5 ms·

> 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 t

by 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.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    To be fair, SF seems to have four-way stop signs at basically every intersection. I don't think we have four-way stop signs anywhere in Europe. Coming to a full stop and accelerating again every hundred meters slows you down a lot more on a bike. It's a pretty stupid road design for cars too, it kills your fuel economy.
    - nojvek 8y ago
      Yep and the fact that only one car goes through at a time and drivers need to keep in mind whose turn it is. It’s a really awful design. Just have a roundabout. It flows traffic through a lot better.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        Or remove all signs and rely on right-of-way. That's the cheapest solution and works pretty well. If traffic is too heavy install traffic lights.
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    In Idaho it is perfectly legal for bicycles to treat Stop signs as yields, and Red lights as stop signs. It was attempted to get a similar law passed in CA: AB 1103. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article149397139.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler... Many cyclists would agree that a rolling stop allows them to get through, when there is no traffic, the intersection much faster and more safely due to the dangers of an intersection. I'm not arguing for blowing through at top-speed, and they must stop when pedestrians are in a cross-walk. Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's correct.
    - magduf 8y ago
      Coming to a full stop on a bike is downright dangerous. The act of unclipping from your pedal, stopping, and then starting again and having to clip back into your pedal is far more dangerous than just slowing down sufficiently to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. You're more likely to fall over when transitioning between moving and stopped on a bike than any other time, and falling over at an intersection is very dangerous.
      - u801e 8y ago
        I've never used clips on my pedals when commuting because of the fact that there are times I have to come to a stop where I may not have time to unclip. Using clips while riding in city traffic is like using cruise control while driving in city traffic.
        magduf 8y ago
        Riding without clipless pedals means your feet slip all around and you have to pay more attention to your feet while pedaling. Or you have to use toe-clips, which are a PITA because you have to flip the pedal over to get your toe in. With clipless pedals, you just mash your foot in and go, and your foot is now in the perfect position and you don't have to think about it. But that transition time is more hazardous than simply having your feet on the pedals all the time.
  - belorn 8y ago
    I have a very simple rule. Traffic laws and enforcement of said laws should be proportional to the accident rate. If the average car driver has 2x, 10x, 100x or anything like higher accident rate than cyclists, and car traffic is several time larger than bike traffic, then it make logical sense that most traffic law and enforcement is put on addressing car traffic and drivers. The only consideration is when funding for such enforcement and laws don't follow strict scaling, in which you have to find the point where putting more funding in bike traffic laws actually produce lower accidents.
  - u801e 8y ago
    > Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules The same thing also applies to motorists and pedestrians. Also, generalizations like this lead to the attitude that it's somehow the cyclists fault if they get hit by the car even if they are following the rules.
    - schlumpf 8y ago
      I don't follow your argument. Grandparent had pointed out correct cyclist behavior at intersections to avoid accidents. Parent had commented that both motorists and "especially" cyclists made mistakes resulting in violations of traffic rules and expected behavior. I added the observation that many cyclists' incorrect behavior in San Francisco is willful, not only accidental. Both parent and I agree with GP's point that, "Turning conflicts...are a significant hazard to cyclists"; I simply argued for vigilance in the presence of deliberate rule-breaking by cyclists. Surely you would not argue for less vigilance by motorists? SF drivers are a whole other rant... If you meant to say that I am making a hasty or sweeping generalization, I did no such thing. I make no claim as to the proportion of two-wheeled scofflaws. Anybody who rides in SF can see it, and some riders have owned up in child comments herein. If your complaint is against motorists who justify their own shitty driving with claims that cyclists are 'always' flouting the rules, then I agree that this is dangerously fallacious. But such a sweeping generalization nonetheless starts with cyclists who clearly break traffic rules. That's why I wish they would stop. This is about saving lives. And if you are also a rider then you know the apportionment of blame becomes moot when 1800kg of SUV hits 80kg of cyclist. I think GP is absolutely right that good infrastructure design is key to avoiding such risks, but like all transportation systems it has to be built on the assumption that traffic rules will be followed.
  - jdavis703 8y ago
    Cars also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Almost no one signals, cars rarely come to a full stop at crosswalks (instead inching forward, implying the pedestrian needs to hurry up), and even though I don't have a radar gun I'm pretty sure I see drivers operating at speeds far above the speed limit. Not to mention the drivers who shout out death threats at bikes for merely occupying the lane...
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.

by u801e 8y ago

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.
- adrianN 8y ago
  To be fair, SF seems to have four-way stop signs at basically every intersection. I don't think we have four-way stop signs anywhere in Europe. Coming to a full stop and accelerating again every hundred meters slows you down a lot more on a bike. It's a pretty stupid road design for cars too, it kills your fuel economy.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    Yep and the fact that only one car goes through at a time and drivers need to keep in mind whose turn it is. It’s a really awful design. Just have a roundabout. It flows traffic through a lot better.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Or remove all signs and rely on right-of-way. That's the cheapest solution and works pretty well. If traffic is too heavy install traffic lights.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  In Idaho it is perfectly legal for bicycles to treat Stop signs as yields, and Red lights as stop signs. It was attempted to get a similar law passed in CA: AB 1103. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article149397139.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler... Many cyclists would agree that a rolling stop allows them to get through, when there is no traffic, the intersection much faster and more safely due to the dangers of an intersection. I'm not arguing for blowing through at top-speed, and they must stop when pedestrians are in a cross-walk. Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's correct.
  - magduf 8y ago
    Coming to a full stop on a bike is downright dangerous. The act of unclipping from your pedal, stopping, and then starting again and having to clip back into your pedal is far more dangerous than just slowing down sufficiently to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. You're more likely to fall over when transitioning between moving and stopped on a bike than any other time, and falling over at an intersection is very dangerous.
    - u801e 8y ago
      I've never used clips on my pedals when commuting because of the fact that there are times I have to come to a stop where I may not have time to unclip. Using clips while riding in city traffic is like using cruise control while driving in city traffic.
      - magduf 8y ago
        Riding without clipless pedals means your feet slip all around and you have to pay more attention to your feet while pedaling. Or you have to use toe-clips, which are a PITA because you have to flip the pedal over to get your toe in. With clipless pedals, you just mash your foot in and go, and your foot is now in the perfect position and you don't have to think about it. But that transition time is more hazardous than simply having your feet on the pedals all the time.
- belorn 8y ago
  I have a very simple rule. Traffic laws and enforcement of said laws should be proportional to the accident rate. If the average car driver has 2x, 10x, 100x or anything like higher accident rate than cyclists, and car traffic is several time larger than bike traffic, then it make logical sense that most traffic law and enforcement is put on addressing car traffic and drivers. The only consideration is when funding for such enforcement and laws don't follow strict scaling, in which you have to find the point where putting more funding in bike traffic laws actually produce lower accidents.
- u801e 8y ago
  > Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules The same thing also applies to motorists and pedestrians. Also, generalizations like this lead to the attitude that it's somehow the cyclists fault if they get hit by the car even if they are following the rules.
  - schlumpf 8y ago
    I don't follow your argument. Grandparent had pointed out correct cyclist behavior at intersections to avoid accidents. Parent had commented that both motorists and "especially" cyclists made mistakes resulting in violations of traffic rules and expected behavior. I added the observation that many cyclists' incorrect behavior in San Francisco is willful, not only accidental. Both parent and I agree with GP's point that, "Turning conflicts...are a significant hazard to cyclists"; I simply argued for vigilance in the presence of deliberate rule-breaking by cyclists. Surely you would not argue for less vigilance by motorists? SF drivers are a whole other rant... If you meant to say that I am making a hasty or sweeping generalization, I did no such thing. I make no claim as to the proportion of two-wheeled scofflaws. Anybody who rides in SF can see it, and some riders have owned up in child comments herein. If your complaint is against motorists who justify their own shitty driving with claims that cyclists are 'always' flouting the rules, then I agree that this is dangerously fallacious. But such a sweeping generalization nonetheless starts with cyclists who clearly break traffic rules. That's why I wish they would stop. This is about saving lives. And if you are also a rider then you know the apportionment of blame becomes moot when 1800kg of SUV hits 80kg of cyclist. I think GP is absolutely right that good infrastructure design is key to avoiding such risks, but like all transportation systems it has to be built on the assumption that traffic rules will be followed.
- jdavis703 8y ago
  Cars also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Almost no one signals, cars rarely come to a full stop at crosswalks (instead inching forward, implying the pedestrian needs to hurry up), and even though I don't have a radar gun I'm pretty sure I see drivers operating at speeds far above the speed limit. Not to mention the drivers who shout out death threats at bikes for merely occupying the lane...

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.