Mixed Traffic
June 4, 2015 3:26 PM   Subscribe

Originally proposed to American audiences in a 2011 video, Dutch-style Protected Intersections have recently gained traction in the US as an effective means to protect cyclists and pedestrians in busy intersections. Four such intersections are under construction in the US; a similar intersection opened in Canada last year; and more are certain to follow, as protected bike lanes become commonplace in American cities.
posted by schmod (52 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite
 
My favourite thinking on bike lanes is that if it's not safe enough for an 8 year old to use, then it's not actually a bike lane. Burrard and Cornwall was a mess before, unsafe for 28 year olds, it's now sensible and friendly.
posted by Keith Talent at 3:46 PM on June 4, 2015 [11 favorites]


Bikes must prevail.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:59 PM on June 4, 2015 [7 favorites]


The big selling point I see on this is that "they take no more room than a standard intersection", which has been one of the big blockers for safer bike lanes in my city (Seattle).

I'd love to see this become the standard.
posted by dotgirl at 4:17 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]


Shared bike/bus lanes are the worst. I bike around downtown Austin to and from work, and I constantly have to navigate my lane running out; my lane turning into a turn lane; switching over with the buses; buses stopped and/or passing me on the left.

Then there's this clusterfuck at MLK and Lavaca, where the bike lane and turn lane merge, with the bike lane going on the left, between the turn lane and the centre lane.
posted by durandal at 4:20 PM on June 4, 2015 [3 favorites]


I wonder how well this would work here in Minneapolis when a snow plow needs to clear an intersection.
posted by karlshea at 4:33 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]


If you're supposed to pull forward on a bike when you get to a red light, wouldn't you then be blocking the continuous path for the cyclist with the green? As in, in that video, a cyclist coming from the South, being stopped at the NE junction while you wait for the light to change?
posted by miguelcervantes at 4:38 PM on June 4, 2015


Good. I love my bike commute, but most particularly when I'm away from cars or in a protected bike lane/intersection with bike signals. There is always some idiot who is distracted or hates bikes. I'd note a recent grand Ventura County grand jury report attributing most bicyclist fatalities to driver error.
posted by bearwife at 4:45 PM on June 4, 2015 [3 favorites]


Then there's this clusterfuck at MLK and Lavaca, where the bike lane and turn lane merge, with the bike lane going on the left, between the turn lane and the centre lane.

Agh, Oakland has that on Lake Merritt Boulevard, also on a four lane street that's kind of a local thoroughfare where drivers seem incentivized to go ~40 MPH, and you just sort of wonder whether anybody involved actually believed at any point that it was going to be a net positive for cyclist safety.
posted by invitapriore at 4:48 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


If each type of traffic has their own signal, that makes things safer already. However, I'd like to see a a pedestrian scramble (despite the rather discouraging name) at many more busy intersections.
posted by pernoctalian at 4:59 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


Then there's this clusterfuck at MLK and Lavaca, where the bike lane and turn lane merge, with the bike lane going on the left, between the turn lane and the centre lane.

The reasoning behind this kind of configuration is that drivers don't necessarily check their blind spots and cyclists don't necessarily know to/think to stop for cars turning right. So passing on the right of cars turning right can actually be quite dangerous. Usually you're supposed to pass on the left instead, and in some places it's actually the law.

It's not ideal to have cars and bikes crossing lanes either, but it's not exactly "what the fuck were those city planners thinking?"
posted by chrominance at 5:08 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]


Yeah, in my California Bay Area neighborhood, there's most often a bike lane that disappears, and then reappears before the intersection to the left of the turn lane. I actually thought this was normal, except in poorly designed cases where there's no cars going straight and you need to get on the sidewalk to press the pedestrian button.

The Dutch method is actually pretty scary, because there's a ton of drivers that on right turns only look for cross traffic, and not where their car will actually go.
posted by halifix at 5:10 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


Awesome. I really think the most exciting North American infrastructure interventions are the ones being implemented on stroads and stripmalls, not cute downtown blocks that have been human-scale since colonial times. The untenable rents surrounding almost literally anywhere that could be characterized as livable is proof that good urbanism can't just be New York, San Francisco, Montréal; it has to also be Houston, Phoenix, Charlotte. We'll be there when the last car lane on Buford Highway closes.
posted by threeants at 5:22 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


Thanks for posting this. I live in a bike hostile California suburban community that's actively removing the few bike lanes they have. It's nice to see that someone somewhere is trying to make the roads safer.

I have no connection to this author or this book, but if you like this post you might enjoy "Roads Were Not Built for Cars."
posted by cccorlew at 5:22 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


The long system for left turns kind of sucks. Left turns work best on a bicycle when you just act like a car.
posted by Ferreous at 5:36 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]


Is there a non-video explanation/diagram of these intersections and the traffic somewhere?

Most of the articles seem to link back to the same 2 or 3 videos...
posted by madajb at 5:51 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]


We'll see these in the south sometime around the next century. Sigh.
posted by photoslob at 6:14 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


madajb, the most essential ideas (if I have it right) are that 1) at a red light, bicycles traveling straight through the intersection are positioned well ahead of motor vehicles, and 2) bicycles turning right are completely separated/protected from motor vehicles turning right.

Here's a .jpg and a .pdf
posted by Guy Smiley at 6:21 PM on June 4, 2015


My city is actually doing a huge amount of improvements for bikes lately but configurations like this are hampered by how narrow the streets are around here. The example in one of those videos shows seven total lanes, two bike and five car, but we're lucky if you can squeeze three lanes into most streets around here.
posted by octothorpe at 6:22 PM on June 4, 2015


One of the neat things from China/Taiwan were the front bike areas at intersections, cut out from the right lanes. It gave bikes priority after red lights, and multiple ways to implement left turns. You could go with the straight traffic and stop at the crossing bike area. In some areas, when the left turn car light was on for a road, bikes could cut a diagonal across the intersection.

Would be hard to implement here, though. Right turns on reds are legal.
posted by halifix at 6:45 PM on June 4, 2015


By which I mean there is usually a separate right turn light.
posted by halifix at 6:45 PM on June 4, 2015


Shared bike/bus lanes are the worst. I bike around downtown Austin to and from work, and I constantly have to navigate my lane running out; my lane turning into a turn lane; switching over with the buses; buses stopped and/or passing me on the left.

Heh, yeah. When they added those high speed bus lanes I worked at like 6th and Lavaca. We were told that we should "yield to the buses" (i.e. the buses that were coming up behind us at 40 miles an hour). I have no idea how we were supposed to do this.

We should have a mefi austin bike meetup.
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:18 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


the most essential ideas (if I have it right) are that 1) at a red light, bicycles traveling straight through the intersection are positioned well ahead of motor vehicles, and 2) bicycles turning right are completely separated/protected from motor vehicles turning right.

Thanks for the links, I think I get it now.

Basically, the bikes are getting their own intersection within the car intersection.

Though, I see increased conflicts with right turning cars unless you do away with "right on red".
posted by madajb at 7:23 PM on June 4, 2015


I wonder how well this would work here in Minneapolis when a snow plow needs to clear an intersection.

I imagine that it would work just as well as any other curb. The plow would plow the car parts and a sidewalk plow would do the pedestrian area. Montreal gets a lot of snow and still stays bike friendly.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 7:50 PM on June 4, 2015


The untenable rents surrounding almost literally anywhere that could be characterized as livable is proof that good urbanism can't just be New York, San Francisco, Montréal; it has to also be Houston, Phoenix, Charlotte.

I wonder how much of the huge premium in rents in places like SF and NY are due directly to the increase in livability due to their built environment. Obviously their much more to factor in, but the fact that in SF I can bike to work in less than 15 min or walk in the same amount of time it takes to drive (traffic), is one of the primary reasons I will never leave the central city and I imagine this is huge for others too.

I was an urban planning major in college and I remember lectures/readings on the American built environment and realizing in despair that our built environment was, well, already physically built, and making Houston into something approaching San Francisco would never ever ever happen.

I'm happy to realize I was wrong.
posted by the lake is above, the water below at 7:58 PM on June 4, 2015


Also, does anybody know if there are any success stories in getting property owners in sprawl areas to see the financial benefits of increased densities, better bike/ped infrastructure, etc?
*apologies if a bit off topic.
posted by the lake is above, the water below at 8:01 PM on June 4, 2015


In Boston shared bike/turn lanes mean drivers charge right over and speed right through. I see drivers tailgating bikes and honking at them all the time. These drivers (the worst in the country by any objective statistics I've seen) can't be taught. I'm thrilled to see properly segregated bike lanes go up on a couple of streets like Cambridge, but I won't feel safe until every major street has them like what I experienced in The Hague.
posted by 1adam12 at 8:12 PM on June 4, 2015


The city I live in is about to draft their first master plan for handling bike and pedestrian transit. This kind of boggles me. Thankfully we have a very engaged and well informed advocate in the local bike advocacy/education charity. I really hope he doesn't get run over.
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:02 PM on June 4, 2015


I wonder how well this would work here in Minneapolis when a snow plow needs to clear an intersection.

We don't have to wonder; the city has consistently blocked any kind of non-removable bike barrier for this exact reason. But they do an incredible job plowing all the bike trails (often even before some major streets) so I can't complain.
posted by miyabo at 9:16 PM on June 4, 2015


Edmonton's pretty darn snowy though.
posted by miyabo at 9:17 PM on June 4, 2015


most bicyclist fatalities to driver error.

That, and the fact that it's a little, frail, fleshy, human body vs. 4000 lbs of metal at speed. I'm waiting until every bike lane in my city's safe for an 8 year old, thanks.
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:52 PM on June 4, 2015


pernoctalian: If each type of traffic has their own signal, that makes things safer already. However, I'd like to see a a pedestrian scramble (despite the rather discouraging name) at many more busy intersections.

As a pedestrian, I harbor a guilty dislike of scrambles. Guilty, because they do make things safer, but at the cost of much longer average waits for a signal. When I'm walking 20 or 30 blocks, I'm just as impatient to get where I'm going as any driver...
posted by aws17576 at 11:34 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]




As a pedestrian, I harbor a guilty dislike of scrambles. Guilty, because they do make things safer, but at the cost of much longer average waits for a signal. When I'm walking 20 or 30 blocks, I'm just as impatient to get where I'm going as any driver...

We've only got one of these in DC but I actually like it because as a pedestrian I can go two-thirds of the time no matter which direction I'm crossing; it's set up so that it the lights cycle through:

-Cross just North/South
-Cross just East/West
-Cross anywhere! Crazy party time!

And each light isn't THAT much longer so no matter what I don't feel like I've got to wait longer than usual and I can cross a much higher percentage of the time than at most stops so usually I don't have to wait at all. I really like it!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 6:52 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]


So, I think that this still has a lot of validity for protecting cyclists in protected bike lanes (cycletracks). DC recently installed a protected bike lane on M St NW, using a design similar to the NACTO reference, and it's horrible for the exact reasons outlined in the video. The right turn lane puts cyclists and drivers in each others' blind spot at the exact same moment, which is particularly perilous because the cyclist is also emerging from behind a line of parked cars at that very moment.

IMO, it would be pretty easy to try this design out on one or two of M St's intersections to see if it's any improvement. Somebody's going to die if the current design is left in place.
posted by schmod at 6:52 AM on June 5, 2015


Also, I'd unequivocally recommend urban bicycling, even if American safety standards still have lots of room to improve. Part of this is a selfish motive -- the most important variable for bicycle safety is the number of other cyclists on the road.
posted by schmod at 6:54 AM on June 5, 2015 [5 favorites]


Also, I'd unequivocally recommend urban bicycling, even if American safety standards still have lots of room to improve. Part of this is a selfish motive -- the most important variable for bicycle safety is the number of other cyclists on the road.

Yeah, me too, to an extent.

I have sort of stopped participating, locally, in discussions about bike infrastructure. It's not because I don't care, but because I'm not really mentally aligned with the people it's really important to.

You get used to riding in traffic, you get comfortable, and you learn over time where it's easiest and safest to ride. Maybe it's a false sense of comfort but I can ride in traffic on any street in austin, bike lane or no, and feel OK.

Given that, I'm not going to tell people who DON'T feel safe doing that, where or how they should put their lanes. I don't agree with a lot of the plans, but they aren't *for* me.
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:25 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


Edmonton's pretty darn snowy though.

Although it's an Edmonton-based blog, the video shows a Vancouver intersection. (And I love it! I'm a very cautious bike commuter, but had to go through this intersection recently and was surprised at how easy it was. I remembered telling people how much I HATED that intersection because of the walk from the bus stop to volunteering.)
posted by invokeuse at 8:10 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


Aha, Mrs. Pterodactyl, your pedestrian scrambles are different from the ones in Oakland! Here, the phases are:

- Cars only, north/south
- Cars only, east/west
- Pedestrians only

Of course it's usually possible to cross safely during one of the car phases, but it is technically jaywalking. There's a thicket of these crossings downtown and I often seem to get bogged down there. I think I'd like crossings set up the way you describe.
posted by aws17576 at 8:32 AM on June 5, 2015


Yeah, it's nice! It really does make it easier as a pedestrian. It's also better because when they implemented the system they \made it illegal to turn in a car at that intersection even on green which makes everything super smooth if you're walking (although potentially a pain if you're driving).
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:29 AM on June 5, 2015


It's really just a matter of 'feeling' safe. The more people feel safe, the more people bike and the more people bike, the safer you actually are. However in my experience a bike lane often just lets drivers not see you. At some point on my commute the bikes actually start outnumbering the cars, then we can take the lanes back and the cars are forced to slow to bike speeds which is actually safest for everyone. Sometimes drivers get cranky, but the fact that they chose a loud, stinky and unhealthy form transportation that's a holdover from last century is not my problem.
posted by mike_bling at 11:24 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


I was about to be all "Oakland is DOING SCRAMBLES WRONG" but then I realized that the big scramble in Shibuya is basically this, from what I remember. Seems it's an older model of scramble.
posted by chrominance at 11:27 AM on June 5, 2015


Also, I'd unequivocally recommend urban bicycling, even if American safety standards still have lots of room to improve. Part of this is a selfish motive -- the most important variable for bicycle safety is the number of other cyclists on the road.

Man, I don't know. I used to feel this way, but both the physical danger and the epistemological burden that arise out of the statistical near-certainty that the person behind the wheel of the car next to you is a bad human being who wouldn't be too broken up about being the cause of your death is just something I wouldn't wish on anybody. It's whatever for me because I came into urban cycling with a healthy loathing for humanity and an above-average disregard for my personal safety, but even given that I ended up folding and getting a car for the sake of my mental health. Bicycling sucks because your fellow citizens are mostly fuckfaces, and as much as more cyclists would lead to the creation of infrastructure to shield you from that fuckfacery, recommending urban cycling to any one person feels a lot like sending them off to war. I don't want that on my conscience.
posted by invitapriore at 2:18 PM on June 5, 2015


These 1980s-style corner-island style junctions are a definite step forward for basically anywhere that's not the Netherlands or Denmark. It's hard to discuss infrastructure with Dutch people, because they look outside and see the result of decades of rigorous scientific testing and measurement of cycling infrastructure safety, and make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I would cheer on the installation of these older designs in my neighbourhood! With that done, we could build up the diverse body of voting riders who can press on to get nicer things like simultaneous green junctions built and unraveling of modes!

By the way, if you're in the UK, check out the Ranty Highwayman's unofficial sketch of how the Protected Intersection/Simultaneous Green designs could be constructed under the current Highway Code. And if you're in London, join the London Cycling Campaign and show up at meetings and events for your borough's local group!
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:33 PM on June 5, 2015


These look cool and I'm so excited about basically anything that takes biking into account in road planning. I agree that basically, more cyclists make us all safer, because cars are looking out and generally more cautious.

I bike in Chicago daily and all year long, so I'm definitely comfortable on major streets with or without a bike lane. But I much prefer a bike lane, and on the few kind-of protected lanes we have (say, between Halsted and downtown on Kinzie), I feel more relaxed. I hear they're building a few curb-protected bike lanes somewhere, and I'm excited for it. Although I'm nervous about the distinct possibility that they will not be plowed during the winter. I haven't heard anything about plans to deal with that. Winter biking isn't FUN, but it's not that bad, but still not very mainstream.

(This all feels so distantly theoretical to me today as is seems the city picked this week to UNPAVE huge swaths of what feels like every street. I'm hopeful this means a pothole-free existence until winter, but who knows how long it will take to re-pave. Right now the bike lane outside my house is literally gravel.)
posted by jeweled accumulation at 5:57 PM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


because they look outside and see the result of decades of rigorous scientific testing and measurement of cycling infrastructure safety,
I wish that were true. Those really nice cycling lanes that are always in video's are not everywhere and there are still a lot of dangerous roads here. Often those cycling lanes make up small parts of a route. Many children have to cycle to school for over 10km each way every day, over roads that are shared with huge agricultural vehicles that sometimes are driven by maniacs (or 16 year olds who are not allowed to drive a regular car and just think it is lots of fun to go fast in a big "car", or at the very least do not understand that they should slow down and give more space to the cyclists). I had to cycle 15 km to school from age 12 and maybe one of those km's was on a dedicated bicycle lane (those roads have not changed since then). The first week at middle school we got special lessons where we learned how to deal with those big cars and trucks. I cycled to school with 2 classmates and we would ride next to each other (the roads were big enough and not main roads for cars) and police officers in cars would race and drive very close to us to scare us (because you're not allowed to ride with 3 people next to each other, no matter how big the road is). This was not a one time thing, this actually seemed policy.

Still too many cyclists die in the Netherlands. The amount of cyclists that die in accidents is about the same as the amount of people that die in car accidents. If there are solutions that are known to be safer than other solutions, without being a lot more expensive, I don’t think that falls under “perfect is the enemy of the good”, it just seems common sense to me to implement the safer solution.
posted by blub at 4:31 AM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


So blub, yes, that's another difficulty in this topic. My Dutch friends hear London touting how it wants to be more like Amsterdam and they laugh heartily. Copying Amsterdam (or worse, Utrecht) is to scrape the bottom of the barrel, infrastructure-wise. And yet it's an enormous step up from a British point of view.

Hembrow is very curmudgeonly in his aspect, which I don't think helps sell his ideas much. He's chosen Assen/Groeningen as his home and that seems to be a locus for some good infrastructure (or maybe he's just better at cherry-picking than most). When we cheer in London about finally getting a new route as a beachhead for future lobbying, all he comes up with is "this is bad and you should feel bad". He's trying to point everyone at the best and say "STOP FAFFING AROUND AND DO STUFF LIKE THIS" but his tone is so brusque that he was trivially outpaced by an airy animation of an 80s-style junction.

Yes it just makes sense to implement the safer thing. But the powers that be must be influenced slowly and carefully, so as not to make them think that we're asking for too much, harming their power base, or the types to bite the hand that feeds us. So if a pretty video from 2011 gets them to build the 80% solution today, we should thank them and work on arguing for the 100% solution tomorrow.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:01 AM on June 6, 2015


Having been biking around in the Netherlands for the last 10 months or so, by far the best thing has been the all-way green lights reserved for bikes only, which seems to be standard now at large crossings. So, vehicle traffic has its iteration of green lights, and then all vehicle (and pedestrian) traffic is stopped for a short period while cyclists can cross and turn the intersection however they like. It takes a bit of adjustment to figure out who has priority when a lot of cyclists pour into the intersection from 4 directions at once during rush hour, but it's not all that bad.
posted by LMGM at 12:41 PM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


I see what you mean rum-soaked space hobo, and I agree. If you're comparing to London every city in the Netherlands is a paradise for cycling. It just annoys me when the Netherlands as a whole is held up as a perfect country for cyclists (not just pretty good, but absolutely wonderful), and the problems are ignored, and also when people only focus on cities, and we pretend that the countryside doesn't exist.

I’m surprised to see Groningen mentioned as an example of a great cycling city. Maybe if you're young or an avid cyclist, but I find it very chaotic. I didn't even know that in those simultaneous green crossings you were officially supposed to cross diagonally. Everyone does it, but there are no signs that say that you can cross diagonally, the simultaneous green sign has 4 straight lines, no diagonals. This situation works if everyone is a smart proficient assertive cyclist, but even in the Netherlands that's not always the case. Still, I will agree that even though it is chaotic and can be scary (especially if you’re cycling with children) it is probably rarely deadly indeed.
posted by blub at 12:45 PM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


We have a fairly new pedestrian scramble in Westwood Village, home to UCLA*. I've been using that crosswalk for 35 years and this totally freaks me out. It always feels like a scene from a cheesy sci-if movie where all the automatons go haywire.

*I think it's just either all cars go or all pedestrians go. That's the entrance to UCLA so there isn't that much northbound traffic.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:05 PM on June 6, 2015


blub, I find it fascinating that you're unsure of the rules at the simultaneous green junctions. I suspect that this is something that's covered in the coursework for the Verkeersexamen these days, and the disconnect may be generational. Still, I'd agree that this sounds like insufficient signage. I suspect they don't much mind as the fall-back behaviour isn't going to be riskier.

It's interesting that you say that "even in the Netherlands" many people are not "smart proficient assertive cyclists". The pro-Dutch-infrastructure crew here are always making the case that if we had safer roads, you wouldn't need to be a professional expert at cycling, and could just go where you want to go. You mentioned cycling with children, and that's always one of the examples we hold up to say "please build better and safer, like they have over there!"
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:38 AM on June 7, 2015


My child never had a "verkeersexamen" at school, that's not a mandatory thing here. Not all cities have those simultaneous green junctions, so I don't think those junctions are part of the exam. (Interestingly, when I looked up"verkeersexamen" a page came up that said that 22% of schools do not do the practical exam, and the most common reason is that children do not know how to cycle)

Traffic safety organisations are concerned because more children seem to get involved in accidents (numbers are still low, but of course every accident is one too many). They say one reason is that children don't cycle as much as they used to. More and more children are brought to school and sports clubs by car. My experience confirms that. When I was a kid nobody brought their kids by car (because most households had one car and sports clubs were in the afternoon when the car was with dad at work). So, now children don't get used to cycling in traffic, and according to those organisations (like VVN, the Dutch traffic safety organisation) this is problematic. So it seems like not everybody agrees that if you just build better roads that's enough. Infrastructure has gotten better over the past decade (I'm sure everyone has seen those awesome cycling highway overpass pictures), but accident rates have not gone down, sometimes even gone up (even though traffic deaths in general continue to decline). Another reason that is given for the not-declining accident rates is that in the Netherlands traditionally cycling speeds were very low, but now many people have e-bikes and speed cycling is becoming more popular. The idea is that with higher speeds you are more likely to get an accident and accidents are more likely to be severe. There's a somewhat strong push now that speed cyclists should not use the bicycle paths but the regular roads where that's an option.

I do agree with the argument that with good infrastructure you don't need to be an expert at cycling in general, and that's especially true if there's so much low hanging fruit to pluck. Some level of proficiency is still required though, and I think those simultaneous green crossings require a bit more proficiency than standard straight-on crossings. But good infrastructure is not a panacea in general. I guess you could say it is necessary but not sufficient for safety. And apparently there are differences of opinion about what the safest infrastructure is. I thought it interesting that the traffic lessons that my child got in school when they were 9-10 (made by VVN) almost read like propaganda when they argued for certain changes (they stated that current rules about priority are too confusing and a general "right always has priority" rule would be better than the mess of rules we have now, for example).

I feel like I'm coming across really complain-y here, but I do realise that compared to most countries it is in general pretty great here for cycling. I realise that I'm talking from a completely different perspective. When I was a kid there was this popular song (made again by VVN) that we learned in school that I sadly can't find on Youtube "We willen naar nul ongelukken" ("We want zero accidents"). That's still my idealistic goal. But I agree with what you said earlier that any improvement is good. Most improvements here in the Netherlands are small incremental things as well. We had a two-way cycling path that I rode on 4 times a day with big stupid obstacles in the middle (designed to keep cyclists in their lane, but of course in practice that meant that cyclists had accidents because of them ). Now half of those obstacles are away. It's still a somewhat dangerous busy path, but I'm really happy that it's less dangerous than before.
posted by blub at 7:10 AM on June 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


Oh, you know the bike lanes that disappear before an intersection, and so bikers need to cross from the bike lane at the side of the road to the left of the right turn lane? I got honked at one of those when a driver refused to slow down. And then they kept honking! I'd been checking behind myself so I saw them, but WHY!
posted by halifix at 1:21 PM on June 8, 2015


« Older F.D.A. Panel Backs a Drug to Increase Women’s Sex...   |   Omnipresent Woes Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments