I have realized that traffic engineers consider bikes to be small, two-wheeled cars.
Only then do the high-speed weaves and lack of protection make *any* sense.
It works for cars, so why not bikes?
(From the rendering of the diverging diamond interchange set to be installed in Solano County.)
Only then do the high-speed weaves and lack of protection make *any* sense.
It works for cars, so why not bikes?
(From the rendering of the diverging diamond interchange set to be installed in Solano County.)
1 / 3
Comments
Those are not essential parts of the DDI.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SwMTSN1J8KzDTYy36
It's "have a bus cross two lanes of traffic and a bike lane where bikers have to also weave in and out of high speed traffic".
There's no world in which this should be the compromise.
It would be minor to add the small amount of concrete work for sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus stops
Athletic bicycler
Casual pedaller
I’m not convinced we need a 4th layer of speed hierarchy, but the lycra speedster can happily mix with the cars (and sometimes trucks on the motorway, which still bemuses me)
If this is what we're designing *today*, we are so cooked.
A year round commuter following that paint would be lucky to make six months before a near miss.
If malice were truly the issue, then the goal would be changing engineers hearts rather than their design guides.
https://bsky.app/profile/isabellachu.bsky.social/post/3lbpls5e2d22c
Malice? No.
The median engineer is a person allergic to critical thinking, singlemindedly dedicated to the tenets of their profession's ideology, i.e. the pursuit of congestion free driving.
Everything is in service of that, no matter the human cost.
And yes, at times in history the cruelty was the point (see the slum clearances of the 60s), but now it's all so much dumber than that.
And as long as policymakers allow them to design a paint-only bike lane and check a box saying "bikes were accommodated," that is all they will do.
Intentionally pursuing dangerous and harmful practices to satisfy an ideology that prioritizes increasing VMT over actual societal benefit is evil, it is bad, it is malicious. The fact that it is socially acceptable or normal doesn't absolve professionals of their choices.
You are arguing by assertion, which is not an argument. Convince me they intend to kill bicyclists.
Engineers are solvers of defined problems within constraints and requirements. Perhaps this design is an exquisite solution to the defined problem and requirements.
This illustrates a lack of consideration for bikes in the problem definition and requirements.
-80-90% of a pop will bike
-It’s our 1st choice if we can.
-This lane works for 1% of the population because of fear; how sensitive our amygdala is to fear.
Roger Geller Portland study:
or 8% (extreme sports types— fit and brave);
or 80-90% of us - children, seniors, ADA. And then build accordingly.
A zone - safe for children to bike (80%)
B zone - cars move and perfectly engineered bike lanes
C zone - for fast cars with protected bike lanes but not meant for children - 8%
We can add a US only D zone - Highway/Bike lanes - 1%
That is not the case.
Please consider that these are the folks who for decades have truly believed, despite their supposed expertise in this field, that "just one more lane will fix it".
There's a similar joke among civils, that traffic engineers can't handle any of the other (tougher) civil disciplines.
There is some truth to be found in the humor.
There's a highway interchange not far from where I live that was supposed to be a pair of roundabouts but was changed to a diverging diamond & it is awful. Who on earth would believe that forcing drivers to drive on the wrong side of the road is in any way safer?!
The purpose of DDI's is to reduce congestion, and they are more dangerous for people outside of cars.
When I'm in downtown Los Altos I just take the lane, because there are stop signs every corner.
(even if it's only very local)
- pointing out the obvious
- pointing to decades of data
- pointing to international best practices
- pointing to the civil engineers code of conduct
- $Bns in funding
- crying
- begging
- faces of dead loved ones
In all earnestness, I’m out of ideas. Suggestions?
As someone who works with these people a lot, it's just an absolute incuriousness and ideological commitment to "congestion relief," which bike infrastructure is often seen as being at odds with.
Our system results in 10s of thousands of *drivers* killed every year. This is not through malice, but because congestion relief is more important than saving lives, regardless of their travel mode.
The term "malice" implies intent, which I disagree is present here.
You think traffic engineers are *trying* to make climate change worse? Or that their actions simply have that result?
They have a set of values that electeds must be accustomed to calling out: safety, cost, speed, car volume. It’s a cultural shift but I think they can get it!