A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
“Together we’re advancing initiatives focused on creating safer, more efficient travel options for all modes of transportation, from vehicles to bicycles to pedestrians,” Dave Ambuehl, the chief deputy district director of Caltrans, said in a news release.
https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/new-intersection-project-first-kind-bay-area-19901199.php
I support a car ban, but these are actually very well designed.
As mentioned in the video, these are pretty hostile to pedestrians. Without knowing too much about the subject, I wouldn't be surprised if roundabouts beat them handily - why else would countries with better road safety opt for roundabouts over diverging diamonds?
North American has this concept in roadway design where traffic engineers feel the need to make every roadway large. Think of interstate interchanges.
There is also this need to try and design roadways as both roads and streets, while maintaining the flow of high speed traffic at the same. This leaves us with neither good roads or enjoyable streets.
Roads get you from point A to point B without regard for what's in between or along the route. They are meant to move large amounts of traffic with minimal to no lights/stops/driveways.
Streets on the other hand are "destinations" and are meant for the people that live along them. Streets are traffic calmed, streets give the right of way to pedestrians. Streets have driveways, and multiple interaction zones between people on foot, on bikes, and on cars.
A street cannot act as a road nor can a road act as a street.
This image trys to turn the underpass into a street (which it can be), but it's main function is still designed as a high-speed roadway. So this leaves us with a combination of the two (a strode) which neight is a good road or a enjoyable street for the local community.
Some examples of simplified highway off ramps that connect directly into traffic calmed streets.
City planing also plays a role here, and its usually has to do how our we build city centres right next to highway off ramps. This leaves no room for proper roadway design where you "stepdown" your roadway classification.
Good planing would have a interstate (130-100kph) connect to a highway (100-80kph), which then empties into a high-speed road (80-60kph), which steps down to a road 50-40kph, and then transitions into a street (30-10kph).
Instead we have interstate highways empty right into a city street.
I always wondered if instead of a two lane road every block you could have a city where it's a four lane road every two blocks, with a single lane pedestrian/bicycle street alternating every other block there isn't a road.
I’m not saying it’s good (those bike lanes look horrible), but they put in a diamond interchange in my city and it’s ironically the best car infrastructure we have.
To be fair this looks slightly worse than ours, ours has more separation for pedestrians, but I feel much less stressed out that I only have to look one way when crossing, and no cars should be able to go when I am.
They still do. they’ll run a green arrow light, probably because they’re used to “right turn on red”. I have been tapped by a car I was playing chicken with at that light.
But other than the presence of morons, I’d pick the FREEWAY INTERCHANGE over a normal city light any day. That’s crazy to say but it just goes to show how even slightly better designed infrastructure makes a difference.
Those bicycle lanes are ass though.
Fuck cars
But if there are cars, you want these
Yeah diamond interchanges kick ass. They made me nervous the first time I used one, since it was the kind where you end up driving on the opposite side of the road. But just follow signs and you’ll get where you need to go and there’s almost no risk compared to the garbage interchanges you usually see around interstates.
I wouldnt bike on that painted bike lane across a right turn slip lane designed to make cars slow down as little as possible coming off the freeway
There should be a protected bike lane in the median with a dedicated signal where the diamonds cross
Painted bike lanes are just Dodge Ram kill zones.
This is a meat grinder for cyclists.
Those aren't bicycle lanes, they're clear zones to protect drivers so they won't hit a tree or a pole and ding their $100k truck.
All that could happen is that they kill a bicyclist and drag them for a few hundred feet, but that washes off.
If the truck on the bottom right made a right turn instead of going straight, it would cross a cycle lane.
But that right turn would mean driving in the wrong direction. See the arrows? Diverging diamond intersections Force traffic to drive on the left side of the road instead of the right.
I think he means take a right onto the freeway on-ramp, just before the diverging part.
OH! I see, now. The one I usually ride on has separated/raised bike paths in those areas which shortens the distance you have to cross
Why tho? Every possible collision point is regulated by traffic lights
Not this one:
Edit: who the heck wants to walk on the shoulder of a gigantic road like that too… wtf
That right turn lane has a light on it. It's next to the ped crossing.
Ah so it does.
It is. There are traffic lights in front of the crossing for pedestrians and the bicycle lane is parallel to the car lane and logically both of the can only have a green light if the cars from the left have a red light and also the pedestrian have a green light for crossing.
No, there are 2 spots where cars turning right cross a cycle lane going straight, without a traffic light.
One of them is on the lakes coming from the left, the other on the lanes in the background coming towards the viewer.
Theres a rule that no one follows on the roads, when turning right (or left for that matter) you come to a complete stop and then proceed. This applies even if there is no stop sign or the light is solid green.
The only exception to this is if your signal light shows a green arrow pointing right, or left.
The location in the image pointed out above tells motorists they can proceeded at full speed, run over the pedestrian at the crossing, run over the cyclists (that has the right of way), and drive head first into traffic in a effort to murge as quickly as possible.
There should (at the minimum) be painted yeild the right of way marking on the road. Both before the pedestrians crossing at the off ramp and right before the bike lane crossing, which should be painted continuously.
Kind of like this.
Though paint is no substitute for proper roadway design.
Theres a rule that no one follows on the roads, when turning right (or left for that matter) you come to a complete stop and then proceed. This applies even if there is no stop sign or the light is solid green.
Can you cite this law? I’ve never heard of this. You have to yield to pedestrians, but coming to a complete stop for a right on green seems excessive. I’ve not once seen this, nor heard this is how it’s supposed to work. Right on red, sure. Same with left on green, why would you come to a complete stop and potentially get rear-ended?
Found this article which says it’s not true in Canada:
Its been many years since my driving school courses and being taught by the instructors in car, but seem you may be correct in the laws ambiguous wording on this after I did some reading myself.
Personally the instructors and the driving test individuals that I talked with (years ago) all stated that its prudent to treat intersection as if there were always the possibility of a pedestrians, cyclists, or other car being there. This meant that you would always slow down, stop, and yeild the right of way.
Reading this handbook in my local area, diagram 2-20 states this.
"At any intersection where you want to turn left or right, you must yield the right-of-way. If you are turning left, you must wait for approaching traffic to pass or turn and for pedestrians in or approaching your path to cross. If you are turning right, you must wait for pedestrians to cross if they are in or approaching your path (Diagram 2-20). You should also check your blind spot for cyclists approaching from behind, particularly in a bike lane to your right, on a sidewalk or a trail."
I admits it does not say stop explicitly. Though my driving style after all these years is to always treat intersection (especially those with sidewalks and bikelanes along them) with extra care and always slow down, stop, and prepare to yeild the right of way to more vulnerable road users.
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/driving-through-intersections
Yeah wouldn't it make more sense to have the bike paths go on the outside of the diamond?
This is actually one of the most efficient compact interchange designs though. It integrates way more elegantly with accessory roads without creating huge dead zones.
Barriers where?
There is possibility that some biker will select wrong way.
I see ambiguous markings right before bridge.
Criss cross crash! What about a big ass 200stories tall ramp with an elevator and a loop to loop at the bottom?
...but why
We have a couple of those in Minneapolis.