The Key problems (as I see them) with the old version pictured below are:
"The not very visible painted on cycle path swings into the pedestrian crossing in order to share the traffic light. The pedestrians normally have no idea they are on a cycle path until a bike slaloms through them. The red light is not very well respected and often jumped because a lot of the time it is frankly not worth taking seriously."
My suggestion was a road narrowing and large central island combined with un-bundling the conflict at the junction and providing stacking space for motor vehicles to enter and leave, and the removal of the traffic light. This is my guess at what the Dutch would do. So what did Vienna do?
They have done the opposite for reasons I do not understand.
How well does this work reducing the pedestrian / cyclist conflict and improving the sight lines for car drivers?
You decide while I have a little cry.
For crying out loud. Instead of improving the situation, they made it all worse. Now we just have to wait for the first accident. And who will be responsible? The fast cyclist, that went into the crossing without much looking (except for the green light) and got himself driven over by a car?
ReplyDeleteAnd when the bicyclists and the pedestrians get angry, it is not the street design. Of corse, we have to say "tschuldigen" and be peaceful ...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust incredible.. how can traffic planners even imagine such a bad road design in 2012. If their goal was to maximize potential conflicts between all road users - full success.
ReplyDeleteMy guess it that they did this to allow for an easy connection to the soon-to-be-completed Ringradweg on the other wide of the Ring. That does not count as a good excuse though.. bicycle traffic following the Ring without crossing should not be forced to swerve across the pedestrian's path twice.