These need a 1m vertical section where the top is rn

Or something

That car got kinda far across

Good for the economy and good for the automotive repair industry.

Viewed as a good thing because nobody has gotten hurt yet.

"we need better visibility of where we will face consequences for our traffic violations and where we can keep doing it"

Mario Kart shortcut users IRL.

Viewed as a good thing because if it wasn't for the physical barriers obviously bikers and pedestrians would have been killed.

!youcantparktheremate@feddit.uk

Lol, that is where we are.

Manc classic from when Youtube was actually a place to share videos
https://youtu.be/i_Cw0QJU8ro

This is something that's likely to hurt a pedestrian though.

The barrier needs to be higher if cars are able to high center themselves on it. All it takes is one person getting crushed by a vehicle that high centers on that thing. Which clearly nobody thought about when they read my comment.

Nice assumption guys. Nobody thought about the physics of what happens when that vehicle ends up falling on someone? Not one person looked at the photo in that article and went "what happens to the people who might be in the bike lane on the other side when a vehicle does this"?

We need better visibility so we don't kill people or put crews who have to deal with the fallout in danger.

A higher barrier painted in reflective paint and generally more visible to drivers would be beneficial both to the pedestrians/cyclists, and other cars on the other side of that barrier (for safety's sake) than what is there now.

Additionally high centered cars have to be removed which puts the crew removing them at risk. It is better to avoid this by making a higher/more visible barrier than it is to leave it like this and hope some idiot in a car doesn't actually crusha cyclist on the other side.

I get what you're saying but my point is that there's a much bigger problem in the core of this: with or without barrier in normal circumstances your vehicle shouldn't be touching anything beyond your lane. The barrier isn't any less visible than the paint on the road, so either this is a problem on every stretch of road everywhere, or this is a problem with drivers (or both). Either way it's unacceptable.

Yes, adding a barrier that causes accidents that wouldn't have happened without it is stupid. But fixing the barrier visibility alone is just going back to ignoring the problem.

Cars actually killing people without a barrier vs cars possibly killing them with. Seems like a good enemy of perfect scenario.

You aren't arguing in good faith here. I'm not arguing against the barrier. I'm saying the barrier should be more robust.

You can feel however you want to feel about this, but I'm betting you saw my original comment and made an assumption about what I meant and now you're doubling down.

This solution doesn't solve the problem and causes a worse problem. But you're worried about ignoring the problem?

No, by definition the solution only causes new problems when it effectively prevented the original problem from happening. I agree that it can be improved to not cause those new problems. What makes me sad is that there's people out there who actually think this is causing a worse problem than the one it fights.

Georgia is one of the most car dependent states in the country.

The main problem is, it's also likely one of the easier states to get a driver's license in (a lot of southern states are like this in my experience and I've held a driver's license in 5 states).

So I agree (to a certain point) with people who think these drivers should learn to drive. But, I also recognize that 1. we are unlikely to fix that problem in a timely manner for a state ranked 5th most car dependent in the states. A lot of people will die or be grievously injured while we get all those drivers who pose a risk to themselves and others properly trained.

1. We can do something to better protect the cyclists using bike lanes. But, making it more hazardous for them in the name of protection ain't it.

This was the first time in our thread you've mentioned that, so yes I'd agree it could always be safer. You didn't say that though, you said:

Viewed as a good thing because nobody has gotten hurt yet.

Which I and it looks like many others thought you meant you didn't want the barrier there at all. Need to be clearer if you have a point to make like that.

To be fair my original comment was just pointing fingers and making a joke at the sad point we're at, but not really trying to think much about what's the best way to actually deal with it in the real world.

If I put some thought into it I would potentially agree with you or come up with a counter argument but we're not really disagreeing that much so I'll just save those neurons for now.

The second comment made it pretty clear that the barrier height was the problem. But you either didn't read that or ignored it in favor of arguing. You didn't ask any questions. You made an assumption and then ignored the further clarification. That's on you.

sigh some people will never own up and admit they made a simple mistake. It was a miscommunication man. Just be clear in the future. We aren't mind readers. If you don't include information we won't know about that information.

That you felt so self righteous and aggrieved about that instead of owning your own poor understanding, you chose to downvote. But I'm the one who can't own up? Sure.

The article got it right:

Painted bike lanes offer absolutely no physical protection for cyclists if a distracted driver drifts over the white line. While a car climbing a concrete divider looks like an infrastructure failure, it is actually the barrier successfully absorbing an impact that otherwise would have struck whoever was riding in the bike lane.

I just hope that anybody found on top of one of those barriers has their license revoked. Give them the option to go to court to try to get it back. Maybe a kid ran into the street and they chose to hit the barrier rather than the kid. But, the presumption should be that if you're up on that barrier you're not a safe driver and shouldn't have a license.

You are wrong. Softening roads, removing roadside obstacles, increasing speeds. Those created problems. When people had concerns about dying because they drove like idiots we created a much more dangerous situation. I'd argue that fucking up your car on a speed bump is better.

Because the concrete barriers sit extremely low to the ground, neighbors argue that aggressively driving or distracted motorists simply cannot see them until it is too late.

Those are not "extremely low". People just aren't watching where they're driving.