5 ms·

Looks like a death trap to me. My problem when cycling is the j-hook when cars pass me and then turn right. That's killed at least two cyclists in the bay area

Looks like a death trap to me. My problem when cycling is the j-hook when cars pass me and then turn right. That's killed at least two cyclists in the bay area in the past couple years. This intersection makes the problem worse -- it moves cyclists where they are less likely to be seen. Better to add a handful of "right turn must merge to bike lane" signs which is the law but poorly followed. (Other states may vary from CA)

baddox 12y ago
How does this move the cyclist where they are less likely to be seen? The video addresses this point directly, and claims that moving the bicyclists one car length ahead of the stopped cars and requiring a tight turning radius for cars will increase their visibility.
- i_am_ralpht 12y ago
  Most right-hooks happen when the light is already green, not when starting from a stop. So imagine that the car and bike are moving at the same speed and the driver doesn't check their mirror or doesn't notice the bike before they turn right.
  - baddox 12y ago
    This still seems better than a normal intersection, because of the curb extension island which forces a tighter turning radius for cars.
    - alphapapa 12y ago
      Once a car has started the turning process, its driver is no longer looking for bicycles behind it, but is looking in its direction of travel, as it should be. It's too late for it to stop and allow a bicycle to go in front of it. Cyclists should come to a full stop at every intersection, even if the light is green in its direction of travel.
      - psykovsky 12y ago
        No. The dude sitting his ass in his comfy car is the one who should come to a full stop at every intersection. Don't like it, ride a bike. No sarcasm here.
        alphapapa 12y ago
        That's unreasonable and illogical. Think about it: 1. Cars burn gas all the time. Decelerating, idling, and accelerating all waste fuel. 2. Cars take longer to accelerate to average speed in city traffic than a bike does to get up to its average speed. 3. Cars are the enormous majority of traffic. 2 and 3 put together means that cars stopping at every intersection would kill the flow of traffic. That's why traffic signals are used instead of stop signs. 4. Cyclists have far greater visibility, meaning they can more easily see their surroundings. This makes the "stop and look" penalty lower and quicker than for a car or truck. 5. Vehicles are much easier to see than cyclists. This means that cyclists can see cars more easily than cars can see cyclists. This means that the burden of spotting the other kind of traffic should be on the traffic more difficult to be seen. IOW, cyclists should pretend they are invisible to cars (which they often are). This might seem callous to the poor, unprotected cyclists, but by disabusing them of the notion that they are special and protected, it would actually increase their safety. 6. You simply need to face reality. In the west, cars are the vast majority. Your mindset is irrational. By trying to force cars to respect cyclists, you're actually harming cyclists' safety. Cars are big heavy machines, and cyclists are unprotected bags of flesh. Mixing them together is foolish and asking for trouble. It's not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. Instead of trying to write a driver that accepts bologna in a floppy drive without tearing it up, stop putting lunch meat in the grinder.
        baddox 12y ago
        Do you think that trains should yield to cars at railroad crossings as well?
i_am_ralpht 12y ago
I saw it happen to someone two days ago crossing the Caltrain tracks and going over Alma on Meadow in Palo Alto. White van went past the cyclist and then turned right into him -- luckily he just hit his front wheel (though the van drove off, ignorant of everything). It happens all the time and it's a function of poor design. I'm not sure what the right fix is (preventing right turns on some Alma crossings? Forced right turn lane to the right of a green lane?). With this intersection at least the cyclists start out ahead of the traffic when waiting on a red -- but if the light is green and a cyclist is at the speed of traffic then this design does nothing to prevent right hooks...
- penrod 12y ago
  Speaking without specific knowledge of the junction you mention, but with 20 years' experience of urban cycling, my observation is that this type of accident is usually a function of cycling too close to the curb. I've learned to move a foot or two further out into the street when approaching an intersection where cars are likely to turn right, and the effect is that drivers will tuck in behind me to turn rather than overtaking.
- alphapapa 12y ago
  The solution is simple: 1. License and insure all cyclists on public streets. Equal rights, equal responsibilities. 2. Require all cyclists to stop at all intersections, no matter what. Any cyclist who runs into a vehicle is at fault by definition. This is the only realistic solution.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

baddox 12y ago

How does this move the cyclist where they are less likely to be seen? The video addresses this point directly, and claims that moving the bicyclists one car length ahead of the stopped cars and requiring a tight turning radius for cars will increase their visibility.

i_am_ralpht 12y ago
Most right-hooks happen when the light is already green, not when starting from a stop. So imagine that the car and bike are moving at the same speed and the driver doesn't check their mirror or doesn't notice the bike before they turn right.
- baddox 12y ago
  This still seems better than a normal intersection, because of the curb extension island which forces a tighter turning radius for cars.
  - alphapapa 12y ago
    Once a car has started the turning process, its driver is no longer looking for bicycles behind it, but is looking in its direction of travel, as it should be. It's too late for it to stop and allow a bicycle to go in front of it. Cyclists should come to a full stop at every intersection, even if the light is green in its direction of travel.
    - psykovsky 12y ago
      No. The dude sitting his ass in his comfy car is the one who should come to a full stop at every intersection. Don't like it, ride a bike. No sarcasm here.
      - alphapapa 12y ago
        That's unreasonable and illogical. Think about it: 1. Cars burn gas all the time. Decelerating, idling, and accelerating all waste fuel. 2. Cars take longer to accelerate to average speed in city traffic than a bike does to get up to its average speed. 3. Cars are the enormous majority of traffic. 2 and 3 put together means that cars stopping at every intersection would kill the flow of traffic. That's why traffic signals are used instead of stop signs. 4. Cyclists have far greater visibility, meaning they can more easily see their surroundings. This makes the "stop and look" penalty lower and quicker than for a car or truck. 5. Vehicles are much easier to see than cyclists. This means that cyclists can see cars more easily than cars can see cyclists. This means that the burden of spotting the other kind of traffic should be on the traffic more difficult to be seen. IOW, cyclists should pretend they are invisible to cars (which they often are). This might seem callous to the poor, unprotected cyclists, but by disabusing them of the notion that they are special and protected, it would actually increase their safety. 6. You simply need to face reality. In the west, cars are the vast majority. Your mindset is irrational. By trying to force cars to respect cyclists, you're actually harming cyclists' safety. Cars are big heavy machines, and cyclists are unprotected bags of flesh. Mixing them together is foolish and asking for trouble. It's not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. Instead of trying to write a driver that accepts bologna in a floppy drive without tearing it up, stop putting lunch meat in the grinder.
      - baddox 12y ago
        Do you think that trains should yield to cars at railroad crossings as well?

i_am_ralpht 12y ago

I saw it happen to someone two days ago crossing the Caltrain tracks and going over Alma on Meadow in Palo Alto. White van went past the cyclist and then turned right into him -- luckily he just hit his front wheel (though the van drove off, ignorant of everything). It happens all the time and it's a function of poor design. I'm not sure what the right fix is (preventing right turns on some Alma crossings? Forced right turn lane to the right of a green lane?). With this intersection at least the cyclists start out ahead of the traffic when waiting on a red -- but if the light is green and a cyclist is at the speed of traffic then this design does nothing to prevent right hooks...

penrod 12y ago
Speaking without specific knowledge of the junction you mention, but with 20 years' experience of urban cycling, my observation is that this type of accident is usually a function of cycling too close to the curb. I've learned to move a foot or two further out into the street when approaching an intersection where cars are likely to turn right, and the effect is that drivers will tuck in behind me to turn rather than overtaking.
alphapapa 12y ago
The solution is simple: 1. License and insure all cyclists on public streets. Equal rights, equal responsibilities. 2. Require all cyclists to stop at all intersections, no matter what. Any cyclist who runs into a vehicle is at fault by definition. This is the only realistic solution.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]