← Back to context

Comment by SOLAR_FIELDS

3 days ago

Cities who want to keep cars out of bike lanes should stop offering “mom says we have bike lanes at home” repainting of streets. Create a curb and raise the bike lanes. It’s the only safe solution. I understand this is not realistic in a lot of scenarios but it is basically the only way you can achieve actual safety short of cement separators at the road level, which is basically a curb anyway. There’s just no reality where a bicycle can share the road unimpeded with a motor vehicle safely. No, plastic bollards are not enough. It needs to be either raised or a barrier enough that a car sideswiping it won’t cause the barrier to fail

My experience cycling regularly in NYC: bike lanes separated by curb, stoppers, or poles are more dangerous as cars stop at their entrances/exits and I am literally trapped or cannot enter them before/after an intersection. I'm not against them in principle, but without extremely strict enforcent of laws (let's say a ticket 5% of someone's annual income and a loss of DL on a repeated offense - this stuff endangers people's lives), they are sadly counterproductive. :(

People undoubtedly said this was not realistic in many car-clogged European cities before some actually did it. “Realism” here is just a measure of the current number of votes you have for making things better.

The thing which I think would really help with bike lanes would be to standardize on placing underground utilities beneath them --- they'd be less expensive to dig up than a roadway structured for cars, and when maintenance is necessary, a cyclist can easily be diverted either onto the roadway (if staying on the bike) or to the sidewalk (if temporarily dismounting).

  • The width of a bike lane and its margins is not nearly enough space to safely trench deep enough with the equipment they already have to reach most things they need to tear roads up for. Even modest water mains can be 4ft in diameter, drainage and sewage twice that (in flood prone areas)

Or they could fine them. And increase fine for each repetition so rich can't just pay to be jerks.

  • All the fines in the world won’t save you from getting mowed down by a distracted driver on their phone. Drinking and driving has heavy fine deterrents, yet people still do it anyway. You know what stops a drunk or distracted driver from killing someone? A cement barrier

    • That's the wrong way to look at it. People still drink and drive because the deterrents aren't heavy. It's a bit tautological but if they were heavy enough then by definition they would be deterrents, but they aren't, so they aren't.

      The correct solution to this kind of problems and others is to fix the obviously broken fine system. The first fine for anything should sting and it should make anyone who gets it think twice about doing the thing that they did to get the fine. subsequent reoffenses should make it uneconomical for anyone to reoffend.

      Fine should be scaled to your income and have an escalating multiplier for reoffense within the same category of offense with a cool down period of a few years if they don't break the law.

      1 reply →

    • add to that, a class of drivers that believe two wheel vehicles have no place on public thoroughfares, openly hostile to non cars.

      1 reply →

    • > a distracted driver on their phone

      Waymos don’t get distracted. Grade separation, ticketing and increasingly favoring AVs in cities is a simpler solution than erecting physical barriers, which have the downside of making cities less walkable.

      6 replies →

>There’s just no reality where a bicycle can share the road unimpeded with a motor vehicle safely.

that was among the promises of self-driving cars. Because of ultimately superior sensor suite and reaction time they can be safer than humans, in particular they would never "not see a bicyclist", they wouldn't cut impatiently, etc. . Instead that superiority is used these days to drive more "efficiently", to beat/cut the human drivers in a way not every regular human would be capable of. At least that is my anecdotal observation during the last several months (and these several months experience totally differs from the more than 15 years of having Waymo cars around in MV when they were i'd say among the safest to be around)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46199294

From the more recent - saw again a Waymo cutting like a ninja into a left turn lane at the same intersection as before, and at the other intersection a Waymo car missing the point to get in line for the right turn behind several cars already waiting in line in the bike lane, drives forward on green and makes the right turn as the second layer of the cake in parallel with those cars from the bike lane.

I think all that aggressiveness/"efficiency" comes as a result of the push to increase the customer satisfaction. All these years before driving actual passengers, Waymo (and i guess others) could allow themselves to be the safest, most courteous drivers on the road. Not anymore as such "inefficient" granma-style driving obviously would conflict with the passengers satisfaction.

  • Maybe in 40 years or so everyone will use self driving vehicles that work perfectly and this will be a solved problem. We should probably do something about the problem in the meantime though

Curbed bike lanes create a huge hazard when cars going the same direction turn right. Neither the bike nor the car has good visibility of the other, very likely the car turns into the bike or the bike doesn’t stop and rides into the turning car.

I've seen people park in these curbed bike lanes too, completely blocking it off.

  • ive also seen cyclists having to squeeze by, and are forced to offer up against the side of the blocking vehicle to avoid being hit, leaving pinstripes bumper to bumper.

  • Seems like they need to fenced off. Would also prevent jaywalking so in general increase safety of pedestrians forcing them to cross only at intersections.

Bike lanes on a curb are significantly more dangerous due to turning car drivers often not seeing them (due to parked cars in the way) or interpreting them as “just a sidewalk” and not properly looking for cyclists.

  • Not a real problem, as proven by many countries where cycling is encouraged and supported

    • The global consensus on which type is safer is not nearly as clear as you confidently make it out to be.

      A lot of things need to be true for a curbside bike path to be safer than a roadside one, most importantly protection against dooring and ensuring visibility at intersections. If these measures are not taken, the result is often less safe.

    • It’s a real problem, just not an unsolvable one. But it will take a lot of awareness campaigns and time.

    • It definitely is a real problem, although I cannot say with certainty whether it's a significant enough problem to make curbside lanes worse than roadway lanes.

> There’s just no reality where a bicycle can share the road unimpeded with a motor vehicle safely.

Logically equivalent:

> There’s just no reality where a motor vehicle can share the road unimpeded with a bicycle safely.

... or a pedestrian. Those motor vehicles sure are a menace!

Bike lanes with curbs aren’t great. On garbage days trash cans often get parked in the bike lane and cyclists have no way of going around since the curb block their way. I’m perfectly comfortable with just lines for bike lanes.

  • I’ll take my chances with the trash can over the SUV that can’t even see me because it’s so lifted and that will kill me instantly if the driver isn’t paying attention. At least with the trash can I have a chance

  • You might be, but cycling adoption is strongly linked to safer riding conditions. Protected bike lanes are demonstrably safer. So perhaps you should be more concerned about people blocking roadways with their garbage?