As someone who bikes a lot in Manhattan and Brooklyn, it really felt like bikes were much a first class citizen in Paris.
[1] https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bik....
As someone who bikes a lot in Manhattan and Brooklyn, it really felt like bikes were much a first class citizen in Paris.
[1] https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bik....
Instead they keep building more and more two-lane cycle paths on either side of one-way streets, fully segregating bicycle traffic from motor traffic. While they surely believe that makes it even safer for cyclists, in my opinion it is a terrible (and less safe) design for multiple reasons.
Firstly, it continues to encourage the idea that cyclists are second-class parts of urban traffic, who may use the streets when by the benevolent grace of the Barcelona local authority they have been provided with their own mini-street on certain grown-up car streets.
Secondly, having to divide the dedicated bicycle space in two, one for each direction of traffic, increases the risk of bike collisions and makes overtaking slow cyclists more of a hassle.
Thirdly, it often makes cycling from A to B harder than driving if your route happens to follow the "standard" direction of the one way street and you need to make a turn to the side opposite the side where the cycle lane happens to be. This forces you to cross the ordinary one-way motor traffic lane, which you wish you were using in the first place, with the added difficulty that the cars are coming to you from behind.
Finally, it really messes up with the crucial factor of predictability in road safety. So many dual-lane cycle paths on arbitrary sides of one-way streets make each intersection have its own personality, and you'd better hope the drivers you'll encounter are locals who know to expect surprise bicycles sprouting out in the opposite direction on their right-hand side. While one could argue that contraflow lanes also mess with predictability they do not, for the simple fact that traffic continues to follow the standard logic of circulating on the right of the road.
From my experience, segregating biking lanes, and having more than one so as to allow passing is a definite plus. Bike collisions can be scary, but it's cars I'm really afraid of.
FWIW, I cycle all the time, often in Paris, Montreal and Barcelona and have strong preferences for doing so in that particular order.
[1] https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get...
I think lack of certainty and lack of predictability are very different concepts, and you want the former but not the latter.
Lack of certainty means you don’t know what’s going to happen because you have blind corners or obstacles (e.g. trees, planters), this requires paying attention and leads to slowdowns because the driver is not confident.
Lack of predictability is its brain-damaged cousin, it’s a drunk driver or a dump truck with an open gate.
I haven't seen roaming mobs of cyclists in other city like NYC, lane splitting through traffic and blocking traffic
Bikes should have dedicated lanes that are always two way.
Vehicles should be the most inconvenienced (one way streets, one turn direction, etc) as “going around” isn’t a major problem.
Designing to minimize interaction between the various forms helps tremendously-if bikes and pedestrians keep interacting negatively it gets harder to get support for more bike infrastructure (even though that’s usually the solution). Just like bollards can keep cars container, steps can help keep bikes contained.
It's easier for you to avoid the car and for the car to get around you.
I wish cyclists did this even for traffic going the same direction as them.
If you are in a street where it's too narrow to safely overtake a bike without them climbing on the sidewalk, then you probably shouldn't be going much faster than the bike anyway...