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

511–520 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#511

Post by pas »

Scarblac wrote: post #182

This type of "Shared Space" junction in a rural area in the Netherlands is an interesting solution: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.093333,6.2410165,255a,35y,32... Several bad accidents happened here before this was implemented, none since 2009 when it was. Note that there are distinct paths for bicycles next to the roads, but that's standard. There are no signs , no rules, but the roads can't be taken in a straight…

> no signs

Wow. I thought there must be at least one sign saying "shared space". But apparently not :o

> no rules

So cops can't ticket you if you cause an accident? I guess the rules are just the basic driving rules. Give way to people coming from your right, and anyone who goes straight has some advantage. But since this is basically an unmarked roundabout (drivers are supposed to keep to the right), that rules probably doesn't apply.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#512

Post by Piskvorrr »

uoaei wrote: post #454
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…

Kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2 In a typical city scenario, a car has KE of 1/2 (2000 kg) (50 kph)^2 ~= 2e5 Joules. A bicyclist has 1/2 (100 kg) (30 kph)^2 ~= 3.5e3 Joules. Almost 100x less capable of inflicting damage on a typical pedestrian. Add onto this that bikes are way more maneuverable, less collision surface area, are totally exposed to the same forces exerted on the pedestrian with which they may collide... your…

Also, 30 kph is practically the top speed for a majority of cyclists - there's a level, narrow, short (200 m), 30-max-speed, all-traffic (except pedestrians) tunnel on my usual route. Do I temporarily reach 30 kph there, in order to be polite and get out of there as fast as possible? Yes, with some difficulty. (Do drivers honk at me for being unbearably slow while going the max legal speed? Yes.)

So, I'd say a typical city scenario is halving the estimate.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#513

Post by beat »

cgriswald wrote: post #468
beat wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sam…

Anecdotes are not data.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#514

Post by bialpio »

Retric wrote: post #448
bialpio wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always found it hard to understand what's so difficult in actually stopping when the sign clearly says "stop". The wording hardly leaves any room for misinterpretation, doesn't it?

Many stop signs are placed such that stopping for them prevents you from safely observing oncoming traffic. So after stopping at a stop sign you still need to slowly inch forward checking that the path is clear making the stopping portion of the exercise absolutely pointless. Further my habit of actually stopping has gotten me rear ended and tossed into an intersection. Doing things unexpected can be very hazardous.

Yup, but you still are supposed to, you know, "STOP". :) And isn't it done on purpose? This way, you are not breaking the knees of pedestrians that are crossing the road & you are not sending bicyclists flying. Stop, slowly inch forward (no broken knees, no flying people), enter the road when safe. I'm always wary when walking across the road with a stop sign, precisely because people don't stop at the line.

It's a shame that following signs is unexpected. Somehow, it's not acceptable to run a red light because "no-one is around anyway", but it's fine to do rolling stops?

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#515

Post by Wicher »

NoGravitas wrote: post #334
zimpenfish wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All other road users must have one. Not true. Horse drawn vehicles and horse riders don't. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-about-ani... Invalid carriages also need no license. https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs... I'm sure other examples can be found.

In most of the US (it varies by state), moped riders (where mopeds are generally defined as motorcycles below a certain engine capacity and top speed, often 30 or 40 mph) do not need a license.

In the Netherlands, since about two decades, moped riders (Quite possibly one of the reasons for this is that they share a lot of the infra with cyclists here.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#516

Post by Wicher »

_0ffh wrote: post #261
papermule wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, a bike is capable of moving at speeds high enough to cause severe harm to the rider or pedestrians. What if the threshold for a test was based on the average speeds of the vehicle?

Speed makes no sense for measuring the potential danger of an object. Energy or impulse do.

If we'd be playing billiards you'd be right. But in traffic the objects are driven by humans. And then speed becomes a factor.

Speed and impulse. Speed is a factor in the risk of collision (since our brain has limited real-time processing chops), and then when a collision happens, impulse is indeed an important consideration, together with another factor: protection level.

In a world with just those three factors, eg no traffic rules or speed limits, a car makes lots of accidents (because it's fast) and when they happen, a lot of energy and thus destruction are involved (because they're heavy), and also, while the car driver is protected by his/her big heavy steel box, the collision counterpart - a cyclist - might not be.

This asymmetry trinity is exactly why we should have (and have, to some extent) road rules and license regulations to level the playing field so that the outcome of the equation moves a bit in favour of the slow, light, and less well collision-insulated.

So if one endeavours to go inside a heavy (dangerous to others) steel box (that nicely protects you) that goes fast (you will have less time to react, and moreover, you "steal" other drivers attention because they constantly have to be on the lookout for "is there something fast coming? is there something fast coming?") - then yes, the onus is on this car driver to be responsible and submit to road rules, licensing, and heavy fines.

Then there's other non-collision factors that make current man-driven combustion engine cars look very silly indeed: they are noisy, pollute, take up a lot of space even when not moving (which is most of the time) and require expensive infrastructure. That leads us to ask ourselves - who on earth designed this system? And in the question belies the answer: no one did - there were coaches, we put a petrol engine in it, and went from there without any vision. With today's technology and insight, given a blank slate (there are no roads, no cities, no nothing - just a can full of people that need to work and live and travel, to be poured out on the green fields where we will build our infra) , NO ONE would design a transportation system this silly.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#517

Post by TomMarius »

squiggleblaz wrote: post #495
TomMarius wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't, I do it daily in Prague together with police cars that are coming from a nearby police station. The difference is that I can be sure no bicycles are on the road. If I stopped or slowed down it would be very unsafe but this way I just merge into the traffic seamlessly.

I think you're referring to a different situation. It sounds like you're talking about a merge into a freeway or something similar. Your parent referred quite specifically to a cross road. The goal is not to merge, it's to get across. I agree with your parent; the action was necessarily dangerous. A person approaching a cross road must slow down, more so if there's a give way sign.

Nope I don't mean a merging lane, I literally mean a side road where you have to give way to a main road but the safest thing to do is to speed up to 60-70kmph and merge into like if it was a highway. It's completely legal and most safe. In Europe the "give way" sign doesn't say anything about your speed, just that you can't cause others to speed down. Btw the same sign is used on freeway merging lanes, having to slow down as you imply would be extremely dangerous; the correct way is to use the merging lane to match speed with the lane you're merging into.

I'm talking about this place: https://goo.gl/maps/2JwZGyzLPGG2

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#518

Post by cmek »

keir-rex wrote: post #202
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…

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.

I think it should be the other way around - some hours of cycling on busy roads should be required to get you your driving license.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#519

Post by Scarblac »

pas wrote: post #511
Scarblac wrote: post #182

This type of "Shared Space" junction in a rural area in the Netherlands is an interesting solution: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.093333,6.2410165,255a,35y,32... Several bad accidents happened here before this was implemented, none since 2009 when it was. Note that there are distinct paths for bicycles next to the roads, but that's standard. There are no signs , no rules, but the roads can't be taken in a straight…

> no signs Wow. I thought there must be at least one sign saying "shared space". But apparently not :o > no rules So cops can't ticket you if you cause an accident? I guess the rules are just the basic driving rules. Give way to people coming from your right, and anyone who goes straight has some advantage. But since this is basically an unmarked roundabout (drivers are supposed to keep to the right), that rules prob…

I meant no special rules for this kind of setup, its precise status is quite undefined, it's certainly not a roundabout.

In the Netherlands if a motorized vehicle is in an accident with a weaker traffic participant (pedestrian or bicyclists) they are automatically liable anyway, that doesn't change. So you're left with give way to the right and don't hit each other, yes.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#520

Post by DoveBrown »

arnarbi wrote: post #478
DoveBrown wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can if they are maintained. Most dedicated bike paths around me have ripples in the surface from tree roots and have never been resurfaced since they were built. Using a road bike with skinny tires on them is bone jarring at low speed.

Is that in Denmark?

No, the United Kingdom.
Post reply on HN