On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:25:41 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 11/04/14 02:12, Phil W Lee wrote:

They seem to be copying a design which was abandoned in Cambridge not
that long ago, as it impeded cycle traffic that used it and meant that
the majority of cyclists used the general traffic lanes instead.

Epic fail.

It seems many designs we have built here would be rejected in places
where facilities have been developed and refined over decades.

I see your point, but (see below re; what works elsewhere) I
*really* like your reference to "decades", and it's got to start
sometime, somewhere, somehow.

I suspect the epic fail in Cambridge was due to prioritization
of the dominant mode (cars) instead of prioritization of the
*preferred* mode (like in The Netherlands, for example).

The city where I grew up was very progressive WRT bike facilities
even back then (~40 years ago!)

At the last US Census, they were #1 in bike commuting mode sha

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/loc...cc4c03286.html

Last night I rode along a street that has a bike lane wide enough for
two riders to comfortable ride abreast. It is a full car width lane.

Important to note is that most roads in and around Corvallis are
Frank's "ordinary roads", but the facilities have encouraged
participation, and as we know once you're out there you discover
sharing the road with cars is not so infeasible as people who
*haven't* tried it think.

There are many places and situations where an available facility
is highly beneficial. Sure, sometimes the competent bicyclist
would be better off without it, but a competent bicyclist ought
to be able to handle less than optimum circumstances, right?
And *most* bicyclists in these places with lots of facilities
and lots of bicyclists would probably not be bicyclists if not
for the facilities.

The street is not very long, but half way along it there is a traffic
island that consumes half the width of the bike lane. I have no idea
why it is there. It is just there. Further along there is a chicane to
calm the motor traffic, and the bicycles are directed off road and along
a narrow path around the chicane.

******** to all that. I rode in the vehicle lane and had no
obstructions to deal with at all.

Exactly! That option is always there ("rules" notwithstanding).
If there is no facility, then *that* option is absent. People
like options. _I_ like options - even if I don't need all of
them. (Sometimes the obstacle course is kind of fun diversion,
though ;-)

I wonder why our engineers can't learn from engineers who have been
making useful facilities for ages? Why do they have to make many of the
same mistakes again?


I think it's a matter of shoehorning bits and pieces of what
works somewhere else, where (As Frank likes to point out) many
(countless) other factors contribute to make it work the way
it does there.

The main factor, if you ask me, is people's attitudes. ISTM
that facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
by the transportation authority, and they encourage much wider
participation, making it reality.