dynodonn 

As I have previously posted, motorist attention seems to have diminished over the years due to increased driving distractions and increased safety motor vehicle standards......... plus very few bicyclists, that I have observed locally, tend to ride in a manner that shows that they have not been versed in defensive riding, and many DOTs tend to implement unsafe bicycling infrastructure for the sake of just having some sort of bicycling infrastructure.

I can see that the crossing point, where the cyclist was hit, could mislead an inexperienced cyclist into a false sense of security, with the blue painted path, two yield signs for motorist, and an easily overlooked, no pun intended, "LOOK" (right) signage painted just before crossing.

bronco71

The yeild sign on the left side of the merging lane is badly placed. It could easily be mis-interpreted as to which road its for.

Check out the intersection a few miles to the west at Ina and Oracle. That intersection can be dangerous. In fact in the Google maps image you can see a car driving in the bike lane. This is common.

genec

The reason some feel so compelled to vilify motorists is they have likely encountered motorists that were somewhat less than cooperative, perhaps even aggressive on the roadway.

kickstart

Yes, some judge everyone by the actions of a few. It's a vicious circle.

mr_bill

That's not a merging lane. It is an auxiliary lane. There is little reason to be looking in your mirror or over your shoulder at that intersection for motor vehicle traffic - motor vehicle traffic isn't in conflict.

Westbound E Sunrise Dr is two lanes prior to E Skyline Dr. This is where the entrance lane from E Skyline Dr joins E Sunrise Dr, bringing the number of westbound thru lanes to three. It remains three lanes for over a mile, until there is a merge after E Orange Grove Rd.

Informally, "look where you are going!"

(p.s. the Yield Line (sharks teeth) is backwards.)

-mr. bill

bronco71

You are technically correct, but there is a lot of traffic that crosses over to go south on Campbell, so in practice its a merge lane.


Here's another take on it;

Bicyclist killed in crash on Tucson?s northside | Arizona Bike Law

mr_bill

In fact, you can't even begin to merge at that intersection for another 400 feet. But yeah, it's Starbuck's fault, since there's a left turn into the shopping center *before* Campbell. Let alone the left turn to nowhere before that. Yeah, that's the ticket, the motorist was trying to make a left turn and wanted to get a jump on the merge.

Or not. The excuses we will make.....

-mr. bill

bronco71

I don't have the slightest clue what this particular driver was trying to do or what other cars around him were doing at the time. As I said earlier, I ride through there about once a week, and I've never felt as though the intersection was particularly dangerous. Though obviously something went wrong this one time. The traffic changing lanes at Campbell has been more of a threat in the past.

CliffordK

That is odd.... But, I think you're right.

So, there really wouldn't be a true "yield". Rather just go straight ahead balls-out, then cut over when convenient. Is it mislabelled? I assume there isn't a merge sign, just yield signs.

There are a few places that those +1 lanes are very nice.

One could extend the bike lane on both sides of the +1 lane for a short distance to give the cyclist more crossing choices, although I think cutting across as quickly as possible in a fixed location is better.

curbtender

Just watched that video. I can see how an driver could get disoriented by a crossing there. That bike lane should do a merge farther down the road or have a stop for either the bicyclist or car. At least a caution for the bicyclist of some sort.

mr_bill

There is an "added lane sign" - MUTCD W4-3.

This intersection is clearly just so WAY too confusing so it's *COMPLETELY* understandable that a motorist couldn't figure out how to successfully navigate it - it's the CONFUSING INTERSECTION'S FAULT.

-mr. bill

bronco71

Discussing potential flaws in an intersection design and function does not absolve the individual driver from liability for his mistake. It may however allow us to learn something that had not been considered in the design.

curbtender

I see there is a LOOK in the lane. Does that mean enter at own risk? https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3222...7i13312!8i6656

jeichelberg87

Everyone here HAS a history of being encountered by these maniacal drivers at some particular point in their riding history. Buzzing the cyclist, honking at the cyclist, gunning the motor to pass the cyclist, etc. ALL THESE BAD PURPOSEFUL BEHAVIORS!!! NOPE, THIS DEAD CYCLIST IS DEAD SIMPLY BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE.

genec

Yeah just as much as the two bicycle signs and two yield signs tell a motorist to enter at their own risk...

Paul Barnard

No disrespect intended toward the cyclist. This is a saddening tragedy. Hopefully with some thoughtful discussion, we can all learn a bit from this. Ultimately we only have control over ourselves. To that end, any time I do a mishap analysis I ask myself what I would do differently if I had to do it all over again. If I am the bicyclist in this accident the answer is that I ensure no vehicles are coming before I proceed. RIP my rider friend.

Paul Barnard

Design can only do so much to ensure harmonious blend of traffic with highly disparate speeds. This accident was 100% avoidable. The driver could have been effing paying attention. The rider could have made sure nobody was coming. The signage was more than adequate. Had either party heeded their signage the accident would not have occurred.

CliffordK

Tragedy: yes.
Preventable by the driver: yes.
Preventable by the cyclist: probably.
Preventable by road design: better design would have helped. Nothing is certain.

It does remind me a bit of a rails to trails MUP that I hit along the left side of a 2-lane, one-way road in Springfield (Rosa Parks Path, Pioneer Parkway, A st through about E st).

Heading northbound (with street traffic), I find that I can easily watch for cross traffic. However, sometimes I forget to look over my shoulder to look for potential turning traffic coming from behind me as one crosses side streets. I'll endeavor to be better.

However, this is probably similar, with a brief lapse of attention and the cyclist not paying attention to merging traffic from behind. Better road design would have helped some by routing the path so the traffic crosses to the right, and the path goes across a more obvious street crossing.

As for the driver, sometimes all the street signs blend into the background. I'm often driving along the freeway, then start wondering when the last time I have seen a speed limit sign. I just don't read every word on every sign. Likewise, it is easy to pass an exit, even with HUGE EXIT SIGNS.

on the path

Looks like there's a sign post in the far right of the photo. I'm wondering what the sign might indicate to motorists..

vol

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3223...7i13312!8i6656

ColaJacket

He was looking behind him for a place to merge. You can't look both forward and backward at the same time.

Apparently the cyclist fell in the driver's saccade.

GH

genec

Just these three things alone can make a huge difference...

The first one means that yes, motorists will actually have to drive at less than the posted speed limit from time to time...
The second one means, hey, motorists are not actually jet fighters, or even race car drivers... they need to really look, not glance...
And the third item... so easy to do... look twice, those things you missed the first time may actually pop up the second time...

But all of that means really driving... not merely rolling along on your portable couch, while you fiddle with music and play with your phone and suck on your Big Gulp.

CliffordK

What walks on four legs at dawn two legs at noon and three legs at dusk?

One can apply the old Oedipus analogy to many things.

Putting aside overconfidence, the best drivers are the middle aged drivers. Skills are lower with the young and the old, as the young are learning to deal with multiple attention and focus points, and the old start loosing those skills.

I'm not sure about the saccade thing. What our eyes are very good at detecting is very small amounts of movement, which may be different between a car driver, and a fighter pilot, especially when the driver has a background image frame of reference, and the pilot does not.

Of course, we may not have been designed to move more than 5 MPH.

Nonetheless, it is easy to have blind spots. Stuff obscured by mirrors, signs, indistinct from background, etc. Double and triple check everything.

If you scroll around there is a series of signs.





And finally the BACKWARDS Sharks Tooth



The "Yield" signs are ambiguous because of the merge into a new lane, there is no need to merge with traffic already on the highway. Right turning highway vehicles would be expected to merge with the new lane.

So, technically the yield ONLY applies to the bicycles. And, should be marked as such.

As also mentioned, the standard bike lane marking is GREEN, and not blue.

on the path

A fair amount of opinion here and plenty of disinformation. The yield signs are NOT ambiguous. Yield signs used to be yellow colored, and were yellow at the time I took my road test. At that time, the yield signs were ambiguous.

Now yield signs are red, at least in a lot of states, and certainly in the state where I live. The color of yield signs was changed for a very good reason - to remove the element of ambiguity. A red yield sign means STOP if there is any traffic present. That's not an opinion. That's the law as I was taught when I took a driver's safety course some 15 years ago.

CliffordK

I don't care if the yield signs are red, yellow, or purple. Stop signs also used to be yellow, many moons ago.

The ambiguity comes in that the car has an added lane, so they are not yielding to other auto traffic.

The issue is only crossing the bike lane.

So, attention should be directed primarily to the bike lane, and not to auto traffic.

Combining the bike and yield signs would make it clearer (and get rid of the extra sign posts).



Of course, one can quickly get sign overload, and there is nothing to guarantee that the old guy was reading the signs.