07-26-2019, 10:29 PM
(07-26-2019, 09:06 PM)jamincan Wrote: The bike lane should be on the uphill side. The problem is that passing on an uphill is significantly less safe than on a downhill because the driver typically can't see oncoming traffic. The most dangerous scenario is the passing driver swerving back suddenly to avoid an oncoming car and hitting the cyclist. Passing is less likely to occur on the downhill, but it's also going to tend to be safer as the driver can see traffic in the oncoming lane.
Bonus: if a lane is to be shared, it should be as narrow as possible. Wider lanes encourage drives to try to squeeze past a cyclist when there is no room to safely pass. Wider lanes also encourage higher speeds. There is never a benefit to the cyclist. The only good reason for wider lanes is for large trucks. I think it's reasonable in industrial areas, for example, where large trucks are common. I don't think it's reasonable in residential or commercial districts.
This is a great point. Thanks for raising it.
Trucks are limited to 2.6 meters in width. Even a 3.0 meter lane which the region would consider grossly undersized (their minimum is 3.35m), is more than wide enough for a transport to navigate safely, the only difference would be lower speeds.
Yes, narrower lanes like 2.6 would be too small for trucks but I'd argue we are nowhere near needing wider lanes for trucks.--at a regional level for sure.
Or what I'm saying is even the narrowest roads in the region, ones which the region consider substandard are already wide enough for trucks in a straight through lane.