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

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#461

Post by beat » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:07 PM UTC

cgriswald wrote: post #441

beat wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing bicycles to follow rules designed for cars is often silly and sometimes actively dangerous. For example, the bike route from downtown to my house involves making a left turn on a busy street. For a mile and a half, the street is nice and wide, with generous bike lanes in both directions - sensible and safe. But the moment I have to turn left? By car laws , I need to stop in the middle of the road, with traffi…

Your u-turn sounds legal, even in a car, but I'd have to see the area and know the state to be sure. Regardless, bicyclists are already required to follow the law. Having a required license would simply help make sure bicyclists are aware of the law and provide a tool for law enforcement to keep the most egregious offenders ( e.g. stop sign runners, cyclists traveling against traffic, etc.) from causing problems.

Why? Requiring a license doesn't seem to make car drivers any better. And most bicyclists already have a driver's license. Those who don't tend to be kids, or poor (having a driver's license is privilege, although a common one). Forcing them to need a license will just create more illegal bicyclists.

Law enforcement can already ticket a bicyclist, license or no license. Bicyclists already know when they're breaking the law.

I disbelieve your proposed solution would actually solve any problems.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#462

Post by dang » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:21 PM UTC

mnwg wrote: post #288

gideonparanoid wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#463

Post by ptaipale » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:22 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #457

papermule wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Retrain them before you retrain cyclists. Why can't we retrain both? Do we have to pick one or the other?

Because it’s an inefficient use of time and money. All that you’ll achieve is less people cycling and that’s exactly the opposite of what you want. Think about the practicality of a cycle license: do you expect a 6 year old to pass a test before cycling? A ten year old to carry along a license when he goes out? You can’t even fine them because the statuary limit in germany is 14. You can’t fine the parents either bec…

Education is generally far more cost efficient than building new infrastructure like roads.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#464

Post by inuit12 » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

cornyNetHandle wrote: post #451

papermule wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, you're missing the point. You do not walk on the road the same way a cyclist cycles on the road. You do not walk up to T junctions, indicate with your arms and turn left. You neither come to a set of traffic lights in the same way. Cyclists have to do all these things.

And they are somehow managing to do so currently without licences. One thing to consider is how much effect licensing has on car safety anyway. Mexico city has no test requirement at all, you just pay for permission to drive rather than sitting any test, while Peru has more road deaths per capita, despite needing a practical test, written test and medical certificate before you get behind the wheel.

so what is the conclusion here? Road tests have no positive impact on road safety because Mexico City has fewer accidents than Peru?

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#465

Post by inuit12 » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #457

papermule wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Retrain them before you retrain cyclists. Why can't we retrain both? Do we have to pick one or the other?

Because it’s an inefficient use of time and money. All that you’ll achieve is less people cycling and that’s exactly the opposite of what you want. Think about the practicality of a cycle license: do you expect a 6 year old to pass a test before cycling? A ten year old to carry along a license when he goes out? You can’t even fine them because the statuary limit in germany is 14. You can’t fine the parents either bec…

So the conclusion here is that cycling is fine just how it is, based on a cost/benefit analysis, and that motor car users need to be regularly examined and educated to ensure good road safety for everyone?

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#466

Post by inuit12 » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #435

papermule wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I could, as someone who doesn't have a driving license, or has never learned to drive, go out on the road with my bicycle and more or less ride whenever and wherever I like. I don't know what any of the road signs mean and I have no experience or training in hazard…

> I could, as someone who doesn't have a driving license, or has never learned to drive, go out on the road with my bicycle and more or less ride whenever and wherever I like. Sure. Realistically, how much danger do people doing this represent to society? There are plenty of dangerous things that people could do, but the heavy machinery of law should be reserved for actual problems rather than hypothetical ones. > If…

For 5-19 YO it is 3rd most common, but when you look at the whole population it doesn’t even make the list.

source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-fo...

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#467

Post by Piskvorrr » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #403

Piskvorrr wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdata: fixing frequent accident sites (e.g. 70 kph main road x 50 kph access roads) with traffic lights reduces minor accidents, but there was a major accident on one of them just recently...because "traffic lights be damned, nobody ever comes out that road anyw-BOOM." Traffic lights are a discretionary access control mechanism ("ignore at your discretion"), roundabout is a mandatory access control mechanism.

I wonder if that happened because the traffic light was just on a timer rather than taking actual traffic in account. If the smaller road hardly ever sees traffic the light would be red very infrequently and getting your attention when red.

It's a timer, yes - but if you do not have enough attention to see two RED lights on an otherwise empty intersection (one overhead and one right at your eye level), you have no business being behind the wheel, as you either a) are legally blind, or b) have the attention span of a proverbial goldfish.

The suggestion that anything important should be screaming and blinking (otherwise the poor driver couldn't have noticed) is patently ridiculous. There's quite a lot of other, less conspicuous things that a driver needs to be aware of (such as pedestrians or potholes).

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#468

Post by cgriswald » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:47 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #461

cgriswald wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your u-turn sounds legal, even in a car, but I'd have to see the area and know the state to be sure. Regardless, bicyclists are already required to follow the law. Having a required license would simply help make sure bicyclists are aware of the law and provide a tool for law enforcement to keep the most egregious offenders ( e.g. stop sign runners, cyclists traveling against traffic, etc.) from causing problems.

Why? Requiring a license doesn't seem to make car drivers any better. And most bicyclists already have a driver's license. Those who don't tend to be kids, or poor (having a driver's license is privilege, although a common one). Forcing them to need a license will just create more illegal bicyclists. Law enforcement can already ticket a bicyclist, license or no license. Bicyclists already know when they're breaking t…

> Why? Requiring a license doesn't seem to make car drivers any better.

Then let's advocate for getting rid of licensing since it has a cost and no benefit. I don't think you really mean that, do you? I've got plenty of ideas for a better licensing system for driving.

> Forcing them to need a license will just create more illegal bicyclists.

Illegal drivers face consequences that licensed drivers do not face. The same would be true for illegal bicyclists. I fail to see this as a bad thing.

> Bicyclists already know when they're breaking the law.

They don't know. They might know if they did it in a car they would be breaking the law. They also believe themselves to be incapable of creating a dangerous situation. (Quick anecdote: I was on a jury for a civil case where a bicyclist admitted on the stand he ran into a car that, by all evidence and even his own testimony, was stopped. The bicyclist had also run a stop sign. He felt the driver was at fault for the accident.)

Being a bicyclist myself, I assumed everyone knew as well. Back home, all my cycling friends knew and followed the rules. When I started cycling with people here, I found out they really don't know that the rules apply to them, they think the rules are different in some way, or they just have some really bizarre notions. AFAICT, it's baked into the culture. I mean, people don't know basic stuff like that you can get a DUI on a bike or that you can't ride on the sidewalk...

A bicycle-specific license (or maybe an endorsement on a DL) could focus on bicycle-specific issues, with basic questions like "I have to stop for a stop sign on a bicycle. T/F" and more 'complex' stuff like how bicycle lanes work at intersections with people making right turns. Drivers and cyclists alike seem to have no clue that the driver should enter the bicycle lane (after yielding to bicycles in the lane) for his turn and that the bicyclist should not try to pass him on the right.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#469

Post by Xylakant » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

inuit12 wrote: post #465

Xylakant wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s an inefficient use of time and money. All that you’ll achieve is less people cycling and that’s exactly the opposite of what you want. Think about the practicality of a cycle license: do you expect a 6 year old to pass a test before cycling? A ten year old to carry along a license when he goes out? You can’t even fine them because the statuary limit in germany is 14. You can’t fine the parents either bec…

So the conclusion here is that cycling is fine just how it is, based on a cost/benefit analysis, and that motor car users need to be regularly examined and educated to ensure good road safety for everyone?

no, that's not the conclusion. I didn't bring up the "let's have a license requirement for cyclists idea." My point is that this is not a change that would improve cycling in a way that outweighs the negative effects. It's a bullshit idea that gets floated from time to time.

Improve cycling by all means, but use something that is effective: better infrastructure, education, enforcement. The Berlin police introduced a police squad on cycles a few years ago in one district and that has proven to be a very effective method: For one, they enforce road rules for people on bicyclist, but the major effect is that they remove cars from infrastructure dedicated to bicycles which in turn actually enables cyclists to use that infrastructure and makes people less likely to ride on the sidewalk, for example.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#470

Post by Xylakant » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 8:06 PM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #463

Xylakant wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s an inefficient use of time and money. All that you’ll achieve is less people cycling and that’s exactly the opposite of what you want. Think about the practicality of a cycle license: do you expect a 6 year old to pass a test before cycling? A ten year old to carry along a license when he goes out? You can’t even fine them because the statuary limit in germany is 14. You can’t fine the parents either bec…

Education is generally far more cost efficient than building new infrastructure like roads.

No, not in this case. It's not like people don't know the rules and the majority of people get killed despite being absolutely in the right and having done nothing wrong. How do you fix that with education? The dooring accident that nearly killed me happened on a cycle lane that I was by law required to use. The car driver just opened the door into the oncoming cycle traffic. How could you educate me better in a way that would have prevented me from making a hard impact with that door? Witnesses told me they didn't even expect me to get up again. How would educating me help prevent the three close passes I had today, especially the one where the car driver thought I'd have to squeeze into the dooring zone? The one that passed me when I was doing 30 in a max 30 zone? The close pass yesterday where the car driver didn't manage to pass me before the oncoming traffic was there, squeezing me against the parked cars? I was in the right, still I'd be the one dead. Should I yield and crawl? Cycling isn't a sport for me, it's my preferred mode of transport, I really want to get somewhere and I don't want to spend ages doing so.

Calling for education of cyclists has a strong smell of victim blaming. Oh, sorry, he's dead. If he'd been better educated, he might have known that he was in the right.