Koesj posted:

What do you guys mean? That urban sprawl is markedly different in the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Dallas, or Tampa as compared to Melbourne, which AFAIK has had much of the same problems?

Lead out in cuffs posted:

The other reason why cyclists shouldn't use sidewalks (besides not being an rear end in a top hat endangering pedestrians)

Nintendo Kid posted:

6 mph is their top speed typically, and people rarely go flat out on them. Check out the manufacturers and retailers themselves:
http://www.spinlife.com/category.cfm?categoryID=4

Here's one example: http://www.spinlife.com/Drive-Medical-Ventura-DLX-4-Wheel-4-WheelFull-Size-Scooter/spec.cfm?productID=98983
Costs $1800, top speed 5 mph, carries 350 pounds, will go 15 miles max between charges. Oh and it takes just 8 hours to recharge from empty!

The idea that there is an epidemic of people going super fast on these things and causing problems is insane. Hell some of the more affordable ones can only go up to 4 mph...

Javid posted:

Give me a viable bike lane that isn't 18 inches between the curb and a traffic lane

Lobsterpillar posted:

Whats the professional etiquette for you guys posting details about what you're currently working on in this thread? Is it okay because they're public works that don't require any sort of confidentiality, and the information is publicly available anyway?

The Deadly Hume posted:

Perth, which is possibly the worst offender as far as unremitting sprawl with few proper high rise areas goes.

Lead out in cuffs posted:

But you're still at more risk riding on the sidewalk than you are on the road, even with the occasional psychopathic American driver. Vehicular cycling is a stupid but necessary hack around a broken system.

whitey delenda est posted:

The one posted in the Russia.jpg thread where they've got the dude stopped on the sidewalk and someone gets out of a different car driving correctly on the road casually carrying an AK-74 is amazing.

wolrah posted:

Got any studies to support the risk claim? I can find the same claim made on a bunch of biking web sites but no one seems to actually provide sources.

I don't doubt that there is a danger, particularly in urban environments where alleys combine with brick buildings and a total lack of grass area to make for effectively blind intersections where neither party has a chance to see the other until it's too late. I just don't see it as being as big of a risk as an actual on-road car vs. bike crash. The speeds and thus the forces involved are a lot lower. I'm of course willing to change with actual data, but right now all I'm finding is basically anecdotal.

As someone living and biking in the suburbs, the occasional diversion on to the grass to get around a group of people walking side-by-side or some idiot pulling down their driveway without looking is no big deal and certainly a lot less of a concern than 1.5-3 tons of metal passing inches from my left at a 20+ MPH speed differential.

quote:

Are there studies that address risk factors to cyclists on sidewalks?

In 1992, Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston authored a report, Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections2 that studied bicycle-motor vehicle collisions. As a result, they generated a list of risk factors that are correlated with increased risk ofbicycle-motor vehicle collisions and suggested engineering practices that would reduce this risk. One of their conclusions states:

Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence of wrong-way travel.

In 1996, Bill Moritz conducted a survey of cyclists about their cycling behavior3. Among his conclusions, he found that:

Streets with bike lanes have a significantly lower crash rate than either major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities (38 and 56% respectively). Multi-use trails have a crash rate about 40% greater than would be expected based on the miles cycled on them, while cycling on the sidewalk is extremely dangerous.

Baronjutter posted:

A big reason russia is such a great source of driving videos isn't just the total lack of driver training, but also a total lack of any sort of enforcement. Which has now led to vigilante traffic enforcement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJxIwvFIGY

A big problem seems the actual design of the sidewalks. Some bollards or something would solve the problem.

Kaal posted:

Also your assertion that people "walk" at 5 or 6 mph is patently absurd.

Kaal posted:

I really think that your perspective may be a bit out of date when it comes to the advent of mobility scooters and their popularity. People were complaining about overuse of scooters in public areas, and of healthy people using scooters for mere convenience, more than a decade ago - and the issue has not disappeared:

http://www.post-gazette.com/life/lifestyle/2006/07/17/Make-way-for-the-sidewalk-SUV-Mobility-scooters/stories/200607170104
http://www.13abc.com/story/25908412/archbold-police-ticket-disabled-man-for-driving-scooter-on-sidewalk

At this point there's all sorts of folks getting invested in the issue, from disability advocates and scooter manufacturers to nature conservancies worried their trail systems and hotel industry lobbyists balking at the idea of people driving Segways and golf carts down their halls:

http://www.americanmobilityscooters...e-highways.html
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/accessible/powermobilityquestions.html
http://hotelexecutive.com/business_review/2711/ada-compliance-wheelchairs-and-other-power-driven-mobility-devices

It definitely shouldn't be dismissed as a non-issue involving just a couple of old ladies with souped up wheelchairs. At the very least, it's very big business for manufacturers who have had significant success in getting the devices covered under Medicaid and other medical insurance programs, and have a vested interest in promoting their widespread adoption.

Many of these devices are very helpful for people, but they're also very capable of causing disruption to pedestrian spaces and that needs to be addressed and resolved. Right now it's happening at a city-by-city level, and generally in a way that is very difficult for people that rely on these scooters to get around. American tourism forums are filled with discussions about the specific municipal regulations for mobility scooters, and people asking about whether or not they're going to be able to use the devices freely since there is a lack of standardized regulation. Similarly, there's many complaints in other forums about people who are abusing these devices and causing issues for other users of pedestrian-ways. And at the same time, some of these device advocates are pressing for greater acceptance of these devices in our common spaces, regardless of disability, even going so far as suggesting that gas-powered ATVs should be considered "personal mobility devices".

So yeah, there needs to be a discussion. And most likely it needs to start by talking about limiting their speeds and capabilities, and encouraging people who want to go faster to use other devices and other spaces. A 500-lb device that can travel 15 mph (http://www.1800wheelchair.com/product/ew-37/) should not be under the same regulations as a wheelchair.

Lead out in cuffs posted:

This reminds me a lot of the "Stop Kindermoerd" campaigns in the Netherlands in the 70s. Russia's probably ripe for that kind of mass-action, at least until Putin's government responds the way they do to every other mass protest movement that isn't directly backing them.

Baronjutter posted:

A big problem seems the actual design of the sidewalks. Some bollards or something would solve the problem.

AA is for Quitters posted:

Does this mean you no longer have to leave 295 for an exit and get back on the next exit? I lived just north of that interchange and hated having to drive that on a regular basis. But 42 is the AC Expressway, which was the quickest route down the shore.

smackfu posted:

Yeah, if you make a sidewalk asphalt and car width and don't sign it, I don't know what you would expect.

Happy Noodle Boy posted:

Semi-related but I'm sure there's a few engineers lurking/reading this thread that would like to know: Google Earth Pro is now free.

Baronjutter posted:

Yeah it's almost as if it was designed to be a sort of back-up road, emergency vehicles use them often to bypass traffic jams. My wife is from Moscow and the poo poo she'd tell me about traffic there. It's very normal to say have a huge 8 lane stroad cutting through town and have it entirely jammed up so people drive on the tram tracks, then that gets clogged up, so they drive on the sidewalk. People will drive down the turning lane or median trying to get head, or just go into the less-busy oncoming lane. Sometimes an entire oncoming lane will get clogged with people trying to get around the traffic jam. There is just zero enforcement, it's all seen as just a normal part of traffic.

NyxBiker posted:

I wanted to ask how much time does it take to make a full project of an intersection like the French one in the OP from zero?

Lead out in cuffs posted:

Two seconds of Googling brought up: http://www.bike.cornell.edu/pdfs/Sidewalk_biking_FAQ.pdf


That data on multi-use trails is backed up by a recent study in Toronto and Vancouver, where they turned out to be the second-most dangerous kind of infrastructure for sending cyclists to the ER (worse than nearly any kind of road). You can read more here: http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/the-bice-study/

quote:

And yeah, the speed differential in a side-on collision (the kind of you risk by riding on the sidewalk) is also going to be 20+mph, since your sideways speed is zero. It's just more likely to happen.

wolrah posted:

Other than one party running a red, in which case I'd argue that a person biking in the street is just as likely to get hit as coming off the sidewalk, where are you envisioning these 20+ MPH collisions? The driveway/alley situation would seem more likely to be in the 5-15 MPH range in the case of the car hitting the bike, and presumably there would also be a lot of the reverse case where the car pulls in to the path of the bike which is also going to be more in that range. Pretty much any bike on sidewalk vs. car collision is going to involve the car being in the middle of, about to start, or just completing a 90 degree turn just because of where such conflict points exist. That naturally limits the speeds at which they're likely to happen.

EoRaptor posted:

EoRaptor posted:

Peanut President posted:

Cyriak?

Tank Boy Ken posted:

That's actually an art project not actual traffic. It was in a tv report a while back. Everything was filmed sperately and then cut together.

EoRaptor posted:

Cichlidae posted:

Nearly all right turns into a driveway are made at 8-10mph. Just throwing that out there.

Lead out in cuffs posted:

How about right turns into a street?

Lead out in cuffs posted:

How about right turns into a street?

wolrah posted:

I did find both of those and a lot of other posts linking to the same data since they are some of the first search results, but neither really cover the points I'm making. More accidents do not necessarily mean more dangerous since "accidents" is a wide category. Neither differentiate by severity (the Canadian study does limit itself to ER visits, but that can be anything from broken bones/stitches to near-death), they just count overall accidents which would logically go up with more blind conflicts. I'm basically saying that some more scrapes and even broken bones are a reasonable trade if we eliminate some fatalities and life threatening injuries.

wolrah posted:

Your second one actually seems to show less injuries for the sidewalk users compared to a marked but shared lane in the road. Nothing is indicated for just riding a bike in an ordinary unmarked street as far as I can see, but presumably would be equal to or worse than the marked shared lane. The sidewalk is more dangerous than bike-specific infrastructure of any kind, but I never argued that.

wolrah posted:

Other than one party running a red, in which case I'd argue that a person biking in the street is just as likely to get hit as coming off the sidewalk, where are you envisioning these 20+ MPH collisions? The driveway/alley situation would seem more likely to be in the 5-15 MPH range in the case of the car hitting the bike, and presumably there would also be a lot of the reverse case where the car pulls in to the path of the bike which is also going to be more in that range. Pretty much any bike on sidewalk vs. car collision is going to involve the car being in the middle of, about to start, or just completing a 90 degree turn just because of where such conflict points exist. That naturally limits the speeds at which they're likely to happen.

Cornell information sheet posted:

• Motorist turns left in front of cyclist: 42% of bicyclists are on the sidewalk
• Motorist turns left into oncoming cyclist: 15% of bicyclists are on the sidewalk
• Motorist turns right into bicyclist: 31% of bicyclists are on the sidewalk
• Motorist drives out of alley/driveway: 48% of bicyclists are on the sidewalk
• Motorist drives through intersection: 15% of bicyclists are on the sidewalk
• Bicyclist rode out intersection with signal: 24% of bicyclists are on the sidewalk

Slate posted:

This Guerrilla Public Servant Forged an L.A. Freeway Sign to Help People Avoid Getting Lost

At some point in your life, you’ve probably encountered a problem in the built world where the fix was obvious to you. Maybe it was a door that opened the wrong way or a poorly painted marker on the road. Mostly, when we see these things, we grumble on the inside and then do nothing.

But not Richard Ankrom.

In the early morning of Aug. 5, 2001, the artist and a group of friends assembled on the Fourth Street bridge over the 110 freeway in Los Angeles. They had gathered to commit a crime—one Ankrom had plotted for years.

Twenty years earlier while living in Orange County, Ankrom found himself driving north on the 110 freeway. As he passed through downtown Los Angeles, he was going to merge onto another freeway, Interstate 5 North. But he missed the exit and got lost. And for some reason, this stuck with him.

Years later, when Ankrom moved to downtown Los Angeles, he was driving on the same stretch of freeway where he’d gotten lost before. He looked up at the big green rectangular sign suspended above and realized why he missed the exit all those years ago: The sign was not adequately marked.

The I-5 exit wasn’t indicated on the green overhead sign. It was clear to Ankrom that the California Department of Transportation (known as Caltrans) had made a mistake.

Since he was an artist and sign painter, Ankrom decided to make the I-5 North shield himself. He also decided that he would take it upon himself to install it above the 110 freeway.

He would call it an act of “guerrilla public service.”

Ankrom started by studying L.A. freeway signs and holding up Pantone swatches to perfectly match the paint color. He dangled over bridges to measure the exact dimensions of other signs

Most importantly, Ankrom consulted the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which provides “uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California.”

Ankrom wanted his sign to be built to Caltrans’ exact specifications, which included designs able to be read by motorists traveling at high speeds. He copied the height and thickness of existing interstate shields, copied their exact typeface, and even sprayed his sign with a thin glaze overspray of gray house paint so that it wouldn’t look too new.

If he was successful, no one would know that the signs weren’t put up by Caltrans.

As a finishing touch, Ankrom signed his name on the back with a black marker, like a painter signing a canvas.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/02/11/guerrilla_public_service_on_99_invisible_richard_ankrom_replaced_a_los_angeles.html