tholdawa

tholdawa t1_j860nyk wrote

Reply to comment by awebr in The Chapel/Yale peanut is finished by awebr

Sure, yes, bikes can use the vehicular lane to go around this, but this design has actually made that transition wildly more dangerous to do so, at least in one direction, than just having two unidirectional unprotected bike lanes (having to cross two lanes of traffic in an unpredictable way in order to enjoy the efficiency benefits of this intersection). This design has actually removed infrastructure that would've made that transition safer. Even fewer bike riders probably feel comfortable and confident doing this kind of maneuver than just taking the lane. The location of the yield line seems moot, since bikes will be required to stop for cars?

This design seems well-intentioned but ultimately still regressive, giving efficiencies only to cars, and adding marginal safety for bikes (maybe more for pedestrians?). I'm really curious to see how this intersection will work in practice.

Curious if you know, will there be follow-up studies of use and safety?

0

tholdawa t1_j85ukaz wrote

Reply to comment by awebr in The Chapel/Yale peanut is finished by awebr

Of course I'm not an urban planner or traffic engineer, but I am a frequent road user (as I believe you are :). There's a yield for cars and a stop for bikes is one thing that makes this intersection much slower for bikes than cars. Honestly it seems like it'd be safer and faster to have unidirectional protected lanes on either side of the road that maybe merged with vehicular traffic before the intersection. This also is a pretty unfamiliar pattern for drivers, who will not be watching for bikes at the crossing here (at least until this design becomes widespread).

That said, I think this is definitely an improvement over what was here before.

5

tholdawa t1_j85qqkn wrote

Looks like this uses the same design for the cycle track to cross the road as the roundabout on Crescent. I don't understand this design, it seems dangerous and really inconvenient for bikes.

3

tholdawa t1_itupzf3 wrote

The method used (mendelian randomization) uses only the variation in the exposure, in this case vitamin d, that is predicted by very specific genes. This variation is arguably unrelated to later lifestyle choices.

5