You must log in or register to comment.
I know this one! (52.4962055, 13.4652582)
It’s on a slope leading towards a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists. It serves to slow down cyclists coming downhill from the bridge.
So basically it makes cycling energy management less efficient? Is there a point to that?
Well, you know how cyclists complain about cars blocking or speeding on their parts of the street? Same goes for pedestrians and cyclists because people being assholes isn’t dependent on their type of vehicle. That’s why you have to slow down even bikes sometimes.
Or, just a thought, on a path that wide you could designate one half for cyclists and one half for pedestrians and everyone could drive at their preferred speed.
Well, that makes a bit more sense, but they should really just turn this whole thing into a proper kink instead of having two separate paths through the barriers.
With the rise of cargo bikes these speed breaks are not usable anymore. They are often too tight for cargo bikes, and the ones that aren’t dont reduce the speed of normal bikes, which are still 80%+ of the bikes.
they weren’t even remotely acceptable in the first place, they’re basically just a big sign telling people with mobility aids that they don’t deserve to go places.
it’s a blitheringly stupid way to slow people down, worse even than how stop signs are used like magical wards to make roads “safe”
What’s your preferred alternative?
Some kind of horizontal deflection — a curve to the side can still be used to slow bikes near an intersection. But here the original design practically required getting off the bike to go through it, while the path around it will hardly slow bikes at all. So both attempts were failures.
Here’s example of a newly constructed protected bike lane which curves as it approaches an intersection to slow bike traffic.
This looks deadly.
That’s a great solution for the spot it’s in, but I’m not convinced there’s enough space for a snaky design (it probably has a better name lol) in the OP’s spot that would still accommodate bike trailers. I like the springy gate idea the other person mentioned although I could see it being unpopular because it would be too slow.
something they’ve started using in places here lately and seems okay as a plug and play solution is just swing gates that can easily be pushed open, that forces you to slow down but still allows most people to easily get through. It’s not perfect since there’s still some resistance and i can imagine some mobility aids making it annoying, plus there’s risk of scratches and stuff.
But really i question the need for physical obstacles in the first place. Just put some thick layers of road paint to create a rumble strip and make it visually obvious that you should slow down.
And especially in this case (someone linked the location on gmaps) i just see no need for anything at all, it’s already a bloody narrow passage that seems well used by pedestrians, it’s not exactly a place where wheelrunners would be congregating…I don’t see the need for it either, but when it comes to something like a railroad crossing (the only place where I see these used in my country), are rumble strips enough? You can ride a bike over rumble strips with headphones on no problem. These things force you to look ahead, which is far more important than the slowing down part IMO.
railroad crossings are the one place gates are clearly good, yes.
i think the important distinction is that railroad gates are only closed when it’s 100% unsafe to cross, and when they’re open it’s 99% safe to cross, so they never feel needlessly annoying.
