6 ms·

One thing I've heard of is "The Right Hook". The bike lane is on the right edge of the road. When a car is making a right turn, they don't look behind them, mak

One thing I've heard of is "The Right Hook". The bike lane is on the right edge of the road. When a car is making a right turn, they don't look behind them, make a right turn, and a cyclist crashes into them. Seattle has a similar problem with some 1 way streets with a bike lane on the left side. At least 1 person has died.

MiroF 7y ago
> At least 1 person has died. Far more people have died from the right hook, it's biking's "most feared crash." You have to constantly watch out for oblivious drivers.
- mauvehaus 7y ago
  Speaking as a cyclist, it's extremely uncommon that you have to put yourself in a position that you can be right hooked. Cyclists need to educate themselves about road safety and take a share of the responsibility for their own safety. What really pisses me off about this is that the only time people discuss the safety of cyclists is in the wake of a fatal crash. If you dare to suggest that cyclists often have choices that can prevent the crash, you get called out for victim blaming. It's bullshit to shut down discussion of things people can do to protect themselves because of some misguided respect for the dead. For goodness' sake talk about it so people on the streets are armed with the knowledge that will save their lives so we aren't having the same discussion again and again and again. It doesn't matter what the law says, it doesn't matter who had the right to occupy that bit of the road, it matters that cyclists keep dying because they're the more vulnerable road user. It's naive to think that we're going to train every driver to do the safe thing. It's far more realistic to educate the people with the most to lose (i.e. the cyclists) to do the safe thing regardless of whether the drivers around them are aware of them or not.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    > it's extremely uncommon that you have to put yourself in a position that you can be right hooked I'm not so sure. I think there are definitely things to do that can make you avoid the vast majority of these incidents (don't bike to the right of a car when an intersection is coming up if you can avoid, obviously look at the car's turn signals before passing them on the right, pass on the left when you think someone will turn right, etc.), but there are plenty of instances where it is not avoidable and even experienced cyclists can get right-hooked (like biking on a bike lane on a heavily trafficked road with many side streets to turn off of). > It's naive to think that we're going to train every driver to do the safe thing. I think it's not an either-or. I don't think that we have to throw in the towel on every effort to change behavior - people have been convinced to stop littering to a massive extent, checking your right mirror seems minor in comparison.
    - mauvehaus 7y ago
      > like biking on a bike lane on a heavily trafficked road with many side streets to turn off of With the caveat that my experience is not your experience, I respectfully submit that the bike lane is poorly designed in this case and that it shouldn't be used to travel straight through the intersection in this case. I signal a lane-change to the left before the intersection and go straight through in the regular traffic lane, moving right ASAP after the intersection to not obstruct traffic. My riding is mostly dense urban where traffic is moving slowly enough to do this if I put some hustle into it. > I think it's not an either-or. I don't think that we have to throw in the towel on every effort to change behavior. I am absolutely in agreement that it's not either-or, but if cyclists are doing something that's (almost) always safe, they're a lot less likely to be killed by the untrained drivers, of which there will be many for the foreseeable future. What I do doesn't work for cyclists puttering along at 10mph (or grinding up a hill); the speed difference is too great to safely merge left. Training the drivers greatly increases the safety level for such cyclists on roads with cycle lanes between the regular lanes and the curb.
      - MiroF 7y ago
        This is fair, and what you do is essentially the same as what I do and I am also mostly biking in urban cores. That said, I think that we can't just place the onus on bikers to both ignore the drawn on bike lane lines and also to bike considerably faster than they are comfortable without trying to also change driver behavior. I think this mostly agrees with your last point.
        mauvehaus 7y ago
        On the off chance you check back on the thread, please be safe out there. I just saw the news about the fatal crash on universalhub :-(
  - loeg 7y ago
    Right hooks mostly happen when a cyclist is overtaking a car on the right hand side. This entire class of collision can be avoided by not passing on the right. If you see a car slowing down mysteriously, even if it is not signalling, assume it will try to kill you and keep your distance. (I've ridden about 800 miles by bicycle so far this year, and >4000 total since I started using a GPS. No right hooks or right-hook close calls.)
usrusr 7y ago
Particularly dangerous to slow riders who can't modulate speed to time their crossing to a gap between cars (and they won't even try because slow feels safe)
downerending 7y ago
This is a fundamental traffic design failure. Prior to the existence of bike lanes, motor vehicles never had to yield to something behind them (perhaps 30 or 50 meters behind them) while traversing an intersection. In a busy intersection where one also has to attend to pedestrians, other cars, etc., moving in different directions, trying to track what's going on behind you can be almost impossible (and thus quite dangerous for all). My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal, and draws lots of swearing (and worse) from bicyclists. But there's just no other good way to keep everyone safe.
- scblock 7y ago
  Especially not trams, right? No motor vehicle has ever had a tram approach from behind them before we had bike lanes.
  - downerending 7y ago
    What's a tram? EDIT: Okay, it's a surface-grade light rail train. In the cases I'm familiar with, there's always a red light forbidding crossing through the path of such a train. So, you're not yielding to the train, you're obeying a signal that's in front of you.
- mauvehaus 7y ago
  First off, thank you for doing what you're doing as a driver to prevent this kind of crash. You're right, cyclists are blithering idiots about drivers doing this, but it protects them even if they don't understand that. As a cyclist (about 15,000 total miles, half touring, half commuting split between Boston and Cleveland), my solution to the problem is to not design the infrastructure in ways that sets cyclists up for the crash. It is absolutely woefully bad design that cycle lanes on the right continue all the way to the intersection. A solution that works for experienced cyclists to to end the bike lane some distance before the intersection. This forces a merge in a zone where there's no risk of a right hook. I float this with the full understanding that it only works for cyclists who are capable of making the merge at around 20mph/30kmph. And/or where the topography is favorable. No, you don't have to be able to sustain that speed, but being able to do it in short bursts greatly expands your choices when riding in urban traffic. My experience has been that nobody minds much at that speed, especially if you merge back into the "bike lane" while you're still in the intersection but after you're past the lanes people would be turning right into. Turning traffic has to slow anyway to make the turn, after all. This is a specific case of a general rule I try to apply when riding: Make people choose to hit you; don't let them do it accidentally. I would add that this is really only a valid strategy in urban traffic where even the major arterials only flow under 30mph because the density of turns and stop lights prevents higher speeds. Major arteries in the suburbs or around malls are a nightmare for riding because traffic generally flows a lot faster. Some of the most hair-raising riding I've done was near a mall while bike touring. It was basically unavoidable, and also absolutely miserable.
mauvehaus 7y ago
Clarifying question: One ways with an opposing bike lane on the left side, or one ways with a same-direction lane on the left side? Boston (and the surrounding communities) are doing an increasingly large amount of the former. I no longer live there and never used them much, but I'd be keen to hear about the hazards of that design.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Yes, this is very common in Cambridge. I think it is a good idea and generally makes me feel pretty safe.

MiroF 7y ago

> At least 1 person has died. Far more people have died from the right hook, it's biking's "most feared crash." You have to constantly watch out for oblivious drivers.

mauvehaus 7y ago
Speaking as a cyclist, it's extremely uncommon that you have to put yourself in a position that you can be right hooked. Cyclists need to educate themselves about road safety and take a share of the responsibility for their own safety. What really pisses me off about this is that the only time people discuss the safety of cyclists is in the wake of a fatal crash. If you dare to suggest that cyclists often have choices that can prevent the crash, you get called out for victim blaming. It's bullshit to shut down discussion of things people can do to protect themselves because of some misguided respect for the dead. For goodness' sake talk about it so people on the streets are armed with the knowledge that will save their lives so we aren't having the same discussion again and again and again. It doesn't matter what the law says, it doesn't matter who had the right to occupy that bit of the road, it matters that cyclists keep dying because they're the more vulnerable road user. It's naive to think that we're going to train every driver to do the safe thing. It's far more realistic to educate the people with the most to lose (i.e. the cyclists) to do the safe thing regardless of whether the drivers around them are aware of them or not.
- MiroF 7y ago
  > it's extremely uncommon that you have to put yourself in a position that you can be right hooked I'm not so sure. I think there are definitely things to do that can make you avoid the vast majority of these incidents (don't bike to the right of a car when an intersection is coming up if you can avoid, obviously look at the car's turn signals before passing them on the right, pass on the left when you think someone will turn right, etc.), but there are plenty of instances where it is not avoidable and even experienced cyclists can get right-hooked (like biking on a bike lane on a heavily trafficked road with many side streets to turn off of). > It's naive to think that we're going to train every driver to do the safe thing. I think it's not an either-or. I don't think that we have to throw in the towel on every effort to change behavior - people have been convinced to stop littering to a massive extent, checking your right mirror seems minor in comparison.
  - mauvehaus 7y ago
    > like biking on a bike lane on a heavily trafficked road with many side streets to turn off of With the caveat that my experience is not your experience, I respectfully submit that the bike lane is poorly designed in this case and that it shouldn't be used to travel straight through the intersection in this case. I signal a lane-change to the left before the intersection and go straight through in the regular traffic lane, moving right ASAP after the intersection to not obstruct traffic. My riding is mostly dense urban where traffic is moving slowly enough to do this if I put some hustle into it. > I think it's not an either-or. I don't think that we have to throw in the towel on every effort to change behavior. I am absolutely in agreement that it's not either-or, but if cyclists are doing something that's (almost) always safe, they're a lot less likely to be killed by the untrained drivers, of which there will be many for the foreseeable future. What I do doesn't work for cyclists puttering along at 10mph (or grinding up a hill); the speed difference is too great to safely merge left. Training the drivers greatly increases the safety level for such cyclists on roads with cycle lanes between the regular lanes and the curb.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      This is fair, and what you do is essentially the same as what I do and I am also mostly biking in urban cores. That said, I think that we can't just place the onus on bikers to both ignore the drawn on bike lane lines and also to bike considerably faster than they are comfortable without trying to also change driver behavior. I think this mostly agrees with your last point.
      - mauvehaus 7y ago
        On the off chance you check back on the thread, please be safe out there. I just saw the news about the fatal crash on universalhub :-(
- loeg 7y ago
  Right hooks mostly happen when a cyclist is overtaking a car on the right hand side. This entire class of collision can be avoided by not passing on the right. If you see a car slowing down mysteriously, even if it is not signalling, assume it will try to kill you and keep your distance. (I've ridden about 800 miles by bicycle so far this year, and >4000 total since I started using a GPS. No right hooks or right-hook close calls.)

usrusr 7y ago

Particularly dangerous to slow riders who can't modulate speed to time their crossing to a gap between cars (and they won't even try because slow feels safe)

downerending 7y ago

This is a fundamental traffic design failure. Prior to the existence of bike lanes, motor vehicles never had to yield to something behind them (perhaps 30 or 50 meters behind them) while traversing an intersection. In a busy intersection where one also has to attend to pedestrians, other cars, etc., moving in different directions, trying to track what's going on behind you can be almost impossible (and thus quite dangerous for all). My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal, and draws lots of swearing (and worse) from bicyclists. But there's just no other good way to keep everyone safe.

scblock 7y ago
Especially not trams, right? No motor vehicle has ever had a tram approach from behind them before we had bike lanes.
- downerending 7y ago
  What's a tram? EDIT: Okay, it's a surface-grade light rail train. In the cases I'm familiar with, there's always a red light forbidding crossing through the path of such a train. So, you're not yielding to the train, you're obeying a signal that's in front of you.
mauvehaus 7y ago
First off, thank you for doing what you're doing as a driver to prevent this kind of crash. You're right, cyclists are blithering idiots about drivers doing this, but it protects them even if they don't understand that. As a cyclist (about 15,000 total miles, half touring, half commuting split between Boston and Cleveland), my solution to the problem is to not design the infrastructure in ways that sets cyclists up for the crash. It is absolutely woefully bad design that cycle lanes on the right continue all the way to the intersection. A solution that works for experienced cyclists to to end the bike lane some distance before the intersection. This forces a merge in a zone where there's no risk of a right hook. I float this with the full understanding that it only works for cyclists who are capable of making the merge at around 20mph/30kmph. And/or where the topography is favorable. No, you don't have to be able to sustain that speed, but being able to do it in short bursts greatly expands your choices when riding in urban traffic. My experience has been that nobody minds much at that speed, especially if you merge back into the "bike lane" while you're still in the intersection but after you're past the lanes people would be turning right into. Turning traffic has to slow anyway to make the turn, after all. This is a specific case of a general rule I try to apply when riding: Make people choose to hit you; don't let them do it accidentally. I would add that this is really only a valid strategy in urban traffic where even the major arterials only flow under 30mph because the density of turns and stop lights prevents higher speeds. Major arteries in the suburbs or around malls are a nightmare for riding because traffic generally flows a lot faster. Some of the most hair-raising riding I've done was near a mall while bike touring. It was basically unavoidable, and also absolutely miserable.

mauvehaus 7y ago

Clarifying question: One ways with an opposing bike lane on the left side, or one ways with a same-direction lane on the left side? Boston (and the surrounding communities) are doing an increasingly large amount of the former. I no longer live there and never used them much, but I'd be keen to hear about the hazards of that design.

MiroF 7y ago
Yes, this is very common in Cambridge. I think it is a good idea and generally makes me feel pretty safe.