Re: Let's hide the bicyclists behind parked cars. What could go wrong?

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/11/2025 4:02 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/11/2025 12:34 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/9/2025 2:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Protected" bike lane hazard lawsuit:
 
https://komonews.com/news/local/cyclist-green-lake-neighborhood-king-county-superior-court-aviv-litov-26-years-old-bike-lanes-life-altering-injuries-strittmatter-firm-configuration-tesla
 

I’m unconvinced by such designs seems asking for trouble and and attempting
to please everyone ie compromise the cycleway for car parking, I’m guessing
nice wide junction with no attempt to slow cars down let alone control it?

 
If you're talking about that particular crash, it happened at a parking
lot. "A lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court claims Aviv Litov,
26, was riding on Green Lake Drive North last June when a Tesla SUV
turned into a protected bike lane to access a parking lot."
 
So no, not a "nice wide junction." Cyclists hidden from view are at risk
of collisions at every driveway as well as every parking lot and street
intersection.

 
It very much was a big wide junction with bonus points of being on a hill
so cyclists will be traveling faster than drivers expect.
 
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/v7vuiDVNWNYNFf3TA>

 
Hmm. Looks to me like the width of access to the parking lot was
probably intended to deal with the oddball angled configuration of the lot.
 
It seems you're saying that entrances to parking lots must be
constrained to narrow widths. That's a new one! I don't remember coming
across that idea in any bike facility design manuals.
 
It seems another example of "You built what we were asking for, but it's
obviously deadly! You should have known better!"
 

If your going to build a segregated bike lane, junctions will be conflict
points, so the design needs to cater for that, this very much is a timid
design as it’s kept the parking hasn’t done any management of access etc,
the area kept clear of parking for access is comfortably wider than the
access to the parking lot, wide will increase speeds we by nature simple
creatures.

 
If by "kept clear" you mean "parking is not allowed near the driveway,"
that sort of thing is usually considered a safety benefit. When applied
to street intersections, I've heard it called "daylighting." The
rationale is that the cyclists should be visible for more than 30 feet
before the intersection. Supposedly it reduces collisions by un-hiding
the cyclists.
 

No it’s wider even than the access meaning that vehicles will be able to
drive in, without slowing as the path they take is nice bell curve.

On such places best form seems to be to narrow the access width and maybe
have the bike lane on a raised platform so vehicles have to slow down
again.

Segregated infrastructure can and does work but it needs its design not to
be compromised which this one is, mainly for the bare minimum of spare
given over so to keep multiple lanes and parking for cars, if the street is
mainly designed for the movement and parking of cars then that’s what
you’re going to get.
 
Design a street more with walking/cycling etc and the outcome changes.

 
"You built what we were asking for, but it's obviously deadly! You
should have known better!"
 
Perhaps you need to influence the people who come up with these designs.
 
 
 

I’m sure as ever they are aware of the problems with such design but will
be political decision regarding road space, and generally making it less
car centric.

Lot of this is hardly new stuff been used by various cities for years after
all.

Roger Merriman