Actually, splitting the right turn lane is about the best way to avoid right hooks.

I agree. In addition, I think having "bike boxes" in front of the stopped traffic makes the most sense.

This is one of the nicest intersections I've ridden through in a while, based on the huge volume of traffic that goes through it.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=frank...,+Germany&z=20

+1

Yes, as long as you are splitting the two lanes of traffic, not hugging the curb to pass on the right.
I think our new bike lanes that split motorist lanes, only at these unique intersections, might offer some sort of solution.
In the absence of these, it looks like pick your poison.
Hold the right hand turn lane from the middle of the lane, holding up auto traffic behind you.
Or.
Split the lanes responsibly, letting cars turn right and then getting ahead of any other traffic w/ the light change, after checking cross traffic out of sync with the light, of course.

In a Small town it un nessisary.

If you look in A&S you will find all you want of this type of dialog as far back as you care to look. It has ALL been said there. I think BF actually loves it as those red-light running threads go on and on allowing more peeks at their advertizements.

Since you are skillful at searching statistics, think you could separate (statistically speaking) what percentage of cyclists get hit running reds as opposed to cyclists getting hit crossing busy intersections that do not have any traffic lights to deal with?

My point here is not to be a smarta.. but to get people thinking about things they never experience while cycling because they blindly follow rules. OK, back to my point:

In the course of my commute I try to avoid intersections with traffic signals whenever possible. This causes me to cross those big streets and highways - sometimes six lanes across - without hope of ever getting a green light. So I must LOOK carefully for traffic in both directions, pay close attention, know my capabilities, know potential "invisible' hazards (like a speeding sports car "hiding" behind a bus), trust my bike is in good condition and the chain won't break under acceleration, then cross when possible.

When I run a red light, I still do all of that^^. The ONLY difference is some piece of furniture with colored lights is also present. There is absolutely no difference in technique for crossing a street with or without a traffic signal. Look both ways, cross when it is safe to do so. God, it is so easy.

So back to your statistics. Can you show that a lot of cyclists get clobberd running red lights because more cyclists use intersections "protected" by lights? Perhaps intersections with lights are somehow more dangerous to cross than a large, busy intersection with only a stop sign? Are people more cautious when they are not "protected" by traffic signals? Are the cyclists getting hit drunk or somehow mentally compromised? Are they thinking about crossing the street or something else? It's hard to ask a dead cyclist what they were thinking about for your statistics isn't it?

All we really know based on your existing statistics is the fact that a significant number of cyclists are getting maimed crossing busy intersections without exhibiting due care. If they were running the red properly, they would not ride into the path of a speeding car, regardless of a piece of lighted furniture being present, would they?


I know "zee rules are zee rules" in your community, so perhaps I should have left it at "Free your mind and the rest will follow" in my first post.

Not so classy.

CHP gave me a ticket doing that in rush hour, 4 lane parking lot.. they had a motorcycle too.

I like all of your different perspectives. Lively thread.
Thanks, folks.
One thing everyone seems to agree on, possibly.
Don't hug the curb, naively setting yourself up for the Right Hook, at least in the US.
Ride. Lots. Be Safe. Have Fun.

I have been hit once on a green light and had several close calls. When it is green I assume the drivers are letting me through. When they slow down, I believe it is because of that. Well, 2 times so far it WASN'T! Once a close call, once I got hit, flew in the air. :)

When I run red lights, I always make sure I'm safe, as well as other drivers are not inconvenienced by me (I can move fast in front of a car, without making the driver slow down, but he doesn't know that and jumping like that would make people scared, panic - so I never do that). When there's no traffic, I run red lights. I also totally disregard all the other traffic regulations, since they are a complete nonsense where I come from. You can double speed limit and be totally safe in many places (they forget to remove signs after constructions, so you have a motorway that says 20 km/h?!?).

I rely on my eyes and brain in order to bee safe. Rules are not carved in stone.



I also avoid splitting lanes if we're moving. Only when the traffic is stationary (or moving at a walking pace) would I split lanes.

Making drivers annoyed can result in being run off the road, or beaten. So not a good thing.

There are two ways to get right hooked. One is for the car to pass you and turn in front of you. The other is to be passing a line of cars on the right and have one of them turn right in front of you. There's not much you can do, other than be aware of your surroundings in the former. You have complete control in the latter case.

Yes, I do where it makes sense. I try to ride as safely, efficiently, predictably, and legally as I am able. In that order.

Exactly. Either the car hits you or you hit the car, it is the same vulnerable position that creates the Right Hook, in the end. The position itself is caused by the soup of auto, truck, bike, and pedestrian traffic moving on the right hand side of the shared road.
Guess we need to call it something else for our European counterparts, though. Or maybe they already do.
Acidfast ?

I split lanes all the time. Otherwise, I'd never get anywhere.

It's pretty rare as most urban areas have a segregated lane with parked cars/fence in between the street and bike lane. In addition, they use separate signals. Most rural areas have a separated bike path almost like an MUP. Riding on the a busy street is somewhat uncommon in cities and the Autobahn and train tracks don't do level crossings. So, a "right hook" is almost prevented by design.

It's not impossible though I've seen it almost happen once in a residential area.

Just call it "Scheiße!"

We have access to a small, but important part of our city, with 2 way bike lanes separated from traffic and with their own traffic light systems. However, no parked cars between, but high curbs and grass median. They call it our Lance Armstrong Veloway. I hope they keep improving it and extending it but I use it all the time and I am grateful that it is there. City planners worldwide are calling it the Copenhagen setup, w/ good reason, I assume.
This greatly decreases the chance of a right hook from turning traffic.
I agree.
And many areas in the US are creating separate MUP type paths in less developed areas between towns. The first ones that I remember using were in Colorado in the 90's.

Yeah, but the Dutch are upset because they used it first.

Also, the Copenhagen-style bicycle "Superhighways" have been in use in the Netherlands for quite a while now.

I just think the Danish are much better at marketing (among other things.)

Also, you guys have to really got to change the name of that "veloway."

:/

hehe, when I was in Berlin I learned that Germans (or is that just Berliners?) don't even jaywalk.

..I don't ever run red lights though.

Not really. You'll get fined (€8).

Also, people really take the "Don't do it because the kids are watching signs" signs very seriously as most kids over 7-8 walk/ride to school on their own.

Now compare that with cities in Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, or New Orleans or the bar district of Austin at night.

Way different levels of pedestrian predictability and responsibility compared to German/Austrian/Dutch/Swiss/Scandanavian cultures.......

:)

I can't believe the censors let you say that. They won't let me say ****. It's blatant linguistic discrimination. On the other hand, they would probably let me accuse you of being a shyster. ;)

Fan också!

¡Mierda!

¡Hijo de puta!

imo, cycling cautiously at intersections is more risky than idaho stopping a cager traffic signal. and actual evidence (as opposed to safety nanny anecdotes) appears to support my opinion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ma...most-accidents

:lol:

not peer-reviewed = not an actual study

also, 13 = one really small n

edit: i guess the civil way to state my argument would be that we have the CTC making a big deal out of a non-significant sample size (n = 13) and a leaked report that can't be read. the Guardian is my first choice of British newspaper, but i wouldn't wipe the excess lubricant off my chain after it sat overnight with that "article."

I would agree. I would also add that the way not to get squished by a lorry is to not stop where the lorry can squish you. Stopping behind them...i.e. not filtering... is about the safest place you could be around a large truck. They aren't likely to lurch backwards.

Last time I checked (yesterday in fact) trucks, buses, even cars can't move sideways very well in heavy traffic. So...being NEXT to them, not BETWEEN their bumpers, is the safest position to cycle in order to not become the bologna in a car/truck sandwich. On a hill or bridge I would not want to be behind some giant wheeled "lorry" as it rolls backward waiting for the clutch to engage.

Did I misunderstand your post?

:lol:

In Hamburg, almost all the bike lanes were brick, and up on the curb, more like an extra sidewalk. I never took the bike to Munchen (forgive my lack of umlauts...) or anywhere else, since it was just a crappy 'walmart' bike that we passed on to the next group of engineers coming to work there.