Yet far more situations where you’d want to stop the car immediately. What’s worse in your scenario, a few people in the car potentially getting injured or killed, or multiple pedestrians and cyclists getting mangled by 2 cars?
Which scenario is more likely? A car having a lane departure event, or a car having a lane departure event at the exact moment the area next to them is packed with cyclists and pedestrians?
Seeing how this truck managed to go for a mile or so in the bike lane without hitting anyone, I’d definitely err on the side of a car going into the bike lane being more probable than a car going into the bike line right next to a whole bunch of cyclists.
Every road is different, and the protections for the people on the roads should be based on how those roads are being used. This road has a bike lane, and it should make sufficient protections for the cyclcist AND the drivers. If the road had way more cyclists, or cycling was becoming more prevalent, it would make sense to put in better infrastructure to protect that use in those areas. You’ll note that not every railroad crossing has a dedicated bridge going over it, or armature, or lights, or even a signal. Those protections are put up based on how frequently the crossing is used and weighed against the damage of an accident there. Simply put, that road doesn’t have the cycling demand to build dedicated infrastructure, but there is definitely enough demand to make sure that a truck can’t just brodoze down the lane.
Yet far more situations where you’d want to stop the car immediately. What’s worse in your scenario, a few people in the car potentially getting injured or killed, or multiple pedestrians and cyclists getting mangled by 2 cars?
Which scenario is more likely? A car having a lane departure event, or a car having a lane departure event at the exact moment the area next to them is packed with cyclists and pedestrians?
Seeing how this truck managed to go for a mile or so in the bike lane without hitting anyone, I’d definitely err on the side of a car going into the bike lane being more probable than a car going into the bike line right next to a whole bunch of cyclists.
If bikers felt better protected, maybe more would bike. In my country something like this would become mass murder. It doesn’t though.
Every road is different, and the protections for the people on the roads should be based on how those roads are being used. This road has a bike lane, and it should make sufficient protections for the cyclcist AND the drivers. If the road had way more cyclists, or cycling was becoming more prevalent, it would make sense to put in better infrastructure to protect that use in those areas. You’ll note that not every railroad crossing has a dedicated bridge going over it, or armature, or lights, or even a signal. Those protections are put up based on how frequently the crossing is used and weighed against the damage of an accident there. Simply put, that road doesn’t have the cycling demand to build dedicated infrastructure, but there is definitely enough demand to make sure that a truck can’t just brodoze down the lane.