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

281–290 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#281

Post by Boltgolt »

7952 wrote: post #194
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…

Most roads in the UK are perfectly well designed to handle bike traffic. But they are not designed for the massive quantity of vehicle traffic travelling at relatively high speed on roads originally designed for a different age. Danger to cyclists are a symptom of this wider problem which we have no real solution for. Also, this particular junction is terribly designed for cars and will result in collisions.

I mean, you say that, but every time I see cyclists on an A road or pedestrian crossings on a 2-2 lane highway I die a little inside

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#282

Post by Piskvorrr »

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'…

Who says they don't have one? I drive, cycle, walk, and even use public transport. (Yes, yes, I should pick one of them and stick to it regardless of applicability, I know ;o))

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#283

Post by kingosticks »

falsedan wrote: post #272
kingosticks wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In theory, yes I agree, some evergreen bushes would be sufficient. But it technically still leaves it possible for a driver to shoot straight over whereas the road change is fool-proof. Plus you don't actually have to close any roads to implement the junction alteration (in this case). Of course it is more expensive and time consuming to implement, I grant you that.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#284

Post by walshemj »

Svip wrote: post #181
TomMarius wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drivers shouldn't be punished for bad design of the road. A separate bike road should be constructed.

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…

Seeing bike riders in London a lot of those sort of accidents (90 % of fatalities in London) are caused by cyclists undertaking agresivly.

Also the way the UK's bike lanes are set up encourage cyclists to get in front of other traffic at traficlight controlled junctions - normalises undertaking.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#285

Post by u801e »

mrb wrote: post #69
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #8

There's a lot of math in this article about blind spots and car pillars and whatnot, but a Google Maps Street View appears to show the terrain and brush blocking the view on approach [1][2], making all of this math largely moot. That the drivers in question didn't even so much as slow down for this approach is beyond reckless, aside from the other lawbreaking that followed. The 'Give Way' sign is idiotic, put a Stop…

« make it a 4-way stop » You may be unaware, but 4-way stop signs are very uncommon outside of the US. In fact, in the UK they have always been formally prohibited by the Department for Transport in 2002. As a European driver, I discovered the existence of 4-way stop signs when I moved to the US, and I have always found them dangerous in a counter intuitive way: drivers are so used to 4-way stop intersections, that t…

The other thing about 4-way stop intersections in the US is that the right-of-way rules when two vehicles arrive at the intersection at the same time is not quite what one would expect. That is, the vehicle to the right has the right of way. If the intersection was controlled by a roundabout, then the vehicle to the left would have the right of way.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#286

Post by Piskvorrr »

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.

s/Pedestrians are/Pedestrians ought to be/ - "meh, just plan for cars, anything else is irrelevant" is all too common.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#287

Post by u801e »

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.

There is at least one state (Idaho [1]) in the US where cyclists are legally allowed to treat a stop sign like a yield sign.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#288

Post by mnwg »

gideonparanoid wrote: post #258
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.

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/

The word is "moo" not "moot" - It means it's like a cow's opinion..."moo"

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#289

Post by dsego »

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…

A stop sign means stop and give way to the cars on the main road, or if the other road has same priority, to the cars on your right. If there are no cars, you are free to enter the junction. A road with a yield sign and a road with a stop sign are of the same priority and right-hand rule applies. Unless you are in Croatia where people universally refuse to accept this simple rule and consider the stop sign as having lower priority "because that car has to stop".

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#290

Post by Piskvorrr »

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.

Should be; and as a driver, rider, and cyclist, would absolutely love to transport myself through such a world. Alas, a twenty-minute drive yesterday got me: people turning right from a left lane (across the through and right lanes, no less), people driving straight through red lights, pedestrians nearly run over on their green light by drivers turning into them, not to mention no indicator lights at all, and 10% of cars driving without any lights at all at night. (Incidentally, "world has road standards and then just ignores them" is IMHO the #1 reason that self-driving cars are not in our near future)
Post reply on HN