Does this headline seem fair to you? He’s a former ambulance driver, and his complaint is the new cycle lanes will prevent vehicles from moving out of the way of an ambulance. The headline presents this as him being concerned about damaging his car should he accidentally drive over one. It seems like a very clickbaity way to present the article if you ask me.
Either the separation barriers or his har is not up to code then. Each can be easily be verified.
Are the separation barriers required to be lower than a car? I would think the intent is that you don’t drive over them. The image in the article has a massive median strip for emergency services, so I doubt the cars will have to pull over the separation barrier in a hurry.
Depends on the kind of separation barrier. I’d expect them to be build not to inflict unreasonable damage in expectable use - a demand that should be consider normal in every situation, not just in traffic.
I wouldn’t think normal use includes driving over them, I’d think of them more like a curb.
In a lot of cities, tram tracks share space with the normal car and bike traffic. I could stay right of the rails for most of the time, but had to switch over for illegal parking cars (luckily a rare occasion there, as blocking the tram was severly frowned upon), but more frequently for changing lanes to turn left. There is nothing worse than getting stuck with your bike in a tram rail in the middle of the morning commute.
He explicitly says his car is above the legal minimum ride height.
That’s the point: His car is at 160mm, the curb has 100mm, so both are within parameters. There is nothing for him to complain about.