Originally Posted by billridesbikes

Hey JoeyBike is that you in the profile pic hanging on to the taxi cab? If the lane is narrower that will be much easier!
But seriously, although it's counter-intuitive a lane that's 10-11ft instead of the standard 12ft will actually make you safer. Drivers, on average, will drive a little slower and be less distracted and will give you more room to pass and not try to lane share without moving as much. Narrower lanes are not appropriate on all roads and all circumstances, but on average would enhance safety.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

Citation needed.

Whoever thinks that has never ridden on narrow roads in NH.

ETA--I looked this up. If I'm not mistaken, the 12 foot vs. 10 foot studies are all on urban roads (e.g., Tokyo and Toronto).. TBH, I don't think these "cues" about acceptable speeds would operate the same way outside of city and town centers.

Originally Posted by billridesbikes

Yeah, it’s not for the country or roads that are designed for higher speeds. It’s part of Vision Zero for cities.
Anyway, my main point is it’s time to try something different, because what we’re doing now is literally killing and maiming everyone.

A couple of of these are referencing the same study. I looked but couldn’t find any counter argument research (make roads even wider).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-replaced-now

https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/nar...ewer-accidents

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Safer_Streets

https://www.thecalifornian.com/story...eets/71228318/

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Oh please, that's utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

Looking at the google maps link you posted, It's a two-lane road with remarkably wide breakdown lanes. Those are effectively "narrowing" the road. I guess they could put in some ghosties or tank traps to make it dangerous, but that seems like a stretch, "risk compensation" theory carried to an extreme.

Originally Posted by Korina

Pardon me, but I really need to get this off my chest, and I can't say it to his face.

What the actual Hell, dude???? You're our city's engineer, you run the Transportation Safety Committee, you know better; hell, you ride a bike, and STILL YOU PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFETY ON BIKE RIDERS AND WALKERS. It's not bad enough that you're comfortable with the 85th percentile rule, but when the local paper interviews you about a woman killed by a distracted driver (i.e. bad infrastructure), YOU REMIND BIKE RIDERS AND WALKERS TO DRESS BRIGHTLY AND LOOK OUT FOR DRIVERS. Do you say a single word to drivers to PAY ATTENTION TO THE ONE AND ONLY JOB THEY HAVE? No. This isn't the first time; you say it EVERY. TIME. You have been called out on this, repeatedly, and STILL you persist. Good gods, what will it take for you to open your eyes??

Okay, I feel a little better. I'm on the Transportation Safety Committee, and I'm not the only one to get peeved when he says/publishes that bull pucky in public and puts our name on it. We've told him, and he said he'd run this stuff by us before publishing it, but I'm not sure how much I believe it.

Her name, by the way, was Jennifer Garcia, and her last act was to push her 2-year-old's stroller out of danger. The driver, a young man, admitted to being distracted, probably on his phone; this means he felt comfortable enough to take his eyes off the road while going down a slope on a blind turn. Bad street design.

Originally Posted by delbiker1

Narrower roads would be safer? Not where I live. Far from all, but many would just speed up to get around you before the oncoming traffic prevents that, take part of he oncoming traffic lane even with oncoming traffic, or, jut squeeze the cyclist between the vehicle and the edge of the road.

Originally Posted by Daniel4

Traffic-calming devices, speed bumps and signs on lawns that say "Slow Down" are meant for drivers like that.