Originally Posted by SteveG23

"Counterintuitive" is an understatement. The bike lanes should be adjacent to vehicle traffic, not between parked cars and the curb. This way, people have to exit cars and walk across the lane where bicycles are whizzing by, to get to the curb. I expect lawsuits arising from the big safety risk to children and to elderly and disabled passengers.

Originally Posted by SteveG23

I didn't suggest eliminating the safety lane in between.

Originally Posted by mschwett

no.

cycle tracks / bike lanes are safer when buffered from traffic, preferably by an island but parking also works, provided adequate clearances. bike lanes between parking and traffic are crossed by everyone who needs to park, and routinely double parked in for motorists convenience. much, much harder to do when the bike lane is inboard of the parking. finally, depending on the destination, either the majority or vast majority of cars only have a driver, not a driver and a passenger, reducing the bike-lane-side conflict measurably. the problems with the dayton design are in the details, not the concept.

obviously, a street with no parking and fully separated bike and vehicular lanes would be preferable in some ways - but the traffic calming effects of parking and loading should also be considered.

a lot of american cities have these bike lanes, which are a bit of a compromise but a big jump in safety from sharrows or a bike line with driver-side-doors on one side and moving traffic on the other. they work pretty well, even in this example with standard parking meters rather than kiosks. the parking zone also makes a nice space for bike share infrastructure out of the way of the sidewalk.

Originally Posted by SteveG23

My concern is the ability of passengers getting out of cars to be able to reach the sidewalk safely, without crossing any moving traffic - including bicycle traffic. The safety zone between the car and the bike lane, on either side of the car, provides a buffer so the car door isn't opened in the bicycles' way, providing a degree of safety for both; if it's on the driver's side but the car is parked against the curb, the driver can then walk around the car to the curb without crossing traffic.

Car passengers who will be getting out of the curb side of the car on city streets include small children, the elderly, and the disabled, whom you won't find on bicycles in this environment. The Dayton system places their needs far behind those of bicyclists'. Think of a blind person, or one in a wheelchair, having to get out of the car and then cross between the gaps in bicycles, rather than having direct access to the sidewalk. I know my elderly mother-in-law, who has all her senses but walks very slowly and has issues with balance, would be terrified. She just wouldn't go downtown.

Yes, it would be lovely if every road could have a truly separated bicycle lane, but that's not realistic - there generally isn't room (or funding). In the Dayton situation apparently they decided there was both, but I think they got their priorities wrong.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

The Dayton layout was the subject of the OP and was described there.
Maybe there is a plan to replace the meters or erect physical barriers to prevent motor vehicles from parking alongside the meters at the curb; but until such time as that occurs, anyone expecting motorists to not notice the presence of parking meters alongside the curb and to ignore the standard parking procedure in their presence throughout the U.S and elsewhere, may be smoking something funny, under the influence, or may be even considered ignorant in some quarters.

Originally Posted by mschwett

Originally Posted by noisebeam

Is this an example of how not to do it? Looks like a blind right hook trap - these type of designs encourage thoughtful cyclists to ride in the shared travel lanes.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

Is this an example of how not to do it? Looks like a blind right hook trap - these type of designs encourage thoughtful cyclists to ride in the shared travel lanes.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

No doubt that some people proud of being openly hostile to cyclists would describe (and perhaps even post on social media) thoughtful cyclists who ride in travel lanes despite the presence of adjacent parallel bike lanes, regardless of legality or reason, as "ignorant" cyclists.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

This is the kind of thing that makes me skeptical of bike lanes generally. There's always somewhere where the "protection" breaks down and I think it's too easy to cruise fast past that driveway and not even realize it's there.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Which apparently means that "thoughtful cyclists" are unaffected no matter how the so-called ignorant motorists of Dayton park on the streets described in the OP.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

I didn't say or imply that.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

...these type of designs encourage thoughtful cyclists to ride in the shared travel lanes.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

Is this an example of how not to do it? Looks like a blind right hook trap - these type of designs encourage thoughtful cyclists to ride in the shared travel lanes.