• rollin@piefed.social
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    All of the above

    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?

    • Courtney (she/her/they) @lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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

    • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.