@@josephharrison5639my parents wore similar vests going for nightly walks in their neighborhood. Granted, there were no sidewalks so they had to walk on the side of the road, but there wasn't very much traffic. I wouldn't call vests common, but I wouldn't automatically assume it's a city employee either - especially riding around on a scooter. But what do I know.
Here in New York City, the vests do indicate a city employee. How you ask? Well, they put them on their vehicle's dashboard and the parking enforcement agents don't ticket them for any of the infractions because, well, they're city employees. As a result, they get the name of 'theft vests.'
"Look at this surveyer working for the city" Yeah that's about all you need to know about your local news station. "Should we ask them what's going on or how they feel?" "No Sharon, make something sensational up and put words and feelings in their mouth, even blow up an event that was barely noteworthy into a life or death scenario if you think it will get people to watch"
Maybe because we're all confused about the idea that you're allowed to drive in a bike lane. No one cares if you people think its propaganda, its basic common sense that you're not allowed to drive on a bike lane. Going against the norm will make people who follow the normal confused. Simple as that.
I’m surprised that the residents of this street are happy with their street being used as a shortcut to the freeway. Where I live people are crying out for traffic calming infrastructure if they live on a street like this.
In England they are installing pottery and other objects to cut the streets off. If you live in the neighborhood you can get in and out, but you can't pass through it because waze found it as a faster route anymore.
In my town, they've taken 3 lane feeder roads and reduced them to 2 lanes... Now the queue backs up for 3 light changes, when it used to be 1... This is an engineered problem. Think about it... Worse roads means that DOT gets more money. In my town, they spent millions of dollars "painting lines" on the street. So, then a lot of this is the washing of money through contracts for lucrative projects that cost very little to implement, but the taxpayer burden is extreme... Sadly this corruption affects daily lives by stealing your time away from each citizen. They do it to "make streets safer", but ironically in my town, after these changes were implemented, the fatalities are at an all time high. Our cities are "experimenting on us" with experimental, untested, and poorly engineered roads, which by definition are dangerous because they are "unfamiliar in design and function", where the whole point of road safety is to make road features as homogenous and standard as possible so there is no "learning curve" and the end of each turn... Another example is they have taken one intersection, and built an island that "juts out" into the feeder road, with no markings or "road narrows" signs. They actually built this on purpose, and I saw a car hit this median and have the tie rod destroyed. Then you see strike scars on the curb, showing that this happens to lots of folks. ... and they did it on purpose. I reported it to them, and they said "it was by design"... lol Then don't get me started on the light timing. It's as if an oil investor has taken over the system and use the lights to "slow down traffic as much as possible", which makes pollution worse and the cars just site there idling in frustration. It all needs to change, and it's a management, engineering, and corruption issue.
@@mostlyguesses8385 I've actually attended Civil Engineering classes in college, so I think I have an idea of what I'm talkin' about... and yes, the death rate in my town is at an all time high AFTER they implemented these changes that they call improvements... If anything, revert my roads back to the way they used to be, and they will not only double the car throughput, but it will also be safer. I should make a video so you could see it for yourself in disbelief. In my town, rather than build concrete roads, they build asphalt roads so that they road crews can spend eternity repaving them every 5 years indefinitely... It's a machine that learns how to feed itself and grow in all kinds of creative ways.
"But make sure the city talks to residents first." The whole time I was watching this I was thinking just plopping something like this down without plenty of outreach first is guaranteed to make people mad. At least the one city rep admitted that. It's an unfamiliar concept, but would probably have gone down smoother if people understood it first. BTW, congrats on getting hired by the City of San Diego to survey streets on your scooter!
Who cares if the residents know? What about when someone not from the area shows up? Roads aren't just for local people. Roads needs to be understood by EVERYONE.
A lot of people will get mad no matter what you do, but it's far better to tell them first than to plop down a completely different driving system on them with no warning.
"Oh, this is so confusing - how does this work?" "There's too many signs with explanations" That was funny. Meanwhile in Europe this kind of street treatmeant pops up all over the place. Even on country roads middle lines get removed to encourage people to drive more carefully.
In The Netherlands, we have these on all residential streets where a separate bike-path is not possible. Especially the natural speed reduction is great.
Ironically it's the USA, where the bikes don't get enough protection from cars, where this sort of thing just proves politically impossible. I really think it's the mindset that's the problem: in the USA, car drivers are normal road users and cyclists are fringe weirdos, so people resent anything that slows cars down to give cyclists greater protection. The point of these side lanes is the cars have to use them to avoid oncoming cars, but because they're marked as bike lanes, it is clear that cars are guests and have to yield to bikes (and by implication, if you run down a cyclist in a marked cycle lane, you wouldn't necessarily be able to blame the victim and get away with it like you usually can). Most Americans think that's unreasonable: if cyclists want space on the street, they should buy a pickup truck.
@@JaapGinder we prefer it this way. America has a much bigger car culture than Netherlands. Also cities in Netherlands are much older, some of them are built before the invention of cars, so their roads are narrow and twisty. In the US most road are wide and straight, cars will just have frontal impact with edge designs like this.
@@philwoodward5069 Exactly! at least with this people might think twice before getting angry because a pedestrian "doesn't belong in the street" and so they're angry about getting stuck behind a biker or someone skating. If I had a penny for anytime a person in a car was clearly mad that I was in the street on my longboard (electric so I have the same speed as bikers) I would be able to easily put together or buy a high end board with the money. Hell, I could even just buy a small motorcycle with it. People are super entitled and seem to all have skipped the day in driver's ed telling them bikes have the same rights to the road as cars. (except for interstates but no one wants to die that way anyway) These days many areas have even added in laws allowing other vehicles road access or the old laws already allowed for it. NC for example already allowed me to use the roads on my eskate based on my average speed and top speed. It wasn't explicitly written in as allowed, but the requirements for bikes and mobility devices made it legal.
@@awdrifter3394 Amazing. As a Londoner, I'm well accustomed to people saying we can't have protected cycling routes because of our narrow, crooked streets (to which the solution is, as in Amsterdam, to provide through routes for bikes via the backstreets while using modal filters and the like to keep vehicular traffic off those streets). I've never heard the straightness and wideness of a road advanced as an argument *against* putting in bike infrastructure. 🤔
@@danieldaniels7571 It means you are allowed to change lanes and stay in that lane. You can't ride on a dashed line on a normal road you can get a ticket for unsafe lane change or improper passing on non edge lane streets.
@@danieldaniels7571 What state do in whose driver’s test asked when you should “put one wheel in the travel lane, one wheel in a lane with bicycle symbols in it, and drive for blocks straddling the dotted white line in between?”
City should have doubled down and did this with another road drivers are speeding on. If they had asked for public outreach on this then we wouldn't have seen it in the first place probably
There was, if you got rid of on street parking. If you kept the parking and the sidewalk, you wouldn't be able to reasonably get two lanes and enough room for bikes. There only seems to be around 48' of ROW, while the average two lane street in Chicago has a ROW of 66'
Haha! That's freaking hilarious that the news caught you on the scooter. I was just thinking about how this street's lines make cars behave exactly like they do in the suburban neighborhood streets I grew up on. Love your videos.
Except most people keep right on an unmarked, neighborhood street. These lines encourage people to just got down the middle of the road all the time, until it's time to swerve to meet a car.
@@jovetj Driving in the middle is safer. If you're driving so fast that you cannot react to another driver, you're driving way too fast for the environment. Driving in the middle gives you more reaction time and awareness of anything coming out from the sides, like pedestrians. And makes it unlikely you'll drive into someone opening their car door. When you meet another car you both move to your side of the road and can pass eachother fine. I've driven a lot on roads that are as thin as a single lane, with no space on either side due to parked cars(They really should be converted to 1 ways but they haven't been), and it's inconvenient but perfectly managible as long as you're driving at a safe speed and not like a maniac. And if you're driving far too fast like a lunatic, well, you're unsafe no matter what road you're on.
Can't believe they didn't think of that. Besides, as a cyclist I always stick as close to the side of the road as possible to make it easier for cars to overtake me...
At the beginning of this video, he discusses the space requirements that dictate what is available on our streets. Most suburban roads are much wider than they need to be to accommodate a car going 25 mph. This wasn't addressed directly in this video, but a lot of media around the subject will point out how streets in America need to be narrower to encourage slower driving. This is because people drive the speed they feel they can comfortably go without damaging their vehicle. When the streets that are meant to only have 25 mph speed limits have lanes the size of a freeway people drive like it's a freeway. To make it safer, they encourage people to have more vigilance by making the lanes narrower and demanding the driver's attention. The issue is this is counter to the desires of the average motorist who has become accustomed to unconscious driving.
@@davidlyday7373 This is the same problem America has with roundabouts. Roundabouts have several advantages in cost and throughput, but they're safer than traffic lights because they make people uncomfortable. Suddenly drivers have to look around and pay attention, when they'd rather be spending 10% of their focus driving between the lines and the rest texting. That and people don't like change, and our media companies are happy to play up that and act outraged whenever anyone tries something new.
the thing is also about intention in the road design it might be, on paper the same as dotted line, but in this case, drivers are invited in the bike lane when there is another car, on the contrary, with dotted lane, bicyclist are forced to drive on the car lane
“Cars get first dibs because, well, they’re paying the bill” - I know that’s how it’s “supposed” to work with the gas tax but few places actually cover the costs of road construction and maintenance with gas tax revenue. They usually end up taking from general funds that all tax payers pay into, even non-drivers. Would love a video on gas tax in general or how our heavier vehicles with more or less the same fuel consumption mean we cause more damage but still pay the same.
I was gonna post the same thing. Car infrastructure is incredibly expensive and to think that the taxes paid by car users actually cover those cost is incredibly unfounded.
@@matiasgrioni292 Even still, car owners still pay for a higher portion of road maintenance than the general populace (of which car owners are also a part of). I'm all for multi-modalism (which itself includes cars) but it seems that recent efforts are more about making driving difficult/more expensive than making other modes more appealing. It's also of course worth pointing out that car uses benefit even those who don't themselves drive, delivery vans, trucks, city services etc. all require roads and benefit society at large.
@@xtreme242 Right but they still don't cover it which leaves non-drivers subsidizing it. It's only going to get worse with heavier EVs causing more damage but not having the gas tax. There are plenty of ways to balance it, but I just wanted to point out the slight discrepancy.
@@arsvi123 All of your points are correct, but when cars are only paying for a portion (even a majority share) of the cost but, usually, getting 100% of the benefit (in this case safe, maintained roads) then the others are still shorted. And the rest of us only benefit so much from trucks because we've built it that way. We also benefit from rail transport of goods but we've invested heavily into less efficient trucks.
I can't believe that they removed it after just two weeks? This is not nearly enough time to show if this works or not. Every new traffic pattern causes some confusion at first, so it may take time to see the benefits. I would have given it more time and then ask all residents what they preferred. (And not just the ones who complain the loudest)
Everybody's an armchair expert these days. And outrage culture is booming. The city should have communicated far better then they did to avoid the outrage. I think a lot of public adjacent organizations lack the PR skills necessary for driving proper public messaging about what they are doing.
Shouldn't cause any confusion. Driver uses their eyes and reads signs etc... Accordingly. If this confused you, shouldn't be driving a 3 ton hunk of metal down the road.
Taking a step back from the initial "wtf?" reaction these do make sense. The narrow car lane should act as traffic calming slowing down car traffic to the point where the speed difference between cars and bikes is less of an issue. It should also reduce people using residential streets as throughfares due to reduced speed. The big issue I see is you still have cars crossing the bike lane to park and you still have a "door zone". It's better than sharrows but not as good as a separate, protected, bike lane.
The big problem is that most americans are too stupid and road ragey to ever appreciate traffic calming because CAR GO FAST and anything that slows them down is an attack on freedom and liberty... or something.
It's not "protected" at all, and it has anyone and everyone swerving into any "lane" they wish. As pointed out in the video, this is exactly how residential streets work, but without the lines. So, these lines are stupid. The lines also discourage cars from keeping right, which just encourages a head-on collision. This is because of human nature: most drivers are bad drivers. Good roads should NOT rely on suppressing human nature for safety.
@@jovetj No!You just have to get more attention to where you are!Just a small road between houses and bikers.Dont let your car do the job off driving!Do it yourself!Or do i have to say that European drivers are better than Americans???😀
alternatively, you just make the changes on a massive scale, educate via PSAs, and not give in to demands to take it out. People will get used to it in time just like with every other controversial change that everyone ends up liking eventually. The same thing occurs with roundabouts.
@@jceess you're correct but residents shouldnt be blindsided with drastic changes. The city shouldnt cave to pressure unless the experiment actually fails, because the ones complaining dont actually know what they're talking about, the lack of familiarity just freaks them out.
Although consultation with the public always looks like the fairest, most democratic way of bringing in change, in reality it just means change never happens.
@@rogink It is the way of Democracy... Everyone having a voice. As long as everyone is given an opportunity to understand, then the proposed changes, whether they like them or not are understood by all. In this instance because of this very important step was skipped; it was DOA...
I think both are true. I lived on Alemany Boulevarde in San Francisco when they striped the bike lanes, but they had a public meeting about them first. A lot of people whinged, but the city insisted on trying it-it's just paint, they said. Cyclists flocked to it, motorists got used to it, the bike lanes stayed, and now, in the extra half-metre of space it left in the median, there are pretty plants and things.
Exactly. That way, people know where they are suppose to drive by default, and only move left with discretion to pass. These roads would do much better just being unpainted roads. The intended behavior is exactly what people do on unpainted roads already. This kind of markings are just asking for trouble, to confuse everyone.
As a "vulnerable road user" on my electric skateboard, I know I tend to only ride on unpainted roads or ones with a dashed line. Anything else is welcoming death even more.
Dashed centre lines already exist as you point out. It's akin to the we need a new standard to unify all the other standards.. adds another standard to the list. But I guess it meant someone got paid a lot of money to write research papers and get grants from the council.
@@JoeKubinec Then either double lines are overused to the point of losing their meaning, or Maryland takes head-on collisions too light-heartedly. Everywhere else in the world double lines means it is unsafe to cross into the opposite direction for any reason and it is illegal to do so. Solid lines, especially double ones, are to be given the same respect as solid walls. The presence of a cyclist does not magically make that stretch of road safe. Safer stretches of road where overtaking is ok don't use solid lines. It's a much more sensible and consistent system.
2:58 you said “cars get first dibs cuz well, they’re paying the bill”. But I’m pretty sure that they are in fact subsidized once you account for the hidden cost of free parking, the space required for cars, the strain they put on the road, and the increased cost of spaced out development built around cars, while bicycles don’t really contribute to deterioration of roads and are significantly cheaper to build for that also pay for car centric roads since a lot of that funding isn’t covered by gas taxes and road fines. -guy who watches Not Just Bikes
I’m going mostly off of Not Just bike’s videos about suburban finances. If you watch it and don’t believe it, then that’s up to you. I also know there’s a book called the high cost of free parking, which I admittedly haven’t read. If you have a source to back up your claim that drivers do infact pay for 100% of the roads, I’ll gladly look into it
@@jovetj do you know how high a gas tax, or property taxes for that matter, would need to be to actually pay for all the space wasted to move one person in a metal box?
I feel like the edge lane road would not only force people to slow down on that road. But it would probably make it a less favorable rout turning a computer road back into a quiet neighborhood road
It's a reverse psychology road. Let's make drivers and bikers incredibly unsafe and confused, so that they drive with extreme caution. Horrible process, idc if the statistics say it's good, it has to work on a human level, and intentionally making people unsafe is not good for their psychology.
@@user-jc2ez6ig5z Only unsafe if you have no clue how to drive it. Take a look at vids of new roundabouts in North American intersections, roundabouts are extremely common in other countries and not at all an issue for people who actually know how to drive. There is a difference between having an unsafe road and having idiotic drivers. You can put a roundabout in a neighborhood or a shopping center and people in this country still drive the wrong way on it. You can revert a one-lane road back to the two lanes but those idiotic drivers are still there, you are still in danger because of them (or yourself if you’re the case). The road’s only an issue if the driver’s are careless. Focus on getting those drivers off the road, with or without a confusing road they will still be there ever-presently presenting themselves as dangers to public safety
@@zonaryorange8734 I disagree, roundabouts are safe and intuitive. On the other hand, the road design in the video is like a roundabout where everyone can turn clockwise or counterclockwise. This video's road conflicts have nothing to do with lack of education, and everything to do with be a legitimately unsafe, unintuitive, and conflict provoking design.
*FEELING* dangerous is probably an advantage. People are way less likely to exceed the speed limit when they are worried about a head-on crash with other cars. Edit: Added even more emphasis to the first word since people seem to miss it
Yup thats what they do in many EU countries. They narrow down the lanes so that the car traffic slows down wherever they need to. US has big speeding and accidents problem is because of very very wide streets.
We're used to lane lines adding order and "safe space expectations." These lines run counter to that. They're TRYING to convey flexibility and options, but IMO they add confusion. Better situation is NO markings at all. That makes it more clear that it's a flexible free-for-all situation. 🤷
@@Dragon228833 Source? If nothing else, it's definitely less dangerous for people outside cars, since head in crashes with cars is the only situation it might be more dangerous.
My favorite was the signs (not shown here). 1. "No Center Line" for people who can't actually see that for themselves. 2. Illustrative sign that appears to say, "In case of incoming traffic, run over bikes."
@@TheNotoriousKRP Or in reality...shared road, drive like you're not the only person on it...somehow this works in Korea, Japan, all of Europe... Look at the UK alone in cities and the country, most roads are barely wider than this shared lane, yet cars somehow manage to pass each other safely, along with bikes, tractors, pedestrians. Perhaps the problem is the drivers, not the roads.
@@jeffclark5268 The problem is the dumb-ass stripes. If the city had just left the road the way it was, everything would've been (continued to be) fine. The city violated the fundamental rule: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Of course, local governments do that _all the time._ It's a distinguishing hallmark of local government. Gotta justify those bloated city staffs somehow, right?
In France these shared lanes are really popular and we call them "chaucidou", I often ride my bike on streets with them and you really see the difference on how much distance cars leave when passing you. From my personal experience, I think that cars leave me with around 1 meter when there is a white central discontinuous line (1 meter is the legal minimum in towns limited to 50km/h / 30mph). With this "chaucidou" drivers tend to leave me with around 1.5 to 2 meters or even more when there is no car coming the other way which is way more comfortable in my opinion (1.5 meters is the legal minimum on rural roads limited to 80km/h / 50mph.) Keep in mind that the speed limit of the roads with this kind of painting never exceeds 50km/h or 30mph. I think that a real separated bike lane is ideal but the "chaucidou" is definitely better than nothing. Oh one more thing, in France we don't have this kind of parking where you can park on the whole length of the road, we have individually separated parallel parking spots and you have either a curb or a sidewalk where you are not allowed to park, which i guess is better because the places where you can get hit by a car opening its door are fewer and more visible but I don't think that is possible in the US because of the parking minimums and the fact that everybody uses a car so you need more parking spots.
It's so annoying for the cars. I hate them in france. And i think i hate them also when i use my bike. I really don't see the point apart for annoying car's drivers. And you don't need two meters to use your bike, one meter is plenty enough. If a bike user is smart, he can zigzag on the walkway like a grown man. It's what we do in the countryside and it never hurt anyone. But i believe than town bicycle users have two brain cells.
@@Sombre____ If you mean riding a bike on the sidewalk, that is technically illegal, plus i live in the countryside so when i go through a town the section where there is a sidewalk is not very long so taking the time to get off my bike, go onto the sidewalk and then do the same to get off the sidewalk once it ends takes a lot of time on my commute and doesn't provide much added safety since car drivers don't expect cyclists to cross on pedestrian crossings. Also i dislike doing that because it just creates conflict situations with pedestrians. If you are riding your bike for leisure and you are not in a rush, i think in that case it's ok to ride on the sidewalk if that makes you feel safer. But if you are commuting on a longer distance and want to go fast, you shouldn't ride fast on the sidewalk, you could hurt someone. If cars are allowed to go fast on the street, why shouldn't bicycles do the same? Also that is irrelevant on out of town roads (which represent most of my commute) where there is no sidewalk. Cars and cyclists just have to share the road until we build appropriate bike infrastructure.
We've got a lot of those in Belgium. They're called "bicycle suggestion lanes". But people also refer to them as "murder lanes". They're slowly dissapearing from the roads though, often being replaced by elevated bicycle lanes and narrower slower car lanes.
@@alexanderkupke920 "I wonder if American drivers are just to stupid to get along with bikes and pedestrians" Yes, yes we are. Most folks don't cycle so anyone who is doing so is an annoyance to them, not just someone just doing what they do too. But the real issue here is that we are used to anything with lines at the outer edges but not in the middle, and is only one car wide, is a one-way road so folks are going to be confused as hell by this unusual situation they have never been trained on or driven before. The other thing we are used to is that if there is a bike lane marked like this, no cars are allowed to be there so some drivers would be hesitant to use the space when needed and cyclists wouldn't understand that a car could be swerving into the space anytime there is oncoming traffic.
Euhm... no we dont call them that. These are also only placed in roads where the max speed is 50 kmph. Maybe in your neighbourhood they dont care about the max speed.
As a San Diegan, it's no surprise that it was KUSI that called you a city worker. They used to be a respectable independent channel, but have really gone downhill the last few years. It's also not surprising they were trying to equate it to the end of the world. It's just all doom and gloom scare mongering over there.
That was so darn funny haha, really goes to show how little interest, nuance or care news companies can get away with putting into, well, the news nowadays
These type of roads are so extremely common here in the Netherlands. It can even be one-upped, a full width bike road where cars are "guests". More ideal would be segregation of bikes and cars, although within city limits 30 kmph zones where cars are considered a guest on cyclist first roads are fine too. From my personal experiences cycling in the US though, I think it's a country decades away from, if ever, achieving this level of cohesion between cars and cyclists. Where cycling in many parts of north western Europe in particular feels completely natural, in the US the feeling was best described as a death wish.
No offense mate but I'm pretty sure your country is tiny and has a low population density compared to theirs. Nothing that works in your country is going to work there.
As a dutchy myself, I hear you. But this problem is two faced. Users that don't know how to navigate such street and no proper marketing for such street will cause people to not trust such street. The drone footage shows the street should work, but the majority thinks its bad because most drivers have not been educated on how this works, which creates weird situations. Honestly though, I wonder how many accidents have happened in those two weeks. I bet there were none.
I was thinking that it would have been better not to designate those bike lanes, as it would give the impression that that space is safer for cyclists. Removing all markings and making it visually narrower would slow cars down and make it safer for this to become more of a cycling artery, separate from the primary car-oriented road further north. Making it cycling only (aside from residents) would be an ideal solution, but this is the US we are talking about.
Cars should NEVER be a "Guest" on a road. sorry, cyclists MUST move over and allow cars to pass, in all circumstances. YOU are the most at risk, and YOU must be the most vigilant and the most accommodating. you can't do something that would make a larger vehicle crash or hit you. you must give way to any vehicle that is larger then you.
I think the problem is that they used white dashed lines. For most people, that separates lanes, and you are supposed to stay in your lane. If they gave it a different treatment, such as painting it red or green with bicycle symbols, and omit the white dashed lines, it would probably convey the same message and not be instantly rejected by some people.
Watching this fresh off a 2 week road trip in Spain makes those residents freaking out over that road even more hilarious. The roads get much much tighter and pedestrian/cyclist centric than that and not once did it ever feel "dangerous" it just makes you drive a little more cautiously. In those 2 weeks I did not see a single accident anywhere on a Spanish road. On my 2 hour traffic ridden drive back home from JFK I saw 4 accidents. We really have no clue about road design here, really wish the engineers who actually know what they're doing would stick to their guns a bit more rather than immediately caving to angry Karens.
Maybe. But keep in mind they also did not educate the neighborhood about their plans. Education goes a long way to let people know what the road is designed for and let them adapt to the new way of using the road before implementing it
I completely agree, although I have one outstanding question. I know from NotJustBikes that the Woonerfs generally use permeable pavers and a whole lot of elevation/textural/color changes to signify bicycle priority. In the US, cities put down white paint and leave the bike lanes black asphalt for the most part. While in Spain did you notice different textural changes in conjunction with the perceived cultural awareness? How important is it to go above and beyond with these three design elements (elevation, texture, and paint) when implementing bike lanes in a community that hadn't ever accommodated them before?
One they didn't tell any one , two these look like traditional bike lanes and you are not supposed to drive in bike lanes. Three they are only suppose to be used on narrow low traffic roads. It's not about people being karrens
I think a major problem with these is that they encourage car drivers to merge without looking and to always drive over the bike lane. This might just be an issue with the high-traffic street, though, as I can see this being very useful in streets and roads with low ridership.
The worst part is that the idea was great. The signs were "there was room to improvement" but the idea is great, and neighbourhood streets already work this way. This was sad to watch.
Pretty much how politics works. People want something you don't like so you make a very shitty version that you can point at and say "See it isn't good". Just look at all the welfare programs that are designed to incentivize people to not work so they can claim people on the program are lazy when working a minimum job would pay less than not working.
One reason I think really caused the confusion is the "line" itself. Nearly all of the drivers were taught to drive between two lines or one side of the line, creating both at the same time and the two way traffic. They are not the ones to blame.
This road is better off with no paint at all. The intended use is what drivers and cyclists would naturally do on an unpainted road, and the line just adds to the confusion, because exactly as you said, drivers are taught to stay between lines. And not straddle lines. As a driver, you should always be out of the way of oncoming car traffic by default. It's stupid to expect both traffic directions to share the center lane, and have to run over bicycles, or block bicycles, if they can't slow down in time for each other.
I agree. Even the DMV Driver handbook does not mention this pattern. Plus, you are right many of us in the USA are taught to drive between the lane lines and stay out of the bike lanes or parking lanes. I understand it may be different in the countries like the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, or Stockholm for example. But take into account this was San Diego, where this traffic pattern was foreign and not that familiar to those who grew up in Southern California. Not that we cannot adapt, but new unfamiliar traffic patterns that have not been used in the region previously need to be deployed with proper driver training and public awareness of how it is supposed to work to reduce accidents.
We have tons of "edge-lane" roads here in the Netherlands, espeically on slow, quiet, rural or suburban roads. They work wonderfully from the cycling and driving perspective.
Not really, at least not from footage I've seen on UA-cam (I have never been there myself). It LOOKS like a great place for bikes, but if you're in a car you are constantly and artificially hampered from just going on by way of having to wait around for the bikes to clear the way, which almost never happens because so many people use the damn things. So what you really mean is: They work wonderfully from the cycling perspective but don't you dare drive a car",
@@Kr0noZ Nice of you to admit you have no actual experience with the subject. Again, these are slow, rural roads that we're talking about, so not many bikes to begin with. Besides, there's no "waiting around for the bikes to clear the way," cyclists are already on the edge of the road, bordered by the dashed lines.
@@Kr0noZ Maybe that's the entire point to promote bike usage instead of car usage. Sure you have to wait/slow down in your car for bike, but if those bikes weren't there all these people would be in cars, now the time it takes you to go from A to B is slower for all parties involved. On top of that you need way more money for bigger roads to "solve traffic congestion", you increase global warming, a lot more people die from car crashes, your population gets obese and less healthy so that costs you even more money. I prefer driving in the Netherlands compared to any other country I've been to.
This assumes that Americans would also be courteous and respectful to people on bikes. They aren't. There's literally people who'll install pipes on their trucks specifically to fill a cyclist's lungs with poisonous exhaust. You always have to consider the culture when trying to implement things like this elsewhere, and American culture is being stupid and not caring about anyone but yourself.
lmao this is totally normal in the Netherlands or Germany and people are loosing their minds, I love this Channel and I love seeing that things that are brand new in the US and are preventing crashs (like yellow lines in a construction) which we've had for ever
Yeah but driving standards in the Netherlands and Germany are way more strict than in North America. A good chunk of drivers here would fail their driving tests in Europe.
The population of San Diego, not a huge city, is almost double the population of the largest city in the Netherlands. There are no comparisons to be made between such disparate places. Even Germany only has 3 cities larger than San Diego.
@chrisfoxwell4128 so if Germany has cities larger than San Diego but those cities have shared lanes (and many other even more "complicated" road situations), which Germans living in those larger cities navigate with no problems... does that not destroy your argument? It's simple: Americans are bad drivers on average. And instead of improving drivers by making driving schools more difficult and final driving test more strict, you're dumbing down the roads, making them as wide and comfortable as possible. And even with your dumbed down roads adjusted for dumb American drivers, you still have two to three times the accidents per capita, and two to three times the death toll. So, dumbing down roads doesn't work.
The biggest problem here is education. We had a number of these appear near to me in Oxford. There was no education offered around their use. Your report clearly shows how they work and for that I'm grateful.
As someone who's been following this issue and works in the active transportation engineering world, San Diegos fumble here was outreach. They didnt talk with the residents or members of the community, councilpeople, or anyone really with what they were doing. People are always resistant to change, you have to inform them before something like this happens or people will reject any proposal, no matter how sensible
My city had the same issues when we added some roundabouts in some major areas. We've had some out of the way ones for decades, but put a big one in a major artery, no one remembers how to go through them...multiple people trying to go left, even though the road really guides you to the right around the circle. (I think half of them were in protest or smart asses) They did try to reach out...but even with multiple methods....the city couldn't hit every demographic and so many ppl were focused on the "scary roundabout" that they wouldn't pay attention to the media to learn But we stuck with them and every year there's a new one or two going up...I really like them and definitely finding my morning commute faster with them.
@@mikeboychuk8809 one lane to go one way, the other lane to go the other way... On top of that, it visually narrows the road, so cars drive more carefully.
@@MegaJoler the thing is it really isn't a bike lane. Cars are allowed there. This road layout just forces people to look out for each other and reduces speed as the width of the street feels narrower (than it actually is).
As a dutch person I'm used to this in the middle of nowhere XD It's typical old bicycle infrastructure. A bike line besides the street is better though :-) Cyclers keep in the cycling area (unless they pass others). Without these lines you will simple cycle in the center of your lane :-) The road also needs more obstacles to make people meet the speed limits. And if you hit a cycler here with a car.... Well, prepare to be sued. As the more vulnerable road user is protected by law ;)
I recognize bikers have right of their safety, but they have no right to hold the road hostage and slow down other people. Where to strike the balance is a rough question.
Lawsuit is cold comfort after somebody is dead or permanently disabled from being hit by a car. In a country with a strong bike culture, no problem. Out of the blue in a car culture? Bad idea. I'm all for public transportation; having buses and light rail available would be a godsend in many many ways, but the underlying situation is not similar in the U.S where normal distances are very long compared to in the Netherlands, and there is zero public infrastructure to support a public transport/bike culture.
@@parkershaw8529 the problem is the mentality. If it was a lot more pleasant to ride a bicycle and use public transportation, there’d be a lot less cars on the road. A lot less traffic jams. Commuting on a bicycle doesn’t make you a cyclist, it should just be normal to be able to arrive safely on a bicycle. In the us, everyone would think you use a bicycle because you’re too poor to buy a car. But it should be the norm. I’m a huge patrol head and even I live happily in a cyclist focused country like the Netherlands.
A good way to fix the problem would be to make the street one way with single lane for cars, that would create space for fully separated bike lane, and also stop the road from being a shortcut lowering traffic
You’re totally missing the point. It’s a residential street. Number one problem is drivers are not obeying the speed limit. This type of innovative solution is too much, too fast for most Americans drivers to comprehend. My understanding is they still haven’t accepted round abouts yet.
You were spot on with pointing out how unmarked roads already operate the way they intend these road to be used, but the bike lane markings provide an illusion of order and protection that doesn't exist on these roads as they would with dedicated bike only lanes
Why not just leave it as an unpainted road, and let the drivers and road users work out what they need to do? The edge lane paint only adds confusion, and wastes paint that gives no useful information.
It all depends on the purpose of the street. If this truly is a through street, then definitely remove some of the parking for better traffic / bicycle flow. But if this truly is a local residential then they need to block off through traffic at one or more points to prevent people from driving along it as a cut-through, which introduces more traffic than a shared bike/car roadway can comfortably handle.
Yup, once I saw the diagram he showed a better solution was clear, remove one side of parking, put a 2 way bike lane in its place (with lines in between so it’s really two lanes) put the parked cars next to the bike lanes, so on one side of the bike lane is the curb and sidewalk and then there are parked cars protecting the other side. On the other side of the road is the two way driving area. That way you have parking, a fully protected bike lane, and a 2 way driving area. Edit: since there's driveways in front of almost every house, take away street parking all together and put one lane on one side that switches direction based off the time of day (direction used most during each rush hour) this makes it so that most driveways on that side don't have to cross the bike lane to get to the road that goes the direction they want. next to that put the two way protected bike lane, and then next to that on the other side of the road put the two way driving area (two lanes, like how the middle of the road currently is) this whole new design is weirdly complicated just to stop the bike lane from being constantly cut off by drivers exiting their garages. It also shows that having a suburb with only single family homes that each have driveways makes the whole suburb car dependent, meaning to live their you need a 40,000+ car, basically no one walks anywhere because the roads need to be only used by cars to keep them simple, and everyone get's used to that and protests against ever change. This is what 99% of "desirable" american suburbs look like and its what a lot of large American cities look like (like LA). Its terrible neighborhood design and hopefully starts to change to allow more walk-able and livable places. TLDR: I give up this suburb sucks go move to a walkable city like NYC with good public transit or a suburb in a country like the Netherlands to get out of car dependent hell.
I actually prefer this style of road. Psychologically, it makes the drivers think they have less room, so they would be less likely to drive fast in low speed limit areas.
it's great until you're heading home tired after a long day at work and aren't ready to have a car in front of you. I could easily see someone focused on the car in front of them so swerve into a bike they didn't see because they're focused on the car.
i think the same, i actually like the idea. If its the best in regards what people are used to atm is a big question. How ever, ones people got used to it, it can lead to a more well defined system, it just needs some time to break the old habits. - tbh as european i did not know, that it is common that you have yellow lines everywhere. In most regions in europe you have a center divider which is more or less only there to show you where the center is, you are legally allowed to cross is to overtake (if there is enough room of course). We also have something similar to the yellow lines, how ever those are only in areas, where it is really dangerous to overtake, where nobody with a brain would overtake anyways, like on corners.
@@virginiamoss7045 or imaging this on a foggy early morning, when like half the people think because there's some light that means they don't need to turn their headlights on.
@@SilverStarHeggisist In EU we have lots of verry old roads that allowed 2 way traffic these roads are mostly not wider then 1.5 cars. I think there is a disparity between us and US, that we are used to riding on these streets VS US being used to verry wide roads.
2:57 "Cars get first dibs because they're paying the bill" is just factually incorrect. ~99% of road costs are funded by all levels of governments (depending on the road) through things like income and property tax which everyone pays. Taxes on cars and gas cover a measly ~1% of road infrastructure. So someone who does not drive pays about the same as someone who does.
There are 3 main requirements for an edge lane road. (in my opinion) - low traffic volume - rural setting - NO PARKING!! They failed all 3. Feels like they wanted to fail. A 4th might be that the road is narrow. This road looks like it could have 2 lanes both ways and a bikeline.
Considering the width of the road and the fact that all the properties had off-street parking rendering most of the on-streer parking unnecessary, I don't understand how they couldn't find room for two curb-separated bike lanes and two car lanes.
- Looking at the car count this IS a low traffic volume. If it was any lower you wouldn't even need any markings on the road. - A rural setting would be a horrible choice for this type of road design. Since driving speeds are usually higher in rural areas and there's more room, that's where the separate bike lane comes in. - No parking would be ideal, but it's not necessary. I would say the current situation with only the yellow middle line is considerably worse with parking. With the bike suggestion lanes, at least you had a clear boundary line for parking, that'll help cyclists identify parked cars easier, and helps drivers park better. And the dotted line means that cars passing cyclists will keep a better distance so the cyclists won't be forced to ride closer to the parked cars than comfortable. The only thing that went wrong with this road is that they didn't inform anyone about the change. You can't expect the people driving here to immediately understand it, since this type of road design is apparently still quite rare in that city. And about the narrow road. This honestly was the best way they could have divided the space. 2 lanes and one bike lane would have been quite unsafe for cyclists. 2 lanes, means cars will drive faster. And 1 two-way bike lane would mean that as soon as they get to the next street the cyclists would have to cross the entire road again, to ride safely on the right side, since not all streets are designed the same. This is a design error you see with many new American cycling projects. Yes, a protected two-way bike lane is the safest option for cyclists. But that only counts as safe if they have a good connection to the other streets. If not, then just use an unprotected lane on either side of the road. Just take it one step at the time. It's about the network, not the single road.
> "Cars get first dibs because they pay the bills" A widely cited misconception. Motor vehicle tax is just one revenue stream the DMV/equivalent levies for the states/equivalent to spend on anything it wants. Even if it is written into law, that law should be changed to be a tax for polluting the environment, to support those who cannot use those roads in a car, etc. And IIRC property tax pays for a lot more of the overall upkeep on roads than motor vehicle tax. Not just the pavement, but the water, electric, and sewer mains under it, the landscaping, the garbage collection happening on those roads etc.
In Louisiana, you are expressly allowed to pass a bicycle in a no-passing zone: "An operator of a motor vehicle may pass a bicycle traveling in the same direction in a no-passing zone only when it is safe to do so." from La. RS 32:76.1(B)
Have done it many times here in TN. The no passing is for regular traffic. You'd be in a real bind if you couldn't pass a horse, a tractor, a cyclist or even the Menonites.
It's the same in many other countries. In the UK, if the vehicle is stationary or travelling 10mph or less (which would include most cyclists going uphill) you may pass on double whites.
edge Lanes on quiet residential streets don't make any sense precisely for the reason you stated: people including cyclists and kids playing basketball are using those streets WITHOUT any lines just fine... the real solution to Gold Coast drive is to make it so it doesn't go through. this will stop anyone other than residents from using it. we have that exact scenario here in my city. A street that used to go through that now has an elementary school in the center of it. the cycling route continues between steel bollards through to the school bus parking lot which is where the street used to go. there's a U-shaped neighborhood on either side of the school grounds
Exactly my thoughts as well. Although, I don't think making it not go through is even necessary (though probably a good idea). Just remove all the lane markings. It means the same thing, everyone understands what it means already, and it's a clear signal to through traffic that they shouldn't be there. If anything, the only effect of the edge lane markings is that it gives through traffic permission to be there. Now here's a thought: instead of making the road not go through, what if they just... lied? Put up "not a through street" signs, and maybe put in a report with Google maps to get them to stop routing traffic through there?
@@frafraplanner9277 yeah but that also blocks local traffic, forcing people leaving for their commute onto roads *inside* the neighborhood, plus making them even later, which makes them go faster...
My takeaway on this was.... find ways to restrict / deter freeway users from cutting through a neighborhood street and just don't paint lines. People will figure it out as they do on unmarked neighborhood roads. Spending the money to paint lines and erect signs added more to the confusion than if they'd just paved the road and left it unmarked.
That's my take also. This feels like an attempt to remind people that it is a neighborhood street and should not be used as a commuter shortcut. Make people less comfortable on the road, so you reduce traffic on it, and make it safer for the people that live there. However it will take a while for the change to filter through the shortcut apps that people use and discover that it really isn't a good shortcut anymore.
@@ijustdocomments6777 Some. But what I usually see is people slowing down just for the speedbumps and then flooring it as soon as they get away from them.I've also seen so many cars bottom out after crossing the speedbump too fast, and you can see big gouges in the asphalt right there. Also, not an issue there in California, but in snowy states they cause lots of issues with snowplows over the winter.
But that's where it bumps with public perception. All the research seems to say it's safer, but drivers hate ambiguity, it doesn't feel good. We want to have a clear lane to drive in, we hate to share it with vehicles of different speed, and the less we have to be cautious about the better it feels. It's hard to argue against increased safety, and yet a lot of these measure are impopular because it reduces our "freedom" to drive fast and selfishly.
@@Kaiso54 I follow a person who moved to the Netherlands where these kind of roads are quite common even on more rural roads where you can drive 55mph. She was confused about these roads and the overwhelming reply people gave her, if it's confusing your driving to fast.
@@DrJams Driving fast is absolutely selfish. "I need to get there as fast as possible at the expense of public safety in case I mess up". Drivers can still drive, but now they're forced to be aware that they need to SHARE the road in a safe manner. Sounds like the opposite of selfish to me.
After living in Germany for a year, Europeans are miles head of the US in sharing the roads with „vulnerable road user“. Most village roads don’t have a centerline and people aren’t making a big hoopla hin sharing with bikes.
@@scottanno8861 Nah, Denmark should be our goal. To get a "B" license (car) students are mandated to sit through several hours of classroom education, pass a series of closed-course tests (normal condition and simulated iced surface). Students must also record several hours on public roads with a supervisor (30+ years old or licensed 10+ consecutive years without revocation or suspension). Prospective "B" license holders must also take 8+ hours of first-aid safety courses, receive a note from a doctor stating overall health---especially eyesight---is within acceptable parameters. Only after all of these requirements are satisfied can you schedule your final tests; a 25-question multiple choice exam (minimum 80% to pass), and a public road test with a government supervisor. Any mistakes on the final public road test means you fail the license test (even just straying in your lane onto paint markings is considered a mistake). All of this is to operate a car. Once you have your "B" license it's valid until you turn 70, after which you must receive an OK from your doctor, and pass the road tests every 2 years.
As opposed to the caliber of bike riders? Where I live, they're entitled riders, who think the traffic laws don't apply to them. I can't ever can't even count how many times I've almost hit a cyclist, who blew through a stop sign, or red light, in front of my. And that's WAY more than when other drivers.
The problem in the US, is the cyclists think that they can ride anywhere, and anyway they want. They don't stop at red lights, or stop signs, and they ride in both directions, on both sides of the road. They also ride in the middle of the road, and refuse to move for faster traffic. They also ride 2 and 3 across, even though they're required to ride single file.
@@Normal1855 That is the same in the Netherlands... we just (have to) deal with it. Normally on a road like this when there would be a 20mph speed limit (30 km/h) here so it would not be too much of a problem with modern electric bikes going almost that fast as well. And to avoid dangerous action by car drivers, the rule is that in case of an accident the car is always at fault, not the biker.
@@Normal1855 You sure that's a cyclist thing? Most dashcam vids from the US are 97% cars that pull such stunts like not stopping for red lights or stop signs, driving anywhere on and off the road or blocking traffic. But good for you they changed it back to a situation where the people on bikes need to ride on the road and it's forbidden to pass them with the double yellow lines. That way instead of looking at ugly bike -infrastructure- lines and passing them when safe, you can stay behind them and drive 4mph for the entire street. Don't tell me you want them to move over to the sidewalk or the parking lane, you just said you didn't want them driving anywhere where they don't belong.
@@Normal1855 And still you dont want separate infrastructure? With better infrastructure they Will behalve better. And if they are separate they wont botter you, and there will be less cars, so maybe even faster travel time for you
@@Anco Few places in America hardly has viable alternatives to driving, so every bad driver is forced to get into a car. And people wonder why traffic is so bad
But the Edge Lane treatment is safer. Problem is road is being used as a cut through and it was designed to be a slow residential street. To restore it to a slow residential street you need to add 'filtered permeability' basically barriers in the street that allow bikes and peds to go through but force drivers to turn and make the route more circuitous and therefore less effective than just staying on the highway or the arterial aka 'stroad.' Make it so cars can't cut through and you fix the problem, pavement markings become an irrelevant moot point.
@@einar8019 that's what you're essentially doing with the filtered permeability. Signage won't work because it requires enforcement and that's next to impossible to be effective.
It seems like people just hate it because it's different and new. When they built a DDI in my town, everybody was complaining about how odd it was, even though it really did help in relieving traffic. But the DOT should've notified residents before implementing those edge lanes.
@@zzz6valvoline That's just the thing- there aren't any pedestrians at this intersection, and very rarely any cyclists. I think people just need to be better educated and accepting of new traffic patterns.
People always hate change, but the bigger issue is that the city added something completely unfamiliar to the locals and didn't inform them about it at first. A street with edge works counter to how you normally drive and how you have been taught to drive, so people need to be taught on how to drive "wrong" so they understand how to drive"right".
4:17 The pickup and the white car turning left both run on the stop marking on the opposite side of the road. People who drive so recklessly don't deserve to have any saying about road safety. They only need to get a ticket for putting lives in danger, and have their licence revoked.
North American streets are dangerously easy to navigate in most cases. I'd really like to see Americans who struggle with these streets navigate sma town streets in Europe which may very well be only as wide in total as the "car" section here
That's because we've land to spare. My favorite was visiting Texas, were half the roads were two lanes in each direction and a parallel road on each side of the main road.
@@SilverStarHeggisist if your in a car its great but for literally everyone else its terrible. its bad for the enviroment, for pedestrians, for the people living next to the road, for bisiclyists and its also less safe for car drivers too because of the increased speeds
If they want to reduce thru traffic, add some small roundabouts. That is what we do around here. Locals hate roundabouts, so we'll add them to streets we don't want people to use for thru traffic, and people actually do avoid them. LOL.
Recently visited the Netherlands (aka the bike kingdom) there were lots of these lanes in slower streets. I can’t fathom why Americans can’t build good bike lanes.
@@johnathin0061892 majority SEEMINGLY dont want them because the infrastructure isn't there in the first place. People do want to bike and use good public transit. There's a high demand, but we're all forced to drive.
The problem with that street is that it goes through. The city should block it to car traffic in a couple of places so it loses it's appeal to drivers who use it as a thoroughfare. Just leave gaps in the blockades so cyclists can get through. As for the markings, get rid of all markings on that street.
trouble is if driveways go onto that road you cannot completely make it bikes only, otherwise people will yard hop in their SUVs so they can park in their garage.
@@filanfyretracker I didn't say to make the road for bikes only. I said they should block the road in a couple places so cars can't use it for a thoroughfare.
you are correct, this is the best solution and is exactly what they would do in the Netherlands. It's called 'filtered permeability.' Source: I'm a transportation engineer.
Something else to consider: in California and a lot of other states like MA, VA, CT, etc. traffic enforcement is very strict and expensive. People are used to getting pulled over for driving in a bike lane. So, when they see what looks like a bike lane with one car lane in the middle, they may be hesitant to move into the bike lane for fear of getting a ticket, causing a lot of confusion. Here in FL, it is a different story. Traffic enforcement basically doesn’t exist. It sucks, but people would probably be less confused by this road design because they already feel as if they can move into the bike lane to avoid an oncoming car with no consequences.
yes , yes and yes. When a city in California introduced floating parking it confused even the cops there and they issued tickets to people who correctly used the floating parkin spots
@@DiogenesOfCa they did when I lived in Milpitas and I see them do it in Sacramento. When I was in the bay area they did t Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP ). That's when you get police from 4-8 different agencies and do crack down on speeders. ANd yes they would pick a street like this
Florida should be a pretty good case study in how NOT to do things. Orlando was just ranked number one in the nation as most dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, and Florida beats 49 other states in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities.
Eh, this doesn't mesh with my experience at all. Cars drive in bike lanes all the time, delivery trucks unexpectedly pull up and stop in bike lanes, and enforcement just is not there. Maybe different street design would help ? Another problem are needlessly large vehicles. How is it legal to have lifted pickup-trucks so high that they can blast their exhaust right into your face as a cyclist ? A few such toys make for a terrible experience for everyone. Why don't we seem to have a universal standard for bumper heights for all street-legal vehicles ? There are already all sorts of regulations around cars&trucks.
Nailed it - that's what was missing in the coverage. Was always used for a cut through. I don't know whether it's still sedate enough for edge lanes but does seem like it's at very least on outer limits of acceptability, especially when you compare to the existing case studies (that are overwhelmingly rural). Feels like this + traffic calming might make some sense?
This is like an average Dutch road. We have thousands of kilometers or miles as you call them, of this type of roads. It is just a matter of getting used to it. I was a police officer for 38 years and saw that these types of roads also were introduced in the Netherlands. I was initially skeptic. During my career I treated around 3500 traffic accidents, but I don't remember much on this kind of streets. The dotted lines mark more or less the maximum position of the right for cars when they pass a cyclist. For cyclists these lines mark the maximum left position while riding. When there is no cyclist, the full road width is used by cars. Two cars can pass easy then. Only the moment that at the same time, two opposing cyclists and two opposing cars drive it is too narrow ... simply delay and show some courtesy and give each other space. In rural environments in The Netherlands, cyclists were often hit by cars in the dark. All rural roads have this type lines now and because it is quiet there during the dark, drivers will ride between the lines in the middle and do not drive over cyclists anymore. There should have been a news item about how to behave on this type of roads.
@@dikkiedik53 I'm old enough to remember when we (the U.S.) decided to switch to metric in the 70s. They put up a bunch of shooed limit signs in km/hr under the ones in mph. Then a couple of years later they took them all down.
At least in NL where I live the bicycle area of the road (edge) is painted red so people know what to do automatically, but we Dutch are used to bicycles everywhere. We are a cycling nation.
Yes, it works great here in NL, but only on certain roads. Not too busy, and not with continuous parking on both sides. Great solution, maybe not for this particular road.
If I can see there's a road where I need to go, I would rather just drive there slowly than have to plan an elaborate circling pattern to home in on the destination.
I’m surprised there wasn’t the solution of simply deleting a parking lane and replacing it with a 2 lane protected bike lane. Imo people can and should live without that much parking
So remove one lane of parking and put in a two-way bike lane. There's plenty of space for it. If it's really a capacity issue like the residents think it is than min-maxing for efficiency by taking away space for cars and replacing with something else that moves more people in the same amount of space (600-1,600 per lane per hour for a car-only street and 7,500 per hour in each direction for a two-way bike lane according to the National Association of City Transportation Officials) should be the priority. Doubly so if school pick up is what's causing the capacity crunch since separated bike infrastructure means the road is accessible to children.
I agree, there is no reason for that much street parking in a neighborhood where everyone has a driveway. They can easily do away with one of the parking sides
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv Ppl really love to use garage as a workshop, which I get it. But I don't get why they don't use the driveway and insist on parking on the street. DO they really have that many guests or visitors?
@@mingchi1855 im some cases, maybe when you have multiple driving family members who all leave and return hone at different times, and not necessarily in a sequence that doesn't involve playing musical parking spaces.
You don't live out here, the residents didn't think anything because the city implemented the lane overnight without gathering public opinion. public opinion has now deemed the lane more troublesome because it's a new system put in place where people have no experience with how it works and it's also a busy neighborhood and in a part of the city where there are little to no bikers. if they put this lane in la jolla or a neighborhood where bikers are traveling more nobody would be complaining.
@@jgood005 of course people dont read them. i can literally see that theres no car comming either way and im not going to go to a complete stop every fucking block
My first impression was that it wouldn't have been such a bad idea if the streets were made one-way for cars, making one of the bike lanes effectively a contraflow lane (since I'm not familiar with advisory bike lanes-I don't think they're a thing here in San Antonio). If I lived in that neighborhood, I'd have been confused as all hell, too.
I mean all they had to do was remove on street parking on one side and have one bike lane on the other..... Cant believe city planners thought that was a good bicycle infrastructure.
Advisory bike lanes are lanes where bikes take priority, but cars can cross into when needed. In this case, if you were to drive down the street, bike in the bike lane, another car coming towards you, you would partially go into the bike lane behind the cyclist to let the car, who also partially goes into the bike lane, go through.
It's a bit hopeless with the current street configuration. I've visited Mira Mesa and (tried) to walk around it. It's full of dead ends, and from the map, Gold Coast is a little more connected than many streets by being near retail businesses, but lacks the alternatives to make people happy with it as a one-way. A better move(but far more challenging) would be to attempt to work with landowners to build out some new rights-of-way for the bike network.
@Doji If bicyclists are small enough in the mirror that one may reasonably overlook them, they're far enough away that they themselves can react. Try it out one time. Have a friend or something move forward to your side mirror, and determine at what distance he becomes too obvious to overlook. I'm betting roughly 20m or about the length of the 2 cars parked behind you.
@@flopsinator5817 I'm not talking about the street that "failed" I mean, Americans view every street as high speed, but that was not the street i was referring to
Woulda been better off with no lines at all. Lines tell us there are rules, you have to be on this side of the line unless it's a dotted line in which case you may cross it but you still should be on one side of the line or the other. No lines = no rules. Less rules = more caution. Many neighborhoods have no lines at all. I share my residential road with dog walkers and bicycles and kids chasing balls and dogs pulling skateboards and even the occasional fpv racing drone. We all get along because we are all cautious and sharing the entire road. We actively avoid collisions even if it means driving on the wrong side of the road. And why not? Its not like there's any lines telling me not to.
This is what I came here to write -- thanks for doing so for me! The only add I would make is that they solved the wrong problem: restricting access to only local traffic somehow would solve the real issue and getting rid of the center line would then make perfect sense and work well.
Came looking for this comment as well. The lines just confuse the situation -- we're taught to stay on one side of the line. If a solid-yellow is so much of a problem, they could have used.... I don't know... a hashed yellow that does permit passing? I know cars that have determined near-borderline violent lane-keeping systems that if you start to even casually cross any line (dotted or solid) it starts increasing the force to keep you in what it considers a lane. I think there would have been more room (and less backlash) if they removed parking on one side of the street and made it the bi-directional bike lane as opposed to this nonsense they tried.
I can't say how it is in practise as I am not driving on US roads, but I do think, that in theory dotted lines should indicate, that crossing over it is allowed if necessary. Apart from that I think, that the whole point of this design is to make vulnerable road users even safer, which is especially important on such a road, which isn't a true neighbourhood street any more. This additional safety is caused by the fact, that a car driver uses on streets with no lines (at least theoretically) the right edge and the driver uses only another part of the if there is an obstacle or a vulnerable road user on the right edge. With the edge-lane-design car drivers drive normally in the middle of the road and only go into the edge lanes, when it is impossible to stay in the center and only after they made sure, that no vulnerable road user is there. This brings additional safety, because there is less time for car drivers in the space of the vulnerable road users, because the drivers should be especially cautious, when they enter the edge lane and because they potentially even drive slower than in a design with no lines, because cars that are driving in the other direction in my space are easier to see and harder to dodge than vulnerable road users that drive in the same direction on the edge of my space.
If unmarked residential streets were already doing the same thing, why was it necessary to create an edge lane system that's counterintuitive to how people have been conditioned to drive in the first place?
Seems like it needed a bunch more traffic calming, and more commitment to turning it into a street by making it difficult for drivers to use it as a cheat route
I laughed so hard when you showed the news portion of people's reactions. This is just an average Scandinavian road. It's great for low traffic areas. The lines also make people think twice about bikes before crossing as the psychological barrier of a line is a reminder.
A lot of drivers, especially american ones, need to be told exactly what to do. Unknowns create uncertainty which causes some people to "lock up". It has a lot to do with how americans are taught to drive. That's why a lot of americans struggle with traffic circles for a while, they aren't used to having to make on-the-fly decisions so they will treat traffic circles like a stop sign(which they're familiar with). Despite tons of evidence that "less traffic signs = more cautious driving" a lot of people want more signs, more traffic markings, etc because it defines the environment for them.
These are not really being used like they are in the Netherlands. There are two uses in the Netherlands. One is on country (rural) roads which are quieter and not that wide. On these roads, the white dashed edge markings are not actually marking a bike lane, but actually just keeping cars from the edge, and artificially narrowing the road, which lowers travel speeds. Generally, bicycles will have a separate bike path, but if they are intended to use the road, it still doesn't make them "bike lanes" in law (there was a legal issue about this recently, I'd have to dig out the article). The other use is in main residential streets. In this case, the bike lanes are usually painted red, and the cars get the remainder of the street (the single travel lane, grey asphalt or potentially brick). I believe these are always, or almost always streets marked as "auto te gast", or "cars are guests". In this case, cars should wait patiently for an opportunity to pass. I don't think I've EVER seen them with on-street parking (which adds risks of dooring), unless there's designated bays. The design of this street in California seems confused, taking elements of both rural use edge markings (as found in the Netherlands and other European countries), which are not actually bike lanes, and Dutch "cars are guests" cycle streets, but without the same level of speed restrictions etc. Unfortunately this is what happens when you mimic without understanding...
Nevertheless, seeing these things being done, even done poorly, is a good sign to me, gives me hope. For every one attempt at better street design that's poorly thought out, there's like 10 highways being redesigned, adding lanes, with the same amount of thought. I was looking at some residential streets in LA on Gmaps, it had several different types of traffic calming methods being used because they don't actually know what they're doing, so they have to throw things at the wall to see what sticks. It's a miracle they're even throwing. Truly, it would be amazing if the people responsible for making these changes actually consulted successful street designers in the Netherlands and their design manuals.
@@mrmaniac3 Yes, it's true, even making an attempt to replicate better street design is a good sign. I remember some of the first roundabouts built in Florida, they were very problematic and required several design changes, but as they became more European in design and operation, and drivers became used to them (came to understand how they operate), they worked successfully. Now, roundabouts are the default intersection choice at all new intersections in the state. Of course, doing a little more research and consultation before implementing something (as with these edge lanes) would be a good idea, as this may now not get a second try. Roundabouts in Florida very nearly didn't get another chance either, so hated was the Clearwater roundabout at first, but I guess they'd already spent so much on the roundabout that they were more willing to modify it first... painted lines are not so hard to disappear forever.
My humble opinion: Too many people that should not driving cars (are incompetent, dumb and selfish AND would not have passed the driver licence test) drive cars. That's why USA has one of the worst traffic conditions in the world. If drivers of cars think that the roads was made for them, there is something VERY WRONG.
I certainly know some streets in the Netherlands where there is parking and not "cars are guests" streets. Like Noordewierweg in Amersfoort, the city wants to get rid of it. The main difference is that there are speedlimit measures, like bollards or speed bumbs. Also the busy part of that road is 30kmh (19mph). Not Just Bikes calls it a painted bicycle gutter. The best solution is to seperate bicycle streets and main car streets entirely. Maybe the fix for this street is a bollard in the middle, so cars can't use it as a cut through.
@@edewaal97 Noordewierweg is a standard width road with bicycle lanes as far as I can tell, and yes these exist quite a bit around the Netherlands (including with parking unfortunately). However, the particular topic of the video is a 2-way road that's one lane-width wide for cars, and which intentionally forces cars into the bike lanes as a form of traffic calming (thereby making cars dodge both bicycles and each other). I'm pretty sure such a setup only exists as bicycle priority streets in the Netherlands.
So why is there a double yellow there?? Just allow cars to pass cyclists by using the other lane and they will do EXACTLY what is safest to do, WITHOUT the head-on conflict and the confusion of introducing a totally new road layout.
That sort of sharing the entire road surface is common on most local streets in the Netherlands: a 30km/hr speedlimit and intersections at sidewalk level, probably without stop signs or traffic lights just shark teeth yeild indicators. And if the drivers don't know to share the road and hurt anyone, well the driver is in a hell of a lot of trouble (drivers are generally assumed to be at fault in all cases unless it can be proven that the vulnerable road user expressly did something wrong).
At least in the US there are effectively zero streets - even neighborhood streets - that have speed limits that low. The standard is 30 mph or roughly 50 kph. The only place you will see 30-ish kph speed limits are school zones and those are routinely ignored.
@@willythemailboy230mph? Anywhere I've ever been residential streets are 25mph. Still, I agree that it should be lower. When on my own street I drive between 15-20 mph. Just doesn't feel safe at 25. Also, where I am, the middle school and the elementary school are both on a 5 lane arterial/connector road with a 35-45 mph speed limit, yet I always see people slow down for both school zones. I think the main problem is enforcement as there are police regularly patrolling the road during that time, and one of the police's favourite speed trap hides is at the beginning of the middle school's zone(treeline obstructing a small parking lot for the local little league field, which goes out directly onto the road).
We have this system a lot where I live. It works very well when people understand it. The markings don't exclude cars but are a continuous reminder to allow room for bicycles. Definitely safer for cyclists in my opinion and acts somewhat as a traffic calming measure. It works if you understand it and can progress beyond your preconceptions of how a rod should look.
Why can't people with bikes just go on the sidewalk? I honestly think bikes are the dumbest things to be allowed on the road. Constantly they're hit and killed near me on rt22. Because they shouldn't be on a 45-65mph road.
@@lennytate4246 You ever been on a sidewalk these days? Never big enough to properly accommodate pedestrians and bikes at the same time and they're never maintained regularly. We should be following the Netherlands approach with actual properly sized and distanced sidewalks
@@lennytate4246 Why can't people with cars just watch where they're going and make room for pedestrians and cyclists instead of having the entitled attitude that they're the only ones who belong there?
I love how the engineer goes "If I'm on a street and there could be a car coming by golly I'm paying attention" has he met the average American driver? There are tons of people driving out there that I wouldn't trust to drive Tonka truck let alone a car. Also why the double yellow line? Doesn't that make it illegal to make a turn into most of the driveways?
Here in Canada a single solid line up the middle means the same... why waste the paint :P But it is also illegal to back out of a driveway onto a street.... if you cannot turn around in your driveway you are required to back into your driveway...
@@TroyC68 We don't have a law about backing out of a driveway in the US, yet. I think backing in is the sensible thing, and then pulling out. Why pull out into an uncertain environment when you could back in to a fixed environment? I also back in or pull through when parking at the store. Research shows it reduces accidents.
“Cars get first dibs, because well, they’re paying the bill”.... Gas taxes have never come even close to paying what road infrastructure costs. Everyone in the country pays the bill not ‘cars’.
Just found you after ‘city beautiful’ and ‘not just bike’s’, love what you are doing. This really seems like another bandaid solution when we need better design from the ground up, but it was a good attempt in theory.
better design from the ground up? Sure, but that can only work for new development. You can't seriously expect any city to just buldoze itself and start over.
@@johnbeckwith1361 Sounds like someone is able-bodied... Look, things might be all fine and dandy... for *you.* But this world isn't made for just you! This world has people who can't drive for whatever reason. Just because you don't have any personal issues with how things are doesn't mean nothing needs to change. If the world were built for just people who can swim and you sink like a rock, you'd be demanding change. If everyone just maintained the status quo for all time, we wouldn't even have cars or roads. Things change. Time marches on. Be a stick in the mud all you like, but the river of change ain't stopping just because you're in the way.
Maybe the bigger problem with Gold Coast Dr. is that they need to enforce selective permeability. Keep people in cars from having an easy east west path that isn't on an arterial road. That would quiet down those neighborhood streets to where you wouldn't need pavement treatments
It would also make traffic on the arterials worse... which is a good thing if you've got public transit that will actually accommodate the needs of a decent percentage of the drivers (which will drop the road users and speed traffic up again) and are trying to get people to actually use it. Not so much if you don't.
The other option would have been to put in a modal filter to prevent that through traffic altogether. The problem seems to be the through traffic more than anything else. It’s disappointing this just ends up another road where people feel comfortable speeding and using it as an alternative route when traffic backs up on the arterial.
yeah safety seems to be discarded in the name of both the status quo and also just allowing highway traffic to spill out and as noted, those people will speed
@@kitkat4892 it makes sense that highway traffic spills into residential streets when you consider, those residential streets are typically designed to highway standards
I saw this and immediately thought of a hundred different roads here in Pittsburgh. WITHOUT these markings, we already drive on them exactly like this. This city has too many hilly, curvy, narrow streets that are two way with barely (or not) enough room for two cars to get past each other (let alone one to get through sometimes), and people already know that without markings, you just take it slow and go wherever makes sense. It really shows how incompetent the complaining drivers are, and the lack of proficiency they have with their vehicles, if they're worried about crashing into someone head-on while they have perfect visibility and a functioning brake. Literally just use your discretion and be careful. I'd love to see some markings similar to those put down here, just to codify what we already do a ton of; driving in the middle of the street at a comfortable speed until we see someone else coming head-on. If we can do it with all of our sometimes VERY BLIND hills and bends, what's stopping flat, straight roads from accommodating even more traffic than they had there? Honestly, I'm all for anything that forces other drivers to have to concentrate a little harder, while making things easier for non-drivers, and I LOVE driving. I couldn't get by without driving. Even still, too many people don't respect the difficulty, danger, and RESPONSIBILITY that comes with piloting a several-ton hunk of metal powered by (most commonly) exploding dinosaur juice. If they can't handle that, get them off the road. It'll make it safer for all of us. EDIT: Also, here in Pittsburgh, we do cross the double yellow to go around "share the road" cyclists. Everyone does this when it's safe to. So again, there is no difference in the road anyway. Just be a better driver.
Bingo re: without the markings, people will already drive as intended. But, *with* the markings, people in cars will believe they can't use the bike lanes, not to mention that the default driving position will be "in the middle of the road" instead of "to the side except as needed to pass" (as it should be), and it is completely unclear who is required to yield to who - because you're both within your lane heading straight towards each other, instead of crossing the centerline to pass.
@@JohnRunyon Well, you should be driving not on bike lanes by default. If there are oncoming automobiles, then one of you yields to a bike lane. It is so freaking intuitive, but I guess North Americans also struggle with basic roundabouts, so what do I know
@@mr.norris3840 Well, you shouldn't be driving in the middle of the road by default. That's entirely the point; there shouldn't be bike lanes here because there's not enough width for them. Having cars entering the bike lane every time another car is coming towards them is far more dangerous than having them overtake whenever they need to pass a bike.
@@JohnRunyon Unfortunately the latter half of your point is moot here. People DO drive in the middle of the road here, and it IS unclear who has to yield to who, even on a lot of roads with a double-yellow. There are plenty of parked cars on either side that make it impossible for someone to comfortably stay on their side of the road, and if two cars need to pass each other between two more parked cars, you can expect maybe two inches of clearance between each of the four cars on average. Having the markings here would clear up confusion more than anything else, instead of leaving us to stare at someone driving literally atop the double-yellow like "is this illegal, or..."
6:29, I didn’t realize until I saw it from this angle, but only in America would a one way edge lane be wide enough for a car to fit easily inside the lines. I got a good sense of scale from this shot and still the residents complain that the road is too narrow now for the cars?! I must say tho it does feel a little weird seeing this type of road downtown, because here in the Netherlands those roads have been disappearing over the last 10-20 years or so as we’ve been redesigning our roads. You still see them lots in the countryside tho, where there’s low traffic.
america is about 5 decades behind other countries in safe road infrastructure so that makes sense. We're just now implementing stuff that was deemed safe in the Netherlands in the 50s.
Great video as usual Rob! I'd just point out at 2:55 cars don't actually pay the bill most of the time. It always depends what street and what state, but where I live all the local roads like these would be paid for through property taxes. Even for major roads, the gas tax doesn't cover the full cost.
These are actually very common in the Netherlands and work really well. Of course, here people are actually taught to pay attention to bikes and other participants of the road. These types of roads are only used for 60km/h or slower and are proven to be extremely safe as they make way for bikes plus they add to the visual cue that this is a shared road. Hence why one would need to pay extra attention, adjust speed and just don’t be an idiot in general.
You must have missed the part where the narrator talked about how this road is used. There is so much traffic from people arriving/leaving work that the arteries between the freeways and work places are clogged during morning and afternoon rush hours. Many people then use this alternate route through residential neighborhoods. A lot of those people continue to drive at freeway speeds (>50 mph) which is twice as fast as the roads were designed for. Setting up this striping scheme on these roads was extremely dangerous without doing anything to effect the speeding problem. (If you're thinking that that's not what you saw in the video, of course you didn't: nobody would go out on that street during a traffic rush, and that includes this video crew.)
can you giver me an example of one? I'm surprised the Netherlands would have such a design. I've heard places where cars are guests and the roads are cobblestone and narrow to slow down cars, but never heard of this monstrosity existing in the nether regions.
@@andhisband Agreed that this does not always work on every street. But in America, the way speed limits are enforce usually is by just adding speed signs without actually doing something about the way the road 'feels' and looks. The best way to enforce speed limits is by designing the street so drivers will automatically drive slower. One of the ways to do this is to make the street optically smaller. Many 60 km/h (37mph) rural streets have this design. They have no middle lane markings. Ofcourse you cannot use this design in high speed, high traffic situations. But to me, the way the street was designed in the video seemed perfectly fine.
In europe there a buch of streets where you just dont have space for anything. They are usually 2 or 3 car width wide, but parking is permitted, so in relity its just enough for one car. It is still a two way street, if two cars use it at the same time, the one who is closer to an intersection backs up, not a big deal.
"Cars get 1st bid because they're paying the bill". Now that's an interesting take. Tax and other revenue from car use contributes but a small portion to road construction and maintenance. The property and business owners are contributing far more.
No idea how it works on the US, but is the tax/revenue on car use going directly to the category "road maintenance" (to illustrate: "Gas tax" => "road maintenance")? Or is it done (like in multiple other countries) in a way that the tax and revenue is collected in the total budget before spending it on maintenance (to illustrate: "Gas tax" => "Total Budget" => "maintenance") ?
"Cars go first because they pay the bills..." I'm confused: What is the background of this statement here? I thought roads are built with the money from taxes, including those from bicyclists and pedestrians. And why do get cars both the bigger part of the driving area and additionally the parking area? Edit: The video is great otherwise, just this one little remark itched me... Maybe it was meant ironically and I did not get it.
Exactly, this misconception on Rob's part is a huge problem with our car-centric road design. Car drivers do pay additional taxes for road use than cyclists and pedestrians (gas tax, vehicle registration fees, etc), but cars do *not* pay the bill for road use. Due to the amount of space they take up (for driving and parking) and the amount of routine damage they do to roads, cars and trucks are a disproportionate drain on our road systems, unlike pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit. If more deference and space was given to those alternatives to private vehicles, roads would be far more cost-efficient.
I haven't watch the video yet (and am not planning to after reading this comment) but if he really meant that, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Cars don't pay the bills. They create them. They damage road infrastructure far more than any pedestrian traffic and require roads and parking that take up valuable building space in prime real estate areas. They are a net loss for both cities and businesses, especially when dealing with more than 1 lane.
@@chrisblue4652 Small cracks appear for various reasons, and then heavy vehicles repeatedly driving on top creates the bigger cracks and potholes. There is plenty research out there, and roads in places with less heavy traffic absolutely does not have to be repaved as often, especially as they have more time to repair the small cracks before it’s too late.
I hope NYC starts sharing the tolls with bikers. They've been cutting car lanes yet the tolls keep going up. =( I pay $350+ a month just tolls. Truckers pay like $60 per toll. They also get tickets now when delivering as those rental bikes are parked where use to be parking for deliveries. All those extra delivery fees are passed onto the customer. There is plenty of room for bike parking on the sidewalk now that they removed all the payphones. =)
@@rendomstranger8698 Do watch the video! It is great, and my comment was just focused on a tiny aspect. Bottom line of the whole bike lane marking effort was to visually emphasise the weight cyclists have according to the administration, and make sure they have the space they need. We need more of that, both street markings and videos.
Buffalo took Linwood Avenue (which is a one way, mostly residential street) from two car lanes to one, adding a bike lane on either side. Arguably an easier case than San Diego's as it was a one-way street and the new scheme wasn't as unfamiliar to people as "Advisory Bike Lanes". Also the city spent a lot of time on communicating with residents and getting feedback before implementing their plan. And even then there were some hiccups with the rollout (which they fixed). It's been about ten years now and it's worked out well. But I think if they'd just sprung it on people without prior discussion there would have been serious pushback.
A one way street would be fine (if other circumstances allowed). Putting the fastest traffic on the road in direct collision course with each other is the issue.
And these geniuses decided to keep to directions of traffic in a single lane. They should have made it 1 way, for this to work. I can see many accidents on this road.
Wow. That is such a great idea. You're absolutely right. The mistake here wasn't the lane design. It was the education of the public. They should have went to all those news stations and had them run a 60 second segment every night for 2 weeks telling people it's coming, how to use it, and why it's better. Then send out some mailers, door hangers, put it in the news papers ect. Get the word out. Had they done that, the entire thing would have been a success. It's such a great idea. It forces people to pay attention and gives those vulnerable road users space to feel safer. I wish my neighborhood had them. Great video, as always. I loved the part where they thought he was on some kind of ridable surveying scooter device. Lol.
There's a road like this in my city (Ann Arbor, Michigan). It's fine. It works better than a lot of other unsafe bike lanes. Definitely a communication problem on behalf of the city here.
holy shit 💀 that town is absolutely dreadful. are they just not aware that they have to paint the bike lanes and connect them to other bike lanes? also the ones on plymouth road are the narrowest bike lanes I've ever seen
@@blitzn00dle50 The sad thing is we're better than a lot of places, too! The worst, absolutely worst example is on Ann Arbor-Saline Road near I-94. I have never seen a biker in those bike lanes -- I've seen dozens on the sidewalks.
@@elli6220 that hurts to look at. it's like the goal of that interchange is to inconvenience everyone as much as possible. replace that whole interchange with a nice SPUI (the best type of highway interchange) and put the separated 2-way bicycle path either down the center of the road or on both sides, intersecting the right turn lanes at steeper angles, and maybe there could be a secondary bike lane that jumps off the curb for people who want to charge through at a much higher speed. one of the largest problems with US bike infrastructure is how they act like everyone rides the same, so giving people on upright city bikes and people on brakeless fixies different options would be a nice change
Yeah, I was confused a year or so ago when they first added it on Grainger but it really isn't difficult at all to get used to (although the signs aren't really that intuitive imo), the only thing I haven't done yet is biked down it after a game, with the amount of people that use Grainger to get to and from the stadium it might get quite chaotic
the REAL issue is that it's a cheater road. If the road wasn't designed for that, the city should put calming measures in to prevent that. Might be a pain for a few residents, but it would likely cut the traffic by a lot.
![Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math [ST07]](/img/n.gif)
I laughed for a solid minute when the news report started talking about the "city worker". Absolutely amazing!
I mean he’s wearing a vest, when have ya ever seen a kid or anyone else be safe and wear a vest lol
@@josephharrison5639my neighbor never fails to leave for her walks without her safety vest! But in general its not common lol
@@josephharrison5639my parents wore similar vests going for nightly walks in their neighborhood. Granted, there were no sidewalks so they had to walk on the side of the road, but there wasn't very much traffic. I wouldn't call vests common, but I wouldn't automatically assume it's a city employee either - especially riding around on a scooter. But what do I know.
@@josephharrison5639 And now you know the vest of the story...
Here in New York City, the vests do indicate a city employee. How you ask? Well, they put them on their vehicle's dashboard and the parking enforcement agents don't ticket them for any of the infractions because, well, they're city employees. As a result, they get the name of 'theft vests.'
"Look at this surveyer working for the city"
Yeah that's about all you need to know about your local news station.
"Should we ask them what's going on or how they feel?"
"No Sharon, make something sensational up and put words and feelings in their mouth, even blow up an event that was barely noteworthy into a life or death scenario if you think it will get people to watch"
Propaganda station. If we actually called things what they were.
Maybe because we're all confused about the idea that you're allowed to drive in a bike lane.
No one cares if you people think its propaganda, its basic common sense that you're not allowed to drive on a bike lane.
Going against the norm will make people who follow the normal confused. Simple as that.
@@AgalmicAutomata Yeah, I agree. I thought that the drivers had to pull over to allow passing...which is what drivers do on crowded side streets.
I’m surprised that the residents of this street are happy with their street being used as a shortcut to the freeway. Where I live people are crying out for traffic calming infrastructure if they live on a street like this.
In England they are installing pottery and other objects to cut the streets off. If you live in the neighborhood you can get in and out, but you can't pass through it because waze found it as a faster route anymore.
In my town, they've taken 3 lane feeder roads and reduced them to 2 lanes... Now the queue backs up for 3 light changes, when it used to be 1... This is an engineered problem. Think about it... Worse roads means that DOT gets more money. In my town, they spent millions of dollars "painting lines" on the street. So, then a lot of this is the washing of money through contracts for lucrative projects that cost very little to implement, but the taxpayer burden is extreme... Sadly this corruption affects daily lives by stealing your time away from each citizen. They do it to "make streets safer", but ironically in my town, after these changes were implemented, the fatalities are at an all time high. Our cities are "experimenting on us" with experimental, untested, and poorly engineered roads, which by definition are dangerous because they are "unfamiliar in design and function", where the whole point of road safety is to make road features as homogenous and standard as possible so there is no "learning curve" and the end of each turn... Another example is they have taken one intersection, and built an island that "juts out" into the feeder road, with no markings or "road narrows" signs. They actually built this on purpose, and I saw a car hit this median and have the tie rod destroyed. Then you see strike scars on the curb, showing that this happens to lots of folks. ... and they did it on purpose. I reported it to them, and they said "it was by design"... lol Then don't get me started on the light timing. It's as if an oil investor has taken over the system and use the lights to "slow down traffic as much as possible", which makes pollution worse and the cars just site there idling in frustration. It all needs to change, and it's a management, engineering, and corruption issue.
Arg, know it alls.. ha
@@mostlyguesses8385 I've actually attended Civil Engineering classes in college, so I think I have an idea of what I'm talkin' about... and yes, the death rate in my town is at an all time high AFTER they implemented these changes that they call improvements... If anything, revert my roads back to the way they used to be, and they will not only double the car throughput, but it will also be safer. I should make a video so you could see it for yourself in disbelief. In my town, rather than build concrete roads, they build asphalt roads so that they road crews can spend eternity repaving them every 5 years indefinitely... It's a machine that learns how to feed itself and grow in all kinds of creative ways.
@@mostlyguesses8385 The lights in my town used to be timed for throughput, now they are timed to "slow down traffic"... Pitiful.
"But make sure the city talks to residents first." The whole time I was watching this I was thinking just plopping something like this down without plenty of outreach first is guaranteed to make people mad. At least the one city rep admitted that. It's an unfamiliar concept, but would probably have gone down smoother if people understood it first. BTW, congrats on getting hired by the City of San Diego to survey streets on your scooter!
Who cares if the residents know? What about when someone not from the area shows up? Roads aren't just for local people. Roads needs to be understood by EVERYONE.
It's basically the same as if they hadn't put any lines down. It's not hard.
A lot of people will get mad no matter what you do, but it's far better to tell them first than to plop down a completely different driving system on them with no warning.
"Oh, this is so confusing - how does this work?"
"There's too many signs with explanations"
That was funny.
Meanwhile in Europe this kind of street treatmeant pops up all over the place.
Even on country roads middle lines get removed to encourage people to drive more carefully.
@@oerthling Europe is smart enough to know you don't combine these kind of bike lanes with curbside parking though. That was the problem here.
In The Netherlands, we have these on all residential streets where a separate bike-path is not possible. Especially the natural speed reduction is great.
Ironically it's the USA, where the bikes don't get enough protection from cars, where this sort of thing just proves politically impossible.
I really think it's the mindset that's the problem: in the USA, car drivers are normal road users and cyclists are fringe weirdos, so people resent anything that slows cars down to give cyclists greater protection.
The point of these side lanes is the cars have to use them to avoid oncoming cars, but because they're marked as bike lanes, it is clear that cars are guests and have to yield to bikes (and by implication, if you run down a cyclist in a marked cycle lane, you wouldn't necessarily be able to blame the victim and get away with it like you usually can). Most Americans think that's unreasonable: if cyclists want space on the street, they should buy a pickup truck.
Correct, the Amarican traffic system is ages behind us in The Netherlands.
@@JaapGinder we prefer it this way. America has a much bigger car culture than Netherlands. Also cities in Netherlands are much older, some of them are built before the invention of cars, so their roads are narrow and twisty. In the US most road are wide and straight, cars will just have frontal impact with edge designs like this.
@@philwoodward5069 Exactly! at least with this people might think twice before getting angry because a pedestrian "doesn't belong in the street" and so they're angry about getting stuck behind a biker or someone skating. If I had a penny for anytime a person in a car was clearly mad that I was in the street on my longboard (electric so I have the same speed as bikers) I would be able to easily put together or buy a high end board with the money. Hell, I could even just buy a small motorcycle with it.
People are super entitled and seem to all have skipped the day in driver's ed telling them bikes have the same rights to the road as cars. (except for interstates but no one wants to die that way anyway) These days many areas have even added in laws allowing other vehicles road access or the old laws already allowed for it. NC for example already allowed me to use the roads on my eskate based on my average speed and top speed. It wasn't explicitly written in as allowed, but the requirements for bikes and mobility devices made it legal.
@@awdrifter3394 Amazing. As a Londoner, I'm well accustomed to people saying we can't have protected cycling routes because of our narrow, crooked streets (to which the solution is, as in Amsterdam, to provide through routes for bikes via the backstreets while using modal filters and the like to keep vehicular traffic off those streets).
I've never heard the straightness and wideness of a road advanced as an argument *against* putting in bike infrastructure. 🤔
It seems like the main issue was the education about the road. You can't just change the design of the road without telling anyone how they work.
Anyone with a driver's licence should already know how a dotted white line works
@@danieldaniels7571 It means you are allowed to change lanes and stay in that lane. You can't ride on a dashed line on a normal road you can get a ticket for unsafe lane change or improper passing on non edge lane streets.
The city can and DOES make the changes it sees fit. Not only do you have no say, but you have no clue that changes are a comin’.
@@danieldaniels7571 What state do in whose driver’s test asked when you should “put one wheel in the travel lane, one wheel in a lane with bicycle symbols in it, and drive for blocks straddling the dotted white line in between?”
City should have doubled down and did this with another road drivers are speeding on. If they had asked for public outreach on this then we wouldn't have seen it in the first place probably
Part of the comedy for me was how insanely wide that road was. Like there was definitely enough room for buffered bike lanes in both directions
There was, if you got rid of on street parking. If you kept the parking and the sidewalk, you wouldn't be able to reasonably get two lanes and enough room for bikes. There only seems to be around 48' of ROW, while the average two lane street in Chicago has a ROW of 66'
Look at 3:51 in the video
Yeah, when he said "this narrow road isn't wide enough" I initially thought he was joking...
@@blakehakimian8730 So get rid of it then. Literally every house on this road has a parking space anyways
that's what I was thinking. And there were driveways why do you need parking? At least not on both sides.
Haha! That's freaking hilarious that the news caught you on the scooter. I was just thinking about how this street's lines make cars behave exactly like they do in the suburban neighborhood streets I grew up on.
Love your videos.
Except most people keep right on an unmarked, neighborhood street. These lines encourage people to just got down the middle of the road all the time, until it's time to swerve to meet a car.
That was edited.
He showed the real footage afterwards
@@jovetj Driving in the middle is safer.
If you're driving so fast that you cannot react to another driver, you're driving way too fast for the environment.
Driving in the middle gives you more reaction time and awareness of anything coming out from the sides, like pedestrians. And makes it unlikely you'll drive into someone opening their car door.
When you meet another car you both move to your side of the road and can pass eachother fine.
I've driven a lot on roads that are as thin as a single lane, with no space on either side due to parked cars(They really should be converted to 1 ways but they haven't been), and it's inconvenient but perfectly managible as long as you're driving at a safe speed and not like a maniac. And if you're driving far too fast like a lunatic, well, you're unsafe no matter what road you're on.
@@CallyMayz And how responsible and attentive are most drivers? Not very. You just demonstrated my point.
@@jovetj I didn't demonstrate your point at all.
This is a standard requirement to drive on a road and people do it all the time.
Someone tell them about the dotted centre line: you do have clear boundary AND you can still pass through it.
Can't believe they didn't think of that. Besides, as a cyclist I always stick as close to the side of the road as possible to make it easier for cars to overtake me...
+1. Couple that with sharrows and that would have been a much more familiar solution.
At the beginning of this video, he discusses the space requirements that dictate what is available on our streets. Most suburban roads are much wider than they need to be to accommodate a car going 25 mph. This wasn't addressed directly in this video, but a lot of media around the subject will point out how streets in America need to be narrower to encourage slower driving. This is because people drive the speed they feel they can comfortably go without damaging their vehicle. When the streets that are meant to only have 25 mph speed limits have lanes the size of a freeway people drive like it's a freeway. To make it safer, they encourage people to have more vigilance by making the lanes narrower and demanding the driver's attention. The issue is this is counter to the desires of the average motorist who has become accustomed to unconscious driving.
@@davidlyday7373 This is the same problem America has with roundabouts. Roundabouts have several advantages in cost and throughput, but they're safer than traffic lights because they make people uncomfortable. Suddenly drivers have to look around and pay attention, when they'd rather be spending 10% of their focus driving between the lines and the rest texting. That and people don't like change, and our media companies are happy to play up that and act outraged whenever anyone tries something new.
the thing is also about intention in the road design it might be, on paper the same as dotted line, but in this case, drivers are invited in the bike lane when there is another car, on the contrary, with dotted lane, bicyclist are forced to drive on the car lane
“Cars get first dibs because, well, they’re paying the bill” - I know that’s how it’s “supposed” to work with the gas tax but few places actually cover the costs of road construction and maintenance with gas tax revenue. They usually end up taking from general funds that all tax payers pay into, even non-drivers. Would love a video on gas tax in general or how our heavier vehicles with more or less the same fuel consumption mean we cause more damage but still pay the same.
I was gonna post the same thing. Car infrastructure is incredibly expensive and to think that the taxes paid by car users actually cover those cost is incredibly unfounded.
@@matiasgrioni292 Even still, car owners still pay for a higher portion of road maintenance than the general populace (of which car owners are also a part of). I'm all for multi-modalism (which itself includes cars) but it seems that recent efforts are more about making driving difficult/more expensive than making other modes more appealing. It's also of course worth pointing out that car uses benefit even those who don't themselves drive, delivery vans, trucks, city services etc. all require roads and benefit society at large.
Vehicle license tax also is used to pay for road construction and maintenance
@@xtreme242 Right but they still don't cover it which leaves non-drivers subsidizing it. It's only going to get worse with heavier EVs causing more damage but not having the gas tax. There are plenty of ways to balance it, but I just wanted to point out the slight discrepancy.
@@arsvi123 All of your points are correct, but when cars are only paying for a portion (even a majority share) of the cost but, usually, getting 100% of the benefit (in this case safe, maintained roads) then the others are still shorted. And the rest of us only benefit so much from trucks because we've built it that way. We also benefit from rail transport of goods but we've invested heavily into less efficient trucks.
I can't believe that they removed it after just two weeks? This is not nearly enough time to show if this works or not. Every new traffic pattern causes some confusion at first, so it may take time to see the benefits. I would have given it more time and then ask all residents what they preferred. (And not just the ones who complain the loudest)
Everybody's an armchair expert these days. And outrage culture is booming. The city should have communicated far better then they did to avoid the outrage. I think a lot of public adjacent organizations lack the PR skills necessary for driving proper public messaging about what they are doing.
They should have given it at least 3 months.
they should've kept it and let the shitty drivers keep having a meltdown
They should have given it at least 300 years.
Shouldn't cause any confusion. Driver uses their eyes and reads signs etc... Accordingly. If this confused you, shouldn't be driving a 3 ton hunk of metal down the road.
Taking a step back from the initial "wtf?" reaction these do make sense.
The narrow car lane should act as traffic calming slowing down car traffic to the point where the speed difference between cars and bikes is less of an issue. It should also reduce people using residential streets as throughfares due to reduced speed.
The big issue I see is you still have cars crossing the bike lane to park and you still have a "door zone".
It's better than sharrows but not as good as a separate, protected, bike lane.
The big problem is that most americans are too stupid and road ragey to ever appreciate traffic calming because CAR GO FAST and anything that slows them down is an attack on freedom and liberty... or something.
You could solve that by having the parking be diagonal. That way the door swing wouldn’t intercept the path of traffic/bikers.
It's not "protected" at all, and it has anyone and everyone swerving into any "lane" they wish. As pointed out in the video, this is exactly how residential streets work, but without the lines. So, these lines are stupid. The lines also discourage cars from keeping right, which just encourages a head-on collision. This is because of human nature: most drivers are bad drivers.
Good roads should NOT rely on suppressing human nature for safety.
@@jovetj No!You just have to get more attention to where you are!Just a small road between houses and bikers.Dont let your car do the job off driving!Do it yourself!Or do i have to say that European drivers are better than Americans???😀
@@jooproos6559 I've never been to Europe so I cannot make any such comparison.
Communication and education with the public that is being served goes a long way to successfully implementing changes that affect them.
alternatively, you just make the changes on a massive scale, educate via PSAs, and not give in to demands to take it out. People will get used to it in time just like with every other controversial change that everyone ends up liking eventually. The same thing occurs with roundabouts.
@@jceess you're correct but residents shouldnt be blindsided with drastic changes. The city shouldnt cave to pressure unless the experiment actually fails, because the ones complaining dont actually know what they're talking about, the lack of familiarity just freaks them out.
Although consultation with the public always looks like the fairest, most democratic way of bringing in change, in reality it just means change never happens.
@@rogink It is the way of Democracy... Everyone having a voice. As long as everyone is given an opportunity to understand, then the proposed changes, whether they like them or not are understood by all.
In this instance because of this very important step was skipped; it was DOA...
I think both are true. I lived on Alemany Boulevarde in San Francisco when they striped the bike lanes, but they had a public meeting about them first. A lot of people whinged, but the city insisted on trying it-it's just paint, they said. Cyclists flocked to it, motorists got used to it, the bike lanes stayed, and now, in the extra half-metre of space it left in the median, there are pretty plants and things.
If you want a clear division of directions AND you want people to be able to overtake, use dashed lines as a median instead of double solid lines.
Exactly. That way, people know where they are suppose to drive by default, and only move left with discretion to pass.
These roads would do much better just being unpainted roads. The intended behavior is exactly what people do on unpainted roads already. This kind of markings are just asking for trouble, to confuse everyone.
As a "vulnerable road user" on my electric skateboard, I know I tend to only ride on unpainted roads or ones with a dashed line. Anything else is welcoming death even more.
Dashed centre lines already exist as you point out. It's akin to the we need a new standard to unify all the other standards.. adds another standard to the list. But I guess it meant someone got paid a lot of money to write research papers and get grants from the council.
In Maryland, it is lawful for a motorist to cross double yellow line to to pass a cyclist. Not sure where else in the US this is legal.
@@JoeKubinec Then either double lines are overused to the point of losing their meaning, or Maryland takes head-on collisions too light-heartedly.
Everywhere else in the world double lines means it is unsafe to cross into the opposite direction for any reason and it is illegal to do so. Solid lines, especially double ones, are to be given the same respect as solid walls. The presence of a cyclist does not magically make that stretch of road safe. Safer stretches of road where overtaking is ok don't use solid lines. It's a much more sensible and consistent system.
2:58 you said “cars get first dibs cuz well, they’re paying the bill”. But I’m pretty sure that they are in fact subsidized once you account for the hidden cost of free parking, the space required for cars, the strain they put on the road, and the increased cost of spaced out development built around cars, while bicycles don’t really contribute to deterioration of roads and are significantly cheaper to build for that also pay for car centric roads since a lot of that funding isn’t covered by gas taxes and road fines.
-guy who watches Not Just Bikes
THEY ARE PAYING THE BILL
I’m going mostly off of Not Just bike’s videos about suburban finances. If you watch it and don’t believe it, then that’s up to you. I also know there’s a book called the high cost of free parking, which I admittedly haven’t read.
If you have a source to back up your claim that drivers do infact pay for 100% of the roads, I’ll gladly look into it
People who don’t own cars pay for the drivers who do.
@@zokpls8712 From 1776(Since data collection) - 2022, approximately $0 has been raised from the 'People who don't own cars' tax as there isn't one.
@@mrhmm3198 No they are not, do some research.
"Cars get first dibs, 'cause... well they're paying the bills."
Best joke ever! And the delivery was just spot on! Almost sounded like it was sincere!
Do you know what a gas tax is?
@@jovetj do you know how high a gas tax, or property taxes for that matter, would need to be to actually pay for all the space wasted to move one person in a metal box?
@@wolfetone2012 100000000000000
@@wolfetone2012 true, in every case people that bike or take public transportation end up subsidizing car infrastructure
@@jovetjgas taxes don't pay for local streets in the U.S.
I feel like the edge lane road would not only force people to slow down on that road. But it would probably make it a less favorable rout turning a computer road back into a quiet neighborhood road
The speed limit in neighborhoods should be 25mph, or lower: 20 is plenty!
It's a reverse psychology road. Let's make drivers and bikers incredibly unsafe and confused, so that they drive with extreme caution. Horrible process, idc if the statistics say it's good, it has to work on a human level, and intentionally making people unsafe is not good for their psychology.
@@user-jc2ez6ig5z Only unsafe if you have no clue how to drive it. Take a look at vids of new roundabouts in North American intersections, roundabouts are extremely common in other countries and not at all an issue for people who actually know how to drive. There is a difference between having an unsafe road and having idiotic drivers. You can put a roundabout in a neighborhood or a shopping center and people in this country still drive the wrong way on it. You can revert a one-lane road back to the two lanes but those idiotic drivers are still there, you are still in danger because of them (or yourself if you’re the case). The road’s only an issue if the driver’s are careless. Focus on getting those drivers off the road, with or without a confusing road they will still be there ever-presently presenting themselves as dangers to public safety
@@zonaryorange8734 I disagree, roundabouts are safe and intuitive. On the other hand, the road design in the video is like a roundabout where everyone can turn clockwise or counterclockwise.
This video's road conflicts have nothing to do with lack of education, and everything to do with be a legitimately unsafe, unintuitive, and conflict provoking design.
@@DiogenesOfCa speed limits dont matter. People routinely speed on these roads because of poor design and busy schedules.
*FEELING* dangerous is probably an advantage. People are way less likely to exceed the speed limit when they are worried about a head-on crash with other cars.
Edit: Added even more emphasis to the first word since people seem to miss it
i feel like some chicanes would be better to slow people down, then add the bike lanes.
It’s not feeling dangerous though. It is dangerous
Yup thats what they do in many EU countries. They narrow down the lanes so that the car traffic slows down wherever they need to. US has big speeding and accidents problem is because of very very wide streets.
We're used to lane lines adding order and "safe space expectations." These lines run counter to that. They're TRYING to convey flexibility and options, but IMO they add confusion. Better situation is NO markings at all. That makes it more clear that it's a flexible free-for-all situation. 🤷
@@Dragon228833 Source? If nothing else, it's definitely less dangerous for people outside cars, since head in crashes with cars is the only situation it might be more dangerous.
My favorite was the signs (not shown here).
1. "No Center Line" for people who can't actually see that for themselves.
2. Illustrative sign that appears to say, "In case of incoming traffic, run over bikes."
1:44 In case of incoming traffic, yield to bikes.
@@TheNotoriousKRP Or in reality...shared road, drive like you're not the only person on it...somehow this works in Korea, Japan, all of Europe...
Look at the UK alone in cities and the country, most roads are barely wider than this shared lane, yet cars somehow manage to pass each other safely, along with bikes, tractors, pedestrians. Perhaps the problem is the drivers, not the roads.
@@jeffclark5268 The problem is the dumb-ass stripes. If the city had just left the road the way it was, everything would've been (continued to be) fine.
The city violated the fundamental rule: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Of course, local governments do that _all the time._ It's a distinguishing hallmark of local government. Gotta justify those bloated city staffs somehow, right?
@@jeffclark5268 i thought london was horrible for bikes
@@MsZsc it is not great, but better than this.
In France these shared lanes are really popular and we call them "chaucidou", I often ride my bike on streets with them and you really see the difference on how much distance cars leave when passing you.
From my personal experience, I think that cars leave me with around 1 meter when there is a white central discontinuous line (1 meter is the legal minimum in towns limited to 50km/h / 30mph). With this "chaucidou" drivers tend to leave me with around 1.5 to 2 meters or even more when there is no car coming the other way which is way more comfortable in my opinion (1.5 meters is the legal minimum on rural roads limited to 80km/h / 50mph.) Keep in mind that the speed limit of the roads with this kind of painting never exceeds 50km/h or 30mph. I think that a real separated bike lane is ideal but the "chaucidou" is definitely better than nothing.
Oh one more thing, in France we don't have this kind of parking where you can park on the whole length of the road, we have individually separated parallel parking spots and you have either a curb or a sidewalk where you are not allowed to park, which i guess is better because the places where you can get hit by a car opening its door are fewer and more visible but I don't think that is possible in the US because of the parking minimums and the fact that everybody uses a car so you need more parking spots.
It's so annoying for the cars. I hate them in france. And i think i hate them also when i use my bike. I really don't see the point apart for annoying car's drivers. And you don't need two meters to use your bike, one meter is plenty enough. If a bike user is smart, he can zigzag on the walkway like a grown man. It's what we do in the countryside and it never hurt anyone. But i believe than town bicycle users have two brain cells.
@@Sombre____ If you mean riding a bike on the sidewalk, that is technically illegal, plus i live in the countryside so when i go through a town the section where there is a sidewalk is not very long so taking the time to get off my bike, go onto the sidewalk and then do the same to get off the sidewalk once it ends takes a lot of time on my commute and doesn't provide much added safety since car drivers don't expect cyclists to cross on pedestrian crossings. Also i dislike doing that because it just creates conflict situations with pedestrians.
If you are riding your bike for leisure and you are not in a rush, i think in that case it's ok to ride on the sidewalk if that makes you feel safer. But if you are commuting on a longer distance and want to go fast, you shouldn't ride fast on the sidewalk, you could hurt someone. If cars are allowed to go fast on the street, why shouldn't bicycles do the same?
Also that is irrelevant on out of town roads (which represent most of my commute) where there is no sidewalk. Cars and cyclists just have to share the road until we build appropriate bike infrastructure.
This ain't 🇫🇷 France, nor do we want to be like France.
@adampolok as a kid I rode on the sidewalk...cars don't have bumpers...almost got killed as a teenager thinking cars are looking 4 you. NOT !!!
@@jamesbond007colt45 You mean you prefer being dysfunctional? Ok gotcha...
We've got a lot of those in Belgium. They're called "bicycle suggestion lanes". But people also refer to them as "murder lanes". They're slowly dissapearing from the roads though, often being replaced by elevated bicycle lanes and narrower slower car lanes.
tja, Belgen 😅
@@wilwulpje5684 mja zunne echte wupkes eh?
@@alexanderkupke920 "I wonder if American drivers are just to stupid to get along with bikes and pedestrians" Yes, yes we are. Most folks don't cycle so anyone who is doing so is an annoyance to them, not just someone just doing what they do too. But the real issue here is that we are used to anything with lines at the outer edges but not in the middle, and is only one car wide, is a one-way road so folks are going to be confused as hell by this unusual situation they have never been trained on or driven before. The other thing we are used to is that if there is a bike lane marked like this, no cars are allowed to be there so some drivers would be hesitant to use the space when needed and cyclists wouldn't understand that a car could be swerving into the space anytime there is oncoming traffic.
How often do you hear about someone getting hit in one of those lanes?
Euhm... no we dont call them that.
These are also only placed in roads where the max speed is 50 kmph.
Maybe in your neighbourhood they dont care about the max speed.
As a San Diegan, it's no surprise that it was KUSI that called you a city worker. They used to be a respectable independent channel, but have really gone downhill the last few years. It's also not surprising they were trying to equate it to the end of the world. It's just all doom and gloom scare mongering over there.
KUSI more like kuso
That was so darn funny haha, really goes to show how little interest, nuance or care news companies can get away with putting into, well, the news nowadays
They didn't even ask. Just assumed it was city worker. 😅
Uh pretty sure that's every news channel lol.
Did the station get bought out by Sinclair?
These type of roads are so extremely common here in the Netherlands. It can even be one-upped, a full width bike road where cars are "guests". More ideal would be segregation of bikes and cars, although within city limits 30 kmph zones where cars are considered a guest on cyclist first roads are fine too. From my personal experiences cycling in the US though, I think it's a country decades away from, if ever, achieving this level of cohesion between cars and cyclists. Where cycling in many parts of north western Europe in particular feels completely natural, in the US the feeling was best described as a death wish.
No offense mate but I'm pretty sure your country is tiny and has a low population density compared to theirs. Nothing that works in your country is going to work there.
I've seen them plenty of times in Denmark. Works better than biking on the shoulder.
As a dutchy myself, I hear you. But this problem is two faced. Users that don't know how to navigate such street and no proper marketing for such street will cause people to not trust such street. The drone footage shows the street should work, but the majority thinks its bad because most drivers have not been educated on how this works, which creates weird situations.
Honestly though, I wonder how many accidents have happened in those two weeks. I bet there were none.
I was thinking that it would have been better not to designate those bike lanes, as it would give the impression that that space is safer for cyclists. Removing all markings and making it visually narrower would slow cars down and make it safer for this to become more of a cycling artery, separate from the primary car-oriented road further north. Making it cycling only (aside from residents) would be an ideal solution, but this is the US we are talking about.
Cars should NEVER be a "Guest" on a road. sorry, cyclists MUST move over and allow cars to pass, in all circumstances. YOU are the most at risk, and YOU must be the most vigilant and the most accommodating. you can't do something that would make a larger vehicle crash or hit you. you must give way to any vehicle that is larger then you.
I think the problem is that they used white dashed lines. For most people, that separates lanes, and you are supposed to stay in your lane. If they gave it a different treatment, such as painting it red or green with bicycle symbols, and omit the white dashed lines, it would probably convey the same message and not be instantly rejected by some people.
6:42 "He's clearly working for the city" lolllll
Especially after this video, Road Guy Rob really needs to collab with Not Just Bikes. I think that would be super interesting.
He might learn a thing or two, yes.
and/or Bicycle Dutch
This is gonna be interesting. Didn't he say he doesn't even own a bike?
He’d be quickly disabused of the notion that streets are “for cars”. Especially residential streets.
@@numhold I wonder how the hell you don't own a bike ???
Watching this fresh off a 2 week road trip in Spain makes those residents freaking out over that road even more hilarious. The roads get much much tighter and pedestrian/cyclist centric than that and not once did it ever feel "dangerous" it just makes you drive a little more cautiously. In those 2 weeks I did not see a single accident anywhere on a Spanish road. On my 2 hour traffic ridden drive back home from JFK I saw 4 accidents. We really have no clue about road design here, really wish the engineers who actually know what they're doing would stick to their guns a bit more rather than immediately caving to angry Karens.
its San Diego, the Karen-est city in the state.😂
Maybe. But keep in mind they also did not educate the neighborhood about their plans. Education goes a long way to let people know what the road is designed for and let them adapt to the new way of using the road before implementing it
I completely agree, although I have one outstanding question. I know from NotJustBikes that the Woonerfs generally use permeable pavers and a whole lot of elevation/textural/color changes to signify bicycle priority. In the US, cities put down white paint and leave the bike lanes black asphalt for the most part. While in Spain did you notice different textural changes in conjunction with the perceived cultural awareness? How important is it to go above and beyond with these three design elements (elevation, texture, and paint) when implementing bike lanes in a community that hadn't ever accommodated them before?
One they didn't tell any one , two these look like traditional bike lanes and you are not supposed to drive in bike lanes. Three they are only suppose to be used on narrow low traffic roads. It's not about people being karrens
@@BadDriversofMaryland they did have bake lanes before, but it had a center yellow line and stripped for two lanes of a traffic
I think a major problem with these is that they encourage car drivers to merge without looking and to always drive over the bike lane. This might just be an issue with the high-traffic street, though, as I can see this being very useful in streets and roads with low ridership.
It should be used only for lower traffic road. In general High traffic roads are wider and can accomodate a bike lane
It almost seems like someone wanted to be able to later say "see, people don't like this type of roads so we won't build them anymore"
The worst part is that the idea was great. The signs were "there was room to improvement" but the idea is great, and neighbourhood streets already work this way. This was sad to watch.
Pretty much how politics works. People want something you don't like so you make a very shitty version that you can point at and say "See it isn't good". Just look at all the welfare programs that are designed to incentivize people to not work so they can claim people on the program are lazy when working a minimum job would pay less than not working.
One reason I think really caused the confusion is the "line" itself. Nearly all of the drivers were taught to drive between two lines or one side of the line, creating both at the same time and the two way traffic. They are not the ones to blame.
This road is better off with no paint at all. The intended use is what drivers and cyclists would naturally do on an unpainted road, and the line just adds to the confusion, because exactly as you said, drivers are taught to stay between lines. And not straddle lines.
As a driver, you should always be out of the way of oncoming car traffic by default. It's stupid to expect both traffic directions to share the center lane, and have to run over bicycles, or block bicycles, if they can't slow down in time for each other.
I agree. Even the DMV Driver handbook does not mention this pattern. Plus, you are right many of us in the USA are taught to drive between the lane lines and stay out of the bike lanes or parking lanes. I understand it may be different in the countries like the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, or Stockholm for example. But take into account this was San Diego, where this traffic pattern was foreign and not that familiar to those who grew up in Southern California. Not that we cannot adapt, but new unfamiliar traffic patterns that have not been used in the region previously need to be deployed with proper driver training and public awareness of how it is supposed to work to reduce accidents.
We have tons of "edge-lane" roads here in the Netherlands, espeically on slow, quiet, rural or suburban roads. They work wonderfully from the cycling and driving perspective.
Not really, at least not from footage I've seen on UA-cam (I have never been there myself).
It LOOKS like a great place for bikes, but if you're in a car you are constantly and artificially hampered from just going on by way of having to wait around for the bikes to clear the way, which almost never happens because so many people use the damn things. So what you really mean is: They work wonderfully from the cycling perspective but don't you dare drive a car",
@@Kr0noZ well you just pass by with speed of 30km/h instead of 70km/h that's all .
@@Kr0noZ Nice of you to admit you have no actual experience with the subject. Again, these are slow, rural roads that we're talking about, so not many bikes to begin with. Besides, there's no "waiting around for the bikes to clear the way," cyclists are already on the edge of the road, bordered by the dashed lines.
@@Kr0noZ Maybe that's the entire point to promote bike usage instead of car usage. Sure you have to wait/slow down in your car for bike, but if those bikes weren't there all these people would be in cars, now the time it takes you to go from A to B is slower for all parties involved. On top of that you need way more money for bigger roads to "solve traffic congestion", you increase global warming, a lot more people die from car crashes, your population gets obese and less healthy so that costs you even more money. I prefer driving in the Netherlands compared to any other country I've been to.
This assumes that Americans would also be courteous and respectful to people on bikes. They aren't. There's literally people who'll install pipes on their trucks specifically to fill a cyclist's lungs with poisonous exhaust.
You always have to consider the culture when trying to implement things like this elsewhere, and American culture is being stupid and not caring about anyone but yourself.
lmao this is totally normal in the Netherlands or Germany and people are loosing their minds, I love this Channel and I love seeing that things that are brand new in the US and are preventing crashs (like yellow lines in a construction) which we've had for ever
Yeah but driving standards in the Netherlands and Germany are way more strict than in North America. A good chunk of drivers here would fail their driving tests in Europe.
The population of San Diego, not a huge city, is almost double the population of the largest city in the Netherlands. There are no comparisons to be made between such disparate places. Even Germany only has 3 cities larger than San Diego.
@@chrisfoxwell4128What does the total population of a city have to do with it?
@chrisfoxwell4128 so if Germany has cities larger than San Diego but those cities have shared lanes (and many other even more "complicated" road situations), which Germans living in those larger cities navigate with no problems... does that not destroy your argument?
It's simple: Americans are bad drivers on average. And instead of improving drivers by making driving schools more difficult and final driving test more strict, you're dumbing down the roads, making them as wide and comfortable as possible.
And even with your dumbed down roads adjusted for dumb American drivers, you still have two to three times the accidents per capita, and two to three times the death toll. So, dumbing down roads doesn't work.
If any lane in the us is less than 3 meters wide for any car Americans short circuit so I see why this happened
The biggest problem here is education. We had a number of these appear near to me in Oxford. There was no education offered around their use. Your report clearly shows how they work and for that I'm grateful.
Exactly. I see bike lane and I think I'm not allowed to be there
Oxford... OH?
@@adventureoflinkmk2 UK
@@adventureoflinkmk2no we got these things in Oxfordshire UK too.
As someone who's been following this issue and works in the active transportation engineering world, San Diegos fumble here was outreach. They didnt talk with the residents or members of the community, councilpeople, or anyone really with what they were doing. People are always resistant to change, you have to inform them before something like this happens or people will reject any proposal, no matter how sensible
My city had the same issues when we added some roundabouts in some major areas. We've had some out of the way ones for decades, but put a big one in a major artery, no one remembers how to go through them...multiple people trying to go left, even though the road really guides you to the right around the circle. (I think half of them were in protest or smart asses)
They did try to reach out...but even with multiple methods....the city couldn't hit every demographic and so many ppl were focused on the "scary roundabout" that they wouldn't pay attention to the media to learn
But we stuck with them and every year there's a new one or two going up...I really like them and definitely finding my morning commute faster with them.
Ok buy why do bikes need 2 lanes? You have a bike and person who at most weighs 300lb …. A car at minimum is at 2k lb… this doesn’t make sense to me
@@mikeboychuk8809 one lane to go one way, the other lane to go the other way... On top of that, it visually narrows the road, so cars drive more carefully.
@@mikeboychuk8809 Bikes get two lanes because the street is giving them priority over cars. Cars only get one lane and have to yield
@@MegaJoler the thing is it really isn't a bike lane. Cars are allowed there. This road layout just forces people to look out for each other and reduces speed as the width of the street feels narrower (than it actually is).
As a dutch person I'm used to this in the middle of nowhere XD It's typical old bicycle infrastructure. A bike line besides the street is better though :-)
Cyclers keep in the cycling area (unless they pass others). Without these lines you will simple cycle in the center of your lane :-)
The road also needs more obstacles to make people meet the speed limits.
And if you hit a cycler here with a car.... Well, prepare to be sued. As the more vulnerable road user is protected by law ;)
Adding onto your last part
Even if the cycler crashes into the car, its still the cars fault
@@melsbov unless it can be proven with a dash cam for example. But in general the car driver is at fault unless proven innocent
I recognize bikers have right of their safety, but they have no right to hold the road hostage and slow down other people. Where to strike the balance is a rough question.
Lawsuit is cold comfort after somebody is dead or permanently disabled from being hit by a car. In a country with a strong bike culture, no problem. Out of the blue in a car culture? Bad idea. I'm all for public transportation; having buses and light rail available would be a godsend in many many ways, but the underlying situation is not similar in the U.S where normal distances are very long compared to in the Netherlands, and there is zero public infrastructure to support a public transport/bike culture.
@@parkershaw8529 the problem is the mentality. If it was a lot more pleasant to ride a bicycle and use public transportation, there’d be a lot less cars on the road. A lot less traffic jams. Commuting on a bicycle doesn’t make you a cyclist, it should just be normal to be able to arrive safely on a bicycle. In the us, everyone would think you use a bicycle because you’re too poor to buy a car. But it should be the norm. I’m a huge patrol head and even I live happily in a cyclist focused country like the Netherlands.
A good way to fix the problem would be to make the street one way with single lane for cars, that would create space for fully separated bike lane, and also stop the road from being a shortcut lowering traffic
You’re totally missing the point. It’s a residential street. Number one problem is drivers are not obeying the speed limit. This type of innovative solution is too much, too fast for most Americans drivers to comprehend. My understanding is they still haven’t accepted round abouts yet.
THAT MAKE TO MUCH CENTS WE CAN NOT HAVE THAT
You were spot on with pointing out how unmarked roads already operate the way they intend these road to be used, but the bike lane markings provide an illusion of order and protection that doesn't exist on these roads as they would with dedicated bike only lanes
Why not just leave it as an unpainted road, and let the drivers and road users work out what they need to do? The edge lane paint only adds confusion, and wastes paint that gives no useful information.
These people can park on their own property, remove the car storage lanes and use the road for transport.
"But that's expensive for JUST ME!!!!1!1@!" - carbrain
Restricting parking to one side would make plenty of room for two full bike lanes and two full driving lanes
another that can be done is reduce the road to one-lane-one-way allowing for parking on both sides, trees, wider sidewalk and a bikelane
It all depends on the purpose of the street. If this truly is a through street, then definitely remove some of the parking for better traffic / bicycle flow.
But if this truly is a local residential then they need to block off through traffic at one or more points to prevent people from driving along it as a cut-through, which introduces more traffic than a shared bike/car roadway can comfortably handle.
Yup, once I saw the diagram he showed a better solution was clear, remove one side of parking, put a 2 way bike lane in its place (with lines in between so it’s really two lanes) put the parked cars next to the bike lanes, so on one side of the bike lane is the curb and sidewalk and then there are parked cars protecting the other side. On the other side of the road is the two way driving area. That way you have parking, a fully protected bike lane, and a 2 way driving area.
Edit: since there's driveways in front of almost every house, take away street parking all together and put one lane on one side that switches direction based off the time of day (direction used most during each rush hour)
this makes it so that most driveways on that side don't have to cross the bike lane to get to the road that goes the direction they want. next to that put the two way protected bike lane, and then next to that on the other side of the road put the two way driving area (two lanes, like how the middle of the road currently is) this whole new design is weirdly complicated just to stop the bike lane from being constantly cut off by drivers exiting their garages. It also shows that having a suburb with only single family homes that each have driveways makes the whole suburb car dependent, meaning to live their you need a 40,000+ car, basically no one walks anywhere because the roads need to be only used by cars to keep them simple, and everyone get's used to that and protests against ever change. This is what 99% of "desirable" american suburbs look like and its what a lot of large American cities look like (like LA). Its terrible neighborhood design and hopefully starts to change to allow more walk-able and livable places.
TLDR: I give up this suburb sucks go move to a walkable city like NYC with good public transit or a suburb in a country like the Netherlands to get out of car dependent hell.
I actually prefer this style of road. Psychologically, it makes the drivers think they have less room, so they would be less likely to drive fast in low speed limit areas.
it's great until you're heading home tired after a long day at work and aren't ready to have a car in front of you. I could easily see someone focused on the car in front of them so swerve into a bike they didn't see because they're focused on the car.
i think the same, i actually like the idea. If its the best in regards what people are used to atm is a big question. How ever, ones people got used to it, it can lead to a more well defined system, it just needs some time to break the old habits. - tbh as european i did not know, that it is common that you have yellow lines everywhere. In most regions in europe you have a center divider which is more or less only there to show you where the center is, you are legally allowed to cross is to overtake (if there is enough room of course). We also have something similar to the yellow lines, how ever those are only in areas, where it is really dangerous to overtake, where nobody with a brain would overtake anyways, like on corners.
@@SilverStarHeggisist Precisely, tired or not.
@@virginiamoss7045 or imaging this on a foggy early morning, when like half the people think because there's some light that means they don't need to turn their headlights on.
@@SilverStarHeggisist In EU we have lots of verry old roads that allowed 2 way traffic these roads are mostly not wider then 1.5 cars.
I think there is a disparity between us and US, that we are used to riding on these streets VS US being used to verry wide roads.
2:57 "Cars get first dibs because they're paying the bill" is just factually incorrect. ~99% of road costs are funded by all levels of governments (depending on the road) through things like income and property tax which everyone pays. Taxes on cars and gas cover a measly ~1% of road infrastructure. So someone who does not drive pays about the same as someone who does.
There are 3 main requirements for an edge lane road. (in my opinion)
- low traffic volume
- rural setting
- NO PARKING!!
They failed all 3. Feels like they wanted to fail.
A 4th might be that the road is narrow. This road looks like it could have 2 lanes both ways and a bikeline.
Bullshit, this works in other countries.
@@Brozius2512 I know, I live in one.
Considering the width of the road and the fact that all the properties had off-street parking rendering most of the on-streer parking unnecessary, I don't understand how they couldn't find room for two curb-separated bike lanes and two car lanes.
- Looking at the car count this IS a low traffic volume. If it was any lower you wouldn't even need any markings on the road.
- A rural setting would be a horrible choice for this type of road design. Since driving speeds are usually higher in rural areas and there's more room, that's where the separate bike lane comes in.
- No parking would be ideal, but it's not necessary. I would say the current situation with only the yellow middle line is considerably worse with parking. With the bike suggestion lanes, at least you had a clear boundary line for parking, that'll help cyclists identify parked cars easier, and helps drivers park better. And the dotted line means that cars passing cyclists will keep a better distance so the cyclists won't be forced to ride closer to the parked cars than comfortable.
The only thing that went wrong with this road is that they didn't inform anyone about the change. You can't expect the people driving here to immediately understand it, since this type of road design is apparently still quite rare in that city.
And about the narrow road. This honestly was the best way they could have divided the space. 2 lanes and one bike lane would have been quite unsafe for cyclists. 2 lanes, means cars will drive faster. And 1 two-way bike lane would mean that as soon as they get to the next street the cyclists would have to cross the entire road again, to ride safely on the right side, since not all streets are designed the same.
This is a design error you see with many new American cycling projects. Yes, a protected two-way bike lane is the safest option for cyclists. But that only counts as safe if they have a good connection to the other streets. If not, then just use an unprotected lane on either side of the road. Just take it one step at the time. It's about the network, not the single road.
Street parking is good. it serves as a protection barrier.
> "Cars get first dibs because they pay the bills"
A widely cited misconception. Motor vehicle tax is just one revenue stream the DMV/equivalent levies for the states/equivalent to spend on anything it wants. Even if it is written into law, that law should be changed to be a tax for polluting the environment, to support those who cannot use those roads in a car, etc.
And IIRC property tax pays for a lot more of the overall upkeep on roads than motor vehicle tax. Not just the pavement, but the water, electric, and sewer mains under it, the landscaping, the garbage collection happening on those roads etc.
THIS!
I'm so tired of this lie...drivers don't pay for roads and they aren't entitled to roads.
@@DanielBrotherston Especially when >25% of a transportation surface is used as free storage of pollution machines.
@TNerd spandex*
In Louisiana, you are expressly allowed to pass a bicycle in a no-passing zone:
"An operator of a motor vehicle may pass a bicycle traveling in the same direction in a no-passing zone only when it is safe to do so."
from La. RS 32:76.1(B)
Have done it many times here in TN. The no passing is for regular traffic. You'd be in a real bind if you couldn't pass a horse, a tractor, a cyclist or even the Menonites.
It's the same in many other countries. In the UK, if the vehicle is stationary or travelling 10mph or less (which would include most cyclists going uphill) you may pass on double whites.
Yea that's what I was taught to do in New York, if it's safe you can cross the double yellow to pass a bicyclist or pedestrian.
That's the way everywhere. I don't know where they got that you can't pass a slow rider?
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv or tractors. If you couldn't, a 10 minute trip, would take an hour.
7:03 😂 lol cant Believe that the news station just Recorded you
edge Lanes on quiet residential streets don't make any sense precisely for the reason you stated: people including cyclists and kids playing basketball are using those streets WITHOUT any lines just fine...
the real solution to Gold Coast drive is to make it so it doesn't go through. this will stop anyone other than residents from using it. we have that exact scenario here in my city. A street that used to go through that now has an elementary school in the center of it. the cycling route continues between steel bollards through to the school bus parking lot which is where the street used to go. there's a U-shaped neighborhood on either side of the school grounds
Exactly my thoughts as well. Although, I don't think making it not go through is even necessary (though probably a good idea). Just remove all the lane markings. It means the same thing, everyone understands what it means already, and it's a clear signal to through traffic that they shouldn't be there. If anything, the only effect of the edge lane markings is that it gives through traffic permission to be there.
Now here's a thought: instead of making the road not go through, what if they just... lied? Put up "not a through street" signs, and maybe put in a report with Google maps to get them to stop routing traffic through there?
@@roceb5009 Or just put steel bollards on a block in the middle of the route. Easy, fast, cheap, takes literally less than one day to do
@@frafraplanner9277 yeah but that also blocks local traffic, forcing people leaving for their commute onto roads *inside* the neighborhood, plus making them even later, which makes them go faster...
They could also make it illegal for through traffic during rush hour. I have seen roads like that.
Put in some jig jogs where you have to turn right then left or vice versa to stay on the street.
My takeaway on this was.... find ways to restrict / deter freeway users from cutting through a neighborhood street and just don't paint lines. People will figure it out as they do on unmarked neighborhood roads. Spending the money to paint lines and erect signs added more to the confusion than if they'd just paved the road and left it unmarked.
We did that (restricting traffic) which resulted in the neighboring government filing a frivolous lawsuit, some people are really hard to please.
This. If someone is unhappy with the traffic on the freeway, maybe they should consider where the traffic came from.
That's my take also. This feels like an attempt to remind people that it is a neighborhood street and should not be used as a commuter shortcut. Make people less comfortable on the road, so you reduce traffic on it, and make it safer for the people that live there. However it will take a while for the change to filter through the shortcut apps that people use and discover that it really isn't a good shortcut anymore.
Where I live we have these things called speed bumps! They have to be implemented correctly, obviously, but they seem to help.
@@ijustdocomments6777 Some. But what I usually see is people slowing down just for the speedbumps and then flooring it as soon as they get away from them.I've also seen so many cars bottom out after crossing the speedbump too fast, and you can see big gouges in the asphalt right there. Also, not an issue there in California, but in snowy states they cause lots of issues with snowplows over the winter.
I really liked this statement: “Ambiguity is a benefit”. Being in a uncomfortable position does make you more alerted
But that's where it bumps with public perception. All the research seems to say it's safer, but drivers hate ambiguity, it doesn't feel good. We want to have a clear lane to drive in, we hate to share it with vehicles of different speed, and the less we have to be cautious about the better it feels.
It's hard to argue against increased safety, and yet a lot of these measure are impopular because it reduces our "freedom" to drive fast and selfishly.
@@Kaiso54 I follow a person who moved to the Netherlands where these kind of roads are quite common even on more rural roads where you can drive 55mph. She was confused about these roads and the overwhelming reply people gave her, if it's confusing your driving to fast.
@@Kaiso54 That is whole point. When drivers feel uncertain, they slow down and pay more attention to what is around them.
@@Kaiso54 Driving fast isn't selfish. Making everybody cycle is selfish
@@DrJams Driving fast is absolutely selfish. "I need to get there as fast as possible at the expense of public safety in case I mess up". Drivers can still drive, but now they're forced to be aware that they need to SHARE the road in a safe manner. Sounds like the opposite of selfish to me.
After living in Germany for a year, Europeans are miles head of the US in sharing the roads with „vulnerable road user“. Most village roads don’t have a centerline and people aren’t making a big hoopla hin sharing with bikes.
Excactly.
It's crazy how low of standards we have for drivers.
Have you seen the people who barely pass the open book, easy driver's test here? We need driver's test at least on the level of the UK
@@scottanno8861 Nah, Denmark should be our goal. To get a "B" license (car) students are mandated to sit through several hours of classroom education, pass a series of closed-course tests (normal condition and simulated iced surface). Students must also record several hours on public roads with a supervisor (30+ years old or licensed 10+ consecutive years without revocation or suspension). Prospective "B" license holders must also take 8+ hours of first-aid safety courses, receive a note from a doctor stating overall health---especially eyesight---is within acceptable parameters. Only after all of these requirements are satisfied can you schedule your final tests; a 25-question multiple choice exam (minimum 80% to pass), and a public road test with a government supervisor. Any mistakes on the final public road test means you fail the license test (even just straying in your lane onto paint markings is considered a mistake). All of this is to operate a car. Once you have your "B" license it's valid until you turn 70, after which you must receive an OK from your doctor, and pass the road tests every 2 years.
@@InternetKilledTV21 Yeah that would work too
As opposed to the caliber of bike riders? Where I live, they're entitled riders, who think the traffic laws don't apply to them. I can't ever can't even count how many times I've almost hit a cyclist, who blew through a stop sign, or red light, in front of my. And that's WAY more than when other drivers.
@@Normal1855 Bike riders are annoying and elitists, but honestly the problem is too many cars on the road with no qualification.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, I bike on an edge lane road like every day. I didn't even know it had a name, it was so normal.
The problem in the US, is the cyclists think that they can ride anywhere, and anyway they want. They don't stop at red lights, or stop signs, and they ride in both directions, on both sides of the road. They also ride in the middle of the road, and refuse to move for faster traffic. They also ride 2 and 3 across, even though they're required to ride single file.
@@Normal1855 That is the same in the Netherlands... we just (have to) deal with it.
Normally on a road like this when there would be a 20mph speed limit (30 km/h) here so it would not be too much of a problem with modern electric bikes going almost that fast as well.
And to avoid dangerous action by car drivers, the rule is that in case of an accident the car is always at fault, not the biker.
@@Normal1855 You sure that's a cyclist thing? Most dashcam vids from the US are 97% cars that pull such stunts like not stopping for red lights or stop signs, driving anywhere on and off the road or blocking traffic.
But good for you they changed it back to a situation where the people on bikes need to ride on the road and it's forbidden to pass them with the double yellow lines. That way instead of looking at ugly bike -infrastructure- lines and passing them when safe, you can stay behind them and drive 4mph for the entire street. Don't tell me you want them to move over to the sidewalk or the parking lane, you just said you didn't want them driving anywhere where they don't belong.
@@Normal1855 And still you dont want separate infrastructure? With better infrastructure they Will behalve better. And if they are separate they wont botter you, and there will be less cars, so maybe even faster travel time for you
@@Anco Few places in America hardly has viable alternatives to driving, so every bad driver is forced to get into a car. And people wonder why traffic is so bad
Hi Rob. I live in the SD area and work in active transportation planning. I appreciate you doing this video! It’s all about safety!
But the Edge Lane treatment is safer. Problem is road is being used as a cut through and it was designed to be a slow residential street. To restore it to a slow residential street you need to add 'filtered permeability' basically barriers in the street that allow bikes and peds to go through but force drivers to turn and make the route more circuitous and therefore less effective than just staying on the highway or the arterial aka 'stroad.' Make it so cars can't cut through and you fix the problem, pavement markings become an irrelevant moot point.
yeah? wanna help me stop the stupid airport people mover idea?
@@PeterPapineau3 what's the problem with it? (I genuinely haven't looked at it)
@@jayjackson5705 just ban thru traffic and make the sidewalk wider and people will slow down
@@einar8019 that's what you're essentially doing with the filtered permeability. Signage won't work because it requires enforcement and that's next to impossible to be effective.
Why do they need so much street parking if most if not all of the houses have garages and drive ways?
It seems like people just hate it because it's different and new. When they built a DDI in my town, everybody was complaining about how odd it was, even though it really did help in relieving traffic. But the DOT should've notified residents before implementing those edge lanes.
DDIs are good for cars, really sucky for people who walk and bike.
@@zzz6valvoline If you have enough car traffic to justify using a DDI, chances are it's already incredibly unpleasant to walk or cycle there.
@@zzz6valvoline That's just the thing- there aren't any pedestrians at this intersection, and very rarely any cyclists. I think people just need to be better educated and accepting of new traffic patterns.
People always hate change, but the bigger issue is that the city added something completely unfamiliar to the locals and didn't inform them about it at first. A street with edge works counter to how you normally drive and how you have been taught to drive, so people need to be taught on how to drive "wrong" so they understand how to drive"right".
That's the biggest gripe. They never got input from the people who it affects the most.
4:17 The pickup and the white car turning left both run on the stop marking on the opposite side of the road. People who drive so recklessly don't deserve to have any saying about road safety. They only need to get a ticket for putting lives in danger, and have their licence revoked.
You would have ban like 1/4 of driver's. Though I do agree super annoying and dangerous. Like the people that never used their turn signals.
North American streets are dangerously easy to navigate in most cases.
I'd really like to see Americans who struggle with these streets navigate sma town streets in Europe which may very well be only as wide in total as the "car" section here
yea that street is 2x as wide as the street i live on and i have no problem meeting other cars in my pretty big volvo v90
That's because we've land to spare. My favorite was visiting Texas, were half the roads were two lanes in each direction and a parallel road on each side of the main road.
@@SilverStarHeggisist you spelled shit road engineering wrong
@@einar8019 no it was great, you literally never had to worry about being stuck behind someone going slower then you. I wish all roads were like that.
@@SilverStarHeggisist if your in a car its great but for literally everyone else its terrible. its bad for the enviroment, for pedestrians, for the people living next to the road, for bisiclyists and its also less safe for car drivers too because of the increased speeds
If they want to reduce thru traffic, add some small roundabouts. That is what we do around here. Locals hate roundabouts, so we'll add them to streets we don't want people to use for thru traffic, and people actually do avoid them. LOL.
Recently visited the Netherlands (aka the bike kingdom) there were lots of these lanes in slower streets. I can’t fathom why Americans can’t build good bike lanes.
75 years of propaganda from oil and car companies.
@@DiogenesOfCa also an abundance of boomers/Karens who reflexively hate everything to do with roads that isn't adding 16 lanes for cars.
Because the vast majority don't want them.
@@johnathin0061892 Enjoy, your traffic, your road rage and the 100 people killed DAILY in cars and by cars.
@@johnathin0061892 majority SEEMINGLY dont want them because the infrastructure isn't there in the first place. People do want to bike and use good public transit. There's a high demand, but we're all forced to drive.
The problem with that street is that it goes through.
The city should block it to car traffic in a couple of places so it loses it's appeal to drivers who use it as a thoroughfare. Just leave gaps in the blockades so cyclists can get through.
As for the markings, get rid of all markings on that street.
trouble is if driveways go onto that road you cannot completely make it bikes only, otherwise people will yard hop in their SUVs so they can park in their garage.
@@filanfyretracker
I didn't say to make the road for bikes only.
I said they should block the road in a couple places so cars can't use it for a thoroughfare.
@@deezynar how about parking on one side only, 2 car lanes and 2 bike lanes?
@@Boby9333 that defeats part of the purpose which was to force drivers to subconsciously slow down and be more cautious.
you are correct, this is the best solution and is exactly what they would do in the Netherlands. It's called 'filtered permeability.' Source: I'm a transportation engineer.
Something else to consider: in California and a lot of other states like MA, VA, CT, etc. traffic enforcement is very strict and expensive. People are used to getting pulled over for driving in a bike lane. So, when they see what looks like a bike lane with one car lane in the middle, they may be hesitant to move into the bike lane for fear of getting a ticket, causing a lot of confusion. Here in FL, it is a different story. Traffic enforcement basically doesn’t exist. It sucks, but people would probably be less confused by this road design because they already feel as if they can move into the bike lane to avoid an oncoming car with no consequences.
yes , yes and yes. When a city in California introduced floating parking it confused even the cops there and they issued tickets to people who correctly used the floating parkin spots
Cops in CA NEVER patrol in neighborhoods. This is a moot argument.
@@DiogenesOfCa they did when I lived in Milpitas and I see them do it in Sacramento. When I was in the bay area they did t Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP ). That's when you get police from 4-8 different agencies and do crack down on speeders. ANd yes they would pick a street like this
Florida should be a pretty good case study in how NOT to do things.
Orlando was just ranked number one in the nation as most dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, and Florida beats 49 other states in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities.
Eh, this doesn't mesh with my experience at all. Cars drive in bike lanes all the time, delivery trucks unexpectedly pull up and stop in bike lanes, and enforcement just is not there. Maybe different street design would help ?
Another problem are needlessly large vehicles. How is it legal to have lifted pickup-trucks so high that they can blast their exhaust right into your face as a cyclist ? A few such toys make for a terrible experience for everyone. Why don't we seem to have a universal standard for bumper heights for all street-legal vehicles ? There are already all sorts of regulations around cars&trucks.
Nailed it - that's what was missing in the coverage. Was always used for a cut through. I don't know whether it's still sedate enough for edge lanes but does seem like it's at very least on outer limits of acceptability, especially when you compare to the existing case studies (that are overwhelmingly rural). Feels like this + traffic calming might make some sense?
This is like an average Dutch road. We have thousands of kilometers or miles as you call them, of this type of roads. It is just a matter of getting used to it. I was a police officer for 38 years and saw that these types of roads also were introduced in the Netherlands. I was initially skeptic. During my career I treated around 3500 traffic accidents, but I don't remember much on this kind of streets. The dotted lines mark more or less the maximum position of the right for cars when they pass a cyclist. For cyclists these lines mark the maximum left position while riding. When there is no cyclist, the full road width is used by cars. Two cars can pass easy then. Only the moment that at the same time, two opposing cyclists and two opposing cars drive it is too narrow ... simply delay and show some courtesy and give each other space.
In rural environments in The Netherlands, cyclists were often hit by cars in the dark. All rural roads have this type lines now and because it is quiet there during the dark, drivers will ride between the lines in the middle and do not drive over cyclists anymore. There should have been a news item about how to behave on this type of roads.
Americans do NOT refer to kilometers as miles, they are fully aware that they are two completely different measures of distance.
@@mobiusklein9140 ;-) it was noting serious. I' m from an era when we learned both systems at technical school.
@@dikkiedik53 I'm old enough to remember when we (the U.S.) decided to switch to metric in the 70s. They put up a bunch of shooed limit signs in km/hr under the ones in mph. Then a couple of years later they took them all down.
At least in NL where I live the bicycle area of the road (edge) is painted red so people know what to do automatically, but we Dutch are used to bicycles everywhere. We are a cycling nation.
Yes, it works great here in NL, but only on certain roads. Not too busy, and not with continuous parking on both sides. Great solution, maybe not for this particular road.
you knew it was a problem when the surveyor on his scooter showed up trying to figure it out 😂
LOL 😆
That's typical press thick as stuff pigs do , didn't they see his microphone sticking out his pocket .
What my city did is turn streets into one way streets.
Put a park in the middle of one street to make in into 2 dead end streets.
Then the NIBY's in the neighborhood would complain about how long it takes them to get to the freeway.
@@DiogenesOfCa So you go around the block NBDR and your front yard and street is nice and quiet.
If I can see there's a road where I need to go, I would rather just drive there slowly than have to plan an elaborate circling pattern to home in on the destination.
@@joec.2768 It's not for those who live there it's to deter those who do not.
I’m surprised there wasn’t the solution of simply deleting a parking lane and replacing it with a 2 lane protected bike lane. Imo people can and should live without that much parking
So remove one lane of parking and put in a two-way bike lane. There's plenty of space for it.
If it's really a capacity issue like the residents think it is than min-maxing for efficiency by taking away space for cars and replacing with something else that moves more people in the same amount of space (600-1,600 per lane per hour for a car-only street and 7,500 per hour in each direction for a two-way bike lane according to the National Association of City Transportation Officials) should be the priority. Doubly so if school pick up is what's causing the capacity crunch since separated bike infrastructure means the road is accessible to children.
I agree, there is no reason for that much street parking in a neighborhood where everyone has a driveway. They can easily do away with one of the parking sides
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv Ppl really love to use garage as a workshop, which I get it. But I don't get why they don't use the driveway and insist on parking on the street. DO they really have that many guests or visitors?
@@mingchi1855 im some cases, maybe when you have multiple driving family members who all leave and return hone at different times, and not necessarily in a sequence that doesn't involve playing musical parking spaces.
You don't live out here, the residents didn't think anything because the city implemented the lane overnight without gathering public opinion. public opinion has now deemed the lane more troublesome because it's a new system put in place where people have no experience with how it works and it's also a busy neighborhood and in a part of the city where there are little to no bikers. if they put this lane in la jolla or a neighborhood where bikers are traveling more nobody would be complaining.
@@yarrik701 So have driveways large enough to park 2 cars next to each other. Problem solved. With the added bonus of less lawn maintenance.
Welcome to America, where you need a road sign to tell you not to crash in a car
Don't worry, people don't read them anyway
@@jgood005 of course people dont read them. i can literally see that theres no car comming either way and im not going to go to a complete stop every fucking block
My first impression was that it wouldn't have been such a bad idea if the streets were made one-way for cars, making one of the bike lanes effectively a contraflow lane (since I'm not familiar with advisory bike lanes-I don't think they're a thing here in San Antonio). If I lived in that neighborhood, I'd have been confused as all hell, too.
I mean all they had to do was remove on street parking on one side and have one bike lane on the other..... Cant believe city planners thought that was a good bicycle infrastructure.
@@Aabergm that wouldn't work. there's houses on both sides, everyone wants some street parking infront of their house.
Advisory bike lanes are lanes where bikes take priority, but cars can cross into when needed. In this case, if you were to drive down the street, bike in the bike lane, another car coming towards you, you would partially go into the bike lane behind the cyclist to let the car, who also partially goes into the bike lane, go through.
It's a bit hopeless with the current street configuration. I've visited Mira Mesa and (tried) to walk around it. It's full of dead ends, and from the map, Gold Coast is a little more connected than many streets by being near retail businesses, but lacks the alternatives to make people happy with it as a one-way. A better move(but far more challenging) would be to attempt to work with landowners to build out some new rights-of-way for the bike network.
amendment: ... it was good bicycle infrastructure without telling anyone about it beforehand.
3:00 actually, cars aren’t paying the bill. Every taxpayer is including those who don’t drive.
Nothing makes me safer than painted bicycle lanes. Specially when those are right next to high speed traffic with lots of heavy vehicles. Such a joy!
I wouldn't exactly call this high speed. To be frank this looks like a fairly comfortable street to cycle on.
And in door zones of parked cars
@@SkepticCyclist Drivers will step out into car traffic as well. Not checking in the mirror means dooring another car or getting run over.
@Doji If bicyclists are small enough in the mirror that one may reasonably overlook them, they're far enough away that they themselves can react.
Try it out one time. Have a friend or something move forward to your side mirror, and determine at what distance he becomes too obvious to overlook. I'm betting roughly 20m or about the length of the 2 cars parked behind you.
@@flopsinator5817 I'm not talking about the street that "failed"
I mean, Americans view every street as high speed, but that was not the street i was referring to
Woulda been better off with no lines at all. Lines tell us there are rules, you have to be on this side of the line unless it's a dotted line in which case you may cross it but you still should be on one side of the line or the other. No lines = no rules. Less rules = more caution. Many neighborhoods have no lines at all. I share my residential road with dog walkers and bicycles and kids chasing balls and dogs pulling skateboards and even the occasional fpv racing drone. We all get along because we are all cautious and sharing the entire road. We actively avoid collisions even if it means driving on the wrong side of the road. And why not? Its not like there's any lines telling me not to.
Drivers licenses don’t test driving skill or reflexes, terrible idea unless you have it restricted to “good drivers”
I think "don't cross dotted lines nonchalantly" is stronger in the US than in europe.
This is what I came here to write -- thanks for doing so for me! The only add I would make is that they solved the wrong problem: restricting access to only local traffic somehow would solve the real issue and getting rid of the center line would then make perfect sense and work well.
Came looking for this comment as well. The lines just confuse the situation -- we're taught to stay on one side of the line. If a solid-yellow is so much of a problem, they could have used.... I don't know... a hashed yellow that does permit passing?
I know cars that have determined near-borderline violent lane-keeping systems that if you start to even casually cross any line (dotted or solid) it starts increasing the force to keep you in what it considers a lane.
I think there would have been more room (and less backlash) if they removed parking on one side of the street and made it the bi-directional bike lane as opposed to this nonsense they tried.
I can't say how it is in practise as I am not driving on US roads, but I do think, that in theory dotted lines should indicate, that crossing over it is allowed if necessary. Apart from that I think, that the whole point of this design is to make vulnerable road users even safer, which is especially important on such a road, which isn't a true neighbourhood street any more. This additional safety is caused by the fact, that a car driver uses on streets with no lines (at least theoretically) the right edge and the driver uses only another part of the if there is an obstacle or a vulnerable road user on the right edge. With the edge-lane-design car drivers drive normally in the middle of the road and only go into the edge lanes, when it is impossible to stay in the center and only after they made sure, that no vulnerable road user is there. This brings additional safety, because there is less time for car drivers in the space of the vulnerable road users, because the drivers should be especially cautious, when they enter the edge lane and because they potentially even drive slower than in a design with no lines, because cars that are driving in the other direction in my space are easier to see and harder to dodge than vulnerable road users that drive in the same direction on the edge of my space.
If unmarked residential streets were already doing the same thing, why was it necessary to create an edge lane system that's counterintuitive to how people have been conditioned to drive in the first place?
Exactly.
Leave it alone, and let cyclists stick to the right.
Please never force me to play chicken when driving, that seems like one of the worst road designs I can imagine.
Seems like it needed a bunch more traffic calming, and more commitment to turning it into a street by making it difficult for drivers to use it as a cheat route
I laughed so hard when you showed the news portion of people's reactions. This is just an average Scandinavian road.
It's great for low traffic areas.
The lines also make people think twice about bikes before crossing as the psychological barrier of a line is a reminder.
Think twice to think about others/cyclists? I think you found the problem here.
@@alphastratus6623 Yeap, drivers that don't think are definitely a problem
A lot of drivers, especially american ones, need to be told exactly what to do. Unknowns create uncertainty which causes some people to "lock up". It has a lot to do with how americans are taught to drive. That's why a lot of americans struggle with traffic circles for a while, they aren't used to having to make on-the-fly decisions so they will treat traffic circles like a stop sign(which they're familiar with).
Despite tons of evidence that "less traffic signs = more cautious driving" a lot of people want more signs, more traffic markings, etc because it defines the environment for them.
youve never been to california. Have you?
California has 7 times the population of Finland. Scandinavian bullshit doesnt work there. there are no "low traffic areas"
These are not really being used like they are in the Netherlands. There are two uses in the Netherlands. One is on country (rural) roads which are quieter and not that wide. On these roads, the white dashed edge markings are not actually marking a bike lane, but actually just keeping cars from the edge, and artificially narrowing the road, which lowers travel speeds. Generally, bicycles will have a separate bike path, but if they are intended to use the road, it still doesn't make them "bike lanes" in law (there was a legal issue about this recently, I'd have to dig out the article).
The other use is in main residential streets. In this case, the bike lanes are usually painted red, and the cars get the remainder of the street (the single travel lane, grey asphalt or potentially brick). I believe these are always, or almost always streets marked as "auto te gast", or "cars are guests". In this case, cars should wait patiently for an opportunity to pass. I don't think I've EVER seen them with on-street parking (which adds risks of dooring), unless there's designated bays. The design of this street in California seems confused, taking elements of both rural use edge markings (as found in the Netherlands and other European countries), which are not actually bike lanes, and Dutch "cars are guests" cycle streets, but without the same level of speed restrictions etc.
Unfortunately this is what happens when you mimic without understanding...
Nevertheless, seeing these things being done, even done poorly, is a good sign to me, gives me hope. For every one attempt at better street design that's poorly thought out, there's like 10 highways being redesigned, adding lanes, with the same amount of thought. I was looking at some residential streets in LA on Gmaps, it had several different types of traffic calming methods being used because they don't actually know what they're doing, so they have to throw things at the wall to see what sticks. It's a miracle they're even throwing. Truly, it would be amazing if the people responsible for making these changes actually consulted successful street designers in the Netherlands and their design manuals.
@@mrmaniac3 Yes, it's true, even making an attempt to replicate better street design is a good sign. I remember some of the first roundabouts built in Florida, they were very problematic and required several design changes, but as they became more European in design and operation, and drivers became used to them (came to understand how they operate), they worked successfully. Now, roundabouts are the default intersection choice at all new intersections in the state.
Of course, doing a little more research and consultation before implementing something (as with these edge lanes) would be a good idea, as this may now not get a second try. Roundabouts in Florida very nearly didn't get another chance either, so hated was the Clearwater roundabout at first, but I guess they'd already spent so much on the roundabout that they were more willing to modify it first... painted lines are not so hard to disappear forever.
My humble opinion: Too many people that should not driving cars (are incompetent, dumb and selfish AND would not have passed the driver licence test) drive cars. That's why USA has one of the worst traffic conditions in the world. If drivers of cars think that the roads was made for them, there is something VERY WRONG.
I certainly know some streets in the Netherlands where there is parking and not "cars are guests" streets. Like Noordewierweg in Amersfoort, the city wants to get rid of it. The main difference is that there are speedlimit measures, like bollards or speed bumbs. Also the busy part of that road is 30kmh (19mph).
Not Just Bikes calls it a painted bicycle gutter. The best solution is to seperate bicycle streets and main car streets entirely. Maybe the fix for this street is a bollard in the middle, so cars can't use it as a cut through.
@@edewaal97 Noordewierweg is a standard width road with bicycle lanes as far as I can tell, and yes these exist quite a bit around the Netherlands (including with parking unfortunately). However, the particular topic of the video is a 2-way road that's one lane-width wide for cars, and which intentionally forces cars into the bike lanes as a form of traffic calming (thereby making cars dodge both bicycles and each other). I'm pretty sure such a setup only exists as bicycle priority streets in the Netherlands.
So why is there a double yellow there?? Just allow cars to pass cyclists by using the other lane and they will do EXACTLY what is safest to do, WITHOUT the head-on conflict and the confusion of introducing a totally new road layout.
That sort of sharing the entire road surface is common on most local streets in the Netherlands: a 30km/hr speedlimit and intersections at sidewalk level, probably without stop signs or traffic lights just shark teeth yeild indicators. And if the drivers don't know to share the road and hurt anyone, well the driver is in a hell of a lot of trouble (drivers are generally assumed to be at fault in all cases unless it can be proven that the vulnerable road user expressly did something wrong).
50km/hr they still work even
@@ThePizzabrothersGaming I'm not so sure about that. I live in Toronto, Canada, and cars tend not to interact with pedestrians at 40 or 50km/hr.
@@jacktattersall9457 they use traffic calming or lights for intersections, but sections for cyclists + cars can be 50 just fine
At least in the US there are effectively zero streets - even neighborhood streets - that have speed limits that low. The standard is 30 mph or roughly 50 kph. The only place you will see 30-ish kph speed limits are school zones and those are routinely ignored.
@@willythemailboy230mph? Anywhere I've ever been residential streets are 25mph. Still, I agree that it should be lower. When on my own street I drive between 15-20 mph. Just doesn't feel safe at 25. Also, where I am, the middle school and the elementary school are both on a 5 lane arterial/connector road with a 35-45 mph speed limit, yet I always see people slow down for both school zones. I think the main problem is enforcement as there are police regularly patrolling the road during that time, and one of the police's favourite speed trap hides is at the beginning of the middle school's zone(treeline obstructing a small parking lot for the local little league field, which goes out directly onto the road).
We have this system a lot where I live. It works very well when people understand it. The markings don't exclude cars but are a continuous reminder to allow room for bicycles. Definitely safer for cyclists in my opinion and acts somewhat as a traffic calming measure. It works if you understand it and can progress beyond your preconceptions of how a rod should look.
Why can't people with bikes just go on the sidewalk? I honestly think bikes are the dumbest things to be allowed on the road. Constantly they're hit and killed near me on rt22. Because they shouldn't be on a 45-65mph road.
@@lennytate4246 You ever been on a sidewalk these days? Never big enough to properly accommodate pedestrians and bikes at the same time and they're never maintained regularly. We should be following the Netherlands approach with actual properly sized and distanced sidewalks
@@lennytate4246 Why can't people with cars just watch where they're going and make room for pedestrians and cyclists instead of having the entitled attitude that they're the only ones who belong there?
@@elizabethhenning778 it's a 65mph highway with hundreds of thousands of cars on it every day. They should not be on it.
@@lennytate4246If it's a 65mph road, then there's no sidewalk. Sounds like you just want to hog the road. Or maybe the speed limit shouldn't be 65mph.
I love how the engineer goes "If I'm on a street and there could be a car coming by golly I'm paying attention" has he met the average American driver? There are tons of people driving out there that I wouldn't trust to drive Tonka truck let alone a car. Also why the double yellow line? Doesn't that make it illegal to make a turn into most of the driveways?
... About the double yellow line ... No, it does not prohibit you from making a left turn.
The solid line only prevents passing, not turning. Well, "strongly suggests you should not pass, but is still a painted line".
Here in Canada a single solid line up the middle means the same... why waste the paint :P
But it is also illegal to back out of a driveway onto a street.... if you cannot turn around in your driveway you are required to back into your driveway...
@@TroyC68 We don't have a law about backing out of a driveway in the US, yet. I think backing in is the sensible thing, and then pulling out. Why pull out into an uncertain environment when you could back in to a fixed environment? I also back in or pull through when parking at the store. Research shows it reduces accidents.
@@TroyC68 we have single solid lines as well. Towns are just wonky and like to just pull out of a drawing hat.
“Cars get first dibs, because well, they’re paying the bill”.... Gas taxes have never come even close to paying what road infrastructure costs. Everyone in the country pays the bill not ‘cars’.
Just found you after ‘city beautiful’ and ‘not just bike’s’, love what you are doing.
This really seems like another bandaid solution when we need better design from the ground up, but it was a good attempt in theory.
We don't need to do anything.
better design from the ground up? Sure, but that can only work for new development. You can't seriously expect any city to just buldoze itself and start over.
@@johnbeckwith1361 Sounds like someone is able-bodied...
Look, things might be all fine and dandy... for *you.* But this world isn't made for just you! This world has people who can't drive for whatever reason. Just because you don't have any personal issues with how things are doesn't mean nothing needs to change. If the world were built for just people who can swim and you sink like a rock, you'd be demanding change. If everyone just maintained the status quo for all time, we wouldn't even have cars or roads. Things change. Time marches on. Be a stick in the mud all you like, but the river of change ain't stopping just because you're in the way.
Y'all non-believers need to see what Paris could do in a short time.
ua-cam.com/video/sI-1YNAmWlk/v-deo.html
@@tjs200 Most American cities did that when the car came though.
Maybe the bigger problem with Gold Coast Dr. is that they need to enforce selective permeability. Keep people in cars from having an easy east west path that isn't on an arterial road. That would quiet down those neighborhood streets to where you wouldn't need pavement treatments
It would also make traffic on the arterials worse... which is a good thing if you've got public transit that will actually accommodate the needs of a decent percentage of the drivers (which will drop the road users and speed traffic up again) and are trying to get people to actually use it. Not so much if you don't.
The other option would have been to put in a modal filter to prevent that through traffic altogether. The problem seems to be the through traffic more than anything else. It’s disappointing this just ends up another road where people feel comfortable speeding and using it as an alternative route when traffic backs up on the arterial.
yeah safety seems to be discarded in the name of both the status quo and also just allowing highway traffic to spill out and as noted, those people will speed
@@kitkat4892 it makes sense that highway traffic spills into residential streets when you consider, those residential streets are typically designed to highway standards
Yes, the solution to any traffic problem is to build a brick wall in the middle of the road... Problem solved... lol
Some streets just shouldn't be residential.
@@CrissaKentavr we are literally talking about a residential street here so I don't see what that is contributing :)
So with no yellow line to break up direction flow, you can legally drive on the far left. Interesting.
I saw this and immediately thought of a hundred different roads here in Pittsburgh. WITHOUT these markings, we already drive on them exactly like this. This city has too many hilly, curvy, narrow streets that are two way with barely (or not) enough room for two cars to get past each other (let alone one to get through sometimes), and people already know that without markings, you just take it slow and go wherever makes sense. It really shows how incompetent the complaining drivers are, and the lack of proficiency they have with their vehicles, if they're worried about crashing into someone head-on while they have perfect visibility and a functioning brake. Literally just use your discretion and be careful. I'd love to see some markings similar to those put down here, just to codify what we already do a ton of; driving in the middle of the street at a comfortable speed until we see someone else coming head-on. If we can do it with all of our sometimes VERY BLIND hills and bends, what's stopping flat, straight roads from accommodating even more traffic than they had there?
Honestly, I'm all for anything that forces other drivers to have to concentrate a little harder, while making things easier for non-drivers, and I LOVE driving. I couldn't get by without driving. Even still, too many people don't respect the difficulty, danger, and RESPONSIBILITY that comes with piloting a several-ton hunk of metal powered by (most commonly) exploding dinosaur juice. If they can't handle that, get them off the road. It'll make it safer for all of us.
EDIT: Also, here in Pittsburgh, we do cross the double yellow to go around "share the road" cyclists. Everyone does this when it's safe to. So again, there is no difference in the road anyway. Just be a better driver.
Bingo re: without the markings, people will already drive as intended. But, *with* the markings, people in cars will believe they can't use the bike lanes, not to mention that the default driving position will be "in the middle of the road" instead of "to the side except as needed to pass" (as it should be), and it is completely unclear who is required to yield to who - because you're both within your lane heading straight towards each other, instead of crossing the centerline to pass.
@@JohnRunyon Well, you should be driving not on bike lanes by default. If there are oncoming automobiles, then one of you yields to a bike lane. It is so freaking intuitive, but I guess North Americans also struggle with basic roundabouts, so what do I know
@@mr.norris3840 Well, you shouldn't be driving in the middle of the road by default.
That's entirely the point; there shouldn't be bike lanes here because there's not enough width for them. Having cars entering the bike lane every time another car is coming towards them is far more dangerous than having them overtake whenever they need to pass a bike.
@@JohnRunyon It is so not. I mean, they are literally everywhere in the Netherlands. They are there, because the work best
@@JohnRunyon Unfortunately the latter half of your point is moot here. People DO drive in the middle of the road here, and it IS unclear who has to yield to who, even on a lot of roads with a double-yellow. There are plenty of parked cars on either side that make it impossible for someone to comfortably stay on their side of the road, and if two cars need to pass each other between two more parked cars, you can expect maybe two inches of clearance between each of the four cars on average. Having the markings here would clear up confusion more than anything else, instead of leaving us to stare at someone driving literally atop the double-yellow like "is this illegal, or..."
6:29, I didn’t realize until I saw it from this angle, but only in America would a one way edge lane be wide enough for a car to fit easily inside the lines. I got a good sense of scale from this shot and still the residents complain that the road is too narrow now for the cars?!
I must say tho it does feel a little weird seeing this type of road downtown, because here in the Netherlands those roads have been disappearing over the last 10-20 years or so as we’ve been redesigning our roads. You still see them lots in the countryside tho, where there’s low traffic.
america is about 5 decades behind other countries in safe road infrastructure so that makes sense. We're just now implementing stuff that was deemed safe in the Netherlands in the 50s.
Great video as usual Rob! I'd just point out at 2:55 cars don't actually pay the bill most of the time. It always depends what street and what state, but where I live all the local roads like these would be paid for through property taxes. Even for major roads, the gas tax doesn't cover the full cost.
Good point! Bikers and pedestrians are paying for the street too.
Yeah the only place where car drivers actually pay the full cost of road maintenance (and sometimes even construction) is a toll road.
These are very common in europe, just americans who can't figure them out
I mean a lot of people in the US can't figure out how to use roundabouts, doesn't surprise me that they have problems with this
Oh yeah we could combat this by looking and thinking. But it appears too many people think "fuck it I'll just plow into that car"
The problem is when most people see marked bike lanes they think they arent allowed to drive there. That's the case every time I have seen a bike lane
These are actually very common in the Netherlands and work really well. Of course, here people are actually taught to pay attention to bikes and other participants of the road.
These types of roads are only used for 60km/h or slower and are proven to be extremely safe as they make way for bikes plus they add to the visual cue that this is a shared road. Hence why one would need to pay extra attention, adjust speed and just don’t be an idiot in general.
I have seen them here in Germany, usually there is only a „optional bike lane@ on one side though. Not really confusing though.
You must have missed the part where the narrator talked about how this road is used. There is so much traffic from people arriving/leaving work that the arteries between the freeways and work places are clogged during morning and afternoon rush hours. Many people then use this alternate route through residential neighborhoods. A lot of those people continue to drive at freeway speeds (>50 mph) which is twice as fast as the roads were designed for. Setting up this striping scheme on these roads was extremely dangerous without doing anything to effect the speeding problem. (If you're thinking that that's not what you saw in the video, of course you didn't: nobody would go out on that street during a traffic rush, and that includes this video crew.)
can you giver me an example of one? I'm surprised the Netherlands would have such a design. I've heard places where cars are guests and the roads are cobblestone and narrow to slow down cars, but never heard of this monstrosity existing in the nether regions.
@@ElectricityTaster This would be used in quiet streets, not busy ones. and with speed bumps. But I think it's rare nowadays.
@@andhisband Agreed that this does not always work on every street. But in America, the way speed limits are enforce usually is by just adding speed signs without actually doing something about the way the road 'feels' and looks. The best way to enforce speed limits is by designing the street so drivers will automatically drive slower. One of the ways to do this is to make the street optically smaller. Many 60 km/h (37mph) rural streets have this design. They have no middle lane markings. Ofcourse you cannot use this design in high speed, high traffic situations. But to me, the way the street was designed in the video seemed perfectly fine.
In the Netherlands this has been one of the standard configurations for a looooong time.
Yep, works fine here. But most people have an aversion to change. :)
yeah i think i saw them in a Rembrandt painting 😊
@@reddykilowatt alright, you got me sniffing through my nose haha
That was in Michael Williams’ video backdrop!! Did you spot it?
@@reddykilowatt Hahah. You're probably right! XD
In europe there a buch of streets where you just dont have space for anything. They are usually 2 or 3 car width wide, but parking is permitted, so in relity its just enough for one car. It is still a two way street, if two cars use it at the same time, the one who is closer to an intersection backs up, not a big deal.
"Cars get 1st bid because they're paying the bill". Now that's an interesting take. Tax and other revenue from car use contributes but a small portion to road construction and maintenance. The property and business owners are contributing far more.
Stop watching anti car videos
@@DrJams Stop watching pro-car videos and start watching realistic videos
@@DrJams Get in line and don't question anything. Better to just go along with what they tell you and to not think for yourself.
No idea how it works on the US, but is the tax/revenue on car use going directly to the category "road maintenance" (to illustrate: "Gas tax" => "road maintenance")? Or is it done (like in multiple other countries) in a way that the tax and revenue is collected in the total budget before spending it on maintenance (to illustrate: "Gas tax" => "Total Budget" => "maintenance") ?
@@zephyros256 car taxes don't cover the cost of car infrastructure.
This is so common in the Netherlands
along with the pot smoking and prostitution 😂
My street is like this.
"Cars go first because they pay the bills..." I'm confused: What is the background of this statement here? I thought roads are built with the money from taxes, including those from bicyclists and pedestrians. And why do get cars both the bigger part of the driving area and additionally the parking area?
Edit: The video is great otherwise, just this one little remark itched me... Maybe it was meant ironically and I did not get it.
Exactly, this misconception on Rob's part is a huge problem with our car-centric road design. Car drivers do pay additional taxes for road use than cyclists and pedestrians (gas tax, vehicle registration fees, etc), but cars do *not* pay the bill for road use. Due to the amount of space they take up (for driving and parking) and the amount of routine damage they do to roads, cars and trucks are a disproportionate drain on our road systems, unlike pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit. If more deference and space was given to those alternatives to private vehicles, roads would be far more cost-efficient.
I haven't watch the video yet (and am not planning to after reading this comment) but if he really meant that, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Cars don't pay the bills. They create them. They damage road infrastructure far more than any pedestrian traffic and require roads and parking that take up valuable building space in prime real estate areas. They are a net loss for both cities and businesses, especially when dealing with more than 1 lane.
@@chrisblue4652 Small cracks appear for various reasons, and then heavy vehicles repeatedly driving on top creates the bigger cracks and potholes. There is plenty research out there, and roads in places with less heavy traffic absolutely does not have to be repaved as often, especially as they have more time to repair the small cracks before it’s too late.
I hope NYC starts sharing the tolls with bikers. They've been cutting car lanes yet the tolls keep going up. =( I pay $350+ a month just tolls. Truckers pay like $60 per toll. They also get tickets now when delivering as those rental bikes are parked where use to be parking for deliveries. All those extra delivery fees are passed onto the customer. There is plenty of room for bike parking on the sidewalk now that they removed all the payphones. =)
@@rendomstranger8698 Do watch the video! It is great, and my comment was just focused on a tiny aspect.
Bottom line of the whole bike lane marking effort was to visually emphasise the weight cyclists have according to the administration, and make sure they have the space they need. We need more of that, both street markings and videos.
The thing is, you could barely see anyone using it in the video
Buffalo took Linwood Avenue (which is a one way, mostly residential street) from two car lanes to one, adding a bike lane on either side. Arguably an easier case than San Diego's as it was a one-way street and the new scheme wasn't as unfamiliar to people as "Advisory Bike Lanes". Also the city spent a lot of time on communicating with residents and getting feedback before implementing their plan. And even then there were some hiccups with the rollout (which they fixed). It's been about ten years now and it's worked out well. But I think if they'd just sprung it on people without prior discussion there would have been serious pushback.
A one way street would be fine (if other circumstances allowed). Putting the fastest traffic on the road in direct collision course with each other is the issue.
Buffalo is really a battleground in the war on cars. Seriously.
And these geniuses decided to keep to directions of traffic in a single lane. They should have made it 1 way, for this to work. I can see many accidents on this road.
Wow. That is such a great idea. You're absolutely right. The mistake here wasn't the lane design. It was the education of the public. They should have went to all those news stations and had them run a 60 second segment every night for 2 weeks telling people it's coming, how to use it, and why it's better. Then send out some mailers, door hangers, put it in the news papers ect. Get the word out. Had they done that, the entire thing would have been a success. It's such a great idea. It forces people to pay attention and gives those vulnerable road users space to feel safer. I wish my neighborhood had them. Great video, as always. I loved the part where they thought he was on some kind of ridable surveying scooter device. Lol.
There's a road like this in my city (Ann Arbor, Michigan). It's fine. It works better than a lot of other unsafe bike lanes. Definitely a communication problem on behalf of the city here.
holy shit 💀 that town is absolutely dreadful. are they just not aware that they have to paint the bike lanes and connect them to other bike lanes? also the ones on plymouth road are the narrowest bike lanes I've ever seen
@@blitzn00dle50 The sad thing is we're better than a lot of places, too! The worst, absolutely worst example is on Ann Arbor-Saline Road near I-94. I have never seen a biker in those bike lanes -- I've seen dozens on the sidewalks.
@@elli6220 that hurts to look at. it's like the goal of that interchange is to inconvenience everyone as much as possible.
replace that whole interchange with a nice SPUI (the best type of highway interchange) and put the separated 2-way bicycle path either down the center of the road or on both sides, intersecting the right turn lanes at steeper angles, and maybe there could be a secondary bike lane that jumps off the curb for people who want to charge through at a much higher speed. one of the largest problems with US bike infrastructure is how they act like everyone rides the same, so giving people on upright city bikes and people on brakeless fixies different options would be a nice change
Yeah, I was confused a year or so ago when they first added it on Grainger but it really isn't difficult at all to get used to (although the signs aren't really that intuitive imo), the only thing I haven't done yet is biked down it after a game, with the amount of people that use Grainger to get to and from the stadium it might get quite chaotic
Those ones they just built in Ann Arbor were all over the internet last year.
the REAL issue is that it's a cheater road. If the road wasn't designed for that, the city should put calming measures in to prevent that. Might be a pain for a few residents, but it would likely cut the traffic by a lot.