• Delta_V@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Bikers really need their own infrastructure that’s kept entirely apart from where cars are. Bikes and cars sharing the same road is terrifyingly unsafe for both.

    • skyfaller@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      “unsafe for both”? What is the bike going to do to the car? Scratch the paint? Get blood on the tires?

      That said, I agree that separated bike infrastructure saves lives and encourages biking by making people feel safer.

      • Dabundis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        66
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Easy enough to imagine a driver (understandably) swerving to avoid killing a cyclist and losing control of the car

        • ilikecoffee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          46
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Not to mention the psychological effects if an accident does happen… ‘Unsafe’ doesn’t have to only mean physical injury or death…

          • Dabundis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            11 months ago

            I agree. As long as there are drivers, there will be shitty drivers, so it’s worthwhile to design roads in a way that minimizes the chance that shitty driving will kill people.

      • FMT99@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s a little melodramatic. I’m 100% on the cyclist side (don’t even have a driving licence) but even I can see mixed traffic is dangerous for both.

        What driver hits a bike unexpectedly (assuming no intent) and doesn’t react in a potentially dangerous way? People crash cars trying to avoid deer even.

        • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          As someone who biked everywhere, daily, for years, I would have loved so much to have my own dedicated infrastructure, if only our own separate, Barrier-protected lane in the street.

          I’ve been to cities where they have added in lanes separate from the road, going all over town, and they’re usually packed with people using them.

          People want this kind of thing.

          • JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            In some ways, it really feels like city streets were made for people from outside the city driving in for a specific purpose, and public transit, sidewalks, and bike paths are for the people who actually live there.

            The whole previous phase of ever-widening streets/highways and paving any open ground for parking almost feels like an attempt to make the cities more like a theme park you drive to and leave at the end of the day. I’m glad things seem to be trending the other way now, with more emphasis on infrastructure I can use living here.

      • thechadwick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean I get your point, but still agree with op. Running somebody over is unsafe and nothing terrifies me more than backing up in parking lots where kids might dart out unexpectedly.

        There’s bad drivers everywhere, but I’d hazard a guess that most of them do not want to kill a cyclist either…

      • mreiner@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean, if a car doesn’t see a cyclist until the last moment, swerves to avoid it, and hits something else, the cyclist being there created a dangerous situation for the driver.

        Even just considering a driver hitting a cyclist, the driver still has to live with that outcome for the rest of their life. Unless your expectation is that the driver is a psychopath who only cares about the condition of their vehicle, which I suppose is a possibility.

        • Grass@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          My bike is a fat bike with diy motor kit. It’s really damn heavy. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s on par with a light deer now. I wouldn’t want to hit it at all but definitely not with anything smaller than an f150.

    • ShadowRam@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      Agreed.

      If a city wants to reduce cars on the road, buses/trains/subways yeah that helps a little bit.

      But make a dedicated network where it’s only pedestrians, bikes and electric vehicles under a certain speed limit. Especially if it’s covered in some way,

      There a TON of people that would absolutely prefer that over cars

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      Even if they’re separate, general-purpose lanes and bike paths and sidewalks have to cross sometimes. The biggest problem with the infrastructure pictured isn’t the bike lane itself, it’s the inadequate intersection treatment.

      In particular, the car slip lane should’ve been removed and a stop bar before the bike lane crossing should’ve been added.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, the bike lane should be raised above all of it so that bikes don’t have to stop at all.

        Great bike infrastructure is when bike riders don’t have to stop for car traffic. It should ALWAYS be the other way around, or the paths shouldn’t cross at all.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Why should cyclists be the ones who have to go up the slopes? If you’re going to do that, raise (or better yet, bury underground) the car lanes instead.

          • Haywire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I think they are saying the surface should be raised so the bike lane is level and the street passes over a speed table. This makes it evident that the street is crossing the bike lane, rather than the bike lane crossing the street. We are talking inches, not tens of feet.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s inconsistent with the “so that bikes don’t have to stop at all” part, but it would be much more reasonable than the nonsensical idea I was mocking.

    • zib@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I hate riding my bike in the street for exactly this reason. I really shouldn’t be of the mindset that every time I get on my bike could be my last.

    • Haywire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The Woodlands Development north of Houston did this very well in the first phase of development. Bike paths wound through the woods on the backside of property while streets wound through the front. This gave more street facing property while bike travel was typically shorter distances. It was really amazing. It was abandoned for more square property lines and conventional development in later phases.

    • illumrial@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Defensive scowling has helped save my life against gigantic SUVs on more than one occasion. Did you know that road monsters cannot legally pulp you without your consent?