You are not logged in.
Many critics of bike lanes say that there's nothing to prevent a car from crossing a line of paint into the bike lane. I think they're missing the point that the line helps motorists understand where they are and are not supposed to drive. But in any event, here's a bike lane divider that would make it more likely that drivers would stay in their own lane:
Offline
Of course, if a cyclist needs to change lanes to make a left turn or something and doesn't consider those things, they're likely to cause an immediate crash.
Offline
That's the burning question, isn't it? The dividers help in some ways, but hurt in others. So overall, are they more good than bad? I don't know. I just know that it's an answer to the cyclists who say that bike lanes are stupid because cars can easily pass a painted line. (Of course they don't like the answer anyway. Our most prolific bike lane critic immediately wrote to me to complain about the same things you mentioned: inability to make a left turn, and easier to self-crash. While that's true, it's also kind of predictable, in that when their objections are answered they complain anyway. Me, I like bike lanes. They're not a panacea, but I like having them better than not having them.)
Offline
Of course, if a cyclist needs to change lanes to make a left turn or something and doesn't consider those things, they're likely to cause an immediate crash.
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entr … act-begins Compare the "precast curbs" for 3rd St. Much more likely to cause a bicyclist to crash than to prevent an inattentive driver from plowing up and over it. And the city seems to be concerned more with cost per foot than crashes per 10,000 trips.
Offline
They have those type of dividers in DC, and from what I understand, they don't really prevent cars from crossing into the bike lanes. Read about it.
Offline
They have those type of dividers in DC, and from what I understand, they don't really prevent cars from crossing into the bike lanes. Read about it.
Of course they don't. Like the flexible pylons we see in other places, the zebras are barriers that can easily spill a bicyclist, which could be fatal or bone-breaking, while they are only a deterrent to motorist movements, without threatening damage to the vehicle. They are psychological barriers, not physical ones; sort of "enhanced striping" you might say.
"Their soft edges are easy on both bicycle and car tires," the article says, since the writer fails to understand that damage to bicycle tires is the least thing to worry about when a tire brushes up against one. Are the Austin 3rd St. plastic barriers any different functionally? Note Barton Springs Blvd's pylons. They were installed; they got broken; they were removed; they were replaced with stiffer ones; many of the stiffer ones were broken within days (and some of those no longer have reflective material on what remains). At what cost? The stripes alone are sufficient for any safety benefit hoped for and not having the pylons would allow drivers to merge toward the curb before turning right--as is usually required by law--instead of making 90-degree turns from the left. Where a cyclist has to deal with cross traffic and turning traffic at intersections and curb cuts, and where a cyclist might want to move to the left to turn or to avoid something in the road, removing the barriers makes a marked safety improvement.
Offline
[ Generated in 0.017 seconds, 10 queries executed - Memory usage: 542.42 KiB (Peak: 543.05 KiB) ]