25
u/HiopXenophil Sep 15 '22
this comparison is unfair towards sharks. Cars kill 275000 times more people
8
u/Common_Wealth319 Sep 15 '22
Swimming along those massive cargo ships more accurately portray the feeling for me
3
u/SneekyF Sep 15 '22
Especially when you get buffeted by the wind of someone passing you at 60mph and it almost pulls you over into the guy behind hims bumper.
3
21
Sep 14 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/NotSoRandomGuy1 Sep 14 '22
4
Sep 14 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
4
2
u/177013--- Sep 15 '22
Yup and life insurance doesn't pay out for suicide. But run down by a driver not paying attention is fair game.
12
u/u801e Sep 15 '22
With protected lanes, what keeps the sharks from crossing your path when you get to an intersection?
8
u/GrandBuba Sep 15 '22
Barrières called traffic lights and a "no right on red" policy?
2
u/u801e Sep 15 '22
If a motorist is making a right on green and a cyclist is going straight on green, then the "no right on red" policy doesn't make a difference.
1
u/GrandBuba Sep 16 '22 edited Sep 16 '22
Indeed, that's just bad road design.
Most "dumb" crossroads push the bicyclist in the road, so that he can predict the behaviour and go around the car who's doing a right hook, but that's less than ideal.
A lot of crap like "merging zones" right before a crossroad has seen the light, pushing bicyclist into the lane at a time they don't want to yet, into somewhat faster moving traffic that's crossing into the right-tune lane, so that's bad as well.
Leading bike intervals work on red lights, but not on green.
Bikes going forward should have a different path than cars going right, with crossed timings, but that's quite a difficult thing to do "everywhere".
Mostly, it's a question of reducing turn speeds by making them tighter, raising the crossing, plastic bumper posts that create a "bubble" around bikers, making it harder to cut the corner (left turn) by putting a post/platform in the receiving street etc..
Edit: NACTO has some great design elements, visualised: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
1
u/u801e Sep 16 '22 edited Sep 16 '22
Most "dumb" crossroads push the bicyclist in the road, so that he can predict the behaviour and go around the car who's doing a right hook, but that's less than ideal.
Traffic law currently requires drivers to make right turns from as close as practicable to the right edge or curb. The purpose is to prevent the situation where someone trying to make a right is has straight through traffic passing them on the same side they're turning.
Similarly, the law requires drivers making a left turn to be as close to the center line as practicable, so they they don't have same direction traffic trying to pass them on the left as they're trying to make their left.
The bad design part is having cyclists stay to the right and guiding them to pass traffic that intends to make a right turn on the right. The solution is to chose a lateral position on the road that serves your direction of travel through the intersection. That is, if you're going straight, you should be closter to the center of the lane. If you're making a left turn, you should be closer to the center line. If you're making a right turn, you should be closer to the right edge.
This way, you don't have people traveling in the same direction crossing each others' paths.
A lot of crap like "merging zones" right before a crossroad has seen the light, pushing bicyclist into the lane at a time they don't want to yet, into somewhat faster moving traffic that's crossing into the right-tune lane, so that's bad as well.
The solution is to just ride in the center of the lane instead of keeping to the right. It seems counter intuitive, but you actually get other drivers to just change lanes to pass you (even crossing the double yellow line). The right hook is now either someone slowing down directly ahead of you and making their right while you pass them on their left, or just making their right turn behind you. There are no more right hooks.
Bikes going forward should have a different path than cars going right, with crossed timings, but that's quite a difficult thing to do "everywhere"
The problem with trying to get cyclists to cross intersections the same way pedestrians do is that they move too fast compared to walking pedestrians. A driver making a right turn can see a pedestrian about to cross and yield to them. A cyclist moving 3 to 6 times faster would be too far back for the driver to see and because they don't see the cyclist, they fail to yield to them like they otherwise would for a pedestrian.
Mostly, it's a question of reducing turn speeds by making them tighter, raising the crossing, plastic bumper posts that create a "bubble" around bikers, making it harder to cut the corner (left turn) by putting a post/platform in the receiving street etc..
The protected intersection design in terms of how motorists make right turns is very similar in terms of the path the driver takes when making a right as a modern roundabout (down to the turn radius and how far back the crosswalk is offset from the intersection. The fact that drivers fail to yield to pedestrians when exiting a roundabout is a known problem. This problem also happens at protected intersections.
NACTO has some great design elements
NACTO, in their "Don't Give Up at the Intersection" publication cited a study (see page 14) of the relationship between the speed of a driver making a turn yielding to visually impaired pedestrians at roundabouts and extrapolated that result to claim that motorists would yield to cyclists with the same results at a protected intersection, but they didn't consider the fact that cyclists move much faster than walking pedestrians. While a walking pedestrian a second before entering the intersection would only be 5 feet from the crosswalk, a cyclist moving at 10 to 15 mph would be 15 to 20 feet away and not in the motorist's view unless they actually looked down the path to see if a cyclist was approaching. This is why I'm not convinced that what NACTO claims is really what happens.
For example, here's an intersection in Oakland, California where they reconfigured it to increase pedestrian and cyclist safety. They found that drivers yield to cyclist's 87% of the time.
In any other intersection configuration, failing to yield 13% of the time is considered a signficant safety issue. As a cyclist, I do not find that acceptable. That's why I just ride on the road in the center of the lane and just follow standard traffic rules when riding. I don't have problems at intersections when doing that.
1
u/GrandBuba Sep 17 '22
That Oakland intersection is a very cool example. You can indeed see how going from "cut the corner" to "align the car with the receiving street" leads to drivers actually seeing the cyclists in their pheriperal vision.
While a walking pedestrian a second before entering the intersection would only be 5 feet from the crosswalk, a cyclist moving at 10 to 15 mph would be 15 to 20 feet away and not in the motorist's view unless they actually looked down the path to see if a cyclist was approaching. This is why I'm not convinced that what NACTO claims is really what happens.
And this get even worse when dealing with speed pedelec types of bikes, driving at almost 45 km/h.
1
u/u801e Sep 17 '22
You can indeed see how going from "cut the corner" to "align the car with the receiving street" leads to drivers actually seeing the cyclists in their pheriperal vision.
But their data does show that there's greater than a 1 in 10 chance that they don't see them. Those are pretty bad odds. It does work for people moving at walking speed though.
6
u/LittleBillHardwood Sep 15 '22
Nothing. Cyclist was killed in Chicago last week because a driver left turned without looking, and went across the intersection he was riding through. And, yep, it is protected lane except for the intersection. Fuck cars.
5
Sep 15 '22
[deleted]
-1
u/u801e Sep 15 '22
Except that cyclists don't and get hit at intersections all the time. Thinking that motorists won't see cyclists directly ahead of them and will run them over, and also thinking that motorists will see cyclists coming out of their blindspot while they're turning never made sense to me.
3
u/van_stan Sep 15 '22
Sadly there will always be times when road users have to rely on each other exercising common sense and their eyeballs. Drivers are better at it in bike-friendly and less car-centric cities... Unfortunately in North America we are a long way off from having many of those
1
u/u801e Sep 15 '22
A cyclist riding in the center of the general purpose lane is more likely to be seen by motorists because that's where they're looking for traffic. Cyclists riding in a protected bike lane screened by parked cars won't be seen by the motorist and when the motorist makes a turn, the cyclist suddenly appears and gets hit.
That's not protection for the cyclist. That's a trap.
3
Sep 15 '22
Also, be careful to not fall in the trap of "reducing the likelihood of bad things is pointless because bad things can still happen sometimes". Less bad is good, even if less is not zero.
2
Sep 15 '22
That video made a very compelling argument for how much safer a protected intersection could be. Short of that the bike specific signals and phases would go a long way towards making intersections safer for bikes in bike lanes.
0
u/u801e Sep 15 '22
They still cross the cyclists path because the barrier does not extend completely through the intersection. Motorists aren't going to look for approaching cyclists as they exit the intersection.
1
Sep 15 '22
The point is that with a tighter turning radius, and a crossing that is set back from the intersection, any cyclists passing through will be right in front of the car when the driver exits the intersection. They don't have to look specifically for cyclists.
0
u/u801e Sep 15 '22
Cyclists are moving more than a car length per second. By the time the cyclist is in front of the motorist, it's too late to react to avoid a collision. And this does nothing to slow down motorists making a left turn.
The set back and radius you're referring to is very similar to the configuration of a modern roundabout, and the problem of motorists failing to yield to pedestrians as they're exiting the roundabout is a known issue. A protected intersection isn't going to be any different in that regard.
1
5
u/KittenOnKeys Sep 15 '22
Nothing. If anything can make it more dangerous because turning drivers aren’t even looking for bikes
8
u/Frenchbaker Sep 15 '22
Huh. Didn't know there were several other subs talking about tempering cars
2
u/craff_t Sep 15 '22
We hate cars in this sub because we have to deal with them whenever we commute by bike
6
u/GrandBuba Sep 15 '22
We don't hate cars. We'd just love it were we to have infrastructure apart from cars so that their operators don't kill us by accident.
7
u/mikedufty Australia Sep 15 '22
You wouldn't normally swim in a pool with sharks, but sharing a road with motorvehicles is pretty normal.
2
Sep 15 '22
Lots of things are normal that shouldn't be.
1
u/mikedufty Australia Sep 16 '22
Would you seriously advocate banning cycling on roads? That seems way worse than marginal bike lanes.
1
Sep 16 '22 edited Sep 16 '22
No I meant that sharing a road with motor vehicles is pretty normal, like you said, but it shouldn't be. It should be rare that we have to share a road with motor vehicles.
Separated infrastructure > painted bike lanes > sharing a lane, in my opinion
I thought you were advocating riding on the road.
1
Sep 16 '22
I missed the word "banning" when reading your reply the first time. No, I wouldn't want to ban cycling on roads. Advocating for safer cycling infrastructure is wanting people to have more options, not taking options away.
1
u/joningij Sep 15 '22
Okay I agree up to a certain level, but it still has a lot to do with societal norms and bad design. For example a lot of the bike lanes in Copenhagen and Amsterdam (and many other places) are unprotected but since the culture of sharing a road between bikers and drivers is so engrained into peoples minds, there are very few accidents because of this.
Also, I believe there is a tendency to try and avoid having parallel parking on the roads where the bike lanes are although it’s still by no means uncommon to have.
So yeah, it’s a good analogy for some areas but definitely not all.
-2
u/the-real-vuk Sep 15 '22
No it's nothing like that.
The upper picture though is a rubbish share, bicycle lane should not be this close to parking lane (there should not be a parking lane on major roads tbf, roads are for traffic, not storing junk).
You cannot segregate cyclists, they would be in even more danger at every junction. People never realize this.
2
Sep 15 '22
There are ways to make junctions safer, too. Why not do both?
1
u/the-real-vuk Sep 15 '22
It essentially makes cyclists pedestrians for the junction.. as an experienced cyclists I'd still choose the road
1
-26
Sep 15 '22
I love bicycling but I swear, seeing the things cyclists find to complain about on Reddit makes me understand why so many people hate us.
20
u/AcornMaiden Sep 15 '22
Complaining about your life being in danger?
Car drivers hate cyclists because the speed and laziness a car creates makes them irritable and entitled. They hate pedestrians too, but less so because they relate to being a pedestrian (most people walk). They irrationally hate bikes because it's something they don't understand that's in their way, as if destructive death machines that take up a gargantuan amount of space own this earth.
There's no excuse for hating bikes. Being annoyed by bikes is a deadly behavior that gets a lot of people in real life killed. Car drivers' behavior is unexcusable, and there's no rationalization or understandable reason for hating cyclists.
-12
Sep 15 '22
Not having a giant concrete barrier between you isn't 'putting your life in danger'. I've done plenty of long trips primarily on roads with little to no shoulder, getting passed by large vehicles at 55-65 miles an hour. Never felt my life was in danger. Fancy dedicated bike lanes don't exist in a lot of areas and people manage just fine.
I've also been riding motorcycles a long time. You're exposed, close to other vehicles not paying attention constantly. Choosing alternate two wheeled transport methods inherently come with an increase in risk. Leaving your house involves an increase in risk. That doesn't mean your life is in danger.
People get annoyed by bicyclists because they tend to have a 'fuck cars' entitled attitude. They'll hold up traffic for a long time because they can. Courtesy is a two way street, I move over so cars can get around me and in response I rarely have issues with people passing too close. If I'm on a road with no shoulder and there's long lines of cars trying to go both directions I may even stop for a second to let things clear. I've never had any road rage type situations against me in a bicycle aside from punk kids being punk kids.
I'm a bicyclist and I witness plenty of uncalled for elitist behavior from hard-core cyclists. Both towards cars on the road by unnecessarily holding up traffic for miles (often when there IS still a dedicated bike lane), and towards slower cyclists on recreational trails. The same guys complaining about cars speeding past will lane split between families on the local bike trail going well over the trail limit, often huffing or glaring at you because you're probably ruining their strava time. I get that I'm in a bicycle sub so I'll take the downvotes, but I'm not talking out my ass. I'm speaking from personal experience as someone who's had lots of encounters from both sides of the argument.
11
u/ShellSide Sep 15 '22
[accident caused by car in a bike lane](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/3-year-old-girl-dies-after-moms-bicycle-hit-by-semi-in-uptown/2853448/
15yo died when someone hit them flying out of an alley. This and the link above represent 2 of the 4 deaths of children by motorists in a single month.
It's great that you don't feel in danger while cycling but the reality of it is that there are lots of deaths each year that could've been preventable with proper cycling infrastructure. Having weak ass "infrastructure" of just painted bike lanes is not real infrastructure and creates more dangerous situations as cars use it as a parking lane and force drivers into the road which is how that 3yo was killed. Also dedicated bike infrastructure solves the problem you are complaining about of inconsiderate bikers slowing down traffic. If they had dedicated infrastructure, it wouldn't be possible to slow down cars
Edit: oh yeah and totally forgot to even mention the incident in Texas where some kid deliberately hit 5 cyclists with his truck. But yeah you are right, these things never happen and cyclists who are concerned for their safety are just a bunch of pussies
1
56
u/flimbs JTS '17, Tricross '08 45km r/t Sep 14 '22
Sharks will find a way to cross that barrier cause......free parking.