6 ms·

The drivers shouldn't be punished for bad design of the road. A separate bike road should be constructed.

Svip 9y ago
Indeed. The main type of accident involving cyclists in Denmark are so called 'right turn accidents', where a lorry turning right at a junction hits a cyclists because they are in their blind spot. This obviously happens exclusively in cities. The media has made a big deal about how tragic it is for the cyclists - which it is, but much less about how tragic it is for the driver. Remember, it's not like drivers want to hit cyclists or other soft traffic participants. That's why I propose a separate bike road, even if it is quite an expensive undertaking. But it will make all the road users feel safe. Or -- at least -- safer.
- SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
  > The main type of accident involving cyclists in Denmark are so called 'right turn accidents' It's the same in London, a city with notoriously poor cycling infrastructure and narrow streets due to long history. Ok, it's the "left turn" mirror image version due to driving on the left not right side of the road, but otherwise the same.
  - gaius 9y ago
    It’s not helped by cyclists habit of going straight on from a left turn lane.
    - YawningAngel 9y ago
      That is both legal and necessary to do
      - gambiting 9y ago
        I absolutely disagree. If I, as a driver, see someone in a left-only lane, it should ba absolutely safe for me to assume that they are indeed turning left - so I can safely pull out at the junction. Obviously it leads to accidents if the person then goes straight and runs into me. Being in a left-only lane is the same as indicating a turn.
        SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
        > If I, as a driver, see someone in a left-only lane, it should be absolutely safe for me to assume that they are indeed turning left The highway code is a bit more nuanced than you on this topic: http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html it is safer for the vehicle driver to not make that assumption, it is safer for the cyclist not to be in that position as you point out; and primarily, it is safer if the road layout does not put these different vehicles in the same space.
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        If I as a pedestrian/motorcyclist/car-driver assume such things, eg that people not using turn indicators aren't turning then I'd have an accident at least once a day. Making a couple of second allowance to protect the lives of other road users seems reasonable to me. That said I don't live in an area with high cycle use - in the small UK city I'm in you're more likely to be stopping to avoid a drunk or a teenage boy doing wheelies. >and runs into me // Cleverly worded, but if you use your mirrors properly ... what's that phrase "hell is other road-users"?
        talldan 9y ago
        The highway code says that cyclists should stay to the left. Even on a roundabout with multiple lanes, cyclists are supposed to stay to the left and cycle across exits. I don't ever follow that rule when cycling, it does seem dangerous, but it is the rule, regardless of whether you disagree. You should always check blind spots when turning left, and you should have been coached to do this when learning to drive.
        deleted 9y ago
    - kqr 9y ago
      That is one of the things that annoy me most about new bike lanes. Why do they put them on the left side of left turn lanes!?? Look, we have had lanes for traffic like a century now. It shouldn't be hard. They just have ti do what they always did! (Also the stupid unsafe cycling advice of staying to the left. Take the lane and take the correct lane, please.)
      - maurits 9y ago
        If the bike lane must be next to a turn lane on an intersection, the dutch have a very simple hack [1]. All bike lanes get green, and get to sort themselves out, but crucially all car lanes get red. [1]: https://imgur.com/a/VFElf https://imgur.com/a/VFElf
      - rorykoehler 9y ago
        Many cars drivers have a habit of accelerating to get around cyclists as they are both coming to the junction where the car wants to turn left using the left turn only lane and the bike wants to go straight. I get cutoff at least once a month in this way. Very scary and usually the car drivers are oblivious to how dangerous their driving is.
    - doctor_fact 9y ago
      It's not helped by drivers harrassing cyclists who are not in the, empty, left turn lane "because they want to get by".
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Unfortunately, the cycling organizations don't really like to admit that most right turn accidents happen because cyclists don't seem to understand that motor vehicles have blind spots, and big motor vehicles have bigger blind spots. As someone who regularly drives, bikes, walks and uses public transport in Copenhagen, it is blatantly obvious that people just don't know how to handle right turns involving both cars and bicycles correctly. Car drivers will leave space open on their right (between the car and the curb), instead of putting the car as close to the curb as possible (which is taught in driver's ed). Bicyclists will pile into this space, and when the light turns green, it becomes almost impossible for the driver to turn right, because of the bikes already there, as well as the additional bikes coming from behind, completely ignoring the right blinker on the car. The mitigation of this problem is two-fold. Firstly, the drivers should not leave open space on their right, when turning right. Secondly, cyclists need to grow a sense of self-preservation and not dive into that space, even if it's open. Large vehicles need to have some distance from the curb in order to complete the turn, but that should not be seen as an invitation to cyclists.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    "when the light turns green, it becomes almost impossible for the driver to turn right, because of the bikes already there, as well as the additional bikes coming from behind, completely ignoring the right blinker on the car." Isn't that how it should be ? I'm not in DK, but in LV traffic laws in such a situation they should ignore the blinker, the driver must wait and turn right only after everyone going straight e.g. those bicycles and also pedestrians crossing the road he's turning to; since the vehicle turning must yield to everyone else.
    - gambiting 9y ago
      No, the law clearly says that you can never overtake a vehicle on the right - and it applies to cyclist the same as to everyone else, even if the vehicle wasn't turning right it's illegal for the cyclist to overtake it on the wrong side.
      - 9y ago
- walshemj 9y ago
  Seeing bike riders in London a lot of those sort of accidents (90 % of fatalities in London) are caused by cyclists undertaking agresivly. Also the way the UK's bike lanes are set up encourage cyclists to get in front of other traffic at traficlight controlled junctions - normalises undertaking.
- Quanttek 9y ago
  There is a move away from seperate bike roads because these have a much higher right turn accident rate at junctions and a move towards bike lanes which are safer due to the shared space (more awareness of bikers by drivers)
- brewdad 9y ago
  You need to build the intersections properly though. My city, in the NW US, built a beautiful separated multiuse path alongside a 50mph road. The trouble comes at the southern end where two 50mph roads intersect and the separated bikeway turns into a standard on-road bike lane on the other side. This also happens to be the highest traffic volume intersection in my city of 100,000. The intersection is designed so right turning cars can make the turn at about 15-25mph when they have the green. The same green that the cyclists have. Cyclists must wait at a position that puts them slightly behind the right turning driver and the design simply doesn't allow a cyclist to inch forward enough to change that. If you were designing an intersection that will get cyclists killed, this is how you would do it. My approach is to stop at the green light and hit the pedestrian "beg button" and wait for the walk signal on the next light cycle (a minimum 2 minute wait). This is still no guarantee that drivers will actually yield to me, but at least it gives me a chance to be seen. Even waiting, and having the walk signal and right of way, drivers get irrationally angry at having to wait a few seconds for me to cross. A few don't wait and swing wide right in front of my path. Fun Times.
kingosticks 9y ago
What's the punishment exactly? Being forced to slow down at a junction where you don't have right of way to ensure you give right of way to the road traffic you failed to see?
- TomMarius 9y ago
  The road was obviously not designed with cyclists in mind, it was designed to enable cars to merge into the road quickly. The punishment is exactly what you describe: "we failed to anticipate bycicle traffic and so we'll make it impossible to go fast because we made a bad design."
zimpenfish 9y ago
> The drivers shouldn't be punished for bad design of the road. No excuse of "bad design" can work for blowing across a crossroaded "Give Way" at 37mph. That's reckless in any situation.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  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.
  - squiggleblaz 9y ago
    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.
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      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 https://goo.gl/maps/2JwZGyzLPGG2
lmm 9y ago
Cyclists shouldn't be punished either. All too often these bike roads are built to be less safe than the main road.

Svip 9y ago

Indeed. The main type of accident involving cyclists in Denmark are so called 'right turn accidents', where a lorry turning right at a junction hits a cyclists because they are in their blind spot. This obviously happens exclusively in cities. The media has made a big deal about how tragic it is for the cyclists - which it is, but much less about how tragic it is for the driver. Remember, it's not like drivers want to hit cyclists or other soft traffic participants. That's why I propose a separate bike road, even if it is quite an expensive undertaking. But it will make all the road users feel safe. Or -- at least -- safer.

SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
> The main type of accident involving cyclists in Denmark are so called 'right turn accidents' It's the same in London, a city with notoriously poor cycling infrastructure and narrow streets due to long history. Ok, it's the "left turn" mirror image version due to driving on the left not right side of the road, but otherwise the same.
- gaius 9y ago
  It’s not helped by cyclists habit of going straight on from a left turn lane.
  - YawningAngel 9y ago
    That is both legal and necessary to do
    - gambiting 9y ago
      I absolutely disagree. If I, as a driver, see someone in a left-only lane, it should ba absolutely safe for me to assume that they are indeed turning left - so I can safely pull out at the junction. Obviously it leads to accidents if the person then goes straight and runs into me. Being in a left-only lane is the same as indicating a turn.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
        > If I, as a driver, see someone in a left-only lane, it should be absolutely safe for me to assume that they are indeed turning left The highway code is a bit more nuanced than you on this topic: http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html it is safer for the vehicle driver to not make that assumption, it is safer for the cyclist not to be in that position as you point out; and primarily, it is safer if the road layout does not put these different vehicles in the same space.
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        If I as a pedestrian/motorcyclist/car-driver assume such things, eg that people not using turn indicators aren't turning then I'd have an accident at least once a day. Making a couple of second allowance to protect the lives of other road users seems reasonable to me. That said I don't live in an area with high cycle use - in the small UK city I'm in you're more likely to be stopping to avoid a drunk or a teenage boy doing wheelies. >and runs into me // Cleverly worded, but if you use your mirrors properly ... what's that phrase "hell is other road-users"?
      - talldan 9y ago
        The highway code says that cyclists should stay to the left. Even on a roundabout with multiple lanes, cyclists are supposed to stay to the left and cycle across exits. I don't ever follow that rule when cycling, it does seem dangerous, but it is the rule, regardless of whether you disagree. You should always check blind spots when turning left, and you should have been coached to do this when learning to drive.
        deleted 9y ago
  - kqr 9y ago
    That is one of the things that annoy me most about new bike lanes. Why do they put them on the left side of left turn lanes!?? Look, we have had lanes for traffic like a century now. It shouldn't be hard. They just have ti do what they always did! (Also the stupid unsafe cycling advice of staying to the left. Take the lane and take the correct lane, please.)
    - maurits 9y ago
      If the bike lane must be next to a turn lane on an intersection, the dutch have a very simple hack [1]. All bike lanes get green, and get to sort themselves out, but crucially all car lanes get red. [1]: https://imgur.com/a/VFElf https://imgur.com/a/VFElf
    - rorykoehler 9y ago
      Many cars drivers have a habit of accelerating to get around cyclists as they are both coming to the junction where the car wants to turn left using the left turn only lane and the bike wants to go straight. I get cutoff at least once a month in this way. Very scary and usually the car drivers are oblivious to how dangerous their driving is.
  - doctor_fact 9y ago
    It's not helped by drivers harrassing cyclists who are not in the, empty, left turn lane "because they want to get by".
KozmoNau7 9y ago
Unfortunately, the cycling organizations don't really like to admit that most right turn accidents happen because cyclists don't seem to understand that motor vehicles have blind spots, and big motor vehicles have bigger blind spots. As someone who regularly drives, bikes, walks and uses public transport in Copenhagen, it is blatantly obvious that people just don't know how to handle right turns involving both cars and bicycles correctly. Car drivers will leave space open on their right (between the car and the curb), instead of putting the car as close to the curb as possible (which is taught in driver's ed). Bicyclists will pile into this space, and when the light turns green, it becomes almost impossible for the driver to turn right, because of the bikes already there, as well as the additional bikes coming from behind, completely ignoring the right blinker on the car. The mitigation of this problem is two-fold. Firstly, the drivers should not leave open space on their right, when turning right. Secondly, cyclists need to grow a sense of self-preservation and not dive into that space, even if it's open. Large vehicles need to have some distance from the curb in order to complete the turn, but that should not be seen as an invitation to cyclists.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  "when the light turns green, it becomes almost impossible for the driver to turn right, because of the bikes already there, as well as the additional bikes coming from behind, completely ignoring the right blinker on the car." Isn't that how it should be ? I'm not in DK, but in LV traffic laws in such a situation they should ignore the blinker, the driver must wait and turn right only after everyone going straight e.g. those bicycles and also pedestrians crossing the road he's turning to; since the vehicle turning must yield to everyone else.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    No, the law clearly says that you can never overtake a vehicle on the right - and it applies to cyclist the same as to everyone else, even if the vehicle wasn't turning right it's illegal for the cyclist to overtake it on the wrong side.
    - 9y ago
walshemj 9y ago
Seeing bike riders in London a lot of those sort of accidents (90 % of fatalities in London) are caused by cyclists undertaking agresivly. Also the way the UK's bike lanes are set up encourage cyclists to get in front of other traffic at traficlight controlled junctions - normalises undertaking.
Quanttek 9y ago
There is a move away from seperate bike roads because these have a much higher right turn accident rate at junctions and a move towards bike lanes which are safer due to the shared space (more awareness of bikers by drivers)
brewdad 9y ago
You need to build the intersections properly though. My city, in the NW US, built a beautiful separated multiuse path alongside a 50mph road. The trouble comes at the southern end where two 50mph roads intersect and the separated bikeway turns into a standard on-road bike lane on the other side. This also happens to be the highest traffic volume intersection in my city of 100,000. The intersection is designed so right turning cars can make the turn at about 15-25mph when they have the green. The same green that the cyclists have. Cyclists must wait at a position that puts them slightly behind the right turning driver and the design simply doesn't allow a cyclist to inch forward enough to change that. If you were designing an intersection that will get cyclists killed, this is how you would do it. My approach is to stop at the green light and hit the pedestrian "beg button" and wait for the walk signal on the next light cycle (a minimum 2 minute wait). This is still no guarantee that drivers will actually yield to me, but at least it gives me a chance to be seen. Even waiting, and having the walk signal and right of way, drivers get irrationally angry at having to wait a few seconds for me to cross. A few don't wait and swing wide right in front of my path. Fun Times.

kingosticks 9y ago

What's the punishment exactly? Being forced to slow down at a junction where you don't have right of way to ensure you give right of way to the road traffic you failed to see?

TomMarius 9y ago
The road was obviously not designed with cyclists in mind, it was designed to enable cars to merge into the road quickly. The punishment is exactly what you describe: "we failed to anticipate bycicle traffic and so we'll make it impossible to go fast because we made a bad design."

zimpenfish 9y ago

> The drivers shouldn't be punished for bad design of the road. No excuse of "bad design" can work for blowing across a crossroaded "Give Way" at 37mph. That's reckless in any situation.

TomMarius 9y ago
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.
- squiggleblaz 9y ago
  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.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    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 https://goo.gl/maps/2JwZGyzLPGG2

lmm 9y ago

Cyclists shouldn't be punished either. All too often these bike roads are built to be less safe than the main road.