acidfast7

not sure what to think, both seem to have their plus/minuses

Frankfurt (old):






Teeside (new):




entertainment break (looking at picking up a used RS6 to get something RHD as they're cheaper here than in Germany ... but there are only 50 currently for sale in the UK ):

Bug Shield

Interesting set of videos. I recently tried another cycling environment as well.

There is essentially no cycling infrastructure in the very rural area where I live in Arizona. I have no problem with that as the death traps are also few and far between. Unfortunately a fair percentage of motorists seem inclined to antagonize cyclists as much as possible. Why?

I just spent a day riding in Tucson evaluating the cycling infrastructure including some new features like cycle boxes, green bike paths, etc. I was quite surprised that with such an active cycling community and a group of engineers putting obvious effort into bike-ability there, how often the infrastructure led the unwary cyclist into traps. I think the same could be said for each of your cycling videos above.

Interestingly, though I was in much heavier traffic than I typically ride, I didn't meet anyone who I felt was actively trying to antagonize me. Sure, I witnessed plenty of mistakes but no active aggression.

So, here I am wondering, Why? Why, when the infrastructure often seems designed to kill a person, can you still have a bike friendly experience? I do not know but I sure wonder.

cat

As a rider in Tucson, I think most people are just used to seeing cyclists. From commuters to group rides. I also think that Tucson (and Pima County) have done a great job working with the cycling community on infrastructure. Full disclosure, I'm a transportation engineer and try not to lead anyone into traps on my projects, although sometimes it's not as easy as it may appear...

jputnam

Not just you, and not just Tucson.

Green lanes and bike boxes are associated with increased accident rates in Portland.

Lusk et. al. recently documented significantly increased accident rates for cycletracks in urban street grids. (Overall, they found cycletracks safer, based on the extremely low accident rate of fully-separated suburban facilities with very low intersection density. Cycletracks on urban street grids have more than ten times the accident rate of their suburban counterparts.)

Germany has seen enough damage from its mandatory bike lanes that they've changed the law to make them optional unless there's specific signage requiring use of the segregated facility.

Data from Belgium show that segregated bicycle facilities on dense urban grids have higher accident rates than no bicycle infrastructure at all.

So, why do they continue?

From the perspective of a novice cyclist who doesn't recognize the many dangers lurking in intersection conflicts, it *feels* like separation from motorists should be safer.

That means that all of these facilities, while increasing actual risk, decrease perceived risk, and drive increased mode share for cycling.

Mr. Hairy Legs

Wow, I love the"bike lane" that puts you straight into a tree. Also, if my commute involved having to weave around women pushing jogger strollers, I think I would just quit.