A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists • Hacker News Board

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#31

Post by matte_black » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:35 AM UTC

metaphor wrote: post #21

matte_black wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s one way to interpret it, but given the disappointment that was expressed I’d assume it was a reference to “solution” of writing the problem off as human error for which nothing can be done. Until the op clarifies what they meant, both our comments are equally valid or invalid.

To be sure, there's a nice and bold sub-section of the article titled A Simple Solution which I (perhaps naively) presumed the parent was referring to--further reinforced (in my mind) by a username which subtly suggested specialization in traffic engineering.

It would seem odd to be disappointed with a solution that wasn’t actually implemented.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#32

Post by jmts » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:37 AM UTC

matte_black wrote: post #4

Wow, after all these years I finally learned the name of this phenomenon, constant bearing decreasing range. I recall a scene in the movie Sin City where two cars crash and the camera was moving in CBDR to the perpendicular car as it zoomed into the impact site. I thought it was a cool shot. Also I’ve almost hit pedestrians several times when they were obscured by my A pillar. Sometimes I wonder if I would have actua…

    > Sometimes I wonder if I would have actually hit them if anyone would have believed I didn’t see them

As a daily motorcyclist that also drives a car, I'm uncomfortably aware of how much of your vision the A-pillar obscures. Not to mention the passenger side one, the B-pillars, and seating.

That said, it is as much my responsibility (or any road user, or pedestrian) not to put myself into a dangerous position as much as it is for you to do your best to keep an eye out.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#33

Post by djsumdog » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:38 AM UTC

I know most comments indicate that even without the maths, the rolling geography would seem to block the view, and that the best solution would be a 4-way stop, a roundabout or the split road suggestion in the article.

But going back to the a-pillar, Volvo did have a concept design with a see through a-pillar. I'm not sure why it never made it to market. I'm guessing it didn't pass their safety requirements?

http://www.dangar.com/brochure12.htm

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#34

Post by DavidSJ » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #25

JonahBraun wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article, the author explains that from the cyclists orientation, the car approaches from 94 degrees.

Doesn't matter. If you're cycling and you see a moving car, assume the driver doesn't see you. Never cross the path of a moving car even if you have the right of way or a green light etc. When you approach a junction, your head needs to be on a swivel constantly looking left and right and you need to be prepared to stop even if you have the right of way. This pretty much goes for motorcyclists as well. I'm not blamin…

The rule I generally follow as a pedestrian is that the object with greater linear momentum has the right of way.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#35

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#36

Post by u801e » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #29

bdamm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, a stop sign would solve this, wouldn’t it? Simplist & cheapest solution first. The point about the geometry is that it doesn’t matter at which point the driver can see over the hill and brush; they still won’t see the cyclist.

In the US, they would put up a stop sign and park a cop near there for some instant, costly learning experiences. Although, if the speed is sufficient you would probably get an overpass, particularly if one road is a known truck route. It would be interesting to build a bicycle only overpass.

The US also tends to overuse stop signs when a yield (give way) sign would suffice. That is, if there is sufficient visibility of approaching traffic, coming to a complete stop is not necessary to safely yield to any conflicting traffic. Also, coming to a complete stop and then proceeding isn't sufficient to properly yield to approaching traffic.

In the end, stop signs end up being treated like yield signs. The only time they're properly treated like stop signs is when it's not possible to see cross traffic before you approach the intersection.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#37

Post by giardini » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:45 AM UTC

A few speed bumps at the intersection would slow drivers. Speed bumps are cheap and effective. You can lay several in series to encourage drivers to slow. It would be a shame not to use them in such an instance, where lives might be saved.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#38

Post by metaphor » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:49 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #9

metaphor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain your reason(s) for disappointment, and/or posit a sensible alternative for consideration?

Forcing drivers to make left turns just to stay on the same road is a recipe for more car accidents. The proble could be resolved simply by putting up a stop light.

> Forcing drivers to make left turns...

Would the remark still be equally valid given left-lane driving layout (as opposed to right-lane in the US)? Both left turn merging onto north/south road and right turn merging back onto east/west road strike me as lower risk given attention is focused on a single lane at any given time, as opposed to negotiating both north and south lanes simultaneously in existing intersection.

Also, the area appears to be in a rural location without nearby power distribution infrastructure to tap into; probably not as simple--or cost effective--at first glance.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#39

Post by azernik » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:52 AM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #33

I know most comments indicate that even without the maths, the rolling geography would seem to block the view, and that the best solution would be a 4-way stop, a roundabout or the split road suggestion in the article. But going back to the a-pillar, Volvo did have a concept design with a see through a-pillar. I'm not sure why it never made it to market. I'm guessing it didn't pass their safety requirements? http://w…

Judging from the considerations evinced in this article, pillar strength and thus rollover safety do seem to be limiting factors: https://www.redbook.com.au/car-news/toyota/toyota-patents-tr...

It also indicates, however, that the industry is putting real development effort into solving the problem, whether through clever optics like Toyota's efforts, or cameras and screens like Jaguar's concept.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#40

Post by jmts » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 4:52 AM UTC

recursive wrote: post #27

ams6110 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter. If you're cycling and you see a moving car, assume the driver doesn't see you. Never cross the path of a moving car even if you have the right of way or a green light etc. When you approach a junction, your head needs to be on a swivel constantly looking left and right and you need to be prepared to stop even if you have the right of way. This pretty much goes for motorcyclists as well. I'm not blamin…

If you read the article, then you'd know that the cyclist probably did not see the car at all.

The cyclist may not see the car if they stare blindly into the distance in front of them. GP is making the point that the cyclist should be aware of their surroundings, and taking precautions accordingly. This includes looking for approaching traffic down the length of a side road on approach to an intersection.

While I don't discount that there may be freak scenarios, as a motorcyclist I agree. If I don't see a car, a pedestrian, a bird, a kangaroo, a log on the road, I go to hospital. It's as much my responsibility to ensure my own safety as anyone else's.