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

271–280 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#271

Post by dsego »

phicoh wrote: post #162
alkonaut wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing they actually do exist almost everywhere, but they are rare, and only typical in very slow traffic areas such as residential block intersections (see google map in next post) where you can't motivate building a roundabout or adding lights. Anywhere else they would be replaced by either traffic lights or a roundabout. Most importantly, you would avoid at almost any cost to cross two rural roads in a flat…

In the Netherlands, a 4 four stop would lead to an instant deadlock. I.e., if you reach a stop sign then all traffic on the road you approaching has priority. There are no rules for solving this conflict. Because you cannot have two roads that have priority over each other. The Dutch equivalent of a 4 way stop is a raised intersection. Basically an intersection that is one big speed bump. Traffic is forced to slow do…

It's the same situation when there are no signs. Then all roads have same priority and you give way to the vehicle on your right. If 4 vehicles come to the intersection at the same time then every vehicle has another vehicle on their right and it's a standstill. If I remember correctly in such situations drivers need to communicate and one vehicle should go first to resolve the situation.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#272

Post by falsedan »

kingosticks wrote: post #200
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…

I don't think that's a fact. We are not even talking about particularly high speed roads here. The same thing happens regardless of speed so that's really nothing to do with it. The cost of separate cycle lanes (everywhere?) is huge compared to simple junction alterations as in this particular case. Traffic lights are even worse! These are vastly over-engineered solutions compared to that proposed in the article. Sur…

> simple junction alterations as in this particular case

I'd propose an even-simpler alteration, which would require zero engineering & road closures: block some of the right sight lines from Dibden to Beaulieu when approaching with a sightscreen, trees, or billboards. Drivers approaching would notice the impaired visibility and switch to a more defensive technique or be more aware of a potential collision.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#273

Post by beobab »

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).

Yes, and suddenly you're in a tunnel frequented by characters you're likely to find in a crime thriller who like to find out-of-the-way places to practice their craft.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#274

Post by u801e »

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.

> The highway code says that cyclists should stay to the left.

The uniform vehicle code (which is the basis of many state road rules in the US) states the following:

>> Any person operating a bicycle... shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations

>> [...]

>> When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including [...] substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

A cyclist riding as close to the edge of a given lane as practicable will leave roughly 2 feet between the edge of the bicycle's handlebar and the edge of the lane. The cyclist is about 2 feet wide. In a lot of states in the US, there is a requirement that a least 3 feet of space is left between the cyclist and the overtaking vehicle.

2 + 2 + 3 = 7 feet. A passenger vehicle in the US is about 6 feet wide. A commercial vehicle (e.g., truck/lorry or bus) is about 8.5 feet wide. The typical lane width ranges from 10 to 12 feet. For a 10 foot wide lane, a cyclist taking up 7 feet of space only leaves 3 feet of space for a 6 to 8.5 foot wide vehicle (5 feet for 12 foot wide lanes). That means that the two vehicles cannot safely travel side-by-side within the lane.

So, according to the UVC, there isn't a requirement to keep toward the edge of the lane in most cases.

I haven't checked to see whether the UK highway code has a similar exception to the "stay to the left part of the lane" rule.

The other problem with keeping towards the edge of the lane as opposed to riding near the middle is that the cyclist is less visible to overtaking, cross, and oncoming traffic because they're hidden by other motor vehicles or not in the field of view of a lot of drivers.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#275

Post by v_lisivka »

papermule wrote: post #256
lmm wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

How many drivers were killed or injured by these riders?

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#276

Post by [deleted] »

mdpye wrote: post #269
papermule wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

[deleted]

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#277

Post by [deleted] »

v_lisivka wrote: post #275
papermule wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

How many drivers were killed or injured by these riders?

[deleted]

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#278

Post by lmm »

papermule wrote: post #256
lmm wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Let's be careful not to conflate two things: conforming to red lights isn't a goal in itself, safety is the goal. A lot of drivers get exercised about "cyclists running red lights" in cases that are actually safer than the alternatives, e.g. cyclists crossing a junction ahead of motor traffic when the junction doesn't have a dedicated light phase for cyclists.

Cyclists running up the inside mostly happens because waiting in a queue of traffic at a light or junction is very dangerous for a cyclist; stopping and starting are inherently dangerous and made much more so when you're starting in the middle of a queue that's anxious to start moving. In many cases road design endorses this - you'll see junctions with a cycle lane on the left running up to the light, and cyclists are expected to pass on the left even when a vehicle in line is turning left.

The solution that I've seen work best is a marked cycle-only box immediately before the junction - that provides cyclists a place to wait for the light, but it also makes for a clear dividing line between the section where cyclists are expected to pass the queue on the left versus the entry into the junction where that would be unsafe. Unfortunately cars often occupy those boxes and are seemingly not penalised for doing so. More of those boxes and more enforcement of those that exist would help, IMO, as would giving cyclists a dedicated light phase (as is done at e.g. some of the junctions on CS2) to let them clear the junction before motorists enter.

In terms of Bank specifically, it's an outlier: it's an extremely complex junction (7 roads) that simply has too much traffic demand for the space available. The junction has now been restricted to buses, cycles and pedestrians only during the daytime, and there's talk of removing the buses as well. That's appropriate: it's both safer and more efficient in terms of person throughput than allowing cars to use the very limited space there.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#279

Post by Vinnl »

> The truly contemptible human error is not in a single person carelessly failing to see. It (...) is in our incessant support of a system which cries “human error” as an excuse to do nothing, rather than as a stimulus to understand that error in order to create a solution.

Interestingly, I've seen parallels at work, when doing retrospectives: "this didn't go well mostly due to human error (slacking, forgetting, etc.), so the lesson for next time is to just do that better."

Instead, I'd prefer us to be looking for a way to prevent human error to cause problems in the future. But I guess the reason for us often not doing that is probably because it's too much effort compared to the perceived benefit - and that's probably true most of the time.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#280

Post by lmm »

Scarblac wrote: post #270
lmm wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An (anti)pattern I often see is a road that's physically segregated for plain road, but then merges into and out of the main roadway (sometimes becoming a dedicated lane) for junctions.
Post reply on HN