13 ms·

Collision Course: a type of road junction that is dangerous for cyclists (2018)

144 points by ColinWright 7y ago

makomk 7y ago
Someone saw the Tom Scott video about this from a couple of days ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU
- mym1990 7y ago
  Is it somewhat ironic that at :15 seconds into the video a car hurls through a stop sign?
  - thaumaturgy 7y ago
    At 1:26, a car rolls through it too. Quite as a few, as he sort of points out near the end. I like this as an example of a problem that can be solved by engineering far more easily than by changing human behavior.
- hinkley 7y ago
  Strong sense of deja vu. I've seen something about this before, and I think it predates the Bez article this is based on. https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-road-junction-will-keep-killing-cyclists/ https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-th... I don't recall the colors on the pavement. Constant Bearing, Reducing Distance, mentioned farther down, is a naval concept, and if memory serves this is part of the protocol for lookouts (people standing in different places have different CBRD blind-spots). I've seen this with my partner a few times, where some object is not exactly behind the A pillar but just close enough to it and maintaining a constant bearing, meanwhile she can't understand why I didn't see them coming (once in a while the shoe is on the other foot, and I yield for someone that she didn't see until the last moment).
chrisseaton 7y ago
Something to add to this is that 'stop' signs are pretty rare in the UK compared to somewhere like the US. People wouldn't be expecting a 'stop' sign at a junction like this, so they're expecting to yield, and due to the blind spot they think they are yielding.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > People wouldn't be expecting a 'stop' sign It's bright red!
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > It's bright red! I'm not saying it isn't. But in the UK most junctions are yield, so drivers don't approach junctions thinking 'I might have to stop' they think 'I'll have to yield', so if they aren't paying attention their default is to yield.
    - xxpor 7y ago
      Are there not multiple warning signs there's a stop sign ahead? The MUTCD version: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MUTCD_W3-1.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MUTCD_W3...
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        I think that's an American sign. The context of the article is the UK. We don't that exact sign in the UK. I think there is a 'stop in 100 yards' sign but I can't recall ever seeing one. But the point was people aren't paying attention to the signs... so another sign doesn't solve that.
        xxpor 7y ago
        MUTCD == the (American) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, it was intended to demonstrate what I was talking about. If you add multiple (large) signs ahead of the actual control device, you'll have higher compliance, since the unusual sign doesn't appear out of the blue.
hackeraccount 7y ago
I follow him on the why the cars don't see the cyclists. Why don't the cyclists see the cars?
- btilly 7y ago
  That is explained by this sentence. A car which is on a collision course at Ipley Cross with a cyclist who is obscured from the driver’s view by the front pillar will approach the cyclist from behind. So if the cyclist doesn't do a shoulder check, the cyclist won't see it. If they do do a shoulder check, the car will appear to be stationary to them. (It is surprisingly harder to see an object with no apparent motion.)
- ColinWright 7y ago
  The cyclists have right-of-way and have no reason to expect that that cars will simply come out of the side street without stopping, or even slowing down. By the time a cyclist realises it can easily be too late.
  - RandomBacon 7y ago
    Right-of-way doesn't answer why the cyclists can't see the cars. Right-of-way isn't going to bring someone back to life.
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      Yeah, but assuming no right-of-way will lead to not having a life of any sort. I can't even imagine living life this way. Can you imagine that? A Tesla is stopped at a red light just before a pedestrian crossing. The Tesla can go from 0-30 mph before I can cross its width at walking pace. The walk light is on. I have the right-of-way. But considering the Tesla could go from 0-30 mph in the time I could pass it, your suggested course of action is to just wait until a slower-to-accelerate car stops at the intersection?
      - RandomBacon 7y ago
jonathanbull 7y ago
If anyone's looking to learn more about road layouts (who isn't?!), Road Guy Rob has a good channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqdUXv9yQiIhspWPYgp8_XA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqdUXv9yQiIhspWPYgp8_XA
jimbob45 7y ago
Was doing some charity bike ride when I was 16 and, halfway through, there was something like this. I'd zoned out and was gonna cycle on through the intersection when someone called out for me to stop. If I hadn't, I'd have been splattered by a speeding Corvette. I wonder if this may have played a factor.
phkahler 7y ago
When 2 objects are on a collision course moving in straight line motion, the heading to the other object does not change. For this reason, efforts to detect asteroids heading toward earth by detecting their motion against the background sky will fail over short time spans. That's because the ones on an actual collision course will not appear to move against the background for a few days prior to impact. An impactor will seem to come out of nowhere.
- jstanley 7y ago
  The Earth moves in an orbit around the sun, so the only way this would be a problem is if the asteroid were not visible at all until only a few months (or even less?) before impact.
  - Cogito 7y ago
    To a first-order approximation, and from far enough away, a collision with the Earth is a collision with the Solar System. Our motion within the Solar System is relatively small if the asteroid is a very long way away; it's easy to find scenarios where a fast moving asteroid will appear stationary over a 6 month period.
basicplus2 7y ago
They could install at least two speed humps on approach, one, to disengage the blind spot and a second really large one to force cars to almost stop.
- kspacewalk2 7y ago
  From the article: >Speed bumps are a reasonable idea in terms of being a low-cost intervention, but regulations permit their use only under street lighting, so they cannot be used here.
  - DreadY2K 7y ago
    Also (adding more detail): The reason why you can't install lights is because there aren't any wires for the electrical grid, so that would cost a lot of money to add, and the locals would likely object to the extra source of light pollution.
- aaronmdjones 7y ago
  There's no street lighting on this road. You can't use speed bumps in unlit areas (because drivers won't see them at night until it's too late to avoid vehicle damage).
DanBC 7y ago
I'm curious about whether planting trees and bushes would help. This would make drivers know that they haven't seen the other road, and would make them slow down on approach to the junction.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  That's not the worst idea, like that they'll take the stop sign serious. In Europe, stop signs can only be installed at certifiably dangerous junctions, but in the current state the intersection doesn't look half as bad as it actually is. With a few strategically placed bushes impressions might actually match on-the-ground facts.
derekp7 7y ago
I have an idea. What about putting a solar powered radar that lights up a flashing sign when cross traffic is detected to draw the driver's attention. Even better would be coupled with signalling that indicates which direction a vehicle is approaching from. Even more advanced would be to compare the vehicle speeds from both roads, and change the warning from yellow to red flashing lights if a collision is immanent. Actually, I'd like to see that last part put into place at any hazardous intersection, in case a driver misses seeing a stop sign or red light.
- rhizome 7y ago
  This is in the Tom Scott video, but in the case of this intersection there is a combination of conservation area limitations, light-pollution concerns, and a complete lack of electricity.
- folmar 7y ago
  Generally one would prefer safety features to be fail-safe, not fail-deadly, i.e. traffic lights that give you green when there is no cross-traffic is OK, but warning only if something is detected is used only in limited circumstances.
petercooper 7y ago
Another solution is to block off the eastern exit, turning it into a T junction. It's low traffic, there are multiple alternative routes and the road to the east is short and insignificant. This technique is used a lot in towns nowadays to shut off dangerous junctions onto arterial routes (and to prevent 'rat runs'). The alternative route round works out at 5 minutes longer but in a national park that's pretty good, and the lives saved should be worth it. Map view here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ipley+Manor+Stables/@50.8634844,-1.4616827,15z https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ipley+Manor+Stables/@50....
- usrusr 7y ago
  An even simpler solution that I have seen implemented on some open field crossings is to deliberately block the view line somewhere close. It doesn't have to be blocked on the entire approach, just enough to ruin the illusion of having sufficiently observed the entire crossing road. It could be a billboard with traffic safety propaganda (or ads), some greenery or a stack of photovoltaics. Not much bigger than a bus usually.
  - gpderetta 7y ago
    this solution is actually discussed in the article and dismissed because it would be very visually intrusive with the rest of the forested land and because careless drivers might still only give a quick glance after not seeing any cars while approaching the junction from far away.
    - FeepingCreature 7y ago
      Right, they presume that the entire approach would have to be covered. But the parent asserts that a short fence would be enough. (I'm inclined to agree.)
  - petercooper 7y ago
    I'd agree with that. Even something to "break up" the view and add ambiguity might make people stop... the road equivalent of a scarecrow, perhaps.. some "scarebikes"? :- (I've seen a lot of cardboard cutouts of police officers at various petrol stations in recent years. They do make you think twice when you see them out of the corner of your eye.)
Symbiote 7y ago
Why is the cost to bend one of the roads slightly, creating an offset junction, £100,000?
- rozab 7y ago
  Did you see this other post on the front page right now? I Could Do That in a Weekend https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019816
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    You're linking that just to be insulting, I guess? Asking why the cost is some number is very different from claiming you could do it yourself for cheaper. Is the biggest cost tearing up existing things, bringing out the heavy machines, the raw materials, the labor, or something else? How many man-hours are needed anyway? There is nothing wrong with asking why it costs a certain amount. The average person has zero expertise in the cost structure of laying paved road.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  My guess: purchasing the land, paying for studies, laying new road, removing old road. £100,000 sounds cheap. Two people already died. If I was a family member of a third victim, I would've wanted the government to pay £100,000. I would be asking government officials if it was worth it. (Approx 125,000 USD at today's exchange rate)
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    There's a linked response from Hampshire County Council [1]: "We are working with partners at New Forest District Council, the National Park Authority, English Nature, The Verderers, The Forestry Commission and the police to explore what can be done longer term and are currently carrying out a review of the junction, which we hope to finalise in the new year. The land beyond the paved road surface is Crown land and this will require permissions to be granted to us for any realignment of the road to be carried out." Crown land (part of the national park, presumably) means it "belongs" to the queen, so that shouldn't be an issue. Other comments on that discussion say the same offset junction has been done in many other places. The best thing is probably for anyone who lives in Hampshire to write to their MP. https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/#addendum https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/#addendum
analog31 7y ago
I read this article a while back, and immediately one intersection in my locale came to mind. So on my next trip through it in my car, I took a careful look. Sure enough, my impression was that it would be hard to see a cyclist, or even an approaching car. Of course I'm always careful, but now I'm extra careful.
jakear 7y ago
I wonder if a “Stop Ahead: XXX Killed at this intersection” sign would be effective. Sure it’s non-standard. But that’s something of a +1 in this situation.
- downerending 7y ago
  I've often thought it would be useful to put a permanent marker of some sort at the spot of every traffic fatality. In the US, people often put crosses up, but this is haphazard, and of course can't be in the roadway. Maybe a painted gray X or something. The point is that a crap-ton of these would serve as a useful warning to the wise.
cellis 7y ago
Reminds me of the time I almost died riding on The Embarcadero. This https://www.google.com/maps/place/Embarcadero,+San+Francisco,+CA/@37.80494,-122.4039694,179m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80858066993643ad:0x77178399d59a1e7f!8m2!3d37.7992627!4d-122.3976732 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Embarcadero,+San+Francisco... is the intersection. This is the link to the view you would have as a cyclist https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8051081,-122.4030922,3a,74.5y,268.57h,70.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPQXGu79Rxu575JjSzjZsyxcwoAZ6fZo0LticqV!2e10!3e11!7i11000!8i5500 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8051081,-122.4030922,3a,74.5... Long story short, I was an idiot cyclist thinking I had calculated everything[1], when in fact, I hadn't. Someone in a car going northbound at about 60mph on Sansome had to slam on their brakes to save my life as I crossed from the right bicycle lane to chestnut. I was super lucky they were watching, and their brakes worked, and that they had enough reaction time. From then on I have never ran stoplights. The problem is that, as they say, the first one is free. You might start out as a cyclist running a simple stop sign on a dead street. But as you get more comfortable, the temptation is to run ever more complex street lights. In my case, I only did it when I didn't see any cars. The problem with intersections like this is there are cars you cannot see. [1] - Things to calculate: 1. Southeast bound car traffic on Embarcadero. 2. Whether there were southeast bound muni trains on the Embarcadero dividing route. 3. Whether there were northwest bound muni trains on the Embarcadero dividing route. 4. Cars behind you on northeast bound Embarcadero ( I had to cross from the bikelane on the left ) 5. Northbound cars on Sansome. This is what I missed.
- hinkley 7y ago
  I don't know who needs to hear this, but the driver who gets mad at you for running a light might be a fellow or former cyclist. There is nowhere you gotta be that is so important that you should be committing moving violations to get there. The rules of the road apply to you ever bit as much as a car, and you have absolutely no moral authority at all if you won't even follow the goddamned traffic laws. You are not only risking your own life, you're making the rest of us look bad, and creating hostile drivers that other people have to deal with.
  - xenocyon 7y ago
aidos 7y ago
This is a fascinating look at a perfect storm of a junction. For both vehicles to be unaware of each other just seems unfathomable, especially that this occurs in a place where you’re effectively on an open plain with good visibility in all directions. I’ve stayed down the road from here (East Boldre) on a number of occasions so I’m familiar with the junction having both driven and cycled through it. I’ve even cycled through there with my kids in a bike trailer, which makes me feel a little sick. A number of comments are suggesting larger engineering endeavour to fix the issue so it’s probably worth pointing out a few things about the environment, as it’s a fairly unusual place. This is a national park that’s been fairly untouched for a long time. There are a lot of large animals wondering around but rather than being fenced in, they mostly roam freely. They often just have reflective collars to help stop collisions at night where they frequently congregate on the road. Furthermore, in the Uk in general, intervention seems to be strongly discouraged. Certainly compared to NZ, where I grew up, over here there seems to be more of an expectation that people should do the right thing without being nannied. I was told that when it comes to road intervention, it’s only post incident that changes will be made to prevent future situations from occurring. Another anecdote. Where I worked in south London there was a junction on a hill where traffic coming down the hill wasn’t allowed to turn across the traffic coming up. There was a sign, but it wasn’t especially obvious. On a weekly basis there was a surveillance van with a camera that sat the fining people (later, through the post) if they broke the no turning rule. We complained to the council a number of times about it because we often saw near misses. It wasn’t until the day a motorbike went through a car windshield that a change was implemented. And, even then, it was only a chance to the signage.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
TwoBit 7y ago
The author dismisses the question of why the cyclist shouldn't check the cross traffic by implying it's onerous or unexpected to do so becauseof the angle. IMO this intersections real problem has little to do with visibility acronyms and everything to do with simply two roads intersecting with nothing to adjudicate the intersection. I bet $100 the are even more car-car crashes here than car-bike crashes.
rangibaby 7y ago
Every road is dangerous for a cyclist. Really the only solution is to adopt pedestrian-centric traffic laws like The Netherlands or Japan. In Japan, blowing a stop sign and killing a cyclist would be a "dangerous driving causing death" charge, which would result in a prison sentence, loss of your license, a fine, and ~$1,000,000 in compensation to the family of the person you hit.
- laurieg 7y ago
  In reality, it doesn't always work quite like this. Japan has a system of assigning a percentage of blame to both parties in a traffic accident. "He was 80% to blame for not yielding, you were 20% to blame for being too far out in the road." While in general this system works fairly well, there does seem to be a lot of pressure to share blame as much as possible. The only person I know how got 100%/0% was T-boned by a driving going through the middle of a red light. Also, cars are often judged to be be much more at fault than cycles. Perhaps this is why bicycles can often be very reckless on the roads: taking blind corners without slowing down, cycling on the wrong side of the road against traffic etc.
  - rangibaby 7y ago
    In reality it does work quite like that if someone dies and you are judged to have driven dangerously (危険運転致死傷罪).
- paulcole 7y ago
  And in America if you want to kill someone the best way to do it is with your car. https://www.metafilter.com/137440/If-you-want-to-kill-someone-do-it-with-a-car https://www.metafilter.com/137440/If-you-want-to-kill-someon...
- ehnto 7y ago
  I spent a couple of weeks walking and riding in Japan last year. Tokyo and Osaka specifically. My biggest take away was that everyone is constantly collaborating to make it work. Bikes, people, cars, everyone is shuffling around and compromising. People and bikes seem to slip through eachother when foot traffic is light, with bikes or people giving way depending on what's easier for both. The gutters are often flush with the road, so if there was a bigger group of people a bicycle could just ride off the footpath and back on again to get around them. Half of the time there is no delineation between footpath and road, so cars drive very slowly and infrequently and everyone shuffles around subtly to make it work. In western cities I've noticed people are instead antagonistic, everyone is actively looking for something to be angry about. If they could help someone by moving a little bit, they won't, because it's their lane not yours. If you move around stopped traffic to get to a safer spot on your bike, you'll get yelled at, sometimes the argument is that it's "Unfair", like children arguing over who gets the front seat. I feel like it's the car-centric infrastructure that leads people to think the city is for cars. You don't see this attitude in foot traffic only areas like foot-malls and public transport, where people are seem more likely to help eachother, and you could liken parts of Osaka and Japan to a city-wide foot mall with some allowances for cars. I also visited Sapporo and whilst there were still lots of bikes it was clear it was a more car focused city, and you could feel how much more difficult it was to move around the city because of it. More time waiting for cars to do their thing before you could do yours, instead of the other way around. So, I'm happy to put the blame squarely on the automobile.
antoncohen 7y ago
As an American I find it very odd that they blame the angles of the roads for making it dangerous. Until recently that intersection had no stop signs. One road had a yield, meaning most of the time no one stops in any direction, on either road. That gets drivers in the habit of not stopping. Maybe if varies by state, but I grew up in a rural area of California, but every intersection I can remember has had at least one road required to stop (either a two-way stop sign, four-way stop sign, or traffic lights). I get that stop signs are nearly illegal in the UK and some other parts of Europe, but that is the problem. In the US a driver on the minor road has to stop, look both ways, then proceed. It is to much safer than the driver on the minor road getting in the habit of not stopping and just plowing through a road that has the right of way.
- adrianN 7y ago
  The problem with stop signs is that cyclists also need to stop and on a bicycle you really notice all the wasted energy.
  - antoncohen 7y ago
    On this intersection the cyclists that got hit were on the main road, meaning they wouldn't have to stop. If a cyclist on the minor road had a clear view, slowed down down, and looked both ways, they wouldn't need to come to a complete stop. A cyclist treating a stop sign like a yield sign is pretty only endangering themselves. A motorist plowing through a yield sign that should be a stop sign, or plowing through a stop sign, that is dangerous to other people.
  - flukus 7y ago
    This can be solved with the Idaho Stop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop), although in they absence of common sense you'd probably need a "really stop" sign for dangerous corners.
- usrusr 7y ago
  "Plowing through" yield signs is extremely rare and only a common problem when view lines are exceptionally open like in the linked example. Good road design/signing guidelines include those open sight lines in the decision tree, mandating view blockers, swerves or, as the weakest option because people will still ignore it when they feel safe, stop signs where necessary. As a person who learned driving in Europe the American fixation on stop signs seems excessive (particularly the four way).
henvic 7y ago
I read this article when it was out two years ago, and this is the most important takeaway from it: > And secondly, significant movement of the head will bring previously obscured sections of road into view. I've been doing it ever since, always translating and rotating my head quickly on crossings.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cromulent 7y ago
Previous (quite lengthy) discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16112163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16112163

144 points by ColinWright 7y ago

Someone saw the Tom Scott video about this from a couple of days ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU

mym1990 7y ago
Is it somewhat ironic that at :15 seconds into the video a car hurls through a stop sign?
- thaumaturgy 7y ago
  At 1:26, a car rolls through it too. Quite as a few, as he sort of points out near the end. I like this as an example of a problem that can be solved by engineering far more easily than by changing human behavior.
hinkley 7y ago
Strong sense of deja vu. I've seen something about this before, and I think it predates the Bez article this is based on. https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-road-junction-will-keep-killing-cyclists/ https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-th... I don't recall the colors on the pavement. Constant Bearing, Reducing Distance, mentioned farther down, is a naval concept, and if memory serves this is part of the protocol for lookouts (people standing in different places have different CBRD blind-spots). I've seen this with my partner a few times, where some object is not exactly behind the A pillar but just close enough to it and maintaining a constant bearing, meanwhile she can't understand why I didn't see them coming (once in a while the shoe is on the other foot, and I yield for someone that she didn't see until the last moment).

chrisseaton 7y ago

Something to add to this is that 'stop' signs are pretty rare in the UK compared to somewhere like the US. People wouldn't be expecting a 'stop' sign at a junction like this, so they're expecting to yield, and due to the blind spot they think they are yielding.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> People wouldn't be expecting a 'stop' sign It's bright red!
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > It's bright red! I'm not saying it isn't. But in the UK most junctions are yield, so drivers don't approach junctions thinking 'I might have to stop' they think 'I'll have to yield', so if they aren't paying attention their default is to yield.
  - xxpor 7y ago
    Are there not multiple warning signs there's a stop sign ahead? The MUTCD version: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MUTCD_W3-1.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MUTCD_W3...
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      I think that's an American sign. The context of the article is the UK. We don't that exact sign in the UK. I think there is a 'stop in 100 yards' sign but I can't recall ever seeing one. But the point was people aren't paying attention to the signs... so another sign doesn't solve that.
      - xxpor 7y ago
        MUTCD == the (American) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, it was intended to demonstrate what I was talking about. If you add multiple (large) signs ahead of the actual control device, you'll have higher compliance, since the unusual sign doesn't appear out of the blue.

hackeraccount 7y ago

I follow him on the why the cars don't see the cyclists. Why don't the cyclists see the cars?

btilly 7y ago
That is explained by this sentence. A car which is on a collision course at Ipley Cross with a cyclist who is obscured from the driver’s view by the front pillar will approach the cyclist from behind. So if the cyclist doesn't do a shoulder check, the cyclist won't see it. If they do do a shoulder check, the car will appear to be stationary to them. (It is surprisingly harder to see an object with no apparent motion.)
ColinWright 7y ago
The cyclists have right-of-way and have no reason to expect that that cars will simply come out of the side street without stopping, or even slowing down. By the time a cyclist realises it can easily be too late.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  Right-of-way doesn't answer why the cyclists can't see the cars. Right-of-way isn't going to bring someone back to life.
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    Yeah, but assuming no right-of-way will lead to not having a life of any sort. I can't even imagine living life this way. Can you imagine that? A Tesla is stopped at a red light just before a pedestrian crossing. The Tesla can go from 0-30 mph before I can cross its width at walking pace. The walk light is on. I have the right-of-way. But considering the Tesla could go from 0-30 mph in the time I could pass it, your suggested course of action is to just wait until a slower-to-accelerate car stops at the intersection?
    - RandomBacon 7y ago

jonathanbull 7y ago

If anyone's looking to learn more about road layouts (who isn't?!), Road Guy Rob has a good channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqdUXv9yQiIhspWPYgp8_XA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqdUXv9yQiIhspWPYgp8_XA

jimbob45 7y ago

Was doing some charity bike ride when I was 16 and, halfway through, there was something like this. I'd zoned out and was gonna cycle on through the intersection when someone called out for me to stop. If I hadn't, I'd have been splattered by a speeding Corvette. I wonder if this may have played a factor.

phkahler 7y ago

When 2 objects are on a collision course moving in straight line motion, the heading to the other object does not change. For this reason, efforts to detect asteroids heading toward earth by detecting their motion against the background sky will fail over short time spans. That's because the ones on an actual collision course will not appear to move against the background for a few days prior to impact. An impactor will seem to come out of nowhere.

jstanley 7y ago
The Earth moves in an orbit around the sun, so the only way this would be a problem is if the asteroid were not visible at all until only a few months (or even less?) before impact.
- Cogito 7y ago
  To a first-order approximation, and from far enough away, a collision with the Earth is a collision with the Solar System. Our motion within the Solar System is relatively small if the asteroid is a very long way away; it's easy to find scenarios where a fast moving asteroid will appear stationary over a 6 month period.

basicplus2 7y ago

They could install at least two speed humps on approach, one, to disengage the blind spot and a second really large one to force cars to almost stop.

kspacewalk2 7y ago
From the article: >Speed bumps are a reasonable idea in terms of being a low-cost intervention, but regulations permit their use only under street lighting, so they cannot be used here.
- DreadY2K 7y ago
  Also (adding more detail): The reason why you can't install lights is because there aren't any wires for the electrical grid, so that would cost a lot of money to add, and the locals would likely object to the extra source of light pollution.
aaronmdjones 7y ago
There's no street lighting on this road. You can't use speed bumps in unlit areas (because drivers won't see them at night until it's too late to avoid vehicle damage).

DanBC 7y ago

I'm curious about whether planting trees and bushes would help. This would make drivers know that they haven't seen the other road, and would make them slow down on approach to the junction.

HarryHirsch 7y ago
That's not the worst idea, like that they'll take the stop sign serious. In Europe, stop signs can only be installed at certifiably dangerous junctions, but in the current state the intersection doesn't look half as bad as it actually is. With a few strategically placed bushes impressions might actually match on-the-ground facts.

derekp7 7y ago

I have an idea. What about putting a solar powered radar that lights up a flashing sign when cross traffic is detected to draw the driver's attention. Even better would be coupled with signalling that indicates which direction a vehicle is approaching from. Even more advanced would be to compare the vehicle speeds from both roads, and change the warning from yellow to red flashing lights if a collision is immanent. Actually, I'd like to see that last part put into place at any hazardous intersection, in case a driver misses seeing a stop sign or red light.

rhizome 7y ago
This is in the Tom Scott video, but in the case of this intersection there is a combination of conservation area limitations, light-pollution concerns, and a complete lack of electricity.
folmar 7y ago
Generally one would prefer safety features to be fail-safe, not fail-deadly, i.e. traffic lights that give you green when there is no cross-traffic is OK, but warning only if something is detected is used only in limited circumstances.

petercooper 7y ago

Another solution is to block off the eastern exit, turning it into a T junction. It's low traffic, there are multiple alternative routes and the road to the east is short and insignificant. This technique is used a lot in towns nowadays to shut off dangerous junctions onto arterial routes (and to prevent 'rat runs'). The alternative route round works out at 5 minutes longer but in a national park that's pretty good, and the lives saved should be worth it. Map view here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ipley+Manor+Stables/@50.8634844,-1.4616827,15z https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ipley+Manor+Stables/@50....

usrusr 7y ago
An even simpler solution that I have seen implemented on some open field crossings is to deliberately block the view line somewhere close. It doesn't have to be blocked on the entire approach, just enough to ruin the illusion of having sufficiently observed the entire crossing road. It could be a billboard with traffic safety propaganda (or ads), some greenery or a stack of photovoltaics. Not much bigger than a bus usually.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  this solution is actually discussed in the article and dismissed because it would be very visually intrusive with the rest of the forested land and because careless drivers might still only give a quick glance after not seeing any cars while approaching the junction from far away.
  - FeepingCreature 7y ago
    Right, they presume that the entire approach would have to be covered. But the parent asserts that a short fence would be enough. (I'm inclined to agree.)
- petercooper 7y ago
  I'd agree with that. Even something to "break up" the view and add ambiguity might make people stop... the road equivalent of a scarecrow, perhaps.. some "scarebikes"? :- (I've seen a lot of cardboard cutouts of police officers at various petrol stations in recent years. They do make you think twice when you see them out of the corner of your eye.)

Symbiote 7y ago

Why is the cost to bend one of the roads slightly, creating an offset junction, £100,000?

rozab 7y ago
Did you see this other post on the front page right now? I Could Do That in a Weekend https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23019816
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  You're linking that just to be insulting, I guess? Asking why the cost is some number is very different from claiming you could do it yourself for cheaper. Is the biggest cost tearing up existing things, bringing out the heavy machines, the raw materials, the labor, or something else? How many man-hours are needed anyway? There is nothing wrong with asking why it costs a certain amount. The average person has zero expertise in the cost structure of laying paved road.
RandomBacon 7y ago
My guess: purchasing the land, paying for studies, laying new road, removing old road. £100,000 sounds cheap. Two people already died. If I was a family member of a third victim, I would've wanted the government to pay £100,000. I would be asking government officials if it was worth it. (Approx 125,000 USD at today's exchange rate)
- Symbiote 7y ago
  There's a linked response from Hampshire County Council [1]: "We are working with partners at New Forest District Council, the National Park Authority, English Nature, The Verderers, The Forestry Commission and the police to explore what can be done longer term and are currently carrying out a review of the junction, which we hope to finalise in the new year. The land beyond the paved road surface is Crown land and this will require permissions to be granted to us for any realignment of the road to be carried out." Crown land (part of the national park, presumably) means it "belongs" to the queen, so that shouldn't be an issue. Other comments on that discussion say the same offset junction has been done in many other places. The best thing is probably for anyone who lives in Hampshire to write to their MP. https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/#addendum https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/#addendum

analog31 7y ago

I read this article a while back, and immediately one intersection in my locale came to mind. So on my next trip through it in my car, I took a careful look. Sure enough, my impression was that it would be hard to see a cyclist, or even an approaching car. Of course I'm always careful, but now I'm extra careful.

jakear 7y ago

I wonder if a “Stop Ahead: XXX Killed at this intersection” sign would be effective. Sure it’s non-standard. But that’s something of a +1 in this situation.

downerending 7y ago
I've often thought it would be useful to put a permanent marker of some sort at the spot of every traffic fatality. In the US, people often put crosses up, but this is haphazard, and of course can't be in the roadway. Maybe a painted gray X or something. The point is that a crap-ton of these would serve as a useful warning to the wise.

cellis 7y ago

Reminds me of the time I almost died riding on The Embarcadero. This https://www.google.com/maps/place/Embarcadero,+San+Francisco,+CA/@37.80494,-122.4039694,179m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80858066993643ad:0x77178399d59a1e7f!8m2!3d37.7992627!4d-122.3976732 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Embarcadero,+San+Francisco... is the intersection. This is the link to the view you would have as a cyclist https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8051081,-122.4030922,3a,74.5y,268.57h,70.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPQXGu79Rxu575JjSzjZsyxcwoAZ6fZo0LticqV!2e10!3e11!7i11000!8i5500 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8051081,-122.4030922,3a,74.5... Long story short, I was an idiot cyclist thinking I had calculated everything[1], when in fact, I hadn't. Someone in a car going northbound at about 60mph on Sansome had to slam on their brakes to save my life as I crossed from the right bicycle lane to chestnut. I was super lucky they were watching, and their brakes worked, and that they had enough reaction time. From then on I have never ran stoplights. The problem is that, as they say, the first one is free. You might start out as a cyclist running a simple stop sign on a dead street. But as you get more comfortable, the temptation is to run ever more complex street lights. In my case, I only did it when I didn't see any cars. The problem with intersections like this is there are cars you cannot see. [1] - Things to calculate: 1. Southeast bound car traffic on Embarcadero. 2. Whether there were southeast bound muni trains on the Embarcadero dividing route. 3. Whether there were northwest bound muni trains on the Embarcadero dividing route. 4. Cars behind you on northeast bound Embarcadero ( I had to cross from the bikelane on the left ) 5. Northbound cars on Sansome. This is what I missed.

hinkley 7y ago
I don't know who needs to hear this, but the driver who gets mad at you for running a light might be a fellow or former cyclist. There is nowhere you gotta be that is so important that you should be committing moving violations to get there. The rules of the road apply to you ever bit as much as a car, and you have absolutely no moral authority at all if you won't even follow the goddamned traffic laws. You are not only risking your own life, you're making the rest of us look bad, and creating hostile drivers that other people have to deal with.
- xenocyon 7y ago

aidos 7y ago

This is a fascinating look at a perfect storm of a junction. For both vehicles to be unaware of each other just seems unfathomable, especially that this occurs in a place where you’re effectively on an open plain with good visibility in all directions. I’ve stayed down the road from here (East Boldre) on a number of occasions so I’m familiar with the junction having both driven and cycled through it. I’ve even cycled through there with my kids in a bike trailer, which makes me feel a little sick. A number of comments are suggesting larger engineering endeavour to fix the issue so it’s probably worth pointing out a few things about the environment, as it’s a fairly unusual place. This is a national park that’s been fairly untouched for a long time. There are a lot of large animals wondering around but rather than being fenced in, they mostly roam freely. They often just have reflective collars to help stop collisions at night where they frequently congregate on the road. Furthermore, in the Uk in general, intervention seems to be strongly discouraged. Certainly compared to NZ, where I grew up, over here there seems to be more of an expectation that people should do the right thing without being nannied. I was told that when it comes to road intervention, it’s only post incident that changes will be made to prevent future situations from occurring. Another anecdote. Where I worked in south London there was a junction on a hill where traffic coming down the hill wasn’t allowed to turn across the traffic coming up. There was a sign, but it wasn’t especially obvious. On a weekly basis there was a surveillance van with a camera that sat the fining people (later, through the post) if they broke the no turning rule. We complained to the council a number of times about it because we often saw near misses. It wasn’t until the day a motorbike went through a car windshield that a change was implemented. And, even then, it was only a chance to the signage.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

TwoBit 7y ago

The author dismisses the question of why the cyclist shouldn't check the cross traffic by implying it's onerous or unexpected to do so becauseof the angle. IMO this intersections real problem has little to do with visibility acronyms and everything to do with simply two roads intersecting with nothing to adjudicate the intersection. I bet $100 the are even more car-car crashes here than car-bike crashes.

rangibaby 7y ago

Every road is dangerous for a cyclist. Really the only solution is to adopt pedestrian-centric traffic laws like The Netherlands or Japan. In Japan, blowing a stop sign and killing a cyclist would be a "dangerous driving causing death" charge, which would result in a prison sentence, loss of your license, a fine, and ~$1,000,000 in compensation to the family of the person you hit.

laurieg 7y ago
In reality, it doesn't always work quite like this. Japan has a system of assigning a percentage of blame to both parties in a traffic accident. "He was 80% to blame for not yielding, you were 20% to blame for being too far out in the road." While in general this system works fairly well, there does seem to be a lot of pressure to share blame as much as possible. The only person I know how got 100%/0% was T-boned by a driving going through the middle of a red light. Also, cars are often judged to be be much more at fault than cycles. Perhaps this is why bicycles can often be very reckless on the roads: taking blind corners without slowing down, cycling on the wrong side of the road against traffic etc.
- rangibaby 7y ago
  In reality it does work quite like that if someone dies and you are judged to have driven dangerously (危険運転致死傷罪).
paulcole 7y ago
And in America if you want to kill someone the best way to do it is with your car. https://www.metafilter.com/137440/If-you-want-to-kill-someone-do-it-with-a-car https://www.metafilter.com/137440/If-you-want-to-kill-someon...
ehnto 7y ago
I spent a couple of weeks walking and riding in Japan last year. Tokyo and Osaka specifically. My biggest take away was that everyone is constantly collaborating to make it work. Bikes, people, cars, everyone is shuffling around and compromising. People and bikes seem to slip through eachother when foot traffic is light, with bikes or people giving way depending on what's easier for both. The gutters are often flush with the road, so if there was a bigger group of people a bicycle could just ride off the footpath and back on again to get around them. Half of the time there is no delineation between footpath and road, so cars drive very slowly and infrequently and everyone shuffles around subtly to make it work. In western cities I've noticed people are instead antagonistic, everyone is actively looking for something to be angry about. If they could help someone by moving a little bit, they won't, because it's their lane not yours. If you move around stopped traffic to get to a safer spot on your bike, you'll get yelled at, sometimes the argument is that it's "Unfair", like children arguing over who gets the front seat. I feel like it's the car-centric infrastructure that leads people to think the city is for cars. You don't see this attitude in foot traffic only areas like foot-malls and public transport, where people are seem more likely to help eachother, and you could liken parts of Osaka and Japan to a city-wide foot mall with some allowances for cars. I also visited Sapporo and whilst there were still lots of bikes it was clear it was a more car focused city, and you could feel how much more difficult it was to move around the city because of it. More time waiting for cars to do their thing before you could do yours, instead of the other way around. So, I'm happy to put the blame squarely on the automobile.

antoncohen 7y ago

As an American I find it very odd that they blame the angles of the roads for making it dangerous. Until recently that intersection had no stop signs. One road had a yield, meaning most of the time no one stops in any direction, on either road. That gets drivers in the habit of not stopping. Maybe if varies by state, but I grew up in a rural area of California, but every intersection I can remember has had at least one road required to stop (either a two-way stop sign, four-way stop sign, or traffic lights). I get that stop signs are nearly illegal in the UK and some other parts of Europe, but that is the problem. In the US a driver on the minor road has to stop, look both ways, then proceed. It is to much safer than the driver on the minor road getting in the habit of not stopping and just plowing through a road that has the right of way.

adrianN 7y ago
The problem with stop signs is that cyclists also need to stop and on a bicycle you really notice all the wasted energy.
- antoncohen 7y ago
  On this intersection the cyclists that got hit were on the main road, meaning they wouldn't have to stop. If a cyclist on the minor road had a clear view, slowed down down, and looked both ways, they wouldn't need to come to a complete stop. A cyclist treating a stop sign like a yield sign is pretty only endangering themselves. A motorist plowing through a yield sign that should be a stop sign, or plowing through a stop sign, that is dangerous to other people.
- flukus 7y ago
  This can be solved with the Idaho Stop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop), although in they absence of common sense you'd probably need a "really stop" sign for dangerous corners.
usrusr 7y ago
"Plowing through" yield signs is extremely rare and only a common problem when view lines are exceptionally open like in the linked example. Good road design/signing guidelines include those open sight lines in the decision tree, mandating view blockers, swerves or, as the weakest option because people will still ignore it when they feel safe, stop signs where necessary. As a person who learned driving in Europe the American fixation on stop signs seems excessive (particularly the four way).

henvic 7y ago

I read this article when it was out two years ago, and this is the most important takeaway from it: > And secondly, significant movement of the head will bring previously obscured sections of road into view. I've been doing it ever since, always translating and rotating my head quickly on crossings.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cromulent 7y ago

Previous (quite lengthy) discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16112163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16112163