I’m Dutch and those ““painted”” and “sharrow”" wouldn’t even count as bicycle lanes. You’re surrounded by cars on both sides, there’s no clear markings it’s for bicycles, nothing nada.
If I were an urban designer/mayor I’d fire whoever thought it’d be a good idea to build it that way.
In my view, these would be requirements:
Painted:
Only bicyclists allowed.
Only if the car lanes are ≤30 km/hr
Two car lanes max on the road.
Not at corners with bad visibility (there it should be protected)
Lane must clearly be marked with a 🚲 symbol
Lane must be painted differently than the car lane
On at least one side of the lane, a mainwalk should be present. No car lane there.
Preferably, if there is a car lane on one side, it should be for public transit only.
Protected:
All of the above.
Both sides of the bikelane must be separate from the car lane, if any. Both sides must provide either a hedge, raised plant area, raised ‘border’, raised fence, and/or mainwalk. If only a raised ‘border’, then cars must not drive faster than 30 km/h.
I don’t think you mean this do you? Or do you really think there shouldn’t be any kind of bike path when the speed limit is greater than 30 km/h, or the road has more than 2 lanes?
Not sure if they edited their comment, but after “all of the above” they specify the 30kph as “if it’s only a raised border” and not a full size wall/barrier.
Side note: Honestly, slapping a 2-3in stepped concrete block and keeping the cycling lane raised to match that step would go a long way in keeping people off it. People don’t like driving on cracks, they’ll avoid a large contrasting colored step like the plague
What @EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone said, goes. But as for the amount of lanes, I do think I overlooked that one, so I edited my comment just now. I do think it’s worth in general to reduce the amount of car lanes (given that induced demand’s a thing).
Still, for protected bike lanes that are fully separate from car lanes, by a strong barrier (not just an elevation), I think you could do with 4, maybe 6 lanes. More would be dangerous for all, though.
We also have ‘bicycle main pathes’ where car drivers are ‘guests’. That is, cars must drive behind bicyclists and not overtake them. They generally are in 30 km/hr zones, and the width of 2 car lanes (so about 7 m). Sidewalks are also present there, of course.
Do that in a city that doesn’t care about bicycles, and the plants will be trimmed literally never.
I’ve seen it too often. You get one person to install a bike lane. It’s a major win. But the city doesn’t consider it real infrastructure, so they just ignore it and never maintain it.
I’m Dutch and those ““painted”” and “sharrow”" wouldn’t even count as bicycle lanes. You’re surrounded by cars on both sides, there’s no clear markings it’s for bicycles, nothing nada.
If I were an urban designer/mayor I’d fire whoever thought it’d be a good idea to build it that way.
In my view, these would be requirements:
Painted:
Protected:
I don’t think you mean this do you? Or do you really think there shouldn’t be any kind of bike path when the speed limit is greater than 30 km/h, or the road has more than 2 lanes?
Not sure if they edited their comment, but after “all of the above” they specify the 30kph as “if it’s only a raised border” and not a full size wall/barrier.
Side note: Honestly, slapping a 2-3in stepped concrete block and keeping the cycling lane raised to match that step would go a long way in keeping people off it. People don’t like driving on cracks, they’ll avoid a large contrasting colored step like the plague
What @EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone said, goes. But as for the amount of lanes, I do think I overlooked that one, so I edited my comment just now. I do think it’s worth in general to reduce the amount of car lanes (given that induced demand’s a thing).
Still, for protected bike lanes that are fully separate from car lanes, by a strong barrier (not just an elevation), I think you could do with 4, maybe 6 lanes. More would be dangerous for all, though.
We also have ‘bicycle main pathes’ where car drivers are ‘guests’. That is, cars must drive behind bicyclists and not overtake them. They generally are in 30 km/hr zones, and the width of 2 car lanes (so about 7 m). Sidewalks are also present there, of course.
Problem with the plants is that eventually they become a hazard for bicycles. Best not to put something there that requires weekely maintenance
You can have slow-growing hedges at a slight distance (~0.5 m to 1 m) from the path, or the plants could be in boxes.
Something like this is also possible:
The hedges typically don’t really require weekly maintenance - once every few months suffices.
Alternatively, trees could be used, with grass and flowers inbetween.
Do that in a city that doesn’t care about bicycles, and the plants will be trimmed literally never.
I’ve seen it too often. You get one person to install a bike lane. It’s a major win. But the city doesn’t consider it real infrastructure, so they just ignore it and never maintain it.