gcl8a
Værsgo (http://www.cphpost.dk/get/103710.html).
Discuss.
Discuss.
Reducing Right Hooks in Copenhagen
Pages :
[1]
2
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
why2not
"Underlien did, however, point out a hidden danger if the lights malfunction. Drivers may come to rely on the lights in favour of checking their mirrors."
That & what happens when drivers get used to only looking at the lights instead of checking their mirrors/blindspots & come to an intersection without one? Those are the potential downfalls I noted.
That & what happens when drivers get used to only looking at the lights instead of checking their mirrors/blindspots & come to an intersection without one? Those are the potential downfalls I noted.
noisebeam
If I read the article right 10 cyclists per year die in Denmark from right hooks, another 20 are injured severely enough to have it reported.
Installing such sensors/lights is trying to bandaid a broken system, with a bandaid that has faults. The article is very right, that sensor/light system might not fail, it will and too many drivers will learn to rely on it. Such a system can not have false negatives.
They should instead consider routing the bike lanes to the left of any possible right turn.
Al
Installing such sensors/lights is trying to bandaid a broken system, with a bandaid that has faults. The article is very right, that sensor/light system might not fail, it will and too many drivers will learn to rely on it. Such a system can not have false negatives.
They should instead consider routing the bike lanes to the left of any possible right turn.
Al
eubi
Interesting.
It costs 1.7 million per accident, and 200,000 to install per intersection.
Using a simple, hard-nosed financial analysis, if this system reduces the accidents to about 1/8 the present number per intersection, it will pay for itself. This doesn't include maintenence. Wow. Pretty expensive...
Here where I live, we have a couple of crosswalks that cross in mid block. If you are not familiar with the area, these crosswalks are very easy to miss.
Blinking lights have been installed in the road, along the crosswalk markings at two of them..It's VERY clear when the crosswalk is occupied!
And Al brings up a good point...I would like to see the intersection design.
It costs 1.7 million per accident, and 200,000 to install per intersection.
Using a simple, hard-nosed financial analysis, if this system reduces the accidents to about 1/8 the present number per intersection, it will pay for itself. This doesn't include maintenence. Wow. Pretty expensive...
Here where I live, we have a couple of crosswalks that cross in mid block. If you are not familiar with the area, these crosswalks are very easy to miss.
Blinking lights have been installed in the road, along the crosswalk markings at two of them..It's VERY clear when the crosswalk is occupied!
And Al brings up a good point...I would like to see the intersection design.
kuan
Put a curb in between the auto and bike lanes at right turns.
CaptainCool
It costs 1.7 million per accident, and 200,000 to install per intersection.
Using a simple, hard-nosed financial analysis, if this system reduces the accidents to about 1/8 the present number per intersection, it will pay for itself. This doesn't include maintenence. Wow. Pretty expensive...
And the accident rate for most intersections is zero. I really don't think this will pay off. I don't know the culture over there, but in the US, I bet PSAs for drivers or safety inspections for bikes would yield far more.
Put a curb in between the auto and bike lanes at right turns.
No good. No matter what, if bikes are on the right side of the road and cars are turning right, their paths have to cross somewhere.
Using a simple, hard-nosed financial analysis, if this system reduces the accidents to about 1/8 the present number per intersection, it will pay for itself. This doesn't include maintenence. Wow. Pretty expensive...
And the accident rate for most intersections is zero. I really don't think this will pay off. I don't know the culture over there, but in the US, I bet PSAs for drivers or safety inspections for bikes would yield far more.
Put a curb in between the auto and bike lanes at right turns.
No good. No matter what, if bikes are on the right side of the road and cars are turning right, their paths have to cross somewhere.
Helmet Head
No good. No matter what, if bikes are on the right side of the road and cars are turning right, their paths have to cross somewhere.
So obvious yet practically guaranteed to be misunderstood by any bike lane advocate/defender. Bizarre.
So obvious yet practically guaranteed to be misunderstood by any bike lane advocate/defender. Bizarre.
darksiderising
They should instead consider routing the bike lanes to the left of any possible right turn.
But the bike lanes are HUGE. and there are ALWAYS people on them. That would be like criss-crossing two car lanes.
But the bike lanes are HUGE. and there are ALWAYS people on them. That would be like criss-crossing two car lanes.
eubi
And the accident rate for most intersections is zero. I really don't think this will pay off. I don't know the culture over there, but in the US, I bet PSAs for drivers or safety inspections for bikes would yield far more.
.
Excellent idea...I got it after I logged off and went back to work :D
"PSA" is a public service announcement. On radio, you will reach a huge audience, and some of them may even be listening. Best bang for the buck.
.
Excellent idea...I got it after I logged off and went back to work :D
"PSA" is a public service announcement. On radio, you will reach a huge audience, and some of them may even be listening. Best bang for the buck.
Helmet Head
If you really want to reduce bike crashes, how about PSAs aimed at bicyclists?
If you get right hooked, it's YOUR FAULT. Ride accordingly.
Going straight? Yield and merge left out of the right turn zone.
HEY BICYCLIST: If you get right hooked, it's YOUR FAULT. Ride accordingly.
Don't pass drivers on the right, especially where they can or might turn right.
If you get doored, you doored YOURSELF, knucklehead. Yes, drivers are
legally obligated to check first, but they regularly forget. Ride accordingly.
RIDE OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR ZONE,
AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM CAR DOORS.
There is the RIGHT side of the road, and the WRONG side.
Ride on the RIGHT side.
Friends don't let friends ride at night without lights.
If you get right hooked, it's YOUR FAULT. Ride accordingly.
Going straight? Yield and merge left out of the right turn zone.
HEY BICYCLIST: If you get right hooked, it's YOUR FAULT. Ride accordingly.
Don't pass drivers on the right, especially where they can or might turn right.
If you get doored, you doored YOURSELF, knucklehead. Yes, drivers are
legally obligated to check first, but they regularly forget. Ride accordingly.
RIDE OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR ZONE,
AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM CAR DOORS.
There is the RIGHT side of the road, and the WRONG side.
Ride on the RIGHT side.
Friends don't let friends ride at night without lights.
CaptainCool
So obvious yet practically guaranteed to be misunderstood by any bike lane advocate/defender. Bizarre.
:gb2vc:
I like bike lanes. I just wish drivers understood them better.
Yes, drivers are legally obligated to check first, but they regularly forget.
So you're saying it's the driver's fault now?
It's not the biker's fault. Perhaps it is more realistic for the biker to act to prevent a collision, but cars are not monolithic alien obstacles.
"Hey driver! If you get t-boned, it's your fault. Yes, other drivers are supposed to stop at red lights, but many of them are drunk. Drive accordingly."
:gb2vc:
I like bike lanes. I just wish drivers understood them better.
Yes, drivers are legally obligated to check first, but they regularly forget.
So you're saying it's the driver's fault now?
It's not the biker's fault. Perhaps it is more realistic for the biker to act to prevent a collision, but cars are not monolithic alien obstacles.
"Hey driver! If you get t-boned, it's your fault. Yes, other drivers are supposed to stop at red lights, but many of them are drunk. Drive accordingly."
noisebeam
But the bike lanes are HUGE. and there are ALWAYS people on them. That would be like criss-crossing two car lanes.
That is already exactly what the current design and most every other bike lane design does at an intersection, it criss crosses two lanes of traffic against normal rules of the road with the left side going right and the right side going straight. By design it creates a collision zone.
My suggestion was to direct thru bicycle traffic to the left side of a wide bicycle lane that can be used for motor vehicles as well at the intersection approach. This means thru cyclist merge left, motorists who are turning merge right into that lane. This can be designed to occur over a longer distance allowing for a smoother merge instead of a 'last second' 90deg turn across the thru lane.
Al
That is already exactly what the current design and most every other bike lane design does at an intersection, it criss crosses two lanes of traffic against normal rules of the road with the left side going right and the right side going straight. By design it creates a collision zone.
My suggestion was to direct thru bicycle traffic to the left side of a wide bicycle lane that can be used for motor vehicles as well at the intersection approach. This means thru cyclist merge left, motorists who are turning merge right into that lane. This can be designed to occur over a longer distance allowing for a smoother merge instead of a 'last second' 90deg turn across the thru lane.
Al
gcl8a
That is already exactly what the current design and most every other bike lane design does at an intersection, it criss crosses two lanes of traffic against normal rules of the road with the left side going right and the right side going straight. By design it creates a collision zone.
My suggestion was to direct thru bicycle traffic to the left side of a wide bicycle lane that can be used for motor vehicles as well at the intersection approach. This means thru cyclist merge left, motorists who are turning merge right into that lane. This can be designed to occur over a longer distance allowing for a smoother merge instead of a 'last second' 90deg turn across the thru lane.
Al
There are some of these (RTO to the right of bike lane). Otherwise, at major intersections, there are usually either independent traffic signals (and no right on red) OR shared right-turn-only lanes. The more dangerous intersections, in my mind, are the lesser intersections that have lights. They usually aren't busy enough to merit RTOs.
I see a lot of cyclists approach these intersections just as the light turns green, who have no clue that the car might not have seen them.
My suggestion was to direct thru bicycle traffic to the left side of a wide bicycle lane that can be used for motor vehicles as well at the intersection approach. This means thru cyclist merge left, motorists who are turning merge right into that lane. This can be designed to occur over a longer distance allowing for a smoother merge instead of a 'last second' 90deg turn across the thru lane.
Al
There are some of these (RTO to the right of bike lane). Otherwise, at major intersections, there are usually either independent traffic signals (and no right on red) OR shared right-turn-only lanes. The more dangerous intersections, in my mind, are the lesser intersections that have lights. They usually aren't busy enough to merit RTOs.
I see a lot of cyclists approach these intersections just as the light turns green, who have no clue that the car might not have seen them.
Bekologist
nothing of what head colorized is accurate remediation for Copenhagen. their bicycling infrastructure, and rules for bicycle/car interactions, are much more advanced than the autocentric, "cars first, bicycles second" crapola our country has institutionalized.
Which, quite ironically, has been promoted in the USA by john forester and his unwitting followers....
have any of you seen the extent they value and perpetuate bicycling in Copenhagen? A "Green Wave" for your morning commute route, anyone??
Which, quite ironically, has been promoted in the USA by john forester and his unwitting followers....
have any of you seen the extent they value and perpetuate bicycling in Copenhagen? A "Green Wave" for your morning commute route, anyone??
cc700
helmet head certainly lives up to his name.
it may be your fault for being in a bad situation, but the person who's most at fault is the one who should be held accountable. many places allow lane splitting on the right for bikes.
a better idea would be "slow down, differential speeds kill"
if you're going five miles an hour past cars, you can usually avoid getting crushed by them. that's reasonable.
it may be your fault for being in a bad situation, but the person who's most at fault is the one who should be held accountable. many places allow lane splitting on the right for bikes.
a better idea would be "slow down, differential speeds kill"
if you're going five miles an hour past cars, you can usually avoid getting crushed by them. that's reasonable.
jakub.ner
HH I like your PSAs quite a bit. As a start they should be announced at high schools during morning announcments, and at college radio stations.
eubi
If you really want to reduce bike crashes, how about PSAs aimed at bicyclists?
If you get right hooked, it's YOUR FAULT. Ride accordingly.
Going straight? Yield and merge left out of the right turn zone.
HEY BICYCLIST: If you get right hooked, it's YOUR FAULT. Ride accordingly.
Don't pass drivers on the right, especially where they can or might turn right.
If you get doored, you doored YOURSELF, knucklehead. Yes, drivers are
legally obligated to check first, but they regularly forget. Ride accordingly.
RIDE OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR ZONE,
AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM CAR DOORS.
There is the RIGHT side of the road, and the WRONG side.
Ride on the RIGHT side.
Friends don't let friends ride at night without lights.
But...I don't listen to the radio when I'm riding...do other cyclists?
I'm not trolling...I can't imagine listening to the radio while I'm riding.
...and people don't like to be insulted either.
If you get right hooked, it's YOUR FAULT. Ride accordingly.
Going straight? Yield and merge left out of the right turn zone.
HEY BICYCLIST: If you get right hooked, it's YOUR FAULT. Ride accordingly.
Don't pass drivers on the right, especially where they can or might turn right.
If you get doored, you doored YOURSELF, knucklehead. Yes, drivers are
legally obligated to check first, but they regularly forget. Ride accordingly.
RIDE OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR ZONE,
AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM CAR DOORS.
There is the RIGHT side of the road, and the WRONG side.
Ride on the RIGHT side.
Friends don't let friends ride at night without lights.
But...I don't listen to the radio when I'm riding...do other cyclists?
I'm not trolling...I can't imagine listening to the radio while I'm riding.
...and people don't like to be insulted either.
jakub.ner
But...I don't listen to the radio when I'm riding...do other cyclists?.
PSAs can be billboards at sporting events (BMX/freestyle performances ;) ) or ads on public buses/shelters. Anywhere you see and advertisment you can put a PSA.
PSAs can be billboards at sporting events (BMX/freestyle performances ;) ) or ads on public buses/shelters. Anywhere you see and advertisment you can put a PSA.
EnigManiac
I agree with moving to the left of right-turning cars. However. many scenarios make that maneuver a tricky proposition. Many drivers approach quickly from the right, barely pass cyclists and throw their right turn across their path (cutting off) giving the cyclist no opportunity to swing around. Many motorists fail to signal their intent, again giving the cyclist no advance warning of the turn and putting the cyclist in the path of the illegally turning vehicle. And, often, many cars approach the right turning car in front of them so quickly and so closely that a cyclist has no room to move between the cars in order to get to the left of the turning car.
No matter which way you look at it, a turning motorists must, by law, not make the turn unless it can be done so safely and the law says a vehicle must check all directions---front, left, right and BEHIND---to ensure no approaching traffic exists before executing their turn. Otherwise, they must remain still. Technically, they are supposed to come to a full stop whether they have a green in front of them or not. A right-hook is the MOTORISTS fault. Trying to deflect blame onto the cyclist is neither accurate nor legally justifiable. Any vehicle changing direction that causes a collision with any other vehicle travelling in a straight line is the offending vehicle: they did not perform all the legally required functions before turning. It is cut and dry, black and white.
Yes, we can ride defensively and know what the common practice among motorists is and ride with the expectation they will not perform a legal right turn, but let's not offer misinformation and decry that being struck by a right-turning vehicle is anything but the motorists fault.
No matter which way you look at it, a turning motorists must, by law, not make the turn unless it can be done so safely and the law says a vehicle must check all directions---front, left, right and BEHIND---to ensure no approaching traffic exists before executing their turn. Otherwise, they must remain still. Technically, they are supposed to come to a full stop whether they have a green in front of them or not. A right-hook is the MOTORISTS fault. Trying to deflect blame onto the cyclist is neither accurate nor legally justifiable. Any vehicle changing direction that causes a collision with any other vehicle travelling in a straight line is the offending vehicle: they did not perform all the legally required functions before turning. It is cut and dry, black and white.
Yes, we can ride defensively and know what the common practice among motorists is and ride with the expectation they will not perform a legal right turn, but let's not offer misinformation and decry that being struck by a right-turning vehicle is anything but the motorists fault.
Helmet Head
"Hey driver! If you get t-boned, it's your fault. Yes, other drivers are supposed to stop at red lights, but many of them are drunk. Drive accordingly."
Exactly. I would endorse that.
Exactly. I would endorse that.
Brian Ratliff
^^^
I take it, HH, that you are not in advertising, are you. In Portland, signs like that would last all of 2 seconds before enterprising cyclists tore them down. Not because of the idea, but because of the insult.
I take it, HH, that you are not in advertising, are you. In Portland, signs like that would last all of 2 seconds before enterprising cyclists tore them down. Not because of the idea, but because of the insult.
Helmet Head
I agree with moving to the left of right-turning cars. However. many scenarios make that maneuver a tricky proposition. Many drivers approach quickly from the right, barely pass cyclists and throw their right turn across their path (cutting off) giving the cyclist no opportunity to swing around.
If that ever happened to me, I would consider it to be my fault for not being far enough left as I approached a place where a right turn could be made, while a potential right-turner was approaching from behind, to make it clear that I'm going straight and not turning right, and to allow the potential right turner to pass me on my right if he's turning right.
Many motorists fail to signal their intent, again giving the cyclist no advance warning of the turn and putting the cyclist in the path of the illegally turning vehicle.
Signals are at best hints of what someone might do.
If he's signaling right then he might turn right.
If he's not signaling then he might go straight.
It's crazy to rely on signaling (or lack thereof) in any definitive way.
The only advance warning I need that someone might be turning right is that they are approaching a place where it's possible for them to turn right. If I'm in front of them, that's more than enough to cause me to move left to make it clear that I'm going straight and not turning right, and to allow the potential right turner to pass me on my right if he's turning right.
And, often, many cars approach the right turning car in front of them so quickly and so closely that a cyclist has no room to move between the cars in order to get to the left of the turning car.
There are two possible situations,
in which the speeds are so high that the right turn is not possible, so the potential of the right hook is not there.
The motor traffic is moving slow enough for a right turn to be a possibility, in which they are moving slow enough for the cyclist to negotiate with them to move left (look back, signal left, someone slows to let the cyclist in... I hope you know the drill).
No matter which way you look at it, a turning motorists must, by law, not make the turn unless it can be done so safely and the law says a vehicle must check all directions---front, left, right and BEHIND---to ensure no approaching traffic exists before executing their turn. Otherwise, they must remain still. Technically, they are supposed to come to a full stop whether they have a green in front of them or not. A right-hook is the MOTORISTS fault. Trying to deflect blame onto the cyclist is neither accurate nor legally justifiable.
You're talking about blame and, so, legal responsibility. Did you read the preface to my posts with the PSAs? I'm talking about actually avoiding crashes, and, so, personal responsibility.
If I'm ever screw you and get right hooked or doored as a result, I or my next of kin might very well sue, and rightfully so, but that would not bring me back from the hospital or morgue, so I feel getting right hooked or doored would be an abdication of my personal responsibility to avoid being in a situation where I might get right hooked or doored in the first place. Have you read The Art of Urban Cycling by Robert Hurst?
From now - if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place. Robert Hurst, the Art of Urban Cycling, p 65Any vehicle changing direction that causes a collision with any other vehicle travelling in a straight line is the offending vehicle: they did not perform all the legally required functions before turning. It is cut and dry, black and white.
Again, you're talking about the legal context which only matters after a collision occurs. I'm talking about attitude and behavior to adopt in order to avoid crashes in the first place.
Yes, we can ride defensively and know what the common practice among motorists is and ride with the expectation they will not perform a legal right turn, but let's not offer misinformation and decry that being struck by a right-turning vehicle is anything but the motorists fault.
That, my friend, is the language and philosophy of the victim, the blamer, and you won't hear it coming from me. I prefer to think in terms of, and advocate, freedom, personal responsibility, and success.
If that ever happened to me, I would consider it to be my fault for not being far enough left as I approached a place where a right turn could be made, while a potential right-turner was approaching from behind, to make it clear that I'm going straight and not turning right, and to allow the potential right turner to pass me on my right if he's turning right.
Many motorists fail to signal their intent, again giving the cyclist no advance warning of the turn and putting the cyclist in the path of the illegally turning vehicle.
Signals are at best hints of what someone might do.
If he's signaling right then he might turn right.
If he's not signaling then he might go straight.
It's crazy to rely on signaling (or lack thereof) in any definitive way.
The only advance warning I need that someone might be turning right is that they are approaching a place where it's possible for them to turn right. If I'm in front of them, that's more than enough to cause me to move left to make it clear that I'm going straight and not turning right, and to allow the potential right turner to pass me on my right if he's turning right.
And, often, many cars approach the right turning car in front of them so quickly and so closely that a cyclist has no room to move between the cars in order to get to the left of the turning car.
There are two possible situations,
in which the speeds are so high that the right turn is not possible, so the potential of the right hook is not there.
The motor traffic is moving slow enough for a right turn to be a possibility, in which they are moving slow enough for the cyclist to negotiate with them to move left (look back, signal left, someone slows to let the cyclist in... I hope you know the drill).
No matter which way you look at it, a turning motorists must, by law, not make the turn unless it can be done so safely and the law says a vehicle must check all directions---front, left, right and BEHIND---to ensure no approaching traffic exists before executing their turn. Otherwise, they must remain still. Technically, they are supposed to come to a full stop whether they have a green in front of them or not. A right-hook is the MOTORISTS fault. Trying to deflect blame onto the cyclist is neither accurate nor legally justifiable.
You're talking about blame and, so, legal responsibility. Did you read the preface to my posts with the PSAs? I'm talking about actually avoiding crashes, and, so, personal responsibility.
If I'm ever screw you and get right hooked or doored as a result, I or my next of kin might very well sue, and rightfully so, but that would not bring me back from the hospital or morgue, so I feel getting right hooked or doored would be an abdication of my personal responsibility to avoid being in a situation where I might get right hooked or doored in the first place. Have you read The Art of Urban Cycling by Robert Hurst?
From now - if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place. Robert Hurst, the Art of Urban Cycling, p 65Any vehicle changing direction that causes a collision with any other vehicle travelling in a straight line is the offending vehicle: they did not perform all the legally required functions before turning. It is cut and dry, black and white.
Again, you're talking about the legal context which only matters after a collision occurs. I'm talking about attitude and behavior to adopt in order to avoid crashes in the first place.
Yes, we can ride defensively and know what the common practice among motorists is and ride with the expectation they will not perform a legal right turn, but let's not offer misinformation and decry that being struck by a right-turning vehicle is anything but the motorists fault.
That, my friend, is the language and philosophy of the victim, the blamer, and you won't hear it coming from me. I prefer to think in terms of, and advocate, freedom, personal responsibility, and success.
Helmet Head
^^^
I take it, HH, that you are not in advertising, are you. In Portland, signs like that would last all of 2 seconds before enterprising cyclists tore them down. Not because of the idea, but because of the insult.
Why would anyone be insulted by such messages?
Would they rip down a bill board that quoted Hurst?
"Blame! Who will you blame after that floral delivery van
runs a red light and pulverizes your internal organs?
From now - if some ba$tard breaks every law in the book
and runs you over in the process,
it will be YOUR FAULT and nobody else's." - Robert Hurst
I take it, HH, that you are not in advertising, are you. In Portland, signs like that would last all of 2 seconds before enterprising cyclists tore them down. Not because of the idea, but because of the insult.
Why would anyone be insulted by such messages?
Would they rip down a bill board that quoted Hurst?
"Blame! Who will you blame after that floral delivery van
runs a red light and pulverizes your internal organs?
From now - if some ba$tard breaks every law in the book
and runs you over in the process,
it will be YOUR FAULT and nobody else's." - Robert Hurst
JohnBrooking
Those are fine, in the context of a discussion about how useless the concept of blame is relative to personal safety. But my very favorite Hurst quote is a little more constructive:
The urban cyclist's best chance is to gather all the responsibilty that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. Have faith that you will do a better job with it than they will, and make it so. Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Don't leave your fate to the stars, or to luck. Definitely don't leave your fate to the drivers.
I quote that to people all the time.
The urban cyclist's best chance is to gather all the responsibilty that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. Have faith that you will do a better job with it than they will, and make it so. Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Don't leave your fate to the stars, or to luck. Definitely don't leave your fate to the drivers.
I quote that to people all the time.
Helmet Head
Those are fine, in the context of a discussion about how useless the concept of blame is relative to personal safety. But my very favorite Hurst quote is a little more constructive:
I quote that to people all the time.
Yes, that's an excellent quote too, from the same chapter. The concept of hoarding responsibility is brilliant. I mentioned it in a post to Robert the other day:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5375234&postcount=261
I quote that to people all the time.
Yes, that's an excellent quote too, from the same chapter. The concept of hoarding responsibility is brilliant. I mentioned it in a post to Robert the other day:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5375234&postcount=261
EnigManiac
If that ever happened to me, I would consider it to be my fault for not being far enough left as I approached a place where a right turn could be made, while a potential right-turner was approaching from behind, to make it clear that I'm going straight and not turning right, and to allow the potential right turner to pass me on my right if he's turning right.
Signals are at best hints of what someone might do.
If he's signaling right then he might turn right.
If he's not signaling then he might go straight.
It's crazy to rely on signaling (or lack thereof) in any definitive way.
The only advance warning I need that someone might be turning right is that they are approaching a place where it's possible for them to turn right. If I'm in front of them, that's more than enough to cause me to move left to make it clear that I'm going straight and not turning right, and to allow the potential right turner to pass me on my right if he's turning right.
There are two possible situations,
in which the speeds are so high that the right turn is not possible, so the potential of the right hook is not there.
The motor traffic is moving slow enough for a right turn to be a possibility, in which they are moving slow enough for the cyclist to negotiate with them to move left (look back, signal left, someone slows to let the cyclist in... I hope you know the drill).
You're talking about blame and, so, legal responsibility. Did you read the preface to my posts with the PSAs? I'm talking about actually avoiding crashes, and, so, personal responsibility.
If I'm ever screw you and get right hooked or doored as a result, I or my next of kin might very well sue, and rightfully so, but that would not bring me back from the hospital or morgue, so I feel getting right hooked or doored would be an abdication of my personal responsibility to avoid being in a situation where I might get right hooked or doored in the first place. Have you read The Art of Urban Cycling by Robert Hurst?
From now - if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place. Robert Hurst, the Art of Urban Cycling, p 65
Again, you're talking about the legal context which only matters after a collision occurs. I'm talking about attitude and behavior to adopt in order to avoid crashes in the first place.
That, my friend, is the language and philosophy of the victim, the blamer, and you won't hear it coming from me. I prefer to think in terms of, and advocate, freedom, personal responsibility, and success.
Unlike many others, HH, I don't always disagree with you. I am familiar with and could have written The Art of Urban Cycling. After 30 years of riding in downtown Toronto, the fifth largest city in North America with a population of 4.5m, I have the experience and skill, after all. Most of the guide offers logical, wise and effective suggestions even if the maneuvers are not always anticipated by motorists nor even entirely legal or predictable.
I made an error in my original post and mentioned cars approaching quickly from the 'right' when I meant left. I apologize. Even with positioning myself 1/3 out from the curb in the right lane, many vehicles straddle the lanes in preparation for making a right turn or even right turn from the left lane, particularly when there is no-one else in the left lane. The driver thinks he has allowed for enough space for a mere bicycle as he passed me before making his unsignalled turn, but often they misjudge my speed. What is the defence against that? Take the entire right lane and ride almost at the far left dotted line? No. I am positioned as properly and safely as I can be. The defence is speed (or more accurately, slowness) and awareness of traffic. I make sure I travel at a speed that allows me to be able to stop within a foot on downtown streets and I am constantly checking for the threat of right hooks, sudden left turns across my path and every other danger that exists for us out there.
Of course, experienced cyclists don't expect motorists to use their signals---they rarely do, after all. But approaching seemingly through-travelling cars from behind, especially when I am in a bike-lane, I cannot assume they are going to make an illegal right turn and swing into the middle of the road, can I? Otherwise I'd be travelling down busy avenues between the lanes for my entire journey and that's hardly safe or effective. Being able to predict when a vehicle is going to make a sudden turn is a skill experienced cyclists develop, but it's not fool-proof either and judging wrong could be disastrous.
Sure, we are talking about legal responsibility to a degree. You're PSA's stated, as if they were fact, that being right-hooked is the cyclists fault. No, it isn't. With proper technique they can usually be avoided, yes. But it is not the cyclists fault (unless they are in a RTO lane). I'm a literalist. If there's going to be something that advises all the public, make sure it's accurate. Otherwise motorists think if they do it, it wasn't their fault. The PSA is misleading and inaccurate, that's all.
And, please, don't give me the stuff about your estate suing. Gimme a break. That excuse is so old. We can all avoid right hooks, but it still doesn't mean if we don't avoid a right hook then it's our own fault. And we don't have to be crazy riders full of a bold sense of absolute freedom to be 'safe.'
We're not all reckless rogues, after all. Most of us ride according to the rules of the road most of the time. Motorists keep calling for us to observe the rules of the road as well (yeah, I know, as if they do---sheesh), so maintaining my predictable line is safer than not and being predictable and visible helps me avoid most potential accidents. The fact is when there is dense, urban traffic, sudden turns and lane changes occur every few meters. Even though I haven't had an accident in twenty-eight years, I've still had right-hooks happen to me countless times and avoided collisions by stopping (rarely a bad thing to do). Many cyclists travel at too high a rate of speed in urban traffic and think technique will save them. Well, I've watched them, witnessed them hit or get hit or wipe out and tended to their damaged bikes and broken bodies enough times to know that, no matter how much skill they had, if they'd been riding slower and more predictably and respectfully, they'd have not crashed.
Signals are at best hints of what someone might do.
If he's signaling right then he might turn right.
If he's not signaling then he might go straight.
It's crazy to rely on signaling (or lack thereof) in any definitive way.
The only advance warning I need that someone might be turning right is that they are approaching a place where it's possible for them to turn right. If I'm in front of them, that's more than enough to cause me to move left to make it clear that I'm going straight and not turning right, and to allow the potential right turner to pass me on my right if he's turning right.
There are two possible situations,
in which the speeds are so high that the right turn is not possible, so the potential of the right hook is not there.
The motor traffic is moving slow enough for a right turn to be a possibility, in which they are moving slow enough for the cyclist to negotiate with them to move left (look back, signal left, someone slows to let the cyclist in... I hope you know the drill).
You're talking about blame and, so, legal responsibility. Did you read the preface to my posts with the PSAs? I'm talking about actually avoiding crashes, and, so, personal responsibility.
If I'm ever screw you and get right hooked or doored as a result, I or my next of kin might very well sue, and rightfully so, but that would not bring me back from the hospital or morgue, so I feel getting right hooked or doored would be an abdication of my personal responsibility to avoid being in a situation where I might get right hooked or doored in the first place. Have you read The Art of Urban Cycling by Robert Hurst?
From now - if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place. Robert Hurst, the Art of Urban Cycling, p 65
Again, you're talking about the legal context which only matters after a collision occurs. I'm talking about attitude and behavior to adopt in order to avoid crashes in the first place.
That, my friend, is the language and philosophy of the victim, the blamer, and you won't hear it coming from me. I prefer to think in terms of, and advocate, freedom, personal responsibility, and success.
Unlike many others, HH, I don't always disagree with you. I am familiar with and could have written The Art of Urban Cycling. After 30 years of riding in downtown Toronto, the fifth largest city in North America with a population of 4.5m, I have the experience and skill, after all. Most of the guide offers logical, wise and effective suggestions even if the maneuvers are not always anticipated by motorists nor even entirely legal or predictable.
I made an error in my original post and mentioned cars approaching quickly from the 'right' when I meant left. I apologize. Even with positioning myself 1/3 out from the curb in the right lane, many vehicles straddle the lanes in preparation for making a right turn or even right turn from the left lane, particularly when there is no-one else in the left lane. The driver thinks he has allowed for enough space for a mere bicycle as he passed me before making his unsignalled turn, but often they misjudge my speed. What is the defence against that? Take the entire right lane and ride almost at the far left dotted line? No. I am positioned as properly and safely as I can be. The defence is speed (or more accurately, slowness) and awareness of traffic. I make sure I travel at a speed that allows me to be able to stop within a foot on downtown streets and I am constantly checking for the threat of right hooks, sudden left turns across my path and every other danger that exists for us out there.
Of course, experienced cyclists don't expect motorists to use their signals---they rarely do, after all. But approaching seemingly through-travelling cars from behind, especially when I am in a bike-lane, I cannot assume they are going to make an illegal right turn and swing into the middle of the road, can I? Otherwise I'd be travelling down busy avenues between the lanes for my entire journey and that's hardly safe or effective. Being able to predict when a vehicle is going to make a sudden turn is a skill experienced cyclists develop, but it's not fool-proof either and judging wrong could be disastrous.
Sure, we are talking about legal responsibility to a degree. You're PSA's stated, as if they were fact, that being right-hooked is the cyclists fault. No, it isn't. With proper technique they can usually be avoided, yes. But it is not the cyclists fault (unless they are in a RTO lane). I'm a literalist. If there's going to be something that advises all the public, make sure it's accurate. Otherwise motorists think if they do it, it wasn't their fault. The PSA is misleading and inaccurate, that's all.
And, please, don't give me the stuff about your estate suing. Gimme a break. That excuse is so old. We can all avoid right hooks, but it still doesn't mean if we don't avoid a right hook then it's our own fault. And we don't have to be crazy riders full of a bold sense of absolute freedom to be 'safe.'
We're not all reckless rogues, after all. Most of us ride according to the rules of the road most of the time. Motorists keep calling for us to observe the rules of the road as well (yeah, I know, as if they do---sheesh), so maintaining my predictable line is safer than not and being predictable and visible helps me avoid most potential accidents. The fact is when there is dense, urban traffic, sudden turns and lane changes occur every few meters. Even though I haven't had an accident in twenty-eight years, I've still had right-hooks happen to me countless times and avoided collisions by stopping (rarely a bad thing to do). Many cyclists travel at too high a rate of speed in urban traffic and think technique will save them. Well, I've watched them, witnessed them hit or get hit or wipe out and tended to their damaged bikes and broken bodies enough times to know that, no matter how much skill they had, if they'd been riding slower and more predictably and respectfully, they'd have not crashed.
Bekologist
north american autocentric bicycling principles largely do not apply in massively accomodated municipalities like copenhagen.
If you get right hooked, it is the drivers fault.
If you get right hooked, it is the drivers fault.
noisebeam
north american autocentric bicycling principles largely do not apply in massively accomodated municipalities like copenhagen.
So what about the 20 injured and 10 killed cyclists in Denmark due to right hooks? Should cyclists there keep riding like they do and hope that they won't get right hooked because it won't be their fault?
I've cycled a bit in Copenhagen and walked extensively for 2wks. It's not all roses, not all massive accomidation and not all smiling cautious drivers as some make it out to be.
Al
So what about the 20 injured and 10 killed cyclists in Denmark due to right hooks? Should cyclists there keep riding like they do and hope that they won't get right hooked because it won't be their fault?
I've cycled a bit in Copenhagen and walked extensively for 2wks. It's not all roses, not all massive accomidation and not all smiling cautious drivers as some make it out to be.
Al
Bekologist
its also not North American autocentrism at work in Copenhagen.
30 percent of trips by bike.
30 percent of trips by bike.
Helmet Head
I made an error in my original post and mentioned cars approaching quickly from the 'right' when I meant left. I apologize.
Yes, I caught that. Everything I wrote corrected for that. I meant what you knew. ;)
Even with positioning myself 1/3 out from the curb in the right lane, many vehicles straddle the lanes in preparation for making a right turn or even right turn from the left lane, particularly when there is no-one else in the left lane. The driver thinks he has allowed for enough space for a mere bicycle as he passed me before making his unsignalled turn, but often they misjudge my speed. What is the defence against that?
Moving 4/5 out from the curb in the right lane is the defence for that.
Take the entire right lane and ride almost at the far left dotted line? No.
Yes. In California there is no legal obligation to keep right "when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized". That is in there precisely to avoid right hooks. But whether your jurisdiction has that exception speicifically in there or not, it doesn't matter, because your only obligation, at worst, ignoring all exceptions, is to be "as far right as practicable". Whether you have the exceptions for right turns or not does not alter the fact that the reason for the exception exist: to avoid right hooks. Therefore, it is not "practicable" to ride in a manner that makes you vulnerable to these right hooks.
I am positioned as properly and safely as I can be.
If you're only 1/3 out from the curb in the right lane, I beg to differ.
The defence is speed (or more accurately, slowness) and awareness of traffic. I make sure I travel at a speed that allows me to be able to stop within a foot on downtown streets and I am constantly checking for the threat of right hooks, sudden left turns across my path and every other danger that exists for us out there.
Stop within a foot? That sounds awfully slow. Suit yourself, but I position myself about where a motorcyclist would position himself in the rightmost lane if he was going straight. Any further right than that is inviting right hooks.
Of course, experienced cyclists don't expect motorists to use their signals---they rarely do, after all. But approaching seemingly through-travelling cars from behind, especially when I am in a bike-lane, I cannot assume they are going to make an illegal right turn and swing into the middle of the road, can I?
No, you can't assume that they will, but you certainly should assume that they might.
You should avoid passing someone who is to your left, especially if there is a place where they can and might turn right. If I'm catching up with someone in my lane, or in the adjacent lane if I'm in the bike lane, I'm looking back, signaling and negotiating for a merge left, especially if we're approaching a place where they can and might turn right. I will either stay behind them, or pass on the left (just like a motorcyclist would).
Otherwise I'd be travelling down busy avenues between the lanes for my entire journey and that's hardly safe or effective.
Why is it unsafe or ineffective. If passing on the left is not an option for some reason (most cyclists seem to rule this option out before giving it due consideration), then stay back until there is a stretch where you're sure they won't turn right (because they can't), then pass.
Being able to predict when a vehicle is going to make a sudden turn is a skill experienced cyclists develop, but it's not fool-proof either and judging wrong could be disastrous.
It's not about predicting when they will sudden turn, it's about avoiding making yourself vulnerable in places where they might suddenly turn.
Sure, we are talking about legal responsibility to a degree. You're PSA's stated, as if they were fact, that being right-hooked is the cyclists fault. No, it isn't.
"No, it isn't" is only true if we're talking about legal responsiblity. That's of little interest to me. Again, as I stated in that post, I was talking about PREVENTING crashes. Legal responsibility only applies when you're assigning legal blame/responsibility AFTER a crash.
And, please, don't give me the stuff about your estate suing. Gimme a break. That excuse is so old.
Excuse? Excuse for what? I was just trying to distingish legal from personal responsibilty.
We can all avoid right hooks, but it still doesn't mean if we don't avoid a right hook then it's our own fault.
You say you could have written Urban Cycling, but you don't write like you could have.
"From now - if some ba$tard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be YOUR FAULT and nobody else's." -Robert Hurst, Urban Cycling
And we don't have to be crazy riders full of a bold sense of absolute freedom to be 'safe.'
You might want to reread the chapters on blame, responsibility and vigilance. With all due respect, you don't seem to get it.
We're not all reckless rogues, after all. Most of us ride according to the rules of the road most of the time. Motorists keep calling for us to observe the rules of the road as well (yeah, I know, as if they do---sheesh), so maintaining my predictable line is safer than not and being predictable and visible helps me avoid most potential accidents. The fact is when there is dense, urban traffic, sudden turns and lane changes occur every few meters. Even though I haven't had an accident in twenty-eight years, I've still had right-hooks happen to me countless times and avoided collisions by stopping (rarely a bad thing to do). Many cyclists travel at too high a rate of speed in urban traffic and think technique will save them. Well, I've watched them, witnessed them hit or get hit or wipe out and tended to their damaged bikes and broken bodies enough times to know that, no matter how much skill they had, if they'd been riding slower and more predictably and respectfully, they'd have not crashed.
Speed can be a factor, no doubt, especially if you're riding too far to the right, like only 1/3 of a narrow lane from the curb.
Yes, I caught that. Everything I wrote corrected for that. I meant what you knew. ;)
Even with positioning myself 1/3 out from the curb in the right lane, many vehicles straddle the lanes in preparation for making a right turn or even right turn from the left lane, particularly when there is no-one else in the left lane. The driver thinks he has allowed for enough space for a mere bicycle as he passed me before making his unsignalled turn, but often they misjudge my speed. What is the defence against that?
Moving 4/5 out from the curb in the right lane is the defence for that.
Take the entire right lane and ride almost at the far left dotted line? No.
Yes. In California there is no legal obligation to keep right "when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized". That is in there precisely to avoid right hooks. But whether your jurisdiction has that exception speicifically in there or not, it doesn't matter, because your only obligation, at worst, ignoring all exceptions, is to be "as far right as practicable". Whether you have the exceptions for right turns or not does not alter the fact that the reason for the exception exist: to avoid right hooks. Therefore, it is not "practicable" to ride in a manner that makes you vulnerable to these right hooks.
I am positioned as properly and safely as I can be.
If you're only 1/3 out from the curb in the right lane, I beg to differ.
The defence is speed (or more accurately, slowness) and awareness of traffic. I make sure I travel at a speed that allows me to be able to stop within a foot on downtown streets and I am constantly checking for the threat of right hooks, sudden left turns across my path and every other danger that exists for us out there.
Stop within a foot? That sounds awfully slow. Suit yourself, but I position myself about where a motorcyclist would position himself in the rightmost lane if he was going straight. Any further right than that is inviting right hooks.
Of course, experienced cyclists don't expect motorists to use their signals---they rarely do, after all. But approaching seemingly through-travelling cars from behind, especially when I am in a bike-lane, I cannot assume they are going to make an illegal right turn and swing into the middle of the road, can I?
No, you can't assume that they will, but you certainly should assume that they might.
You should avoid passing someone who is to your left, especially if there is a place where they can and might turn right. If I'm catching up with someone in my lane, or in the adjacent lane if I'm in the bike lane, I'm looking back, signaling and negotiating for a merge left, especially if we're approaching a place where they can and might turn right. I will either stay behind them, or pass on the left (just like a motorcyclist would).
Otherwise I'd be travelling down busy avenues between the lanes for my entire journey and that's hardly safe or effective.
Why is it unsafe or ineffective. If passing on the left is not an option for some reason (most cyclists seem to rule this option out before giving it due consideration), then stay back until there is a stretch where you're sure they won't turn right (because they can't), then pass.
Being able to predict when a vehicle is going to make a sudden turn is a skill experienced cyclists develop, but it's not fool-proof either and judging wrong could be disastrous.
It's not about predicting when they will sudden turn, it's about avoiding making yourself vulnerable in places where they might suddenly turn.
Sure, we are talking about legal responsibility to a degree. You're PSA's stated, as if they were fact, that being right-hooked is the cyclists fault. No, it isn't.
"No, it isn't" is only true if we're talking about legal responsiblity. That's of little interest to me. Again, as I stated in that post, I was talking about PREVENTING crashes. Legal responsibility only applies when you're assigning legal blame/responsibility AFTER a crash.
And, please, don't give me the stuff about your estate suing. Gimme a break. That excuse is so old.
Excuse? Excuse for what? I was just trying to distingish legal from personal responsibilty.
We can all avoid right hooks, but it still doesn't mean if we don't avoid a right hook then it's our own fault.
You say you could have written Urban Cycling, but you don't write like you could have.
"From now - if some ba$tard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be YOUR FAULT and nobody else's." -Robert Hurst, Urban Cycling
And we don't have to be crazy riders full of a bold sense of absolute freedom to be 'safe.'
You might want to reread the chapters on blame, responsibility and vigilance. With all due respect, you don't seem to get it.
We're not all reckless rogues, after all. Most of us ride according to the rules of the road most of the time. Motorists keep calling for us to observe the rules of the road as well (yeah, I know, as if they do---sheesh), so maintaining my predictable line is safer than not and being predictable and visible helps me avoid most potential accidents. The fact is when there is dense, urban traffic, sudden turns and lane changes occur every few meters. Even though I haven't had an accident in twenty-eight years, I've still had right-hooks happen to me countless times and avoided collisions by stopping (rarely a bad thing to do). Many cyclists travel at too high a rate of speed in urban traffic and think technique will save them. Well, I've watched them, witnessed them hit or get hit or wipe out and tended to their damaged bikes and broken bodies enough times to know that, no matter how much skill they had, if they'd been riding slower and more predictably and respectfully, they'd have not crashed.
Speed can be a factor, no doubt, especially if you're riding too far to the right, like only 1/3 of a narrow lane from the curb.
Bekologist
what does that wall of words have to do with Copenhagen installing engineering controls to increase bicyclists' visibility on the roads and reduce the frequency of right hooks?
Helmet Head
what does that wall of words have to do with Copenhagen installing engineering controls to increase bicyclists' visibility on the roads and reduce the frequency of right hooks?
It's a discussion about using cyclist behavior techniques rather than engineering controls to reduce the frequency of right hooks.
It's a discussion about using cyclist behavior techniques rather than engineering controls to reduce the frequency of right hooks.
Bekologist
yes, and the original post was in regards to engineering controls being implemented to reduce right hooks in a city where 30 percent of trips are by bicycle.
darksiderising
That is already exactly what the current design and most every other bike lane design does at an intersection, it criss crosses two lanes of traffic against normal rules of the road with the left side going right and the right side going straight. By design it creates a collision zone.
My suggestion was to direct thru bicycle traffic to the left side of a wide bicycle lane that can be used for motor vehicles as well at the intersection approach. This means thru cyclist merge left, motorists who are turning merge right into that lane. This can be designed to occur over a longer distance allowing for a smoother merge instead of a 'last second' 90deg turn across the thru lane.
Al
I would disagree about most designs working that way. Most right hand lanes aren't right-turn exclusive lanes. And most intersections in the world don't have a constant thick stream of cyclists stopping at them. In Copenhagen, at rush our, they do.
And how is your suggestion any different than what actually happens? Most bicycle lanes that do end up on the left side of a right turn lane aren't continuous. The regular lane stops, and then some distance later, it magically appears on the left of the right-turn lane. Bicyclists merge left in this gap. Motorists merge right.
My suggestion was to direct thru bicycle traffic to the left side of a wide bicycle lane that can be used for motor vehicles as well at the intersection approach. This means thru cyclist merge left, motorists who are turning merge right into that lane. This can be designed to occur over a longer distance allowing for a smoother merge instead of a 'last second' 90deg turn across the thru lane.
Al
I would disagree about most designs working that way. Most right hand lanes aren't right-turn exclusive lanes. And most intersections in the world don't have a constant thick stream of cyclists stopping at them. In Copenhagen, at rush our, they do.
And how is your suggestion any different than what actually happens? Most bicycle lanes that do end up on the left side of a right turn lane aren't continuous. The regular lane stops, and then some distance later, it magically appears on the left of the right-turn lane. Bicyclists merge left in this gap. Motorists merge right.
noisebeam
I would disagree about most designs working that way. Most right hand lanes aren't right-turn exclusive lanes. And most intersections in the world don't have a constant thick stream of cyclists stopping at them. In Copenhagen, at rush our, they do.
And how is your suggestion any different than what actually happens? Most bicycle lanes that do end up on the left side of a right turn lane aren't continuous. The regular lane stops, and then some distance later, it magically appears on the left of the right-turn lane. Bicyclists merge left in this gap. Motorists merge right.
My suggestion has nothing to do with a RTOL, I never said anything about such. It was pointing out that BLs are always placed to the right of thru lanes from which people can turn right from. This results in a BL that is to the right of a lane from which other vehicles may turn right from. It is a single point of conflict in travel direction. It is no surprise that collisions happen at such points.
Instead I was suggestion to end the BL (but not the total width of the lane) well before such interssections with no RTOL and then cyclist can merge left over length of road. This eliminates the sudden point of thru/turning conflict (not a natural traffic pattern) and instead has two vehicles merging. (a natural traffic pattern) To help encourage cycilst to do this merge left consider the option to paint a bike lane in the left side, but within, that thru/right turn lane at the intersection final approach.
See the attachment for a rough drawing.
Al
And how is your suggestion any different than what actually happens? Most bicycle lanes that do end up on the left side of a right turn lane aren't continuous. The regular lane stops, and then some distance later, it magically appears on the left of the right-turn lane. Bicyclists merge left in this gap. Motorists merge right.
My suggestion has nothing to do with a RTOL, I never said anything about such. It was pointing out that BLs are always placed to the right of thru lanes from which people can turn right from. This results in a BL that is to the right of a lane from which other vehicles may turn right from. It is a single point of conflict in travel direction. It is no surprise that collisions happen at such points.
Instead I was suggestion to end the BL (but not the total width of the lane) well before such interssections with no RTOL and then cyclist can merge left over length of road. This eliminates the sudden point of thru/turning conflict (not a natural traffic pattern) and instead has two vehicles merging. (a natural traffic pattern) To help encourage cycilst to do this merge left consider the option to paint a bike lane in the left side, but within, that thru/right turn lane at the intersection final approach.
See the attachment for a rough drawing.
Al
Bekologist
WOW, al. they have a lot of those around Seattle.
regardless, the OP was about introducing greater engineering controls to make drivers IN COPENHAGEN even more cognizant of bicyclists at intersections. In a city where a third of all trips are by bicycle, there's going to be more accomodation than the 'bike lane placed to the left' you portray.
but good work. you showcase a design that is commonplace at higher traffic intersections around the greater Seattle metropolitian area, and likely many other american municipalities that have forward thinking bicycling infrastructure.
Copenhagen, its a whole 'nother playbook.
regardless, the OP was about introducing greater engineering controls to make drivers IN COPENHAGEN even more cognizant of bicyclists at intersections. In a city where a third of all trips are by bicycle, there's going to be more accomodation than the 'bike lane placed to the left' you portray.
but good work. you showcase a design that is commonplace at higher traffic intersections around the greater Seattle metropolitian area, and likely many other american municipalities that have forward thinking bicycling infrastructure.
Copenhagen, its a whole 'nother playbook.
Helmet Head
WOW, al. they have a lot of those around Seattle.
Can you provide intersection info, or a link to a google map? I would like to see that.
Can you provide intersection info, or a link to a google map? I would like to see that.
Bekologist
Copenhagen, Head.
Copenhagen. not Seattle and our 3 percent of trips by bike.
Copenhagen.
Copenhagen. not Seattle and our 3 percent of trips by bike.
Copenhagen.
noisebeam
WOW, al. they have a lot of those around Seattle.
Where?
Please note this is not a BL to the left of a RTOL.
Al
Where?
Please note this is not a BL to the left of a RTOL.
Al
Bekologist
they're all over the place, al. the bike lane stops before an intersection, then there's a 'bike box' of sorts to the left of a right turn lane. And how is your suggestion any different than what actually happens? Most bicycle lanes that do end up on the left side of a right turn lane aren't continuous. The regular lane stops, and then some distance later, it magically appears on the left of the right-turn lane. Bicyclists merge left in this gap. Motorists merge right.
sounds like they have that design in Rhonert Park, CA as well. I bet it's even AASHTO codified and approved!!!
if that's NOT what your picture illustrates, please correct me. On second thought, don't bother.
this thread is about COPENHAGEN.
sounds like they have that design in Rhonert Park, CA as well. I bet it's even AASHTO codified and approved!!!
if that's NOT what your picture illustrates, please correct me. On second thought, don't bother.
this thread is about COPENHAGEN.
donnamb
WOW, al. they have a lot of those around Seattle.
Plenty of those in Portland, too.
Plenty of those in Portland, too.
invisiblehand
Copenhagen, its a whole 'nother playbook.
I don't see the big deal about using examples in one country for another country.
Clearly there are some differences between the two countries--social attitudes, legislation, geography, etc.--but there are also similarities--human cognitive function, engineering principles, etc..
It would be a mistake to over reach when making these comparisons; but it would equally erroneous to claim that the two have nothing in common. That is, an example in Seattle has some informative value to something taking place in Copenhagen and vice versa.
Regarding the bike lanes, I have seen bike lanes that move from the outside of the ride lane to the inside. Typically there is a dashed lane connecting the two. Personally, I find that these dashed lines have the lateral movement taking place too quickly; i.e., the cycling traffic cuts across the lane quickly with little sense of a "merge".
I don't see the big deal about using examples in one country for another country.
Clearly there are some differences between the two countries--social attitudes, legislation, geography, etc.--but there are also similarities--human cognitive function, engineering principles, etc..
It would be a mistake to over reach when making these comparisons; but it would equally erroneous to claim that the two have nothing in common. That is, an example in Seattle has some informative value to something taking place in Copenhagen and vice versa.
Regarding the bike lanes, I have seen bike lanes that move from the outside of the ride lane to the inside. Typically there is a dashed lane connecting the two. Personally, I find that these dashed lines have the lateral movement taking place too quickly; i.e., the cycling traffic cuts across the lane quickly with little sense of a "merge".
noisebeam
I Personally, I find that these dashed lines have the lateral movement taking place too quickly; i.e., the cycling traffic cuts across the lane quickly with little sense of a "merge".
That's why the BL should end 200' before the intersection, with no dashed line indicating where the lateral movement should occur. The small 10' or so long dashed line for desination positioning the cyclist at the intersection as shown in the diagram is optional - alternately it could be placed in the center of the lane. Of primary importance is the BL ending so there is not thru lane to the right of a lane from where other vehicles may turn right.
Al
That's why the BL should end 200' before the intersection, with no dashed line indicating where the lateral movement should occur. The small 10' or so long dashed line for desination positioning the cyclist at the intersection as shown in the diagram is optional - alternately it could be placed in the center of the lane. Of primary importance is the BL ending so there is not thru lane to the right of a lane from where other vehicles may turn right.
Al
invisiblehand
That's why the BL should end 200' before the intersection, with no dashed line indicating where the lateral movement should occur. The small 10' or so long dashed line for desination positioning the cyclist at the intersection as shown in the diagram is optional - alternately it could be placed in the center of the lane. Of primary importance is the BL ending so there is not thru lane to the right of a lane from where other vehicles may turn right.
Al
Well, it isn't clear to me whether 200' is too much or too little. But anecdotally, I would say that the dashed lined bikelanes typically encountered tend to be too short for a smooth transition.
I recall a conversation regarding the lane being painted with extra signage giving cyclists the right of way. At the time, a few supporters reported that there was no specific research into these intersections. I would be interested in reading anything about them if new research was conducted.
Al
Well, it isn't clear to me whether 200' is too much or too little. But anecdotally, I would say that the dashed lined bikelanes typically encountered tend to be too short for a smooth transition.
I recall a conversation regarding the lane being painted with extra signage giving cyclists the right of way. At the time, a few supporters reported that there was no specific research into these intersections. I would be interested in reading anything about them if new research was conducted.
royalflash
So what about the 20 injured and 10 killed cyclists in Denmark due to right hooks? Should cyclists there keep riding like they do and hope that they won't get right hooked because it won't be their fault?
I've cycled a bit in Copenhagen and walked extensively for 2wks. It's not all roses, not all massive accomidation and not all smiling cautious drivers as some make it out to be.
Al
I would suggest that it is not really possible to meangfully compare cycling in Denmark with cycling in North America. I have never cycled in Denmark but I cycle in Munich which I understand is quite similar. It is simply not possible to follow HH´s vehicular cycling approach here as cyclists are generally legally obliged to use cycle paths (where they are provided and signed). Attempting to merge into car traffic at junctions would certainly be a surprise for the drivers who will never have seen anyone do this before and I don´t think their reactions would be wholly supportive. Even if you survived the numerous encounters with very angry drivers the police would soon be on your case and you would have a lot of legal problems.
On the plus side the drivers here are much more careful than in the US and are trained to watch out for bikes. Obviously no system is perfect and cyclists are still killed but without any statistical comparison 10 cyclists killed per year is hard to comment on. Also the circumstances of the accidents could be a factor how many of them were drunk for example? but clearly as long as cyclists and car drivers share road space then cyclists will continue to be killed. 10 dead may possibly be the best that can be achieved in real life?- who knows? in any case there doesn´t seem to be much good evidence that I see in these discussions one way or the other.
I've cycled a bit in Copenhagen and walked extensively for 2wks. It's not all roses, not all massive accomidation and not all smiling cautious drivers as some make it out to be.
Al
I would suggest that it is not really possible to meangfully compare cycling in Denmark with cycling in North America. I have never cycled in Denmark but I cycle in Munich which I understand is quite similar. It is simply not possible to follow HH´s vehicular cycling approach here as cyclists are generally legally obliged to use cycle paths (where they are provided and signed). Attempting to merge into car traffic at junctions would certainly be a surprise for the drivers who will never have seen anyone do this before and I don´t think their reactions would be wholly supportive. Even if you survived the numerous encounters with very angry drivers the police would soon be on your case and you would have a lot of legal problems.
On the plus side the drivers here are much more careful than in the US and are trained to watch out for bikes. Obviously no system is perfect and cyclists are still killed but without any statistical comparison 10 cyclists killed per year is hard to comment on. Also the circumstances of the accidents could be a factor how many of them were drunk for example? but clearly as long as cyclists and car drivers share road space then cyclists will continue to be killed. 10 dead may possibly be the best that can be achieved in real life?- who knows? in any case there doesn´t seem to be much good evidence that I see in these discussions one way or the other.
Helmet Head
I would suggest that it is not really possible to meangfully compare cycling in Denmark with cycling in North America. I have never cycled in Denmark but I cycle in Munich which I understand is quite similar. It is simply not possible to follow HH´s vehicular cycling approach here as cyclists are generally legally obliged to use cycle paths (where they are provided and signed). Attempting to merge into car traffic at junctions would certainly be a surprise for the drivers who will never have seen anyone do this before and I don´t think their reactions would be wholly supportive. Even if you survived the numerous encounters with very angry drivers the police would soon be on your case and you would have a lot of legal problems.
On the plus side the drivers here are much more careful than in the US and are trained to watch out for bikes. Obviously no system is perfect and cyclists are still killed but without any statistical comparison 10 cyclists killed per year is hard to comment on. Also the circumstances of the accidents could be a factor how many of them were drunk for example? but clearly as long as cyclists and car drivers share road space then cyclists will continue to be killed. 10 dead may possibly be the best that can be achieved in real life?- who knows? in any case there doesn´t seem to be much good evidence that I see in these discussions one way or the other.
Having some limited experience cycling in the suburbs of Munich, I agree. This, by the way, is the natural expected outcome of having more and more bikeways. Bikes there are typically only used for very short trips (5 km or less), like to the local bakery or train station. Vehicular cycling is normal and expected, but mostly only on the 30kph streets. On the bigger streets, you're definitely expected to use the sidewalks (sidepaths), at 10-12 mph. Again, that's fine for very short trips (ignoring the safety dangers of such cycling), but not very practical/useful for serious trips of 10 miles or more.
This is why many vehicular cycling advocates don't oppose bikeways per se, but having so many bikeways that road use shared with motorists becomes less and less acceptable.
On the plus side the drivers here are much more careful than in the US and are trained to watch out for bikes. Obviously no system is perfect and cyclists are still killed but without any statistical comparison 10 cyclists killed per year is hard to comment on. Also the circumstances of the accidents could be a factor how many of them were drunk for example? but clearly as long as cyclists and car drivers share road space then cyclists will continue to be killed. 10 dead may possibly be the best that can be achieved in real life?- who knows? in any case there doesn´t seem to be much good evidence that I see in these discussions one way or the other.
Having some limited experience cycling in the suburbs of Munich, I agree. This, by the way, is the natural expected outcome of having more and more bikeways. Bikes there are typically only used for very short trips (5 km or less), like to the local bakery or train station. Vehicular cycling is normal and expected, but mostly only on the 30kph streets. On the bigger streets, you're definitely expected to use the sidewalks (sidepaths), at 10-12 mph. Again, that's fine for very short trips (ignoring the safety dangers of such cycling), but not very practical/useful for serious trips of 10 miles or more.
This is why many vehicular cycling advocates don't oppose bikeways per se, but having so many bikeways that road use shared with motorists becomes less and less acceptable.
Bekologist
how many 'serious' trips of ten miles or more do you take on your bike, head? you don't even shop with your bike. your six mile commute, you often use your car for that six mile trip, correct?
perhaps, since fully half of all trips in the USA are of less than five miles, your 'serious' american metric is not only self-contradictory, but also a bit dubious, especially when overlaid on metropolitian cities like Copenhagen and Munich.
perhaps, since fully half of all trips in the USA are of less than five miles, your 'serious' american metric is not only self-contradictory, but also a bit dubious, especially when overlaid on metropolitian cities like Copenhagen and Munich.
Helmet Head
how many 'serious' trips of ten miles or more do you take on your bike, head? you don't even shop with your bike. your six mile commute, you often use your car for that six mile trip, correct?
perhaps, since fully half of all trips in the USA are of less than five miles, your 'serious' american metric is not only self-contradictory, but also a bit dubious, especially when overlaid on metropolitian cities like Copenhagen and Munich.
This is not about me so that stuff is irrelevant.
5 miles (one-way) is almost 8km and longer than typical bike trips in Europe.
perhaps, since fully half of all trips in the USA are of less than five miles, your 'serious' american metric is not only self-contradictory, but also a bit dubious, especially when overlaid on metropolitian cities like Copenhagen and Munich.
This is not about me so that stuff is irrelevant.
5 miles (one-way) is almost 8km and longer than typical bike trips in Europe.
Bekologist
maybe all the more reason to have very bicycle-oriented designs to accomodate the 38 percent of trips by bicycle in cities like copenhagen, and not talk of autocentric 'take the lane' behaviors.
filtersweep
A huge fundamental difference between Danmark and the US is that it is not legal to turn right on red (as it is in many US states). The right on red issue causes many drivers to focus their attention to the LEFt when turning right... regardless of the circumstances.
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.