News

See, the thing is, those roads that were 45mph have more than enough room for both cars and bike/ped infrastructure. The issue is that, generally, the lanes for higher speed roads are wider. Narrow the lanes and people feel they have to go slower to stay in the lines (which is true for a lot of drivers, bless their hearts). It's an unconscious response to narrowing roadways that can be used to actually make people slow down, rather than just telling them not to. And when you narrow the lanes, that leaves more room in the same space for stuff like bike lanes and sidewalks.

Proper mass transit. Then pedestrian and bike paths are more useful.

After that, cars can go fuck themselves.

What my city is doing is removing car lanes to replace with bike lanes, lowering the speed and also policing it and it worked to turn a 4 lane, 45mph area into a 2+turn lane, 25mph road and improved bike safety. Lowering the speed limit is the cheapest and easiest method. It will probably take a bit to claw that land from the driver's and build something for pedestrians with it.

In NYC, right on red is illegal and I'd venture a guess that >98% of drivers obey this. Obviously each city will need to handle it differently, but they can't make it illegal and then call it a day. Enforcement and change infrastructure to match the new rules of the road are necessary. In the case of lowering speed limits, traffic calming measures should be put in place with the reduction in speed limit, so that going 45mph in a 25mph zone is difficult.

When you add cycle paths turnijg right on red needs to be gone. If the cars can't turn it is usually time for cyclists to cross.

I live in Seattle. We implemented the 25mph rule and it does seem to actually be helping. This is after a lot of attempts at improving pedestrian safety failed to have any effect. It's irritating because it seems like it takes forever to drive anywhere in this city, and there are definitely a lot of corners cut in infrastructure that could improve safety—including very simple things like adding more marked crosswalks and stop signs at uncontrolled intersections—so I consider it a mixed bag overall.

I agree for the most part. It’s better to design streets so that drivers feel uncomfortable at higher speeds. Street narrowing, bollards, trees, smaller set backs can all slow cars down.

That said, as a counterpoint, despite similar street design, the speed limit in most of Canada is 50kmh (30 mph) and many urban residential streets are down to 30km (18.6 mph). Some people speed, but driving 45 mph (72 km/h!) down most city streets is pretty rare. Pedestrian and cycling accidents involving cars in Canada are close to half the rate of the US. Which is to say, I don’t think the Denver mayor’s proposal is crazy. It works in Canada, but it will take time for the culture to change.

I live in Denver too and couldn’t agree more.

Just freaken yesterday I was walking with my kids and there was a sports utility bullshit parked ready to come out of the garage and as we passed I noted that not one of my kids is tall enough to be seen by the driver if they decide to move forward.

A sports utility truck is a truck not a car. Require a CDL to operate or better yet just buy a regular car.

In the Netherlands it wouldn't even work as yhere are usually cycle paths or pedestrian crossings that have a green light. Right turns have their own light whenever possible to make sure they are on their own cycle.

In a lot of cities, it's extremely difficult to see past the corner because of parked cars. We could cut down on street parking, but people scream if you even consider restricting their parking options.

It's the "cars above all" mentality.

That said my city is doing this for bicycles which is way more reasonable.