masonv45

Great way to reuse a blight in the community...
https://dailymemphian.com/article/26621/trash-or-treasure-illegally-dumped-tires-become

But its me

Thanks for this bit of info. As someone that passes this way on my daily commute, and has observed the growing barrier install with interest, it’s nice to get the full story. I have caught the install in progress on occasion and it looks like a simple, yet clever operation. The current flexible, nearly useless, and destroyed on a regular basis, upright “bollards” don’t do much to stop Memphis drivers. “Bollards” because they are maybe 4 inch wide by 24 inch tall reflective markers epoxied to the pavement. It’s almost comical to observe traffic just ride right through the old bollards, using the bike lane as just another lane — it’s so bad, the metal posted signs announcing that drivers must yield to cyclists and pedestrians are mangled and flattened at nearly every install. The new barriers look like they will limit traffic somewhat, and I’ll certainly find out. If they would only put serious vehicle stopping bollards on the cycle lanes of Memphis, I would be even more delighted. Thankfully, Memphis has slowly upgraded its cycling infrastructure over the years, so it’s getting better..

Again, thanks!

mr_bill

That's such smart reuse. They remind me of the "armadillos" of Barcelona.

(And, yes, they won't work where snow is an issue. Nor should they be installed on quiet neighborhood streets. Nor on interstate highways. Not everything has to be a universal panacea.)

-mr. bill

But its me

A quick follow up. One of the barriers appeared to have been shorn off of its bolts earlier this week.

mr_bill

ONE? ONE? That's spectacular good news. I'm forever picking up shredded plastic bollards and clearing them out of the protected bike lanes.

-mr. bill

livedarklions

Poetry, it's all in the line breaks.

roundypndr 

Wholley Molley, hopefully that area is well lit, and those barriers are far away enough from the bike lane that a cyclist won't encounter one at night. BMX jumping anyone?

Kat12

Are they really going to intimidate cars that much? Before I saw the picture, I expected either tires laid on their side (to create space) or stood upright (to make an actual barrier). Are drivers even going to see these short cutesy things before hitting them?

noisebeam

Barriers that a 4 wheel vehicle can drive over with hardly a bump, but would cause a cyclist to wreck are a bad idea. But thy sure make some cyclist feel comfy.

But its me

As a regular user, the lane is probably the widest in Memphis, with a big buffer area between the lanes. The Google street view image below shows the lane with probably the narrowest buffer area.



Pretty sure they have reflective paint on them, and the area is well lighted. The street is always getting the barriers and signs (metal yield to cyclists sign in the background) destroyed -- flattened and torn out of the pavement. Maybe a bit callous, but I'm not all that concerned with damage to vehicles, considering they are there to protect cyclists. At least it might cause a driver to come to their senses.

mr_bill

A completely hypothetical "wreck" makes it a bad idea, but you're sure that they make SOME CYCLIST (singular) "feel" comfy? Couldn't put it more condescendingly, could you?

I'm formerly strong and fearless, and I could "take the lane" with the "best" of you.

But when side effects of cancer drugs took me off the road (both from behind the wheel and on the saddle), separated facilities didn't make me "feel" comfy - they allowed me to ride my bicycle to my radiation therapy.

I know, I know, I know, bicycling is ONLY for people with tactical awareness, because they fare best.

[multiple expletive deleteds]

-mr. bill

noisebeam

If you look at the article in the OP this has nothing to do with sharing lanes or the relative strength of a cyclist. The separated bike lane is already in place, what is at issue is placing these low bumps made of sections of tires and nailing them in the buffer area. This is what I have called out as hazardous to cyclists - they are a low, hard to see, dark material, only painted to look similar to a ground level line which will wear & with no large reflectors on each in a region cyclist will occasionally need to merge across if they are turning or avoiding obstacles, etc.

But they provide no physical barrier to a larger vehicle - creating the illusion of protection, hence the comfy term. Even when tall plastic sticks (with reflective tape around the tops) are used in buffers like they are here they get run down in a few months leaving a black 4" high mounting lumps which have and do cause cyclist to crash - nothing hypothetical about that.

When local advocates asked for intervals of concrete tubs in the barriers for real protection after the poles were repeatedly torn away they were told that was hazardous to motor vehicles and needed to be break away items not fixed to the ground. So no to barriers that are dangerous to motor vehicles, but they are OK if only dangerous to cyclists.

UniChris

I don't love them, but to me it looks like there's a reflective strip on each, or at least something that wasn't part of the original tire

As NYC garbage trucks and other errant drivers prove every once in a while, even a curb is readily mounted by an out-of-control vehicle.

There's a fairly fundamental fallacy to the idea of physical barriers.

And that's the implicit assumption that the very drivers who can't manage to stay out of a painted bike lane, are somehow at intersections going to display unprecedented attentiveness in checking for traffic arriving from an unexpected direction...

Sure, technically, they should. But the person who can remember to look in an unprecedented direction is probably also the person who can respect lane markings...

What barriers do is move the risk to intersections (including driveways) - but at the end of the day, they may actually set up more conflict there, between cyclists who feel that they have ownership of that route, and drivers who don't think of the possibility of fast traffic arriving from a direction that's in drastic conflict with all of the usual rules of roadway design that place turning lanes outside of through lanes.

noisebeam

Barriers should not be used for the ~100' approach of any intersections or driveways. Separated/buffered lanes only make sense on longer stretches of intersection-less roadways. At intersection approaches cyclists may need to merge left and motorists right. A barrier inhibits the needed awareness and communication between motorist and cyclist.

UniChris

In an ideal world, yes.

But consider a "block" of an NYC avenue is only 264 feet between cross streets, and commercial driveways on suburban "strips" can be more dense than even that.

And if the "protection" is street parking (with the bike route outside it) that kind of "re-establishing mutual awareness" zone would consume 40% of the distance between intersections.

livedarklions

Neither of us has seen these in person under multiple lighting conditions, but from the pictures, I think the hazard to cyclists claim you're making appears very far-fetched. When you make wild assumptions like that, I see no reason to take anything flowing from it seriously.

So you think it's a good thing if the barriers kill drivers and car passengers? Where are you going with that?

mr_bill

Oh please, there is no "illusion of protection!"

Do you hear fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap behind you? TIME TO WORRY.

Otherwise, you don't have to check your rearview mirror every couple of seconds to see if the person driving the car is about to run you over.

There is no "illusion" here, except for your illusion that these are a danger to people on bikes.

BTW, in case you want to drop a dime on this grave assault on cyclist safety, Streetview captured the perps last month:




Next, check out this "immovable barrier" to motor traffic.

First pic is from the day after install was completed in December 2013, with evidence of the first of many automobiles damaged by their drivers. Somebody thought they were on a ski slope?
The latest incident is from the end of this summer, though this might not be done by a driver. I can't rule out tactical urbanism by the limbo alliance.
(In between, too many strikes to count.)




-mr. bill

livedarklions

The more I thought about the idea that those tire deals would be hard for a cyclist to see, the sillier it seemed. Frankly, bicyclists have to evade obstacles that are much harder to see than that on pretty much any given city block. Those things would be absolutely conspicuous in comparison to any pothole, rock, broken bottle, stray bolt, crack in pavement, or any of the thousand other things we're constantly scanning the pavement for. Someone who couldn't see those in time to evade running over them wouldn't last a mile riding just about anywhere.

roundypndr 

Many cyclists are generally attentive to their surroundings, but I go by the saying, "Some fool will always outsmart an engineer's best determined efforts", and that goes for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

livedarklions

Yes, but if you go by that saying, you literally cannot put up any sort of barrier or sign. Bicyclists have been severely injured running into bollards, for example.

Really, if the standard is everything has to be completely foolproof, then roads and paths are themselves impossible.

mr_bill

And whacked again today. Not taken out by a plow operator. I guess the snow pile wasn't enough of a clue for the driver enjoying our winter wonderland?




-mr. bill

genec

OK, just jumping in here for a moment, with a bit of an ironic chuckle... regarding "if the barriers kill drivers and car passengers." Well perhaps those drivers would finally learn to stay in their own lanes, eh? A standing meme for years is that steering wheels of cars should come equipped with a giant sharp blade, aimed right at the driver... so the drivers will finally learn to stay "between the lines."

Let's face it folks... they issue driver's licenses to just about anybody...

I-Like-To-Bike

I doubt that many, if any motorists or general members of the public will chuckle, let alone listen to anything an "advocate" might propose if the advocate trots out that self-amusing meme or anything else as chuckleheaded outside the confines of the motorist bashing clique.

CliffordK

The more wide angle photos show those as pretty isolated in the current installation, so probably not a problem. But, they may not be a universal answer everywhere.

Dealing with pedestrians or wrong-way cyclists in a narrow lane?

I've dealt with rumble strips on a HWY 99 near Portland. Moderate downhill. I usually hit the area when I'm absolutely exhausted, maybe 170 miles into my ride. Usually dark out when I get there. And debris and garbage all over the shoulder. A little swerving, and I'm hanging on for dear life. It isn't that the rumbles are a bad idea, just they become dangerous to my riding situation.

I also have pulled cargo trailers quite a bit. And I have managed to flip the trailer several times. Once was hitting a curb that was put in the middle of the road as apparently a lane barrier. Another time I flipped the trailer on a pothole. And, flipped it once entering a curb cut, and flipped it once exiting a curb cut. Managing to hit one of those tire barriers could absolutely launch the trailer.

I'm absolutely not a fan of fixed steel bollards. They often terrify me, and I have to stop, and disconnect my trailer to get through one set of bollards near Leaburg if I'm towing.

I haven't ridden around those plastic bollards much. I know of a few in Portland, but they just seem funny. There are times when there are no cyclists or pedestrians in the bike lane, and a minor incursion into the lane by a vehicle ordinarily wouldn't be bad, and might even be safer for the vehicle.

roundypndr 

I guess we'll have to have someone keep us up to date on how these barriers work out over time, similar to how mr._bill keeps track of that road divider island.