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

251–260 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#251

Post by lmm »

Scarblac wrote: post #241
kqr wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 also less visible to them. More anecdata: I take the bike when I can, and I have had motorists run into me a few times. Every single time has been on dedicated bike roads. Don't get me wrong -- I have h…

How did motorists end up on dedicated bike roads?

Often these "dedicated bike roads" become not-so-dedicated at junctions. Also motorists frequently ignore painted lines marking bicycle lanes. (You can argue for physically segregated bike lanes instead of painted lines, but as a cyclist I won't use physically segregated bike lanes unless I know how they end, because all too often you get a "bike lane to nowhere" with no way to get off it).

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#252

Post by unabst »

gozur88 wrote: post #199
QuarterReptile wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rolling stop is only good enough to prevent a 'high-speed collision' as judged by people wearing steel armor boxes.

Cyclists are supposed to come to a full stop as well. They're easy to see stopped right at the corner.

This doesn't happen, at least from my limited experience in Beverly Hills.

I ride several blocks to work sometimes and I take local streets which all have 4 ways stop signs.

9 out of 10 cars yield and refuse to go. I get the pedestrian treatment.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#253

Post by papermule »

_0ffh wrote: post #247
papermule wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Because they are not zooming around in a several hundred kilogram steel box? Also, I regularly walk on or over roads, with no license whatsoever. Outside, everyone's participating in traffic, one way or another.

Even so, a bike is capable of moving at speeds high enough to cause severe harm to the rider or pedestrians. What if the threshold for a test was based on the average speeds of the vehicle?

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#254

Post by alkonaut »

vertex-four wrote: post #233
alkonaut wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

The normal solution (used e.g. in Sweden) is to simply add a supplemental sign saying "multi-way stop" under the stop sign. https://d3h4jqp4au0mzy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/201...

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#256

Post by papermule »

lmm wrote: post #246
papermule wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Because, while it does occasionally happen, the risk of a cyclist killing or seriously injuring another road user is much lower than the risk of a car driver doing so. Unlicensed cyclists are a much lower risk to other road users than licensed drivers; if anything we should be looking to impose stricter licensing requirements on drivers.

The number of people on bikes running up the inside of vehicles on narrow streets is too high. I’d walk through Bank (a junction in London) 5 times a week and I’d see time and time again people riding up the inside of tipper trucks and buses indicating to turn left. It happens all the time. I’d witness 3-4 near misses a month.

Rule 73 of the Highway Code:

> Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#257

Post by Shivetya »

papermule wrote: post #238
keir-rex wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

sad to see your comment down voted but there are laws that bicyclist have to obey and they should prove they know them. this would include showing they understand the protective gear requirements and how proper attire protects them.

it isn't uncommon near some bike parks where I am for groups to block intersections which only serves to aggravate drivers. The are required in many areas to pass through intersections like all other vehicles, alternating with those waiting on the cross roads.

the bikes should be tagged to indicate they have the proper reflectors and lighting. there are still too many riding without reflective clothing let alone any type of lighting in low light conditions. I ride, I hate the idiots that ruin the sport

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#258

Post by gideonparanoid »

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.

There's no such thing as road tax, roads are paid for out of general taxation [0]. What they're thinking is vehicle excise duty, which doesn't apply to all vehicles, so that point is moot.

[0] http://ipayroadtax.com/

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#259

Post by avip »

PeterisP wrote: post #205
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"when the light turns green, it becomes almost impossible for the driver to turn right, because of the bikes already there, as well as the additional bikes coming from behind, completely ignoring the right blinker on the car." Isn't that how it should be ? I'm not in DK, but in LV traffic laws in such a situation they should ignore the blinker, the driver must wait and turn right only after everyone going straight e.…

That sounds like an extremely dangerous law... In bike-crowded cities you will never be able to take a safe right-turn that way.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#260

Post by [deleted] »

talldan wrote: post #240
gambiting wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN