|
Good article on the obsession with "peak hours" leading to worse streets http://streets.mn/2015/12/10/the-injustice-of-peak-hour-myopia/ He's also got a good article on "4 lane death roads" http://streets.mn/2014/10/28/four-lane-death-roads-should-be-illegal/ I know as a driver I HATE driving on these 4 lane urban roads. I'm constantly having to change lanes to avoid people turning left, but I can't stick to the right lane because of cyclists and stopping buses and such. In the few cases where they've changed the 4 lane death road into a 3 lane road with bike lanes or bus pull-ins it's been so much nicer for all users.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:People get used to new infrastructure pretty quickly and it's worth some growing pains if the new style is objectively far safer in every way. The space for a turning car to wait is good for traffic flow but the main thing is that it presents the crossing at more of a 90 degree angle so the driver can see what they are driving into, rather turn turning right blindly. Crosswalks right next to the intersection have been the norm here forever but I still get nearly driven into by people turning all the time. Setting things back puts the crossing in front of the driver rather than to the right. I wouldn't want to be the engineer that designs an intersection that kills someone in the name of 'growing pains' while Americans learn that they have to watch out for cyclists in spaces they aren't expecting. It's an absolutely enormous risk to put down lines on a plan and say "The way that literally all other US cities and US guidelines are doing it wrong, I know the right way, check this poo poo out". Particularly when the concepts are contrary to the published design standards that people are going to testify about when you get sued. If you can come up with a method that can transition a city from current bike lane design/culture into the way the Netherlands does it gradually, and bring along the City's DOT who want to follow published guidelines from other transportation officials, you could make a poo poo-ton of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
You forgot the part about waving a magic wand that makes your elected officials want any part of a bike friendly infrastructure, when their constituents who are just fine solo riding SUVs would scream bloody murder about wasting precious tax dollars on some Lycra clad tree hugger who wants to save the world on your dime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Devor posted:I wouldn't want to be the engineer that designs an intersection that kills someone in the name of 'growing pains' while Americans learn that they have to watch out for cyclists in spaces they aren't expecting. quote:I wouldn't want to be the engineer that designs an intersection that kills someone in the name of 'following established convention' when I know the standard is blatantly unsafe. Like, do the standards organizations really put out manuals that include designs that have never been tried in the whole country?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Speaking of leftist-thirdworldist infrastructural solutions being adopted in the US: roundabouts seem to be coming on strong in a decent number of places.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Speaking of leftist-thirdworldist infrastructural solutions being adopted in the US: roundabouts seem to be coming on strong in a decent number of places. Indeed! Now we're just waiting for drivers to figure out how to drive on them. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Indeed! Now we're just waiting for drivers to figure out how to drive on them. To be fair, roundabouts with multiple lanes are not intuitive and they weren't covered on my driving test. Also about half the small roundabouts I see have stop signs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
They were covered on my driving test and they still suck. In reality no one does that "stick to the inner lane for half the circle when making a left then move over to the right lane" thing, they just stay in the outer lane. Which honestly makes more sense because using a multi lane roundabout as it is intended will either make you miss your exit or have a accident, especially in heavy traffic. For most people signaling on a one lane roundabout is already too much to ask. Luckily almost all of them have been phased out here and replaced with either 1 lane roundabouts or turbo roundabouts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
[Ask] me about all the three, or even four-lane roundabouts in the Gulf states  A solid wall of overweight dump trucks on the right, blacked out SUVs in the middle, and dudes in their first ever banger flying in from the left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Cute video on "jaywalking" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s It still boils my blood any time (see: every time) a pedestrian is hit by a car people instantly go to the victim blaming. Cars are the intruders on streets, not humans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
"Intruders" is some really stupid framing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Either way you can kill someone. Plus, for the most part protected bike lanes/intersections themselves are unknown to most people in the states, rare as they are, at some point someone has to be the guinea pig who tries something new, otherwise you'd never progress. Protected bike lanes (aka cycle tracks), and their treatments at intersections, are addressed in FHWA publications, among others. I'm saying that if you're going to do cycle tracks in the US, you would follow standards developed in the US. You are correct that there has to be a first time for everything - and typically you would go through a Pilot Project process (if you're using pavement markings or other traffic control devices that would otherwise violated the MUTCD), which includes a ton of coordination with FHWA, and documenting the hell out of everything and examining your results. It's a huge commitment from a DOT, and unlikely to be done to try to answer a problem that they don't see as a problem currently. Protected bike lanes are being installed, and generally having success using US standards. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page10.cfm
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Either way you can kill someone. Plus, for the most part protected bike lanes/intersections themselves are unknown to most people in the states, rare as they are, at some point someone has to be the guinea pig who tries something new, otherwise you'd never progress. The basic point being that if you have multiple choices that will all potentially have problems that you'll be blamed for, picking the one that's "industry standard" is usually the safer bet for job security even if it's not the best. It sucks but it's true in a lot of cases and makes it really hard to do something new even if it's better. Baronjutter posted:It still boils my blood any time (see: every time) a pedestrian is hit by a car people instantly go to the victim blaming. Cars are the intruders on streets, not humans. If you're jaywalking and get hit by a car, it probably was mostly if not entirely your own fault. Cars can't stop on a dime and on the sort of streets that pedestrians tend to cross usually don't have a lot of room to maneuver around a squishy obstacle that suddenly appears in your path.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Is it "victim blaming" to blame a driver who runs a red light and gets creamed by a truck? Or goes around the gates and gets hit by a train? If you're such a bad driver that you don't understand the concepts of the foot-operated brake and the steering wheel you shouldn't be allowed to operate a 1 ton piece of machinery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:If you're such a bad driver that you don't understand the concepts of the foot-operated brake and the steering wheel you shouldn't be allowed to operate a 1 ton piece of machinery. This is just a poo poo post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It still boils my blood any time (see: every time) a pedestrian is hit by a car people instantly go to the victim blaming. Cars are the intruders on streets, not humans. Once upon a time when the first automobiles were released, they may have been the intruder. That was many years ago, however, and things have changed. If you get hit because you were jaywalking or jogging in an area with no shoulder and bad visibility, well. That's your fault and you shouldn't have been doing that. The streets belong to cars now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Khizan posted:Once upon a time when the first automobiles were released, they may have been the intruder. That was many years ago, however, and things have changed. If you get hit because you were jaywalking or jogging in an area with no shoulder and bad visibility, well. That's your fault and you shouldn't have been doing that. The streets belong to cars now. I was mostly referring to people hit at actual crosswalks still getting victim-blamed. "well just because you had a walk signal you still have to look!" you hear every time. Also, the streets belong to cars only in some places. They've been successfully taken back in many places, with great results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:This is just a poo poo post. I know, next thing he's going to say is that we shouldn't drive drunk!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
In some places (cough)Netherlands(cough) the law basically boils down to a rule that makes the person controlling the more protected vehicle (e.g. car is more protected than moped) guilty, or at least responsible for insurance costs, unless proven innocent. It does cause car drivers to drive more carefully, because any accident does hurt them legally on top of everything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I was mostly referring to people hit at actual crosswalks still getting victim-blamed. "well just because you had a walk signal you still have to look!" you hear every time. You do still have to look. The walk signal just says that you have the right of way, it's not a covenant with God guaranteeing safe passage and it's not a promise that the driver won't gently caress up. If I leave my gun on the table and you gently caress around with it and shoot yourself accidentally, we're both at fault. I shouldn't have left it out and you shouldn't have hosed around with it. Similarly, the driver shouldn't have run the red light/stop sign/whatever, and the pedestrian should have looked first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
If you are driving around in a location with poor visibility and little room for maneuvre, your responsibility as a driver is to adapt to the driving conditions, slow down, and be careful, not assume the road is going to be magically clear and so you can just drive around with your eyes shut.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I was mostly referring to people hit at actual crosswalks still getting victim-blamed. "well just because you had a walk signal you still have to look!" you hear every time. Well then that's a weird thing to say in response to someone talking about jaywalking and in a post with a video about jaywalking? You cannot jaywalk in a crosswalk. Also some places more like nearly all places. And many of the places that road areas don't belong to cars instead belong to bikes or trains or trams or buses!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If you are driving around in a location with poor visibility and little room for maneuvre, your responsibility as a driver is to adapt to the driving conditions, slow down, and be careful, not assume the road is going to be magically clear and so you can just drive around with your eyes shut. Agreed. However, it's also the responsibility of a pedestrian/biker/etc to wear reflective gear, put lights on their bike/person, and generally work to attain a state of high visibility. I can see "dude in a reflective vest with a flashing light on his bike/belt" from a half a mile away, even with oncoming traffic and headlights shining in my face. "Dude jogging on the inside edge of the shoulder wearing a blue tracksuit" is the guy who's gonna get hit. Both parties have a responsibility to help avoid accidents, and accidents can result from loving up on either side. fishmech posted:You cannot jaywalk in a crosswalk. Khizan fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Khizan posted:Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:This is just a poo poo post. Sorry you ain't figured out hand-eye coordination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:In some places (cough)Netherlands(cough) the law basically boils down to a rule that makes the person controlling the more protected vehicle (e.g. car is more protected than moped) guilty, or at least responsible for insurance costs, unless proven innocent. This seems intuitive to me. An errant car can do a lot more harm than an errant pedestrian, so it makes sense to me that the driver of a car would be held to a higher standard of safety than a pedestrian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
How do most state DOTs in the western US and western Canada mitigate some of the avalanche risk along the mountain passes and roads? Create a controlled avalanche in an area by firing a howitzer into the side of a mountain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_BPcqIL0KY
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Pedestrian use of roads is such an after thought where I grew up that I didn't even know jaywalking was illegal. That's just how you crossed the street.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Jaywalking isn't illegal in a ton of places, it's merely a bad idea if a street's busy. I don't think there's even a single state where every area within it has jaywalking illegal, but maybe a tiny state like Rhode Island does. And in a lot of places it's practically meaningless: Boston, Massachusetts and most of the nearby towns and cities have the punishment for jaywalking set at $1.00. And if you get caught jaywalking 4 or more times in a single year, the fine ups to a whole $2 for that and each subsequent offense til the next year starts. Absolutely no potential for jailtime or anything,
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Jaywalking laws basically exist for two reasons. 1. To help establish fault in an accident. 2. To give cops PC to stop people. The fines should be small to non-existant, esp. as the guy stopped is never the rich dude in the suit for reason number 2. Enforcement and likelyhood of being caught, nit punishment deter petty (and often serious) crime. Also, lol jail for jaywalking. That would be the biggest waste of taxpayer money since in iraq war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Crosswalks right next to the intersection have been the norm here forever but I still get nearly driven into by people turning all the time. Setting things back puts the crossing in front of the driver rather than to the right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Khizan posted:You do still have to look. I, too, think that crossing an intersection as a pedestrian is equivalent to "loving around with" a loaded firearm. Khizan posted:However, it's also the responsibility of a pedestrian/biker/etc to wear reflective gear, put lights on their bike/person, and generally work to attain a state of high visibility. I can see "dude in a reflective vest with a flashing light on his bike/belt" from a half a mile away, even with oncoming traffic and headlights shining in my face. "Dude jogging on the inside edge of the shoulder wearing a blue tracksuit" is the guy who's gonna get hit. I use lights and reflectors on my bike because, in North America, I am forced to act like and share space with motor vehicles most of the time. In the Netherlands, lights on bicycles are barely a thing, and special clothing definitely not. Expecting all pedestrians to wear lights and reflectors at night is pretty ludicrous, though, even in North America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
To get away from D&D and onto something (maybe) less contentious, do any of the Florida traffic engineers have any idea of the state's long-term plans for dealing with tidal flooding of roads?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Seems stupid to not have a light when biking at night if you'll at any point be somewhere with poor/no street lighting. Not for "someone might hit you" reasons but for seeing things ahead of you reasons. Especially these days when an LED practically as bright as motorcycle headlights used to be can be had dirt cheap, and run for weeks on a easy to recharge battery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
My dutch bike had peddle powered lights that were noisy as hell and slowed the bike down but everything's flat and chill so no big deal. I can't find it but there was like a 1930's comic with a pedestrian totally covered in lamps and flags and and holding a horn trying to cross the street and it was taking the piss out of the first suggestions by authorities of putting more safety onus on the pedestrian to "make them selves visible" rather than cars to drive slow enough that they have time to stop for unexpected (or totally expected and legal) hazards. Already back then they knew what was up. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:To get away from D&D and onto something (maybe) less contentious, do any of the Florida traffic engineers have any idea of the state's long-term plans for dealing with tidal flooding of roads? Considering that large chunks of the Florida government wants to ignore climate change/rising sea levels, I think the part that does have to deal with it or wants to plan ahead has "cry tears of frustration into alcoholic beverage of choice" penned into their calendars at least once a week for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I, too, think that crossing an intersection as a pedestrian is equivalent to "loving around with" a loaded firearm. Quite frankly, if I'm going to share the road with cars at nighy, I'd like to at least be as visible as a motorcycle and those guys get hit all the time. One thing MVs have that most bikes don't have are lights that are visible from the sides, that is the reason for the reflectors. Well designed lights do, but most people buy the cheapest poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
nm posted:Most dutch bikes have dyno lights, I think? Germany is downright anal about bike lights, which is why all the best bike light stuff comes from thete. Yeah, dyno lights was what I meant by "barely a thing". And I also meant the same thing about sharing roads with cars at night. In the Netherlands, people don't care much about lights and definitely don't care about reflectors (or helmets) because, barring streets with driveway-speed limits, they aren't sharing the roads with cars at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
To be willing to put up with the extra pedaling effort of dyno lights, versus just using disposable or rechargeable but non pedal connected lights... that seems like the opposite of "barely a thing". Maybe you meant something completely different from the way people usually use "barely a thing" but as it stands it's pretty self-contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
The dynamo is optional of course, you deploy it or retract it at will. So people riding at night generally don't even bother deploying it, only in those rare cases where you're riding mixed with full speed traffic, which is again super rare. Usually you're zipping down little 1-lane limited access residential streets that are well lit and your bell is much more useful than your light because you're mostly warning peds in front of you. Or you're on a more major street that has totally protected bike paths and signals and all places where you can possibly conflict with other traffic is very well lit and there's generally a bunch of other bikes with you as well. A lot of bikes have the dynamo/lights built in so it's not something that can be stolen. A nice LED can get pinched pretty easily. That said when I was riding at night in NL I'd say about 50% of people were "running dark" and then it was 50/50 dynamo/LED for the half that were lit up in some way. Really depends on the situation. When you're riding amongst a huge crowd of bikes in an urban area a light isn't really going to do much more for you. If I was riding alone at night in a more rural area I'd want a light, both to better see where I'm going and just generally make my self more visible. I'd be most worried about getting hit by another bike rather than a car though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:08
|
|