signs??And that, my friend, is a description of bad road design.
Towns and cities existed for thousands of years before the automobile came along. Streets and roads accommodated ALL forms of traffic, and the dominant mode was pedestrian. Then came the car, which moved at speeds hazardous to everyone else. So here we are.
Forget bicycles for a moment. Think of pedestrians. People should be able to move around their own neighborhoods safely. People should be able to cross the street safely, and at convenient intervals. Kids should be able to walk or bike to school. The elderly should be able to get around without cars. People should be able to get to their neighborhood parks and pools without driving to them. Roads should not become barriers. Too many suburbanites live in communities that require them to get into their cars to do anything and everything; they've lost sight of how good urban neighborhoods live.
So: it should be part of basic road design that we build sidewalks and ample pedestrian crossings. With minimal upgrades, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings can accommodate bikes as well. On rural roads, have good shoulders; this is proper design for automobiles as well, but it also accommodates pedestrian and bike traffic.
Local situations will vary, but around DC one of the biggest problems is roads on which the shoulders and sidewalks were long ago sacrificed to squeeze in another traffic lane. Planners took the existing sidewalk, spent a bazillion dollars a mile putting in a new car lane, and deemed a replacement sidewalk "too expensive." Planners took a city street in an urban neighborhood and turned it into a high speed commuter sewer, risky to cross even if it's not fenced. This kind of thing kills neighborhoods and produces slums.
Want to put a new arterial road through a residential neighborhood? Ok … provided you have a stoplight and a safe crossing every two blocks, put in a wide sidewalk for neighborhood traffic including pedestrians, bikes, moms with strollers and the joggers and dogwatchers, don't eliminate the on-street parking for local merchants, etc. I.e., don't destroy other people's neighborhoods.
Your commute is too long? Live closer to your job.
signs??True, but then the automobile came along.
Streets and roads accommodated ALL forms of traffic, and the dominant mode was pedestrian. Then came the car, which moved at speeds hazardous to everyone else. So here we are.
Here we are.
Forget bicycles for a moment. Think of pedestrians. People should be able to move around their own neighborhoods safely.
That's why we have sidewalks and pedestrian underpasses and overpasses. That's why we have "WALK" signs, crosswalks, and laws to yield to pedestrians.
What we don't have are pedestrians attempting to walk in the middle of street lanes of opposing traffic attempting to compete with automobile traffic.
But bicyclists do - with often terrible consequences.
Too many suburbanites live in communities that require them to get into their cars to do anything and everything; they've lost sight of how good urban neighborhoods live.
This is not an 'urban vs. suburban' debate. I have lived in both, big cities and in the suburbs. I have seen cyclist create problems in both.
So: it should be part of basic road design that we build sidewalks and ample pedestrian crossings. With minimal upgrades, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings can accommodate bikes as well. On rural roads, have good shoulders; this is proper design for automobiles as well, but it also accommodates pedestrian and bike traffic.
Roads are generally between 8.2 to 10.7 feet in cities, and up to 12 feet wide on highways.
In every city, there are roads where it is impossible to build separate areas to accommodate cyclists without taking out pedestrian areas, or taking away automotive lanes that will create snarling traffic jams and/or make the traffic situation work.
We are dealing with basic physics here as well.
Unless you want to outlaw automobile traffic, cyclists are an inherent detriment to the regular, safe, and smooth flow of automobile traffic. They are less mass, less velocity, and harder to see. Period. The two are unequal competitors for the same resources.
Local situations will vary, but around DC one of the biggest problems is roads on which the shoulders and sidewalks were long ago sacrificed to squeeze in another traffic lane. Planners took the existing sidewalk, spent a bazillion dollars a mile putting in a new car lane, and deemed a replacement sidewalk "too expensive." Planners took a city street in an urban neighborhood and turned it into a high speed commuter sewer, risky to cross even if it's not fenced. This kind of thing kills neighborhoods and produces slums.
For every anecdote, there is another anecdote.
Bike lanes continue to create problems for commuters
Want to put a new arterial road through a residential neighborhood? Ok … provided you have a stoplight and a safe crossing every two blocks, put in a wide sidewalk for neighborhood traffic including pedestrians, bikes, moms with strollers and the joggers and dogwatchers, don't eliminate the on-street parking for local merchants, etc. I.e., don't destroy other people's neighborhoods.
Who is talking about not wanting to have resources and planning for pedestrians, dog walkers, or parking?
I stated that cyclists cause inherent problems due to differential speed and other factors. And they do.
Your commute is too long? Live closer to your job.
????????????
My commute is not long (I never even mentioned that, don't know why you brought that up), and as I have stated - I have lived in both city and suburban environments.