This style of mixed car/bike lanes. Good idea? Do you approve it?

>>1033096
Are cyclists so fat now that they need more room than cars?

>>1033096
I think it's a great idea. Now, only if parking places were removed in favour of something hidden, like an underground parking.

Such roads, with wide pavements, are definitely much more pleasing to the eye.

>>1033131
Look at both lanes again.

>>1033096
That's Madrid, right? Are you from there?

I lived there in 2012. Madrid is one of the most beautiful and /n/ice cities you will ever find: best subway system in the planet, buses are just overkill comfy and modern and you have monitors indicating ETA in almost every stop.

I didn't own a bike when I lived there, though. How's it to be a cyclist there? I was thinking that since public transport is so good, you wouldn't actually need a bike and just cycle for pleasure. Is that it?

>>1033096
Seattle has nice dedicated bike/bus lanes

They work till 1. Jackasses use them in cars because rush hour and 2. Long roadniggers honk at innocent bikers out of envy

File: 021-yBmQAa5.jpg (16KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x225px

>>1033142
Then make sure there are such signs everywhere.

>>1033096
"share lanes" don't work for many reasons

best option is either protected bike lanes or whole roads where automobile use is limited to service vehicles only and the road is primarily for bikes

>>1033096
The bike-only lane should be grade-separated

>>1033139
>you have monitors indicating ETA in almost every stop.
Terrorists are a good thing?

>>1033147
Why? It's a one way street. The bike lane is going to opposite direction. It's a good way of allowing cyclists to go up roads too narrow for two-way motor traffic.
Also, speed is in km/h. Shared lane at 30km/h is perfectly reasonable and separation is stupid, impractical and dangerous at those speed limits.

At least where I live, I'm sure the cars would push the cyclists to the bike-only lane.

>>1033167
kek

>>1033194
>dangerous
?

>>1033096
If that road is for local use only and use by the residents to get their cars into the parking spots then sure but if it acts as a thoroughfare for through traffic it would be disastrous, especially with that pedestrian crossing

>>1033218
Separated bike paths drastically increases right/left hook accident frequency and severity. It is to be avoided in city traffic with frequent junctions. Segregated lanes on the actual road are much safer.

>>1033227
What in the flaming fuck are you on about and what does the zebra have to do with anything?
>>1033196
No they wouldn't. That lane is going the other direction.

>>1033240
I know that, they still would

>>1033239
>>1033194
>one-way street
Missed that. Makes sense now.

>>1033194
I prefer one way street for cars, but bikes can go in both directions. Playing chicken with cagers is fun.

>>1033096
I like this setup more than the dedicated bike paths outisde of street lanes.

>>1033096
One way car lane, two way bike lanes? Pretty bad. Why not one way bike lane as well?

>>1033239
>increases right/left hook accident frequency and severity.

So why have traffic engineers pushed for bicycle boxes at intersections? That encourages bicycles to pass on the right (left). It's better for bikes to queue up at intersections with cars. Dedicated bike lanes are better in the middle of long blocks so cars can pass them.

>>1035325
whole different situation. Advanced stop lines raises drivers awareness for cyclists, because they are visible.

Queuing up at intersections together with cars has it's draw backs.
1. You're directly in the exhaust zone
2. More conflicts with drivers and between cyclists, as cyclists speed greatly varies as well (15-30 km/h)

>>1035325
>So why have traffic engineers pushed for bicycle boxes at intersections?
Because they more than halve accident rates. What in the fuck do you think a big bicycle waiting space in the middle of the road well before the turn in front of stationary vehicles have in common with a separated path that spits out cyclists unannounced in front of moving vehicles in the middle of their turn?

Do you ever stop to think that perhaps people who study something for a living might have a better idea than what you can dream up from no data in five minutes locked in your moms basement? Your hubris is showing.

>>1035459
How do they compare to protected intersections?

>

>>1033096
I'm not a big fan of cycling infrastructure in cities. At least not if there's no immediate demand.

Public transit is always more important than bikes. Unlike bikes, public transit can cover all transit needs. You can force people to use transit instead of cars, you can't force people to ride bikes.

If a city has top-tier public transit it can reduce road space without worrying about traffic problems. And eventually bike demand will rise by itself.

It's being done the other way around: First they build bike lanes, then nobody uses them except those that were already cycling before the bike lanes, but you''ve taken away car lanes so traffic gets worse, and THEN the city MAY improve public transit to deal with traffic.

It's obvious those cycling infrastructures don't respond to demand, but to political marketing
>look how modern and progressive we are, we have bike lanes durrrrrrrrrr

while there's still loads of latent demand for public transit cities build bike lanes for cycling with almost no latent demand.

cycling is great, but bikes have never ever ever solved any traffic problems whatsoever. In fact, too much bike use becomes a minor traffic problem in itself. Nothing to worry about because no exhaust and no gridlock, but still noteworthy.

>>1033255
>>1033240
Where I live, they would as well. Cagers here will actually pull up next to cyclists and then lane switch into them to push them off the road completely>>1033240

>>1035459
>people who study something for a living might have a better idea

Yeah. The Netherlands. You don't see this kind of shit over there. They don't use cyclists as speedbumps/traffic calming devices.

>>1035455
>because they are visible.

No, they are not. Not while the light is green in that direction. Cyclists are still riding along on the right when a car might be turning.

>1. You're directly in the exhaust zone

Mu exhaust points out the side of my truck. Go watch the rolling coal videos sometime.

>2. More conflicts with drivers and between cyclists

Learn to ride with the flow of traffic. And that includes other cyclists. A few Lycra fags make traffic hell for everyone trying to run a race on city streets. And this includes people who want to commute on bicycles as well. Get in line with everyone else. Wait your turn. A mid-block dedicated cycle lane will let cars pass you without crowding you. But at intersections, get in line with cars. They will see you.

File: groningenadvancedstop.jpg (52KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x360px

>>1038256
Here's a bike box from Gröningen. Go fuck yourself with a rake. And remember next time you don't know what you're talking about - simply don't. Don't talk. Don't make shit up that sounds plausible in your head. Simply either research it or shut the fuck up.

>>1038260
>A mid-block dedicated cycle lane will let cars pass you without crowding you.
More like they let you pass cars.
Allowing cyclists to build up at the front of traffic lights is a good idea since they have a faster acceleration than other vehicles.