However, much of the problem is resolved if street parking is reduced or eliminated.
which direction is that, exactly? any cyclists or pedestrians coming the wrong way down the street will be in front of the vehicle. are you saying that drivers will exclusively look behind their vehicle while driving down a one-way street, and only very occasionally look in front?
No bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions?
And what happens when a car and cyclist both go at a 20 mph pace? How much time does the driver have to react, if the cyclist doesn’t?
Setting that aside, this is the exact purpose of speed limits, not one-way streets. One-way streets do not prevent pedestrians from popping out behind "bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions", or children, or debris, or potholes, or stopped or malfunctioning cars, or construction, or sudden road ends...
Edit: If you can't stop in time for a bicycle, you can't stop in time for anything, and you need to drive slower. Unfortunately, many American drivers seem to believe that they own the road, and if dumb children run out onto the road and get flattened, that's their own fault for breaking the law.
Are you suggesting cars go even slower?
When two vehicles move towards each other at 25 mph, that’s 50 mph.
It’s not 50 mph of automobile kinetic energy, but the human reaction time suffers the same.
Reacting to a 10 to 20 feet distance at 50 mph isn’t easy nor realistic, in roads designed for 25 mph travel.
If I drive and hit a cyclist going ignoring the one way, the following things happen: -Emotional trauma for the driver -Death or serious injury for the cyclist -No punishment; or maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong.
Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough.
There are also "advisory cycle lanes", where there is physically one car lane, but cars can go in both direction. They are expected to (slowly and carefully!) go into the cycle lanes either side in order to pass each other. Speed limit is very low on these ofc.
>Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Take an existing two-lane road, cut it down to a single lane down the middle and have half-width cycle lanes either side. It's easier to do that on a wide road than a narrow European city road. (American lanes are too wide anyway.)
The problem is not "roads designed for cars", it is politics designed for cars. The roads are not immutable, they can be modified, if there is political will. It can be done: Netherlands was rebuilt after WW2 to be car-dependent in the American pattern, and then that was undone in the 1970s onwards after the oil crisis and record pedestrian fatalities:
https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/...
There is a myth that European cities have always been pedestrian and bike friendly because they inherit their street design from a time before cars -- not always so! Things have gone back and forth.
I think this warrants a further response.
One of the best things NYC has done was to reduce lanes of traffic.
So there’s a lot of QoL improvements to narrowing.
However, driveways will pose significant danger to two-way bike traffic in one-way roads; especially near corners.
It’s safer cycle center or the opposite side, to be fully visible.
How is this addressed?
Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide.
What should worry you is that going the wrong way in a one-way isn’t obviously dangerous.
It really should be, and perhaps that’s a failure in US road rules and education. Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.
How is this claim different from the oft-heard claim that "not stopping at stop signs is obviously dangerous", ignoring TFA and the substantial evidence therein regarding cyclists and stop signs? I have presented arguments for my proposition that one-way signs are not appropriate in the vast majority of circumstances for cyclists. As far as I can tell, you have presented no arguments in favor of your position except 1) assertions that it is "obvious", 2) claims that anybody that disagrees with you should not be allowed to cycle, and 3) vague insinuations that running over cyclists is appropriate retribution for traffic violations.
Like I said to another poster: You make a compelling case for requiring cyclist licensing.
Yeah that's precisely my point; the physical space is there. Narrow the lanes and use the freed space for more sidewalk, bike lane, trees, etc. It means there's an opportunity.
>Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.
Absolutely not!
Why not? Everything I’ve seen here and in the real world strongly suggests otherwise.
If safety is really the overarching concern and assumptions on basics like one-ways are not so obvious and cannot be taken for granted…
Then I don’t see any other obvious choice other than testing and licensing cyclists.
It won’t happen, but that’s the rational conclusion.
Even if you take away everyday motorists, the same safety issues remain with delivery vehicles, mass transit, and taxis.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Empirically the countries that are safest for cyclists don't have licensing for cyclists, and they have the infrastructure and laws I talked about.
I’m saying that right of way is the least concern; instead, cyclists should be cycling very defensively.
You seem very happy to let cyclists get killed, to promote your own PoV though.
Maybe in other countries, but that’s a no-no in the US.
If you care about cyclist safety, then don’t spread misinformation.
Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...
Wrong-way cycling the single largest cause of cycling accidents, where it was the cyclists fault.
why should cyclists be required to follow one-way signs? the point of one-way streets is that the street can be narrowed to a single car width; cars are too wide to pass in narrow streets, so a single direction of travel must be shown on both ends, otherwise cars will be stuck in the middle and have to reverse to get out. bicycles don't have this problem. the only justification for one-way cycling is high-traffic streets with danger of collision, but in such high-traffic scenarios I think 99.99% of cyclists will self-organize into reasonably consistent traffic flows, no sign required.