Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 174 posts

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#131

Post by raffraffraff »

orthoxerox wrote: post #81
alksjdalkj wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little skeptical that it would be safer for pedestrians and bikes. Bikes need to merge with traffic already in the roundabout instead of simply going straight through an intersection, and pedestrians would need to always check for oncoming cars rather than being able to mostly rely on lights telling them when they can cross. But then most of my experience with roundabouts is with large, multilane roundabouts so…

Proper Dutch-style roundabouts have the path for cyclists that follows the sidewalk, not the car lane. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alternative_dutch_... Multi-lane intersections on major roads should just have a left-turn lane with a separate signal phase.

Unless it's a motorway-style roundabout with many multiple lanes and high velocity traffic, I much prefer to "pretend to be a car" when I cycle through roundabouts. The busiest roundabout I regularly cycle through has 2 lanes and 6 roads intersect at it. I can't imagine wanting to use it if I had to operate outside the basic rules of roundabouts.

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#132

Post by raffraffraff »

ryukafalz wrote: post #75
alksjdalkj wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little skeptical that it would be safer for pedestrians and bikes. Bikes need to merge with traffic already in the roundabout instead of simply going straight through an intersection, and pedestrians would need to always check for oncoming cars rather than being able to mostly rely on lights telling them when they can cross. But then most of my experience with roundabouts is with large, multilane roundabouts so…

If you have a bike path alongside the car lanes, they seem to work really well. See this one for example - the red paved path is for bikes: https://i.redd.it/1vfvbvntky411.jpg The bike path crosses before the point where cars merge in, so the driver's attention isn't split. Also, it may not be obvious from the picture, but the car lanes are raised to the level of the bike path where they intersect.

The problem with these roundabouts is that a car driver cannot simply "exit the roundabout". They have to watch front, side and rear for cyclists. IMHO a roundabout should only ever impede traffic on entry. Once you're in the roundabout your journey around and out should be entirely unimpeded. Following the basic principles, there should never be a situation where a vehicle is going around the outter circumference of the roundabout blocking a vehicle from exiting. (Even a bicycle)

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#133

Post by Kim_Bruning »

raffraffraff wrote: post #131
orthoxerox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proper Dutch-style roundabouts have the path for cyclists that follows the sidewalk, not the car lane. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alternative_dutch_... Multi-lane intersections on major roads should just have a left-turn lane with a separate signal phase.

Unless it's a motorway-style roundabout with many multiple lanes and high velocity traffic, I much prefer to "pretend to be a car" when I cycle through roundabouts. The busiest roundabout I regularly cycle through has 2 lanes and 6 roads intersect at it. I can't imagine wanting to use it if I had to operate outside the basic rules of roundabouts.

Something like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5l48_h5Eo

Mode separation for motor, bicycle, and foot traffic; all traffic crosses as close to 90 degrees as possible (for visibility reasons); priority markings on pavement; speed bump on one of the entrances to slow traffic; and a lot more features I couldn't tell you about.

( I sometimes watch https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/ , but I'm no traffic expert )

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#134

Post by Kim_Bruning »

raffraffraff wrote: post #132
ryukafalz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a bike path alongside the car lanes, they seem to work really well. See this one for example - the red paved path is for bikes: https://i.redd.it/1vfvbvntky411.jpg The bike path crosses before the point where cars merge in, so the driver's attention isn't split. Also, it may not be obvious from the picture, but the car lanes are raised to the level of the bike path where they intersect.

The problem with these roundabouts is that a car driver cannot simply "exit the roundabout". They have to watch front, side and rear for cyclists. IMHO a roundabout should only ever impede traffic on entry. Once you're in the roundabout your journey around and out should be entirely unimpeded. Following the basic principles, there should never be a situation where a vehicle is going around the outter circumference of…

Only the front in theory: the crossing with the bicycle path is fairly close to 90 degrees. Even so -in practice- you should be checking side and rear anytime you make any turn on any kind of intersection (you fail the dutch driving exam if you forget even just once).

I agree that even ideally-er the journey out should be 100% unimpeded, but in practice this setup seems to work ok. See also video I posted for you, above. :-)

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#135

Post by Lammy »

acd wrote: post #69

Actually to have safer cities remove cars from the traffic equation. A city without cars will be safer and cleaner for pedestrians and bikes. Air quality will also be better.

Yeah, and anybody who can't afford to buy a home in the city should just stop coming here. Maybe they should all have to leave by sundown too :)

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#136

Post by grantpalin »

ajuc wrote: post #100
failwhaleshark wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two wrongs don't make a left, but 3 rights do.

Try that in this city :) http://szczecinblog.pl/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/historyczn... I've visited it a few years ago and I found myself accidently going in circles constantly :)

Not hard to get into that situation here if you don't know which way you are going: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.6302508,-123.4122954,275m/da...

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#137

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

andylynch wrote: post #41
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Advice to "avoid left turns " is not directly applicable to "drive on the left" countries.

It does closely enough, here it would just translate to ‘avoid right turns’ or ‘avoid turns across opposing traffic’.

Did you see the word "directly" in the above sentence?

yes, it's interpretable after reading the article. It's not a simple or accurate headline, though. As per grandparent comment, " a clear warning that an article is US-specific would be nice."

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#138

Post by ryansc0tt »

acd wrote: post #69

Actually to have safer cities remove cars from the traffic equation. A city without cars will be safer and cleaner for pedestrians and bikes. Air quality will also be better.

For sure! Although this is a pipe dream in the real world. We should work towards solutions for today as well as advocating for fewer cars in the long-term.

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#139

Post by phobosanomaly »

Lammy wrote: post #135
acd wrote: post #69

Actually to have safer cities remove cars from the traffic equation. A city without cars will be safer and cleaner for pedestrians and bikes. Air quality will also be better.

Yeah, and anybody who can't afford to buy a home in the city should just stop coming here. Maybe they should all have to leave by sundown too :)

They can have multiple free-of-charge parking garages on the outskirts that are associated with a light rail system.

So you park, hop on the metro, and head into the city without having to worry about the nightmare of parking or the stop-and-go traffic.

I never, ever drive into LA. I use the free parking at an outlying metro station and ride the train in (20 min). You can even leave your vehicle overnight so you can go out for drinks and crash at a friends place (even if you don't train runs until 2am). It's a night-and-day improvement on having to sit in traffic on the freeway, spend 40 minutes finding street parking, worry if someone is going to steal your catalytic converter, etc.

An added benefit is that I go into the city much more often than I otherwise would because I know that the whole process is pretty stress-free.

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#140

Post by teaman2000 »

ryukafalz wrote: post #79
IgorPartola wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But people don’t know how to use them and just make it a free for all. Look no further than the Boston metro area for how this actually shakes out.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People don't know how to use them because they never encounter them. Once they've been around for a while, people will encounter them and learn how to use them.

There are lots of roundabouts in the Boston area (where we call them rotaries). People encounter them regularly and STILL don't know how to use them. Although recently there have been great strides made in using lane markings to steer drivers through more effectively.
Post reply on HN