Slashdot Mirror


Surprising Result of NYC Bike Lanes: Faster Traffic for Cars

A report at vox.com says that the implementation of bike lanes in traffic-heavy New York City has one possibly non-intuitive result: car traffic was sped up as a result. The bike lanes have caused the lanes for cars to be narrowed, but as a result of the street redesign to accomodate bikes, one big change has especially helped to keep cars moving forward more steadily: Although narrower streets can slow traffic, that doesn't seem to have happened here — perhaps because traffic in this area was crawling at around 11 miles per hour to begin with. Instead, the narrower lanes were capable of handling just as much traffic, and one major improvement to intersection design helped them handle more, while also letting bikes travel more safely. This improvement was something called a pocket lane for left-hand turns: a devoted turning lane at most intersections that takes the place of the parking lane, which gets cars out of the way of moving traffic when they're making a left.

213 comments

  1. Bikes lanes are nice by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But it sounds like optimizing left turns is what actually improved traffic.

    1. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. It looks like the change that actually helped was that, near to intersections, they replaced a lane used for parking with a left turn lane. I don't know why anyone would be surprised that adding a traffic lane would help improve traffic flow.

      The only thing that the bike lanes apparently have to do with it is that adding bike lanes was the reason why they decided to change the lane layout.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by the.o.ster.66 · · Score: 1

      fluid dynamics baby!

    3. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm betting the bike lanes helped a lot also. Not having to follow some guy dribbling down the road at half the speed limit is nice.

    4. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The addition of the left turn lane was possible only because the lane width had been reduced due to the bike lane. The thing to take home from this is that current road layouts are not optimal, and rethinking them offers improvement opportunities. That the improvements can be counter-intuitive should encourage more research into alternative layouts: If you reject change too easily, you won't find a great solution. Who would have agreed to narrower lanes if it had not been necessary in order to have a bike lane?

    5. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Average speed was 11mph to begin with. The bikes, able to weave between traffic at 30mph for a biker in shape, were not the limiting factor.

      I thought it was going to be more like what other cities that have implemented bike lanes and routes have seen- fewer people in cars on the road.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds? Nobody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything. That would be suicidal and require fantastically exceptional fitness, not just "being in shape". Most people never do more than 25mph, don't do more than 20mph on a regular basis and do less than 15mph on average - and they're still faster than a car in a crowded city.

    7. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds? Nobody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything. That would be suicidal and require fantastically exceptional fitness, not just "being in shape". Most people never do more than 25mph, don't do more than 20mph on a regular basis and do less than 15mph on average - and they're still faster than a car in a crowded city.

      Even out in the suburbs they don't go nearly that fast.

    8. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Duh. They *added a left turn lane*, which means that they *added another lane*.

      News Flash - when you add a lane, traffics moves faster.

    9. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      No, they didn't. The total number of lanes declined. In essence, they went from having four lanes, with no dedicated turn lane, to three lanes for most of the street, expanding to four (with one being a dedicated turn lane) at every other intersection. So, for the bulk of the street, the number of lanes declined.

    10. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

      I do, but only when I've got a long stretch of road with no obstacles (a downward slope also helps).

    11. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds?

      He's going downhill, both ways

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by wisnoskij · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But getting rid of those bikers, which honestly do not belong on the road, could only of helped.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    13. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you've been trolled by Slashdot editors.

      Problem: how to increase traffic to the website.

      Solution: Post self-contradictory submissions so people are more likely to reply.

    14. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at me! I'm the exception!

    15. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bicycles honestly do belong on the road. Where else are you going to put them, on the sidewalk? There are pedestrians up there.

    16. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But getting rid of those bikers, which honestly do not belong on the road, could only of helped.

      They didn't get the cyclists off the roads (what do you think they did? Build elevated cycling pathways above the road?), they accommodated cyclists on the shared streets.

      The cyclists are still there, the cars are still there, but everyone has a little more room, is safer, and traffic moves more smoothly, sounds like a win all around.

    17. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      The removed a parking lane and added a bike lane and a turn lane.

      The losers are locals with cars and no place to park them. But only idiots live in Manhattan and own a car.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Locando · · Score: 1

      And how are you going to do that? Make bicycling illegal because it inconveniences you? By what right do you get special privileges just because you're in a car?

    19. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      Typical click baiting. "Learn how you can turn $1 into $100M!!!"... buy a lottery ticket and pick the right numbers.

    20. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't. The total number of lanes declined. In essence, they went from having four lanes, with no dedicated turn lane, to three lanes for most of the street, expanding to four (with one being a dedicated turn lane) at every other intersection. So, for the bulk of the street, the number of lanes declined.

      Four lanes with no dedicated left turn lane turns into three lanes when someone wants to turn left.

      And add to that the chaos of having to do lane changes because people get stuck behind left turners (and the corresponding people who want to turn left but were in the other lanes to avoid left turners in the previous intersection) means traffic just gets all jumbled up.

      Put in some proper traffic lights to help clear left turn lanes so people don't jam it when it fills up and spills into a straight through lane...

      Basically all that happened was in order to build a bike lane, they had to reconfigure a bunch of intersections and in so doing also happened to improve traffic flow.

    21. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bicycles honestly do belong on the road. Where else are you going to put them, on the sidewalk?

      They belong under my wheels. Keep your toys off my infrastructure. You will join the other pit slaves on Paving Day, doomed to a life of cleaning public toilets while I cruise the paved world in my hypersonic atomic car, under the light of the chromed moon.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      But getting rid of those bikers, which honestly do not belong on the road, could only of helped.

      That's just really bad logic.

      A bicycle doesn't take up anywhere near as much road space as a car. On crowded downtown streets, where cars cannot travel faster than bikes, every person on a bike is one less vehicle in your gridlock. And one less competitor for that parking space you are looking for. Bikes make a helluvalot of sense in highly trafficked areas, and bike lanes which encourage more people to use bicycles is one of the best things that can be done to improve the commutes of automobile drivers.

      --
      Will
    23. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Funny

      And then, children, they say he dipped so far into trolldom that he emerged through the other side, enlightenment radiating off of his shiny bumper.

    24. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      All of which is greater than 11mph.....the speed of the automobile traffic in New York City.

      Having said that, I used to drive a Honda Spree. I've *clocked* bicycles doing 30 in 25mph zones.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    25. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a bicyclist. I do not even have a drivers licence. Bicycles belong on the side walk, with the other slow fragile creatures that need to be kept away from cars.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    26. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Yes, and a baby ducky takes up even less room, but most people driving on a road littered with baby ducks drive slower. The important aspect is not how big the object is, but if it can keep up with traffic, and if the object is so incredibly fragile in comparison to a car that it makes everyone nervous.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    27. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      An excellent time for a century ride (100 miles) is under 6 hours. Or 17+ mph. Most commuter bicyclists do about 15 mph.

      However most automotive traffic on the downtown streets of every city I have seen in the last 20 odd years never exceed 20 mph, and spend a lot of time waiting at stop lights. They probably average between 5 and 10 mph. Bicycles usually leave them in the dust, waiting for a light to turn, etc.

      --
      Will
    28. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      This is true but, it also is a case where what works in one place may or may not work the same (or be implemented similarly) elsewhere. I have seen these exact same lanes turn into a nightmare. Not because they put traffic in the way but because they retained the left and right lanes, and just occasionally, turn the left lane into a turn only lane....so everyone who was traveling in that lane suddenly has to move over.....and few things slow drivers down like a lane merge.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    29. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a bicyclist. I do not even have a drivers licence. Bicycles belong on the side walk, with the other slow fragile creatures that need to be kept away from cars.

      please do not consider bicycles on the side walk "fragile creature" mass*velocity at 200lb and 10mph you are monster for pedestrians.
      You are as much dangerous to pedestrians as car to you.

    30. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by cusco · · Score: 2

      In 1980 the two southbound lanes of the Sunshine Skyway were knocked into Tampa Bay by a freighter. Until the new bridge was constructed the two lanes of the remaining half of the bridge every year carried more vehicles in less average time and with fewer accidents than when it was four lanes.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    31. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Suggest you re-read grandparent post, and TFA. This time do so with an emphasis on comprehension, if that is within your capability.

      --
      Will
    32. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are not kept away from cars on a sidewalk.

      Since drivers rarely look for traffic on sidewalks as they go in and out of driveways and side streets, you run a high risk of getting run over at every curb cut. At least when you're on the road, drivers usually see you when they bother to glance up from their cellphones.

    33. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a joke right? Are you stupid?

    34. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      If we could only arrange for every segment of every bike trip to enjoy a 3% downhill grade, a stiff tail wind, 40 degF dewpoint and partly cloudy skies, then almost nobody would even bother to buy a car.

    35. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have a road designed for an even number of lanes (e.g. 4 lanes each way) and want to add a bike lane, you're looking at a 3 lane road with spacing. So then you can have one lane each way, with a central turning lane or a median with turn pockets at intersections. So the bike lane was a justification to go to 3 lanes, which would be a hard sell without the space used by the bike lanes.

    36. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the left turn lanes was part of the bike project as well, eliminating the need for bicycles to sit stationary in impatient straight-through traffic while waiting for a chance to turn left.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    37. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      Just a guess here. You've never even seen a picture of a NY city sidewalk, have you?

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    38. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by stu72 · · Score: 1

      Why is it the problem that one human is going slower than another? Couldn't the problem be the human that is going faster?

      Additionally, it's exceptionally easy to keep up with crowded city traffic on a bike. I would say most days you can easily beat it in fact.

    39. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Dedicated left turn lanes are incredibly important to traffic flow. The lack of left turn lanes was the most frustrating thing as a driver when I moved to Vancouver for a job. Most of the larger roads there were only two lanes wide and very few intersections had left turn lanes. So the road basically lost half its capacity any time someone had to make a left turn. I swear Vancouver's rush hour traffic would improve if they followed UPS and prohibited left turns, forcing drivers to instead make three right turns. (Traffic circles would work too, but tend to slow down long straightaways.)

    40. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by nblender · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You forgot the part where they morph from 'car' to 'pedestrian' without warning... Riding on the road until something is blocking it, then zipping onto the sidewalk for a few hundred feet and then flying back out on the road without looking... Or coming up to a red light and then turning 90 degrees to cross the road, then going up on the sidewalk and back out on the road again having just successfully made a 'left turn' without waiting for the light...

      But accidentally bump one of them and suddenly you're just 'some idiot driver who must have been texting instead of watching the road'...

    41. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Nobody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything. That would be suicidal and require fantastically exceptional fitness,"

      A good 21-speed with proper gears can easily put one into the 40MPH zone without being in that good of a shape.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    42. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, I bike & drive and bicycles definitely belong in dedicated bike lanes. On the sidewalk they menace pedestrians, on the street they interfere with traffic.

    43. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Layzej · · Score: 2

      This same designated left turn lane came with bike lanes in Toronto and had the same effect. Prior to the bike lanes there was no dedicated parking. People would just park in the right lane - so effectively you only had one lane for cars and no room for a left turn lane. The bike lanes necessitated the designated parking which allowed for the designated turn lane. Traffic crawled before the bike lanes were implemented. It still crawls, but it crawls really fast now.

    44. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And a 120PSI tire can easily put one into 0MPH. Skinny tires are not practical for commuting anywhere there is glass.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    45. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? You actually modded him "Troll"? Why would you do that? It's hilarious. Didn't you catch the part where he went PAST trolldom, going further, into enlightenment? Come on people, have a laugh. I mean really, "chromed moon"? How can you not love that?

      Maybe Poe's law is in full effect. When the stance of the opposition is so weird that you can't tell them apart from the people parodying them for a laugh.

    46. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Anybody who believes that bullshit is welcome to try for themselves. For reference: The world record for distance covered in one hour is 30.882 miles, i.e. an average of 30.882mph. That's on a track bicycle in a velodrome, not on a "good 21-speed with proper gears" on public roads. If you think you can reach 40 on anything but a long stretch of perfectly flat road for more than a moment long enough to lock in the top speed, you've probably set your speedometer to kph, not mph.

    47. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by vrt3 · · Score: 1

      40 mph is not exactly easy.

      Even professional road bicycle racers reach such speeds only on downhills or in sprints; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...: "Individual riders can approach speeds of 110 km/h (68 mph) while descending winding mountain roads and may reach 60â"80 km/h (37â"50 mph) level speeds during the final sprint to the finish line."

      40 mph is *fast* on a non-recumbent bicycle. The fastest I personally can do on level road without other traffic is about 50 kph, for maybe ten seconds. That's only 31 mph. With a not-too-bad racing bicycle and a reasonable fitness level. 40 mph (about 64 kph!) is for most people totally out of the question.

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    48. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      No, they didn't. The total number of lanes declined. In essence, they went from having four lanes, with no dedicated turn lane, to three lanes for most of the street, expanding to four (with one being a dedicated turn lane) at every other intersection. So, for the bulk of the street, the number of lanes declined.

      Four lanes with no dedicated left turn lane turns into three lanes when someone wants to turn left.

      And add to that the chaos of having to do lane changes because people get stuck behind left turners (and the corresponding people who want to turn left but were in the other lanes to avoid left turners in the previous intersection) means traffic just gets all jumbled up.

      Put in some proper traffic lights to help clear left turn lanes so people don't jam it when it fills up and spills into a straight through lane...

      Basically all that happened was in order to build a bike lane, they had to reconfigure a bunch of intersections and in so doing also happened to improve traffic flow.

      On your traffic lights point, please do remember that these left turn lanes aren't like what you're used to, if you're not a New Yorker. These are left turn lanes coming off a one way street. In Manhattan (at least) most major arteries are one way. They're not there to facilitate turning left across oncoming traffic, but rather because turners often get held up by pedestrian traffic.

    49. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Yea, never heard of a recumbent bicycle, have you? We've got them that allow people to easily and near-effortlessly do 50MPH+ on a flat road. Also, fixie bikes with huge front gears can go much faster than your typical 10-speed with a crank gear a third the size.

      For instance, Jose Meiffret passed the 60MPH mark in 1962, paced by a car on Germany's Autobahn. And in 1995, Dutch cyclist Fred Rompelberg reached 167 mph while using a top-fuel dragster to pace him at Bonneville Salt Flats - which by the way is really, really REALLY flat.

      ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN MPH.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      I regularly keep pace with street traffic here in CA on my bike, and that's with a half-artificial leg.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    50. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, every one of those is "a good 21-speed with proper gears" in a city, weaving between traffic. If I had to bet, I'd say you're a lardass SUV driver who couldn't sustain 15mph for 10 minutes on a normal upright bicycle, your choice of gears.

    51. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by kekx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to disagree vehemently. It vastly depends on the speed that you are traveling with on your bike. As soon as you aproach the upper 20s (km/h, European here) it is way too dangerous to be traveling on the side walk. Here in Germany we have dedicated bike lanes which unfortunately mostly run on the side walk, meaning that pedestrians often do not look up to check if a bike is coming. More dangerously though are the cars taking right turns, because even if they bother to look you will be right in their blind spot. Add to this cars coming out of driveways or sidestreets, only bothering to stop and look once they reach the actual street and you get quite a dangerous mix. Whenever it is allowed thus, I always ride on the street and counting the number of close calls or accidents I had it is a lot safer. Basically the only danger when riding on the street are butthurt drivers who make it a point to overtake you with a 10cm gap even if the opposite lane has no traffic, because you are supposedly occupying 'their' street.

    52. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Khyber · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      Granted, motor pacing is kinda cheating, but even then, you're not nailing 167 on flat ground with just that little bit of aerodynamic resistance reduction.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    53. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by lgw · · Score: 1

      Actually, this one's a case of the moderators needing to get off my lawn. The "pave the world" movement was known to any real geek during the days when usenet ruled. Slashdot died a little today, when no one got the joke that everyone would have once recognized. Pit slaves, the lot of you!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    54. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by vrt3 · · Score: 1

      Motor pacing is more than just a little bit of aerodynamic resistance reduction. Even riding behind another cyclist already results in 40% power reduction. And Fred Rompelberg's configuration was pretty extreme: see http://www.fredrompelberg.com/...

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    55. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because most bikers illegally run red lights then whine when they get hit...

    56. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For about a block, they can't maintain that.

    57. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      [...] on the street [bicycles] interfere with traffic.

      Just for your information, bicycles are part of the traffic! As for "interference", the appropriate control situation is not one where the cyclists are magically poofed to New Delhi (or the moon), but one where every cyclist is replaced by yet another car...

      --

      Stephan

    58. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the bicyclist is in front of you, it might as well be taking up the entire lane.

      The bicyclist mantra: If traffic is moving, ride in the lane, if traffic isn't moving make your own lane.

    59. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Fuck cyclists.

    60. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I drove for a company which imposed this rule once. It is braindead and infuriating. Not every place is a grid. Lots of places you make a right turn and then there is no opportunity for the next two right turns you need. You just wander off further and further away. Go to any rural area or a hilly area and you will find yourself making U-turns all the time whether you're allowed to or not. Also the hellish new-style suburban cul-de-sac sprawl neighborhoods where there are no through streets.

    61. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Feel free to make up explanations off the top of your head, but maybe the slightest bit of NYC knowledge would help.

      The three stretches of road that the study looked at traffic speeds for are all one-way, so nothing you said applies at all. Not one word of it.

    62. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      So, you want to build pressurized bike tunnels? I think it could work, as long as you have an elevator at the "stations"

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    63. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds? Nobody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything.

      30 MPH is near enough to 50 KPH (48.3 from memory). Cyclists never move this fast, not even down hill and especially in traffic. As verified by the GPS based speedometer on my dash cam, getting stuck behind a cyclist tends to peak at 20 KPH (less than 15 KPH). This is why traffic in my city moves faster in the Winter when more people are in cars instead of on their bike

      If you're a cyclist who doesn't hold up traffic we'd love to hear from you, please send a letter to:

      I'm a liar
      Top Gear
      BBC Television
      117 Woods Lane, London
      W12 7TS

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    64. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      In Grand Rapids MI (I think it's Grand Rapids anyway) there are several intersections where left turns are not allowed. Instead, they provide dedicated turn-around spots in the middle of the block, with the intention that you drive past your turn, turn around, and then turn right.

    65. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 5, Informative

      NYC cyclist here. The parking lane is still there. They just narrowed the motor lanes a few feet, swapped the bike lane to be on the sidewalk-side of the parking lane ("Parking protected"), and put a left turn pocket at left turn intersections (Every other intersection, since our streets are one-way). The turning pocket only takes up 3 to 4 car lengths, the rest of the parking is still there. There's also parking on the other side of the street.

    66. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 1

      You know how I know you're not a cyclist? Because you say "bicyclist" instead of cyclist.

    67. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 1

      I bike to and from work here in NYC, and regularly hit 30MPH in certain areas. According to Strava my max speed is near 50MPH. I'm not an athlete, but I am in decent shape. On most NYC avenues during a work day I can outpace motor traffic due to congestion. Bikes don't slow down cars. Cars slow down cars.

    68. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 1

      Motorists whine when they get hit. Cyclists die when they get hit.

    69. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 1

      You don't bike in the city do you. I ride on 700C Continental Gatorskins, which means about a half inch of contact width with the road. They ride on cobblestone, glass, potholes, rat carcasses, gravel, trash, ice, you name it. About 85PSI +/- 5. Skinny tires are a lot better at urban riding than you'd think. Of course, the woven layer of kevlar doesn't hurt either.

    70. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Hope you don't go to Vegas and gamble. You lost that bet really, REALLY hard.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    71. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      De-lu-sio-nal.

    72. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I didn't, but the troll can't admit it, of course.

    73. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by arnero · · Score: 1

      I do 30mph, but only to catch green light, or when overtaking grandma's on bikes. I like to weave through the oncoming left turning cars. On many roads (without bike-lane) I have the same speed as the cars. Some dumb drivers try to overtake me and then cut me when they have to avoid a parking car on the left side. When I drive by car, I often adjust to the speed of the bikes (if the traffic-light is red anyway). Right turning cars are a nightmare, I like to jump on the road, overtake left and then return to the bike lane. I hate it if the traffic planer build obstacles in between . Of course I live in a city where everybody rides like me or worse: Münster in Germany

    74. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha... in fact in Germany people are vastly better about looking around for bikes and staying out of the bike lanes than anyone in NYC ever would. Some American is going to think you're serious about all your complaining (says the French resident...).

    75. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Invariably when a motorist is "stuck" behind a cyclist they are "stuck" for a few seconds and would have to wait at the next red light anyway.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    76. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get some fresh air maybe. Or at least stop inhaling the stuff that comes from your cars tailpipe. Let me explain this real slow.

      People need to go to places.
      People go to places with cars.
      Congestion on roads is not linearly dependant on amount of cars. After a certain limit it gets exponentially worse.
      If you build bike lanes some of the people who would have gone in a car now use a bike instead.
      This is very good for the ones who still want to use the car.

      If you don't get it, you could imagine what would happen if you took away sidewalks, and forced everyone to use a car instead. This is exactly that, but instead of forcing everyone to use a car you give them option to stop using one. (biking is also more healthy, and despite the accident is going to lower your insurance premiums(at least in theory))

    77. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by gnupun · · Score: 1

      You are as much dangerous to pedestrians as car to you.

      Perhaps true. But except for downtowns and crowded cities, most ordinary cities have no pedestrians on their sidewalks. So why should bicyclists risk their lives driving on the same road as cars when the sidewalks are empty? It would be nice to have sidewalks with a barrier to separate pedestrians from cyclists.

    78. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing it by accident is kinda gunny. You'd think a thing like city traffic has had so much research done it's optimal by now, but I guess not. Also, traffic patterns change when people change their movement patterns for some reason, but the lane layout and rules might be from 20 years ago. I'd imagine the best way to set things up would be to be consistent. It seems one "lost" car can cause big jams. These are the cars that, for example drive the right lane, thinking of going forward, and then suddenly realise that lane ends in a mandatory right turn. This kind of lane layouts cause jams, accidents, and frustration. If you have enough room for three lanes make it so the laft side lane is always a mandatory left turn, the right is a mandatory right turn, and the middle lane only goes forward. This way the turning lanes would always have room to turn into, you can just keep in the middle lane when you know you are not going to turn, and then just switch to the right lane to turn when you have to. Because of traffic light you'd always have room to make the lane change, the middle lane would move fast because there is nobody changing to it. Turning cars wouldn't jam up the straight going lane. And I imagine you could set up the traffic lights differently.

      Might all be wrong, but maybe worth trying out.

    79. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Alioth · · Score: 1

      That's a troll, right?

      On the flat (and I'm not a lycra clad person either) I can easily keep up 17-18 mph all day. In a city, this is usually as fast (if not faster) than cars. In no way are cyclists doing this speed compatible with 3mph pedestrians. Cyclists belong on the road. (In fact where I live cyclists have a right to be on the road - cars do not, cars need to be licensed, car drivers need to be licensed).

      Motorcyclists are also vulnerable road users. Should they be on the sidewalk too?

    80. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Alioth · · Score: 1

      In cities like New York and London, it's usually that the cars cannot keep up with bicycles (not the other way around). I live in a rural area, but whenever I've cycled in congested urban areas, I've often been MUCH quicker than car traffic and usually the cars are slowing me down. Car traffic in cities is slow because there are too many cars, not because of cyclists (or little duckies).

      There's even an episode of Top Gear where they prove the bicycle is the fastest method of getting across London. And that's a TV programme unashamedly biased towards the car.

    81. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I'm a utility cyclist, but cyclemeter tells me I sustain about 17 or 18 mph on the flat (I live in a rural area so cars are not impeding me). I commonly hit 20mph for stretches, and there are some downhill parts of my ride where I hit 35 mph. I don't wear any lycra at all either.

    82. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I reach at least 35 mph every day I cycle according to the Cyclemeter GPS application. It's pretty easy to reach that speed downhill.
      On the level I can sustain pretty much all day long 17-18 mph.

    83. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound delusional yourself, sir. I routinely hit 30mph on London roads, on a daily basis. With a good road bike and strong legs this isn't too difficult. I wouldn't consider myself having exceptional fitness either.

      Not to be argumentative, but I disagree is all!

    84. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should apply for the Hour Record then. If you, between constantly accelerating and braking, routinely reach 30mph without difficulty on London roads, maintaining more than 30.882mph for an hour on a purpose-built track bike in a velodrome should be a piece of cake for you. A world record awaits you, in a discipline which professional race cyclists have described as the hardest "race" of their career.

      Again, why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds? Don't you know the difference between kph and mph? Do you trust a GPS for your top speed reading? Do you feel inferior to other braggarts who make up numbers online? Do all you speed demons ride late at night or why is there never anyone on the road when I could see your exploits in real life?

    85. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, the Eloi became food for the Morlocks.

    86. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by jalopezp · · Score: 1

      The fastest ever individual stage over 10km on the Tour de France was 33.90 MPH, set by Greg LeMond in 1989 during a 15.3 mile time trail from Versailles to Paris. His bike was a steel-frame Bottecchia with custom handlebars on a single 52x12 gear. LeMond himself was 28, in his top shape, and -- some say -- full of EPO. The roads were closed to normal city traffic. Now, no doubt you can sprint to more than that on a downhill and drafting behind a lorry, but it stands that "[n]obody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything. That would be suicidal and require fantastically exceptional fitness."

    87. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 MPH is near enough to 50 KPH (48.3 from memory). Cyclists never move this fast, not even down hill and especially in traffic.

      I recently was caught by a side road radar doing 49 km/h on my bike (it was an informative radar, letting you know the speed, not a police radar sending the ticket home). I wasn't going faster because I was behind a car that was obeying the speed limit. Granted, I was going downhill, but it contradicts what you say.

      If you're a cyclist who doesn't hold up traffic we'd love to hear from you

      I live in a city. Even if you're stuck in traffic behind me, you're just arriving 5 seconds late to the next traffic light.

    88. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      The average speed of cars on roadways is considerably greater than the average speed of cars on driveways. Higher speeds correlate with greater collision injuries.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    89. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Hydrated+Wombat · · Score: 1

      FYI, that is called a Michigan left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    90. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Uh, yea, you lost that bet badly. See, six foot and a measly 140 isn't anywhere close to your self-imagined (and very likely self-revealing) statement.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    91. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you made up the rest of the numbers and you want us to believe that you can give an accurate description of yourself?

    92. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Just for your information, bicycles are part of the traffic!

      Bikes are only appropriately part of traffic in places where we haven't yet built bike lanes. The two types of transportation have different maximum speeds, mixing them isn't a good idea.

    93. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Uh, yea, A shitton of /. has seen me before. So they know I'm a fucking beanpole.

      Hell, I'm sure someone here on /. has a few of my nudes.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    94. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The ones I was tracking did so about 3 miles.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    95. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Mountain bike rims with 'slicks', liners, heavy duty tubes and slime. Last flat was a thorn through the sidewall, which still got me home. You can keep your, sort of, skinny tires.

      Of course I'm in no big rush and would win no races on the worlds lightest fastest bike.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    96. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why anyone would be surprised that adding a traffic lane would help improve traffic flow.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... http://www.scientificamerican....

    97. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Yet only something like 5% of bike injuries involve being rear-ended by cars on roads.

      Almost all other cases would involve intersections of some sort, where being on the sidewalk doesn't help or is counterproductive. You're still vulnerable to the high-speed cars while crossing roads, and you're more likely to collide because they're not looking at where you're coming from.

    98. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why anyone would be surprised that adding a traffic lane would help improve traffic flow.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      http://www.scientificamerican....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

    99. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by neoritter · · Score: 1

      I just want to point out. No matter what you do, you can not prove that you have X appearance; at least without actually meeting the person you're trying to prove it to. Having "other people" who have seen you, doesn't prove anything except some other random anonymous person is corroborating your story. They could just as easily be lying.

    100. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by neoritter · · Score: 1

      If we lived in a perfect world, people would take responsibility for their actions and just take the right turn, instead of inconveniencing everyone else because they're so much more important.

    101. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Yet only something like 5% of bike injuries involve being rear-ended by cars on roads.

      I never said anything about being rear-ended. What percentage of bike injuries involve being hit (in any manner) by cars on roads? What percentage of bike injuries involve being hit (in any manner) by cars on sidewalks? What if we break it down by severity of injury? It sure seems like cyclists are much safer from motorists if they stay on the sidewalk. A guy pulling out of his driveway without checking for cyclist traffic on the sidewalk might cause you to run into him and go flying over his hood, but he's probably not going to pancake you or hit you at highway speeds.

      Almost all other cases would involve intersections of some sort, where being on the sidewalk doesn't help or is counterproductive. You're still vulnerable to the high-speed cars while crossing roads, and you're more likely to collide because they're not looking at where you're coming from.

      Somehow pedestrians manage to handle intersections just fine, all while staying on sidewalks and crosswalks. Perhaps if navigating intersections is too challenging on a bicycle, one might dismount and walk the bike across?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    102. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised how many survive. I know one lady who has been run over twice. Both times on a busy 4 lane road at an intersection by cars turning right on a red light. Neither one saw her because they were looking for oncoming "cars" not a bike doing 11 miles an hour. The second time nearly killed her but she's back at it. Only a matter of time I guess.

    103. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

      I don't think people in cars do to pedestrians what they do to cyclists, which is pull out into an intersection when the bike is almost there. I don't understand that behavior, maybe they don't realize how fast a cyclist is going and think they can pull away before they catch up?

    104. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Somehow pedestrians manage to handle intersections just fine, all while staying on sidewalks and crosswalks. Perhaps if navigating intersections is too challenging on a bicycle, one might dismount and walk the bike cross?

      Pedestrians get killed by cars all the time. Please stop talking out of your ass.

    105. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Perhaps cycling slower would help?

      See, currently, in most places, there are two surfaces for two different speeds of travel. The road has traffic moving at automobile speeds. The sidewalk has traffic moving at pedestrian speeds. The bicyclist is stuck in limbo between these two speeds, with no surface catering to cyclist speeds. Cycling in the road slows down motorists and creates a safety issue for cyclists. Cycling on the sidewalk slows down the cyclist and creates a safety issue for pedestrians. This is why there's such a widespread disdain for cyclists: they're trying to squeeze into a system that quite literally has no place for them.

      As a cyclist, you have to accept that either you'll be pissing off drivers while putting yourself at risk or you'll be putting pedestrians at risk while being annoyed by a lack of speed. Or you can move to somewhere that has bicycle lanes.

      But my original point was that you might not be kept away from cars on a sidewalk, but you should at least be kept away from fast moving cars on a sidewalk. And fast moving cars are considerably more dangerous for a cyclist than parked or slowly moving cars. If there's fast moving cars on your sidewalks, it's going to take a lot more than bicycle lanes to fix your neighborhood.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    106. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1
      I think you're missing the point.

      You said

      You are not kept away from cars on a sidewalk.

      Since drivers rarely look for traffic on sidewalks as they go in and out of driveways and side streets, you run a high risk of getting run over at every curb cut. At least when you're on the road, drivers usually see you when they bother to glance up from their cellphones.

      Your statement should apply equally to pedestrians and cyclists. However, pedestrians aren't the ones arguing that they'd be safer walking down the middle of the road than on the sidewalk. Because most pedestrians that are hit by an automobile are not on the sidewalk, they're in the road.

      Pedestrians get killed by cars all the time. Please stop talking out of your ass.

      I never suggested they didn't get killed by cars all the time. I said they manage to handle intersections just fine. That is, with an acceptable surivaval rate. I don't hear nearly as much whining from pedestrians rights groups as I do from cyclists rights groups, so I assume that pedestrians have greater success in intersections than cyclists do. Of course, it's possible that cyclists are more whiney. Could go either way.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    107. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Until someone posts the nude with a very specific and identifiable mark... :D

      Of course, that wouldn't stop 'I am Spartacus' from happening.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    108. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Your statement should apply equally to pedestrians and cyclists. However, pedestrians aren't the ones arguing that they'd be safer walking down the middle of the road than on the sidewalk.

      Neither cyclists nor pedestrians travel down the middle of the road.

      Because most pedestrians that are hit by an automobile are not on the sidewalk, they're in the road.

      As I said, only a small fraction of cyclists are hit while traveling down the road not near an intersection.

      At an intersection, by definition, YOU'RE IN THE ROAD, whether you had been on a sidewalk or not. Now read that last sentence again, because you seem to be incapable of understanding that simple geometric fact.

      The issue is that motorists rarely look for objects moving faster than 0.5mph coming from a sidewalk. Maybe instead of making cyclists stop and dismount at every goddamned driveway as you want, we should address the original source of the risk and institute a nationwide comprehensive 15 mph speed limit.

      I never suggested they didn't get killed by cars all the time. I said they manage to handle intersections just fine. That is, with an acceptable surivaval rate.

      Where did you come up with that idea? Pedestrians are routinely killed at intersections, coming from sidewalks. Where do you get the idea that that's acceptable?

      I don't hear nearly as much whining from pedestrians rights groups as I do from cyclists rights groups, so I assume that pedestrians have greater success in intersections than cyclists do. Of course, it's possible that cyclists are more whiney. Could go either way.

      Maybe they're whiny because they hear unsubstantiated crap like this all the time from ill-informed people like you.

    109. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by JimFive · · Score: 1

      Walkers can stop instantly, Cyclists take a bit longer. In addition, there is a much longer time window for the car and pedestrian to see and avoid each other at a driveway than there is for a car and a cyclist.

      Cyclists are, generally, safer on the road than on sidewalks. Drivers see and stop for road traffic, not for sidewalks. By being in the road, a cyclist is where the drivers are looking. In addition, sidewalks have many more crossing intersections than roads do. Every driveway crosses the sidewalk, but none of them cross the road.

      It should also be noted that in many places bicycles are forbidden from being ridden on the sidewalks.

      The truly important thing is for everyone to follow the rules. Cyclists on the road must stop at stop signs, not pass on the shoulder, signal turns and stops, etc. And the cars around them should treat them respectfully, move over to pass, don't pass and turn, don't honk, etc. Cyclists on the sidewalk are pedestrians and should act as such, ride more slowly, cross in crosswalks, wait for cross signals and traffic, etc. Additionally, cyclists transition from sidewalk to road (pedestrian to vehicle) should do so safely and should not do so for convenience (don't pop up on the sidewalk to avoid traffic and then pop back onto the road).

      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    110. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (many?) major roads here in Vancouver have [No left turn during [rush hour time range]] or left turn lanes.

      less major roads.. yeah..

    111. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha.. I assumed you meant they get off and walk for 100 feet, then carefully get back into traffic and was wondering what was wrong with that... until I read on..

    112. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Neither cyclists nor pedestrians travel down the middle of the road.

      Your earlier post seemed to indicate that you were suggesting that sidewalks were not any safer than roads and that "at least when you're on the road, drivers usually see you". When you were little and your parents yelled at you to get out of the middle of the road, they went horribly wrong by not smacking you for replying "but technically I'm not equidistant from both sides". It's a figure of speech, much like the imperative "eat shit and die".

      As I said, only a small fraction of cyclists are hit while traveling down the road not near an intersection.

      Your original statement, the one I object to, was that sidewalks aren't safer than roads (due to driveways, side streets, etc.). Now you're talking about intersections, which as you helpfully point out, have nothing to do with sidewalks, as they're roads by definition. Intersections (ones with no sidewalks, therefore excluding intersections with driveways and side streets for which there is continuity of a sidewalk) aren't relevant to the conversation. They may be relevant to a general conversation about safety, but not to one about the relative safety of roads as compared against sidewalks.

      The issue is that motorists rarely look for objects moving faster than 0.5mph coming from a sidewalk.

      Or conversely, the issue is that cyclists rarely look for objects moving faster than 0.5mph coming from a roadway. If they did, they wouldn't be running directly into the sides of cars that pull up to intersections (I've actually had this happen to me, and holy shit was I laughing my ass off at the guy that crashed directly into my front quarter panel / fender and ended up splayed across my hood), and they wouldn't be complaining about an unsafe cycling environment. If motorists drove the same entitled way cyclists ride, we'd all be dead.

      Maybe instead of making cyclists stop and dismount at every goddamned driveway as you want, we should address the original source of the risk and institute a nationwide comprehensive 15 mph speed limit.

      Or perhaps we can babyproof the entire world for the safety of our precious cyclists. After all, 15 mph is still more than enough to run someone over.

      Where did you come up with that idea? Pedestrians are routinely killed at intersections, coming from sidewalks. Where do you get the idea that that's acceptable?

      From the very next sentence in that post.

      Maybe they're whiny because they hear unsubstantiated crap like this all the time from ill-informed people like you.

      Unsubstantiated crap like "more people get ran over in the road than on the sidewalk" and "cars moving at high speed are more dangerous than those that are stopped or moving at a low speed"? I thought these were self-evident claims. You really want me to dig up statistics for these claims? Seriously?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    113. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Cyclists are, generally, safer on the road than on sidewalks. Drivers see and stop for road traffic, not for sidewalks.

      So isn't that what this is all about? Right of way, not safety?

      If safety was the primary concern, cyclists could stick to the sidewalk and yield to any crossing traffic (and maintain a safe enough speed to do so). The problem is that cyclists don't want to yield to traffic from small cross streets or driveways, and they don't want to limit their speed to enable such safety. They want motorists to be the ones giving up another bit of the driving experience. Since motorists are the ones paying for the roads to begin with (via gasoline tax), I don't see that as a reasonable proposition.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    114. Re: Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cyclists in NY tend to move faster than traffic.

    115. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by neoritter · · Score: 1

      So someone CLAIMS a photograph is of you. They can still lie. It could be some random picture from a stock image site, or some random person's facebook.

    116. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Also, if I'm coming out of a driveway or parking ramp, I may be able to see only a limited section of sidewalk. A bike can come from the side and get in my way a whole lot faster than a pedestrian can, and if I'm not expecting a bike to be on the sidewalk illegally that could be bad.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    117. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Bicycles honestly do belong on the road. Where else are you going to put them, on the sidewalk? There are pedestrians up there.

      Sure, but what's more dangerous - a car hitting a bike, or a bike hitting a pedestrian? Not to mention differential in speed...

      Give me a decently wide sidewalk, and let the bikes watch out for people. Safer all around.

    118. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Khyber · · Score: 1

      They'll have to claim it's me, as I'm not going to just up and post a picture for you to see! If it is me, I'm honest enough to own up to it.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    119. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Since the cars drive 11 mph according to TFS the bikes are the fast ones. They have to limit their speed to match the slow cars.
      The pedestrians are even slower than the cars so the speed delta is bigger for bike-pedestrian accidents.
      Besides, dunno about the US but here the sidewalks are often paved with 30x30 cm (1 footx1 foot) concrete tiles. Those are unsuitable for bikes because they are just not flat enough.

      'Round here (NL) better bike paths do usually increase speed for cars, because a percentage of drivers start biking. Then there are less cars on the road and thus less congestion.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    120. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by surd1618 · · Score: 1

      I hate it when I am pushed to the sidewalk. Road bikes belong on the road, not on sidewalks dodging curbs and poles and pedestrians and running into cars emerging from blind allies or nailed when crossing streets. In my area there's ramps that lead from the bike lane up to the sidewalk around traffic circles, and it drives me nuts because I have almost been hit a couple times using those sidewalks, but I have never had a problem going through the circle like a car, and it is 3x faster. It is MUCH safer to be in the road, and much faster, and it's even safer when there is a bike lane.

    121. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a bicyclist and I do not see myself as a slow fragile creature. During the rush hour I'm actually faster than cars. I only use sidewalks as a last resort. The slow fragile creatures known as pedestrians would rather not share their sidewalks with vehicles going 3 to 4 times their speed.

    122. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Bicycles honestly do belong on the road. Where else are you going to put them, on the sidewalk? There are pedestrians up there.

      In the town I live in there are zero pedestrians. Building codes must have even changed as some of the newer neighborhoods don't even have
      sidewalks. As most neighborhoods do still have sideways and noone uses them, it would be much safer to beef up the sidewalks for bicycles
      than add bike lanes. Sidewalks are several feet from the curb and you are much less likely to end up getting ran over by a car or hit a car door
      that is being opened. A sidewalk is also less likely to collect broken bottles and debris like bike paths built on the shoulder do. Bicycles are
      also generally slow enough that if there is a pedestrian that either the bike or the pedestrian can get out of the way and a pedestrian is much
      less likely to get seriously injured getting hit by a bike than a biker is getting hit by a car. It would be cheaper, safer, and make more sense to
      convert sidewalks into bike paths than it would be to convert the shoulder into a bike path which is what most cities seem to be trying to do now.

    123. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Bicycles honestly do belong on the road. Where else are you going to put them, on the sidewalk? There are pedestrians up there.

      There are also plenty of "dual-use" trails which allow both bikes and pedestrians which don't seem to have a problem
      with both coexisting on a single path.

    124. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by kuzb · · Score: 1

      When you start observing traffic laws like every other person in a car or on a motorcycle, you can talk to me. Until then, go fuck yourself. You're a scourge on the roads.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    125. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by kuzb · · Score: 1

      > If motorists drove the same entitled way cyclists ride, we'd all be dead.

      Finally, someone who *gets it*.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    126. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those worthless fucks who purposefully run red lights and die from becoming someone's hood ornament deserve everything they get.

    127. Re:Bikes lanes are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those were all under special conditions where the bikes themselves are using the car's specially designed "wake" in order to limit wind. You have to practically tailgate the vehicle in front of you which is in and of itself extremely dangerous. Not to mention, the participants were generally top end athletes. No such condition exists on regular roads. So kindly sit down and shut the fuck up. You're an idiot cherry picking unrealistic details to fit your agenda.

  2. So it's not the bike lanes. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    TFA implies is has nothing to do with bike lanes. The benefit comes from the improved intersection, which can happen with or without bike lanes.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      But, which presumably wouldn't have happened without adding the bike lanes, and therefore was a happy side effect which made cyclists safer AND cars go faster.

      Everybody wins.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except it could have been done for less than the cost of adding the bike lanes, if the city actually cared about traffic congestion.

    3. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA implies is has nothing to do with bike lanes. The benefit comes from the improved intersection, which can happen with or without bike lanes.

      Without the removing some other features (parking?) for the bike lanes, would there have been room for the dedicated left turn lanes? Bike lanes tend to be a lot narrower than lanes and other street features that are wide enough for motor vehicles.

    4. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, presumably they cared about not having cyclists die.

      If it achieves that and improves overall traffic flow, it takes away a lot of the reasons for people bitching against bike lanes in the first place.

      It's freakin' New York City, from what I understand traffic congestion has been a problem for decades, and so has cyclists getting killed.

      I call this a win-win.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's all that pavement paint that's killing the city budget.
       
      Damn you greedy cyclists!

    6. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      And slashdot is just the latest of hundreds if not thousands (by the time slashdot gets updated with news) of blogs and news agencies which totally reported Bike Lanes as being the cause.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    7. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh boo hoo, the city, quite reasonably, combined two projects that work on roads into one process. What financial malfeasance.

    8. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they cared about bicyclists they would have done it a long time ago, it's only being done because it's the popular thing for cities to do, and because gas prices were extremely high at one point which made people look for alternatives to driving.

    9. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Except now, the next jackass-bike-messenger-as-a-hero-movie will be a lot less interesting to watch.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      TFA implies is has nothing to do with bike lanes. The benefit comes from the improved intersection, which can happen with or without bike lanes.

      The TFA not withstanding, the theory is sound.

      I live in Perth, Western Australia and roads with cycle lanes do travel faster than roads without them, even in peak hour. Not only is it faster for both motorist and cyclist, it's safer for both motorist and cyclist. Unfortunately a lot of old roads that are frequented by cyclists dont have cycle lanes. These roads are noticeably faster in the winter than the summer because the cyclists are in their cars. That's right, more cars and the traffic moves faster. There is 10 minutes difference between my summer and winter commute times solely from the last 5 KM towards the CBD.

      Cyclists along roads like Loftus/Thomas St and Alexander Dr do slow down traffic a lot by limiting top speed to around 15 KPH (confirmed by the GPS speed readout on my dash cam). During peak hour these roads are congested so overtaking is not an option.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:So it's not the bike lanes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "malfeasance" ay! I'm gonna have to think of some situations to use that word in now...

  3. No Fucking Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >This improvement was something called a pocket lane for left-hand turns: a devoted turning lane at most intersections that takes the place of the parking lane, which gets cars out of the way of moving traffic when they're making a left.

    That dedicated left-hand turn lanes improve traffic flow isn't news, isn't surprising, and has nothing to do with bike lanes per se except that a road redesign to add bike lanes also put in left-hand turn lanes.

    What a complete non-story. Thanks for voxsplaining that to us.

    1. Re:No Fucking Shit by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      The dedicated left-hand turn lane is probably considerably older than most of Slashdot's readership. I remember seeing them in San Diego in the mid to late 1950s, and they reached Los Angels, where my family was living, within a very few years. I won't say that San Diego had them first, but if not, they were a definite early adopter.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:No Fucking Shit by PRMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Welcome to 1950, NYC! You finally made it! (Not surprising since you were crawling along at 11 mph.)

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:No Fucking Shit by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Informative

      The innovation here is left turn lanes on ONE WAY STREETS. Left turn lanes on two way streets have been around for a long time, but they are rarely used when the street you're turning off of is a one-way street (so you're not crossing oncoming traffic when making a left).

    4. Re:No Fucking Shit by Livius · · Score: 1

      This is a city where cars are at risk of being run down by pedestrians - a "one way" street has a lot of pedestrian flow in both directions.

  4. wrong headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    try: Unsurprising Result of Pocket Lane for Left-hand Turns: Faster Traffic for Cars

    1. Re:wrong headline by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Ding ding ding.

  5. Can I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I wore those embarassingly tight bicycle shorts, can I drive in the bike lanes?

  6. Re:Gak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should report a bug to who ever makes the browser.

  7. P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Cardoor · · Score: 2

    related to citibike but a bit off topic.. if a copy tries to give you a ticket for riding in a 'non-bike-line' in NYC (as happened to me), chances are they will give you a whole song and dance: "gee whiz buddy.. sorry to have to do this, but they're cracking down. here's a ticket for $140".

    this is a police scam.

    there is no law saying a bicyclist must ride in lane in NYC.. it's only recommended but up to rider's discretion.

    I showed up to my hearing and the judge dismissed it without me saying a word (after the cop lied about how far he saw me riding of course).

    they're of course hoping you don't know the law and don't (or can't) get off from work 6 months later (when you get a hearing date) to challenge it.i wonder how many millions theyve stolen from the public this way.

    ok - that's all.

    1. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Informative

      "there is no law saying a bicyclist must ride in lane in NYC.. it's only recommended but up to rider's discretion."

      This isn't actually true. See below. If there's a bike lane, you're required to use it, unless you're making a turn, or are reasonably trying to avoid conditions. Reasonably is the key word here. Reasonably means "what a typical person in that situation would do," the rider doesn't get to define reasonably based on his/her own standards. Clearly, if there's a car parked in the bike lane, it's reasonable to go around it. If you're still not in the bike lane two blocks later, that's going to be hard to claim.

      (p) Bicycles. (1) Bicycle riders to use bicycle lanes. Whenever a usable path or lane for bicycles has been provided, bicycle riders shall use such path or lane only except under any of the following situations:
              (i) When preparing for a turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
              (ii) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, pushcarts, animals, surface hazards) that make it unsafe to continue within such bicycle path or lane.

      http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/...

    2. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Cardoor · · Score: 2

      well, im sure glad i didn't bring you as my attorney to correct the judge when he ruled in my favor. point is, there IS ambiguity, and cops ARE using it as a means to generate extra revenue. Don't roll over and pay if you get ticketed and can afford to fight.

      decent article on it: http://www.wnyc.org/story/2842...

    3. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You're on a bike, a cop yells 'halt', and you halt? What is wrong with you? God damn law abider.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey, it's a defense, don't get me wrong, but your categorical statement that there isn't a law requiring you to ride in the bike line was just wrong, and bad advice for other riders. You can get ticketed for riding outside the bike line, and then it's incumbent on you to make the argument that you had reasonable grounds to be outside the lane. In your case, the judge was very friendly - not all are.

    5. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Cardoor · · Score: 2

      very fair - i stand corrected.

    6. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      came up behind me in the squad car with their silly flashing lights. they were laying in wait for someone... anyone.. to fleece. "fishing" as it were. damn district 2ers. don't get me started. :)

    7. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lucky for him. This is how it usually goes...

      BLAM, Blam, Blam, BLAMity, Blamity, Blam,
      Ricochet x all
      HALT or I'll shoot!

      Police officer!

      Stop resisting!
      more BLAMMING depending on magazine capacity,
      click, click, click, click click click.
      GET ON THE F'ING GROUND DIRTBAG.
      i thought his iphone was a gun....

    8. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      NY State law only requires non-motor vehicles to be as far to the right "as practicable" and has explicit provisions preventing smaller jurisdictions from restricting the freedoms of bicyclists. These segregated bike lanes are a recipe for getting plowed over by unobservant turning drivers and it isn't unusual for "practicable" to mean riding on the left side of the lane proper.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    9. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Reasonably is the key word here. Reasonably means "what a typical person in that situation would do,"

      No, sorry, that's not what "reasonable" means as a legal term.

      It's NOT what a "typical person" or an "average person" would do. As Wikipedia explains:

      The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable. The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:

      -- the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;
      -- the extent of the risk so created;
      -- the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
      -- any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

      All of those components aren't part of the strict definition, but the idea is that, legally, "reasonable" activities are those made using good judgment by a sort of "ideal" person. A "typical" or "average" person may be a jerk, for example, and act in selfish ways that could actually endanger others. (Observe traffic behavior in highly congested areas sometime, and you'll see that the "typical" person may not be "reasonable.") A "reasonable" person, according to the law, would act in a way that would promote good order.

    10. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are only very few actual bike lanes in NYC though. Most lanes use a bike suggestion lane, which is shared with normal vehicle traffic. On those lanes, you can ride your bike wherever you want. For instance, going down second avenue on the suggestion lane is pretty much akin to suicide, as it is used as a double parking lane by just about everyone. While on the other side, there's a nice big bus lane that gives you far more room to dodge traffic. Probably also not legal to use as a biker, but it's far safer to do so as you don't get in the way of most other traffic. Except for traffic turning right, but the same applies for the suggestion lane where cars turn left.

    11. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      These segregated bike lanes are a recipe for getting plowed over by unobservant turning drivers

      If you're depending on drivers to notice you when turning, you're already dead, bike lanes or not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or are reasonably trying to avoid conditions

      Someone should let this guy know (and give him back his $50).

    13. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      You're aware that bicycles fit easily through places where cars cannot follow, right? You stopped why? Do you honestly think that doughnut-muncher had the ambition to pull his lazy arse out of his car and actually pursue you on foot? And even if he did, you're on a bicycle, if he gets out you can EASILY ride faster than he can run.

      I mean, good job citizen, way to orz on command.

    14. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      there's a difference between anarchy and stupidity.

    15. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      You're 100% correct, and I phrased that very poorly.

    16. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      Civil disobedience is different still.

    17. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2

      Don't be surprised that the guy you replied to doesn't know this. He's a cyclist, so as far as he's concerned he *always* has the right of way even when the law explicitly says otherwise.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    18. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Depends, how do you feel about being run over by cops?

    19. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      agreed. but time and a place fueg... time and a place.

    20. Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      I'm a cyclist as well, in NYC, and I certainly know this. Don't generalize.

  8. Simple physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you decrease the cross-section area while maintaining volume flow, the velocity has to increase.

    This has been another installment of Physics Applied Badly.

    1. Re:Simple physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Funny

    2. Re:Simple physics by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Not fluid flow. Semiconductors. Bikes are dopents. They leave openings in traffic behind them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Simple physics by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      So Miller Coupling Capacitance delay implies that bikes cycling side by side go 2X slower.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re:Simple physics by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Not fluid flow. Semiconductors. Bikes are dopents. They leave openings in traffic behind them.

      Not quite. To continue the electrical analogy, bikes are resistors. They slow it down, limit current.

      In traffic, there is never an opening behind a cyclist, there's normally a large line of cars trying to get around them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Simple physics by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You don't drive in big cities do you?

      Obviously when the mean free path for cars is long, bikes can be treated as resistance. But that is never true in Manhattan.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  9. Simple change. What about round abouts by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

    Have roundabout been trialed in big cities? I know it doesn't apply to one way streets unless 2 of them meet.

    The small town I grew up in doubled in size since I left and they replaced 2 major intersections with roundabouts. The congestion has been reduced significantly and the police posted numbers showing a 75% reduction in accidents at those intersections in the first 5 years of implementation.

    1. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to Washington DC if you want to see an example of roundabouts done poorly. Dupont Circle comes to mind.

    2. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      Roundabouts completely fail if there's lots of traffic. If one entrance has lots of traffic entering then it's likely that the entrance after it will be unable to flow into the circle at all. I've seen this in action, or should I say inaction.

    3. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by neo-mkrey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Roundabouts work. A recent Mythbusters proved it: http://www.wimp.com/testrounda...

    4. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      Dupont Circle is a traffic circle which isn't quite the same as a roundabout. Roundabounts have different design specifications: smaller, not usually more than four connecting paths. This makes them easier to negotiate when placed in locations where volume isn't too high to lock out less trafficked lanes. In places where more roads need to meet you'll sometimes see double roundabouts to handle the connectivity while maintaining the advantage of better sight lines from the smaller radius.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      not when you have to demolish 100s of millions of dollars worth of real estate in order to install *JUST ONE* at some busy intersections found in manhattan.

      traffic would flow even better if they restricted lane use.. 1 for city bus, 1 for taxis (no uber fucks or private cars/limos), and only 1 or 2 for regular cars. "aggressively encouraging" more people to mass transit options.

    6. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they work during heavy traffic only if the roads are carrying fairly equal loads and people are actually giving enough space between cars. Otherwise the congested street just keeps coming and the lighter ones never get to move.

    7. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Mythbusters tested with random traffic, which is far from real-world scenarios. Unlike traffic lights, roundabouts can starve some entries if traffic isn't evenly distributed.

    8. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by afidel · · Score: 1

      Or Paris, or London, roundabouts with more than 2 lanes are a nightmare because humans aren't made to handle that many inputs in real time.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      Lights can be installed to pause the heavy traffic. This solves the starvation issue while still allowing the benefits of the roundabout the other 22 hours of the day.

    10. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      There's a bunch of roundabouts in the Fort Lauderdale area (Hollywood, in particular) that are basically 6-lane mini-freeways with a few random minor roads between the two main endpoints, but as a practical matter your chances of safely and successfully going ANYWHERE from one of those minor streets besides a right turn onto the main highway and continuing travel in the same direction is somewhere between "slim" and "none", because you'd have to cut left across 3 lanes of 45mph+ traffic with almost no breaks to avoid being forced to turn right.

      Roundabouts are quaint, but if you really need to shovel cars in bulk through the intersection & can't grade-separate it, the next best options are 2-phase continuous-flow intersections (CFIs) or parallel-flow intersections (PFIs). They take too much room to build in older neighborhoods, but in areas where there's ALREADY a pair of 6-8 lane roads with 2 left turn lanes and channelized right-turn lane, the drawbacks of reconfiguring it as a CFI or PFI are basically "none".

    11. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Layzej · · Score: 1

      They are great for cars, but really bad for foot traffic. At a roundabout, pedestrians must wait until there is a gap in traffic to cross. There is no designated time for pedestrians to cross, like a walk signal, which means at a busy intersection you had better be quick if you want to make it through. You wouldn't want to place this anywhere people want to spend time. Only at busy intersections away from shops and destinations.

    12. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      Huh? Roundabouts and standard crossings are equivalent when it comes to pedestrians. In both cases, you add crosswalks "circling" the roundabout or intersection, and cars must yield for pedestrians when entering and leaving the roundabout/intersection. (Example of small roundabout with pedestrian crossings and bike path.)

      If there's a lot of traffic, you add traffic lights; this, too, can be done for both roundabouts and intersections. (Example of roundabout with traffic lights; though I've personally observed that it's able to carry traffic pretty smoothly even when the lights are malfunctioning. This latter example also has heavy segregation between cars and bicycles; research has shown that cars are unfortunately slighly more likely to overlook bicyclists otherwise, compared to a standard intersection.)

      Of course, there's always hideous designs like the Dupont Circle mentioned above, but that's just traffic planners showing that they don't understand roundabouts. Pedestrians should walk around the roundabout, not across it (hence the name), otherwise cars have to yield for pedestrians inside the roundabout, and you get a complete traffic jam. (The whole point of a roundabout is to limit the number of directions in which traffic moves...)

    13. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mythbusters is crap - they couldn't proof you can buy beer at a pub.

    14. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by mjwx · · Score: 0

      Or Paris, or London, roundabouts with more than 2 lanes are a nightmare because humans aren't made to handle that many inputs in real time.

      Thats why both of these countries have a much lower road toll than the US.

      Per 100,000 pop, France = 4.9, UK = 3.5 and USA = 11.2

      France has higher speed limits as well (130 KPH or 80 of your archaic miles per hour). The difference is that most people in France and the UK are taught to drive properly, road rules are enforced and there's a higher proportion of manual drivers.

      Roundabouts are simple, even multi lane roundabouts.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Roundabouts completely fail if there's lots of traffic. If one entrance has lots of traffic entering then it's likely that the entrance after it will be unable to flow into the circle at all. I've seen this in action, or should I say inaction.

      Operative words: heavy traffic.

      Traffic lights will also cause huge tailbacks if there is enough traffic to stall a roundabout. Here you need to have a limited access road with no traffic obstructions (so basically a highway). Often, roundabouts are faster than traffic lights because they allow all four entrances and exits to be used at once. Sure you may have to slow down a little, but you dont normally need to stop compared to a traffic light where you have a 50% chance of a red light.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That never was a myth to start with - only to Americans (and even only to some of them). There are plenty of studies from more than 20 years ago (even US studies...) which have proven that the roundabout is generally more effective than a 4-way intersection. The problem is that it requires more space of course - and it CAN be overused...

    17. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Roundabouts with crosswalks circling them sounds ideal, but it's not how they do it where I live. As far as having traffic lights - what is the point of having a roundabout if you have traffic lights as well? That sounds like the worst of both worlds...

    18. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They ARE however far superior to 4-way stop signs.

    19. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restricted lane use will lead to less road use. An empty bus lane is loss of capacity. If a lane can be shared by all road users utilization is higher overall and all traffic flows faster.

    20. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by u38cg · · Score: 1

      How does blowing up a roundabout prove anything? (I haven't watched Mythbusters, but I gather this is how they test everything)

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    21. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Actually in Europe you can often see very high traffic roundabouts controlled with lights. It's actually very efficient when dealing with multi lane roundabouts since the two major problems with roundabouts are:
      1. City can't control the flow. In this case the lights allow flow control
      2. Heavy traffic in one direction blocks traffic in the other direction. Also resolved with traffic lights.

      In many cases the lights are only used during traffic jams to avoid blockage.

    22. Re:Simple change. What about round abouts by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      To answer your question. It ensures our roads are war ready.

  10. Bicycle Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    What happened to biker safety when bike lanes went in

    Interestingly, the pocket lanes aren't primarily designed to speed up the flow of traffic - they're designed to let bikes and cars coexist more safely. Intersections with them include specialized turn signals that alternate between letting bikes ride straight or cars turn left, so there's little chance of a car turning into a bike.

    Bikes obeying traffic signals and, worse yet, having to stop for cars?! The End Times must be upon us.

    I predict that the sight of this is going to provoke more cycle rage than the occasional squashed rider.

  11. BREAKING NEWS!!!! OMG!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New York has discovered a new road technology, they are calling it a "pocket lane" a sort of "left turn lane" if you will. Amazing, what will New York discover next?!

  12. Daily Kos clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but keep in mind this is mostly a clickbait article for The Daily Kos (now rebranded as vox). Do not expect good journalism from that source.

  13. What... by Draugo · · Score: 1

    Is pocket lane some mysterious and unknown thing in US? We have them on most city intersections in Finland and with most I'd estimate somewhere around 90% at least in even small cities. You people really don't think through your designs at all do you?

  14. Bike lanes by xSander · · Score: 1

    Slightly off-topic, but...

    I skimmed TFA and saw images of the bike lanes. it's good to see that they are segregated bike lanes, separate from car traffic. Even better that there's a cushion and a parking lane between the two types of transportation.

    It amazes me why some cities think it's a good idea to have bike lanes BETWEEN car lanes. So much can go wrong in those lanes: cars changing lanes, car doors opening, etc. That will never promote or stimulate biking.

    Where possible, I'd like to see bike routes to schools, especially in the USA. Children will get healthier and more independent if they bike to school instead of just sitting in their parent's car.

  15. Can I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embarassingly tight? Biking shorts look damn good on me, I'm not embarassed at all. IF you are embarassed by your own body you should do something about it, and no, just getting in shape won't necessarily work. At least try to cut the spiral with your kids if you have any. I can imagine how awfull it can be to be constantly embarrassed of yourself.

  16. alt.pave.the.earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those seeking enlightening - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.pave.the.earth

    More than 2 decades ago and I still remember it fondly :)

  17. Re:No surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you, hippy granola eating cunt.

  18. Re:No surprises here by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Our problem isn't with cyclists on the road, it's with how cyclists conduct themselves on the road. The real problem is that cyclists seem to think traffic laws don't apply to them and in doing so put everyone else - including themselves - at risk. You should be fined, have your bike confiscated, and be barred from riding if you're *ever* caught disobeying road rules. Especially a failure to signal, which is something cyclists constantly do. It's too bad you're too dense to understand this.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  19. parking lane ???? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    You use precious road space for PARKING on? What the fuck? That's a problem for the buildings that people are going into to attend to.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"