Originally Posted by
UniChris
Indeed. There's probably also no need for paint.
The ones that come immediately to mind for me are also neighbourhood streets, say north of Inman Square, and of course the issue there isn't the width but the parking - which ironically likely contributes to the cooperativeness of it.
Rural versions in the US are typically wide enough, unless they're dirt or were last paved a generation ago, but those properties tend to mean they don't have a consistently defined edge anyway, and often that they're shared between occasional farm use and people driving trips that are recreational and not just "late for work"
It's much more about attitude than infrastructure, and Europe seems to have much more expectation that color between the lines will actually result in it. In the US it's recognized there's a need to look at all the cues prompting behavior.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
My first thought about this arrangement is that basically it really isn't a change from the cyclist's perspective. All that's really been done is they've painted in the FRAP zone. From the various studies that you can follow to through the links in the OP, there's little or no evidence this has any effect either way on bicyclist safety..
It isn't for everywhere. But it belongs not at the local neighborhood roads and not on
arterials. In between, the too many cut through roads, moderate traffic, particularly with young children in the neighborhood. (Which is part of the reason it failed next to e.e. cummings.) No matter if urban or "rural." If you wouldn't drive down the road except WAZE told you to, bingo.
Finally, it's nice to know if we AREN'T getting hit on such infrastructure, then there isn't any evidence it's good for us.
-mr. bill