The fault is to some degree the design of the road.
It's fine to have highways that convey people in cars quickly from one place to another at high speed. But these should have few exits, and pedestrians and cyclists should not be anywhere near them.
Streets in cities should be slow and safe for all road users.
Here's an article about a known deadly street. There's been a push to redesign it to be safer, but some people place a higher value on the convenience of carrying more car traffic.
> The fault is to some degree the design of the road.
What specifically about the design of the road? You allude to the fact that it allows for traffic to move at high speeds in close proximity to cyclists and pedestrians and this is one of the factors behind why the crash happened. But this particular crash didn't involve a motorist running off the roadway and crashing into the cyclist. The article states that the cyclist was in the left lane on the far side of the road just before the crash.
This indicates that the motorist never left the roadway and that the cyclist was on the roadway. Given the fact that there's no mention in the article about the motorist failing to comply with a traffic signal, it also indicates that either the cyclist was crossing mid-block outside of the crosswalk, or was crossing in a crosswalk without waiting for the walk signal.
Going back to the road design, the point that it allows motorists to drive at higher speeds is one factor. But what other factors would lead to someone attempting to cross against a light or outside a crosswalk? From a pedestrian point of view, having to walk relatively far to even get to a crosswalk is one thing to consider. Another thing to consider is how long they have to wait for a walk signal. These factors lead to pedestrians crossing without a walk signal or mid-block.
For a cyclist, the amount of time to get to an intersection isn't as much of a factor because you can move far faster than walking pace when riding a bike. So that leaves the amount of time it would take to wait for the walk signal as a factor that would encourage non-compliance.
Besides slowing traffic down, what else can be done to improve safety for cyclists? Could we promote cyclist education where they learn how to navigate intersections in a vehicular manner? Could we improve traffic lights so that they they can detect cyclists and chagne in a reasonable period of time to discourage non-compliance before crossing an intersection?
For pedestrians, could we provide more frequent crossing points? Could we improve pedestrian signal timings so that they don't have to wait so long for a walk signal?
Not trying to sell it; borrow it from your local library like I did if you're interested. It has a lot of good discussion of these issues.
A good 'road' is something like an interstate. There are 'safe' for pedestrians because there are no pedestrians near them.
Good streets are often like old-school downtowns and nearby neighborhoods where traffic is slow.
Trying to create a hybrid 'stroad' where traffic is both fast and also there are pedestrians and cyclists is a recipe for doing neither well, and people die as a consequence.
Thanks for the recommendation. Could you elaborate on some of the issues this book goes over that factor into this particular crash besides the speed of motorists and the proximity of cyclists and pedestrians?
It's fine to have highways that convey people in cars quickly from one place to another at high speed. But these should have few exits, and pedestrians and cyclists should not be anywhere near them.
Streets in cities should be slow and safe for all road users.
Here's an article about a known deadly street. There's been a push to redesign it to be safer, but some people place a higher value on the convenience of carrying more car traffic.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/9/23/springfield-de...