This is not so much a fix as an improvement that makes sense and also elevates cyclists in the transportation hierarchy.
At locations that are T-intersections with lights, provide a separate “through” light for cyclists traveling opposite the T. Some examples include:
– Wilson w-bound at Pierce (by the Fire Department). Since cyclists are on the far right, they do not really need to stop for cars entering from Pierce. Flashing yellow for cyclists might be appropriate to accommodate peds.
– Wilson w-bound at Courthouse (by Ireland’s Four Courts). Same thing. Adjustments to how the parking is designed here would help. Also, perhaps flexible bollards to delineate where the cyclists are, to prevent wide turning cars from straying into the bike lane
– Military s-bound at Marcey. No reason to stop here on red if cyclists can just keep the right lane. May not even need a separate light, but just a sign, “Cyclists may proceed on red with caution; yield to pedestrians”
In fact, all three of these locations could probably be accommodated with signage, some paint and maybe some flex bollards, which would be cheaper than designing and installing separate bicycle signals.
FYI – I already “Idaho stop” these locations, even though I fully observe the red lights at all the other Wilson/Fairfax Dr. intersections. It’s because these lights are senseless for the cylist in the same way they are senseless for the peds on the adjoining sidewalk.
There are probably more of these around. Anyone?
Part of the point here is not that these changes would make an enormous difference in travel times for cyclists (one staff member asked me, “What problem would this solve?”). The point is more that it provides a visible advantage to cyclists in a completely safe and appropriate way. Observers who note this may be inclined to think:
“Wow, that’s cool. The County is doing a good job improving cycling infrastructure.”
“Hey! Maybe I should ride a bike, too, if I can get a special light just for me.”
“WTF! Now those radical cycle lobbyists are getting even more special treatment. Time to run one over.”
On balance, I hope the first two sentiments would outweigh the third.
.
)
