Electric cars

[garbon]

The Windsor lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4662563,-0.5933267,3a,75y,114.42h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3TaTss0FwIoQyTHc0HF2iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The one on the main road not too far from me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5233688,-0.6952619,3a,75y,114.74h,71.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2R0MALMgTGB1bhppRkz8BQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There's not a lot of space but you could probably narrow the car lanes to allow for a dedicated bike lane.

You can, but should you?

I am all for biking, but from the standpoint of the purpose of roads and bike lanes (to allow people to transport themselves and their stuff from A to B) bikes are terrible. The carrying capacity of a given width of bike lane has to be horrible compared to a similar width of car lane, right? Bikes are just relatively slow, and don't carry very much.

If you could somehow convince 50% of commuters to switch to bikes....well, that actually would probably not be possible, I am guessing, in most congested places. There just would not be enough "bike lane space" to handle that much bicycle traffic even if you took 50% of the existing roads and dedicated them to bikes.

I suspect a road has probably at least an order of magnitude greater carrying capacity then an equivalent width of bike path per "rush hour".

And I suspect, at the end of the day, that is why we very rarely see adequate to the needs of cyclists bike paths in areas where the space is a limited resource.

I agree with this entirely.

[Maladict]

That photo looks like hell.

I think it works reasonably well for everyone. Drivers can still get everywhere by car, and they're not impeding traffic too much.

[Josquius]

Its iffy. It seems very reliant on the good will of drivers.
Most will behave but all it takes is one out of towner who doesn't get it...
Though I do like that it doesnt look like a proper road. That should implant something in their minds.

[garbon]

That photo looks like hell.

I think it works reasonably well for everyone. Drivers can still get everywhere by car, and they're not impeding traffic too much.

Seems like it would slow crowded areas to even more of a crawl which would then impact the surrounding network.

Maybe something sensible for main roads in a suburbs.

[mongers]

The same old story of some car drivers bleating about a few cyclists supposedly holding them up. 

The reality is what holding you up is the huge number of other cars on the roads all trying to go places at the same time; what's delaying you is the cars in front and your delaying all the cars behind you. 

I think I correct in saying there's never been more cars on the roads, parked up and so often blocking pedestrian pavements etc. I get there's a tenth more than 20 years ago.

My home town has a daily traffic jam on and off from 2.45pm through to after 6pm, as the school pickup merges with the drive home from work.

[garbon]

So doesn't seem like that setup will help anyone but cyclists.

[Jacob]

So doesn't seem like that setup will help anyone but cyclists.

More cyclists = fewer cars, which will help the remaining drivers. Being stuck behind an actually moving bike is faster than being stuck behind a car that doesn't move.

[garbon]

So doesn't seem like that setup will help anyone but cyclists.

More cyclists = fewer cars, which will help the remaining drivers. Being stuck behind an actually moving bike is faster than being stuck behind a car that doesn't move.

I'm very skeptical of that first equation for the reasons that Berkut mentioned.

[Sheilbh]

So doesn't seem like that setup will help anyone but cyclists.

More cyclists = fewer cars, which will help the remaining drivers. Being stuck behind an actually moving bike is faster than being stuck behind a car that doesn't move.

Fewer cars also helps pedestrians and buses/public transport.

I always think of the pictures of the Netherlands, say, or Denmark in the 1960s v now. These are choices we've made.

[Josquius]

Yep. The Netherlands vs UK is particularly interesting. Go back to the 50s and the situation was totally the opposite with the UK being a very cycling friendly place with loads of great bike infrastructure whilst the Netherlands was the car filled smelly shit hole.
Then the UK caught the American disease and the Dutch woke up.


I'm sure we've all seen this before.



Berkuts reply doesn't make sense.

[Tamas]

Each additional passenger and/or cargo to carry starts ruining that picture pretty quickly. Also dishonest not to think of time constraints.  Does it make sense on England's tiny little medieval roads for middle class people to be driving land cruisers (best fitting car name ever) on their own and barely fitting on the road even without traffic? Of course not. But that comparison is just dishonest.

[crazy canuck]

Each additional passenger and/or cargo to carry starts ruining that picture pretty quickly. Also dishonest not to think of time constraints.  Does it make sense on England's tiny little medieval roads for middle class people to be driving land cruisers (best fitting car name ever) on their own and barely fitting on the road even without traffic? Of course not. But that comparison is just dishonest.

How is it dishonest?  how many commuters sitting in their cars transport cargo?

[Josquius]

The majority of car journeys are single occupant. Especially at rush hour.

Time constraints... Its dishonest to pretend this is a case of the car is always quicker. If you're going 20 miles in a suburban area then yeah, obviously it is. But for getting around in cities at rush hour, especially when you factor in parking, it's not so clear cut.
Consider too the gains from getting some exercise on your commute and reducing the time you need to devote just to that....

I'm not sure what you mean about land cruisers. The cars in the picture seem to be a variety of models.

Its sad it needs to be restated but nobody thinks we should ban absolutely all cars and expect 100% of people to ride a bike. But there are a huge amount of journeys for which taking a bike is absolutely the best choice even discounting environmental gains and on these we should be doing more for it.
99% of school runs in particular need brutally eliminating.

[crazy canuck]

Though must add I'm generally against bike lanes. That's the wrong approach.
We shouldn't be tacking on places for bikes to the side of roads.
Roads in urban areas should be for bikes and people by default with some having car lanes

I'd rather see roads without any restrictions in dense urban areas, but cars are expected to yield to everyone else.

That photo looks like hell.

I agree, replace that abomination of an internal combustion vehicle with an EV and it would be heaven.

[crazy canuck]

The majority of car journeys are single occupant. Especially at rush hour.

Time constraints... Its dishonest to pretend this is a case of the car is always quicker. If you're going 20 miles in a suburban area then yeah, obviously it is. But for getting around in cities at rush hour, especially when you factor in parking, it's not so clear cut.
Consider too the gains from getting some exercise on your commute and reducing the time you need to devote just to that....

I'm not sure what you mean about land cruisers. The cars in the picture seem to be a variety of models.

Its sad it needs to be restated but nobody thinks we should ban absolutely all cars and expect 100% of people to ride a bike. But there are a huge amount of journeys for which taking a bike is absolutely the best choice even discounting environmental gains and on these we should be doing more for it.
99% of school runs in particular need brutally eliminating.

One data point.  I can get to my work place in downtown Vancouver from my house in the foothills of a mountain on the North Shore faster by bike than by car.  That includes the uphill climb on the way back.  It is also safer because most of the time is spent in a separated bike lane or travelling through side roads of Stanley Park where there are no cars.