Protected intersection: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:11, 13 May 2025

Revision as of 00:32, 26 May 2025

Line 10:

[[File:13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-25.jpg|thumb|A protected intersection in [[Rotterdam]] in the [[Netherlands]]. A safe way to cross the road on a [[bicycle]].]]

This type of [[intersection (road)|intersection]] has for decades been used in the bicycle-friendly [[Netherlands]], and [[Denmark]]. An alternative philosophy, design for [[vehicular cycling]], encourages having bicycle lanes simply disappear, or "drop", at intersections, forcing riders to merge into traffic like a vehicle operator ahead of the intersection in order to avoid the risk of a ''right-hook'' collision, when a right turning motorist collides with a through moving cyclist. Design policies which do not allow the cyclist to remain separated through the intersection have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years as causing difficulties for less capable riders,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dill|first1=Jennifer|last2=McNeil|first2=Nathan|date=2016-01-01|title=Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2587-11|journal=Transportation Research Record|volume=2587|pages=90–99|language=en|doi=10.3141/2587-11|s2cid=114945037|url-access=subscription}}</ref> leading to lower overall ridership and sidewalk riding,<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Prospect Park West Traffic Calming and Bicycle Path Page 12|url=https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012_ppw_trb2012.pdf|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Designing for All Ages and Abilities. Page 2|url=https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=NACTO}}</ref> and being less safe.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Buehler|first1=Ralph|last2=Pucher|first2=John|date=2021-01-02|title=The growing gap in pedestrian and cyclist fatality rates between the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, 1990–2018|journal=Transport Reviews|volume=41|issue=1|pages=48–72|doi=10.1080/01441647.2020.1823521|s2cid=225108005|issn=0144-1647|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==History==

Line 33:

[[File:13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-27.jpg|thumb|The protection of the vulnerable cyclists with a protected junction with bicycle traffic lights.]]

In terms of optimal spacing between the path and motorist lanes, it is generally practice to use 2–5 meters at signalised crossings and one car length >5 m at unsignalised intersections. Providing more buffer space allows vehicles, particularly those turning out of smaller roads, to queue in the waiting area. On the other hand, larger buffers could place the cyclist at a less optimal viewing point from the mainline, and delay the signal operation due to longer distances necessitating slightly longer bicycle signal yellow and all red clearance intervals. The exact optimal distance has been the subject of several studies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schepers|first=Paul|date=2011|title=Road factors and bicycle–motor vehicle crashes at unsignalised priority intersections|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005|journal=Accident Analysis and Prevention|volume=43|issue=3|pages=853–861|doi=10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005|pmid=21376876|via=|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Richter|first1=Thomas|last2=Sachs|first2=Janina|date=2017-01-01|title=Turning accidents between cars and trucks and cyclists driving straight ahead|journal=Transportation Research Procedia|series=World Conference on Transport Research – WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10–15 July 2016|language=en|volume=25|pages=1946–1954|doi=10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.219|issn=2352-1465|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Signalised junctions===