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

261–270 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#261

Post by _0ffh »

papermule wrote: post #253
_0ffh wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Speed makes no sense for measuring the potential danger of an object. Energy or impulse do.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#262

Post by Zach_the_Lizard »

klodolph wrote: post #207
mnw21cam wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why mini-roundabouts were invented.

America doesn't really have those... they would be as alien and confusing as a four-way stop in Europe. I can't imagine it not being dangerous.

You can find a few of these small roundabouts in Arlington, VA. There don't seem to be issues with them

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#263

Post by beobab »

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.

I think a requirement of a year's worth of cycling on the road before you can have a driver's license would increase cycling awareness significantly.

Nothing raises your appreciation of the difficulties faced by a group more than belonging to that group in a real and physical manner on a daily basis.

Not that I think it would be implementable: Humans are remarkably good at rejecting constraints.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#264

Post by Piskvorrr »

chillydawg wrote: post #179
Piskvorrr wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except pedestrians, bikers, cyclists, etcetera. (Plus you are overestimating the rate of change: I still see horse carriages on the road, 100+ years after the beginning of the car era) And don't get me started on driver ed in PA, USA: in my case, it consisted of a video, signing an drivers' permit application - and voila, go out there and drive (under supervision). I was shocked, shocked .

In the UK you can get a provisional license that allows supervised driving with zero training. It's assumed your supervisor (anyone holding a driving licence for something like 7 years or more) will stop you doing stupid shit.

Interesting. I was so used to the continental idea "driver school takes at least weeks and is like any other training, except it's in a car" that the opposite approach was highly unexpected to me; it does make sense though.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#265

Post by [deleted] »

_0ffh wrote: post #261
papermule wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Speed makes no sense for measuring the potential danger of an object. Energy or impulse do.

[deleted]

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#266

Post by [deleted] »

zimpenfish wrote: post #242
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'…

> All other road users must have one. Not true. Horse drawn vehicles and horse riders don't. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-about-ani... Invalid carriages also need no license. https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs... I'm sure other examples can be found.

[deleted]

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#267

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]

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#268

Post by maxerickson »

u801e wrote: post #5

Why does this junction not have a roundabout? Would having one there reduce the chances for a crash by forcing vehicles to reduce their speed when approaching the intersection?

They are both relatively minor roads:

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8679527,-1.4498025,7589m/dat...

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#269

Post by mdpye »

papermule wrote: post #248
jjgreen wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians don't.

Pedestrians are, with the exception of some rural areas, provided with dedicated carriage such as a pavement or sidewalk. The rules of crossing the road are well defined and in some European countries pedestrians are even arrested for J walking.

There is no such thing as jaywalking in the UK, it's neither an offence (with the exception of motorways, which also regulate the type of vehicle which may enter), nor a term that's widely used or understood.

Outside of cities, there are lots of roads without pavements (not just in super-rural areas). Walking on them is normal, and people know how (e.g. always walk on the right, facing oncoming traffic).

And I very much hope it stays that way. Cars should not rule our public spaces.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#270

Post by Scarblac »

lmm wrote: post #251
Scarblac wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

So you mean dedicated bike lanes, I think. Dedicated bike roads implies physically segregated to me.
Post reply on HN