Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

Are you happier without bike facilities?

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

Are you happier without bike facilities?

Old 03-25-08, 01:09 AM
  #476  
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819

Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head View Post
Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is way too broad a category to even be a traffic operation, much less be a normal one.
Sorry if it's too simple and clear for you.
Allister is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 01:28 AM
  #477  
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yes, Allister, it's too simple and clear for me.

Anyway, it's not about me, it's about all the drivers and the dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of cyclists who are injured or killed annually when these drivers fail to engage in abnormal traffic behavior (like thinking of - much less checking for - through traffic passing them on the right prior to them turning right).
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 01:50 AM
  #478  
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819

Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head View Post
it's about ... the dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of cyclists who are injured or killed annually when these drivers fail to engage in abnormal traffic behavior (like thinking of - much less checking for - through traffic passing them on the right prior to them turning right).
Thousands?! Ye gods, there's a veritable killing field out there. You'd think we'd hear about it more often.

Pulling numbers out of your arse, especially ones as patently ridiculous as that, doesn't bolster your argument. And you think the bikelane advocates are scaremongers? Oh the irony.
Allister is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 05:14 AM
  #479  
Script
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Script's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida,Indiana,Pennsylvania
Posts: 179

Bikes: Seven (brand, not number....

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
You cannot help yourself but be nasty, can you. Here are your words: "My original challenge was to your statement regarding WOL's. I asked if you had ever experienced one and it is becoming evident that you have not."

I answer you politely. About 65 years of frequent use of wide outside lanes.Wide outside lanes were very common in California, though many have now been marked as bike lanes.

Thanks for the polite answer.

Sorry about being nasty, I learned it from some guy who constantly denigrates anything said that does not toe his party line.

Why were they marked with bike lanes? Perhaps because of the discovery that the average motorist does not know how to handle an invitation to figure out where to be on a road with 'extra' room?

Goes right to my point of WOL's being used as two lanes by many at their convenience.
Script is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 06:13 AM
  #480  
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819

Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Script View Post
Goes right to my point of WOL's being used as two lanes by many at their convenience.
I don't see a lot that wide though. Most are not wide enough for two cars, but plenty wide for a car and bike. Do you have a lot of such roads in your area? Sounds like they need some striping.
Allister is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 07:22 AM
  #481  
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head View Post
Anyway, it's not about me, it's about all the drivers and the dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of cyclists who are injured or killed annually when these drivers fail to engage in abnormal traffic behavior (like thinking of - much less checking for - through traffic passing them on the right prior to them turning right).
For me the issue is more about the problems of mixing big trucks with bicycle traffic but if we are to speculate in what is causing cyclists deaths and trying to fix that problem, we should be focusing on the problems associated mid-block as that's where 67% of bicycle traffic fatalities are. The problem at intersections is minor in comparison.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People...lcyclists.aspx
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 07:39 AM
  #482  
Script
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Script's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida,Indiana,Pennsylvania
Posts: 179

Bikes: Seven (brand, not number....

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Allister View Post
I don't see a lot that wide though. Most are not wide enough for two cars, but plenty wide for a car and bike. Do you have a lot of such roads in your area? Sounds like they need some striping.
They're probably not as wide as you imagine...just wide enough for confused or agressive drivers to either mistake what to do or purposely use the width to pass a vehicle with the audacity to be in their way.

Those that have been striped do not seem to have the same issue. Drivers appear to be much less willing to cross a line to make an illegal pass; and most also try to stay in the lane as described by the striping.
Script is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 07:41 AM
  #483  
Script
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Script's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida,Indiana,Pennsylvania
Posts: 179

Bikes: Seven (brand, not number....

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
For me the issue is more about the problems of mixing big trucks with bicycle traffic but if we are to speculate in what is causing cyclists deaths and trying to fix that problem, we should be focusing on the problems associated mid-block as that's where 67% of bicycle traffic fatalities are. The problem at intersections is minor in comparison.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People...lcyclists.aspx
Perhaps you said it better as my post was unable to communicate a similar position.
Script is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 09:58 AM
  #484  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head View Post
Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is way too broad a category to even be a traffic operation, much less be a normal one.

The specific type we're talking about here is right-turning traffic yielding to same-direction through traffic passing them on the right. That would be a specific traffic operation, but it's certainly not a normal one. I can't think of a single instance where that's ever required in traffic, except when bike lanes are painted to the right of traffic lanes from which right turns are allowed. That's why I say remembering to check for and yield to such "traffic" is abnormal behavior.
why the misunderstanding? are you being deliberately obtuse?

you think turning traffic yielding to thru traffic is too broad to be an 'operation'? How about, its a basic rule of the road.

And try a little harder, head. you can't think of a single instance a motorist has traffic to its right and wants to turn right? How about, EVERY TIME A MOTORIST IS IN AN INSIDE LANE!

OH my gosh- middle lanes of roads are not vehicular because you can't turn right from them without crossing a lane of potentially thru traffic......


quit the hyperbole. motorists are CONSTANTLY in lanes other than ones they want to turn from, and have to look and yield to traffic to THEIR right before crossing a lane and turning.....
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 10:04 AM
  #485  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,603

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3329 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
why the misunderstanding? are you being deliberately obtuse?

you think turning traffic yielding to thru traffic is too broad to be an 'operation'? How about, its a basic rule of the road.

And try a little harder, head. you can't think of a single instance a motorist has traffic to its right and wants to turn right? How about, EVERY TIME A MOTORIST IS IN AN INSIDE LANE!

OH my gosh- middle lanes of roads are not vehicular because you can't turn right from them without crossing a lane of potentially thru traffic......


quit the hyperbole. motorists are CONSTANTLY in lanes other than ones they want to turn from, and have to look and yield to traffic to THEIR right before crossing a lane and turning.....
Where is is legal to right turn from the inside lane and cross the outside lane? Right turns in most states to be legal must be made from the right most lane or from as close as practicable to the right edge of the roadway.

Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 10:14 AM
  #486  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
al- real simple.

two lanes. wether they are preferred class lanes is irrelevant.

vehicle on inside lane wants to turn right. motorist needs to look and yield to traffic to the outside, look and yield before getting across that lane.

Basic rules of the road - you can't cross a lane without looking and yielding.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 10:17 AM
  #487  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,603

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3329 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
al- real simple.

two lanes. wether they are preferred class lanes is irrelevant.

vehicle on inside lane wants to turn right. motorist needs to look and yield to traffic to the outside, look and yield before getting across that lane.

Basic rules of the road - you can't cross a lane without looking and yielding.
I think you are mixing up merging into lanes with crossing them.

Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 10:26 AM
  #488  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
nope. vehicles are constantly 'out of lane position' and forced to look and yield to traffic in a lane further over crossingm yielding, merging or turning.....

basic rules of the road DEMAND IT.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 10:35 AM
  #489  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,603

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3329 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
nope. vehicles are constantly 'out of lane position' and forced to look and yield to traffic in a lane further over crossingm yielding, merging or turning.....

basic rules of the road DEMAND IT.
Once again where is it legal to cross over another lane (other than a bike lane and in rare cases bus lanes) to make a right turn? Crossing a lane to make a right turn is an abnormal traffic pattern.

Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 11:09 AM
  #490  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
let's not try to beat it to death, eh al?

I was just pointing out how there are commonplace and everyday situations on the road when motorists have to look and yield to traffic in lanes further over before making a turn. wether they need to enter the lane, use it as a travel lane, merge into it or otherwise turn across it is ancillary to my point.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 11:13 AM
  #491  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,310

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6383 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
Once again where is it legal to cross over another lane (other than a bike lane and in rare cases bus lanes) to make a right turn? Crossing a lane to make a right turn is an abnormal traffic pattern.

Al
Well, in most places you are supposed to merge into that lane... only in Oregon are you supposed to "cross it."
genec is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 11:14 AM
  #492  
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
I think you are mixing up merging into lanes with crossing them.
There is a bit of controversy on how motorists are supposed to execute a right turn when a bike lane is present. There is an animation of two methods here: http://blog.oregonlive.com/multimedi...animation.html

LAB endorses the California style (merge and then turn.) I believe the Oregon law requiring drives to cross a bike lane is not the standard model used in the states. So unless specified I personally feel that the merge and turn can be assumed but that's just me.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 11:20 AM
  #493  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,603

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3329 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
let's not try to beat it to death, eh al?

I was just pointing out how there are commonplace and everyday situations on the road when motorists have to look and yield to traffic in lanes further over before making a turn.
You were accusing another poster of being obtuse when they clearly spelled out the reason turning across bike lanes is different than any other traffic flow. It seems to be you are intentionally trying to blur the line between merging into the outside lane and then turning vs. turning across the outside lane from the inside.

So once again there are situations every day where motorists have to look and yield to other traffic before merging into the lane it is in. There is no everyday situation (except the case of bike lanes) where motorists have to look and yield to traffic before turning across the lane it is in.

Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 11:22 AM
  #494  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,603

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3329 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Genec, THC,
I am aware of the different requirements for right turning when bike lanes are present in OR/AZ vs. CA. The laws are different because there is a difference between turning across vs. merging and turning and the laws attempt to clarify which method is correct/legal for the areas the law covers. Merging and turning is a normal traffic pattern. Turning across is not.
Al

Last edited by noisebeam; 03-25-08 at 11:27 AM.
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 11:26 AM
  #495  
ChipSeal
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
 
ChipSeal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
There is a bit of controversy on how motorists are supposed to execute a right turn when a bike lane is present. There is an animation of two methods here: http://blog.oregonlive.com/multimedi...animation.html

LAB endorses the California style (merge and then turn.) I believe the Oregon law requiring drives to cross a bike lane is not the standard model used in the states. So unless specified I personally feel that the merge and turn can be assumed but that's just me.
Depending on the vehicle and the radius of the turn at the intersection. Long vehicles such as trucks and busses may not be able to merge into a bike lane and then execute a right turn without encroaching onto the sidewalk.
ChipSeal is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 07:55 PM
  #496  
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819

Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have no argument that looking for bikes in the bikelane isn't habitual for many people, but it's not that hard to learn and remember, nor is is contrary to any 'normal' traffic operation, the shrill whining from the VC peanut gallery notwithstanding.

The point is, it is a basic rule to give way to through traffic when turning - show me a rule that contradicts it - but due to the relative rarity of these events, many drivers simply haven't formed the habit. Forming good scanning habits is a fundamental requirement of safe driving, and anyone arguing that drivers should never have to adjust to new conditions with new habits is a fool. Whether or not it's 'normal' is irrelevant, it's just the safest and simplest way to reduce conflict at this type of intersection, or at least have someone to penalise when conflict occurs. If there are still problems at some intersections, only then should expensive engineering solutions be considered.

Personally, I reckon the simplest way to remind drivers is with signage admonishing them to give way to traffic in the bikelane when turning. It fits in with the established system, and is easy enough to follow. I don't see why compliance wouldn't be high, but if it isn't, simply start ticketing people.

It's all a storm in a teacup, but the VCists do love a good drama.
Allister is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 08:37 PM
  #497  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Allister View Post
I have no argument that looking for bikes in the bikelane isn't habitual for many people, but it's not that hard to learn and remember, nor is is contrary to any 'normal' traffic operation, the shrill whining from the VC peanut gallery notwithstanding.

The point is, it is a basic rule to give way to through traffic when turning - show me a rule that contradicts it - but due to the relative rarity of these events, many drivers simply haven't formed the habit. Forming good scanning habits is a fundamental requirement of safe driving, and anyone arguing that drivers should never have to adjust to new conditions with new habits is a fool. Whether or not it's 'normal' is irrelevant, it's just the safest and simplest way to reduce conflict at this type of intersection, or at least have someone to penalise when conflict occurs. If there are still problems at some intersections, only then should expensive engineering solutions be considered.

Personally, I reckon the simplest way to remind drivers is with signage admonishing them to give way to traffic in the bikelane when turning. It fits in with the established system, and is easy enough to follow. I don't see why compliance wouldn't be high, but if it isn't, simply start ticketing people.

It's all a storm in a teacup, but the VCists do love a good drama.
Allister, your have ignored human capabilities, known as human factors in the trade, when you argue that all it takes is instruction to look for traffic approaching behind you when turning right (or left in your nation). The analysis that this movement places much more strain on the turning driver's abilities was done and published more than thirty years ago. Furthermore, even before this analysis, standard road design and standard traffic operating rules had developed in just this way as the result of practical experience.
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-25-08, 09:08 PM
  #498  
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819

Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Allister, your have ignored human capabilities, known as human factors in the trade, when you argue that all it takes is instruction to look for traffic approaching behind you when turning right (or left in your nation). The analysis that this movement places much more strain on the turning driver's abilities was done and published more than thirty years ago. Furthermore, even before this analysis, standard road design and standard traffic operating rules had developed in just this way as the result of practical experience.
And you're ingoring the fact that I've ridden through intersections to the right of potential right turning traffic, with and without bikelanes, hundreds, if not thousands of times in perfect safety. The times I've been left hooked is few (less than once a year), and those that did try either made it with me only needing to brake, or they backed off when they figured they weren't going to make it. I have never once actually been hit by a left crossing car. The drivers I share the road with on a daily basis seem to have figured it out. Maybe American motorists are just too stupid.

I've even made left turns from the right lane across through car traffic on the bike. It's just a matter of picking the gap, and not being concerned about having to brake a bit earlier for the turn. I don't know why you think it's so damn hard.
Allister is offline  
Old 03-26-08, 08:40 AM
  #499  
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5,862

Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Allister View Post
I have no argument that looking for bikes in the bikelane isn't habitual for many people, but it's not that hard to learn and remember, nor is is contrary to any 'normal' traffic operation, the shrill whining from the VC peanut gallery notwithstanding.

The point is, it is a basic rule to give way to through traffic when turning - show me a rule that contradicts it - but due to the relative rarity of these events, many drivers simply haven't formed the habit. Forming good scanning habits is a fundamental requirement of safe driving, and anyone arguing that drivers should never have to adjust to new conditions with new habits is a fool. Whether or not it's 'normal' is irrelevant, it's just the safest and simplest way to reduce conflict at this type of intersection, or at least have someone to penalise when conflict occurs. If there are still problems at some intersections, only then should expensive engineering solutions be considered.

Personally, I reckon the simplest way to remind drivers is with signage admonishing them to give way to traffic in the bikelane when turning. It fits in with the established system, and is easy enough to follow. I don't see why compliance wouldn't be high, but if it isn't, simply start ticketing people.

It's all a storm in a teacup, but the VCists do love a good drama.
It is hard for me to quantify the change in risk from having drivers turn right across bike lanes; but I think that it is more difficult than you describe for drivers to change habits. More generally, if we think about most accidents, all it would take to avoid them is a little more care and patience. Yet people make silly mistakes all of the time. My opinion is that cars waiting to the left to make a right-hand turn is just another small hurdle for a driver to make another silly mistake.

Hmmmm, did the passage make any sense?
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
invisiblehand is offline  
Old 03-26-08, 09:25 AM
  #500  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,310

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6383 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Allister, your have ignored human capabilities, known as human factors in the trade, when you argue that all it takes is instruction to look for traffic approaching behind you when turning right (or left in your nation). The analysis that this movement places much more strain on the turning driver's abilities was done and published more than thirty years ago. Furthermore, even before this analysis, standard road design and standard traffic operating rules had developed in just this way as the result of practical experience.
Uh John, more then 30 years ago when the "analysis" and "argument" was made, the typical auto did not have mandatory right hand side mirrors... which make checking a lane behind and to the right quite easy these days.

Your argument is therefore null and void. Times have changed. Give up the Hupmobile...
genec is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.