I feel like a lot of these designs are intentional so they can later argue that bike lanes are dangerous and they can get rid of them again.

@@FlorianHWave "no one even uses this bike lane! this is why we shouldn't build more bike lanes"

I don't think I've ever seen a bike lane more stupidly designed anywhere. Ever.

@@FlorianHWave Yeah, that's the only way I can believe it. They make a crappy dangerous lane nobody uses, to justify never building any at all.

That should be the requirement - not that that the road designers must include a bike lane, but that they must ride a bike along the roads they design at least once a month for a year. See how much safer the bike lanes become after that.

Very likely

Yes. It is quite a sad paradox of the US federal funding system. I saw a similar design in Jackson, TN where the bike lane at a new interchange isn't attached to any other infrastructure and is designed to be converted to a car lane in the future.

I knew there was some cagey legal reason for that bike lane. To be totally honest, bike lanes don't belong on that road at all because it is designed exclusively for motor vehicles. Retro fitting cycling infrastructure on high speed roads is stupid. There is time and place for cycling infrastructure, but that is definitely not it.

@@artemkatelnytskyi Amen. Here in Sweden biking on high speed roads is actually illegal. I was just flabbergasted when I saw that bike lane. For real? A Bike line on a high speed highway interchange? That road design over here wouldn't just be stupid it would be illegal.

This is why there should be clear standards on how bike lanes that qualify for funding should be built. It is sickening that this would have qualified for any increase in funding. At the least there should be a barrier between the bike lane and the traffic to the left so they cant cross over.

That was embarrassing and enlightening to hear about. The US struggles for a lot that Northern Europe takes for granted.

A friend of mine did research into the topic and well over half of these cases are people using phone navigation to see where they are supposed to go assuming the cycle infrastructure will just manifest itself everywhere if it exists. Then when they reach the highway they do have the feeling that this might not actually be what they are supposed to be doing, but it is not obvious to people that alternatives exist or should exist. People can't quite fathom that the cycling infrastructure exists nation-wide.

@@alfonsstekebrugge8049 thx that's really interesting

@@jwhite5008 I'm confused. What are you trying to say? 1) That's not how roads and highways work in the Netherlands. There are no sidewalks on highway entrances, highway entrances are not kilometres long, and there are no roads that turn into obligate highway entrances, especially not ones with sidewalks. The concept is bizarre to me. 2) That's not how that works for cyclists. It's hard for a car to turn around and just go back the same way they came, but for a bicycle it's extremely easy. You can also just lift your bike over the guardrail and walk on the patch of grass next to it. 3) In the Netherlands Google maps has a bicycle button and it is absolutely not going to make you cycle on a highway. And you will immediately notice if your settings are still on the car button, because your route won't be a straight-ish line but will take large detours, because in most areas through-traffic isn't allowed or is intentionally made extremely slow (to disincentivize driving there), so car mode avoids those places. Dutch people are using Google maps. I don't know what tourists use. 4) Have you ever been to the Netherlands? Because I don't think you have. As a Dutch person I'm going to tell you that it is laughably untrue that 'very few drive a car'. Most people drive sometimes and cycle sometimes. Also, no Dutch cyclists are ending up on highways. It's always a tourist, and it's so rare that it's newspaper-worthy. No proficient cyclist is ending up on a Dutch highway, I promise you that. It's not an easy mistake to make, at all. A lot has to go wrong before you end up on a highway. Road design here doesn't sück. So... I'm still really confused as to what kind of point you were trying to make with any of this?

@@ryn2844 ok

Bike is a noun not a verb

@@PointNemo9 No, "Bike" is both a verb and a noun. Why did you even decide to comment that when it is objectively wrong.

@@GLitchesHaxandBadAudio You are completely wrong

@@PointNemo9 Look, to put it simply since either you are trolling, or you are just entirely ignorant of the matter, but "bike" is an intransitive verb whose usage as such is only a few years younger than the term as a noun to refer to a bicycle. It is both a noun and a verb. Case settled, source: Every Single English Dictionary Known to Mankind.

@@GLitchesHaxandBadAudio Try reading a British dictionary.

would you let your chile ride in any bike lane when the speed limit is 55?

If you let your child ride a bicycle on a busy highway like that you obviously do not care about your child’s safety bicycles should not be allowed outside of residential neighborhoods with a speed limit under 35

​@@ralan350Bike infrastructure should be designed to keep cyclists separate from highways so that it's safe for anyone to bike anywhere on it

@@complainer406 I completely agree

some of them might not really like their kids

I just imagined your comment in a Scottish accent.

@@carultch I hear "daith strrripp."

I just read your very-informative comment in Sean Connery’s accent ! “From a Scottish viewer. That is not bike infrastructure, it’s called a “death strip” in active travel chats, Ms. Money Penny”! LOL! 😺!

I didnt at first, but after you said this, i re-read it in Scotty's (star trek) voice 😅 ​@@carultch

I am embarrassed as an American to read these comments. What, y'all's Scottish accent references haven't been updated since the 60s? No Ewan McGregor? No James McAvoy? No Kelly Macdonald? It's like everyone here has been living under a Trainspotting-less rock for 50 years. There are Scottish people in the 21st century! And their accents are still awesome.

flooding is exactly what i was thinking when he mentioned tunnels. it seemed like the crosswalk being farther back from the road is the best idea here, what do you think?

Tunnels also feel less safe for some people. Its usually poorly lit and not a lot of people. I think a surface crossing deeper in is the best solution. They can also add a pedestrian prioritized/motion sensing traffic light and make the crossing the same height as the sidewalk too. All of these should make the route sufficiently safe and comfortable.

Wouldn't a bridge be preferable to a tunnel anyway? It would have to be a little longer then a tunnel in order to accommodate the height of trucks, but aren't tunnels more expensive?

Most of the Netherlands is below sealevel and it's pretty wet (hence the name). Yet we have bike tunnels. The tunnels don't need to be very high and the roads above will often be elevated a bit so the tunnels don't need to be burried deep. The tunnels are waterproof. And drainage systems will drain rainwater. Sometimes the tunnels have basements to catch rainwater.

They do tunnels quite OK in the Netherlands, a land that is largely below sea level. That is because they do the engineering and have the knowledge of pumping infrastructure to keep them dry. Spend the time & money and you'll get the desired results.

Floriduh is Paradise Lost

they just dont care about bikes but are legally required to put a bike lane in..

honestly, if someone gets hurt on a bike here the designers should be charged for negligence, putting that bike lane there is basically just a deathtrap for any poor soul unfortunate enough to use it

I doubt they actually expect anyone to ride along that. They just chose the cheapest option to check the bike infrastructure box and called it a day

and maybe to have more area already paved and unused ready to convert to an extra lane when somebody complains about the traffic ​@@Scrublord30

@@mats7492 Not so much legally required as financially incentivized. They could have built this without it but they would have had a smaller budget.

The people who design the infrastructure here in the US only care about cars and how to get cars from one place to another. All other forms of transportation are secondary and relatively unimportant (obviously I'm exaggerating, but still...).

@@dirkus3722Thank god for that. Nothing more annoying than a cyclist in the middle of the road who then proceeds to ignore traffic signals when it suits them.

​@ryangrady5977 are you being sarcastic?

@@ryangrady5977 Just in case you're actually serious: Getting bikes off the motorway and onto a safe little bike path away from the road is exactly what is being suggested here. And for the same reason vehicles with a top speed below 60km/h aren't allowed on the german Autobahn: Putting vehicles with dramatically different speeds on the same road is inherently dangerous (and also annoying for all involved) and should be avoided if possible.

From a European perspective, those signs are sinfully bad. We have signage standards for "two exits in a row from a continuous lane" and "two exits in a row from a divergent lane" which would make it clear at the very first sign which lane to take. What makes it even more puzzling is that they actually use the marking for the latter to indicate the junction before and the first highway ramp, but then put the second highway ramp sign over the wrong lane.

You only gave a reason to why tunnels would cost more but not impossible. Conditions in the Netherlands are roughly the same and we got enough tunnels you classify as impossible.

@@lordbigsnake Yabit in the netherlands they have pumps pipes and hoses and they actually maintain them. In Floriduh, they bury valves underground, forget about them, don't exercise them and then when they need to shut them they dont work. See Ft Lauderdale Public Water Debacle 2019. Look it up. I was there. IT was Stoooopid with a capital O.

there are basements in central fl.

@@lordbigsnake no no they arent last month we got 8 inches of rain in 3 hours. thats 20 centimeters. those tunnels will flood and you wont be able to unflood them.

@@lordbigsnake As a Dutchie, I was about to make the same comment.

Very wild to drive on dangerous roads!

@@bedri1 luckily the road I drive on is the interchange in Ohio he said was a good example!

Oh, Florida has plenty of interchanges worse than this.

So let's make pedestrians fear for the lives instead, that's a bike fan for you.

@@crinolynneendymion8755 imagine being a pedestrian in a world of cars and complaining about bikes

Bikes should not be on major roads. They should have their own infrastructure if at all possible.

@@crinolynneendymion8755 Agree - at least most motorists obey the rules and know what a sidewalk is!

I think this is added on top of America's extreme hatred towards bicyclists, scooters, or even pedestrians. Yes pedestrians. There are many places that side walks or cross walks don't exist

I'm Dutch, so before I got a car I used to drive my bicycle everywhere. I'd consider anyone riding their bicycle there reckless or suicidal.

Yeah this is just frankly insane, and at this point a waste of asphalt. In the Netherlands you'd have a separated bikepath somewhere else, sometimes even quite far from the actual highway. Bike paths that are designed for longer routes (like a highway is) usually go though much quieter areas, so usually highways don't have bike paths at all in the Netherlands. If you go by bike, you'd go through the areas surrounding it. It is criminal that there is no underpass though, since both sides are clearly lived in areas, so you'd expect a bike over or under (preferred, since it's much nicer on a bike to go down than up than the other way around) pass every couple of kilometers (or miles I guess) here.

@@uwu-egirl-azzy as ill-behaved as some car drivers can be, they are nowhere NEAR the level of disrespect that pedestrians and cyclists show towards traffic signs and traffic lights. Most of the times one of them gets run over, it's because they cut traffic without a care and the car couldn't possibly stop in time.

@@dudejo The law is pedestrian will always have the right of way. But in speaking of personal experience I've seen otherwise. As I use all forms of transportation.

Is about the new bay bridge ? I crossed the existing bridge last summer, he was mostly empty each time i drove over it.

@@tugpetit2204I think it’s more about the planned replacement for the Cortez bridge and a possible new bridge over the Manatee River between downtown Bradenton and Palmetto.

Hey wait a second, the posts also look like they were designed for a larger and smaller sign respectively. It looks like the builders didn't know which sign to put where... and chose wrong.

Clearly installed incorrectly LOL

​@@BaileyChapWhat's the difference between literally didnt know and didnt know? How about writing Literally Tampa Not Literally Naples on the Keep Right sign?!

@@gregp103 That's fair, I'll remove it! (Looks like my typing regressed 10 years there)

@@BaileyChap It's rare I get a writer to agree about a superfluous literally. If we ever arrive at a Florida cloverleaf together, I'll wave you in.

I replied to another comment, but you are correct- the plans posted on the project website show them the other way around. I've sent an email to the FDOT District 1 Media address to hopefully pass it on to the proper party.

@@yuwtze It’s a really stupid mistake to make during the installation, considering that the gantries were installed correctly and one is clearly much larger than the other.

@@MartyFox Totally what it seems like!

@@MartyFox I think their original mistake was listing Lena Rd on the bigger sign (@3:55). When it turned out that Lena Rd is actually before the second gantry (27.439592746683832, -82.45355296756567), instead of fixing the sign, they decided to just swap first and second sign.

Anyone who designs a road, and especially bike lanes and pedestrian paths, should be forced to use it during rush hour. I can imagine many road designs in the US are designed by folks who never leave their car, with bike and foot paths as an afterthought. Anyone who cycles occasionally would cringe at even the thought of designing a bike lane like that.

@@DanAndHoe I would refuse to cycle there . I cycled 20km to school in the 70s and even back then there was never something as deadly as this. It did have a notorious crossing halfway due to what we call 'polderblindness', but it was just one crossing (and they changed it onto an underpass for cyclists later and the crossing to a roundabout)

maybe they already tried doing that, but for some reason people either died or quit after a few weeks

I've had the experience of driving in Tampa, and painted bicycle gutters on 45MPH stroads is a pretty standard design there. It's literally just token bike infrastrure that they can point to when people complain that cycling is sketchy there.

Or maybe they just didn't have enough infrastructure money to spend on bicycle lanes since bicyclists don't pay any taxes? Kinda hard to build a road to solely suite a bicycle when that bicycle brings in NO MONEY.

wear rubber boots!

They could go over instead. Pedestrian bridges exist.

@@TheRealScooterGuythe bridges would need to be about 20 feet high and the ramps leading up would be enormous (think wheelchair accessibility). Then they have to dip under the freeway. It’s just not realistic or cost effective.

@@arcum -- We have such bridges where I live. Not a lot of them, but they exist.

I would take my chances with a little water in a tunnel over biking on that road.

Believe it or not his channel is only a couple weeks old!

Yeah! I couldn't believe it when I saw it for the first time.@@reilandeubank

Fantastic channel!

95% of bicyclers would use a walking path and even walkers would be ok with that if they were courteous. American walk paths are basically deserted of course a biike should use them... unless it's gravel a walk path is better for bike than road....

@@mostlyguesses8385 I agree, it's common sense to keep bike lanes off any roads, I would prefer your solution as well. Nothing more than annoying bikers who feel entitled to the road. Common sense is gone in infrastructure.

... Issues are complex but us people are morons me too.... Here's some real issues I bet most don't consider instead ..... BIKING EXTENDS LIFE... It's weird how we see oooh 300 bicyclists die each year in nation of 300,000,000 out of 30,000,000 bicyclists and we let that scare us from biking into cars. ... but it's actually more complex since bicycling studies show bikers are more HEALTHY and say for the 30m bikers it extend life avg of 0.1 year or .2% longer --- 30m x .2% is 60000 lifespans gained...... So actually yes biking kills 300 but adds 60000 lifespans... As proof in Australia they mandated bike helmets which made more kids Stop biking since it's a hassle and uncool, and experts realized the fall in exercise and more fat kids will kill more than bike accidents ever did. This has been used to block helmet laws in some places.. ......... . .. BIKE SAVES MONEY AND ADDS VACATION... Another issue is biking would save $10,000 a year of car costs which at $50wage take 200 hours of labor which out of 2000 hour work year is 1/10. If we biked we technically could work 1/10 less and SPEND THIS 10% ON VACATION OR FAMILY TIME. Those 30,000,000 bikers are losing 300 lives to bike accidents but they're working 10% less so easily gain more time than death takes... Hmmm i's like why not pass law saying everyone buy Armored Truck with big bumpers to be safe in, so work extra overtime on Saturday to afford this Armored Car, so 300,000,000 lose their Saturdays of freetime but we d avoid the current 15,000 car deaths ... Yes this is a real issue, just demanding of selves WE PICK HIGHEST SAFETY OPTION means we would live less good life!!! . . . .. . . . . Safety wise, we should Never have 1 beer or have any premarital sex or walk outdoors when there is any ice, but our gut tells us life would suck much more and it's worth the risk ... . . . . if cars cost double wouldn't that make biking a better choice even if slightly risky ...... Triple..... I myself have no car and honestly my entire life I've only worked HALFTIME except when in army . Soooooo I've had life of reading and swimming in ocean while you've slaved away at fulltime job to afford to be safe in your car.............. All this is true, but few ever analyze our choices ....... I mean this in fun, but again all this is true, just picking hi cost safer option leads to pathetic life and pathetic nation ... Hahaha ... Us humans are dumb ..... So let your kid bike even in risky areas the odds say that adds to his life instead of being pathetic fatso who never can get to his friends house..... PEACE

​@@SirChoculaw

@@mostlyguesses8385Bruh you sound like you think you’re better than someone just because you use a bike for transportation. SMH

Recognized it instantly, I remember going westbound on SR 70 trying to enter I-75 for the first time after the new interchange was completed and the signage and layout of the on-ramps is atrocious. I can’t put all the blame on the drivers who make illegal maneuvers here when this aspect of the interchange was very poorly designed.

Ideally, bike paths need to be completely separated from busy highways. I don't support the idea of bicycles in automobile lanes, either. Just like a car and a train is no-contest, a bicycle and a vehicle is pretty much the same. Bicycles are much closer to pedestrians than they are an automobile, and I can't ever see any good in forcing them together. (Same for street-running trains.)

Yeah, really the only time bike infrastructure and car infrastructure can and should be merged is low traffic slow traffic neighbourhood. The archetypical street. Streets don't have bike lanes, the whole road is a bike lane as well as a car lane, since you'd only see a single car once every couple of minutes at most anyways and both go at similar speeds. But as soon as you get to a road, a place people actually use to go from A to B, not just purely destination traffic, you need separation. Car traffic speeds up and bike lanes are pretty much mandatory. Any road that's more than 30 km/h (about 20 miles per hour) needs a separated bike lane that is not just separated by a line, but at least a curb.

@@jaspermooren5883 I mean bike lanes are an improvement to nothing at all.

@@randomrandom9570 I don't know if they are in this case. It just emboldens the argument against cycling infrastructure at all. It is dangerous infrastructure that isn't being used. It's one of those things where I do think doing very little is actually worse than nothing.

​@@jaspermooren5883 In this case,that's probably a fair point. Particularly at situations like the 5 lane road where 2 is being split off and there's a byclist lane in between the 2 and 3 lanes. In general though, people see byclist as dangerous on sidewalks and I think it's a reasonable viewpoint. So they say cyclists should be on the road. If cyclists are on the road, cars are going to want to pass them because no one wants to slug along at 20km/h in a standard 50km/h area. So by putting byclist lanes on the side of the road, it's a space that byclists can be in, on the road, without impeding traffic. Of course dedicating byclist paths also gets the job done but no doubt byclists lanes on the roads is a cheaper option that does work most of the time.

Thanks!! That's the goal

@@Streetcraft I would debate on the realisticness of building underpasses - theres one hell of a lot of ground water about in the footage which means construction is going to be above average in cost and theres going to be an on going cost to keeping it pumped out. .. but was not there so *shrug*

The problem is that the "realistic solutions" aren't politically or institutionally realistic in many places. It's going to take decades of retirements and elections to replace the people who not only build this, but cannot imagine why anyone would object to this. And that's even if the popular support was behind fixing this kind of thing which is very much not the case in many places. This isn't actually meant as a criticism, but as a recognition that solving problems, most problems in society, but certainly traffic problems, is actually very easy technically, and the underlying social problems are the actual obstacles.

Sooo....overpass then. Done Probably cheaper than a tunnel too.

@@CanCobb That introduces a new problem. Not enough space to build an overpass with a decent grade.

So then it has a switchback if necessary. This happens in other places too. @@jrkorman

Yes that is why we in the Netherlands don't have bike lane tunnels. ......................oh wait.

​@@jrkormannot enough space??? Did we watch the same video?

GLWT. Floriduh is utterly corrupt.

No it doesn't. It would only cost more to built a proper tunnel with watering solutions.

H​ow do you keep the alligators out of it? Seems like a great cool down spot in the summer for them.

do we even have traffic circles in Europe? i think i've never seen one, except maybe in the UK. most of Europe prefers to build real roundabouts instead. but even when building roundabouts they often screw up in North America. for example they add a bend to the roads "feeding" traffic onto the roundabout which makes it so drivers don't have to slow down to enter the roundabout. and if drivers don't slow down they don't have the time to notice cyclists or pedestrians in time. you want the roads connected to the roundabout to go into it as straight as possible, so cars have to slow down to enter (or exit) the roundabout. this gives the drivers more time to notice all the other road users and makes the roundabout a lot safer.

@@ChristiaanHW... Right, I forgot that's a difference. I thought it's like the difference between British English and simplified English But yeah, that's what I meant with them looking convoluted

@@ChristiaanHWYes, we have traffic circles. Look at 49.40552948713211, 8.684580490161323 for example (sat view recommended, map view is boring). Looks horrible, doesn't it? Surprisingly, it actually works. At least if you know which road you need to take.

@@ChristiaanHW When you are differentiating roundabouts and traffic circles, do you mean like roundabouts and turbo roundabouts? So traffic circle ~ traditional roundabout ~ driving a full circle requires staying in lane, versus roundabout ~ turbo roundabout ~ driving a full circle requires changing lanes as the lanes naturally spiral outwards?

@@peperoni_pepino the biggest difference between a roundabout (no matter the kind, normal, turbo or multi-lane) and traffic circle is that on a roundabout you have priority (the roundabout is a priority road). and at a traffic circle you might have traffic lights or stop signs/light on the road that forms the circle. a traffic circle is kinda just a road that happens to go in a circular form. - Columbus Circle in New York is an example of a traffic circle. (notice the stop lines on the circular road. and at these coordinates 52°20'20.9"N 5°36'50.6"E you''re able to see the 3 kinds of roundabouts the lower left one being a normal one the lower middle one a turbo roundabout and the right one being a two lane roundabout.

ok

But at least we don't put pretend "bike" lanes in the middle of high speed roads. It wouldn't even be considered. Thats just stupid.

​@@simontay4851 Stupid to everyone, except Americans! Especially those in Florida

This seems like bike "infrastructure" that was put in just to check a box, without any consideration of how a cyclist could safely use it in practice. Paint is not infrastructure.

You are 100% correct. On the public website for the project, they have the drawings for the "Recommended Alternative", and they have those two signs drawn in the opposite position as they are installed in this video.

Here's the site: fip.fdot.gov/Studies/Details/41 And here's the actual PDF (the signs in question are on the last three pages): fdotfipdevstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/studies/41/I-75%20at%20SR%2070%20Rec%20Alternative.pdf

Also curious about this, since there aren't many pedestrian/cycling tunnels in the US.

@ianw1387 I actually have one near my house and it's SUPER convenient for pedestrian cus it goes under a super busy "divided freeway". I live In ohio so tunnels are definitely not an issue here lol

Yes, having any sort of tunnel in this area of Florida wouldn’t work with the ground water level but also the volume of rain so it would flood often.

@JohnHallgren Thank you John! I had feeling it wouldn't. I've only been to Florida a couple times and have never seen any tunnels

@@aydnn7170 there’s a couple of underpasses on the interstate in Saint Petersburg that have flooded occasionally.

I'm a Sarnian, and I agree with your comments. There have been a ridiculous amount of accidents in the last decade. They didn't really do as great a job updating the stretch as they probably should have.

No one’s going to get splattered on it, because NO ONE rides a bike on it.

It works because people know how to use them. Driver's ed in the US is a joke and it doesn't help that they have no standard interchanges but every one is somehow different.

@@HenryLoenwind I have used this type of cloverleaf, and it gets a little complicated when you have people getting off and slowing down in the same lane as people getting on to the on ramp (and speeding up)

cloverleaves are fine, this here is a mess though