Hydrant access is rarely affected any more than it is with parallel parking. If anything, access is greatly improved: A protected bike lane improves visibility of the hydrant for first responders versus a line of parked automobiles (with the inevitable one car illegally parked in front of the hydrant, no less). This benefit also extends to EMS operations, as an extra curb and a clear lane are much easier to navigate a gurney over than through a line of bumper-to-bumper parking. Solid Jersey barriers are the only implementation where the configuration requires particular consideration of hydrant access given their height and lack of access. They usually don't pose EMS access issues as Jersey barriers aren't usually used where street-side business or residential access is also required (if anything, they'll reduce the need for EMS over the same area with an unprotected bike lane, where a preventable bike-vs-car crash will inevitably happen) Otherwise, the majority of protected lane dividers maintain clear human mobility across their curbs, flexposts, or planters - including the necessary room to run fire hoses unobstructed or rush EMS across. Additionally, designs with lower barriers are often designed to allow emergency vehicles to drive over for access _if_ needed, though this is not always ideal if the average SUV or delivery driver can follow suit. For the most part, if it has been considered not an obstruction to have a line of parallel parked vehicles in a given location, the access will only be improved if that same area is repurposed as a protected bike lane (usually as a bi-directional lane to maintain parking access on the opposite side of the street, if parking access remains a necessity for the area in question).

My city does the same thing . They do a half-assed job because some city officials want the bike lanes to fail. If they were connected then more cyclists would use them .

Reach out to the Safe Routes to School folks in Columbus. That might be a good way to start a discussion about protected bike lanes.

@@Kidzneurosciencecenter Thanks so much I'll do that.

Because car drivers pay additional taxes through their gas, registration, toll fees etc.

@@dickiewongtk False argument -- a) the huge majority of bike riders in so-called developed countries also own some form of motorized vehicle and do pay those fees anyhow, and b) in most such countries i've heard of, there is no such thing as a "road tax" paid solely by car etc. owners, but infrastructure is funded for through general city or state taxes, paid by everyone, regardless of their preferred mode of transportation.

The Portland example at Stark Street is one of the earliest examples of a center-running left turn lane, and it exists in a neighborhood with pre-existing traffic calming. The lack of protection on that design is the reason that we immediately followed it with the _protected_ example from Santa Monica. Keep in mind that the video also established that we're discussing both the "pluses and minuses" of all designs. Since we already established that a lack of protection isn't safe (e.g., sharrows, unprotected green bike lanes, advisory lanes), we expect the contrast between the Portland center-running lane and the much safer Santa Monica lane to be clear for those who have remained this far throughout the video. If someone has a visceral reaction to the lack of protection, all the better - it drives home why protection is an irrevocable requirement for safe, inclusive bike networks.

@@MatthewStinar these tips where proven to be wrong. That is why the Netherlands changed everything and added a good infrastructure.

@@emiel1976ep yeah... Let's get on that infrastructure stuff. Until it's in place though these are the best tips for safe cycling on the road

@@applewater5436 no they aren't. These tips increase accidents. These bad tips that where made up many years ago and tested. They failed and therefor abandoned even before there was a cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands! Now the USA thinks that that tgey are great and uses them. Not because they looked ad it, but because they never check if something works. As there is a traffic jam, they just ad an other car lane. That doesn't solve the problem and in most cases makes it worse, but that is how they think it works. This is mainly thanks to how the USA and works. Say to the people that there comes an extra lane and the people are happy. Say that they loose a lane and they cry that they can't get anywhere with their car. Hive them failed tips and they are believing it and happy! There is a reason why officially, the USA is on a list of countries where the driving license isn't approved to ride in most European countries. The only reason that they are allowed, is for economic reasons and noting else. From infrastructure till driving education, it is one of the worst in the world. The country is made for cars and even that isn't done right. Now they come with old failed bicycle tips that are proven to be wrong.

@@emiel1976ep I mean I don't disagree with you on the infrastructure point. That being said as somebody who cycles in the US with very little bike infrastructure I know taking the lane has definitely improved my safety in a hostile environment. Until America pulls its collective head out of its butt, and implements some practical bike infrastructure. these are the best practices to stay safe where there is not bike infrastructure

@@applewater5436 If we keep accepting best practices for inherently dangerous streets, we'll never get safe infrastructure in the first place. Case in point: This video needs an updated version to emphasize the inherent risks and inequities of vehicular cycling, but support for redoing this existing video has been limited. As with real infrastructure, rather than making an effort to fix the current issues (*cough* building protected bike lanes *cough*), leaving the status quo in place becomes "good enough" and languishes for many more years than it should. Thankfully, the following sequel was green-lit not long ago: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHTIhJiLd9KLrac -KK

@@Allan_son True, I was thinking more of the light systems they use in Holland that help keep things moving and safe. Here is a good vid about snow cycling. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5nbXmVsfMt2eLc

Just use your country's designs and all of our issues would be solved!

Even in a city with little to no bicyclists you still have to watch out for motorcyclists when opening the car's doors, it's common sense, people don't learn until someone crashes on their door.

Of course, density, general walkability, alternative infrastructure and transportation development would encourage growth for biking. Painting lanes or installing bike roads alone definitely won't fix the issue over night, other city planning and housing design and layouts should also be considered and made. Assuming the people in those places want that.

Did you miss the end of the video? He said USA was catching up! So if your patient, in 50-100yrs we will have some safe riding zones.

@@telocity Great, something to look forward to when I reach 120.

Technically took those European countries like 20-30 years to change from car oriented to the current state. Some began redevelopment recent as the 90s and mid-2000's and already gained a positive reputation after a decade or two of development. But yeah it's time consuming. Until then, it's something you want to continue to push for them to change, move else where, or stick with what it is if that's what you want.

while your arguements have merit, and are accurate, the reason why this video here exists is to inform people about the purpose of the bike infrastructure designs in terms of cycling, infrastructure is the most important part, not people trying to ram into cyclists also, this video is very transparent of the flaws in these designs those turn bays, while you may call stupid, but the netherlands with the best bike infrastructure in the world uses designs similar to it in bicycle crossing. may i ask why you think these designs are stupid? becuase if a stupid design to you is safe, protected, high visibility, and wide bike lanes accesible for children and the elderly, i would like you present your design for what you call the best bike infrastructure

Your main issues seem to stem from a worry regarding the future-proofing of these types of transportation insfraestructure upon their growth, coupled with how recent these changes are, and their (relative) understudying in the US, which causes wrong-in-hindsight decisions like the lanes in the middle of streets, roads, and stroads. These are extremely valid concerns, that "luckily" are actively being worked on: Your fear of induced demand is more prevalent with cars as they have the lowest throughput capacity (at best having a quarter of equivalent-sized bike/bus paths), so "Road Diets", partially done via putting bike paths, are one of the best current solutions and enablers for increasing and sustaining population density with low noise and air pollutions. Meanwhile, as more modern projects are completed, data is collected on which tipe of transportation suits each case best, hopefully reducing blunders like the one you mentioned. Your other issues are regarding education and traffic rules which... I don't really get what you mean by _forgetting_ them? Schools _should_ teach the bare basics of transportation instead of leaving that duty to parents, but that's a whole 'nother bucket of problems, and this very video is an amazing example of educative media so it's weird to complain about it here. And on the point about lawmaking, many political groups are actively trying to change the laws there are on transportation and city developing that force car ridership and caused many of the sprawling and transportation issues in the first place.

That's exactly the point: All the overcomplicated turn box designs are clearly flawed, while the protected intersection and Dutch Roundabout that follow are such obviously safe - and elegantly simple - solutions that it seems ridiculous not to use them instead.

@@Kidzneurosciencecenter Good to see a positive change in America for bike infrastructure. Such a difference since I’ve been over there. Only one remark, the singular bike box at 4:43 gives me a very unheimisch feeling, not safe at all. I wouldn’t use that one, too dangerous, even in Dutch traffic, let alone US traffic with much bigger cars and trucks. No one will see you waiting in that box, you’re a sitting duck in there.

@@RealConstructor Agreed. Most bike box locations could just as well be served by a proper protected intersection (or even protection on a single corner to save space).

Perish the thought.

by having bike lanes ?

Lets first protect them from drivers, those are the ones killing thousands of them a year. Cyclists...not so much killing weirdly.

Explained at 2:18. Build protected bike lanes, and riders looking for a place away from drivers will no longer be on the sidewalk. _It's that simple._ If you have three modes of transportation that have distinctly different speeds, you need three distinct spaces for everyone to move at their given speeds.

Create proper bike lanes = less cyclists feeling the need to ride on the sidewalk

Low IQ comment

Right turns on red must go, and intersections need proper setbacks and tight corners - not the 60 degree behemoths literally designed to allow tractor trailers into city centers.

Practically speaking, the dashed, on-street bicycle lanes in The Netherlands and the US advisory lanes function in the same exact manner, even though the painted versions may not be specifically referred to as an "advisory lane" in the NL. However, in that video, Mark does point out (at 2:25) that an unmarked dashed lane, or "suggestion lane," may be translated as "advisory lane" - even though they technically are traffic calming devices and not actual bicycle lanes. So, in a matter of speaking, there _are_ Dutch on-street advisory "lanes," but they're considered traffic calming devices rather than bicycle facilities. We'll keep in mind that the painted version should not be referred to as an advisory lane as they are here in the US for all future communications.

That's wonderful news! Can we mention this in an upcoming article? We've heard Washington State DOT uses it as well, and would like to share this in that article.

Oh god, you are actually promoting those turn boxes? What a horrible design that is.

@@hendman4083 We're not promoting them, but we're acknowledging their existence (the feeling is mutual though). Note that the video lists all the potential conflicts of the turn box designs, and makes it clear that the protected intersection is a far simpler and safer design - and is still eclipsed by the superb Dutch protected intersection.

So very true. The US has had 30+ years to implement this. The "new" is all relative!

The metric conversion is now present in the closed captioning. Thank you so much for the recommendation!

Everyone can learn from Mark Wagenbuur's fantastic videos. Historical, current, future - it's all there. We also love @NotJustBikes, who helps break down the cultural divide that has been preventing this infrastructure in North American engineering and planning.

From the same channel (bicycledutch) 11 years ago on how protected intersections work: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJ2koZWugd9ppqM

Agreed; the FHWA needs to codify proper signaling for micromobility and ensure this also benefits pedestrians as well. Unfortunately, the US does a pretty poor job of traffic timing in the first place for everyone - drivers included - even with sensors. Not Just Bikes' video about the fantastic Dutch sensor system is a perfect example of what we're missing out on: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZ_Fh4qOr7FnY5Y. All things considered though, the US can make VERY quick improvements from a safety standpoint - for both bicycle riders and pedestrians - by eradicating right turns on red, and timing parallel traffic with each other at all times - auto/bike/ped. It doesn't solve the convenience issues of such designs, but for that, we need Dutch-style roundabouts (preferably minus the multi-lane monsters too). While protected intersections are our pick of the lot as far as _current_ US implementations go (preferences may differ depending on the evolution of US design in 20 years time), we agree that none of the North American models have quite nailed the perfection of the Dutch Roundabout, nor the width necessary to ensure comfortable navigation, especially with cargo bikes. -KK

Absolutely. Wider protected bike lanes and smooth approaches for protected intersections are absolutely necessary (and potential topics for a sequel to this video).

Yes! We need a minimum width in cities. Some of those bike lanes are so thin that it doesn't make much sense to use them