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

481–490 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#481

Post by aidenn0 »

jessriedel wrote: post #439
aidenn0 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least 4-way stops have the same basic rules throughout the US (cars go in order of arrival). 2-way stops do not : Consider the case where the first car to arrive is turning left, but cannot do so due to traffic on the main road. Then a car arrives from the opposite direction going straight. Who is supposed to go first? In some states it's the car that reached the stop sign first, in others it's the car going strai…

> In some states it's the car that reached the stop sign first, in others it's the car going straight. Do you have a cite/link about this? I've heard people say different things, but I've never seen evidence that the left-turning vehicle has legal right-of-way in any state.

I could not find a US state with that law, interestingly enough, despite being taught it in Driver's Ed. in Virginia, that doesn't appear to be the law on the books.

Most states' language is similar to California's 21801 which is must yield to vehicles "approaching frome the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard"

Not USA, but Ontario, CA actually does have this rule in 136.2[1]

Michigan found a 3rd option: If there are two cars going straight from one direction and one car waiting to turn left from the opposite, then it goes Straight, Left, Straight. This is regardless of the order that they arrive[2]

[edit]

I also find it absurd that this situation is not covered in every single States' driver's manual. After googling this, it's clearly contentious, and has been for years. If there ever was a situation that needed clarification it's this one.

I think it was New York's manual that had the section and had a list of questions "you should be able to answer" before proceeding (without answers provided). One of the questions was this situation, but I could not figure out the answer from reading the chapter!

1: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK230

2: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(did15hikprdseomawdqif0jc))/...

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#482

Post by DaveInTucson »

proto-n wrote: post #147
DaveInTucson wrote: post #124

Basic rule of the road: if you haven't made eye contact with someone, you should assume they haven't seen you and don't know you're there. I mean, they could improve the intersection by making it a full stop, but educating bicyclists not to ride out in front of somebody who will hit you if they don't slow down seems like a good step too.

The article describes that the cyclists don't see the car either because it is coming up on them from behind (at a 94 degree angle, with higher speed). You can't know you haven't made eye contact if you don't know they are there.

I'm not sure if I would describe a 94 degree angle as "behind them", but I would also observe it's a good idea to exercise caution in navigating a blind intersection whether you're on a bike or in a car.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#483

Post by squiggleblaz »

dabbledash wrote: post #449
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…

That u-turn sounds legal for everybody. I think one the purposes of traffic law is to make the behavior of all participants predictable. My only issue with cyclists is I feel I can never predict what they're going to do.

"That u-turn sounds legal for everybody."

There's usually laws about how far you can see, how far you have to be from an intersection etc.

"My only issue with cyclists is I feel I can never predict what they're going to do."

This is not entirely the fault of the cyclists, it's the fault of the law givers

The laws are not written in such a way that it appears safe to people using bikes to follow all the rules, so everyone is compelled to come up with their own rules. The build of roads is the same; a small detour for a person in a car can become quite substantial for a person on a bike.

At the moment the laws get written and the roads get design assuming almost everyone is going to use a car, and then they say "well, is it physically possible to follow it on a bike?" - if they consider bikes at all.

If governments wanted people to ride bikes predictably, they must consider them when crafting the laws. It's probably quite okay for people riding bikes to act differently than people driving cars: just like people walking around behave differently. It will then take some time to spread the word and regain the trust of cyclists. But it's a more helpful solution than saying "they must follow rules and infrastructure designed for cars in the same way as cars, except that they must not delay me: that way they will be predictable and safe".

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#484

Post by nraynaud »

Karnickel wrote: post #154
nraynaud wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do exist in Germany.

I won't dispute it because of the general "If you've never seen a black swan, is that proof that none exists? (No)" fallacy, but speaking as a German, I cannot remember having seen one in Germany, ever. So even if one exists it's an exceedingly rare thing. When I lived in the US I always found it unnecessary that everybody has to stop. In Germany we always have a "main" road and a "secondary" road, and those on the m…

I went to check on google maps, I suspect I misremembered and it was a 4 way priority loosing (downwards triangle), but the road markings are mostly worn out (but I think they are 4 dashed lines, not continuous), and Germany being Germany, I can't use google street view.

St Peter Strasse / Von der Tann Strasse in Rorhbach in Heidelberg.

Sorry for causing a stir with my bad memory, I remembered that from my French point of view that would cause a deadlock.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#485

Post by DaveInTucson »

upofadown wrote: post #130
DaveInTucson wrote: post #124

Basic rule of the road: if you haven't made eye contact with someone, you should assume they haven't seen you and don't know you're there. I mean, they could improve the intersection by making it a full stop, but educating bicyclists not to ride out in front of somebody who will hit you if they don't slow down seems like a good step too.

In other words: the innocent victims of bad driving should just be more careful... Your comment does bring up something interesting. These days, due to sharply sloped front windows (aerodynamic efficiency) and smoked glass rear windows (where allowed) it is almost impossible to even see a driver of an approaching car, much less make eye contact with them. A unintended consequence of what might seem to be two unrelate…

I wondered if I would be accused of victim blaming.

I'm just suggesting better education is probably a useful avenue to improve the situation.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#486

Post by squiggleblaz »

mc32 wrote: post #358
chimprich wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why shouldn’t cyclists need a license to ride on the road? Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly increase the number of motorists. This dual effect would have a number of negative i…

Not all cyclist ride one speed "gentleman/lady" bikes. Many travel upto 30mph. That's a safety concern. There have been a number of cases of cyclists running over pedestrians resulting in serious injury, so it's not inconceivable to require licensing.

Licensing doesn't stop people driving cars from charging into others, killing them. It's not going to stop bike riders who are inclined to drive with such recklessness that they endanger their own life from driving with that recklessness

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#487

Post by TheCoelacanth »

cgriswald wrote: post #423
rout39574 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course! In a world where there were only cyclists there would still need to be a set of rules that all cyclists are required to follow. What about walking? People can run into other people, knock them down stairs, it's a risk... I think that most observers find the idea that bike use is a public hazard, and must be restricted to be obviously ludicrous.

I don't. In the United States, bicyclists must follow largely the same rules of the road that drivers of motor vehicles must follow. They can even be ticketed for violating those rules although usually the tickets don't have much in the way of teeth (except things like DUI while biking). Here in the Bay Area, it's a rare bicyclist that actually follows the rules. Talking to other bicyclists, I've found a large number…

It's a rare driver that actually follows the rules. Speed limits are almost never followed. I frequently see drivers go through a light that has already turned red, roll through a stop sign without fully stopping or come dangerously close to hitting a pedestrian to whom they were supposed to yield the right of way.

Drivers routinely kill other drivers or pedestrians through carelessness. Few if any cyclists ever kill someone else. If anything we need more rigorous tests for drivers, not for cyclists.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#488

Post by kqr »

ajmurmann wrote: post #78
Declanomous wrote: post #45

>We must note that there are two parts to the definition of dangerous driving. Firstly the standard of driving must be “far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver”, and secondly it must be “obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous”. The longer I use the road in any function (cycling, driving, walking, etc), the more I am convinced that the vast majo…

This is true! It's one of the big reasons I cannot wait for self driving cars. I love driving on empty country roads but feel it's impossible to 100% safely drive on busier roads, especially if you also need to read road signs because you don't know where you are going (what's up with US traffic sighs being covered in text btw.? That's obviously a terrible idea!). I came to this conclusion a few weeks after I had got…

Did this happen during a blind spot check or did you look to the side in order to determine a good speed and find a gap to merge into?

When this kind of thing happens, its in my experience much more often for the latter reason. The driver keeps looking over their shoulder for one, two seconds or more, in order to figure out the flow of traffic in the other lane, while ignoring their lane. By accident, of course, but its worth keeping in mind.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#489

Post by TheCoelacanth »

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…

> A good example of this are the crashes seen on Tour de France.

Basing rules for cyclists on the Tour de France is like basing rules for automobiles on F1 or Nascar. Normal commuters just don't reach anything close to Tour de France speeds. Most would be lucky to even maintain a third of that speed without the help of a hill.

Most commuters will be going about 10 mph. Even getting hit with a car at that speed will only cause an injury at all about 25% of the time, a serious injury about 15% of the time and is almost never fatal[1]. A bicycle will barely do anything at that speed.

By all means add special rules for using bicycles at unusually high speeds, but don't act like normal commuters are going to be going that speed.

[1] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#490

Post by mc32 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #487
cgriswald wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. In the United States, bicyclists must follow largely the same rules of the road that drivers of motor vehicles must follow. They can even be ticketed for violating those rules although usually the tickets don't have much in the way of teeth (except things like DUI while biking). Here in the Bay Area, it's a rare bicyclist that actually follows the rules. Talking to other bicyclists, I've found a large number…

It's a rare driver that actually follows the rules. Speed limits are almost never followed. I frequently see drivers go through a light that has already turned red, roll through a stop sign without fully stopping or come dangerously close to hitting a pedestrian to whom they were supposed to yield the right of way. Drivers routinely kill other drivers or pedestrians through carelessness. Few if any cyclists ever kill…

What I loathe most about cyclists as a pedestrian, (I am also a cyclist and also a driver) is when they ignore pedestrians crossing a street and simply swerve between people --at speed. Kids are unpredictable and they don't have the same sense as adults, yet, I've had prickish cyclists ride on through as if nothing.
Post reply on HN