Re: It's more than just a 'door lane'

On 5/27/2025 12:56 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

https://nypost.com/2025/05/26/us-news/shocking-video-shows-moment-e-bike-slams-into-girl-3-in-nyc-bike-lane/

 Hmm looks to be a segregated bike lane with cars providing protection,
which seems to be a thing in the US and unwisely defended as good idea!
 Have a very short one near Hampton Court which I personally think is iffy
as! Floating bus stops yup fine, but channel me into the door zone? I’ll
pass on that thanks!
 <https://maps.app.goo.gl/rzKYeRMdEqXkmqa9A>
 Aka it’s a compromise as political will isn’t there, ie the desire to keep
parking and so on. I’m not aware of any others at least in London doesn’t
mean they don’t exist though I suspect not!

At least your example is not bidirectional. That's the "innovation" that worries me most. I'm astonished that it's become so trendy in the U.S. Not that it's the default, mind you - but it's far more common than it should be. Designers seem to have no awareness of the potential conflicts, or of the instances that generated huge increases in car-bike crashes.
While we're on the subject, I recently observed a "protected bike lane" that seemed somewhat less objectionable to me. It was on a street that looked a bit unusual, a residential collector that was very wide and had low traffic, at least in mid afternoon when I was there. One long stretch had no intersections (a bike lane hazard) and a bike lane "protected" by cars that were angle parked. At least that design removed the dooring hazard.
I rode in the main traffic lane anyway. That way I'd be free of unswept road debris, and from confusion when the bike lane eventually ended - which is often a weird complication.
--
- Frank Krygowski