That would require a complete redesign of the street.
What you have here is the cheap solution.
Cheap in terms of work it requires but mostly cheap in terms of paperwork.
If you wanna swap the street parking and the bicycle lane you need an agreement between the region and the commune. While this solution involved mostly the region.
As an immediate term cheap solution, this is pretty much all that can be done on this road, agreed. The problem is though that officials etc here will argue that this is actually the ideal approach under *any circumstances*, even if the road is rebuilt, that you should't swap the lanes even if you can easily do so without a rebuild, that it doesn't actually need a long term fix etc. The Brussels Mobility bike infrastructure guidelines even have a bunch of arguments as to why the bike lane should be on this side of the parking lane if there is parking, as a matter of general principle.
(Edit - let's also note they put this painted "lane" in *five years ago*. This no longer counts as a quick win or short term solution, it should and could have been upgraded by now).
Brussels cyclists need to push back against this approach. Paint is not infrastructure, especially paint that wedges you between two car lanes.
>you need an agreement between the region and the commune.
Hold on hold on hold on... What? I mean OK, Belgium is fucked up when it comes to the split of comptences between different levels of authorities but this is clearly next level!
Why does it involve both ? Can you ELI5, please?
Some streets are managed by the commune others are managed by the region.
In other words there is central regional service (Bruxelles Mobilité) that manages SOME roads all around the region.
This particular road is in Uccle but is managed by the region.
Given that this avenue is connected to roads managed by the commune, if you want to change the layout, the region will have to work with the commune to get it done.
The communes often to not have the same vision as the region in terms of biking infrastructure.
More info here : https://mobilite-mobiliteit.brussels/fr/voiries-regionales
Most streets are managed by the local commune, but bigger arterial roads are managed by the regional government. The commune, through the mayor's police powers, can often block the region's plans for a regional road running through their commune by citing vague security issues, and may get involved in the planning because of the impact on neighbouring roads.
The extra margin allows for a bit more security for bikes not having to worry as much about drivers opening doors without looking and having a security margin when cars drive too close to the bike lane.
I've explained why multiple times in other comments, but to reiterate:
- This builds in constant close passing for cyclists as a feature. Cycling on busy roads immediately next to motor vehicle traffic with no form of protection or segregation is highly unpleasant. Similarly, if a driver crashes or loses control or just swerves unexpectedly, you have zero protection from their fast moving multi tonne hunk of metal easily capable of killing you - in the other configuration, you are protected both by distance and a large physical barrier. Hence why the most successful cycling nation by far has a massive network of segregated bike paths.
- This has drivers opening their doors/stepping towards you. All cars have drivers, most don't have passengers. If something goes wrong with that, you are knocked into traffic instead of onto a footpath.
- This has drivers pulling across the bike lane to park or leave as a feature, which is obviously dangerous.
- This effectively allows cars to drive or stop in the bike lane, something we see here all the time.
No idea why we constantly have to reinvent the wheel here in Brussels. Basically everywhere established that segregated bike lanes are much better for cycling than these painted excuses for infrastructure decades ago.
This would require a lot of work and would be expensive + need time to design and receives all the authorization.
Currently, this was the easiest and fastest solution that only requires painting.
It might evolve in the future with a wider planning of the local mobility. However, with the elections outcome (Georges-Louis Bouchez claiming he wants to stop Good Move), I don't think this will be a priority.
Personally speaking I think it’s better this way from the perspective of a driver as the cyclist remains in your rear vision mirror.
It would be difficult to turn and check your blind spot if the latter was in place.
the way it is painted now guarantees visibility for everyone (not a bike popping up from behind a car)
also its a true bike lane with white stripes with a full white marking for cars, its painted in a very good way.
also its away from car doors popping open
id say for the stones and concrete that is available, this is the best
It's probably because from time to time a big truck has to pass?
Btw please read the wegcode, a bike lane has stripes in a certain fashion. Everything else in your head is fantasy.
Oh yeah maybe they can put a blue plakaat with white bike at the start of the lane, do you accept that as infrastructure?
Putting the bike lane between car and house block visibility (this is major as many accidents happen like this at corners, poor visibility) and also pairs high speed (25km or more) traffic with slow or standstill traffic (sidewalk). this is worse.
Considering everything, I think this road is well painted. I absolutely love the space between car and bike lane, because as biker you are forced to drive on the bike lane but everybody knows doors flipping over create horrible accidents for the biker. Well done to whoever came up with this paint scheme!
Yes. But loads of officials are weird about this here and convinced that painted bike lanes between the parking and driving lanes are good, based on all sorts of absurd arguments.
All cars have drivers, who can just as easily open a door in your face. Most don't have passengers. If a driver opens it on your face, you get knocked into moving traffic. This kind of painted lane is pretty much universally recognised as terrible pretty much everywhere but here.
All cars have drivers, who can just as easily open a door in your face. Most don't have passengers. If a driver opens it on your face, you get knocked into moving traffic. This kind of painted lane is pretty much universally recognised as terrible pretty much everywhere but here.
It's pretty terrible, but less terrible than right against the parking on the other side. This is a very spacious one.
Most drivers will actually remember and look before opening their door. It's also easier for me to see who just parked. On the other side, passengers, or people walking to their car, don't usually give any look. They really perceive it like it's still the sidewalk.
In an ideal world you'd put more borders to highlight the divides. We don't have space for that usually. Or you'd just plan cycle roads separately. We don't seem to have urbanistic skills for that.
Absolute peak driver entitlement. Pedestrians and cyclists have to deal with constant threats from cars, but you can't spend two seconds crossing a bike lane when getting out of your car at most a couple of times a day on the tiny proportion of roads that even have bike lanes so we can be protected from you. How safe do you think people on bikes feel with multi-tonne metal boxes constantly pulling out in front of them or turning into their path on this kind of terrible lane?
I'm a cyclist too, car drivers are not your enemies, calm the fuck down. It doesn't make any sense to have the bicycle lane on the right side of parked cars, that's it.
That’s how I have seen it in some Dutch cities, it makes a lot more sense that the weaker road users are protected by a row of parked cars then having them ride in between car traffic and car parking with all the necessary parking manoeuvres over the bikelane
For sure! Also this arrangement leaves enough space for the driver to be able to open their door without having to worry too much about cyclists, and vice versa
You can have the same amount of space between the bike lane and cars in either configuration. Meanwhile this approach has drivers opening their doors and stepping towards cyclists, who have fast moving traffic on the other side. A car always has a driver, more often than not it has no passenger. It builds in literal constant close passing and a constant risk of parking/unparking cars pulling across your path. Pretty much everywhere other than Belgium understands that this is a stupid and dangerous way to do things.
Then why does it already exist and work in the netherlands? [https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/cycle-tracks-and-on-street-parking/](https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/cycle-tracks-and-on-street-parking/)
https://preview.redd.it/e6s9nxaxns7d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=61f48c679dd34362cdc0f143b4f3efc26a50b15d
Not the same sidewalk size, you would need to tear everything up to do that here.
Also, it's not because the Netherlands are doing it that it's the perfect system, they're probably complaining over there as well.
The Netherlands is the world leader in good bike infrastructure and getting people cycling. Everyone with a brain understands they know how to do things better than Brussels does.
>car drivers are not your enemies
Yeah they really are.
I always wondered why pedestrians along the canal in town are so aggressive towards cyclists. Until I realised they are drivers who just parked and got out of their cars.
They still have the entitlement of a car driver, but without the huge metal box that allows them to do whatever they want.
People arguing that I should be continuously exposed to close passes and have heavy metal boxes constantly pulling into my path for the sake of their convenience a couple of times a day while parking those metal boxes are in fact my enemies. Pretty much everywhere in the world other than here understands that putting the bike lane on the other side of the cars is by far the best approach, in particular the places that have vastly greater success in getting people on bikes and keeping them safe than here.
Absolutely not the safest option. As a cyclist I prefer to have a good wide cycle lane on the road side rather than the sidewalk side, much less chances to be obstructed, to have a door open on me or to hit clueless pedestrians. But sure go off, downvote me to hell because nobody on this sub is actually from Brussels and you know nothing about city life, keep dreaming about your Dutch suburbs
You can have a wide lane on either side. All cars have drivers, most don't have passengers, so you're much more at risk of having a door opening on the driver side, and you'll be knocked into traffic instead of onto the footpath if you are. I've lived in cities all my adult life and don't drive, but keep telling me how you, a driver who came into this thread arguing against proper bike infrastructure *from the perspective of a driver*, know more about cities and good bike infrastructure than me and the people who've designed by far the best and most used bike infrastructure in the world.
Ah the good old "doodstrookje". Yup dangerous as hell but it's belgium (belgian myself) so we shouldn't expect too much. They seem to have a pretty smooth road though so that's probably were all the effort went.
Yes definitely, but that requires logical thinking ,actual urban planning, and budget. All of which aren't really a thing over here... Yellow paint go brrrrrrr
From my experience no. The configuration you mentioned is in place Franklin Roosevelt street and is a real death trap: cyclists are constantly at risk of being hit by someone opening the passenger door of a car (at least drivers tend to look in their rearview mirror before opening the door). I very much prefer it the way on the picture
The problem with Roosevelt is that they haven't left enough space between the cars and the bike lane, not the order of the lanes. Those are separate issues, you can have the same amount or lack of space between the lane and the cars in either configuration.
Even with that I still prefer it to this. Roosevelt's junctions are much safer, the lane takes you away from turning traffic, whereas here there is is no margin for error, drivers turn right into your path.
Furthermore I have ample experience of drivers not checking before opening their car doors. All cars have drivers, most don't have passengers. In this configuration if you do get doored, you get knocked into moving traffic instead of onto a footpath. This additionally means you are literally constantly exposed to moving traffic immediately beside you, and you have the constant threat of cars pulling into your path to park/leave, not to mention cars overtaking in the bike lane, stopping in the bike lane and so on. Everything about this is worse.
Such layouts are even worse at intersections, because drivers turning right are even less likely to check for cyclists when they make their turn.
Really, what this needs is for the cycle lane to be raised and for the parking to just be removed. That gives both the pedestrian area and the cycle more space.
There are all sorts of ways to fix the problem at intersections, such as removing some of the parking at the end to improve visibility.
Removing all the parking would of course be best of all, but we know that will never happen in much of Brussels and the question is if there is parking, is it better to have the bike lane protected by parked cars or the parking lane protected by a bike lane. The answer is clearly the former.
This is safer for bikers without a complete redesign.
Budapest had a setup like that and there were a lot of accidents, drivers exit the vehicle more carefully than the passengers. I hated that bike lane.
Cycling out of motorists's sight is more dangerous in my opinion. Almost got splattered by a car turning into a driveway as I was "nicely" hidden by a parked van.
I am not bike driver but man .. you must be some sort of kamikaze to drive bikes in the city of brussels.
With the bad bicycle road installation and the crazy drivers ... Good luck.
Sometimes I see people with children on their bike.
Those people are very naives in my opinion.
Looks like Av. Winston Churchill? If this is it, the solution works very good there. Pedestrians are safer since there are parking spaces between them and cyclists. And cyclists have a nice distance from parked cars (opening door hazards, easiness for all). Also, older people can easily get in/out from their cars to their homes carrying groceries and stuff without minding for speeding cyclists. Not all solutions have to be the same. Why aren’t people happy? They sacrificed an entire car lane on both sides of the road, reduced speed, noise, pollution and safety for all without spending loads of taxpayer money. 👌
People aren't happy because cycling right next to heavy speeding traffic, with parking cars pulling in and out across your path, is horrible. There is a reason the country with the universally recognised best bike infrastructure goes for segregated lanes as often as possible over this kind of nonsense.
What about Lambermont's double bike lane (+ cycling road on the other side) ?
https://preview.redd.it/sffh3aexdv7d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9e3b9d04f08a41a732b539fe7906d6033af73cf
Yes, like in NL
That would require a complete redesign of the street. What you have here is the cheap solution. Cheap in terms of work it requires but mostly cheap in terms of paperwork. If you wanna swap the street parking and the bicycle lane you need an agreement between the region and the commune. While this solution involved mostly the region.
As an immediate term cheap solution, this is pretty much all that can be done on this road, agreed. The problem is though that officials etc here will argue that this is actually the ideal approach under *any circumstances*, even if the road is rebuilt, that you should't swap the lanes even if you can easily do so without a rebuild, that it doesn't actually need a long term fix etc. The Brussels Mobility bike infrastructure guidelines even have a bunch of arguments as to why the bike lane should be on this side of the parking lane if there is parking, as a matter of general principle. (Edit - let's also note they put this painted "lane" in *five years ago*. This no longer counts as a quick win or short term solution, it should and could have been upgraded by now). Brussels cyclists need to push back against this approach. Paint is not infrastructure, especially paint that wedges you between two car lanes.
It's cheap in any way. That tiles are not good to bike, so it will need to be replaced to have a proper bike line.
>you need an agreement between the region and the commune. Hold on hold on hold on... What? I mean OK, Belgium is fucked up when it comes to the split of comptences between different levels of authorities but this is clearly next level! Why does it involve both ? Can you ELI5, please?
Some streets are managed by the commune others are managed by the region. In other words there is central regional service (Bruxelles Mobilité) that manages SOME roads all around the region. This particular road is in Uccle but is managed by the region. Given that this avenue is connected to roads managed by the commune, if you want to change the layout, the region will have to work with the commune to get it done. The communes often to not have the same vision as the region in terms of biking infrastructure. More info here : https://mobilite-mobiliteit.brussels/fr/voiries-regionales
Thanks a lot for that very insightful explanation! I will now go get heavily drunk...
Most streets are managed by the local commune, but bigger arterial roads are managed by the regional government. The commune, through the mayor's police powers, can often block the region's plans for a regional road running through their commune by citing vague security issues, and may get involved in the planning because of the impact on neighbouring roads.
The extra margin allows for a bit more security for bikes not having to worry as much about drivers opening doors without looking and having a security margin when cars drive too close to the bike lane.
You can have that margin in either configuration, and every other aspect of this is worse for cyclists.
Why is it worse? You expect me to just trust you bro?
I've explained why multiple times in other comments, but to reiterate: - This builds in constant close passing for cyclists as a feature. Cycling on busy roads immediately next to motor vehicle traffic with no form of protection or segregation is highly unpleasant. Similarly, if a driver crashes or loses control or just swerves unexpectedly, you have zero protection from their fast moving multi tonne hunk of metal easily capable of killing you - in the other configuration, you are protected both by distance and a large physical barrier. Hence why the most successful cycling nation by far has a massive network of segregated bike paths. - This has drivers opening their doors/stepping towards you. All cars have drivers, most don't have passengers. If something goes wrong with that, you are knocked into traffic instead of onto a footpath. - This has drivers pulling across the bike lane to park or leave as a feature, which is obviously dangerous. - This effectively allows cars to drive or stop in the bike lane, something we see here all the time. No idea why we constantly have to reinvent the wheel here in Brussels. Basically everywhere established that segregated bike lanes are much better for cycling than these painted excuses for infrastructure decades ago.
This would require a lot of work and would be expensive + need time to design and receives all the authorization. Currently, this was the easiest and fastest solution that only requires painting. It might evolve in the future with a wider planning of the local mobility. However, with the elections outcome (Georges-Louis Bouchez claiming he wants to stop Good Move), I don't think this will be a priority.
More space for emergency services in case of traffic jam. It has to be considered also.
Personally speaking I think it’s better this way from the perspective of a driver as the cyclist remains in your rear vision mirror. It would be difficult to turn and check your blind spot if the latter was in place.
the way it is painted now guarantees visibility for everyone (not a bike popping up from behind a car) also its a true bike lane with white stripes with a full white marking for cars, its painted in a very good way. also its away from car doors popping open id say for the stones and concrete that is available, this is the best
Painted bike lanes between parking and driving lanes are not "true bike lanes". Paint is not infrastructure.
It's probably because from time to time a big truck has to pass? Btw please read the wegcode, a bike lane has stripes in a certain fashion. Everything else in your head is fantasy. Oh yeah maybe they can put a blue plakaat with white bike at the start of the lane, do you accept that as infrastructure? Putting the bike lane between car and house block visibility (this is major as many accidents happen like this at corners, poor visibility) and also pairs high speed (25km or more) traffic with slow or standstill traffic (sidewalk). this is worse. Considering everything, I think this road is well painted. I absolutely love the space between car and bike lane, because as biker you are forced to drive on the bike lane but everybody knows doors flipping over create horrible accidents for the biker. Well done to whoever came up with this paint scheme!
Yes. But loads of officials are weird about this here and convinced that painted bike lanes between the parking and driving lanes are good, based on all sorts of absurd arguments.
Bikes are also vehicles, travelling at 20+ km/h, I'd prefer not having to cross their path while exiting a car.
And I am happier having lesser odds of passengers cluelessly opening their door in my face! Bike lane on the left of parking is very nice.
r/fuckcars vs r/fuckbikes fight caught in the wild.
Lol they got just 900 subbers
All cars have drivers, who can just as easily open a door in your face. Most don't have passengers. If a driver opens it on your face, you get knocked into moving traffic. This kind of painted lane is pretty much universally recognised as terrible pretty much everywhere but here.
All cars have drivers, who can just as easily open a door in your face. Most don't have passengers. If a driver opens it on your face, you get knocked into moving traffic. This kind of painted lane is pretty much universally recognised as terrible pretty much everywhere but here.
It's pretty terrible, but less terrible than right against the parking on the other side. This is a very spacious one. Most drivers will actually remember and look before opening their door. It's also easier for me to see who just parked. On the other side, passengers, or people walking to their car, don't usually give any look. They really perceive it like it's still the sidewalk. In an ideal world you'd put more borders to highlight the divides. We don't have space for that usually. Or you'd just plan cycle roads separately. We don't seem to have urbanistic skills for that.
Absolute peak driver entitlement. Pedestrians and cyclists have to deal with constant threats from cars, but you can't spend two seconds crossing a bike lane when getting out of your car at most a couple of times a day on the tiny proportion of roads that even have bike lanes so we can be protected from you. How safe do you think people on bikes feel with multi-tonne metal boxes constantly pulling out in front of them or turning into their path on this kind of terrible lane?
I'm a cyclist too, car drivers are not your enemies, calm the fuck down. It doesn't make any sense to have the bicycle lane on the right side of parked cars, that's it.
That’s how I have seen it in some Dutch cities, it makes a lot more sense that the weaker road users are protected by a row of parked cars then having them ride in between car traffic and car parking with all the necessary parking manoeuvres over the bikelane
No but they're often careless and putting cyclists in danger with reckless practice's
When opening doors, drivers are much more careful than passengers
For sure! Also this arrangement leaves enough space for the driver to be able to open their door without having to worry too much about cyclists, and vice versa
You can have the same amount of space between the bike lane and cars in either configuration. Meanwhile this approach has drivers opening their doors and stepping towards cyclists, who have fast moving traffic on the other side. A car always has a driver, more often than not it has no passenger. It builds in literal constant close passing and a constant risk of parking/unparking cars pulling across your path. Pretty much everywhere other than Belgium understands that this is a stupid and dangerous way to do things.
Then why does it already exist and work in the netherlands? [https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/cycle-tracks-and-on-street-parking/](https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/cycle-tracks-and-on-street-parking/) https://preview.redd.it/e6s9nxaxns7d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=61f48c679dd34362cdc0f143b4f3efc26a50b15d
Not the same sidewalk size, you would need to tear everything up to do that here. Also, it's not because the Netherlands are doing it that it's the perfect system, they're probably complaining over there as well.
The Netherlands is the world leader in good bike infrastructure and getting people cycling. Everyone with a brain understands they know how to do things better than Brussels does.
Why showing example of the Netherlands, this is also common in Belgium just not in Brussels.
>car drivers are not your enemies Yeah they really are. I always wondered why pedestrians along the canal in town are so aggressive towards cyclists. Until I realised they are drivers who just parked and got out of their cars. They still have the entitlement of a car driver, but without the huge metal box that allows them to do whatever they want.
People arguing that I should be continuously exposed to close passes and have heavy metal boxes constantly pulling into my path for the sake of their convenience a couple of times a day while parking those metal boxes are in fact my enemies. Pretty much everywhere in the world other than here understands that putting the bike lane on the other side of the cars is by far the best approach, in particular the places that have vastly greater success in getting people on bikes and keeping them safe than here.
Absolutely not the safest option. As a cyclist I prefer to have a good wide cycle lane on the road side rather than the sidewalk side, much less chances to be obstructed, to have a door open on me or to hit clueless pedestrians. But sure go off, downvote me to hell because nobody on this sub is actually from Brussels and you know nothing about city life, keep dreaming about your Dutch suburbs
You can have a wide lane on either side. All cars have drivers, most don't have passengers, so you're much more at risk of having a door opening on the driver side, and you'll be knocked into traffic instead of onto the footpath if you are. I've lived in cities all my adult life and don't drive, but keep telling me how you, a driver who came into this thread arguing against proper bike infrastructure *from the perspective of a driver*, know more about cities and good bike infrastructure than me and the people who've designed by far the best and most used bike infrastructure in the world.
WTF are you talking about?
Ah the good old "doodstrookje". Yup dangerous as hell but it's belgium (belgian myself) so we shouldn't expect too much. They seem to have a pretty smooth road though so that's probably were all the effort went.
Yes definitely, but that requires logical thinking ,actual urban planning, and budget. All of which aren't really a thing over here... Yellow paint go brrrrrrr
Yeah but that would require money and an actual plan from Ecolo.
From my experience no. The configuration you mentioned is in place Franklin Roosevelt street and is a real death trap: cyclists are constantly at risk of being hit by someone opening the passenger door of a car (at least drivers tend to look in their rearview mirror before opening the door). I very much prefer it the way on the picture
The problem with Roosevelt is that they haven't left enough space between the cars and the bike lane, not the order of the lanes. Those are separate issues, you can have the same amount or lack of space between the lane and the cars in either configuration. Even with that I still prefer it to this. Roosevelt's junctions are much safer, the lane takes you away from turning traffic, whereas here there is is no margin for error, drivers turn right into your path. Furthermore I have ample experience of drivers not checking before opening their car doors. All cars have drivers, most don't have passengers. In this configuration if you do get doored, you get knocked into moving traffic instead of onto a footpath. This additionally means you are literally constantly exposed to moving traffic immediately beside you, and you have the constant threat of cars pulling into your path to park/leave, not to mention cars overtaking in the bike lane, stopping in the bike lane and so on. Everything about this is worse.
Such layouts are even worse at intersections, because drivers turning right are even less likely to check for cyclists when they make their turn. Really, what this needs is for the cycle lane to be raised and for the parking to just be removed. That gives both the pedestrian area and the cycle more space.
There are all sorts of ways to fix the problem at intersections, such as removing some of the parking at the end to improve visibility. Removing all the parking would of course be best of all, but we know that will never happen in much of Brussels and the question is if there is parking, is it better to have the bike lane protected by parked cars or the parking lane protected by a bike lane. The answer is clearly the former.
This is safer for bikers without a complete redesign. Budapest had a setup like that and there were a lot of accidents, drivers exit the vehicle more carefully than the passengers. I hated that bike lane.
Hopefully the parking spaces will be removed altogether.
A bike with no seat on a cobblestone street
All engineers here. Impressive.
Cycling out of motorists's sight is more dangerous in my opinion. Almost got splattered by a car turning into a driveway as I was "nicely" hidden by a parked van.
Yeah but this way the cyclists can act as a buffer and the parked cars are further away from the traffic.
Of course, this is what they have been doing in Paris too.
I am not bike driver but man .. you must be some sort of kamikaze to drive bikes in the city of brussels. With the bad bicycle road installation and the crazy drivers ... Good luck. Sometimes I see people with children on their bike. Those people are very naives in my opinion.
Definitely not the tiles here are the worst type of pavement you can get (lots of vibration and discomfort)
Some stupid car drivers open their door without looking. So I understand why they painted the street like that
Looks like Av. Winston Churchill? If this is it, the solution works very good there. Pedestrians are safer since there are parking spaces between them and cyclists. And cyclists have a nice distance from parked cars (opening door hazards, easiness for all). Also, older people can easily get in/out from their cars to their homes carrying groceries and stuff without minding for speeding cyclists. Not all solutions have to be the same. Why aren’t people happy? They sacrificed an entire car lane on both sides of the road, reduced speed, noise, pollution and safety for all without spending loads of taxpayer money. 👌
People aren't happy because cycling right next to heavy speeding traffic, with parking cars pulling in and out across your path, is horrible. There is a reason the country with the universally recognised best bike infrastructure goes for segregated lanes as often as possible over this kind of nonsense.
What about Lambermont's double bike lane (+ cycling road on the other side) ? https://preview.redd.it/sffh3aexdv7d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9e3b9d04f08a41a732b539fe7906d6033af73cf
This place is confusing as fuck.
It's going to be rebuilt shortly, with all of this replaced by a mixture of segregated bike lanes and (mostly) "bike streets".