On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:36:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/7/2019 9:46 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 21:13:41 UTC-5, sms wrote:

We often see posts in this newsgroup attacking some piece of bicycle
infrastructure, or showing a picture of some piece of infrastructure
that seems counter-intuitive, but the reality is that traffic engineers
are trying to balance competing interests from vehicular cycling
advocates, cyclists that will only ride if there is infrastructure that
makes them feel “comfortable,” and motorists that are furious about
anything delaying them an extra few seconds.

Traffic engineers are also faced with dictates from politicians, who are
swayed by lobbying from "badvocates" under the influence of propaganda.
The current push for "protected bike lanes" is an excellent example.
Social Justice Warrior bicyclists now demand these - especially
bi-directional ones - as the default road design. But science
https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2193 and experience
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06...cle-track.html
shows them to be dangerous.

But they're trendy, dude! We gotta have them!


Build it and hope they will come is right. Many times the infrastructure is built and they don't come.

I regularly visit a little town with miles of bike lanes. IIRC, this
year's count is three. That is, three cyclists using those lanes since
January 1.

Segregated/protected bike lanes are dangerous simply because of all those intersections including driveways and entrances to parking lots. Drivers don't expect bicyclists to be riding fast past them and bicyclists don't expect vehicles to be in them. Those do a great job of setting up a bicycle/vehicle conflict.

Exactly. See
https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...5ge-story.html

It is called "democracy" Frank. You know the majority (or the loudest
mouths) get to have their own way.
--
cheers,

John B.