Originally Posted by
chaadster
Originally Posted by
chaadster
This is an important point, I think. In my town, they’ve instituted a lot of “traffic calming” measures and built up cycling infrastructure (e.g. protected bike lanes) in an effort to get more people on bikes and public transit. While laudable, there’s a knock-on effect in that increased driving difficulty raises driver frustration, which in turn leads to harsh decision making and sometimes dangerous and risky driving.
I wasn’t suggesting planners are unaware, because I have no idea idea if they are or not, nor whether even if they are, it should be a reason to change plans, so I wasn’t commenting on awareness, rather just making a statement of cause-and-effect,
Your statement of "cause and effect" is seriously one sided.
The
lack of traffic calming leads to "dangerous and risky driving" (sometimes) too.
What you wrote suggests that traffic calming makes "dangerous and risky driving:
worse. Which is the exact opposite of its purpose. And, if it make it worse, it leads one to wonder why the planners are unaware of it.
The basic premise of traffic calming is to
reduce "dangerous and risky driving" (it's in the name!),
Again, the thing you need to address is whether things are better (or worse) overall after the changes. (Not just point out the bad things about one side.)
Originally Posted by
chaadster
To that point, it is totally true that traffic calming measures are part of efforts to get people on bikes and public transit. It has been an expressly stated strategy of city development goals for decades. The linkage is simple to get: people will ride more if they feel safe, and high car-to-bike speed discrepancies make riders nervous, so reducing car traffic speeds is desirable for encouraging cycling.
That would be a
secondary effect of traffic calming. And traffic calming might be worth doing even if it failed to get more people to ride.