Incrementalists vs Completionists

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 107107 wrote:

I would add that, in addition to your points, we’re looking to minimize the harm inflicted when “casual lane infractions” happen. In other words, slowing down traffic so that when someone does make a mistake, the risk of death or serious injury is lowered.

True. And also probably differentiate between deliberate acts (like “I want to make a right turn in 1/4 mile but I’m stuck in traffic. I’ll just drive up this bike lane to get there!”) and accidental stuff (I’m moving at low speed and checking a text an drift over into the adjacent lane). A cursory look online says curbs may be worse in the second case, because a car bumping into a curb can actually be pulled into it. But in cases where someone wants to be a special snowflake and have their own personal lane, a curb is obviously better protection than bendy posts (though I think people underestimate how easy it is to drive over your average curb).

I dont have a lot of experience with the post-protected separated lanes. Do cars go through the posts frequently?

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 107093 wrote:

In contrast to white paint, which one can cross at speed without damaging one’s car. That is my point. A car going over a curb at a low speed is a lesser danger to pedestrians or cyclists than one going at high speed, ergo curbs ARE protection, whether that is the intent of putting them in or not. [/Quote]

Ok, maybe I’m starting to understand your confusion. You seem to be concerned about whether people are intentionally encroaching on the bike lane, and focused on whether a treatment deters that. I’m not particularly concerned about that problem, and focused more on people going too fast and losing control of their car. AFAICT, people don’t mean to drive into a dunkin donuts, nor do they mean to be on a sidewalk when they run over people–the problem is that there are a lot of lousy drivers on the road.

Quote:

I think in general battles over the name of the rose are pointless, and in this case particularly so – I thought you said above that you dislike the PBL terminology for lanes with flexposts BECAUSE it impacts what gets built.

I think I’m being perfectly consistent here. If a community says that they don’t feel safe biking on a particular road because people drive like maniacs on it, and the response is “we hear you, and we’ll give you a protected bike lane”, they’re not going to get what they want and the highway guys will think they’ve delivered and not understand why people are dissatisfied. I like simple language that uses words with their actual meanings. The Custis, now, that sucker is protected. (The part with the wall and cliff, not the part with the sidewalk.)

It’s quite possible to think that flex posts are better than nothing and still want something better. It’s also the case that there are a lot of roads that don’t need a wall, where flex posts are fine. Just as there are roads that don’t need any particular bike facility because people just drive reasonably. In all honesty I’d rather have that than a bike lane of any sort.

[Alcova cyclist]

I suppose flex posts are better than no flex posts, but not only do they offer no protection against moving traffic, they also don’t actually offer any protection against someone who decides they want to park in a bike lane.

Exhibit A (Taken on L street yesterday around 12:45 — I have already emailed the bus line asking them WTF?)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7774[/ATTACH]

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 107127 wrote:

Ok, maybe I’m starting to understand your confusion. You seem to be concerned about whether people are intentionally encroaching on the bike lane, and focused on whether a treatment deters that. I’m not particularly concerned about that problem, and focused more on people going too fast and losing control of their car..

I beleive there are many things we want to protect against – people who lose control of their cars, people deliberately infringing on a bike space, and people who are distracted but still in control of their cars. While the ideal protection would protect against all, there are levels of protection.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 107607 wrote:

I beleive there are many things we want to protect against – people who lose control of their cars, people deliberately infringing on a bike space, and people who are distracted but still in control of their cars. While the ideal protection would protect against all, there are levels of protection.

Honestly, those instances are rare. We also want to design to make people feel safe and comfortable in the common situations. Even if flexposts don’t actually protect, they add a level of comfort for people biking, in part by increasing passing distances.

[bobco85]

@Alcova cyclist 107600 wrote:

I suppose flex posts are better than no flex posts, but not only do they offer no protection against moving traffic, they also don’t actually offer any protection against someone who decides they want to park in a bike lane.

Exhibit A (Taken on L street yesterday around 12:45 — I have already emailed the bus line asking them WTF?)

[IMG]http://bikearlingtonforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7774&stc=1[/IMG]

I wonder, could the bus company be held financially responsible for repairing/replacing the flex posts that this jerk obviously ran over?

[mstone]

@dasgeh 107608 wrote:

Honestly, those instances are rare. We also want to design to make people feel safe and comfortable in the common situations. Even if flexposts don’t actually protect, they add a level of comfort for people biking, in part by increasing passing distances.

Would you not get the same increased passing distances if you had the same wide painted median without the flex post?

[dasgeh]

@mstone 107632 wrote:

Would you not get the same increased passing distances if you had the same wide painted median without the flex post?

It’s really an empirical question, but I would guess not. I’d expect the visual clue of something sticking up that you could scrape your car against (even if it wouldn’t damage your car) to encourage people driving to stay further away. They drive over paint every day.

Also, I would expect that the vertical separator would make people biking feel more comfortable.

[Alcova cyclist]

Continuing my hijack… In addition to emailing the bus company, I also emailed the hotel (the tour operator told me the hotel told them to park there — not that it lets the driver off the hook). Within a few hours I got a very nice and apologetic email from the Quincy saying they regret having the bus park there and that they had worked out a different dropoff point that wouldn’t block the bike lane. Cautiously optimistic!

@Alcova cyclist 107600 wrote:

I suppose flex posts are better than no flex posts, but not only do they offer no protection against moving traffic, they also don’t actually offer any protection against someone who decides they want to park in a bike lane.

Exhibit A (Taken on L street yesterday around 12:45 — I have already emailed the bus line asking them WTF?)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7774[/ATTACH]

[scoot]

@mstone 107127 wrote:

Just as there are roads that don’t need any particular bike facility because people just drive reasonably. In all honesty I’d rather have that than a bike lane of any sort.

This is the elephant in the room! Just figure out a way to compel people to drive safely, and the vast majority of this infrastructure would be entirely unnecessary. Does anyone think that the solution to gun violence in a community is to get bullet-proof vests for all its residents?

And yes I fully admit to being an idealist (as opposed to an incrementalist or a completionist).

[PotomacCyclist]

Flexposts may work better on some roads than on others. I think they work fairly well on the 14th Street bikeway (cycletrack), although I’ve seen a couple drivers parked in the bikeway. (Some of the golf cart-sized maintenance vehicle drivers also use the path as a road lane, which is insane. Even though those vehicles are narrower than cars, they still take up nearly both bikeway lanes at once, which forces oncoming cyclists to head out of the lane to avoid the vehicle. I had to do this last week. I should have gotten some identifying info, but I’m not sure if those vehicles even have license plates.)

The car traffic speeds aren’t too bad on much of 14th St., at least near the White House. I could see where flexposts would be much less effective on roads where drivers tend to travel at much faster speeds (within or over the posted speed limit).

I also agree that flexposts should only be one part of the plan. Configuring the road lanes to be safer is important too, whether it’s through narrower car lanes, traffic lights, visual cues that reinforce slower speeds and so on. (Signs with random speed limits aren’t always effective, especially if the road is straight, if it has few traffic lights, and if it makes drivers feel like they are on a highway or racetrack. In those cases, even more drivers than usual will ignore the posted speed limit.) In some cases, flexposts won’t be necessary at all, because the road configuration leads to relatively slow car speeds, such as on local neighborhood roads that do not connect directly with major thoroughfares. This confuses the issue further, because the definition of what is good, what is bad and what is perfect can vary from road to road and neighborhood to neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

@scoot 107742 wrote:

This is the elephant in the room! Just figure out a way to compel people to drive safely, and the vast majority of this infrastructure would be entirely unnecessary. Does anyone think that the solution to gun violence in a community is to get bullet-proof vests for all its residents?

And yes I fully admit to being an idealist (as opposed to an incrementalist or a completionist).

No. The solution to gun violence is get your own gun. And the solution to being run over by cars is get your own SUV.

##don’t hate me i’m just the messenger. and as the driver of a jetta, i’m not even thrilled that seems to be the generally accepted solution in terms of car vs. car.

[dkel]

@Amalitza 107762 wrote:

No. The solution to gun violence is get your own gun. And the solution to being run over by cars is get your own SUV.

##don’t hate me i’m just the messenger. and as the driver of a jetta, i’m not even thrilled that seems to be the generally accepted solution in terms of car vs. car.

No, the solution to gun violence is to get a rocket launcher, and the solution to being run over by cars is to get a tank. Fortunately, many tanks come with rocket launchers pre-installed, so that makes the whole thing easy. :rolleyes:

[rcannon100]

[video=youtube_share;N7vCww3j2-w]http://youtu.be/N7vCww3j2-w[/video]

[dkel]

@rcannon100 107765 wrote:

[video=youtube_share;N7vCww3j2-w]http://youtu.be/N7vCww3j2-w[/video]

But all he has is a guitar, so instead, this is what we end up with.

[Author]

Posts