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

A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

singletrackworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#231

Post by kqr »

ptaipale wrote: post #203
mnw21cam wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a 4-way give way junction here [1]. That's the closest you will get in the UK. It means give way to anything that is in the junction before you are, but the actual effect is for cyclists to frequently be aggressively hooted at and nearly run over by cars. [1] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2190575,0.1178374,105m/dat...

Interesting construction. This wouldn't be legal in Nordics, there can be no direction in give way signs indicated, and there can be no 4-way give way junctions.

There is at least two of those four-way yields in Stockholm, and yes, it is of course absolutely insane. In a regular junction you already have to

1) Yield to traffic inside the junction,

2) Yield to traffic approaching from your right.

In a four-way yield junction, you have to

1) Yield to traffic inside the junction,

2) Yield to traffic approaching from your right,

3) ??????? to traffic approaching from the left.

It breeds confusion and has no advantage over a regular intersection. Unless, of course, you count confusion as an advantage. Which you do if you drive the vehicle with the largest inertia around.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#232

Post by DoveBrown »

arnarbi wrote: post #230
pmontra wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you do 30-40 km/h on those bicycle roads or is there slow traffic such as 10-20 km/h bicycles and runners? In the latter case fast bicycles will stay on the main road no matter what. In my experience I also have much better visibility at junctions on the main road instead of on bicycle lanes that are closer to walls and hedges and have 3 or 4 meters less of buffer between me and incoming cars from the right. I'm…

Yes, you can do 30-40 on the bicycle paths, and bicycle paths are not used by pedestrians.

You can if they are maintained. Most dedicated bike paths around me have ripples in the surface from tree roots and have never been resurfaced since they were built. Using a road bike with skinny tires on them is bone jarring at low speed.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#233

Post by vertex-four »

alkonaut wrote: post #186
TomMarius wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that you can get in a situation with a car on each road. One of the drivers then has to signal the car on his left that he gives up his right of way. This is the same across the EU.

That happens all the time. But the point is that it's no worse because of the stop signs. Even without 4 stop signs you can have 4 cars stopped. This isn't a "bad" situation or a deadlock, this is a very safe situation and just means cars will have to crawl out in the crossing while making eye contact and taking some kind of turn driving. Now, if this happens regularly then the junction is much too trafficed for bein…

The thing is, in the Netherlands, you could not use a stop sign for that, because a stop sign does not mean "stop and then crawl out into the intersection while maintaining eye contact with other drivers", it means "stop and give way to the road with the higher priority". A proper traffic code should always provide a consistent way to approach any given sign.

If there's no working traffic lights and no stop signs, a different set of rules come into play.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#234

Post by gambiting »

tc313 wrote: post #100
ajmurmann wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe the residential area would either 1. Have no signs resulting in the car to the right getting the right of way 2. One road gets a right of way sign and the other road had to yield. I strongly prefer those setups because they are much more fuel efficient. However, I don't think any of that would work in the UD because it would require real driving classes and tests. I had to drive around for close to 20 hours…

Most middle- and upper-class Americans take a driver’s education course (like what you’ve described) prior to receiving their driver’s license. In 10 years it won’t even be necessary because nobody’s going to be driving themselves anyway.

>> In 10 years it won’t even be necessary because nobody’s going to be driving themselves anyway.

Try 50+ years. Driverless cars aren't happening anytime soon, and certainly not to a level where you literally don't need a licence to drive one.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#235

Post by thirdsun »

klodolph wrote: post #201
thirdsun wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an intersection that needs traffic lights. And if it's just twice a day, default the less used direction to red and have it switch to green only if a car is actually waiting. As a european 4 way stops seem really inefficient to me. If the intersection isn't that busy a 2 way stop (or no stop at all) favouring the more frequently used road is the obvious choice. If it's a busy 4 way stop however, can you reall…

There often isn't a "more frequently used road". If there were, it would probably be a 2-way stop. Figuring out who goes next is not remotely as difficult as you have made it out to be. Where I used to live, I would go through two four-way stops twice each day during peak traffic. There are generally two scenarios when you approach the intersection. In light traffic, you get to the intersection and nobody else is wai…

> Once you get to the front of the queue, you wait for the cars on your left and right that are already at the front of the queue, and then you go. This is simple because each direction of traffic alternates, and it is reasonably fast because the queues are very short.

Sounds like a high frequency traffic light, but less explicit.

Well, admittedly my experience with 4 way stops is nonexistent (never saw one in europe) and it may simply be a case of not being used to them, but I consider give-way intersections, 2 way stops, roundabouts and finally traffic lights as superior solutions - pretty much in that order and depending on how busy the intersection is. The goal should be to reduce breaking and full stops.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#236

Post by kuschku »

klodolph wrote: post #187
Karnickel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't dispute it because of the general "If you've never seen a black swan, is that proof that none exists? (No)" fallacy, but speaking as a German, I cannot remember having seen one in Germany, ever. So even if one exists it's an exceedingly rare thing. When I lived in the US I always found it unnecessary that everybody has to stop. In Germany we always have a "main" road and a "secondary" road, and those on the m…

In the places where I see four-way stop, there is some constant but not heavy traffic during parts of the day, so if you had a primary / secondary road with only a two-way stop, the secondary road would not flow well. However, the traffic was not high enough to warrant a signal. This makes sense to me, and I don't see how other systems would be anything but worse. A signal would have a short cycle and only delay peop…

Almost every such intersection in Germany was replaced with roundabouts, afaik. Perfect use case for them.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#237

Post by maurits »

kqr wrote: post #228
gaius wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not helped by cyclists habit of going straight on from a left turn lane.

That is one of the things that annoy me most about new bike lanes. Why do they put them on the left side of left turn lanes!?? Look, we have had lanes for traffic like a century now. It shouldn't be hard. They just have ti do what they always did! (Also the stupid unsafe cycling advice of staying to the left. Take the lane and take the correct lane, please.)

If the bike lane must be next to a turn lane on an intersection, the dutch have a very simple hack [1].

All bike lanes get green, and get to sort themselves out, but crucially all car lanes get red.

[1]: https://imgur.com/a/VFElf

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#238

Post by papermule »

keir-rex wrote: post #202
Svip wrote: post #133

I feel a lot of commenters are simply focusing on what signs can do or what sort of junction to build, rather than focus on the fact that on high speed primary country roads, bicycles shouldn't be sharing the road with the cars. In Denmark, a lot of high speed roads (excluding motorways, of course) out in the country have separate dual-way bicycle lanes near it but not attached to it. (Example: https://i.imgur.com/dS…

There’s a subset of drivers in the UK who have a resentment to sharing the road with cyclists. Their primary arguments follow; “car drivers pay road tax...” or “cyclists should be forced to sit a driving/road test...” blah blah. There are certainly cyclists who do nothing to help the reputation for the rest but car drivers fail to realise how vulnerable cyclists and motorcyclists are.

Why shouldn’t cyclists need a license to ride on the road? Others road users must have one.

----

It's a shame I'm getting downvoted, but the current state of affairs is that in cities like London bicycles, cars and trucks will be sharing the road for the near-mid future.

I'd rather not have trucks or cars in the city, and ideally cyclists would have their own road separate from cars and pedestrians, but I think that's a pipe dream.

Until then what else can do we? At least if we require tests for cyclists, like we do for cars, buses and trucks, it might help reduce the number of cyclists doing risky things that perhaps they aren't even aware of?

Sure there are still reckless drivers, but at least they have a license that can be revoked and points that can be fined. How do we ban reckless cyclists from the road?

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#239

Post by kerberos84 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #193
Svip wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The main type of accident involving cyclists in Denmark are so called 'right turn accidents', where a lorry turning right at a junction hits a cyclists because they are in their blind spot. This obviously happens exclusively in cities. The media has made a big deal about how tragic it is for the cyclists - which it is, but much less about how tragic it is for the driver. Remember, it's not like drivers want t…

Unfortunately, the cycling organizations don't really like to admit that most right turn accidents happen because cyclists don't seem to understand that motor vehicles have blind spots, and big motor vehicles have bigger blind spots. As someone who regularly drives, bikes, walks and uses public transport in Copenhagen, it is blatantly obvious that people just don't know how to handle right turns involving both cars a…

Yes motor vehicles have blind spots that is why in driving school they teach you checking over shoulder when you turn right. Remember? And yes you should wait for pedestrians and cyclists first if you want to turn right. That is the traffic law. And maybe you can park your car on the curb so that you don't need to wait for pedestrians either!

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#240

Post by talldan »

gambiting wrote: post #214
YawningAngel wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is both legal and necessary to do

I absolutely disagree. If I, as a driver, see someone in a left-only lane, it should ba absolutely safe for me to assume that they are indeed turning left - so I can safely pull out at the junction. Obviously it leads to accidents if the person then goes straight and runs into me. Being in a left-only lane is the same as indicating a turn.

The highway code says that cyclists should stay to the left. Even on a roundabout with multiple lanes, cyclists are supposed to stay to the left and cycle across exits.

I don't ever follow that rule when cycling, it does seem dangerous, but it is the rule, regardless of whether you disagree. You should always check blind spots when turning left, and you should have been coached to do this when learning to drive.

Post reply on HN