These new BIKE LANES didn't last two weeks! 

I mean he’s wearing a vest, when have ya ever seen a kid or anyone else be safe and wear a vest lol

@@josephharrison5639my neighbor never fails to leave for her walks without her safety vest! But in general its not common lol

@@josephharrison5639my parents wore similar vests going for nightly walks in their neighborhood. Granted, there were no sidewalks so they had to walk on the side of the road, but there wasn't very much traffic. I wouldn't call vests common, but I wouldn't automatically assume it's a city employee either - especially riding around on a scooter. But what do I know.

@@josephharrison5639 And now you know the vest of the story...

Here in New York City, the vests do indicate a city employee. How you ask? Well, they put them on their vehicle's dashboard and the parking enforcement agents don't ticket them for any of the infractions because, well, they're city employees. As a result, they get the name of 'theft vests.'

Propaganda station. If we actually called things what they were.

Who cares if the residents know? What about when someone not from the area shows up? Roads aren't just for local people. Roads needs to be understood by EVERYONE.

It's basically the same as if they hadn't put any lines down. It's not hard.

A lot of people will get mad no matter what you do, but it's far better to tell them first than to plop down a completely different driving system on them with no warning.

"Oh, this is so confusing - how does this work?" "There's too many signs with explanations" That was funny. Meanwhile in Europe this kind of street treatmeant pops up all over the place. Even on country roads middle lines get removed to encourage people to drive more carefully.

@@oerthling Europe is smart enough to know you don't combine these kind of bike lanes with curbside parking though. That was the problem here.

Exactly. I see bike lane and I think I'm not allowed to be there

Oxford... OH?

​@@adventureoflinkmk2 UK

In England they are installing pottery and other objects to cut the streets off. If you live in the neighborhood you can get in and out, but you can't pass through it because waze found it as a faster route anymore.

In my town, they've taken 3 lane feeder roads and reduced them to 2 lanes... Now the queue backs up for 3 light changes, when it used to be 1... This is an engineered problem. Think about it... Worse roads means that DOT gets more money. In my town, they spent millions of dollars "painting lines" on the street. So, then a lot of this is the washing of money through contracts for lucrative projects that cost very little to implement, but the taxpayer burden is extreme... Sadly this corruption affects daily lives by stealing your time away from each citizen. They do it to "make streets safer", but ironically in my town, after these changes were implemented, the fatalities are at an all time high. Our cities are "experimenting on us" with experimental, untested, and poorly engineered roads, which by definition are dangerous because they are "unfamiliar in design and function", where the whole point of road safety is to make road features as homogenous and standard as possible so there is no "learning curve" and the end of each turn... Another example is they have taken one intersection, and built an island that "juts out" into the feeder road, with no markings or "road narrows" signs. They actually built this on purpose, and I saw a car hit this median and have the tie rod destroyed. Then you see strike scars on the curb, showing that this happens to lots of folks. ... and they did it on purpose. I reported it to them, and they said "it was by design"... lol Then don't get me started on the light timing. It's as if an oil investor has taken over the system and use the lights to "slow down traffic as much as possible", which makes pollution worse and the cars just site there idling in frustration. It all needs to change, and it's a management, engineering, and corruption issue.

Arg, know it alls.. ha

@@mostlyguesses8385 I've actually attended Civil Engineering classes in college, so I think I have an idea of what I'm talkin' about... and yes, the death rate in my town is at an all time high AFTER they implemented these changes that they call improvements... If anything, revert my roads back to the way they used to be, and they will not only double the car throughput, but it will also be safer. I should make a video so you could see it for yourself in disbelief. In my town, rather than build concrete roads, they build asphalt roads so that they road crews can spend eternity repaving them every 5 years indefinitely... It's a machine that learns how to feed itself and grow in all kinds of creative ways.

@@mostlyguesses8385 The lights in my town used to be timed for throughput, now they are timed to "slow down traffic"... Pitiful.

i feel like some chicanes would be better to slow people down, then add the bike lanes.

It’s not feeling dangerous though. It is dangerous

Yup thats what they do in many EU countries. They narrow down the lanes so that the car traffic slows down wherever they need to. US has big speeding and accidents problem is because of very very wide streets.

We're used to lane lines adding order and "safe space expectations." These lines run counter to that. They're TRYING to convey flexibility and options, but IMO they add confusion. Better situation is NO markings at all. That makes it more clear that it's a flexible free-for-all situation. 🤷

@@Dragon228833 Source? If nothing else, it's definitely less dangerous for people outside cars, since head in crashes with cars is the only situation it might be more dangerous.

Except most people keep right on an unmarked, neighborhood street. These lines encourage people to just got down the middle of the road all the time, until it's time to swerve to meet a car.

That was edited. He showed the real footage afterwards

@@jovetj Driving in the middle is safer. If you're driving so fast that you cannot react to another driver, you're driving way too fast for the environment. Driving in the middle gives you more reaction time and awareness of anything coming out from the sides, like pedestrians. And makes it unlikely you'll drive into someone opening their car door. When you meet another car you both move to your side of the road and can pass eachother fine. I've driven a lot on roads that are as thin as a single lane, with no space on either side due to parked cars(They really should be converted to 1 ways but they haven't been), and it's inconvenient but perfectly managible as long as you're driving at a safe speed and not like a maniac. And if you're driving far too fast like a lunatic, well, you're unsafe no matter what road you're on.

@@CallyMayz And how responsible and attentive are most drivers? Not very. You just demonstrated my point.

@@jovetj I didn't demonstrate your point at all. This is a standard requirement to drive on a road and people do it all the time.

The big problem is that most americans are too stupid and road ragey to ever appreciate traffic calming because CAR GO FAST and anything that slows them down is an attack on freedom and liberty... or something.

You could solve that by having the parking be diagonal. That way the door swing wouldn’t intercept the path of traffic/bikers.

It's not "protected" at all, and it has anyone and everyone swerving into any "lane" they wish. As pointed out in the video, this is exactly how residential streets work, but without the lines. So, these lines are stupid. The lines also discourage cars from keeping right, which just encourages a head-on collision. This is because of human nature: most drivers are bad drivers. Good roads should NOT rely on suppressing human nature for safety.

@@jovetj No!You just have to get more attention to where you are!Just a small road between houses and bikers.Dont let your car do the job off driving!Do it yourself!Or do i have to say that European drivers are better than Americans???😀

@@jooproos6559 I've never been to Europe so I cannot make any such comparison.

Anyone with a driver's licence should already know how a dotted white line works

@@danieldaniels7571 It means you are allowed to change lanes and stay in that lane. You can't ride on a dashed line on a normal road you can get a ticket for unsafe lane change or improper passing on non edge lane streets.

The city can and DOES make the changes it sees fit. Not only do you have no say, but you have no clue that changes are a comin’.

@@danieldaniels7571 What state do in whose driver’s test asked when you should “put one wheel in the travel lane, one wheel in a lane with bicycle symbols in it, and drive for blocks straddling the dotted white line in between?”

City should have doubled down and did this with another road drivers are speeding on. If they had asked for public outreach on this then we wouldn't have seen it in the first place probably

I was gonna post the same thing. Car infrastructure is incredibly expensive and to think that the taxes paid by car users actually cover those cost is incredibly unfounded.

@@matiasgrioni292 Even still, car owners still pay for a higher portion of road maintenance than the general populace (of which car owners are also a part of). I'm all for multi-modalism (which itself includes cars) but it seems that recent efforts are more about making driving difficult/more expensive than making other modes more appealing. It's also of course worth pointing out that car uses benefit even those who don't themselves drive, delivery vans, trucks, city services etc. all require roads and benefit society at large.

Vehicle license tax also is used to pay for road construction and maintenance

@@xtreme242 Right but they still don't cover it which leaves non-drivers subsidizing it. It's only going to get worse with heavier EVs causing more damage but not having the gas tax. There are plenty of ways to balance it, but I just wanted to point out the slight discrepancy.

@@arsvi123 All of your points are correct, but when cars are only paying for a portion (even a majority share) of the cost but, usually, getting 100% of the benefit (in this case safe, maintained roads) then the others are still shorted. And the rest of us only benefit so much from trucks because we've built it that way. We also benefit from rail transport of goods but we've invested heavily into less efficient trucks.

It's so annoying for the cars. I hate them in france. And i think i hate them also when i use my bike. I really don't see the point apart for annoying car's drivers. And you don't need two meters to use your bike, one meter is plenty enough. If a bike user is smart, he can zigzag on the walkway like a grown man. It's what we do in the countryside and it never hurt anyone. But i believe than town bicycle users have two brain cells.

@@Sombre____ If you mean riding a bike on the sidewalk, that is technically illegal, plus i live in the countryside so when i go through a town the section where there is a sidewalk is not very long so taking the time to get off my bike, go onto the sidewalk and then do the same to get off the sidewalk once it ends takes a lot of time on my commute and doesn't provide much added safety since car drivers don't expect cyclists to cross on pedestrian crossings. Also i dislike doing that because it just creates conflict situations with pedestrians. If you are riding your bike for leisure and you are not in a rush, i think in that case it's ok to ride on the sidewalk if that makes you feel safer. But if you are commuting on a longer distance and want to go fast, you shouldn't ride fast on the sidewalk, you could hurt someone. If cars are allowed to go fast on the street, why shouldn't bicycles do the same? Also that is irrelevant on out of town roads (which represent most of my commute) where there is no sidewalk. Cars and cyclists just have to share the road until we build appropriate bike infrastructure.

This ain't 🇫🇷 France, nor do we want to be like France.

​@adampolok as a kid I rode on the sidewalk...cars don't have bumpers...almost got killed as a teenager thinking cars are looking 4 you. NOT !!!

Yeah but driving standards in the Netherlands and Germany are way more strict than in North America. A good chunk of drivers here would fail their driving tests in Europe.

The population of San Diego, not a huge city, is almost double the population of the largest city in the Netherlands. There are no comparisons to be made between such disparate places. Even Germany only has 3 cities larger than San Diego.

⁠@@chrisfoxwell4128What does the total population of a city have to do with it?

​@chrisfoxwell4128 so if Germany has cities larger than San Diego but those cities have shared lanes (and many other even more "complicated" road situations), which Germans living in those larger cities navigate with no problems... does that not destroy your argument? It's simple: Americans are bad drivers on average. And instead of improving drivers by making driving schools more difficult and final driving test more strict, you're dumbing down the roads, making them as wide and comfortable as possible. And even with your dumbed down roads adjusted for dumb American drivers, you still have two to three times the accidents per capita, and two to three times the death toll. So, dumbing down roads doesn't work.

Ironically it's the USA, where the bikes don't get enough protection from cars, where this sort of thing just proves politically impossible. I really think it's the mindset that's the problem: in the USA, car drivers are normal road users and cyclists are fringe weirdos, so people resent anything that slows cars down to give cyclists greater protection. The point of these side lanes is the cars have to use them to avoid oncoming cars, but because they're marked as bike lanes, it is clear that cars are guests and have to yield to bikes (and by implication, if you run down a cyclist in a marked cycle lane, you wouldn't necessarily be able to blame the victim and get away with it like you usually can). Most Americans think that's unreasonable: if cyclists want space on the street, they should buy a pickup truck.

Correct, the Amarican traffic system is ages behind us in The Netherlands.

@@JaapGinder we prefer it this way. America has a much bigger car culture than Netherlands. Also cities in Netherlands are much older, some of them are built before the invention of cars, so their roads are narrow and twisty. In the US most road are wide and straight, cars will just have frontal impact with edge designs like this.

@@philwoodward5069 Exactly! at least with this people might think twice before getting angry because a pedestrian "doesn't belong in the street" and so they're angry about getting stuck behind a biker or someone skating. If I had a penny for anytime a person in a car was clearly mad that I was in the street on my longboard (electric so I have the same speed as bikers) I would be able to easily put together or buy a high end board with the money. Hell, I could even just buy a small motorcycle with it. People are super entitled and seem to all have skipped the day in driver's ed telling them bikes have the same rights to the road as cars. (except for interstates but no one wants to die that way anyway) These days many areas have even added in laws allowing other vehicles road access or the old laws already allowed for it. NC for example already allowed me to use the roads on my eskate based on my average speed and top speed. It wasn't explicitly written in as allowed, but the requirements for bikes and mobility devices made it legal.

@@awdrifter3394 Amazing. As a Londoner, I'm well accustomed to people saying we can't have protected cycling routes because of our narrow, crooked streets (to which the solution is, as in Amsterdam, to provide through routes for bikes via the backstreets while using modal filters and the like to keep vehicular traffic off those streets). I've never heard the straightness and wideness of a road advanced as an argument *against* putting in bike infrastructure. 🤔

I wanna go fast.

Yup. Typical car culture bullshit. But admittedly this is an infrastructure channel and an infrastructure solution would be to eliminate the convenience of cheater roads by blocking their freeway links before adding in edge lanes.

@@rickybobby9255 hit the highway

I agree with you but they need a better way to share the update on the new roads or rules. IMO they need to require a online education course before each license renewal. This way the very least gives the state a way to educate the people. Personally I think more people don't understand why traffic is inherently dangerous. The assumption that wider roads are a cause. It would be interesting if they just singled out this idea and explained that wider and faster roads put everyone in a dangerous situation. ... and opinion vs facts would be a large step on their understanding. Changes to the norm are almost always difficult

@@rickybobby9255 100 people die in car crashes DAILY, maybe you will be one? Maybe you kill a kid on bike or someone's grandma, keep being selfish......

Do you know what a gas tax is?

@@jovetj do you know how high a gas tax, or property taxes for that matter, would need to be to actually pay for all the space wasted to move one person in a metal box?

@@wolfetone2012 100000000000000

@@wolfetone2012 true, in every case people that bike or take public transportation end up subsidizing car infrastructure

There was, if you got rid of on street parking. If you kept the parking and the sidewalk, you wouldn't be able to reasonably get two lanes and enough room for bikes. There only seems to be around 48' of ROW, while the average two lane street in Chicago has a ROW of 66'

Look at 3:51 in the video

Yeah, when he said "this narrow road isn't wide enough" I initially thought he was joking...

@@blakehakimian8730 So get rid of it then. Literally every house on this road has a parking space anyways

that's what I was thinking. And there were driveways why do you need parking? At least not on both sides.

Everybody's an armchair expert these days. And outrage culture is booming. The city should have communicated far better then they did to avoid the outrage. I think a lot of public adjacent organizations lack the PR skills necessary for driving proper public messaging about what they are doing.

They should have given it at least 3 months.

they should've kept it and let the shitty drivers keep having a meltdown

They should have given it at least 300 years.

Shouldn't cause any confusion. Driver uses their eyes and reads signs etc... Accordingly. If this confused you, shouldn't be driving a 3 ton hunk of metal down the road.

Can't believe they didn't think of that. Besides, as a cyclist I always stick as close to the side of the road as possible to make it easier for cars to overtake me...

+1. Couple that with sharrows and that would have been a much more familiar solution.

At the beginning of this video, he discusses the space requirements that dictate what is available on our streets. Most suburban roads are much wider than they need to be to accommodate a car going 25 mph. This wasn't addressed directly in this video, but a lot of media around the subject will point out how streets in America need to be narrower to encourage slower driving. This is because people drive the speed they feel they can comfortably go without damaging their vehicle. When the streets that are meant to only have 25 mph speed limits have lanes the size of a freeway people drive like it's a freeway. To make it safer, they encourage people to have more vigilance by making the lanes narrower and demanding the driver's attention. The issue is this is counter to the desires of the average motorist who has become accustomed to unconscious driving.

@@davidlyday7373 This is the same problem America has with roundabouts. Roundabouts have several advantages in cost and throughput, but they're safer than traffic lights because they make people uncomfortable. Suddenly drivers have to look around and pay attention, when they'd rather be spending 10% of their focus driving between the lines and the rest texting. That and people don't like change, and our media companies are happy to play up that and act outraged whenever anyone tries something new.

the thing is also about intention in the road design it might be, on paper the same as dotted line, but in this case, drivers are invited in the bike lane when there is another car, on the contrary, with dotted lane, bicyclist are forced to drive on the car lane

1:44 In case of incoming traffic, yield to bikes.

@@TheNotoriousKRP Or in reality...shared road, drive like you're not the only person on it...somehow this works in Korea, Japan, all of Europe... Look at the UK alone in cities and the country, most roads are barely wider than this shared lane, yet cars somehow manage to pass each other safely, along with bikes, tractors, pedestrians. Perhaps the problem is the drivers, not the roads.

@@jeffclark5268 The problem is the dumb-ass stripes. If the city had just left the road the way it was, everything would've been (continued to be) fine. The city violated the fundamental rule: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Of course, local governments do that _all the time._ It's a distinguishing hallmark of local government. Gotta justify those bloated city staffs somehow, right?

@@jeffclark5268 i thought london was horrible for bikes

@@MsZsc it is not great, but better than this.

The difference here is that you don't usually have any markings on those streets and they are clearly too narrow for more than one vehicle at a time. (obvious exceptions for two motorcycles or two bicycles)

@@SmallSpoonBrigade here in the netherlands they're also too narrow for more than 1 vehicle at a time and yet we drive fine with that in place. I think this more or less shows the level of driving americans posess compared to us

I think the side lanes should not be cycle lanes, just supplementary lanes, as I am extremely skeptical of cars in them.

You’re totally missing the point. It’s a residential street. Number one problem is drivers are not obeying the speed limit. This type of innovative solution is too much, too fast for most Americans drivers to comprehend. My understanding is they still haven’t accepted round abouts yet.

THAT MAKE TO MUCH CENTS WE CAN NOT HAVE THAT

KUSI more like kuso

That was so darn funny haha, really goes to show how little interest, nuance or care news companies can get away with putting into, well, the news nowadays

They didn't even ask. Just assumed it was city worker. 😅

Uh pretty sure that's every news channel lol.

Did the station get bought out by Sinclair?

alternatively, you just make the changes on a massive scale, educate via PSAs, and not give in to demands to take it out. People will get used to it in time just like with every other controversial change that everyone ends up liking eventually. The same thing occurs with roundabouts.

@@jceess you're correct but residents shouldnt be blindsided with drastic changes. The city shouldnt cave to pressure unless the experiment actually fails, because the ones complaining dont actually know what they're talking about, the lack of familiarity just freaks them out.

Although consultation with the public always looks like the fairest, most democratic way of bringing in change, in reality it just means change never happens.

@@rogink It is the way of Democracy... Everyone having a voice. As long as everyone is given an opportunity to understand, then the proposed changes, whether they like them or not are understood by all. In this instance because of this very important step was skipped; it was DOA...

I think both are true. I lived on Alemany Boulevarde in San Francisco when they striped the bike lanes, but they had a public meeting about them first. A lot of people whinged, but the city insisted on trying it-it's just paint, they said. Cyclists flocked to it, motorists got used to it, the bike lanes stayed, and now, in the extra half-metre of space it left in the median, there are pretty plants and things.

It's not a good design for several reasons: - The painted lines like this are not necessary because this is how unpainted streets are treated. - The painted lines encourage cars to travel in the middle of the road versus keeping right for oncoming traffic. - The traffic volume is too high for this type of application. The road already had a painted center line for a good reason.

@@jovetj N°3 is the real reason it wouldn't be good. N°2 is actually the point, and why it's good design. If you don't feel safe, you slow down and are less dangerous. N°1 can be said for any road, so it's a bad argument.

First off, this is a terrible idea. We've got the same basic issue around here, a total of 4 lanes of road, 2 for parking and the remaining being divided between bikes and cars. The usual way we've done it is with "sharrows" as in basically the right most bit being for bikes, and the cars flowing around them as they would in any other passing situation. It doesn't really require any education for the car drivers as it's not really any different than normal, it just shows the cyclists that this is a road that they're intended to use. As far as residential roads go, this is absolutely massive. Around here that would qualify as an arterial that would have a center-line as well as traffic control devices at the intersections. On the streets we have where it is just one lane in both directions, it's really one lane in both directions and it's clear that you've got to pull over, you don't have the additional mental space of trying to figure out if there's a cyclist involved and figuring out who is going to yield to whom.

The worst part is that the idea was great. The signs were "there was room to improvement" but the idea is great, and neighbourhood streets already work this way. This was sad to watch.

Pretty much how politics works. People want something you don't like so you make a very shitty version that you can point at and say "See it isn't good". Just look at all the welfare programs that are designed to incentivize people to not work so they can claim people on the program are lazy when working a minimum job would pay less than not working.

The speed limit in neighborhoods should be 25mph, or lower: 20 is plenty!

It's a reverse psychology road. Let's make drivers and bikers incredibly unsafe and confused, so that they drive with extreme caution. Horrible process, idc if the statistics say it's good, it has to work on a human level, and intentionally making people unsafe is not good for their psychology.

@@user-jc2ez6ig5z Only unsafe if you have no clue how to drive it. Take a look at vids of new roundabouts in North American intersections, roundabouts are extremely common in other countries and not at all an issue for people who actually know how to drive. There is a difference between having an unsafe road and having idiotic drivers. You can put a roundabout in a neighborhood or a shopping center and people in this country still drive the wrong way on it. You can revert a one-lane road back to the two lanes but those idiotic drivers are still there, you are still in danger because of them (or yourself if you’re the case). The road’s only an issue if the driver’s are careless. Focus on getting those drivers off the road, with or without a confusing road they will still be there ever-presently presenting themselves as dangers to public safety

@@zonaryorange8734 I disagree, roundabouts are safe and intuitive. On the other hand, the road design in the video is like a roundabout where everyone can turn clockwise or counterclockwise. This video's road conflicts have nothing to do with lack of education, and everything to do with be a legitimately unsafe, unintuitive, and conflict provoking design.

@@1981menso speed limits dont matter. People routinely speed on these roads because of poor design and busy schedules.

No offense mate but I'm pretty sure your country is tiny and has a low population density compared to theirs. Nothing that works in your country is going to work there.

I've seen them plenty of times in Denmark. Works better than biking on the shoulder.

As a dutchy myself, I hear you. But this problem is two faced. Users that don't know how to navigate such street and no proper marketing for such street will cause people to not trust such street. The drone footage shows the street should work, but the majority thinks its bad because most drivers have not been educated on how this works, which creates weird situations. Honestly though, I wonder how many accidents have happened in those two weeks. I bet there were none.

I was thinking that it would have been better not to designate those bike lanes, as it would give the impression that that space is safer for cyclists. Removing all markings and making it visually narrower would slow cars down and make it safer for this to become more of a cycling artery, separate from the primary car-oriented road further north. Making it cycling only (aside from residents) would be an ideal solution, but this is the US we are talking about.

Cars should NEVER be a "Guest" on a road. sorry, cyclists MUST move over and allow cars to pass, in all circumstances. YOU are the most at risk, and YOU must be the most vigilant and the most accommodating. you can't do something that would make a larger vehicle crash or hit you. you must give way to any vehicle that is larger then you.

THEY ARE PAYING THE BILL

I’m going mostly off of Not Just bike’s videos about suburban finances. If you watch it and don’t believe it, then that’s up to you. I also know there’s a book called the high cost of free parking, which I admittedly haven’t read. If you have a source to back up your claim that drivers do infact pay for 100% of the roads, I’ll gladly look into it

People who don’t own cars pay for the drivers who do.

@@zokpls8712 From 1776(Since data collection) - 2022, approximately $0 has been raised from the 'People who don't own cars' tax as there isn't one.

@@mrhmm3198 No they are not, do some research.

He might learn a thing or two, yes.

and/or Bicycle Dutch

This is gonna be interesting. Didn't he say he doesn't even own a bike?

He’d be quickly disabused of the notion that streets are “for cars”. Especially residential streets.

@@numhold I wonder how the hell you don't own a bike ???

THIS! I'm so tired of this lie...drivers don't pay for roads and they aren't entitled to roads.

@@DanielBrotherston Especially when >25% of a transportation surface is used as free storage of pollution machines.

@TNerd spandex*

Exactly. That way, people know where they are suppose to drive by default, and only move left with discretion to pass. These roads would do much better just being unpainted roads. The intended behavior is exactly what people do on unpainted roads already. This kind of markings are just asking for trouble, to confuse everyone.

As a "vulnerable road user" on my electric skateboard, I know I tend to only ride on unpainted roads or ones with a dashed line. Anything else is welcoming death even more.

Dashed centre lines already exist as you point out. It's akin to the we need a new standard to unify all the other standards.. adds another standard to the list. But I guess it meant someone got paid a lot of money to write research papers and get grants from the council.

In Maryland, it is lawful for a motorist to cross double yellow line to to pass a cyclist. Not sure where else in the US this is legal.

@@JoeKubinec Then either double lines are overused to the point of losing their meaning, or Maryland takes head-on collisions too light-heartedly. Everywhere else in the world double lines means it is unsafe to cross into the opposite direction for any reason and it is illegal to do so. Solid lines, especially double ones, are to be given the same respect as solid walls. The presence of a cyclist does not magically make that stretch of road safe. Safer stretches of road where overtaking is ok don't use solid lines. It's a much more sensible and consistent system.

Excactly.

This road is better off with no paint at all. The intended use is what drivers and cyclists would naturally do on an unpainted road, and the line just adds to the confusion, because exactly as you said, drivers are taught to stay between lines. And not straddle lines. As a driver, you should always be out of the way of oncoming car traffic by default. It's stupid to expect both traffic directions to share the center lane, and have to run over bicycles, or block bicycles, if they can't slow down in time for each other.

I agree. Even the DMV Driver handbook does not mention this pattern. Plus, you are right many of us in the USA are taught to drive between the lane lines and stay out of the bike lanes or parking lanes. I understand it may be different in the countries like the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, or Stockholm for example. But take into account this was San Diego, where this traffic pattern was foreign and not that familiar to those who grew up in Southern California. Not that we cannot adapt, but new unfamiliar traffic patterns that have not been used in the region previously need to be deployed with proper driver training and public awareness of how it is supposed to work to reduce accidents.

tja, Belgen 😅

@@wilwulpje5684 mja zunne echte wupkes eh?

​@@alexanderkupke920 "I wonder if American drivers are just to stupid to get along with bikes and pedestrians" Yes, yes we are. Most folks don't cycle so anyone who is doing so is an annoyance to them, not just someone just doing what they do too. But the real issue here is that we are used to anything with lines at the outer edges but not in the middle, and is only one car wide, is a one-way road so folks are going to be confused as hell by this unusual situation they have never been trained on or driven before. The other thing we are used to is that if there is a bike lane marked like this, no cars are allowed to be there so some drivers would be hesitant to use the space when needed and cyclists wouldn't understand that a car could be swerving into the space anytime there is oncoming traffic.

How often do you hear about someone getting hit in one of those lanes?

Euhm... no we dont call them that. These are also only placed in roads where the max speed is 50 kmph. Maybe in your neighbourhood they dont care about the max speed.

its San Diego, the Karen-est city in the state.😂

Maybe. But keep in mind they also did not educate the neighborhood about their plans. Education goes a long way to let people know what the road is designed for and let them adapt to the new way of using the road before implementing it

I completely agree, although I have one outstanding question. I know from NotJustBikes that the Woonerfs generally use permeable pavers and a whole lot of elevation/textural/color changes to signify bicycle priority. In the US, cities put down white paint and leave the bike lanes black asphalt for the most part. While in Spain did you notice different textural changes in conjunction with the perceived cultural awareness? How important is it to go above and beyond with these three design elements (elevation, texture, and paint) when implementing bike lanes in a community that hadn't ever accommodated them before?

One they didn't tell any one , two these look like traditional bike lanes and you are not supposed to drive in bike lanes. Three they are only suppose to be used on narrow low traffic roads. It's not about people being karrens

@@BadDriversofMaryland they did have bake lanes before, but it had a center yellow line and stripped for two lanes of a traffic

My city had the same issues when we added some roundabouts in some major areas. We've had some out of the way ones for decades, but put a big one in a major artery, no one remembers how to go through them...multiple people trying to go left, even though the road really guides you to the right around the circle. (I think half of them were in protest or smart asses) They did try to reach out...but even with multiple methods....the city couldn't hit every demographic and so many ppl were focused on the "scary roundabout" that they wouldn't pay attention to the media to learn But we stuck with them and every year there's a new one or two going up...I really like them and definitely finding my morning commute faster with them.

Ok buy why do bikes need 2 lanes? You have a bike and person who at most weighs 300lb …. A car at minimum is at 2k lb… this doesn’t make sense to me

@@mikeboychuk8809 one lane to go one way, the other lane to go the other way... On top of that, it visually narrows the road, so cars drive more carefully.

@@mikeboychuk8809 Bikes get two lanes because the street is giving them priority over cars. Cars only get one lane and have to yield

@@MegaJoler the thing is it really isn't a bike lane. Cars are allowed there. This road layout just forces people to look out for each other and reduces speed as the width of the street feels narrower (than it actually is).

Why not just leave it as an unpainted road, and let the drivers and road users work out what they need to do? The edge lane paint only adds confusion, and wastes paint that gives no useful information.

The problem in the US, is the cyclists think that they can ride anywhere, and anyway they want. They don't stop at red lights, or stop signs, and they ride in both directions, on both sides of the road. They also ride in the middle of the road, and refuse to move for faster traffic. They also ride 2 and 3 across, even though they're required to ride single file.

@@Normal1855 That is the same in the Netherlands... we just (have to) deal with it. Normally on a road like this when there would be a 20mph speed limit (30 km/h) here so it would not be too much of a problem with modern electric bikes going almost that fast as well. And to avoid dangerous action by car drivers, the rule is that in case of an accident the car is always at fault, not the biker.

@@Normal1855 You sure that's a cyclist thing? Most dashcam vids from the US are 97% cars that pull such stunts like not stopping for red lights or stop signs, driving anywhere on and off the road or blocking traffic. But good for you they changed it back to a situation where the people on bikes need to ride on the road and it's forbidden to pass them with the double yellow lines. That way instead of looking at ugly bike -infrastructure- lines and passing them when safe, you can stay behind them and drive 4mph for the entire street. Don't tell me you want them to move over to the sidewalk or the parking lane, you just said you didn't want them driving anywhere where they don't belong.

@@Normal1855 And still you dont want separate infrastructure? With better infrastructure they Will behalve better. And if they are separate they wont botter you, and there will be less cars, so maybe even faster travel time for you

@@Anco Few places in America hardly has viable alternatives to driving, so every bad driver is forced to get into a car. And people wonder why traffic is so bad

Smart however the difference is that does are clearly not cycle lanes, and cyclists understandably dislike cars in them so maybe they should be unmarked or be marked with a special non bike shared lane or just a no parking sign.

Adding onto your last part Even if the cycler crashes into the car, its still the cars fault

@@melsbov unless it can be proven with a dash cam for example. But in general the car driver is at fault unless proven innocent

I recognize bikers have right of their safety, but they have no right to hold the road hostage and slow down other people. Where to strike the balance is a rough question.

Lawsuit is cold comfort after somebody is dead or permanently disabled from being hit by a car. In a country with a strong bike culture, no problem. Out of the blue in a car culture? Bad idea. I'm all for public transportation; having buses and light rail available would be a godsend in many many ways, but the underlying situation is not similar in the U.S where normal distances are very long compared to in the Netherlands, and there is zero public infrastructure to support a public transport/bike culture.

@@parkershaw8529 the problem is the mentality. If it was a lot more pleasant to ride a bicycle and use public transportation, there’d be a lot less cars on the road. A lot less traffic jams. Commuting on a bicycle doesn’t make you a cyclist, it should just be normal to be able to arrive safely on a bicycle. In the us, everyone would think you use a bicycle because you’re too poor to buy a car. But it should be the norm. I’m a huge patrol head and even I live happily in a cyclist focused country like the Netherlands.

Have you seen the people who barely pass the open book, easy driver's test here? We need driver's test at least on the level of the UK

@@scottanno8861 Nah, Denmark should be our goal. To get a "B" license (car) students are mandated to sit through several hours of classroom education, pass a series of closed-course tests (normal condition and simulated iced surface). Students must also record several hours on public roads with a supervisor (30+ years old or licensed 10+ consecutive years without revocation or suspension). Prospective "B" license holders must also take 8+ hours of first-aid safety courses, receive a note from a doctor stating overall health---especially eyesight---is within acceptable parameters. Only after all of these requirements are satisfied can you schedule your final tests; a 25-question multiple choice exam (minimum 80% to pass), and a public road test with a government supervisor. Any mistakes on the final public road test means you fail the license test (even just straying in your lane onto paint markings is considered a mistake). All of this is to operate a car. Once you have your "B" license it's valid until you turn 70, after which you must receive an OK from your doctor, and pass the road tests every 2 years.

@@InternetKilledTV21 Yeah that would work too

As opposed to the caliber of bike riders? Where I live, they're entitled riders, who think the traffic laws don't apply to them. I can't ever can't even count how many times I've almost hit a cyclist, who blew through a stop sign, or red light, in front of my. And that's WAY more than when other drivers.

@@Normal1855 Bike riders are annoying and elitists, but honestly the problem is too many cars on the road with no qualification.

Seriously.

"But that's expensive for JUST ME!!!!1!1@!" - carbrain

Restricting parking to one side would make plenty of room for two full bike lanes and two full driving lanes

another that can be done is reduce the road to one-lane-one-way allowing for parking on both sides, trees, wider sidewalk and a bikelane

It all depends on the purpose of the street. If this truly is a through street, then definitely remove some of the parking for better traffic / bicycle flow. But if this truly is a local residential then they need to block off through traffic at one or more points to prevent people from driving along it as a cut-through, which introduces more traffic than a shared bike/car roadway can comfortably handle.

it's great until you're heading home tired after a long day at work and aren't ready to have a car in front of you. I could easily see someone focused on the car in front of them so swerve into a bike they didn't see because they're focused on the car.

i think the same, i actually like the idea. If its the best in regards what people are used to atm is a big question. How ever, ones people got used to it, it can lead to a more well defined system, it just needs some time to break the old habits. - tbh as european i did not know, that it is common that you have yellow lines everywhere. In most regions in europe you have a center divider which is more or less only there to show you where the center is, you are legally allowed to cross is to overtake (if there is enough room of course). We also have something similar to the yellow lines, how ever those are only in areas, where it is really dangerous to overtake, where nobody with a brain would overtake anyways, like on corners.

@@SilverStarHeggisist Precisely, tired or not.

@@virginiamoss7045 or imaging this on a foggy early morning, when like half the people think because there's some light that means they don't need to turn their headlights on.

@@SilverStarHeggisist In EU we have lots of verry old roads that allowed 2 way traffic these roads are mostly not wider then 1.5 cars. I think there is a disparity between us and US, that we are used to riding on these streets VS US being used to verry wide roads.

75 years of propaganda from oil and car companies.

@@1981menso also an abundance of boomers/Karens who reflexively hate everything to do with roads that isn't adding 16 lanes for cars.

Because the vast majority don't want them.

@@johnathin0061892 Enjoy, your traffic, your road rage and the 100 people killed DAILY in cars and by cars.

@@johnathin0061892 majority SEEMINGLY dont want them because the infrastructure isn't there in the first place. People do want to bike and use good public transit. There's a high demand, but we're all forced to drive.

LOL 😆

That's typical press thick as stuff pigs do , didn't they see his microphone sticking out his pocket .

I really don't even see the need for Bike Lanes in areas where there are sidewalks. Yes, I hear you. Sidewalks are for pedestrians... Except, when was the last time (other than downtown), where you saw enough pedestrians to even be a concern? Bikers would still have to obey traffic laws, and be considerate to pedestrians.... But here in our area, I'm lucky to see 4-5 pedestrians a *week*... The sidewalks are going mostly unused, let the bikers use the sidewalks and they'll be safer (vs cars), and the sidewalks will actually be used.

Have done it many times here in TN. The no passing is for regular traffic. You'd be in a real bind if you couldn't pass a horse, a tractor, a cyclist or even the Menonites.

It's the same in many other countries. In the UK, if the vehicle is stationary or travelling 10mph or less (which would include most cyclists going uphill) you may pass on double whites.

Yea that's what I was taught to do in New York, if it's safe you can cross the double yellow to pass a bicyclist or pedestrian.

That's the way everywhere. I don't know where they got that you can't pass a slow rider?

@@AdamSmith-gs2dv or tractors. If you couldn't, a 10 minute trip, would take an hour.

Not really, at least not from footage I've seen on RU-vid (I have never been there myself). It LOOKS like a great place for bikes, but if you're in a car you are constantly and artificially hampered from just going on by way of having to wait around for the bikes to clear the way, which almost never happens because so many people use the damn things. So what you really mean is: They work wonderfully from the cycling perspective but don't you dare drive a car",

@@Kr0noZ well you just pass by with speed of 30km/h instead of 70km/h that's all .

@@Kr0noZ Nice of you to admit you have no actual experience with the subject. Again, these are slow, rural roads that we're talking about, so not many bikes to begin with. Besides, there's no "waiting around for the bikes to clear the way," cyclists are already on the edge of the road, bordered by the dashed lines.

@@Kr0noZ Maybe that's the entire point to promote bike usage instead of car usage. Sure you have to wait/slow down in your car for bike, but if those bikes weren't there all these people would be in cars, now the time it takes you to go from A to B is slower for all parties involved. On top of that you need way more money for bigger roads to "solve traffic congestion", you increase global warming, a lot more people die from car crashes, your population gets obese and less healthy so that costs you even more money. I prefer driving in the Netherlands compared to any other country I've been to.

This assumes that Americans would also be courteous and respectful to people on bikes. They aren't. There's literally people who'll install pipes on their trucks specifically to fill a cyclist's lungs with poisonous exhaust. You always have to consider the culture when trying to implement things like this elsewhere, and American culture is being stupid and not caring about anyone but yourself.

I support only spending the gas tax on car infrastructure. Lol

If they really want painted bike infrastructure on a busy road they should eat the road space for a "sidewalk" and use paint to separate pedestrians and cyclists on the elevated sidewalk instead. (You may need to use asphalt for the bike half of the sidewalk because frost + normal sidewalks = not level)

Exactly my thoughts as well. Although, I don't think making it not go through is even necessary (though probably a good idea). Just remove all the lane markings. It means the same thing, everyone understands what it means already, and it's a clear signal to through traffic that they shouldn't be there. If anything, the only effect of the edge lane markings is that it gives through traffic permission to be there. Now here's a thought: instead of making the road not go through, what if they just... lied? Put up "not a through street" signs, and maybe put in a report with Google maps to get them to stop routing traffic through there?

@@roceb5009 Or just put steel bollards on a block in the middle of the route. Easy, fast, cheap, takes literally less than one day to do

@@frafraplanner9277 yeah but that also blocks local traffic, forcing people leaving for their commute onto roads *inside* the neighborhood, plus making them even later, which makes them go faster...

They could also make it illegal for through traffic during rush hour. I have seen roads like that.

Put in some jig jogs where you have to turn right then left or vice versa to stay on the street.

make bigger freeways, get more cars, so make bigger freeways and get even more cars....This is a problem of ever expanding road networks. i think the best way was to force everyone to work from home if they could.

We did that (restricting traffic) which resulted in the neighboring government filing a frivolous lawsuit, some people are really hard to please.

This. If someone is unhappy with the traffic on the freeway, maybe they should consider where the traffic came from.

That's my take also. This feels like an attempt to remind people that it is a neighborhood street and should not be used as a commuter shortcut. Make people less comfortable on the road, so you reduce traffic on it, and make it safer for the people that live there. However it will take a while for the change to filter through the shortcut apps that people use and discover that it really isn't a good shortcut anymore.

Where I live we have these things called speed bumps! They have to be implemented correctly, obviously, but they seem to help.

But that's where it bumps with public perception. All the research seems to say it's safer, but drivers hate ambiguity, it doesn't feel good. We want to have a clear lane to drive in, we hate to share it with vehicles of different speed, and the less we have to be cautious about the better it feels. It's hard to argue against increased safety, and yet a lot of these measure are impopular because it reduces our "freedom" to drive fast and selfishly.

@@Kaiso54 I follow a person who moved to the Netherlands where these kind of roads are quite common even on more rural roads where you can drive 55mph. She was confused about these roads and the overwhelming reply people gave her, if it's confusing your driving to fast.

@@Kaiso54 That is whole point. When drivers feel uncertain, they slow down and pay more attention to what is around them.

@@Kaiso54 Driving fast isn't selfish. Making everybody cycle is selfish

@@DrJams Driving fast is absolutely selfish. "I need to get there as fast as possible at the expense of public safety in case I mess up". Drivers can still drive, but now they're forced to be aware that they need to SHARE the road in a safe manner. Sounds like the opposite of selfish to me.

yes , yes and yes. When a city in California introduced floating parking it confused even the cops there and they issued tickets to people who correctly used the floating parkin spots

Cops in CA NEVER patrol in neighborhoods. This is a moot argument.

@@1981menso they did when I lived in Milpitas and I see them do it in Sacramento. When I was in the bay area they did t Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP ). That's when you get police from 4-8 different agencies and do crack down on speeders. ANd yes they would pick a street like this

Florida should be a pretty good case study in how NOT to do things. Orlando was just ranked number one in the nation as most dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, and Florida beats 49 other states in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities.

Eh, this doesn't mesh with my experience at all. Cars drive in bike lanes all the time, delivery trucks unexpectedly pull up and stop in bike lanes, and enforcement just is not there. Maybe different street design would help ? Another problem are needlessly large vehicles. How is it legal to have lifted pickup-trucks so high that they can blast their exhaust right into your face as a cyclist ? A few such toys make for a terrible experience for everyone. Why don't we seem to have a universal standard for bumper heights for all street-legal vehicles ? There are already all sorts of regulations around cars&trucks.

Don't worry, people don't read them anyway

@@jgood005 of course people dont read them. i can literally see that theres no car comming either way and im not going to go to a complete stop every fucking block

trouble is if driveways go onto that road you cannot completely make it bikes only, otherwise people will yard hop in their SUVs so they can park in their garage.

@@filanfyretracker I didn't say to make the road for bikes only. I said they should block the road in a couple places so cars can't use it for a thoroughfare.

@@deezynar how about parking on one side only, 2 car lanes and 2 bike lanes?

@@Boby9333 that defeats part of the purpose which was to force drivers to subconsciously slow down and be more cautious.

you are correct, this is the best solution and is exactly what they would do in the Netherlands. It's called 'filtered permeability.' Source: I'm a transportation engineer.

yea that street is 2x as wide as the street i live on and i have no problem meeting other cars in my pretty big volvo v90

That's because we've land to spare. My favorite was visiting Texas, were half the roads were two lanes in each direction and a parallel road on each side of the main road.

@@SilverStarHeggisist you spelled shit road engineering wrong

@@einar8019 no it was great, you literally never had to worry about being stuck behind someone going slower then you. I wish all roads were like that.

@@SilverStarHeggisist if your in a car its great but for literally everyone else its terrible. its bad for the enviroment, for pedestrians, for the people living next to the road, for bisiclyists and its also less safe for car drivers too because of the increased speeds

Then the NIBY's in the neighborhood would complain about how long it takes them to get to the freeway.

@@1981menso So you go around the block NBDR and your front yard and street is nice and quiet.

If I can see there's a road where I need to go, I would rather just drive there slowly than have to plan an elaborate circling pattern to home in on the destination.

@@joec.2768 It's not for those who live there it's to deter those who do not.

Americans do NOT refer to kilometers as miles, they are fully aware that they are two completely different measures of distance.

@@mobiusklein9140 ;-) it was noting serious. I' m from an era when we learned both systems at technical school.

@@dikkiedik53 I'm old enough to remember when we (the U.S.) decided to switch to metric in the 70s. They put up a bunch of shooed limit signs in km/hr under the ones in mph. Then a couple of years later they took them all down.

At least in NL where I live the bicycle area of the road (edge) is painted red so people know what to do automatically, but we Dutch are used to bicycles everywhere. We are a cycling nation.

Yes, it works great here in NL, but only on certain roads. Not too busy, and not with continuous parking on both sides. Great solution, maybe not for this particular road.

DDIs are good for cars, really sucky for people who walk and bike.

@@zzz6valvoline If you have enough car traffic to justify using a DDI, chances are it's already incredibly unpleasant to walk or cycle there.

@@zzz6valvoline That's just the thing- there aren't any pedestrians at this intersection, and very rarely any cyclists. I think people just need to be better educated and accepting of new traffic patterns.

People always hate change, but the bigger issue is that the city added something completely unfamiliar to the locals and didn't inform them about it at first. A street with edge works counter to how you normally drive and how you have been taught to drive, so people need to be taught on how to drive "wrong" so they understand how to drive"right".

That's the biggest gripe. They never got input from the people who it affects the most.

You would have ban like 1/4 of driver's. Though I do agree super annoying and dangerous. Like the people that never used their turn signals.

Bullshit, this works in other countries.

@@brozius I know, I live in one.

Considering the width of the road and the fact that all the properties had off-street parking rendering most of the on-streer parking unnecessary, I don't understand how they couldn't find room for two curb-separated bike lanes and two car lanes.

- Looking at the car count this IS a low traffic volume. If it was any lower you wouldn't even need any markings on the road. - A rural setting would be a horrible choice for this type of road design. Since driving speeds are usually higher in rural areas and there's more room, that's where the separate bike lane comes in. - No parking would be ideal, but it's not necessary. I would say the current situation with only the yellow middle line is considerably worse with parking. With the bike suggestion lanes, at least you had a clear boundary line for parking, that'll help cyclists identify parked cars easier, and helps drivers park better. And the dotted line means that cars passing cyclists will keep a better distance so the cyclists won't be forced to ride closer to the parked cars than comfortable. The only thing that went wrong with this road is that they didn't inform anyone about the change. You can't expect the people driving here to immediately understand it, since this type of road design is apparently still quite rare in that city. And about the narrow road. This honestly was the best way they could have divided the space. 2 lanes and one bike lane would have been quite unsafe for cyclists. 2 lanes, means cars will drive faster. And 1 two-way bike lane would mean that as soon as they get to the next street the cyclists would have to cross the entire road again, to ride safely on the right side, since not all streets are designed the same. This is a design error you see with many new American cycling projects. Yes, a protected two-way bike lane is the safest option for cyclists. But that only counts as safe if they have a good connection to the other streets. If not, then just use an unprotected lane on either side of the road. Just take it one step at the time. It's about the network, not the single road.

Street parking is good. it serves as a protection barrier.

Drivers licenses don’t test driving skill or reflexes, terrible idea unless you have it restricted to “good drivers”

I think "don't cross dotted lines nonchalantly" is stronger in the US than in europe.

This is what I came here to write -- thanks for doing so for me! The only add I would make is that they solved the wrong problem: restricting access to only local traffic somehow would solve the real issue and getting rid of the center line would then make perfect sense and work well.

Came looking for this comment as well. The lines just confuse the situation -- we're taught to stay on one side of the line. If a solid-yellow is so much of a problem, they could have used.... I don't know... a hashed yellow that does permit passing? I know cars that have determined near-borderline violent lane-keeping systems that if you start to even casually cross any line (dotted or solid) it starts increasing the force to keep you in what it considers a lane. I think there would have been more room (and less backlash) if they removed parking on one side of the street and made it the bi-directional bike lane as opposed to this nonsense they tried.

I can't say how it is in practise as I am not driving on US roads, but I do think, that in theory dotted lines should indicate, that crossing over it is allowed if necessary. Apart from that I think, that the whole point of this design is to make vulnerable road users even safer, which is especially important on such a road, which isn't a true neighbourhood street any more. This additional safety is caused by the fact, that a car driver uses on streets with no lines (at least theoretically) the right edge and the driver uses only another part of the if there is an obstacle or a vulnerable road user on the right edge. With the edge-lane-design car drivers drive normally in the middle of the road and only go into the edge lanes, when it is impossible to stay in the center and only after they made sure, that no vulnerable road user is there. This brings additional safety, because there is less time for car drivers in the space of the vulnerable road users, because the drivers should be especially cautious, when they enter the edge lane and because they potentially even drive slower than in a design with no lines, because cars that are driving in the other direction in my space are easier to see and harder to dodge than vulnerable road users that drive in the same direction on the edge of my space.

50km/hr they still work even

@@ThePizzabrothersGaming I'm not so sure about that. I live in Toronto, Canada, and cars tend not to interact with pedestrians at 40 or 50km/hr.

@@jacktattersall9457 they use traffic calming or lights for intersections, but sections for cyclists + cars can be 50 just fine

At least in the US there are effectively zero streets - even neighborhood streets - that have speed limits that low. The standard is 30 mph or roughly 50 kph. The only place you will see 30-ish kph speed limits are school zones and those are routinely ignored.

​​@@willythemailboy230mph? Anywhere I've ever been residential streets are 25mph. Still, I agree that it should be lower. When on my own street I drive between 15-20 mph. Just doesn't feel safe at 25. Also, where I am, the middle school and the elementary school are both on a 5 lane arterial/connector road with a 35-45 mph speed limit, yet I always see people slow down for both school zones. I think the main problem is enforcement as there are police regularly patrolling the road during that time, and one of the police's favourite speed trap hides is at the beginning of the middle school's zone(treeline obstructing a small parking lot for the local little league field, which goes out directly onto the road).