictions on who can drive vehicles there. (Only bikes/transit/emergency vehicles) less than three fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Nov 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So imagine you were designing a city where there were no private vehicles allowed in the city centre. What would the streets look like? Obviously emergency and service/delivery vehicles still need access, but what would the streets look like? I'm guessing more "shared" spaces with more fuzzy delineations between sidewalk and roadway? How would say a tram line be integrated into a street like that? Tram in a pedestrian zone? No problem, works fine here: http://goo.gl/maps/DmPq4 less than three posted:http://goo.gl/maps/fr9SS Aww, that looks almost familiar! Except there would be bike lanes behind the trees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 14:09
|
|