• TheImpressiveX@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Pretty sure that’s by design, so they can point and say, “See? We told you, bike lanes don’t work!”

      • TheGoldenV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        Idk about that. I can only speak to my experience, but when you combine all modes of transportation it can be difficult to arrange the intersection. There are often trade offs to be made and safety is always a priority.

        This is UK? So I’m not sure, but it looks like the side streets have a combination of one way and parking. TBH it looks similar to what we do, but they curved the bike channelization instead of making it straight and dashed like we’re starting to do in the US. Not wrong, just different I guess.

    • Zagorath@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It’s something that happens when cities insist on prioritising reducing how much it annoys car drivers over producing the best possible active transport infrastructure. They build these bidirectional bike paths down one side of the street instead of having a bike path on each side. And that inevitably means that sometimes you’re going to get this.

        • Zagorath@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          There are certain risks with it. In my advocacy I always try to push for uni-directional paths on each side of the road because of that. But honestly the safety concerns are minimal when compared to no bike path at all, or just an on-road bike lane.

          The biggest danger is people coming out of driveways or side streets failing to look both ways. It’s extra useful, therefore, to use wombat crossings across side streets, and to put small, sharp speed bumps beside the path on driveways. Here’s an example near me:

          image

          (Just ignore the stencilled white pedestrian indicator on the bicycle-path green-painted path. That’s a whole separate problem of poor inconsistent design…Especially since there’s an unpainted concrete footpath right next to it.)

          image

          But even if you don’t do that, it’s pretty damn good. It takes away all fear for 90% of the length, and just requires attentiveness from the cyclist when they approach intersections. Less than perfect, but still quite good.

          • baines@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            it is the intersections i’m specifically referring to, i feel like idiot drivers would be prone to plowing into that curved cross

            it happens to cars now with uneven lanes accross intersections, we have two of them in my city

            i do like the speedbumb idea

            • Zagorath@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              into that curved cross

              Oh right, you mean the intersection shown in the article? Yeah nah, that’s a complete non-issue. First, remember that the American “right on red” rule is widely regarded by the rest of the world, quite rightly, as utterly fucking insane. When there’s a red light, you simply cannot go.

              So that weird crossing shown, turning from the right-hand side of one road to the left-hand side of the other, is totally fine. You just design the light phasing so that there is no phase in which people can cross over each other.

          • baines@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            compared to exactly what the other guy suggested with it properly split