> No. You don't seem to understand how protected intersections work.
I'm well aware of how NACTO[1] claims they work.
> The design of the intersection itself forces cars to slow down quite a lot to make the turn.
According to NACTO, they make drivers slow down to about 10 mph to make a right turn (see page 11, paragraph 2, sentence 1).
> Plus, generally you make the parking lane end a bit before the actual intersection, precisely to improve visibility.
This doesn't address the case where a cyclist approaches the motorist from behind from the motorist's point of view. In other words, the only time the motorist will have a chance to see the cyclist is when they're in the process of making a right turn. We can't assume that the cyclist will yield to a motorist or even be paying attention to the adjacent roadway (think of an 8 year old cyclist who doesn't have the concept of how intersections work).
The document makes the assumption that a cyclist will traverse 50 feet in 3 seconds (about 16.67 feet per second which is about 11.4 mph). On page 13, they have a figure depicting the motorist's field of view as they make their way around a protected at a speed of around 10 mph.
If you measure the bikeway setback line shown on page 12 and compare it with the horizontal measurement from the drivers field of view cone (from the origin to the left most extent), you'll find that the driver can only see about 8.2 feet down the bikeway.
Remember that both the cyclist and the car are traveling at a speed of around 15 feet per second. Also, the average reaction time of someone who's not expecting an event is around 1 to 1.5 seconds. This means that the motorist will not have enough time to see the cyclist in order to yield to them. The picture right below it showing the cyclist entering the intersection makes that evident.
> What you're describing is vehicular cycling, which has been a complete failure.
Vehicular cycling is the safest way to cycle in the current environment and addresses the problems of intersection conflicts by positioning the cyclist right in front of the motorist who will have no trouble seeing them well in advance of catching up to them.
The sidepath type intersection actually increases conflicts due to lack of visibility as I described above.
I'm well aware of how NACTO[1] claims they work.
> The design of the intersection itself forces cars to slow down quite a lot to make the turn.
According to NACTO, they make drivers slow down to about 10 mph to make a right turn (see page 11, paragraph 2, sentence 1).
> Plus, generally you make the parking lane end a bit before the actual intersection, precisely to improve visibility.
This doesn't address the case where a cyclist approaches the motorist from behind from the motorist's point of view. In other words, the only time the motorist will have a chance to see the cyclist is when they're in the process of making a right turn. We can't assume that the cyclist will yield to a motorist or even be paying attention to the adjacent roadway (think of an 8 year old cyclist who doesn't have the concept of how intersections work).
The document makes the assumption that a cyclist will traverse 50 feet in 3 seconds (about 16.67 feet per second which is about 11.4 mph). On page 13, they have a figure depicting the motorist's field of view as they make their way around a protected at a speed of around 10 mph.
If you measure the bikeway setback line shown on page 12 and compare it with the horizontal measurement from the drivers field of view cone (from the origin to the left most extent), you'll find that the driver can only see about 8.2 feet down the bikeway.
Remember that both the cyclist and the car are traveling at a speed of around 15 feet per second. Also, the average reaction time of someone who's not expecting an event is around 1 to 1.5 seconds. This means that the motorist will not have enough time to see the cyclist in order to yield to them. The picture right below it showing the cyclist entering the intersection makes that evident.
> What you're describing is vehicular cycling, which has been a complete failure.
Vehicular cycling is the safest way to cycle in the current environment and addresses the problems of intersection conflicts by positioning the cyclist right in front of the motorist who will have no trouble seeing them well in advance of catching up to them.
The sidepath type intersection actually increases conflicts due to lack of visibility as I described above.
[1] https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give...