News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law by TulliusCicero on Thursday April 11, 2019 @03:16PM (#19638156)
> Generally "protected" bike lines are not protected at intersections, which is where most problems occur.

Then also build protected intersections? These are common in truly bike-friendly cities. I see them frequently here in Munich (admittedly not as bike-friendly as Dutch cities, but much better than any US city).

Re:Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law by u801e on Thursday April 11, 2019 @03:32PM (#19638287)
Those are either actual interchanges (like how a highway/motorway interacts with a surface street), or a traffic light controlled intersection. Most protected infrastructure out there do not do either.
Re:Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law by TulliusCicero on Thursday April 11, 2019 @04:21PM (#19638768)
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Most of what I've seen called "protected intersections" do include traffic lights. Are you using a different definition?
Re:Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law by u801e on Thursday April 11, 2019 @04:51PM (#19639062)
I was referring to separate traffic light phases for different approaches to the intersection. For instance this protected intersection[1] does not have separate traffic light phases for two same direction approaches. While this intersection[2] does. The first one will have turning conflicts since turning traffic and through traffic is allowed to proceed through the intersection at the same time. The second one will not.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7631767,-111.8968873,3a,75y,...

[2] https://www.google.com/maps/@37.306157,-79.97767,3a,75y,223....