I’m not really sure why a large empty space is needed to build a safer road/sidewalk?
Just looking out my front door (suburban DC)… the road is posted 35mm but you can “safely” go 50+ because the lanes are wide and relatively straight. But, there are uncontrolled/no-signal entrances to neighborhoods every 1/4 mile or so, so speeds really should be <30mph (IMO). There are very few signaled pedestrians crossings, so if you need to cross, it’s a game of frogged, or walk a mile out of your way to the nearest full intersection. The bike lanes on the road are just painted on, no protection for cars. And on and on. None of this requires more space - just DOT employees who can think beyond getting around in a car.
We could easily slow the road by narrowing the lane. We could easily add signalled ped crossings. We could easily make the sidewalks continuous (same grade through intersections instead of road level - the benefit is cars enter “pedestrian space” when crossing instead of the other way around). We could add floppy bollards (not sure what they’re called) to give more separation between cars and bicycles (won’t stop a really bad driver, but will at least stop cars from using the bike lane as yet another car lane).
A lot of roads in British and European cities are not like that at all; it's not uncommon that they're narrow enough that they're one-way streets because it's wide enough for only one car.
Even that example shows some thought has been put into non-car users.
The road itself is one way for car traffic, but two way for bikes. This likely allows a non-main road cut though for bike traffic.
The pavement (sidewalk) outside the front of the school is double the width and has bollards along it to stop cars parking on the pavement. This slow massively narrows the road to you’ll likely be driving about 20-30mph regardless of the speed limit.
The junction behind the initial street view has a tiny traffic island with a bollard to protect bikes coming the “wrong way” out of the one way road from cars turning into it. Without that cars turning right into it would always cut that corner.
Given the space constraints it’s actually a pretty well designed street.
As other have noted, it's 20mph, which is pretty common in cities in the UK. In that example even the more major road with two way traffic and a seperated bike lane is 20mph.
30mph is more common in towns.
You might see 40mph if going through a rural village.
50mph isn't too common, but you sometimes see it on smaller or busier major road (A roads).
60mph is the "national" speed limit for major roads and rural roads for cars. Some of these are narrow and twisty, so 60mph should be seen as a maximum, not a recommendation of how fast to actually go. For example, this road in Cornwall[0] would be under national speed limit of 60mph, but you'd have to be insane to drive at that speed. The national speed limit is actually lower for vehicles over 3 tonnes or towing (50mph) or heavy good vehicles and busses (40mph), which is why the signpost for national speed is a white circle with a black cross through it rather than a number.
You'll be 70mph on most motoways (highways) and for cars on national speed limit roads with a central reservation.
Yeah, default residential is 25mph in the US, which IMO is too fast for areas where kids might be running about. The only time I've seen lower is private neighborhood streets.
Yeah, overall Bristol isn't too bad – I've lived in worse places. However, many footpaths are very narrow – sometimes not even enough for two people to walk side-by-side – and there just isn't any more space unless you half the parking. That would actually be good eventually IMHO, but is a far larger change than the previous poster was suggesting.
In some ways these small narrow roads are better by the way, even for non-cars. Everyone understands the need to share the road. Big roads seem to create a "this is for cars only and everything else doesn't belong here and shouldn't be here" type of mindset.
I agree. Two lanes of parked cars is in some ways a "waste of space", but in areas with houses built before cars it's not actually too bad. Naturally keeps the speed of cars passing through pretty low so biking in the road isn't too dangerous.
It's funny how used we get to our surroundings. That street isn't narrow at all, it fits two rows of parked cars alongside it. If only it was possible to reclaim that dead space...
Yeah, I was definitely thinking of typical American-style neighborhood street design. My family is Scottish, and I visit every few years, so I'm familiar with hour smaller towns are often laid out (similar to what your link depicts).
I'm guessing streets like the one you share are narrow enough that cars don't usually try going 50mph? And as noted, there is a fair bit of thought given - bollards at the intersection and school, etc.
Houses don't directly front this road, but there are intersections with housing clusters every 1/4 mile or so, with cars and pedestrians crossing at uncontrolled intersections. Additionally, the bike lanes end before the school complex, then start again, then end before the shopping strip. Presumably to leave space for more turning lanes. But, really kills the purpose of the bike lanes since they don't go to the two places you'd want to visit!
Sidewalk on one side, so anybody living on the south has to cross a wide road. Unmarked parking on both sides. Bike lanes come and go (usually turning in "sharrows"). If I were king, I'd remove the "free" curb-side parking and put in proper protected bike lanes.
> I'm guessing streets like the one you share are narrow enough that cars don't usually try going 50mph?
No, generally it works reasonably well. Everyone understands it's a small narrow street and that you need to share. Well, most people anyway. But small footpaths are definitely a downside, and unfortunately also without an easy fix in many cases.
The technical term near me seems to be something like "delineator posts" (or just "orange posts" after the colouring) and I think that's pretty reasonable.
As you say, they don't provide any protection against a car or truck, but they do signal where not to be a bit better.
Just looking out my front door (suburban DC)… the road is posted 35mm but you can “safely” go 50+ because the lanes are wide and relatively straight. But, there are uncontrolled/no-signal entrances to neighborhoods every 1/4 mile or so, so speeds really should be <30mph (IMO). There are very few signaled pedestrians crossings, so if you need to cross, it’s a game of frogged, or walk a mile out of your way to the nearest full intersection. The bike lanes on the road are just painted on, no protection for cars. And on and on. None of this requires more space - just DOT employees who can think beyond getting around in a car.
We could easily slow the road by narrowing the lane. We could easily add signalled ped crossings. We could easily make the sidewalks continuous (same grade through intersections instead of road level - the benefit is cars enter “pedestrian space” when crossing instead of the other way around). We could add floppy bollards (not sure what they’re called) to give more separation between cars and bicycles (won’t stop a really bad driver, but will at least stop cars from using the bike lane as yet another car lane).