7 ms·

The video mentions she was on a bike and shows a mangled bicycle. Also the line markings on the street indicate there is a bike lane to the left of a right turn

• conductr 9y ago
  Not to be insensitive to the death. But, that bike lane design is just horrible. Are human drivers really known for respecting the "do not cross solid white line" rules? 9/10 drivers that realize at the last moment they need to turn right are going to quickly cross over this bike lane probably without much time to check their blind spot. If I was cycling on this path, I'd want to use the sidewalk and be extra cautious of peds, I don't trust drivers human or not.
  • mason55 9y ago
    There aren't a lot of options when you need to have cars turning on roads with bike lanes. At some point the car lane and the bike lane have to cross paths unless you're going to build a fully grade-separated bike lane. I suppose you could have a wall that separates the bike lane from the road except for a short area where cars can cross over, so that at least there's only a small space where the bikes & cars can interact, but that introduces a bunch of new problems (cars that can't see bikes behind the wall when they go to cross over, cars that run into the wall, probably even more swerving to get into the lane because your choices are do it RIGHT NOW or you're stuck/hit a wall).
    • tylersmith 9y ago
      They have barriers in some places in the US but they're not very common: https://imgur.com/a/gy8mq https://imgur.com/a/gy8mq
      • DeRock 9y ago
        FYI, that is actually the Burrard St bridge in Vancouver, Canada: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2761098,-123.1351267,3a,75y,81.53h,89.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQSZefqL5XEW_-MPj9bWggA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2761098,-123.1351267,3a,75y,...
    • conductr 9y ago
      I think it'd be safer to keep the bikes in the far right even if they go straight. Yes, it means they have to pay attention to cars turning right. They might even need to stop until it's safe. This is a place where "bikes/peds having right of way" doesn't really make sense.
      • InitialLastName 9y ago
        Users to the right have the right of way over users further towards the center of the street. Thus, pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk have priority over bicycles and cars turning right, and bicycles going straight have priority over cars turning right.
        • Symbiote 9y ago
          This is the way it works in Copenhagen.
        • conductr 9y ago
          I guess in a perfect world having right of way means you can cross the street without looking left or right. I’m more willing to yield as a bike/ped because my risk is higher and I know people are distracted idiots.
          • InitialLastName 9y ago
            Absolutely worth accepting the reality of drivers on phones' as a threat to safety. I'm just trying to explain the rules of the road from which intersection design can be derived. There are ways to design an intersection so that those rules are followed naturally, and there are ways to miss it. C.f. right turn lanes.
    • u801e 9y ago
      > There aren't a lot of options when you need to have cars turning on roads with bike lanes. At some point the car lane and the bike lane have to cross paths unless you're going to build a fully grade-separated bike lane. The problem is that the lane markings encourage vehicles to make turns from the non-rightmost or non-leftmost lane. One should not be crossing another lane when making a turn at an intersection. One should merge into the rightmost or left most lane in order to make the corresponding turn.
    • adrianN 9y ago
      You can do a lot better than the normal US way. This is how the Dutch do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA
    • jonnycomputer 9y ago
      I would greatly appreciate a barrier of some kind between me and car drivers looking at the cells. Or just do what Germany has sensibly done and split sidewalks between pedestrians and cyclists (though, cycling enthusiasts are unlikely to enjoy the experience as much)
    • Someone 9y ago
      The state of the art is to make all intersections between car and bicycle lanes at 90 degree angles. For an example, see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/a-common-urban-intersection-in-the-netherlands https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/a-common-urban....
  • avree 9y ago
    Yes, it's been proven that un-protected bike lanes such as those are very dangerous. There are more and more separators coming out (https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/a-new-generation-of-bike-lane-separators-is-starting-to-arrive/ https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/a-new-generation-of-bike-lan...) to allow for protected bike lanes. However, I do need to mention that when you choose to bike on the sidewalk, you're creating the same type of problem that cars that ignore traffic rules create for bikes. There's a reason why biking on the sidewalk is illegal in most places, and why bike lanes/roads exist.
    • conductr 9y ago
      > you're creating the same type of problem that cars that ignore traffic rules create for bikes Agree. I'd do it anyways because sidewalks are 99.999% empty where I live. I could ride for 20 miles and not see a person on the sidewalk. So biking on sidewalks is safe as long as you pay attention to what's ahead. No idea if that's the case in this AZ location.
      • zamalek 9y ago
        Cyclists here (in Seattle) have a healthy habit of calling out "to your left" when approaching from behind. Things like this need to become more widespread.
        • ahi 9y ago
          I do that regularly on my commute on a mixed-use trail. Half the time the pedestrian looks to their left and their feet follow. The other half have headphones on so they don't hear me anyway. I might be exaggerating a bit.
      • recursive 9y ago
        You still have to cross at intersections and driveways. I've been hit multiple times (at low speed) by motor vehicles crossing the sidewalk at a driveway. I don't ride on sidewalks anymore.
  • kerkeslager 9y ago
    I don't think that's insensitive to the death. It's properly placing (partial) blame on the cause of the accident. A better design for that intersection would be to keep the bike lane against the sidewalk and the turn lane inside of that, so that they don't cross, and have a "no turn on red" sign, so that the paths of bicyclists and people turning in cars never cross as long as everyone obeys the stoplight and sign.
    • hnaccy 9y ago
      The cause of the accident was a careless driver (or algorithm) not checking before crossing a lane. I can do it, why can't they?
      • kerkeslager 9y ago
        From a the perspective of policies such as designing an intersection, placing blame (even if that blame is justified) is utterly pointless. Systems should be designed for the users you have, not for the users you want, especially since in this case it's literally a matter of life and death. Sure, drivers should check before crossing a lane, but some percentage don't, so it makes sense to minimize lane crosses.
      • lmm 9y ago
        Do you have a statistically large enough sample to conclude that they're worse at driving that you are? Most cases of driver inattention don't escalate to a collision, so trying to infer inattention rates from collision rates is pretty noisy. And even assuming this was simply a case of a bad driver, what policy approach would you suggest to protect the general public against such drivers? Accepting that drivers are fallible and designing our road systems to be robust against that seems a more effective approach than berating those drivers who are particularly unlucky in the consequences of their failures of attentiveness.
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
    • 9y ago
  • lsaferite 9y ago
    AZ driving rules language on solid white lines is the same as FL (where I live). They use the words "should not cross", so it's not technically an infraction for a driver to cross a solid white line. I was in an accident once due to someone crossing a solid white while at a light and cutting me off so I'm familiar with the RAW on those lines.
  • mjevans 9y ago
    I'm much more a fan of the design that places a buffer (either sidewalk or shrubs) between the CARS and any other type of vehicles. Sidewalks are tolerable as they are often raised above street grade and a vehicle usually has to be actively controlled to overtake such a raised divider.
    • jdavis703 9y ago
      Encouraging bikes and other personal mobility devices to use the sidewalk pushes the danger to pedastrians. I'd argue there really shouldn't be right turn lanes except in really select circumstances. Cities that have a lot of bikes like Copenhagen don't really have that many turns lanes. And when they do the mixing area from protected lane to unprotected bike lane is pretty clear.
  • sunsunsunsun 9y ago
    I have been hit by a car in a bike lane by a car making a rogue left turn (In the UK). I'm always wary of riding in bike lanes like this now.
  • walshemj 9y ago
    Those sort of bike lanes teach cyclists that they should under take slower moving traffic - the problem is the majority of deaths in London are due to vehicles turning into undertaking cyclists.
    • stefan_ 9y ago
      If it's a bike lane, it is not undertaking. It is a lane. You wouldn't blindly turn across another lane of traffic, why do you do it when it's a bike lane? And the majority of deaths in London is due to turning transporters/trucks. They are purposely built such that the operator sits very high above and can't even see a bike or pedestrian unless it's many meters away, only by looking into one of 10 mirrors (but of course they don't). On a work site nobody moves these things unless there is an outside instructor, but on public streets we've decided to just blame whoever died. Or, if that fails, blame the infrastructure, even though we oppose any other kind of infrastructure.
      • walshemj 9y ago
        What the problem is that those sort of cycle lanes conditions cyclists that its always right to undertake in any circumstances - its got to the point now in London that cyclists feel entitled to undertake at speed in stopped traffic.
    • gowld 9y ago
      That's logically impossible. Under/Over taking doesn't mean moving faster than neighboring traffic, it means "merging into slower moving traffic". If the cyclist isn't moving into the car lane, they aren't undertaking.
      • walshemj 9y ago
        Not in UK terms "as I recall it from reading the highway code) its over taking slower moving traffic in the lane to your right.
  • rebeccaskinner 9y ago
    Anec-dataly, I agree. We live at the edge of a residential area where there is a long stretch of road with bike lanes and turns into the residential area every block. Not only do people regularly drive in the bike lanes, the people who do so are typically the most aggressive and inattentive drivers who are trying to angrily speed around the lines of cars who are driving the speed limit and respecting the stop signs. I'm not aware of any recent accidents, but only because cyclists seem to just completely avoid the entire stretch of road.
  • prestonh 9y ago
    That looks completely identical to all bike lanes I've seen in suburban areas. I think bike lanes are just inherently dangerous. Would be interesting to see what a well-designed suburban bike lane looks like.
• biggc 9y ago
  That bike lane is just a shoulder with bicycle symbols painted in it and it looks terrifying.
  • vorpalhex 9y ago
    This is both terrifying and normal. The bike lanes in my area are frequently used as turn lanes... by vehicles that don't fit in them - despite being clearly marked as bike lanes. Human drivers are terrible.
    • recursive 9y ago
      Where I am in California, some bike lanes are required to also be used as right turn lanes by motor vehicles.
      • u801e 9y ago
        That actually makes sense since it encourages all vehicles to use the right most lane to turn right, rather than crossing in front of a straight through lane when making a right turn.
      • Stratoscope 9y ago
        In fact, it's all bike lanes in California, unless they are marked otherwise. Drivers are required to move into the rightmost lane in the last 200 feet before turning right, including merging into a bike lane. There are exceptions, but only if there is signage or road markings. For example, if there are two or more lanes marked for right turns, then obviously you can turn from any such lane. (A little-known fact about that: most California drivers are aware that you're allowed to turn right on a red light after making a full stop, unless there's a "no right turn on red" sign - but few seem to know that this rule applies to all the lanes marked for right turns, not just the rightmost lane.) Most bike lane markings change from a solid white line to a dotted line about 200 feet from a corner, to give drivers a hint to merge into the bike lane before turning. But even if the line doesn't turn dotted, drivers are still required to merge into the bike lane unless there is a specific indication otherwise. However, the majority of drivers seem to be unaware of this rule and turn right from the auto traffic lane, creating the risk of a "right hook" collision, which the law is intended to avoid. I've actually had other drivers honk at me when they were waiting in a line of cars to make an illegal right turn from the auto lane while I made a legal and proper turn from the bike lane. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has an excellent info page about this: http://www.sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/ http://www.sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/ Laws on this do vary in other states. But at least in California, if you see a driver merging into the bike lane before turning right, it's not because they are a terrible driver, it's because they are following the law and (hopefully) increasing safety for bicyclists.
• username223 9y ago
  This design seems pretty common in the US. Some bike lanes on major streets in LA are like this, except there they also have to contend with buses pulling into stops. Biking on those streets would be terrifying, but I saw people doing it.
  • wdavew 9y ago
    Yes, I bike almost daily on Venice Blvd in LA, and every intersection I encounter is setup like the one discussed here, along with buses weaving in and out. A vicious battle flared up last year when the city replaced a lane of traffic on Venice with protected bike lanes (some discussion here https://la.curbed.com/2017/10/25/16528864/road-diets-los-angeles-vision-zero https://la.curbed.com/2017/10/25/16528864/road-diets-los-ang...). There seems to be a marked increase in the hostility between cyclists and drivers now.
• jonnyreiss 9y ago
  Unfortunately, this is a design that is pretty common in many of Tempe's major intersections. I pass through a similiar intersection biking home from ASU and have had multiple close calls with human drivers. Anecdata: The times I have interacted with one of Uber's autonomous vehicles at this intersection, they tend to hit the brakes pretty hard as they are about to enter the turn lane and I am around 10ft behind them. All of my interactions with them, however, have been during the day, and it was unclear if it was the human driver in control.
• steaknsteak 9y ago
  The video says bicyclist and shows a bicycle, while the written article says pedestrian and said the car hit "a woman walking"... I'm confused as to why there is a contradiction, but considering the video shot of the bicycle I assume you're correct
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]