What do you think of the improvements? Are you team parking stop or armadillo? What did you think of the different format of the video? Look for lots more coming soon.
Armadillos are pretty awful. They are a fall hazard for bicycles but do *nothing* to actually stop cars that can trivially drive over them barely even noticing. I would **NOT** honestly call them a safety improvement -- they are cosmetic. Visually attractive, perhaps, but that's not really the main point. Safety is.
That section where the armadillos are added gets blocked by cars all the time. I agree these are pretty limited in value but I do think that they are better than nothing. That street is pretty tight, short of taking the turn lane out not much can be done to improve safety there.
agree. see service vehicles drive over them and into bike lane often. think usps, ups, fedex. have even seen police doing this (officer said it was to avoid blocking traffic for a non-emergency call - you know where his priorities are).
A car can trivially drive over a curb too. The point is to communicate to drivers that they are not allowed to drive over or in the bike lane. And plastic delineators, armadillos etc do just that. Obviously concrete is better, but it's expensive and cities have limited funds. Short of a national policy dedicated to cycling improvements, it's this, paint or nothing.
@ananonymousoyster365 someone was parked in that bike lane over the armadillos yesterday. I'd say that overall, the armadillos have helped but it's not a great solution.
"The point is to communicate to drivers that they are not allowed to drive over or in the bike lane." You think that it's a communication problem? You think people have any respect from what you expect from them? Everyone who drives knows that a stop sign means stop, yet many people treat them as optional or as a yield sign. It's not a communication problem. Bike lane barriers need to prevent, not discourage, cars and trucks from crossing them. These little speed bumps are less noticeable than some potholes for cars and do next to nothing.
Really glad SDOT is moving away from flexposts. I don't like the armadillos though as they have almost no vertical visibility or stopping power. At least the short concrete barriers would probably effectively prevent a car from rolling into the bike lane. Toronto barriers are the best though.
I agree. Someone else mentioned the potential issue of a car parking in the bike line and the fact that you really don't have an option to go around them in a truly protected bike lane, but I think that's a problem of enforcement more than something for cyclists to work around. If bike lanes are safe, studies and real life experience shows more people will ride. The armadillos do nothing to improve safety and I'd argue do less than the flex posts do because cars are meant to run over rough terrain, a flex post will at least have someone question whether they want to scratch the paint on their car.
Vancouver, WA has a few bike lanes with armadillos, but they're packed much more tightly and have some kind of post on top to make it obvious, I think in that configuration they can actually work
I think flex posts have their place. Like in the armadillo example here with the orange cones. Presumably the cones will be replaced with flex posts. Armadillos are only a few inches tall, so they wont stop people from parking in the bike lane, they mostly stop people from drifting into the bike lane when making a right turn. The only thing armadillos have over flex posts is their durability. They can be driven over and not get damaged, unlike flex posts. But that comes at the cost of being less visible, especially for people in large vehicles. Mixing flex posts and armadillos together seems like the best option.
I want the concrete garden barriers. Parking over bike lanes is a problem, particularly parallel parking across bike lanes. But I also want impact protection in the event a car loses control or gets hit by another car. Those crash barriers need to be tall enough to protect cyclists from 5,000 lbs of metal moving at 30 mph.
I ride the lane with the Armadillos daily. The biggest problem I see on that road towards Mercer St is delivery trucks (Amazon, Ups, Fex etc) blocking the bike lane with blinkers on to unload packages. Sometimes I see regular drivers park across the bike lanes at the ends of the street where there is a gap without a flex bar, while sitting in the car. I have a feeling the low stature of the Armadillos will only encourage this. Hopefully they add flex bars between the armadillos where the orange cones currently stand.
The armadillos won't prevent gravel from getting scattered in the bike lane, but will probably mean the bike lane will never get swept by the street sweepers. The pre-cast curbs also won't stop gravel, and makes street sweeping even harder. Armadillos are NOT bike infrastructure. Hopefully they find out during this pilot that real bike infrastructure is needed. If there's an obstacle or obstruction in the bike lane like broken glass, gravel, storm grates, manhole covers, traffic warning signs, or a complete closure of a stretch of bike lane, these curbs might make it dangerous or difficult to exit the bike lane and ride in the car lane where it may be safer. These armadillos are likely to cause a cyclist to crash, while they do almost nothing for a car besides maybe knock their wheel out of alignment.
If resources were no issue, I think larger raised cycle lanes are ideal. I’ve ridden them on 60 km/h roads next to box trucks and felt very safe. Both of these retrofitted barrier options would be an improvement though, so I would choose whichever can be more widely implemented. The parking stops being much safer for cyclists but the armadillos still provide some physical driver resistance which is better than nothing.
Raised lanes are for sure the best. But unfortunately it's not as simple as just extending the sidewalk. The whole road would need to be ripped out and redesigned since the drainage would need to get moved too. I'd sooner opt to put in "even better" bike lanes like this, and in 10 - 20 years replace with a raised cycle track once the network is well established.
I'm guessing the armadillos are cheaper than concrete barriers, but I wonder if some of those savings are offset by installation costs. It looks like you'd need to install a lot more of them in the same space with more anchors into the ground for each barrier too One potential upside to the armadillos could be the ability to easily ride into the street like if you needed to bail out of the bike lane for some reason. But I can't think of very many situations when that would be your best course of action
I have found that one of the main constraints is supply as well. The Toronto barriers are probably much harder to source and move around than the Armadillos. In terms of the install, these concrete barriers require much heavier equipment which I'm sure adds to it. The person at the end was just using a power hand tool.
Could be a nice thing to add to existing flex post bike lanes, like alternating posts/armadillos so you get the visibility of posts and the bump of the armadillo I'm interested to see how much protection they actually offer against cars. Looks like it'd be more than posts but they're still pretty low and spaced far apart. Might deter intentionally driving into the lane more than posts but idk how much they'd do to stop a car
They should try a mix! They could alternate between concrete and armadillos, say two 'dillos in between concrete sections. Might be cheaper, but still a decent deterrent to wandering motorists.
I like the video format 🙂 It's great to see the city experimenting and continuing to improve the cycling infrastructure! In terms of preferences: 1. Dedicated bike lane separated from road by a grassy median 2. Raised bike lane on side of street 3. Parking barriers 4. Bollards + painted zone 5. Armadillos 6. Only green paint I've recently been in Austin, SF, an NYC - all cities with good investment in bike infra and slightly different approaches.
I think both are good, with the concrete being more of a barrier. One question I have is how do they keep the bike lanes clear of debris when there are the barriers?
I don't like low dividers. I prefer just a paint stripe to a low divider. With a low divider, if I spaced-out and went drifting over until I hit one, I would then fall over the low divider and into the traffic lane. With a paint stripe, if I go over the line, I can correct the bike to get back in my lane. I think the full Jersey barriers are the best. If I messed-up next to one of those, I would crash into it, but they are tall enough, I would not fall over it. I typically get thousands of miles between falls, so I'm not exactly crash-prone, but I don't want infrastructure that could make the outcome worse.
Armadillos with multiple flex posts have gone in near me in Culver City. I find the armadillos hard to see and gauge, the flex posts are more forgiving to bikes and pretty obvious to oblivious cars.
The armadillo website shows them being placed at a diagonal rather than vertically in that area. It seems like Seattle made a mistake and installed them incorrectly, which makes them even less effective than they would be if they were installed correctly. They'd be significantly more visible and more difficult to drive over. EDIT: Oh, actually further down it shows them in that vertical configuration. That just doesn't seem particularly useful. If they had enough room to put them diagonally they would probably be good, though.
The Armadillos look like something that's supposed to be driven over in an emergency. But the much bigger problem for me are the huge gaps for driveways and side streets. Because that is, where the collisions happen - compared to this side-sweeps are relatively rare.
I lived in Pullman, Washington State, many years ago. I remember driving from Pullman (on the Idaho border) across to Seattle, and passing a sign to "Ohtello". The armadillos are cute - but not very visible. I'm not sure why they aren't more colourful and placed closer together to deter motorists more effectively.
I see benefits and downsides to both. The concrete barriers seem much more substantial and would do a better job of keeping cars out of the bike lane. The armadillos are too small and spaced out to prevent delivery vehicles from doing their normal annoying routine. That said, the armadillos seem like they'd be much easier to replace compared to the concrete barriers, and in theory they won't erode over time since they're plastic. I've seen plenty of cases where concrete barriers break down over time and end up building up debris in the bike lane.
Assuming they are cheaper I think I'm on team armadillo. Sure, a car could drive over them, but I doubt many motorists would do this intentionally. Cars can crash over the those parking stops too. Either way it would be nice if there were gaps between them allowing a bike to merge into the vehicle lanes and make a left turn... assuming another way isn't provided.
Parking stops arent that much more expensive really. Armadillos are like $55-75 each, especially if you want the larger ones. You can find precast parking stops for cheaper than that, and after shipping costs its kind of a wash between the two.
Ive seen so many youtube videos with cities that have problesm eith people parking their cars un the bike lane despite he barriers. Thay means bikes will have a harder time getting around. I gues its less of an issue if the bike lanes are too narrow for cars
For Swift Ave? In a way yes it blocks access to some of the left turns but.... you really don't want to be making left turns that way probably given cars often speed on that road regularly exceeding 40mph. There are the same openings that were there before at some of the better intersections still so you can manuever.
@@BestSideCycling Gotcha. I'm not in Seattle so I don't know the particular roads, more just curious in general. We only have a few short sections of barriers where I live, but it always makes me feel a bit claustrophobic, haha. These are the taller barriers though. I always thought the parking stop style barriers would be better, though maybe I'd still want them to be spaced out such that bikes can navigate through if they need.
Seems like the armadillos won’t stop cars from parking in the bike lane but they will make it harder and more dangerous for cyclists to exit the bike lake to go around a parked car.
Umm, you do know that you can stop, dismount, walk around the car right? Obviously, having cars parked in those bike lanes isn't good, but that's what education and enforcement are for. At the end of the day, there does still need to be someplace for cars that break down that's slightly off to the side so it doesn't cause a bunch of other problems.
Bike infrastructure is one thing, driver behavior is another. With Seattle-area drivers routinely running red lights, stop signs, and intentionally swerving toward cyclists while honking/yelling, infrastructure only slightly improves safety/comfort for people rolling and walking. I can't count how many people have told me they would ride more if drivers were less scary, NOT if there was better cycling infrastructure. Instead of SDOT spending their limited Vision Zero $ on these piecemeal projects, can the City please step up enforcement to curtail dangerous driving? Think of all the fine $ that could bring in for more safety infrastructure!
I'm #TeamParkingStop. If you want it to be more vertical like a flex post then put the post on top of it or between them. Nobody's going to run over the post if it's protected.
Those armadillos seem ... not very good... Especially in that section of 9th Ave N in SLU, cars were constantly parking in the bike lane until the traffic cones went up, and the armadillos don't really look like they provide any real protection to the bike lane against intrusion.
I wonder how they plan to plow the roads when it snows with those Armadillos? Looks like the plow will rip them up. It will also be difficult to plow with the parking stops. The plows will pile the snow onto the bike path and as far as I know there is no plan to plow the bike trails. In northern European countries the bike paths have priority for plowing.
As long as the assumption is that the default is no barrier at all, then anything they have or put up as some barrier, is going to be fine with me. We have nothing whatsoever anywhere around here so that's more my perspective. Even the Volksarmee helmet man cartooning on the lane would be an improvement over no markings, like there are here. I'd add that if a locality is going to put in anything at all for this, whatever is lower in cost is going to make it happen faster. Something where there was nothing is always good.
In the parking stop example the motorvehicle lanes are extra wide yet the bike lane is dangerously narrow. For this to work they need to re stripe the other lanes so that cyclists actually have enough space to maneuver around road hazards. Whoever designed this could argue its okay because it's an uphill section but then you still get riders on e-bikes being tempted to pass but not having the space to do it safely.
Parking stops seem like a good option. Something higher would be even better, but parking stops are probably enough to stop 99.9% of people from driving into the bike lane. It's not perfect, but it seems like a viable way to make bike gutters much safer. But those armadillos seem quite useless. They are easy to run over, so they will be run over - I'd imagine way more often than flex posts get run over. Maybe these would work at loading bays, but other than that I think they are quite useless. They are easy to drive over, their visibility is poor and they are not scary to drivers (as in they pose very little risk of actual damage to a car running over them. Perhaps metal posts with reflective bands would be a better option. They would basically have the visibility of a traffic cone / flex post with the installation and sturdiness of an armadillo.
Still not riding in Seattle with Armadillos, curb stops, flex post or whatever. Just dropped my financial advisor who moved downtown recently for one up on the east hill of Renton. Seattle still sucks as far as bike safety goes.
Now there is no option to pass with the barriers keeping bikes in. These things are never half thought out. Most of what Seattle has done has made things harder and worse. It’s impressive how much money you can spend while doing it wrong.
If passing is not possible your bike tracks are not wide enough. The ability to ride 2 side by side is a fairly basic feature. If not how are side by side tandems, tricycles or velomobiles to fit comfortable?
Yep not wide enough. I raced some cyclocross so more comfortable than most with close contact. Though the fact that other riders are strangers, most commuters you’ll run into use super wide flat bars even with barely enough room you’re risking it. But truth is in seattle with barriers set high enough for a pedal strike most of seattle lanes have been narrowed down to not making it safe to pass with a second high barrier now on the road side.
@@sfoot3882 I agree. What we have found in the UK is that what happens if we tolerate sub-standard infra is that means we are stuck with it for 30 or 40 years. So these days campaigners go for infra to our now good national guidelines. Our national guidelines include that if kerbs are above 60mm extra width should be provided: Kerbs 61mm to 150mm high - 200mm Vertical feature from 151mm to 600 mm - high 250mm Vertical feature above 600 mm high - 500mm Not that we always win, of course. !
Most of the things people do everyday can be done on bike. If not you can order it from Amazon/Walmart or other delivery. Cars should only be used for long trips or during bad weather (snow). Imagine the health benefit, America needs this really bad at the rates of obesity we have. Not to mention the mental health impact of getting out and moving around.
I don't know if concrete barrier is a good idea. While it does have superior stopping power, it could also cause more damage to the driver who may intentionally or unintentionally cross the lane. Some may say "f the drivers!" but that's not the point of infrastructure. it's not about punishing. it's about prevention. I wonder if the similarly shaped barrier made with recycled rubber would be a better solution. it has some stopping power and it puts less damage to the driver. More importantly, less used-up tires in trash.
The armadillos strike me a worse than they plastic pipes. They probably last longer... Partly because the cars and trucks can just drive right over then at low speed. Also looks like if a car does edge over into one it might be bumped further into the bike lane.
the parking stops feel more deliberate and represent a greater "penalty" (lets call it that) should a driver accidentally creep over into the bike-lane... meanwhile the armadillos/cones offer a lesser penalty but feel like more consideration for cyclists than nothing at all. I would take the concrete barrier over anything else but armadillos at least offer the driver a thump before I am the thump.
Maybe the cyclist shouldn't be decked out in ALL BLACK... I stopped buying black cycling gear decades ago. All my jersey's, jackets, socks, and helmets are bright colors.
What do you think of the improvements? Are you team parking stop or armadillo? What did you think of the different format of the video? Look for lots more coming soon.
I'm on Team Jersey Barrier, with some cross training with Team Bollard.
Armadillos are pretty awful. They are a fall hazard for bicycles but do *nothing* to actually stop cars that can trivially drive over them barely even noticing. I would **NOT** honestly call them a safety improvement -- they are cosmetic. Visually attractive, perhaps, but that's not really the main point. Safety is.
That section where the armadillos are added gets blocked by cars all the time. I agree these are pretty limited in value but I do think that they are better than nothing. That street is pretty tight, short of taking the turn lane out not much can be done to improve safety there.
agree. see service vehicles drive over them and into bike lane often. think usps, ups, fedex. have even seen police doing this (officer said it was to avoid blocking traffic for a non-emergency call - you know where his priorities are).
A car can trivially drive over a curb too. The point is to communicate to drivers that they are not allowed to drive over or in the bike lane. And plastic delineators, armadillos etc do just that.
Obviously concrete is better, but it's expensive and cities have limited funds. Short of a national policy dedicated to cycling improvements, it's this, paint or nothing.
@ananonymousoyster365 someone was parked in that bike lane over the armadillos yesterday. I'd say that overall, the armadillos have helped but it's not a great solution.
"The point is to communicate to drivers that they are not allowed to drive over or in the bike lane."
You think that it's a communication problem? You think people have any respect from what you expect from them? Everyone who drives knows that a stop sign means stop, yet many people treat them as optional or as a yield sign. It's not a communication problem.
Bike lane barriers need to prevent, not discourage, cars and trucks from crossing them.
These little speed bumps are less noticeable than some potholes for cars and do next to nothing.
Really glad SDOT is moving away from flexposts. I don't like the armadillos though as they have almost no vertical visibility or stopping power. At least the short concrete barriers would probably effectively prevent a car from rolling into the bike lane.
Toronto barriers are the best though.
I agree. Someone else mentioned the potential issue of a car parking in the bike line and the fact that you really don't have an option to go around them in a truly protected bike lane, but I think that's a problem of enforcement more than something for cyclists to work around. If bike lanes are safe, studies and real life experience shows more people will ride. The armadillos do nothing to improve safety and I'd argue do less than the flex posts do because cars are meant to run over rough terrain, a flex post will at least have someone question whether they want to scratch the paint on their car.
Vancouver, WA has a few bike lanes with armadillos, but they're packed much more tightly and have some kind of post on top to make it obvious, I think in that configuration they can actually work
I think flex posts have their place. Like in the armadillo example here with the orange cones. Presumably the cones will be replaced with flex posts. Armadillos are only a few inches tall, so they wont stop people from parking in the bike lane, they mostly stop people from drifting into the bike lane when making a right turn. The only thing armadillos have over flex posts is their durability. They can be driven over and not get damaged, unlike flex posts. But that comes at the cost of being less visible, especially for people in large vehicles.
Mixing flex posts and armadillos together seems like the best option.
I want the concrete garden barriers. Parking over bike lanes is a problem, particularly parallel parking across bike lanes. But I also want impact protection in the event a car loses control or gets hit by another car. Those crash barriers need to be tall enough to protect cyclists from 5,000 lbs of metal moving at 30 mph.
I ride the lane with the Armadillos daily. The biggest problem I see on that road towards Mercer St is delivery trucks (Amazon, Ups, Fex etc) blocking the bike lane with blinkers on to unload packages. Sometimes I see regular drivers park across the bike lanes at the ends of the street where there is a gap without a flex bar, while sitting in the car. I have a feeling the low stature of the Armadillos will only encourage this. Hopefully they add flex bars between the armadillos where the orange cones currently stand.
The armadillos won't prevent gravel from getting scattered in the bike lane, but will probably
mean the bike lane will never get swept by the street sweepers.
The pre-cast curbs also won't stop gravel, and makes street sweeping even harder.
Armadillos are NOT bike infrastructure. Hopefully they find out during this pilot that real bike infrastructure is needed.
If there's an obstacle or obstruction in the bike lane like broken glass, gravel, storm grates, manhole covers, traffic warning signs, or a complete closure of a stretch of bike lane, these curbs might make it dangerous or difficult to exit the bike lane and ride in the car lane where it may be safer.
These armadillos are likely to cause a cyclist to crash, while they do almost nothing for a car besides maybe knock their wheel out of alignment.
ARmadillos seem like a total waste of money, personally, same with the flex posts. Feels rather grim when you ride past a few smashed ones.
If resources were no issue, I think larger raised cycle lanes are ideal. I’ve ridden them on 60 km/h roads next to box trucks and felt very safe.
Both of these retrofitted barrier options would be an improvement though, so I would choose whichever can be more widely implemented. The parking stops being much safer for cyclists but the armadillos still provide some physical driver resistance which is better than nothing.
Raised lanes are for sure the best. But unfortunately it's not as simple as just extending the sidewalk. The whole road would need to be ripped out and redesigned since the drainage would need to get moved too. I'd sooner opt to put in "even better" bike lanes like this, and in 10 - 20 years replace with a raised cycle track once the network is well established.
@@LimitedWard100% agree
I'm guessing the armadillos are cheaper than concrete barriers, but I wonder if some of those savings are offset by installation costs. It looks like you'd need to install a lot more of them in the same space with more anchors into the ground for each barrier too
One potential upside to the armadillos could be the ability to easily ride into the street like if you needed to bail out of the bike lane for some reason. But I can't think of very many situations when that would be your best course of action
I have found that one of the main constraints is supply as well. The Toronto barriers are probably much harder to source and move around than the Armadillos. In terms of the install, these concrete barriers require much heavier equipment which I'm sure adds to it. The person at the end was just using a power hand tool.
Could be a nice thing to add to existing flex post bike lanes, like alternating posts/armadillos so you get the visibility of posts and the bump of the armadillo
I'm interested to see how much protection they actually offer against cars. Looks like it'd be more than posts but they're still pretty low and spaced far apart. Might deter intentionally driving into the lane more than posts but idk how much they'd do to stop a car
They should try a mix! They could alternate between concrete and armadillos, say two 'dillos in between concrete sections. Might be cheaper, but still a decent deterrent to wandering motorists.
I like the video format 🙂
It's great to see the city experimenting and continuing to improve the cycling infrastructure!
In terms of preferences:
1. Dedicated bike lane separated from road by a grassy median
2. Raised bike lane on side of street
3. Parking barriers
4. Bollards + painted zone
5. Armadillos
6. Only green paint
I've recently been in Austin, SF, an NYC - all cities with good investment in bike infra and slightly different approaches.
Appreciate the comment! I definitely tried something a little different with this video and thanks for your insight
I think both are good, with the concrete being more of a barrier. One question I have is how do they keep the bike lanes clear of debris when there are the barriers?
Seattle doesn't do a great job keeping lanes clean but there are little bike lane sized street cleaners. I saw one a few weeks ago. They're super cute
I don't like low dividers. I prefer just a paint stripe to a low divider. With a low divider, if I spaced-out and went drifting over until I hit one, I would then fall over the low divider and into the traffic lane. With a paint stripe, if I go over the line, I can correct the bike to get back in my lane.
I think the full Jersey barriers are the best. If I messed-up next to one of those, I would crash into it, but they are tall enough, I would not fall over it. I typically get thousands of miles between falls, so I'm not exactly crash-prone, but I don't want infrastructure that could make the outcome worse.
With only paint you get drivers using bike lanes for right turns and parking.
Those bike lanes feel a bit narrow. You're not over taking anyone in those.
Armadillos with multiple flex posts have gone in near me in Culver City. I find the armadillos hard to see and gauge, the flex posts are more forgiving to bikes and pretty obvious to oblivious cars.
The armadillo website shows them being placed at a diagonal rather than vertically in that area. It seems like Seattle made a mistake and installed them incorrectly, which makes them even less effective than they would be if they were installed correctly. They'd be significantly more visible and more difficult to drive over.
EDIT: Oh, actually further down it shows them in that vertical configuration. That just doesn't seem particularly useful. If they had enough room to put them diagonally they would probably be good, though.
SDOT confirmed space was the reason for the vertical configuration.
@@preston_mui If they had more space they probably would have done a parking stop.
The Armadillos look like something that's supposed to be driven over in an emergency. But the much bigger problem for me are the huge gaps for driveways and side streets. Because that is, where the collisions happen - compared to this side-sweeps are relatively rare.
2:11 illustrates how SUV will encroach the lane if armadillo are used. I'm for parking stops. Also those lanes need to be cleared of debris.
I lived in Pullman, Washington State, many years ago. I remember driving from Pullman (on the Idaho border) across to Seattle, and passing a sign to "Ohtello".
The armadillos are cute - but not very visible. I'm not sure why they aren't more colourful and placed closer together to deter motorists more effectively.
I want those barriers that cars get stuck on if they drive over them
I see benefits and downsides to both. The concrete barriers seem much more substantial and would do a better job of keeping cars out of the bike lane. The armadillos are too small and spaced out to prevent delivery vehicles from doing their normal annoying routine. That said, the armadillos seem like they'd be much easier to replace compared to the concrete barriers, and in theory they won't erode over time since they're plastic. I've seen plenty of cases where concrete barriers break down over time and end up building up debris in the bike lane.
Assuming they are cheaper I think I'm on team armadillo. Sure, a car could drive over them, but I doubt many motorists would do this intentionally. Cars can crash over the those parking stops too. Either way it would be nice if there were gaps between them allowing a bike to merge into the vehicle lanes and make a left turn... assuming another way isn't provided.
Parking stops arent that much more expensive really. Armadillos are like $55-75 each, especially if you want the larger ones. You can find precast parking stops for cheaper than that, and after shipping costs its kind of a wash between the two.
"Sure, a car could drive over them, but I doubt many motorists would do this intentionally."
Ive seen so many youtube videos with cities that have problesm eith people parking their cars un the bike lane despite he barriers. Thay means bikes will have a harder time getting around. I gues its less of an issue if the bike lanes are too narrow for cars
Do the concrete barriers ever make it hard to turn left?
For Swift Ave? In a way yes it blocks access to some of the left turns but.... you really don't want to be making left turns that way probably given cars often speed on that road regularly exceeding 40mph. There are the same openings that were there before at some of the better intersections still so you can manuever.
@@BestSideCycling Gotcha. I'm not in Seattle so I don't know the particular roads, more just curious in general. We only have a few short sections of barriers where I live, but it always makes me feel a bit claustrophobic, haha. These are the taller barriers though. I always thought the parking stop style barriers would be better, though maybe I'd still want them to be spaced out such that bikes can navigate through if they need.
What are your thoughts of the raised bike path in front of the Nordic museum in Ballard?
Seems like the armadillos won’t stop cars from parking in the bike lane but they will make it harder and more dangerous for cyclists to exit the bike lake to go around a parked car.
Umm, you do know that you can stop, dismount, walk around the car right? Obviously, having cars parked in those bike lanes isn't good, but that's what education and enforcement are for. At the end of the day, there does still need to be someplace for cars that break down that's slightly off to the side so it doesn't cause a bunch of other problems.
Bike infrastructure is one thing, driver behavior is another. With Seattle-area drivers routinely running red lights, stop signs, and intentionally swerving toward cyclists while honking/yelling, infrastructure only slightly improves safety/comfort for people rolling and walking. I can't count how many people have told me they would ride more if drivers were less scary, NOT if there was better cycling infrastructure. Instead of SDOT spending their limited Vision Zero $ on these piecemeal projects, can the City please step up enforcement to curtail dangerous driving? Think of all the fine $ that could bring in for more safety infrastructure!
Enforcement? In Seattle? 🤣 Not in decades!
I'm #TeamParkingStop. If you want it to be more vertical like a flex post then put the post on top of it or between them. Nobody's going to run over the post if it's protected.
Those armadillos seem ... not very good... Especially in that section of 9th Ave N in SLU, cars were constantly parking in the bike lane until the traffic cones went up, and the armadillos don't really look like they provide any real protection to the bike lane against intrusion.
I wonder how they plan to plow the roads when it snows with those Armadillos? Looks like the plow will rip them up. It will also be difficult to plow with the parking stops. The plows will pile the snow onto the bike path and as far as I know there is no plan to plow the bike trails. In northern European countries the bike paths have priority for plowing.
Much better than nothing no protection !! Here in Florida, those Armadillos would be a welcomed !! Protective Bike Lanes are better.
As long as the assumption is that the default is no barrier at all, then anything they have or put up as some barrier, is going to be fine with me. We have nothing whatsoever anywhere around here so that's more my perspective. Even the Volksarmee helmet man cartooning on the lane would be an improvement over no markings, like there are here. I'd add that if a locality is going to put in anything at all for this, whatever is lower in cost is going to make it happen faster. Something where there was nothing is always good.
In the parking stop example the motorvehicle lanes are extra wide yet the bike lane is dangerously narrow. For this to work they need to re stripe the other lanes so that cyclists actually have enough space to maneuver around road hazards. Whoever designed this could argue its okay because it's an uphill section but then you still get riders on e-bikes being tempted to pass but not having the space to do it safely.
My buddy hit those big, square, armadillos in Ecuador, while changing lanes on his motorcycle. He crashed pretty hard. Nice scar.
Parking stops seem like a good option. Something higher would be even better, but parking stops are probably enough to stop 99.9% of people from driving into the bike lane. It's not perfect, but it seems like a viable way to make bike gutters much safer.
But those armadillos seem quite useless. They are easy to run over, so they will be run over - I'd imagine way more often than flex posts get run over. Maybe these would work at loading bays, but other than that I think they are quite useless. They are easy to drive over, their visibility is poor and they are not scary to drivers (as in they pose very little risk of actual damage to a car running over them. Perhaps metal posts with reflective bands would be a better option. They would basically have the visibility of a traffic cone / flex post with the installation and sturdiness of an armadillo.
Ohio suburbs here. I just wish we had roads with shoulders.
Still not riding in Seattle with Armadillos, curb stops, flex post or whatever. Just dropped my financial advisor who moved downtown recently for one up on the east hill of Renton. Seattle still sucks as far as bike safety goes.
Those SLU cones weren't doing anything lol. A car can still go over/around the armadillo pretty easily vs the parking stops.
What scares me is making a right turn with a bike lane to my right.
@@carl9729 I've considered making a video for drivers for how to handle bikes. Visibility is hard sometimes!
Zebra Armadillo sounds like a creature from Avatar the last Airbender.
The bike lanes are very Narrow.. How does a faster cyclist pass a slower rider in front of them.
Now there is no option to pass with the barriers keeping bikes in. These things are never half thought out. Most of what Seattle has done has made things harder and worse. It’s impressive how much money you can spend while doing it wrong.
If passing is not possible your bike tracks are not wide enough.
The ability to ride 2 side by side is a fairly basic feature.
If not how are side by side tandems, tricycles or velomobiles to fit comfortable?
Yep not wide enough. I raced some cyclocross so more comfortable than most with close contact. Though the fact that other riders are strangers, most commuters you’ll run into use super wide flat bars even with barely enough room you’re risking it.
But truth is in seattle with barriers set high enough for a pedal strike most of seattle lanes have been narrowed down to not making it safe to pass with a second high barrier now on the road side.
@@sfoot3882
I agree.
What we have found in the UK is that what happens if we tolerate sub-standard infra is that means we are stuck with it for 30 or 40 years.
So these days campaigners go for infra to our now good national guidelines.
Our national guidelines include that if kerbs are above 60mm extra width should be provided:
Kerbs 61mm to 150mm high - 200mm
Vertical feature from 151mm to 600 mm - high 250mm
Vertical feature above 600 mm high - 500mm
Not that we always win, of course. !
Most of the things people do everyday can be done on bike. If not you can order it from Amazon/Walmart or other delivery. Cars should only be used for long trips or during bad weather (snow). Imagine the health benefit, America needs this really bad at the rates of obesity we have. Not to mention the mental health impact of getting out and moving around.
I don't know if concrete barrier is a good idea. While it does have superior stopping power, it could also cause more damage to the driver who may intentionally or unintentionally cross the lane. Some may say "f the drivers!" but that's not the point of infrastructure. it's not about punishing. it's about prevention. I wonder if the similarly shaped barrier made with recycled rubber would be a better solution. it has some stopping power and it puts less damage to the driver. More importantly, less used-up tires in trash.
Few more years of this and we will all be biking out of necessity
Hope so!
The armadillos strike me a worse than they plastic pipes. They probably last longer... Partly because the cars and trucks can just drive right over then at low speed. Also looks like if a car does edge over into one it might be bumped further into the bike lane.
I hate the idea of the armadillo unless it's mixed in with other protection. They really invented something even worse than flex posts
Parking stops make it dangerous to overtake slow bikers, and there are plenty of slow bikers where I live. In fact, any type of barrier is iffy.
Bike lanes should share surface with sidewalk, not with road.
the parking stops feel more deliberate and represent a greater "penalty" (lets call it that) should a driver accidentally creep over into the bike-lane... meanwhile the armadillos/cones offer a lesser penalty but feel like more consideration for cyclists than nothing at all. I would take the concrete barrier over anything else but armadillos at least offer the driver a thump before I am the thump.
You think they would look at other cities and see what they have done. Armadillos have been done in many places and failed miserabley.
4 inches of concrete is not safety
Once again, cycling advocates trade away actual safety for the perception of safety.
More interested in attracting riders than the rides themselves.
Maybe the cyclist shouldn't be decked out in ALL BLACK... I stopped buying black cycling gear decades ago. All my jersey's, jackets, socks, and helmets are bright colors.