08-05-2016, 02:01 PM
(08-05-2016, 10:44 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The green paint in bike lanes would be interesting, as if it was used as paint where only bicycles would go, and melt-in where cars would traverse, the paint would wear depending on how much cars would drive in the bicycle lane, giving a very visible indication of areas where protected bike lanes are needed (or just how badly they are needed in general).
That we only paint the bike boxes green is probably why I see so many drivers treating it as their space, because it's so rare that they don't make the association between colour and intent.
There was also a good deal of overnight work at King and Victoria last night. Don't know what, but I could hear it as I tried to sleep.
The bike lane striping already gives a pretty good indication of this, although there are places where the striping is worn off, cars frequently enter the bike lane, but places where it isn't worn off, cars either don't drive in the bike lane, or always drive entirely in the bike lane. Nonetheless, it's a decent proxy.
I actually would have the opposite comment about the bike box, I think the ones painted green have far better driver behaviour, they more frequently yield before entering the box, as compared with the ones that are unpainted.
That would be the one argument for not painting the bike lanes, is that colour can be added in places where additional cueing is needed for drivers, if you put it everywhere, then it not longer stands out.
Note, cueing is different from protection. Cueing as I'm defining it, would be for places where drivers are confused or inattentive, not where they're intentionally breaking the rules. I.e., I would use green to colour bike boxes because drivers don't know to stop at them, and I'd use them at intersections to remind drivers to look, but in bike lanes, drivers already know they're not supposed to be there, they are simply choosing to.