• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if they’re separate, general-purpose lanes and bike paths and sidewalks have to cross sometimes. The biggest problem with the infrastructure pictured isn’t the bike lane itself, it’s the inadequate intersection treatment.

    In particular, the car slip lane should’ve been removed and a stop bar before the bike lane crossing should’ve been added.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the bike lane should be raised above all of it so that bikes don’t have to stop at all.

      Great bike infrastructure is when bike riders don’t have to stop for car traffic. It should ALWAYS be the other way around, or the paths shouldn’t cross at all.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why should cyclists be the ones who have to go up the slopes? If you’re going to do that, raise (or better yet, bury underground) the car lanes instead.

        • Haywire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think they are saying the surface should be raised so the bike lane is level and the street passes over a speed table. This makes it evident that the street is crossing the bike lane, rather than the bike lane crossing the street. We are talking inches, not tens of feet.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s inconsistent with the “so that bikes don’t have to stop at all” part, but it would be much more reasonable than the nonsensical idea I was mocking.