Pretty standard here in NZ too. As a Dutch guy I would never ever cycle there. Cycles don't belong on a motorway.
Things like these are generally to satisfy environmental or urban development legislation or to get some kind of government grant for the project. Bikeability/walkability on paper for the beauracrats.
Same reason you see a row of like five bike racks on the side of giant multistory parking garages.
Thats pretty much what is happening in Seattle.
Of places ive biked, it has to be the most pro car, bleeding edge of dying, designed by a moron area I have ever seen.
If you have trails its full of pedestrians, people with pets, homeless campers on the path and no clear markings for bicycles. So you end up weaving in and out making sharp turns and constantly having to slow down. Then theres the incomplete trails where you have to cross a parking lot, dirt lot, crossroad, some private property. Oh did I mention they have old railroad tracks that will really fuck with your tires and usually get stuck since some of them run parallel with the trail.
Then theres the city... where we occasionally have marked lanes but you better be comfortable getting close to drivers and hope that they have 360 cameras. The steep hills, heavy signage, usually distracting weather, heavy outsiders (usually first time visiting the city) and foreign drivers (have never driven in their life) are all a perfect storm to make any bicycle commuters life a living hell.
Finally we have the wonderful designated, cordoned off bike lanes... that really dont have barriers, usually just a flappy thing that has been ran over so many times no one really notices it. Delivery vehicles usually park in them because conveniently the city decided to leave the openings large enough for a vehicle to enter. You might get police, the occasional tourist parked in the lane too.
But hey! We are ranked one of the top bicycle cities in the U.S. and pride ourselves on force feeding that to everyone because we are a shining beacon of car/bicycle/pedestrian nirvana.
•
My friend used to work for Cascade Bicycle Club and they host a Bike to Work breakfast fundraiser. My friends were giving me shit for not biking to it but there was no way in fuck I was going to bike downtown (I took the bus). At the breakfast one of my friends mentioned that someone was killed while biking on 2nd the previous night.
It is better than it used to be and cars do seem to be more aware but it still needs to get a lot better. Painted lines and those stupid flappy things are not infrastructure. I was in Missoula recently and downtown (or whatever is makes for a downtown there) had a designated bike lane on the sidewalk. While that comes with its own issues, a bike hitting a pedestrian at 12 MPH is a hell of a lot better than a 1 ton vehicle hitting a bicyclist at 25 MPH.
What we really need is two bike lanes on one side separated by concrete curbs. I can't imagine that would be significantly more expensive than those dumb flappy pieces of shit.
I'm like 90% sure this is in Orlando and every time I drove by I thought about how fucked that bike lane is.
This is the bullshit I have to ride through every day in OrlandoThis is straight up suicide! https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6618421,-81.3888586,163m/data=!3m1!1e3
There's a safer but equally insane solution off some A-roads in the UK: https://maps.app.goo.gl/vsNMgsfYT7ooa39R9 .
I'm all for expanding cycle networks across major roads, but the wider motorist mindset isn't quite ready for it yet, particularly on my old commuting routines like these arterial routes into London. I'd love to see more cycle lanes but not at the cost of more injured or dead cyclists or scooter users.
•
Sorry, what? Is that "lane" supposed to be a bike lane? That's narrower than most sidewalks. Also, about 100 metres in there's that lane merging in, what are you supposed to do then?
This is even less safer than op's photo because it forces cars to close pass bikers.
The sign says you should cross the patch of grass before the actual merge. I had a hard time understanding that sign as well because apparently that bike lane across the grass is a fucking 30cm wide gravel path I barely spotted.
Well they thought it was okay for the bike lane to be on the highway in the first place. So, yes?
At least they had the foresight to see putting bike between two lanes of accelerating and decelerating traffic was bad. Now they just need to realize putting bikes next to high speed traffic in what is effectively a gutter is a bad idea.
Unfortunately they’ll never be ready for it. The good news is that dangerous cycling lanes like these aren’t the only option. We should be investing in safe cycling infrastructure.
I used to bike in downtown Atlanta to commute to and from my college dorm to campus. It was Georgia State University from the Commons if you're curious. I had to get really good at going fast very quick because cars just don't wait. I got really good at it. I used to bike with my dad and he could beat me on endurance but I didn't need to warm up at all lol. Atlanta traffic will really "encourage" you to get going.
My experience is a perfect example of why bikers seem to pretend to be a car or a pedestrian when it is convenient. If no one is on the sidewalk then I'll take the sidewalk. But, seeing as I was a college student going from my dorm to campus everyone else was going to the same place. There was pretty much always people on the sidewalk. It becomes this balancing act of how unsafe is it for me to be on the road and risk being hit because we don't have bike lanes (they might now, there's been a lot of work done in the area) versus how much danger am I putting a pedestrian in by risking hitting them. 90% of the time I took the street, it's not worth risking hitting someone. Plus there wasn't always that much traffic. Coming home from my evening classes were the ones I primarily used the sidewalk for. Also if the road and the sidewalk are both empty I generally take the road since it is safer to go faster there. Cars don't pop out of nowhere the way a pedestrian can.