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

391–400 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#391

Post by mannykannot »

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 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.

Yes, they are focusing on feasible mitigation, not abstract theorizing (to be fair, about half of this comment does discuss the same sort of feasible mitigations as are dismissed in the first paragraph.)

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#392

Post by cornyNetHandle »

papermule wrote: post #382
cornyNetHandle wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world where there were only pedestrians, would you want them to start having licences? Per mile, walking is exceedingly dangerous compared to other modes of transport.

No, I don't think so? 1. Pedestrians move at much slower speeds than bicycles. If two pedestrians walk into each at 5mph the damage is much lower than if two cyclists collide at 30mph. 2. Since pedestrians move much slower than bicycles they can manoeuvre much faster. The stopping distance for a walking pedestrian is less than 1m, the stopping distance for a bycicle travelling at 30mph is much greater. 3. If two pede…

Ok, so licences for runners then, as you may need to have a test to see that people know the rules and presumably ban people from running if they break them.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#393

Post by maxerickson »

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'…

I imagine a major reason cyclists don't require licenses is because it would cost a lot compared to the benefit it would confer.

You could push the cost onto cyclists that want the license of course.

In the US the "exam" that most drivers have taken is so stupidly easy that it doesn't really mean much that they earned their license. This is less true for the young people that have had to do more work to get a license, but they aren't the majority of drivers yet.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#394

Post by ygra »

bertil wrote: post #384
ygra wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly I've become a much better cyclist after obtaining my driver's license. It made me very aware of the fact that you can't see anything from cars (compared to the elevated and pillar-free view from a bike) so you have to be aware of that fact as a cyclist and react accordingly. Some things cyclists do without thinking much are stupidly dangerous and I think this often is the result of cyclists and drivers…

> you can't see anything from cars This is a very important difference and that’s the main reason I yearn for self-driving cars. Current vehicles are horrible to see where you are driving and drivers are in denial about it. At least, when you have engineers trying to represent a scene, they gut reaction is “No way I am dealing with such a slim view, I”m putting the camera where it can see what’s happening.”

That was basically one of my first reactions in my first hour of driving. »I can't possibly make a turn here. I don't see where I'm going.« That feeling fades over time and one (at least I still do with just a bit over two years of driving) adapts by going slower, looking more carefully, and especially looking for potential dangers before it's too late. Often (not always, as the article details) it's possibly to see ahead of time what can become problematic, e.g. overtaking a cyclist that you might have to yield to 100 meters later when making a turn. But it takes practice and I'm sure different driving instructors and different drivers place varying amounts of emphasis on such things.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#395

Post by mrb »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #122
mrb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

« 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…

> rolling stops What's special about a 4-way stop here? And a rolling stop is good enough to prevent a high-speed collision anyway. > assuming an intersection with a stop sign is almost always a 4-way stop Around here there is a good mix and I don't think that happens. > I prefer the consistency of my home country where every stop is a 2-way stop Well I personally hate going through 2-way-stop intersections that are…

The problem of rolling stops is when people accidentally do that at a 2-way stop that they mistake as a 4-way stop. This greatly increases the chance of a collision.

The prevalence of rolling stops is much reduced in countries where all intersections are 2-way stops.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#396

Post by cornyNetHandle »

teh_klev wrote: post #377
cornyNetHandle wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads in the UK have generally had some work done on them since the automobile was invented. Saying that they are designed for bike traffic, when they are continuously rebuilt to the needs of motorised vehicles, is a bit like complaining that it is problematic marching a centuria down the middle of the A59 out of York, given that is what the Romans designed it for. And we do have a solution to this problem, it is tha…

> a bit like complaining that it is problematic marching a centuria down the middle of the A59 out of York, given that is what the Romans designed it for. Thank you, this observation has brightened up an otherwise mundane Wednesday.

I hope I haven't ruined the mundanity. Is what Wednesdays are for.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#398

Post by papermule »

cornyNetHandle wrote: post #392
papermule wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think so? 1. Pedestrians move at much slower speeds than bicycles. If two pedestrians walk into each at 5mph the damage is much lower than if two cyclists collide at 30mph. 2. Since pedestrians move much slower than bicycles they can manoeuvre much faster. The stopping distance for a walking pedestrian is less than 1m, the stopping distance for a bycicle travelling at 30mph is much greater. 3. If two pede…

Ok, so licences for runners then, as you may need to have a test to see that people know the rules and presumably ban people from running if they break them.

Since running is largely recreational most runners avoid congested areas on purpose. If this changes it will have to be revisited. Nice strawman though.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#399

Post by jiri »

Driver should be moving his/her head slightly to eliminate this phenomena, to change angles of view. Very useful when approaching difficult situation in a moving car. One has to anticipate these effects and try to disturb linearity in movement by changing your car speed non-linearly to alter viewing angles in some situations.

These approaches together it will help driver to much better asses other objects speed and direction of movement and generally it improve one situation awareness.

This is something you can do about it if you dont want to wait for all crossroads to be rebuilt ;-)

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#400

Post by brewdad »

papermule wrote: post #306
lagadu wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're still a risk. Not knowing the rules can cause a motorist who did absolutely nothing wrong to kill said cyclist or swerve away from the cyclist and kill someone else not even involved, all because of a negligent cyclist. That said, demanding a license for cyclists I agree is completely unreasonable.

Could you add some more explanation here? What is unreasonable about it?

What is the actual gain to society from requiring a cyclist license? Today, without licenses, police can and do hand out moving violations to cyclists. Today, drivers who have their license revoked or car impounded still find ways to drive cars, at least in the US. The barrier to picking up a new bike after having yours impounded by police is far lower. If it's forcing a baseline requirement for skills and knowledge, well we've already seen how well that's worked out for drivers (most drivers suck at it).

Licensing cyclists seems like a feel good idea to make things "fair". The fact is, things can never be fair between to such disparate classes of vehicles. Can someone explain how a world with licensed cyclists would be fundamentally different than today?

Post reply on HN