You can easily tell it’s not American because it’s even there in the first place. You don’t get a sign explaining the bike paths and crosswalks in America. You just gotta know or get fucked. Also we wouldn’t have a complicated bike route we just wouldn’t have one, solves that issue…
See, I watch Adam Something videos from the point of view that he's not really talking about America. He's talking about European politicians looking at terrible ideas from America and trying to replicate them.
This is a pretty good example. America wouldn't do this, exactly, but it's a step towards our terrible bike infrastructure. The other poster had the right of it: in America, the sign wouldn't be there at all, but the intersection would still be badly designed.
Sign or not this is pretty much how cyclists are supposed to cross most big intersections and the inconvenience of it is the reason so many of them break the rules.
If you make rules that are too complicated, counterintuitive or inconvenient people will break them.
It's presented the way it is, it's just shit infrastructure.
Someone designed this intersection and got asked where the bike paths were and they went "oh, the bikepaths, yeah, they exist.... here and here and here... it's just not on this particular slide, or any other slide I've brought today. It'll totally be there on the final thing."
It makes sense if you believe that cars should have absolute priority in traffic and should never never ever be in the slightest inconvenienced in order to make life easier for cyclists.
Oh I get it.
The top picture is a bike. 🚲
The bottom picture is the same bike after being hit by a 6ft tall SUV while trying to cross that intersection.
That might be Switzerland. White frames around traffic lights are not typical for Germany. And the sign itself would likely have a white background instead of a yellow one. Also there is a Molly Malone Pub with a similar typography as the one in the ad in Winterthur, Switzerland.
Ahh, the classic "we built this six lane monstrosity of a road for cars and have scraps here, here and here for the legally mandated bike lane that people voted for, but we don't really want to piss the NIMBYs off. Fuck it, just make it as cheap and inconvenient as possible."
If the roles were reversed, drivers would be kicking down the door to the mayor, lol.
Congrats. What about everyone else? There are clearly enough people here that this is confusing for it be taken seriously. Especially since this is how cyclists get killed.
I suggest everyone else step up their game and learn how to read signs. It really is not a complicated sign. I thought the arrows were enough, but perhaps if the sign were written in crayon it would help.
In principle, cyclists may choose whether to turn left directly or indirectly.
When turning directly left, cyclists may also leave cycle paths that are subject to mandatory use in order to turn directly left, but must pay attention to straight ahead traffic, which has the right of way. If you want to turn directly left, get into the middle of the lane in good time and follow the traffic lights of the corresponding lane.
When turning indirectly left, the cyclist first stays to the right and crosses the junction or intersection. They then turn left. The cyclist therefore crosses two lanes straight ahead.
Of course, the question arises as to whether you want to cycle on the road or prefer to stay on the cycle path.
As a cyclist you're in constant danger around car traffic. Insisting on your rights will likely get you killed. We need cycling infrastructure that is separate from car infrastructure and that will create some inconvenience for car drivers.
This bike lane is on the left side, but the bike lanes in the rest of the city are on the right. Someone then thought the best way to connect them is to have them cross 2 streets to get to the bike path leading to the right, and from there take 2 left turns if they want to go left, which also has a separate lane for right turns - just for the cars, of course, so that is another lane bicycles need to cross.
So, depending how the traffic lights work, bicycles have to wait up to 5 times to do a simple left turn. The traffic needs to flow after all, and traffic just means car traffic to some city planners.
That and (in America at least) closing neighborhood schools to consolidate them into larger ones further away. They're allegedly better because they can offer more variety of classes and amenities, but losing local schools, which serve as a focus of the community, can destroy neighborhoods. (Example: English Avenue School closing in 1995, and the surrounding neighborhood suffering a huge increase in crime shortly thereafter.)
I really appreciate my town's bike infrastructure. We have protected bike lanes with a berm between cyclists and traffic, as well as bike left turn "boxes" that essentially put you first in line of the cross traffic stopped at a red light.