Liste des Groupes | Revenir à rb tech |
On 6/27/2024 9:56 PM, John B. wrote:>On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:51:38 -0400, Frank KrygowskiAll of which seems to emphasize my rule,"Don't get hit"
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>This same hazard applies to "innovative" bi-directional bike lanes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
That facility recorded over ten times the rate of car-bike crashes that
existed before it was installed.
Using the example above, you are riding down the sidewalk and you come
up to a driveway with a car, nose out apparently trying to drive onto
the road, don't you watch closely what that car is going to do?
If you're a 10 year old kid? Probably not. A kid's experience and
knowledge and probably brain development are all insufficient to let him
reliably anticipate that hazard.
>
Yet those proposing or demanding weird things like bi-directional
on-street bike paths claim that such facilities will be safe for "anyone
8 to 80". Parents as well as kids hear that propaganda - but the
facilities actually introduce new hazards and complications, as shown in
that video.
>
Claiming the cyclist failed to obey "Don't get hit" makes little sense.
That cyclist had the right of way. Are you claiming every cyclist on
that facility is supposed to come to a complete stop and - what? - wave
to the driver to get his attention?
The fact is, that bi-directional facility would never have a parallel in
the design of motoring facilities. No traffic engineer would send an
automobile "wrong way" into an intersection. It's an abuse imposed only
on bicyclists - specifically, on the bicyclists who don't know enough
about the hazard to avoid it, by using the normal traffic lane.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.