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

81–90 of 522 posts

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#81

Post by ajmurmann »

lostlogin wrote: post #66
ajmurmann wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A roundabout is a much better solution than a stop sign. I still believe that the ubiquous stop signs in the US are there due to the oil lobby. Bringing a car to a full stop is incredibly wasteful.

It might be wasteful, but so is killing people. Stop signs and some speed bumps would soon slow them.

True, but as I pointed out, so would a roundabout. In the area where I grew up we also had a dangerous piece of road that got "fixed" by setting up a "dangerous curve" sign with a warning light on top. It went from multiple fatalities every year to zero.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#82

Post by jdavis703 »

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…

The truck almost certainly had a good reason for stopping. The question then becomes why you couldn't you see what the truck driver had seen (debris in the road, a broken down car, etc). Obviously you can't always see around a large truck, but often times danger can be spotted by looking far ahead. For example coming around a blind cliff I was able to deduce there was a person who would be standing in the middle of the road because I saw a photographer on the opposite side. I started slowing and my instructor was like "what are you doing?" which then turned in to "how did you know a person would be in the road?"

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#84

Post by nostrademons »

swimfar wrote: post #54
u801e wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the end, stop signs end up being treated like yield signs. This definitely varies based on where in the US you are. In California almost no one comes to a complete stop. (That's probably why rolling through a stop sign is called a "California Roll"). But in many other parts of the country people do, even if there are no cars around.

Some of this may be that stop signs in California tend to be more superfluous.

In New England & NYC, a 4-way stop is usually used for urban neighborhoods where single-lane, low-traffic streets meet. Roundabouts and slip lanes are space-prohibitive in these situations (they'd have to go through privately-owned lots), traffic lights are overkill given the light traffic, and visibility is insufficient for a safe 2-way stop or yield.

In CA and other western states, these same neighborhoods are usually suburban houses with lawns, and even the apartment buildings have setbacks from the street. A yield would work fine, but either for habit or consistency, it's signed as a 4-way stop. Drivers feel like they have good visibility and it should be a yield, though, and so they roll through it.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#85

Post by caf »

azernik wrote: post #39
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.

I would have thought you could build an open truss pillar that was as strong as a solid one.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#86

Post by ajmurmann »

nostrademons wrote: post #75
ajmurmann wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A roundabout is a much better solution than a stop sign. I still believe that the ubiquous stop signs in the US are there due to the oil lobby. Bringing a car to a full stop is incredibly wasteful.

Roundabouts and 4-way stops are used in different situations - a 4-way stop is typically used in residential neighborhoods or street grids where the roads are only single-lane and the lack of available space prohibits a roundabout.

In Europe the residential area would either 1. Have no signs resulting in the car to the right getting the right of way 2. One road gets a right of way sign and the other road had to yield.

I strongly prefer those setups because they are much more fuel efficient.

However, I don't think any of that would work in the UD because it would require real driving classes and tests. I had to drive around for close to 20 hours with a professional driving teacher on to of dozens of hours of theoretical classes. All that end in a 30min+ examination with a examiner in the back of the car putting me through as many challenging situations as possible.

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#87

Post by ajmurmann »

viraptor wrote: post #68
ajmurmann wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought only the US loved stop signs.

Poland also loves stop signs. Actually, Poland just loves signs in general which is a problem: https://d-w24.ppstatic.pl/g2/6b/6f/65/116789_1258901612_33ec...

Wow, that is crazy! Now imagine those were US style signs that are covered in text instead abstract symbols...

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#88

Post by labster »

swimfar wrote: post #54
u801e wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the end, stop signs end up being treated like yield signs. This definitely varies based on where in the US you are. In California almost no one comes to a complete stop. (That's probably why rolling through a stop sign is called a "California Roll"). But in many other parts of the country people do, even if there are no cars around.

While I may California Roll occasionally, at a yield sign I may not slow at all, or only slow enough to safely make a turn. So there's definitely a difference between the two, even if you treat the stop sign as "just a guideline". Stop means go slow enough that you can make a complete stop if you see police in the intersection. "Oops, missed the limit line by a couple feet, but I was totally always gonna stop."

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#89

Post by idoh »

mrb wrote: post #69
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…

« 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…

Yeah where I live (the outer sunset neighborhood of San Francisco) it feels like half the stops are 2-way and the other half are 4-way. As a cyclist this is dangerous for me, because if I go through an intersection where I am not stopped but cars are subject to the stop, they will stop, not see me, then start going. So consistency is key!

Re: A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

#90

Post by korethr »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #60
jmts wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It seems to be worse in newer cars. Most cars I've driven have been older models, pre-2000, every time I have to drive a new car, I'm always surprised at how bad the visibility is, they all have tiny rear windows and massive A pillars. I used to own an old Datsun truck from the 1980s and the A-pillar blindspot was tiny because it had small, vertical A-pillars. A-pillars are a lot thicker and a lot more angled in newe…

It sounds like what happens in every other instance of engineering: trade-offs. Emphasise performance in one metric -- preventing roof collapse and preserving the integrity of the passenger compartment in this case -- and it can come at the cost of other metrics (here, visibility). I don't think vehicle engineers are deliberately making cars hard to see out of, but I do think it's possible that those setting the policy which drives A-pillar thickness don't realize such is making cars less safe from a visibility perspective.
Post reply on HN