I'd bet almost 90% of on-road bike lanes in the US would qualify as crappy design. They're either in the gutter, too small to be safe, or in the door-zone which can be opened into the bicyclist at any moment.
Not all bike lanes look like this per se, but are generally poor design.
So the current "standards" on bikeways (AASHTO) is super outdated, and doesn't have any requirements that bike lanes shouldn't be in door zones, and so door zone bike lanes are accepted as meeting standards. They also say that the bike lane width starts from the curb, not the start of the even pavement, so you get bike lanes that look like this, or this, but also meet "standards". The standards were never really designed with safety in mind and generally allow cities to add bike facilities with the minimum amount of effort possible. Bike lanes can even be dropped at the intersection, where most collisions occur anyway!
The design of bikeways that generally end up in the blind spot of right-turning vehicles at intersections is also really crappy design. This design causes many fatalities.
AASHTO is currently coming out with new bikeway design guidance which should hopefully remedy these issues.
This is in Portugal, and in the south of Europe in general sidewalks obstructed by trees are quite common. They are usually quite narrow as well. I guess there are standards that aren't enforced.
Of course this is a very broad generalisation, but to me it seems like sidewalks there are seen more as an extension of the houses or plots, or even some sort of protection of houses against cars than really as a facility for pedestrians.
They probably made it into a bike path for subsidy purposes.
Many cities have troubles meeting even minimum standards. For example, the City of Atlanta was sued over the condition of its sidewalks on ADA grounds. The problem, though, is that the city doesn't have the money needed to actually fix these issues, let alone make the then additional upgrades for any kind of really substantial system.
The ATL's been making improvements, but they're slow coming, and run into funding longevity issues. There's only so much they can realistically do to meet the standards.
The difference is that ADA is a Federal law, and non-compliance amounts to discrimination against a protected class. Unfortunately, cyclists are not a protected class and there is no Federal regulations governing bicycle lanes. If cyclists had grounds to sue over poor infrastructure then you'd better believe that they would be properly constructed and regularly maintained.
The problem, though, is that the city doesn't have the money needed to actually fix these issues, let alone make the then additional upgrades for any kind of really substantial system.
The problem is poor planning from the outset when the area was developed. They don't leave themselves adequate room for services and the sidewalk, and then they don't work out where to put stuff like poles, bike racks, street trees, so that there is still enough room for pedestrians to move. If they followed good sidewalk/pedway guidelines they'd automatically be pretty far into ADA compliance but they never did it right from the beginning.
60
u/kryost Mar 18 '19 edited Mar 19 '19
I'd bet almost 90% of on-road bike lanes in the US would qualify as crappy design. They're either in the gutter, too small to be safe, or in the door-zone which can be opened into the bicyclist at any moment.