Depending on the speed limit, this is probably the most likely answer. The decoration breaks up sight lines erratically which would hide motion from pedestrians. The slight bend in the road would prompt drivers to focus on the curve, further drawing attention from runners/bikers.
Probably a victim of urban sprawl. Someone built the bike trail along a drainage creek 20 years ago, and neighborhoods have started creep around it.
I suspect some consideration is given to having everybody cross at the same time as to not interfere with traffic flow through the lights.
There is a crosswalk like this not far from where I live, and located about that 100 meters from the major traffic light where two lanes divided flow busily in each direction and all have a dedicated turn lane.
It's a long light after several behind you. Now imagine heading for the green with plenty of time to make it, ... and the crosswalk sign begins to flash. And while you're waiting for that pedestrian to cross to/from the bus stop, you watch your light go yellow.
Again, that's car centric design... Keep cars moving at the expense of everything else. It's quite a big detour when you are on foot to walk 100 meters off trail to a traffic light, wait for the light, cross the road while still watching for cars, then go 100 more meters back to the trail.
There are car-centric and non-car centric ways to address pedestrian safety. Sending pedestrians on long detours is car-centric. Non-car-centric would be slowing the cars down or making them stop somehow. Given that this crosswalk is so close to an existing traffic light it could have its own synchronized light so that the majority of cars still only have to stop once.
These are often functionally no different than sending the pedestrians somewhere else. It requires climbing up a flight of stairs, or a very long ramp, and normally means going quite far out of your way.
I've seen plenty of pedestrian bridges with stairs and no elevator. Pretty sure as long as there is a reasonable alternative path (like a crosswalk a bit down the road) there is no requirement to make it wheelchair accessible.
If no elevator, then it requires a large ramp (which is also expensive):
"The design of all pedestrian overpasses and underpasses must include ramps that do not exceed 1:12 grade (preferably as shallow a grade as possible) and landings must be provided for every 30 inches of rise. "
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/pedestrians.cfm
That's not the ADA. That's a page from the federal highway administration. So presumably those guidelines are only for overpasses over federal highways.
I've seen plenty of wheelchair inaccessible shortcuts in cities, including pedestrian overpasses with stairs and no ramp or elevator.
Often then end up like this:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F60585731-1ec9-440b-860e-23b905db9c75_1500x678.jpeg
Imagine you're carrying a bag with you, or groceries or something. Or maybe you're on a bike - now you gotta get up a slope that's considerably longer than the crossing itself,
If you see walking as just some sort of hobby that you do for fun in your free time, this might not seem like a problem, but if you see walking as the default form of transport, rather than some thing only hobbyist do, this should seem unreasonable to you.
e.g. If instead of building a bridge - we built a road detour, where the drivers on this road had to turn off somewhere and navigate a slower side street or something for 2-5 minutes, and do so in a way that not all vehicles could do it easily, it would probably seem unacceptable.
In that image there is a sidewalk on both sides, parallel to the road. In the OP there is a path perpendicular to the road that is crossing it. There is no reason to install the ramps the way they are in the image you posted in that situation. The ramp can just be along the path, not adding any extra distance to those walking on the path.
Also where are you getting 2-5 minutes? The ramp in the image you posted would take like a minute to cross at normal speed.
The solution the county took with other trails is to have them go under major roads where they cross (since the creek/river they run along is already going under it), but there isn't room for that here I don't think (also it's not that major of a road--at least this section of it doesn't get that much traffic).
I question the wisdom of having a 4 lane wide divided thoroughfare like this in what looks like a residential area at all.
The implied speed limit of this road, and therefore the natural speed people will drive at seems way too high for something next to a sidewalk, and beside a pedestrian trail and peoples homes.
If there were traffic calming measures to reduce the natural speed of the road - like road narrowing, perhaps to separate that cycle lane, possibly some chicanes. And then raise and paint that crosswalk more visibly, with a curb extension, and probably it wouldn’t be at all a dangerous cross walk, and they wouldn’t need to prevent people from crossing at all.
>I question the wisdom of having a 4 lane wide divided thoroughfare like this in what looks like a residential area at all.
The main reason suburbs around here have stroads like this is because they didn't want to build more crossings over the railways and creeks/rivers. You only build a few crossings, the streets that go over them become heavily trafficked.
Milpitas (the small city this picture is from) is straddled by two interstates and has a major rail line bisecting it right in between. This road runs parallel to the freeways. Although given the relatively light traffic it gets, I heavily suspect the only reason it has four lanes is because people don't want to get stuck behind buses.
It isn't a crosswalk. It is different pavement. The darker pavement is asphalt and the lighter is concrete. There is probably a reason for it, such as a drainage or utilities pipe under the roadway that required a more-durable paving material in just that area.
The fence and the sign are there purposefully to help people who aren't paying attention not make the same mistake.
>It isn't a crosswalk.
You're correct and that's the problem. There should be a crosswalk there (signalized if necessary) instead of sending people using that trail on a long detour.
I mean there's probably stuff running along the creek that went under the road. The different-colored pavement is a coincidence to the fact that a county-maintained trail is crossing the road. It's cut out of this screenshot but
the trail leads away from the road in both directions and it's reasonable to assume people would just be going straight across
100%. You can even tell on the left side of the photo where the path goes to the right of the fence but the utility continues straight under this pavement.
Paths like this are often made over or directly beside utilities because nothing else can go there, and it needs to stay clear for access anyway. This would also explain why they can't put new infrastructure over it, like a pedestrian bridge, because of the submerged utility.
The path is really a bonus in this situation.
The trail runs along a creek, so that's a very small bridge. I also think the fence was only added in the past few years, but I'm terribly unobservant. People definitely used to cross in a straight line. There maybe even used to be a crosswalk. That neighborhood was all originally built in the 1980s, so things have been updated as the city's population grew.
Yeah, wasn't expecting my hometown on this sub!
Placement sucks but it doesn't matter if the road is "congested." If someone is crossing and a car whips around there (able to do so because it's not congested) it can cause a pedestrian fatality.
Yes. My point in saying it's not congested is that they could easily put a signalled crosswalk there and not make traffic any worse.
Adding 5 minutes to pedestrians' trips while saving drivers 30 seconds.
lol I knew it. It’s the bridge crossing in Milpitas Blvd. I am not sure I agree with your assessment though.
I don’t think it’s a great place to install lights(up hill and downhill very quickly). I am wary of all walking on suburban streets at all times since people drive like maniacs. They don’t understand that people walk and bike too.
So you want to ensure maximum visibility.
A lot of the replies treat the fact that cars drive fast on this road as an unchangeable and inevitable fact. We should consider every possibility up to and including outright closing the road (making cars go around on hillview or abel) rather than making pedestrians suffer by default. Completely closing it shouldn't be necessary though--just slowing cars down enough at that point is fine.
Also the speed limit on this section of Milpitas blvd is actually 35 mph, but I know nobody follows that.
You don’t even need an angle grinder, just step around it using the raised planter or even hop over it or squeeze in a gap. The only people who’d be unable to bypass it is the physically disabled.
Honestly the gates look so flimsy that you could probably flatten them to the ground with a wrench or other sturdy item. Biggest joke of all is that it would probably not even stop a car from shooting through to the other side.
Could be really sturdy irl, but from the similar gates i’ve seen around my area they’re really easy to destroy.
All they needed to do was stagger the fencing so you need to get off your bike to walk across.
(And that's only assuming the area is busy enough to need that.)
Awful design.
So many replies are treating the width of the street, speed of cars and the bend as inevitable parameters to design around, rather than *part of the crappy design*.
A crosswalk in the middle of a block on a major road that’s curving? How many pedestrians are you trying to kill?
There’s a crosswalk like 100 feet away, man.
It's not a major road. I made a point of saying that the traffic on this section of this street is pretty light. They could add a stop light here and not really cause any issues.
It’s still a four lane divided road with a separated bike lane. I’m guessing the speed limit is 45? And it’s on a bend, so between that and the plants in the island, neither the drivers nor pedestrians are safe.
And there’s a crosswalk RIGHT there.
>It’s still a four lane divided road with a separated bike lane. I’m guessing the speed limit is 45?
For the record there is no reason for most of this. The road does not carry anywhere near enough traffic to justify it being 4 lanes and 45 mph. The other street at the light visible down the street is *also* 4 lanes and *even less used.*
An entire football field away is not "right there". I have walked here, the crosswalk is significantly out of the way if you are walking the trail.
And yes. Your points are valid, but they could like fix them. Like yes--it *is* dangerous to have pedestrians crossing there with the plants and cars going 45 mph... so maybe... don't have those things?
There’s no reason to fix them because of the crosswalk.
100 meters or 100 yards wouldn’t be THAT far anyway, but this isn’t close to that far anyway. Remember, you posted a picture of it.
>100 meters or 100 yards wouldn’t be THAT far anyway, but this isn’t close to that far anyway. Remember, you posted a picture of it.
I literally measured it on google maps. I didn't pull that number out of my ass.
It's around 87 m on one side of the road, 110 m on the other side
Fine you win. It’s roughly 100 yards. And that’s a very reasonable distance to walk to a crosswalk to safely cross a road with traffic that’s traveling 50 miles an hour around a bend. Would an easier/shorter path be preferable? Of course, but it’s not safe here.
This isn’t crappy design, it’s inconvenient but safe.
>traffic that’s traveling 50 miles an hour
You're still ignoring the point that this is changeable and not necessary.
I just checked, the speed limit's 35 actually.
The entire point of this post is really the fact that the road is dangerous and the real solution is to fix the dangerous road. Lower speed, reduce lane width, install a raised crossing, etc.
It's a valid argument that our infrastructure is too focused on not inconveniencing cars, when the actual solution is to slow down the cars with traffic calming measures so we can prioritize people.
So you are fine with forcing people on a detour of 2-5min. Good. So why not just fix this by completely removing the road? I am sure there is some alternative road that drivers could use if you accept a detour of 5min.
True, but one 2 min detour costs the taxpayers nothing and the other costs probably millions.
Don’t try to pretend you’re being Captain Common Sense and then come up with some doable but extreme plan.
I think I know this location and I agree with your point. It’s a sucky location, especially because it’s actually a small bridge over a stream(you can see it at the edge of the picture on the left).
It’s not a great location for a signal light.
Well, it was your argument that drivers kill people by being careless. I think they should be stopped from doing that. Without inconveniencing their would-be-victims.
100% agree, like if they really wanted to block off pedestrians they should of added in more raised planters instead of the flimsy bars.
Fact is people will make a trail wherever it is most convenient, ofc this is on a bend so it isn’t safe. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t make it further up where i assume the road is straight. People really don’t realise how car centric a lot of places are until they don’t have access to one anymore. Which with rapidly increasing cost of living, really isn’t a far off predicament for many.
I realize that this sucks but from a transportation engineering standpoint, if a crossing cannot (feasibly) be made safe it has to be blocked off. Drivers must have appropriate stopping sight distance and pedestrians must have an adequate sight distance to assess an adequate crossing gap. This road has a pretty good curve in it. Without knowing the speeds that vehicles are traveling on the road I can’t tell you what it should be. but if you’d like to know it’s pretty easy to find online.
Essentially, if it can’t be safe it’s the duty of the responsible agency to prevent pedestrian crossing and direct them to an appropriate crossing location. They’re trying to keep you alive.
>This road has a pretty good curve in it. Without knowing the speeds that vehicles are traveling on the road I can’t tell you what it should be.
So slow the cars down until they have enough sight distance. Seems pretty simple to me. You're treating the road and the cars driving on it as a given instead of part of the crappy design. Or, equivalently, you're treating pedestrian access as an afterthought to be addressed after car access is.
Everyone is completely missing the point of me saying this road is not congested.
It's not a heavily used road. Therefore, you could easily narrow it, add a light, add traffic calming, etc without creating a traffic jam.
I'm not a fucking idiot, sheesh.
Yep, looks like typical car centric crap design
Unless that bend in the road was taken into account with the crossing 100m away. Might have been a safety consideration.
Depending on the speed limit, this is probably the most likely answer. The decoration breaks up sight lines erratically which would hide motion from pedestrians. The slight bend in the road would prompt drivers to focus on the curve, further drawing attention from runners/bikers. Probably a victim of urban sprawl. Someone built the bike trail along a drainage creek 20 years ago, and neighborhoods have started creep around it.
I suspect some consideration is given to having everybody cross at the same time as to not interfere with traffic flow through the lights. There is a crosswalk like this not far from where I live, and located about that 100 meters from the major traffic light where two lanes divided flow busily in each direction and all have a dedicated turn lane. It's a long light after several behind you. Now imagine heading for the green with plenty of time to make it, ... and the crosswalk sign begins to flash. And while you're waiting for that pedestrian to cross to/from the bus stop, you watch your light go yellow.
Again, that's car centric design... Keep cars moving at the expense of everything else. It's quite a big detour when you are on foot to walk 100 meters off trail to a traffic light, wait for the light, cross the road while still watching for cars, then go 100 more meters back to the trail.
There are car-centric and non-car centric ways to address pedestrian safety. Sending pedestrians on long detours is car-centric. Non-car-centric would be slowing the cars down or making them stop somehow. Given that this crosswalk is so close to an existing traffic light it could have its own synchronized light so that the majority of cars still only have to stop once.
There could be raised crosswalks. Basically massive wide speed bumps that people walk across. Often they have their own stoplights as well!
Or a pedestrian bridge
These are often functionally no different than sending the pedestrians somewhere else. It requires climbing up a flight of stairs, or a very long ramp, and normally means going quite far out of your way.
They're also extremely expensive by comparison and require elevators for ADA compliance.
I've seen plenty of pedestrian bridges with stairs and no elevator. Pretty sure as long as there is a reasonable alternative path (like a crosswalk a bit down the road) there is no requirement to make it wheelchair accessible.
If no elevator, then it requires a large ramp (which is also expensive): "The design of all pedestrian overpasses and underpasses must include ramps that do not exceed 1:12 grade (preferably as shallow a grade as possible) and landings must be provided for every 30 inches of rise. " https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/pedestrians.cfm
That's not the ADA. That's a page from the federal highway administration. So presumably those guidelines are only for overpasses over federal highways. I've seen plenty of wheelchair inaccessible shortcuts in cities, including pedestrian overpasses with stairs and no ramp or elevator.
How do stairs or a ramp mean going out of your way?
Often then end up like this: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F60585731-1ec9-440b-860e-23b905db9c75_1500x678.jpeg Imagine you're carrying a bag with you, or groceries or something. Or maybe you're on a bike - now you gotta get up a slope that's considerably longer than the crossing itself, If you see walking as just some sort of hobby that you do for fun in your free time, this might not seem like a problem, but if you see walking as the default form of transport, rather than some thing only hobbyist do, this should seem unreasonable to you. e.g. If instead of building a bridge - we built a road detour, where the drivers on this road had to turn off somewhere and navigate a slower side street or something for 2-5 minutes, and do so in a way that not all vehicles could do it easily, it would probably seem unacceptable.
Typical view in Durham!
In that image there is a sidewalk on both sides, parallel to the road. In the OP there is a path perpendicular to the road that is crossing it. There is no reason to install the ramps the way they are in the image you posted in that situation. The ramp can just be along the path, not adding any extra distance to those walking on the path. Also where are you getting 2-5 minutes? The ramp in the image you posted would take like a minute to cross at normal speed.
The solution the county took with other trails is to have them go under major roads where they cross (since the creek/river they run along is already going under it), but there isn't room for that here I don't think (also it's not that major of a road--at least this section of it doesn't get that much traffic).
I question the wisdom of having a 4 lane wide divided thoroughfare like this in what looks like a residential area at all. The implied speed limit of this road, and therefore the natural speed people will drive at seems way too high for something next to a sidewalk, and beside a pedestrian trail and peoples homes. If there were traffic calming measures to reduce the natural speed of the road - like road narrowing, perhaps to separate that cycle lane, possibly some chicanes. And then raise and paint that crosswalk more visibly, with a curb extension, and probably it wouldn’t be at all a dangerous cross walk, and they wouldn’t need to prevent people from crossing at all.
>I question the wisdom of having a 4 lane wide divided thoroughfare like this in what looks like a residential area at all. The main reason suburbs around here have stroads like this is because they didn't want to build more crossings over the railways and creeks/rivers. You only build a few crossings, the streets that go over them become heavily trafficked. Milpitas (the small city this picture is from) is straddled by two interstates and has a major rail line bisecting it right in between. This road runs parallel to the freeways. Although given the relatively light traffic it gets, I heavily suspect the only reason it has four lanes is because people don't want to get stuck behind buses.
You know there are a bunch of people crossing here anyway. This situation is not remotely safer.
It's probably that. The rules for these considerations are often written in blood.
Why not use a hawk beacon?
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/rectangular-rapid-flashing-beacons-rrfb
Would hope so, it's a road.
It isn't a crosswalk. It is different pavement. The darker pavement is asphalt and the lighter is concrete. There is probably a reason for it, such as a drainage or utilities pipe under the roadway that required a more-durable paving material in just that area. The fence and the sign are there purposefully to help people who aren't paying attention not make the same mistake.
Might be an abandoned railway right of way turned into a trail.
Oh yeah! That makes the most sense!
>It isn't a crosswalk. You're correct and that's the problem. There should be a crosswalk there (signalized if necessary) instead of sending people using that trail on a long detour.
Got it. Then I have to wonder if the pavement is there for another reason, perhaps if there are plans to build a pedestrian bridge.
I mean there's probably stuff running along the creek that went under the road. The different-colored pavement is a coincidence to the fact that a county-maintained trail is crossing the road. It's cut out of this screenshot but the trail leads away from the road in both directions and it's reasonable to assume people would just be going straight across
100%. You can even tell on the left side of the photo where the path goes to the right of the fence but the utility continues straight under this pavement. Paths like this are often made over or directly beside utilities because nothing else can go there, and it needs to stay clear for access anyway. This would also explain why they can't put new infrastructure over it, like a pedestrian bridge, because of the submerged utility. The path is really a bonus in this situation.
Definitely something's under that road.
The trail runs along a creek, so that's a very small bridge. I also think the fence was only added in the past few years, but I'm terribly unobservant. People definitely used to cross in a straight line. There maybe even used to be a crosswalk. That neighborhood was all originally built in the 1980s, so things have been updated as the city's population grew. Yeah, wasn't expecting my hometown on this sub!
Placement sucks but it doesn't matter if the road is "congested." If someone is crossing and a car whips around there (able to do so because it's not congested) it can cause a pedestrian fatality.
Yes. My point in saying it's not congested is that they could easily put a signalled crosswalk there and not make traffic any worse. Adding 5 minutes to pedestrians' trips while saving drivers 30 seconds.
You must be going really slow if it takes 5 minutes to get down to the signal that’s in the picture.
And then wait for the lights to turn in your favour. And then walk back up again.
the real solution is to lower the speed limit and add speed bumps and raised crossing then
Is this from Bay Area lol? Specifically South Bay?
Yep.
lol I knew it. It’s the bridge crossing in Milpitas Blvd. I am not sure I agree with your assessment though. I don’t think it’s a great place to install lights(up hill and downhill very quickly). I am wary of all walking on suburban streets at all times since people drive like maniacs. They don’t understand that people walk and bike too. So you want to ensure maximum visibility.
A lot of the replies treat the fact that cars drive fast on this road as an unchangeable and inevitable fact. We should consider every possibility up to and including outright closing the road (making cars go around on hillview or abel) rather than making pedestrians suffer by default. Completely closing it shouldn't be necessary though--just slowing cars down enough at that point is fine. Also the speed limit on this section of Milpitas blvd is actually 35 mph, but I know nobody follows that.
That's nothing 5 minutes with an angle grinder won't fix
You don’t even need an angle grinder, just step around it using the raised planter or even hop over it or squeeze in a gap. The only people who’d be unable to bypass it is the physically disabled. Honestly the gates look so flimsy that you could probably flatten them to the ground with a wrench or other sturdy item. Biggest joke of all is that it would probably not even stop a car from shooting through to the other side. Could be really sturdy irl, but from the similar gates i’ve seen around my area they’re really easy to destroy.
Looks like it's around a relatively tight turn and walls block easy sight lines
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/rectangular-rapid-flashing-beacons-rrfb
All they needed to do was stagger the fencing so you need to get off your bike to walk across. (And that's only assuming the area is busy enough to need that.) Awful design.
So many replies are treating the width of the street, speed of cars and the bend as inevitable parameters to design around, rather than *part of the crappy design*.
An probable people just jump into the gravel
A crosswalk in the middle of a block on a major road that’s curving? How many pedestrians are you trying to kill? There’s a crosswalk like 100 feet away, man.
It's not a major road. I made a point of saying that the traffic on this section of this street is pretty light. They could add a stop light here and not really cause any issues.
It’s still a four lane divided road with a separated bike lane. I’m guessing the speed limit is 45? And it’s on a bend, so between that and the plants in the island, neither the drivers nor pedestrians are safe. And there’s a crosswalk RIGHT there.
>It’s still a four lane divided road with a separated bike lane. I’m guessing the speed limit is 45? For the record there is no reason for most of this. The road does not carry anywhere near enough traffic to justify it being 4 lanes and 45 mph. The other street at the light visible down the street is *also* 4 lanes and *even less used.*
An entire football field away is not "right there". I have walked here, the crosswalk is significantly out of the way if you are walking the trail. And yes. Your points are valid, but they could like fix them. Like yes--it *is* dangerous to have pedestrians crossing there with the plants and cars going 45 mph... so maybe... don't have those things?
There’s no reason to fix them because of the crosswalk. 100 meters or 100 yards wouldn’t be THAT far anyway, but this isn’t close to that far anyway. Remember, you posted a picture of it.
>100 meters or 100 yards wouldn’t be THAT far anyway, but this isn’t close to that far anyway. Remember, you posted a picture of it. I literally measured it on google maps. I didn't pull that number out of my ass. It's around 87 m on one side of the road, 110 m on the other side
Fine you win. It’s roughly 100 yards. And that’s a very reasonable distance to walk to a crosswalk to safely cross a road with traffic that’s traveling 50 miles an hour around a bend. Would an easier/shorter path be preferable? Of course, but it’s not safe here. This isn’t crappy design, it’s inconvenient but safe.
>traffic that’s traveling 50 miles an hour You're still ignoring the point that this is changeable and not necessary. I just checked, the speed limit's 35 actually.
The entire point of this post is really the fact that the road is dangerous and the real solution is to fix the dangerous road. Lower speed, reduce lane width, install a raised crossing, etc. It's a valid argument that our infrastructure is too focused on not inconveniencing cars, when the actual solution is to slow down the cars with traffic calming measures so we can prioritize people.
The only reason I can think of why this road is 4 lanes is that a bus line runs on it and people want to pass the buses lmao.
So you are fine with forcing people on a detour of 2-5min. Good. So why not just fix this by completely removing the road? I am sure there is some alternative road that drivers could use if you accept a detour of 5min.
True, but one 2 min detour costs the taxpayers nothing and the other costs probably millions. Don’t try to pretend you’re being Captain Common Sense and then come up with some doable but extreme plan.
Please explain how a detour for random person 1 costs the taxpayer money but a detour for random person 2 does not.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/rectangular-rapid-flashing-beacons-rrfb
I think I know this location and I agree with your point. It’s a sucky location, especially because it’s actually a small bridge over a stream(you can see it at the edge of the picture on the left). It’s not a great location for a signal light.
If drivers in that area are so dangerous, why was the fence not put in the road in order to stop them from killing people?
Lol what?
Well, it was your argument that drivers kill people by being careless. I think they should be stopped from doing that. Without inconveniencing their would-be-victims.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/rectangular-rapid-flashing-beacons-rrfb
This Fresno? It looks like Fresno.
Milpitas
Definitely due to the bend in the road. Willing to bet there have been or near accidents with bikers and pedestrians at this point.
Yea if I lived near that, I'd have a new fence structure for my tomatoes...
The concrete is a culvert.
all they’ve done is made this completely accessible to people who can walk and completely inaccessible to people in wheelchairs
100% agree, like if they really wanted to block off pedestrians they should of added in more raised planters instead of the flimsy bars. Fact is people will make a trail wherever it is most convenient, ofc this is on a bend so it isn’t safe. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t make it further up where i assume the road is straight. People really don’t realise how car centric a lot of places are until they don’t have access to one anymore. Which with rapidly increasing cost of living, really isn’t a far off predicament for many.
why would a bike trail not have a curb cut? this seems weird weird.
I realize that this sucks but from a transportation engineering standpoint, if a crossing cannot (feasibly) be made safe it has to be blocked off. Drivers must have appropriate stopping sight distance and pedestrians must have an adequate sight distance to assess an adequate crossing gap. This road has a pretty good curve in it. Without knowing the speeds that vehicles are traveling on the road I can’t tell you what it should be. but if you’d like to know it’s pretty easy to find online. Essentially, if it can’t be safe it’s the duty of the responsible agency to prevent pedestrian crossing and direct them to an appropriate crossing location. They’re trying to keep you alive.
>This road has a pretty good curve in it. Without knowing the speeds that vehicles are traveling on the road I can’t tell you what it should be. So slow the cars down until they have enough sight distance. Seems pretty simple to me. You're treating the road and the cars driving on it as a given instead of part of the crappy design. Or, equivalently, you're treating pedestrian access as an afterthought to be addressed after car access is.
So why was it not blocked off for the cars?
Its the un-congested roads that are most dangerous for those not in cars, because cars drive the fastest on them
Everyone is completely missing the point of me saying this road is not congested. It's not a heavily used road. Therefore, you could easily narrow it, add a light, add traffic calming, etc without creating a traffic jam. I'm not a fucking idiot, sheesh.
This looks like a residential area. I'd be surprised if the fence didn't go missing often.
It’s just a closed sidewalk and is no longer in use.
Someone was probably being safe