On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:14:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2014 9:25 PM, 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.

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.
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.

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've heard that among designers and promoters of bike facilities,
there's an unwritten law saying "Thou shalt not criticize." IOW, the
first directive is to be in favor of _anything_ that is seen as "doing
something for bicyclists." I'm aware of two individuals who were
literally kicked out of an association of bikeway designers for
insistently stating objections to bad designs.

Here's my own personal experience with this: In a large local park, the
dictatorial superintendent (since fired) did the concept design for a
bike facility, then turned the details over to a landscape architect who
had zero traffic design training and almost zero bicycling experience.
Among the many hazards in the resulting facility were dozens of 8"
diameter bollards sprinkled in the middle of the facility, where two-way
bicyclists had to thread through them, with clearance of only about
three feet. Our club fought hard and unsuccessfully against that
feature (and other features) of the design.

A few years later, the landscape architect finally went to a seminar on
bikeway design, given by a fairly well-respected civil engineer in that
business. I later heard that the engineer had told the architect his
design was OK, and I was astonished; so I phoned the engineer about it.

Turned out the architect had portrayed the facility as all flat (which
it most certainly is not; there are at least two 20 mph downhills and
one 30 mph downhill). But even then, I had to press and press to get a
statement from the engineer, admitting "There is no justification for
any bollards at all in that facility." Despite the fact that the
bollards are clearly and directly condemned by AASHTO design standards,
he was unwilling to tell the landscape architect that he'd botched the
job. That was true regarding the bollards, and regarding other features
to which we'd objected.

I can't imagine such a "Thou Shalt Not Criticize" ethic being accepted
in any other field of engineering design.

..... well, you know a bike helmet will save your life in a crash :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.