9 ms·

You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. However, this isn't the case if you do your test elsewhere.

by neivin 8y ago

You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. However, this isn't the case if you do your test elsewhere. SF has pretty good bike infrastructure and awareness. I just did my driving test in the city, and this was drilled into my head by my instructor.

u801e 8y ago
> You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. Infrastructure shouldn't be designed in a way to cause these types of turning conflicts. The general rule of the road is that vehicles on the right make right turns. Vehicles on the left make left turns, and vehicles in the middle proceed straight through the intersection. Turning conflicts, like what you're describing, are a significant hazard to cyclists. Cars need to check for traffic[1] on their right, move to the right, and then make their right turn. Cyclists need to pass right turning traffic on the left. [1] Cyclists are traffic.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  Drivers often make mistakes here, and especially bicyclists. A lot of cars try to turn from the middle lane, which makes passing on the left more dangerous for cyclists. On top of that, many cyclists attempt to pass on the right, while cars are turning right. You are absolutely correct, but so many people don’t know the rules well enough to even realize they’re breaking them.
  - schlumpf 8y ago
    Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Stop signs are generally regarded as ornamental, and even lightly traveled red lights. I am reminded of this every time my seven year-old cycling companion asks why such and such a person hasn't followed the rules when they blow past us. Both classes of vehicles have to be diligent.
    - beefield 8y ago
      As a occasional cyclist with a habit of casually breaking all possible traffic rules that are relatively safely breakable, my thinking is that if I crash with a car, it is me who dies regardless who was right. So as long the traffic culture amongst car drivers is so ignorant toward cyclists that me following traffic rules and actually trying to use the rights the rules give me results to life expectancy calculated in weeks, I keep my relaxed attitude towards traffic rules. Once the driving culture is such that I can drive safely by following rules, I start considering following them. The ball on this one is on cars, not cycles. (To be fair, when I drive a car, I find myself driving similarly badly way too often. So I definitely do not claim changing the culture is easy)
    - halbritt 8y ago
      Sure. There's a myriad of reasons why this is the case. Traffic signals and signage aren't designed for cyclists. Google a little. Further, this is a false equivalence. When a cyclist fails to be diligent, the risks are fairly small. When a motorists fails to be diligent, other people die.
      - schlumpf 8y ago
        You are being unnecessarily abrasive. I ride the streets that I'm speaking about. San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure, markings, and signage to promote safe cycling. I think they do good work and I benefit directly from their work. I think the infrastructure is better suited to cycling than your dismissive comment implies. I disagree with your characterization that the risks to motor vehicle-bicycle interactions are fairly small risks as long as motorists are diligent. But I don't suggest that you accept my risk assessment. My equivalence is grounded in California law[0]. Cyclists have equal responsibility with other drivers. Both groups of vehicles need to be operated diligently. [0] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21200 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....
        halbritt 8y ago
        San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure... They're adapting roads which were created entirely with motorists in mind in an attempt to promote safe cycling. The infrastructure is more well suited to cycling than it was previously, but I'm not sure that folks from Portland would agree. Folks from Copenhagen, most especially wouldn't agree. In any case, it's a subjective assessment. You disagree with my characterization and feel like the law somehow proves you right? Yes, it is equally illegal for a motorist and a cyclist to blow a stop sign. If a motorist blows a stop sign and has a collision with another motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian, then likely outcome is injury in one of those cases, and death in the other two. If a cyclist blows a stop sign and causes a collision, the likely outcome is that they'll end up a stain on someone else's car. It's possible they could injure, or even kill a pedestrian, which has happened all of once that I can tell. The risk is vastly different. Bicycles aren't really ever considered to be deadly weapons.
- SECProto 8y ago
  By that measure, we shouldn't have crosswalks at intersections, and walkers should walk into the street, past the right turn lane, to avoid turning conflict.
  - joncrocks 8y ago
    In most countries in Europe (certainly in the UK, and other places I have visited), pedestrians have a separate crossing phase to the rest of traffic. The US is unusual in expecting pedestrians to cross while traffic is also trying to negotiate an intersection.
    - gambiting 8y ago
      In some EU countries(Poland) pedestrians have a green light to go, even though cars turning right also have a green light - cars are expected to watch out for pedestrians crossing, even when they have a green light to go. I live in UK and the part of the traffic codex that seems to be unknown to literally all British drivers is the one that says "pedestrians have priority over cars making a turn" - so if you are crossing a road near an intersection and a car is making a turn into that road you are just crossing, you have absolute priority even in the absence of a designated crossing - but drivers get really upset and honk and wave as if you are in their way. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203#rule170 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-... "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"
      - nothrabannosir 8y ago
        > part of the traffic codex that seems to be unknown to literally all British drivers is the one that says "pedestrians have priority over cars making a turn" They have a very efficient system for reminding fellow road users, though. Two fingers in the air slightly apart, a pedestrian’s walking legs upside down, indicating the priority reversal. People are generally very receptive to this, because it is quintessentially British to understand you have to live together harmoniously to get ahead in life.
- mcv 8y ago
  This works only on roads where cars and bikes go the same speed. There are many roads where cars want to go faster than that.
  - u801e 8y ago
    Cars and trucks and buses don't really go the same speed and it still works for them. Plus, on city streets where traffic is going 40 mph or less, the speed difference isn't really that great.
    - mcv 8y ago
      Buses and trucks are a bit bigger and less vulnerable than bikes, and their speed difference with cars isn't remotely as big as that between cars and bikes. It's really not a comparable situation. Bikes taking up the place of a car, would really slow car traffic down to a crawl. There's a good reason they get separate lanes.
      - u801e 8y ago
        > and their speed difference with cars isn't remotely as big as that between cars and bikes. Cyclists can go between 10 to 20 mph. Some faster ones can go 25 to 30 mph. On a city street, you have cars going between 20 to 30 mph. On other roads, they may be going up to 40 mph. Given typical speeds, you have a 0 to 30 mph difference. On highways, there are trucks that are limited to 55 to 60 mph amongst cars that go 70 to 85 mph. In that case, you have speed differences ranging from 10 to 30 mph. > Bikes taking up the place of a car, would really slow car traffic down to a crawl. Not really. If there are multiple lanes of traffic going in the same direction, then they don't slow down traffic any more than a bus would. If there's a single lane of traffic going in that direction, then cyclists are far more easy to pass compared to a bus or truck. In many states, it is legal to pass cyclists by crossing a double-yellow line when safe to do so. Second, it's much easier to see around a cyclist compared to a bus or car.
        mcv 8y ago
- jdavis703 8y ago
  There's no way to eliminate turn conflicts except for eliminating all grade crossings. Even on protected bike lanes the right hook is still a significant risk. Drivers need to have it drilled in to their head to look before turning. Even if a bike isn't entering from a protected lane, there could be a pedestrian using the crosswalk.
  - u801e 8y ago
    > Even on protected bike lanes the right hook is still a significant risk. That's because the infrastructure design is deficient here (which is putting a straight through lane to the right of a right turn lane). Either the cyclist needs to stay in the lane that's meant for straight through traffic, or there needs to be some form of intersection control that only allows traffic to proceed in a phased fashion like a traffic light. For the latter option, the light would only allow cyclists to proceed through the intersection or allow other vehicles to proceed through the intersection, but not both at the same time.
    - jdavis703 8y ago
      The hook usually happens at unsignalized intersections (e.g. an alleyway) in my experience. Adding more signals is not the solution. Nor is making "every lane a bike lane." Even in a wide sharrow'ed lane a driver will make a pass, followed by a right turn which cuts the biker off.
TylerE 8y ago
Drivers tests in the US are a joke.
- jimbo1qaz 8y ago
  That you think it's easy to pass drivers tests in the US is a joke.
  - yladiz 8y ago
    It actually is a joke how bad some tests are. In a lot of cities in Florida your test is done in a parking lot with no real world driving with other cars, and it omits a lot of things, like parallel parking. Ideally licenses should be able to be transferred across states, but tests like the majority of ones in Florida mean drivers from there may be inadequately prepared for driving in some other states like CA.
    - mcv 8y ago
      I really hope this is an exaggeration. Still, the US is not the only place with very mixed standards for driving tests. I once heard that the easiest way to get a Dutch driving license was on the Caribbean island of Saba, where you'd get your license if you could drive around the central square without causing an accident. I knew someone who got his license there, and he didn't dare to drive a car in Netherland. Fortunately he had a Dutch motorbike license.
      - TylerE 8y ago
        Here in NC, the road test was maybe 10 minutes long, in very light traffic. No parallel parking. The written portion of the test consisted of sign identification and a few very easy multiple choice questions. I did this when I was 15. That as almost 20 years ago. Have never, and will never, need to do anything else.
      - yladiz 8y ago
        It's not an exaggeration. Taking a look at Hillsborough Country[1], two of the three DMVs have "on-site test tracks". 1: http://www.hillstax.org/services/services-driver-licenses.aspx http://www.hillstax.org/services/services-driver-licenses.as...

by neivin 8y ago

u801e 8y ago

> You would also fail your driver's test in SF if you don't check for bikers when making a right turn. Infrastructure shouldn't be designed in a way to cause these types of turning conflicts. The general rule of the road is that vehicles on the right make right turns. Vehicles on the left make left turns, and vehicles in the middle proceed straight through the intersection. Turning conflicts, like what you're describing, are a significant hazard to cyclists. Cars need to check for traffic[1] on their right, move to the right, and then make their right turn. Cyclists need to pass right turning traffic on the left. [1] Cyclists are traffic.

bluejekyll 8y ago
Drivers often make mistakes here, and especially bicyclists. A lot of cars try to turn from the middle lane, which makes passing on the left more dangerous for cyclists. On top of that, many cyclists attempt to pass on the right, while cars are turning right. You are absolutely correct, but so many people don’t know the rules well enough to even realize they’re breaking them.
- schlumpf 8y ago
  Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Stop signs are generally regarded as ornamental, and even lightly traveled red lights. I am reminded of this every time my seven year-old cycling companion asks why such and such a person hasn't followed the rules when they blow past us. Both classes of vehicles have to be diligent.
  - beefield 8y ago
    As a occasional cyclist with a habit of casually breaking all possible traffic rules that are relatively safely breakable, my thinking is that if I crash with a car, it is me who dies regardless who was right. So as long the traffic culture amongst car drivers is so ignorant toward cyclists that me following traffic rules and actually trying to use the rights the rules give me results to life expectancy calculated in weeks, I keep my relaxed attitude towards traffic rules. Once the driving culture is such that I can drive safely by following rules, I start considering following them. The ball on this one is on cars, not cycles. (To be fair, when I drive a car, I find myself driving similarly badly way too often. So I definitely do not claim changing the culture is easy)
  - halbritt 8y ago
    Sure. There's a myriad of reasons why this is the case. Traffic signals and signage aren't designed for cyclists. Google a little. Further, this is a false equivalence. When a cyclist fails to be diligent, the risks are fairly small. When a motorists fails to be diligent, other people die.
    - schlumpf 8y ago
      You are being unnecessarily abrasive. I ride the streets that I'm speaking about. San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure, markings, and signage to promote safe cycling. I think they do good work and I benefit directly from their work. I think the infrastructure is better suited to cycling than your dismissive comment implies. I disagree with your characterization that the risks to motor vehicle-bicycle interactions are fairly small risks as long as motorists are diligent. But I don't suggest that you accept my risk assessment. My equivalence is grounded in California law[0]. Cyclists have equal responsibility with other drivers. Both groups of vehicles need to be operated diligently. [0] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21200 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....
      - halbritt 8y ago
        San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure... They're adapting roads which were created entirely with motorists in mind in an attempt to promote safe cycling. The infrastructure is more well suited to cycling than it was previously, but I'm not sure that folks from Portland would agree. Folks from Copenhagen, most especially wouldn't agree. In any case, it's a subjective assessment. You disagree with my characterization and feel like the law somehow proves you right? Yes, it is equally illegal for a motorist and a cyclist to blow a stop sign. If a motorist blows a stop sign and has a collision with another motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian, then likely outcome is injury in one of those cases, and death in the other two. If a cyclist blows a stop sign and causes a collision, the likely outcome is that they'll end up a stain on someone else's car. It's possible they could injure, or even kill a pedestrian, which has happened all of once that I can tell. The risk is vastly different. Bicycles aren't really ever considered to be deadly weapons.
SECProto 8y ago
By that measure, we shouldn't have crosswalks at intersections, and walkers should walk into the street, past the right turn lane, to avoid turning conflict.
- joncrocks 8y ago
  In most countries in Europe (certainly in the UK, and other places I have visited), pedestrians have a separate crossing phase to the rest of traffic. The US is unusual in expecting pedestrians to cross while traffic is also trying to negotiate an intersection.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    In some EU countries(Poland) pedestrians have a green light to go, even though cars turning right also have a green light - cars are expected to watch out for pedestrians crossing, even when they have a green light to go. I live in UK and the part of the traffic codex that seems to be unknown to literally all British drivers is the one that says "pedestrians have priority over cars making a turn" - so if you are crossing a road near an intersection and a car is making a turn into that road you are just crossing, you have absolute priority even in the absence of a designated crossing - but drivers get really upset and honk and wave as if you are in their way. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203#rule170 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-... "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"
    - nothrabannosir 8y ago
      > part of the traffic codex that seems to be unknown to literally all British drivers is the one that says "pedestrians have priority over cars making a turn" They have a very efficient system for reminding fellow road users, though. Two fingers in the air slightly apart, a pedestrian’s walking legs upside down, indicating the priority reversal. People are generally very receptive to this, because it is quintessentially British to understand you have to live together harmoniously to get ahead in life.
mcv 8y ago
This works only on roads where cars and bikes go the same speed. There are many roads where cars want to go faster than that.
- u801e 8y ago
  Cars and trucks and buses don't really go the same speed and it still works for them. Plus, on city streets where traffic is going 40 mph or less, the speed difference isn't really that great.
  - mcv 8y ago
    Buses and trucks are a bit bigger and less vulnerable than bikes, and their speed difference with cars isn't remotely as big as that between cars and bikes. It's really not a comparable situation. Bikes taking up the place of a car, would really slow car traffic down to a crawl. There's a good reason they get separate lanes.
    - u801e 8y ago
      > and their speed difference with cars isn't remotely as big as that between cars and bikes. Cyclists can go between 10 to 20 mph. Some faster ones can go 25 to 30 mph. On a city street, you have cars going between 20 to 30 mph. On other roads, they may be going up to 40 mph. Given typical speeds, you have a 0 to 30 mph difference. On highways, there are trucks that are limited to 55 to 60 mph amongst cars that go 70 to 85 mph. In that case, you have speed differences ranging from 10 to 30 mph. > Bikes taking up the place of a car, would really slow car traffic down to a crawl. Not really. If there are multiple lanes of traffic going in the same direction, then they don't slow down traffic any more than a bus would. If there's a single lane of traffic going in that direction, then cyclists are far more easy to pass compared to a bus or truck. In many states, it is legal to pass cyclists by crossing a double-yellow line when safe to do so. Second, it's much easier to see around a cyclist compared to a bus or car.
      - mcv 8y ago
jdavis703 8y ago
There's no way to eliminate turn conflicts except for eliminating all grade crossings. Even on protected bike lanes the right hook is still a significant risk. Drivers need to have it drilled in to their head to look before turning. Even if a bike isn't entering from a protected lane, there could be a pedestrian using the crosswalk.
- u801e 8y ago
  > Even on protected bike lanes the right hook is still a significant risk. That's because the infrastructure design is deficient here (which is putting a straight through lane to the right of a right turn lane). Either the cyclist needs to stay in the lane that's meant for straight through traffic, or there needs to be some form of intersection control that only allows traffic to proceed in a phased fashion like a traffic light. For the latter option, the light would only allow cyclists to proceed through the intersection or allow other vehicles to proceed through the intersection, but not both at the same time.
  - jdavis703 8y ago
    The hook usually happens at unsignalized intersections (e.g. an alleyway) in my experience. Adding more signals is not the solution. Nor is making "every lane a bike lane." Even in a wide sharrow'ed lane a driver will make a pass, followed by a right turn which cuts the biker off.

TylerE 8y ago

Drivers tests in the US are a joke.

jimbo1qaz 8y ago
That you think it's easy to pass drivers tests in the US is a joke.
- yladiz 8y ago
  It actually is a joke how bad some tests are. In a lot of cities in Florida your test is done in a parking lot with no real world driving with other cars, and it omits a lot of things, like parallel parking. Ideally licenses should be able to be transferred across states, but tests like the majority of ones in Florida mean drivers from there may be inadequately prepared for driving in some other states like CA.
  - mcv 8y ago
    I really hope this is an exaggeration. Still, the US is not the only place with very mixed standards for driving tests. I once heard that the easiest way to get a Dutch driving license was on the Caribbean island of Saba, where you'd get your license if you could drive around the central square without causing an accident. I knew someone who got his license there, and he didn't dare to drive a car in Netherland. Fortunately he had a Dutch motorbike license.
    - TylerE 8y ago
      Here in NC, the road test was maybe 10 minutes long, in very light traffic. No parallel parking. The written portion of the test consisted of sign identification and a few very easy multiple choice questions. I did this when I was 15. That as almost 20 years ago. Have never, and will never, need to do anything else.
    - yladiz 8y ago
      It's not an exaggeration. Taking a look at Hillsborough Country[1], two of the three DMVs have "on-site test tracks". 1: http://www.hillstax.org/services/services-driver-licenses.aspx http://www.hillstax.org/services/services-driver-licenses.as...