11-24-2020, 04:06 PM
(11-24-2020, 03:46 PM)jamincan Wrote: 1) As far as I know, e-bikes are allowed where ever bikes are, unless explicitly prohibited. This excludes sidewalks, but does include MUTs, which are often disguised as sidewalks in our region.
2) Isn't the turning traffic normally at fault in any accident? Technically the cyclist has the right-of-way as the traffic that is continuing straight.
This gets at one of the things I don't like about our cycling infrastructure at all. We're designing a streetscape that is going to be more and more difficult for drivers to navigate as cycling becomes more common. It's bad enough having overtaking traffic on the right, but if drivers anticipate a cyclist might be in the bike lane and pedestrians on the sidewalk, they know where they need to look in advance of moving. With MUT/sidewalk combos, though, they not only have to pay attention to pedestrian traffic when turning, they also have to watch out for cyclists coming from up to three different directions as well as car traffic. With the mixture of bike lanes, MUT/sidewalks, separated bidirectional bike lanes on one side of the road, and configurations that switch between all of these randomly at any given intersection, the cognitive load for drivers is going to be raised, which isn't necessarily good when it comes to safety.
For 2) turning traffic is at fault usually, but only if the traffic they hit is operating legally. So if you are making a right turn, and you hit an (adult) person cycling in a crosswalk (not a cross ride), the police often (but not always) will charge only the person cycling.
It's actually more complex than that, a simple environment encourages higher speeds, more ambiguity encourages more care. Now, I think we do a terrible job of designing this stuff, you'll rarely hear me say anything good about our regional engineers (or the manuals which they use to justify their decisions). But unfortunately, the design requirements are more subtle than just "simple is better".