I wanted to let you know this video has been seen by 500+ street design professionals in Ontario, Canada. We play it as part of a cycling infrastructure design training course. It's been well received!
That's wonderful news! Can we mention this in an upcoming article? We've heard Washington State DOT uses it as well, and would like to share this in that article.
@@hendman4083 We're not promoting them, but we're acknowledging their existence (the feeling is mutual though). Note that the video lists all the potential conflicts of the turn box designs, and makes it clear that the protected intersection is a far simpler and safer design - and is still eclipsed by the superb Dutch protected intersection.
I think one major point about the color of European bike lanes is that there are quite a few that aren't painted, but have dye mixed into the asphalt. This way it's not a slippery mess even with the rain, and the color lasts way longer! Also lol re: space considerations.
My city just randomly implements bike infrastructure anywhere. There are no connections, no cohesion. There is a bike turn box in the intersection of two 8 lane roads that have no bike lanes. I presume they do it for tax incentives and to say "we have bike infrastructure but nobody uses it." 😞
My city does the same thing . They do a half-assed job because some city officials want the bike lanes to fail. If they were connected then more cyclists would use them .
The separate protected bike lanes are also good for car drivers . More people cycling equals less people driving therefore more room for cars . The other is drivers won't have to worry as much about running cyclists over now that each has a lane plus bicycles do not do any damage to the asphalt or concrete ever and never ever will .
Wonderfully produced video covering so many different designs! One aspect of protected bike lane design that was only mentioned quickly in this video I think would be very important to discuss in the future - bike lane width. If we ever want to build modal share in our cities, WIDE comfortable bike lanes so cargo bikes, friends and family can ride side-by-side is going to be critical.
Absolutely. Wider protected bike lanes and smooth approaches for protected intersections are absolutely necessary (and potential topics for a sequel to this video).
I've seen some of these bike lanes in my own city (Toronto) including the bad driver examples. Yes, I've seen drivers performing right-hooks even though they know there is a bike lane with cyclists riding through. I've also seen planters and flexible bollards knocked over. I'm think the only safe sure-fire way to separate cars from bike lanes are jersey barriers or solid concrete bollards.
Right turns on red must go, and intersections need proper setbacks and tight corners - not the 60 degree behemoths literally designed to allow tractor trailers into city centers.
I love how every location on earth has to do a study and come up with their own "New Designs!' When countries like Holland have already done all the leg work, why re-discover the wheel? Because that's how government rolls.
@@HweolRidda True, I was thinking more of the light systems they use in Holland that help keep things moving and safe. Here is a good vid about snow cycling. ruclips.net/video/Uhx-26GfCBU/видео.html
"We've got to establish a study to evaluate the feasibility of creating of a future master plan." We've seen this too. Happens every 10 years when the previous master plan is deemed too "out of date." Meanwhile, the actual infrastructure is so out of date that _anything_ would be an improvement.
I think the largest problem in countries that don't have a bicycle culture like where I live (The Netherlands|) is that bicyclists are a minority. In the Netherlands almost everyone uses a bike frequently and there are millions of bicyclists on the road every day. So almost everyone on the road are used to look out for them when turning or opening their doors when leaving their cars. They also know by experience how fragile they are by riding bikes themselves which gets you in a certain mindset in a car which leads to safer roads.
Even in a city with little to no bicyclists you still have to watch out for motorcyclists when opening the car's doors, it's common sense, people don't learn until someone crashes on their door.
Of course, density, general walkability, alternative infrastructure and transportation development would encourage growth for biking. Painting lanes or installing bike roads alone definitely won't fix the issue over night, other city planning and housing design and layouts should also be considered and made. Assuming the people in those places want that.
Absolutely! In fact, this is one of the reasons the video took so long to finish - early versions were generic examples. All the layouts were retooled to represent actual prototypes for the final release.
If this called the "Dutch Disease" I would be proud. A lot of examples already exist or are common practice the Netherlands. It's wonderful to see other countries using it on their own way to increase safety for bicycles and pedestrians. 👍
5:20 Some places in Switzerland have found a workaround to reduce the space this configuration takes. They simply painted a turn box directly on the sidewalk next to the crosswalk and lowered the curb to allow cyclists to get there. It works pretty well for minor intersections where there are not that many cyclists. Though sadly my country still hasn't figured out how to make proper protected intersections. What they do instead is sandwich a bike lane between the forward and right turn lanes. With bike boxes and turn boxes for the most forward-thinking cities. In some other places, they put cyclists on the sidewalk and treat them as pedestrians, though it causes conflict with pedestrians (and for some weird reason cyclists still have to yield to cars while pedestrians do not, go figure). Every time cycling advocates ask for protected intersections, the authorities argue that "there's not enough space and it's too expensive", but then they end up building 5-lanes wide roads that definitely do not need to be that wide and somehow there's enough space and money for that
@@dickiewongtk False argument -- a) the huge majority of bike riders in so-called developed countries also own some form of motorized vehicle and do pay those fees anyhow, and b) in most such countries i've heard of, there is no such thing as a "road tax" paid solely by car etc. owners, but infrastructure is funded for through general city or state taxes, paid by everyone, regardless of their preferred mode of transportation.
@@DominiqueB In the US, there are user-based fees in the form of gas tax and tolls, but those generally only pay for highways and don't even cover the full cost of said highways (less than 50% of highway maintenance is paid for by user-based taxes). The regular streets and roads you see are all paid for through ordinary taxation as you noted.
My key takeaway here is that Cambridge, MA is at least a decade ahead of other US cities on bike infrastructure. I saw them referenced several times in this video.
When you combine incredible wealth from commercial real estate with the most highly educated city in the country, you can accomplish just about anything.
Since the video was made (and we chose the examples shown here) the Muller neighborhood in Austin, Texas has set a new bar for connected, Dutch-style separated bicycle infrastructure in the US. The network had extensive input from the Dutch Cycling Embassy and community engagement via City Thread. Look it up - it's worth it.
They want people to ditch their cars for bikes, especially now that e bikes are so prevalent, yet little is done to make it safer or more convenient for cyclists.
Technically took those European countries like 20-30 years to change from car oriented to the current state. Some began redevelopment recent as the 90s and mid-2000's and already gained a positive reputation after a decade or two of development. But yeah it's time consuming. Until then, it's something you want to continue to push for them to change, move else where, or stick with what it is if that's what you want.
@@telocity I know you're being tongue in cheek, but the transformation is happening faster than we think. Cambridge, MA (referenced several times in this video as good examples of bike infrastructure), had very little AAA bike infrastructure just 10 years ago. Now it's a leader in bike safety innovations, with People for Bikes scoring it at levels which rival that of European cities. And we can expect this process to accelerate as other cities look at these innovators for inspiration.
I wish that Portland would implement more protected bike lanes. For a city known for its biking we are horribly behind. Our "neighborhood greenway" system, which just puts sharrows on residential streets is insulting.
Very true - and the sharp turn is generally ill advised for when bicycle traffic increases heavily. We much prefer a properly designed protected intersection - with bike lanes that are of suitable width for all (and enough protection to ensure motorists won't slither into it and use it as parking).
Not with the size of American intersections, in general. Plus, a skilled rider with drift suspension might use those islands as a drift tap challenge. The better solution are motorsport parks - they prevent hooning on public streets by providing a safe, legal venue for automotive fun. Problem is, every time one is built, zoning around them is eventually relaxed for suburban housing sprawl (don't get us started on US approaches to transit!), until residential areas are built close enough to the motorsports park to generate noise complaints. This works in favor of developers, who buy up the now-inoperative track and build further housing on it.
The "protected" term is colloquial; amongst engineers, what we call protected is considered a "separated bicycle lane," allowing for misuse of the "protected" term. Either way, a buffer of that distance does NOT make for a safe, equitable, low-stress bicycle lane. If you haven't already, bring both of these facts to the attention of your city and to your local advocates. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
Practically speaking, the dashed, on-street bicycle lanes in The Netherlands and the US advisory lanes function in the same exact manner, even though the painted versions may not be specifically referred to as an "advisory lane" in the NL. However, in that video, Mark does point out (at 2:25) that an unmarked dashed lane, or "suggestion lane," may be translated as "advisory lane" - even though they technically are traffic calming devices and not actual bicycle lanes. So, in a matter of speaking, there _are_ Dutch on-street advisory "lanes," but they're considered traffic calming devices rather than bicycle facilities. We'll keep in mind that the painted version should not be referred to as an advisory lane as they are here in the US for all future communications.
Hydrant access is rarely affected any more than it is with parallel parking. If anything, access is greatly improved: A protected bike lane improves visibility of the hydrant for first responders versus a line of parked automobiles (with the inevitable one car illegally parked in front of the hydrant, no less). This benefit also extends to EMS operations, as an extra curb and a clear lane are much easier to navigate a gurney over than through a line of bumper-to-bumper parking. Solid Jersey barriers are the only implementation where the configuration requires particular consideration of hydrant access given their height and lack of access. They usually don't pose EMS access issues as Jersey barriers aren't usually used where street-side business or residential access is also required (if anything, they'll reduce the need for EMS over the same area with an unprotected bike lane, where a preventable bike-vs-car crash will inevitably happen) Otherwise, the majority of protected lane dividers maintain clear human mobility across their curbs, flexposts, or planters - including the necessary room to run fire hoses unobstructed or rush EMS across. Additionally, designs with lower barriers are often designed to allow emergency vehicles to drive over for access _if_ needed, though this is not always ideal if the average SUV or delivery driver can follow suit. For the most part, if it has been considered not an obstruction to have a line of parallel parked vehicles in a given location, the access will only be improved if that same area is repurposed as a protected bike lane (usually as a bi-directional lane to maintain parking access on the opposite side of the street, if parking access remains a necessity for the area in question).
How about using a separate traffic light for bicycles for those INSANE intersections that the USA has? You give some many HORRIBLE options for intersections and none are safe. All four sides green for all bicycles while all cars are stopped. Problems solved.
Agreed; the FHWA needs to codify proper signaling for micromobility and ensure this also benefits pedestrians as well. Unfortunately, the US does a pretty poor job of traffic timing in the first place for everyone - drivers included - even with sensors. Not Just Bikes' video about the fantastic Dutch sensor system is a perfect example of what we're missing out on: ruclips.net/video/knbVWXzL4-4/видео.html. All things considered though, the US can make VERY quick improvements from a safety standpoint - for both bicycle riders and pedestrians - by eradicating right turns on red, and timing parallel traffic with each other at all times - auto/bike/ped. It doesn't solve the convenience issues of such designs, but for that, we need Dutch-style roundabouts (preferably minus the multi-lane monsters too). While protected intersections are our pick of the lot as far as _current_ US implementations go (preferences may differ depending on the evolution of US design in 20 years time), we agree that none of the North American models have quite nailed the perfection of the Dutch Roundabout, nor the width necessary to ensure comfortable navigation, especially with cargo bikes. -KK
Cant believe you called two lanes for bikes in between car traffic without any protection or meaningful buffering "forward thinking". Absolute bullshit, that would be barely a step up from just having a normal road but even putting a crossing instead would be more safe and comfortable.
The Portland example at Stark Street is one of the earliest examples of a center-running left turn lane, and it exists in a neighborhood with pre-existing traffic calming. The lack of protection on that design is the reason that we immediately followed it with the _protected_ example from Santa Monica. Keep in mind that the video also established that we're discussing both the "pluses and minuses" of all designs. Since we already established that a lack of protection isn't safe (e.g., sharrows, unprotected green bike lanes, advisory lanes), we expect the contrast between the Portland center-running lane and the much safer Santa Monica lane to be clear for those who have remained this far throughout the video. If someone has a visceral reaction to the lack of protection, all the better - it drives home why protection is an irrevocable requirement for safe, inclusive bike networks.
This shows that they still don't understand it. Those turn boxes are a joke. Same with turn bays. Puting the bike lanes in the middle makes it not better. All look good, but have a lot of flaws. They also forget, that as it gets better, more people will ride a bike and that those solutions will not work. They don't know when and how to implement the right solution. The biggest mistake they make, is focusing only on infrastructure. They forget education and changing traffic rules. Also relocating traffic lights is a big thing.
while your arguements have merit, and are accurate, the reason why this video here exists is to inform people about the purpose of the bike infrastructure designs in terms of cycling, infrastructure is the most important part, not people trying to ram into cyclists also, this video is very transparent of the flaws in these designs those turn bays, while you may call stupid, but the netherlands with the best bike infrastructure in the world uses designs similar to it in bicycle crossing. may i ask why you think these designs are stupid? becuase if a stupid design to you is safe, protected, high visibility, and wide bike lanes accesible for children and the elderly, i would like you present your design for what you call the best bike infrastructure
Your main issues seem to stem from a worry regarding the future-proofing of these types of transportation insfraestructure upon their growth, coupled with how recent these changes are, and their (relative) understudying in the US, which causes wrong-in-hindsight decisions like the lanes in the middle of streets, roads, and stroads. These are extremely valid concerns, that "luckily" are actively being worked on: Your fear of induced demand is more prevalent with cars as they have the lowest throughput capacity (at best having a quarter of equivalent-sized bike/bus paths), so "Road Diets", partially done via putting bike paths, are one of the best current solutions and enablers for increasing and sustaining population density with low noise and air pollutions. Meanwhile, as more modern projects are completed, data is collected on which tipe of transportation suits each case best, hopefully reducing blunders like the one you mentioned. Your other issues are regarding education and traffic rules which... I don't really get what you mean by _forgetting_ them? Schools _should_ teach the bare basics of transportation instead of leaving that duty to parents, but that's a whole 'nother bucket of problems, and this very video is an amazing example of educative media so it's weird to complain about it here. And on the point about lawmaking, many political groups are actively trying to change the laws there are on transportation and city developing that force car ridership and caused many of the sprawling and transportation issues in the first place.
That's exactly the point: All the overcomplicated turn box designs are clearly flawed, while the protected intersection and Dutch Roundabout that follow are such obviously safe - and elegantly simple - solutions that it seems ridiculous not to use them instead.
@@Kidzneurosciencecenter Good to see a positive change in America for bike infrastructure. Such a difference since I’ve been over there. Only one remark, the singular bike box at 4:43 gives me a very unheimisch feeling, not safe at all. I wouldn’t use that one, too dangerous, even in Dutch traffic, let alone US traffic with much bigger cars and trucks. No one will see you waiting in that box, you’re a sitting duck in there.
@@RealConstructor Agreed. Most bike box locations could just as well be served by a proper protected intersection (or even protection on a single corner to save space).
Explained at 2:18. Build protected bike lanes, and riders looking for a place away from drivers will no longer be on the sidewalk. _It's that simple._ If you have three modes of transportation that have distinctly different speeds, you need three distinct spaces for everyone to move at their given speeds.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I wanted to let you know this video has been seen by 500+ street design professionals in Ontario, Canada. We play it as part of a cycling infrastructure design training course. It's been well received!
That's wonderful news! Can we mention this in an upcoming article? We've heard Washington State DOT uses it as well, and would like to share this in that article.
Oh god, you are actually promoting those turn boxes? What a horrible design that is.
@@hendman4083 We're not promoting them, but we're acknowledging their existence (the feeling is mutual though). Note that the video lists all the potential conflicts of the turn box designs, and makes it clear that the protected intersection is a far simpler and safer design - and is still eclipsed by the superb Dutch protected intersection.
Everyone in the United States needs to see this video!
Good work! Protected bike lanes are the only way to go.
I think one major point about the color of European bike lanes is that there are quite a few that aren't painted, but have dye mixed into the asphalt. This way it's not a slippery mess even with the rain, and the color lasts way longer! Also lol re: space considerations.
This should be mandatory to learn when getting your driver's license. Very helpful
My city just randomly implements bike infrastructure anywhere. There are no connections, no cohesion. There is a bike turn box in the intersection of two 8 lane roads that have no bike lanes. I presume they do it for tax incentives and to say "we have bike infrastructure but nobody uses it." 😞
My city does the same thing . They do a half-assed job because some city officials want the bike lanes to fail. If they were connected then more cyclists would use them .
The separate protected bike lanes are also good for car drivers . More people cycling equals less people driving therefore more room for cars . The other is drivers won't have to worry as much about running cyclists over now that each has a lane plus bicycles do not do any damage to the asphalt or concrete ever and never ever will .
Wonderfully produced video covering so many different designs! One aspect of protected bike lane design that was only mentioned quickly in this video I think would be very important to discuss in the future - bike lane width. If we ever want to build modal share in our cities, WIDE comfortable bike lanes so cargo bikes, friends and family can ride side-by-side is going to be critical.
Absolutely. Wider protected bike lanes and smooth approaches for protected intersections are absolutely necessary (and potential topics for a sequel to this video).
Yes! We need a minimum width in cities. Some of those bike lanes are so thin that it doesn't make much sense to use them
I've seen some of these bike lanes in my own city (Toronto) including the bad driver examples. Yes, I've seen drivers performing right-hooks even though they know there is a bike lane with cyclists riding through. I've also seen planters and flexible bollards knocked over. I'm think the only safe sure-fire way to separate cars from bike lanes are jersey barriers or solid concrete bollards.
Right turns on red must go, and intersections need proper setbacks and tight corners - not the 60 degree behemoths literally designed to allow tractor trailers into city centers.
I love how every location on earth has to do a study and come up with their own "New Designs!' When countries like Holland have already done all the leg work, why re-discover the wheel? Because that's how government rolls.
@@HweolRidda True, I was thinking more of the light systems they use in Holland that help keep things moving and safe. Here is a good vid about snow cycling. ruclips.net/video/Uhx-26GfCBU/видео.html
"We've got to establish a study to evaluate the feasibility of creating of a future master plan."
We've seen this too. Happens every 10 years when the previous master plan is deemed too "out of date."
Meanwhile, the actual infrastructure is so out of date that _anything_ would be an improvement.
I think the largest problem in countries that don't have a bicycle culture like where I live (The Netherlands|) is that bicyclists are a minority.
In the Netherlands almost everyone uses a bike frequently and there are millions of bicyclists on the road every day. So almost everyone on the road are used to look out for them when turning or opening their doors when leaving their cars. They also know by experience how fragile they are by riding bikes themselves which gets you in a certain mindset in a car which leads to safer roads.
Just use your country's designs and all of our issues would be solved!
Even in a city with little to no bicyclists you still have to watch out for motorcyclists when opening the car's doors, it's common sense, people don't learn until someone crashes on their door.
Of course, density, general walkability, alternative infrastructure and transportation development would encourage growth for biking. Painting lanes or installing bike roads alone definitely won't fix the issue over night, other city planning and housing design and layouts should also be considered and made. Assuming the people in those places want that.
Wonderful video-especially basing it on real-world examples of each type of infrastructure. Thanks!
Absolutely! In fact, this is one of the reasons the video took so long to finish - early versions were generic examples. All the layouts were retooled to represent actual prototypes for the final release.
OMG this video is amazing! Best bike lane explanation I've seen.
Absolutely fantastic video, loved the inclusion of the cities where the given examples are implemented!
You have studied the Dutch infrastructure well :-)
If this called the "Dutch Disease" I would be proud. A lot of examples already exist or are common practice the Netherlands.
It's wonderful to see other countries using it on their own way to increase safety for bicycles and pedestrians. 👍
Thanks for this excellent resource video. Really a great crash-course. :)
There's a distinct irony in referring to a video on traffic safety as a "crash course" 😂
5:20 Some places in Switzerland have found a workaround to reduce the space this configuration takes. They simply painted a turn box directly on the sidewalk next to the crosswalk and lowered the curb to allow cyclists to get there. It works pretty well for minor intersections where there are not that many cyclists.
Though sadly my country still hasn't figured out how to make proper protected intersections. What they do instead is sandwich a bike lane between the forward and right turn lanes. With bike boxes and turn boxes for the most forward-thinking cities. In some other places, they put cyclists on the sidewalk and treat them as pedestrians, though it causes conflict with pedestrians (and for some weird reason cyclists still have to yield to cars while pedestrians do not, go figure). Every time cycling advocates ask for protected intersections, the authorities argue that "there's not enough space and it's too expensive", but then they end up building 5-lanes wide roads that definitely do not need to be that wide and somehow there's enough space and money for that
Because car drivers pay additional taxes through their gas, registration, toll fees etc.
@@dickiewongtk False argument -- a) the huge majority of bike riders in so-called developed countries also own some form of motorized vehicle and do pay those fees anyhow, and b) in most such countries i've heard of, there is no such thing as a "road tax" paid solely by car etc. owners, but infrastructure is funded for through general city or state taxes, paid by everyone, regardless of their preferred mode of transportation.
@@DominiqueB In the US, there are user-based fees in the form of gas tax and tolls, but those generally only pay for highways and don't even cover the full cost of said highways (less than 50% of highway maintenance is paid for by user-based taxes). The regular streets and roads you see are all paid for through ordinary taxation as you noted.
And not a single victim blaming line about helmets or hi-vis!!
Perish the thought.
Every transportation planner in the world needs to see this video!!
Love it! Esp the point made "the USA is finally catching up" with the rest of the world
^ Truth right here.
My key takeaway here is that Cambridge, MA is at least a decade ahead of other US cities on bike infrastructure. I saw them referenced several times in this video.
When you combine incredible wealth from commercial real estate with the most highly educated city in the country, you can accomplish just about anything.
Since the video was made (and we chose the examples shown here) the Muller neighborhood in Austin, Texas has set a new bar for connected, Dutch-style separated bicycle infrastructure in the US. The network had extensive input from the Dutch Cycling Embassy and community engagement via City Thread. Look it up - it's worth it.
What an excellent video
Protected wide cycle lanes infrastructure with M-way style crash barriers to stop motorists from killing vulnerable road users are urgently required worldwide
This was so well done
This channel is an amazing resource !! thank you for these very informative videos.
They want people to ditch their cars for bikes, especially now that e bikes are so prevalent, yet little is done to make it safer or more convenient for cyclists.
Did you miss the end of the video? He said USA was catching up! So if your patient, in 50-100yrs we will have some safe riding zones.
@@telocity Great, something to look forward to when I reach 120.
Technically took those European countries like 20-30 years to change from car oriented to the current state. Some began redevelopment recent as the 90s and mid-2000's and already gained a positive reputation after a decade or two of development. But yeah it's time consuming. Until then, it's something you want to continue to push for them to change, move else where, or stick with what it is if that's what you want.
@@telocity I know you're being tongue in cheek, but the transformation is happening faster than we think. Cambridge, MA (referenced several times in this video as good examples of bike infrastructure), had very little AAA bike infrastructure just 10 years ago. Now it's a leader in bike safety innovations, with People for Bikes scoring it at levels which rival that of European cities. And we can expect this process to accelerate as other cities look at these innovators for inspiration.
Sure wish we had protected lanes in Columbus Ohio
Reach out to the Safe Routes to School folks in Columbus. That might be a good way to start a discussion about protected bike lanes.
@@Kidzneurosciencecenter Thanks so much I'll do that.
"just be a minute" yeah let me do that in the car lane see how it goes
I wish that Portland would implement more protected bike lanes. For a city known for its biking we are horribly behind. Our "neighborhood greenway" system, which just puts sharrows on residential streets is insulting.
Great video! Thanks
One downside of turn boxes is they don't work well for cycle with larger turn radius like a hand cycle, trike or Velomobile.
Very true - and the sharp turn is generally ill advised for when bicycle traffic increases heavily. We much prefer a properly designed protected intersection - with bike lanes that are of suitable width for all (and enough protection to ensure motorists won't slither into it and use it as parking).
We need safer pedestrian infrastructure in the us
Great job!
Every city and town in North America needs to take some lessons from The Netherlands. I've heard they've been doing this for years, and better.
Bravo 👏
Excellent
It's safe! Nice!
Islands meant to protect cyclists in intersections can also help prevent street take-overs by those with nothing better to do.
Not with the size of American intersections, in general. Plus, a skilled rider with drift suspension might use those islands as a drift tap challenge. The better solution are motorsport parks - they prevent hooning on public streets by providing a safe, legal venue for automotive fun.
Problem is, every time one is built, zoning around them is eventually relaxed for suburban housing sprawl (don't get us started on US approaches to transit!), until residential areas are built close enough to the motorsports park to generate noise complaints. This works in favor of developers, who buy up the now-inoperative track and build further housing on it.
My city just paints two white lines half a metre apart and calls this "protected".
The "protected" term is colloquial; amongst engineers, what we call protected is considered a "separated bicycle lane," allowing for misuse of the "protected" term. Either way, a buffer of that distance does NOT make for a safe, equitable, low-stress bicycle lane.
If you haven't already, bring both of these facts to the attention of your city and to your local advocates. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
There no advisory on street cycle lanes in The Netherlands. This video explains what types we do have:
ruclips.net/video/8-h7OdlviKo/видео.html
Practically speaking, the dashed, on-street bicycle lanes in The Netherlands and the US advisory lanes function in the same exact manner, even though the painted versions may not be specifically referred to as an "advisory lane" in the NL.
However, in that video, Mark does point out (at 2:25) that an unmarked dashed lane, or "suggestion lane," may be translated as "advisory lane" - even though they technically are traffic calming devices and not actual bicycle lanes. So, in a matter of speaking, there _are_ Dutch on-street advisory "lanes," but they're considered traffic calming devices rather than bicycle facilities.
We'll keep in mind that the painted version should not be referred to as an advisory lane as they are here in the US for all future communications.
What about the emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulance accessing hydrants across the barrier?
Hydrant access is rarely affected any more than it is with parallel parking. If anything, access is greatly improved: A protected bike lane improves visibility of the hydrant for first responders versus a line of parked automobiles (with the inevitable one car illegally parked in front of the hydrant, no less).
This benefit also extends to EMS operations, as an extra curb and a clear lane are much easier to navigate a gurney over than through a line of bumper-to-bumper parking.
Solid Jersey barriers are the only implementation where the configuration requires particular consideration of hydrant access given their height and lack of access. They usually don't pose EMS access issues as Jersey barriers aren't usually used where street-side business or residential access is also required (if anything, they'll reduce the need for EMS over the same area with an unprotected bike lane, where a preventable bike-vs-car crash will inevitably happen)
Otherwise, the majority of protected lane dividers maintain clear human mobility across their curbs, flexposts, or planters - including the necessary room to run fire hoses unobstructed or rush EMS across.
Additionally, designs with lower barriers are often designed to allow emergency vehicles to drive over for access _if_ needed, though this is not always ideal if the average SUV or delivery driver can follow suit.
For the most part, if it has been considered not an obstruction to have a line of parallel parked vehicles in a given location, the access will only be improved if that same area is repurposed as a protected bike lane (usually as a bi-directional lane to maintain parking access on the opposite side of the street, if parking access remains a necessity for the area in question).
it is too bad you measure the buffers in inches and not in cm. Otherwise I like the video, it is very informative!
The metric conversion is now present in the closed captioning. Thank you so much for the recommendation!
How about using a separate traffic light for bicycles for those INSANE intersections that the USA has? You give some many HORRIBLE options for intersections and none are safe. All four sides green for all bicycles while all cars are stopped. Problems solved.
Agreed; the FHWA needs to codify proper signaling for micromobility and ensure this also benefits pedestrians as well. Unfortunately, the US does a pretty poor job of traffic timing in the first place for everyone - drivers included - even with sensors. Not Just Bikes' video about the fantastic Dutch sensor system is a perfect example of what we're missing out on: ruclips.net/video/knbVWXzL4-4/видео.html.
All things considered though, the US can make VERY quick improvements from a safety standpoint - for both bicycle riders and pedestrians - by eradicating right turns on red, and timing parallel traffic with each other at all times - auto/bike/ped. It doesn't solve the convenience issues of such designs, but for that, we need Dutch-style roundabouts (preferably minus the multi-lane monsters too).
While protected intersections are our pick of the lot as far as _current_ US implementations go (preferences may differ depending on the evolution of US design in 20 years time), we agree that none of the North American models have quite nailed the perfection of the Dutch Roundabout, nor the width necessary to ensure comfortable navigation, especially with cargo bikes.
-KK
"new"
So very true. The US has had 30+ years to implement this. The "new" is all relative!
Cant believe you called two lanes for bikes in between car traffic without any protection or meaningful buffering "forward thinking". Absolute bullshit, that would be barely a step up from just having a normal road but even putting a crossing instead would be more safe and comfortable.
The Portland example at Stark Street is one of the earliest examples of a center-running left turn lane, and it exists in a neighborhood with pre-existing traffic calming. The lack of protection on that design is the reason that we immediately followed it with the _protected_ example from Santa Monica.
Keep in mind that the video also established that we're discussing both the "pluses and minuses" of all designs. Since we already established that a lack of protection isn't safe (e.g., sharrows, unprotected green bike lanes, advisory lanes), we expect the contrast between the Portland center-running lane and the much safer Santa Monica lane to be clear for those who have remained this far throughout the video.
If someone has a visceral reaction to the lack of protection, all the better - it drives home why protection is an irrevocable requirement for safe, inclusive bike networks.
This shows that they still don't understand it. Those turn boxes are a joke. Same with turn bays.
Puting the bike lanes in the middle makes it not better.
All look good, but have a lot of flaws. They also forget, that as it gets better, more people will ride a bike and that those solutions will not work.
They don't know when and how to implement the right solution.
The biggest mistake they make, is focusing only on infrastructure. They forget education and changing traffic rules.
Also relocating traffic lights is a big thing.
while your arguements have merit, and are accurate, the reason why this video here exists is to inform people about the purpose of the bike infrastructure designs
in terms of cycling, infrastructure is the most important part, not people trying to ram into cyclists
also, this video is very transparent of the flaws in these designs
those turn bays, while you may call stupid, but the netherlands with the best bike infrastructure in the world uses designs similar to it in bicycle crossing. may i ask why you think these designs are stupid?
becuase if a stupid design to you is safe, protected, high visibility, and wide bike lanes accesible for children and the elderly, i would like you present your design for what you call the best bike infrastructure
Your main issues seem to stem from a worry regarding the future-proofing of these types of transportation insfraestructure upon their growth, coupled with how recent these changes are, and their (relative) understudying in the US, which causes wrong-in-hindsight decisions like the lanes in the middle of streets, roads, and stroads.
These are extremely valid concerns, that "luckily" are actively being worked on: Your fear of induced demand is more prevalent with cars as they have the lowest throughput capacity (at best having a quarter of equivalent-sized bike/bus paths), so "Road Diets", partially done via putting bike paths, are one of the best current solutions and enablers for increasing and sustaining population density with low noise and air pollutions. Meanwhile, as more modern projects are completed, data is collected on which tipe of transportation suits each case best, hopefully reducing blunders like the one you mentioned.
Your other issues are regarding education and traffic rules which...
I don't really get what you mean by _forgetting_ them?
Schools _should_ teach the bare basics of transportation instead of leaving that duty to parents, but that's a whole 'nother bucket of problems, and this very video is an amazing example of educative media so it's weird to complain about it here.
And on the point about lawmaking, many political groups are actively trying to change the laws there are on transportation and city developing that force car ridership and caused many of the sprawling and transportation issues in the first place.
That's exactly the point: All the overcomplicated turn box designs are clearly flawed, while the protected intersection and Dutch Roundabout that follow are such obviously safe - and elegantly simple - solutions that it seems ridiculous not to use them instead.
@@Kidzneurosciencecenter Good to see a positive change in America for bike infrastructure. Such a difference since I’ve been over there. Only one remark, the singular bike box at 4:43 gives me a very unheimisch feeling, not safe at all. I wouldn’t use that one, too dangerous, even in Dutch traffic, let alone US traffic with much bigger cars and trucks. No one will see you waiting in that box, you’re a sitting duck in there.
@@RealConstructor Agreed. Most bike box locations could just as well be served by a proper protected intersection (or even protection on a single corner to save space).
cars will never share the road
Ok, next video: How to protect pedestrians against cyclists
by having bike lanes ?
Lets first protect them from drivers, those are the ones killing thousands of them a year. Cyclists...not so much killing weirdly.
Explained at 2:18. Build protected bike lanes, and riders looking for a place away from drivers will no longer be on the sidewalk. _It's that simple._
If you have three modes of transportation that have distinctly different speeds, you need three distinct spaces for everyone to move at their given speeds.
Create proper bike lanes = less cyclists feeling the need to ride on the sidewalk
Low IQ comment
This is the real video all about cycle lane and for cycle lovers 🥹🚲😎