[HN Gopher] Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic
___________________________________________________________________
Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic
Author : pseudolus
Score : 136 points
Date : 2021-06-06 12:06 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theconversation.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theconversation.com)
| mastrsushi wrote:
| Sick of dangerous city traffic? Leave
| tengbretson wrote:
| Existing on only 2 dimensions has made my life much simpler and
| safer.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| Actually the safest way to make cities less dangerous is to just
| ban people from going outside.
| pixel_tracing wrote:
| Yes banning left turns will definitely stop drivers from illegal
| left turns /s
| johnwalkr wrote:
| Trains.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| James Dean died in an accident caused by just that:
| "Intersections are dangerous because they are where cars, often
| moving very fast and in different directions, must cross paths."
|
| "As Turnupseed's Ford crossed over the center line..."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_James_Dean
|
| Redacted photo (save, only the street is shown), that shows the
| intersected lines: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-scene-of-
| james-dean-crash-...
| ravenstine wrote:
| Better yet, replace intersections with roundabouts. But that
| would mean knocking down a lot of buildings.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Roundabouts have better throughput in most cases, but have
| higher variance for time to complete transit, as one strong
| stream of cars from a single direction can choke off the
| alternative directions.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Roundabouts are fantastic for the low to mid traffic density
| case. When you get into proper city traffic density it can
| start to become very problematic, particularly if you don't
| have a good solution for pedestrians or cyclists to bypass each
| roundabout crossing. Even with that roundabouts tend to get a
| bit chaotic once they reach the point of "is expected to have a
| constant stream of cars in it for the next 2 hours" which can
| get particularly troublesome if the traffic in each direction
| is unbalanced and you get people awkwardly changing up yielding
| rules to let the one person going east-west in or that person
| tries to floor it to make it in an iffy gap. Also if you're
| relying on them as the only means of left turn (via u-turn) the
| wait times can significantly increase on busy roundabouts.
|
| That being said I absolutely love roundabouts in low/mid
| density areas. They finally converted the street I live on from
| 4 "pack cars into wait groups" stoplights and 1 "the highway
| just turned into an avenue and this is the first extended
| stoplight for that" into "never stop heaven" whether you want
| to just continue through or hop on the highway by putting a
| bunch of roundabouts and a dogbone underpass in and removing
| left turns for most of the avenue.
|
| For proper city areas I'm almost certain better results would
| be achieved by using the space for any form of mass transit
| instead of more road. That and I shudder to think of roundabout
| traffic in a bumper to bumper scenario when one of the arteries
| out of the city gets blocked for 10 minutes (or months of
| construction).
| amelius wrote:
| Or just remove cars from the city altogether.
| [deleted]
| rob_c wrote:
| Probably one on the most American articles I've read in a
| while... "Great job team"...
|
| Also, I wonder the impact of introducing proper diving tests and
| learning to drive.
| bullfightonmars wrote:
| Design plays and engineering play a massive role in the safety
| of streets. Q: People make mistakes regardless of training. How
| do you dolve those problems? A: You work to understand them and
| then eliminate them with intentional action.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Once again, a clear warning that an article is US-specific
| would be nice.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Agreed. Advice to "avoid left turns " is not directly
| applicable to "drive on the left" countries.
| andylynch wrote:
| It does closely enough, here it would just translate to
| 'avoid right turns' or 'avoid turns across opposing
| traffic'.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Did you see the word "directly" in the above sentence?
|
| yes, it's interpretable after reading the article. It's
| not a simple or accurate headline, though. As per
| grandparent comment, " a clear warning that an article is
| US-specific would be nice."
| failwhaleshark wrote:
| And right turns for those driving on the wrong side of the road.
| ;-)
| acd wrote:
| Actually to have safer cities remove cars from the traffic
| equation. A city without cars will be safer and cleaner for
| pedestrians and bikes. Air quality will also be better.
| dionidium wrote:
| And _quieter_. You 'll often hear that cities are noisy places,
| but they aren't, really; it's just that _cars_ are very loud.
| neolog wrote:
| Trains and buses are loud too.
| benrbray wrote:
| Yes please! It's unfortunate that this article and so many
| others focus on how we can design roads to be safer and more
| convenient for _drivers_ , often requiring larger traffic
| control devices that make cities even more unnavigable for the
| rest of us.
|
| You know what's crazier the more I think about it, that the
| article doesn't even mention? With turn-on-red, and an
| abundance of intersections without dedicated left-turn signals,
| pedestrian crossings in America are rarely protected. Turners-
| on-red rarely come to a stop, and are usually looking to the
| left, meaning they don't notice a crossing pedestrian until the
| last minute. Same for left-turners, who are paying more
| attention to the opposite lane. When left-turners misjudge the
| speed of oncoming traffic, you can bet they'll sooner
| accelerate into a pedestrian in the crosswalk than allow the
| oncoming car to hit them.
|
| I ran into this problem (or rather, this problem nearly ran
| into me) quite often in Atlanta, where many impatient drivers
| use neighborhood streets to leapfrog standstill highway
| traffic. On the bright side, the city is experimenting with
| scramble crossings, which feel quite a bit safer to me.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Whew glad to find others saying the same thing. Optimizing
| car usage in cities is just such a painful misallocation of
| research effort to read about.
|
| Only saving grace is bike roundabouts really are nice. And if
| we had bike lines grade separated from pedestrians
| everywhere[1], it could be quite fast even to the point where
| roundabouts are necessary because the alternative of
| constantly burning energy on deceleration is so annoying.
|
| [1]: A dangerous and macho-sounding idea I nonetheless will
| involuntary think about every red light.
| Lammy wrote:
| Yeah, and anybody who can't afford to buy a home in the city
| should just stop coming here. Maybe they should all have to
| leave by sundown too :)
| phobosanomaly wrote:
| They can have multiple free-of-charge parking garages on the
| outskirts that are associated with a light rail system.
|
| So you park, hop on the metro, and head into the city without
| having to worry about the nightmare of parking or the stop-
| and-go traffic.
|
| I never, ever drive into LA. I use the free parking at an
| outlying metro station and ride the train in (20 min). You
| can even leave your vehicle overnight so you can go out for
| drinks and crash at a friends place (even if you don't train
| runs until 2am). It's a night-and-day improvement on having
| to sit in traffic on the freeway, spend 40 minutes finding
| street parking, worry if someone is going to steal your
| catalytic converter, etc.
|
| An added benefit is that I go into the city much more often
| than I otherwise would because I know that the whole process
| is pretty stress-free.
| drran wrote:
| Why not just extend a light rail system to suburbs? It will
| be much faster to have point-to-point rail than car + rail.
| Lammy wrote:
| > Why not just extend a light rail system to suburbs?
|
| The question we should be asking is more like "why did we
| tear them all up"? Lots of US metro areas did have this
| until demographics changed in the mid-20th-century and
| anti-growth/anti-housing/anti-mobility mindsets took
| over.
|
| You see it in eastern cities, like the Cincinatti Subway
| that was canceled forever in 1928:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Subway
|
| Why their change in attitude? "[Cincinnati's] strategic
| location also provided a prime destination for migrants,
| who did not desire to go too far north and wanted to
| maintain some proximity to their southern home.
| Additionally, Cincinnati was not as large as some other
| northern cities, and thus it offered cheaper housing
| prices for migrants. By 1930, 34264 of Cincinnati's
| African American residents were Southern-born,
| constituting 71.4% of the city's Black population."
| https://jackdelisiohist415.wordpress.com/the-great-
| migration...
|
| The Bay Area is a similar story and had several
| electric(!!) interurban rail systems:
|
| - Until 1934: the Valley connected to San Jose and to the
| Southern Pacific main line at Mayfield (Palo Alto):
| https://rodsinks.com/images/1915map.png https://en.wikipe
| dia.org/wiki/Peninsular_Railway_(California...
|
| - Until 1941: most of Marin County connected to San
| Francisco via ferry from Sausalito:
| https://i.imgur.com/GR4Trvv.jpg https://www.mendorailhist
| ory.org/1_railroads/nwp/interurban....
|
| - Until 1948: Contra Costa cities connected to San
| Francisco via ferry and eventually the Bay Bridge:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System https://www.foun
| dsf.org/index.php?title=Key_System_and_March...
|
| - Until 1941: San Francisco connected to Oakland,
| Berkeley, Walnut Creek, Pittsburgh etc, then rail ferry
| over Suisun Bay, then on to Sacramento, Woodland, Yuba
| City, Oroville, and as far north as Chico!
| https://www.american-
| rails.com/images/4320087869038472230602...
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento_Northern_Railway
|
| Meanwhile back in 2021 are just now electrifying the
| Caltrain corridor, and the same areas that shut down
| their original electric rail systems also successfully
| fought off BART in the '60s:
|
| - This was the planned first phase of BART:
| https://i.imgur.com/hVT6fya.jpg
|
| - And this was the way it was imagined to expand:
| https://i.imgur.com/TQ3PNL0.jpg
|
| What changed around 1940 and made Bay Area voters hate
| transit and housing? Same old, same old :( https://belong
| ing.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/blacks_ch...
| ryansc0tt wrote:
| For sure! Although this is a pipe dream in the real world. We
| should work towards solutions for today as well as advocating
| for fewer cars in the long-term.
| burlesona wrote:
| One of the best ways to eliminate left turns is to replace four
| way intersections with roundabouts. This has the advantage of
| working even where there isn't a grid to facilitate the "3 right
| turns" strategy.
|
| For a great description of why this is so effective, see the
| recent freakonomics podcast:
| https://freakonomics.com/podcast/roundabouts/
| kibwen wrote:
| As a pedestrian and a cyclist, please, no. I don't trust
| crossing a lane of traffic unless traffic is fully stopped, and
| nobody expects to stop in a roundabout, so I don't even feel
| safe using the crosswalks and hoping that the traffic will
| yield. Let cars come to a complete stop.
| whatevertrevor wrote:
| I think this is a pertinent point to the way roundabouts are
| implemented and used in North America. Cars are almost always
| going too fast on their exit from the roundabout, which
| renders the "yield" sign on the exit side crosswalks defunct.
| Not to mention that if they do yield to a pedestrian there,
| the crosswalks are close enough to the roundabout that they
| might be impeding traffic in the roundabout itself.
|
| The crosswalks in the roundabout need to be moved away from
| the circle itself significantly (10-15m at least) for
| roundabouts to be safe for cyclists and pedestrians. At least
| for the way they are used in North America IME.
| toast0 wrote:
| Roundabouts in the busy city center would be terrible. Where
| roundabouts fit best is in intersections with low demand,
| because they have low capacity, and there's no reasonable way
| to increase capacity.
|
| If it's the urban core busy city center where there are
| skyscrapers right up to the lot line, there's no room for a
| roundabout unless you're willing to make 'round a bumps' or
| carve some footprint out of the buildings at traffic level.
|
| If it's the busy city center where you've got four lane surface
| streets intersecting with each direction having two straight
| through lanes, one right turn lane and one or two left turn
| lanes, a roundabout is never going to manage that kind of
| throughput by forcing all those people into a single lane to
| get into the roundabout at low speeds.
|
| You may have fewer collisions, and of course very few of them
| will be during left turns, but you'll also reduce the utility
| of the roads connected to the roundabout, which will likely
| move traffic to other roads. Also, a collision in the
| roundabout stops the roundabout, which makes it hard to respond
| if people are injured or vehiclea disabled.
|
| Traffic signals with 'protected' lefts don't stop people from
| going against the signal, but they do stop a lot of people from
| trying to make a gap that they really shouldn't. Sometimes a
| three-way signal timing pattern is appropriate; for the main
| direction, opposing traffic has greens for straight
| simultaneous (with cycles for protected left if appropriate),
| and for the other direction, each side gets a green for
| straight and left one side at a time.
| bombcar wrote:
| Roundabouts can be made to handle high-traffic - supplemented
| by stop lights if necessary - satellite view Tijuana for some
| examples.
|
| The thing is until people are used to them - which can take
| years if not decades - they can be slower. And they can be
| hard to retrofit into older locations. In cities it may be
| better to turn streets to one way (making all turns "right
| turns" effectively).
| spurgu wrote:
| Valencia, Spain is another example. I was confused in the
| beginning but after a day or so it felt comfortable. They
| have ~4 lanes in the roundabouts.
|
| Edit: 7 lanes in this particular one:
| https://goo.gl/maps/HpFvtHeFTC5om81NA :o
| arrosenberg wrote:
| CDMX as well, although some of their roundabouts move in
| both directions, which is both insane and appeared to be
| the worst of all worlds.
| Swizec wrote:
| Many roundabouts are multilane and the design in general has
| higher throughput than a typical intersection because drivers
| don't need to stop. Traffic is always flowing.
|
| You are right that they require a slightly bigger footprint.
|
| https://www.acsengineers.com.au/2016/08/22/roundabouts-vs-
| tr...
|
| The biggest roundabout I've personally driven was an
| intersection of 2 freeways and a major city throughfare. 5
| lanes in the circle itself, all at speeds up to 90kph.
|
| They've since added stoplights on it because people were
| being dumb and blowing through the whole thing at ridiculous
| speeds.
|
| https://images.app.goo.gl/jpzgxUyQDoqe81y38
| Stevvo wrote:
| Cities in Europe are full of roundabouts in the busy city
| center, we don't have four way intersections. It's not
| terrible; it's safer. They handle the throughput better than
| intersections, because the flow is usually uninterrupted.
| MarcScott wrote:
| You should visit the UK and get a native to drive you around
| some city centres. We have the full range of roundabouts from
| massive, traffic light controlled, multi-lain and chain-
| linked junctions, down to tiny roundabouts that are little
| more than a circular bump in the road.
|
| It's rare that I stop at a junction that requires me to cross
| a traffic flow, lights or no lights, that I don't wish that a
| roundabout had been put there instead.
|
| Collisions can at times bring a roundabout to a halt, but
| more often than not, people just use common sense and move
| around any obstacle, while maintaining as much lain
| discipline as they can.
|
| Cyclists, so long as they behave as if they are cars, also
| rarely have issues at roundabouts. I'm quite accustomed, in
| my area, to following a cyclist around a roundabout, paying
| attention to their hand signals, and giving them plenty of
| space.
|
| Basically, it comes down to training and practice. In the UK,
| if you can't handle a variety of roundabouts, you'll fail
| your driving test.
| jwdunne wrote:
| Manchester is full of them. Majority of junctions on the
| M60, the motorway circling the city, have roundabouts after
| you come off / before you get on.
|
| In fact, there are two roundabouts in Worsley/Walkden.
| Though those cause a huge amount of traffic in rush hour.
|
| Pretty much any journey I take in the UK involves at least
| one and could be upwards of 10 to 20 for longer distance
| drives.
| jeffbee wrote:
| There shouldn't be cars at all in busy city centers.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Zababa wrote:
| As a French, it's really surprising to see how other people
| from other countries aren't used to roundabouts. I really like
| how diverse roundabouts are here. Some are arranged like
| gardens, some have flowers, some have sculptures, some have
| decorations made by the local school.
|
| A funny anecdote: we used to go to Pontarlier from time to time
| because our grandparents had a house here. Every time we went,
| we saw that [1] awful roundabout. A few years ago, it was
| elected as the ugliest roundabout in France.
|
| https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/image/Zb2s5pOo3hJVEK...
|
| (Edit: I've edited the link to point the correct roundabout.
| The previous link was https://sf1am.autojournal.fr/wp-
| content/uploads/sites/9/2018...)
| dolmen wrote:
| Place de l'Etoile in Paris is one of the most famous
| roundabout.
|
| http://www.champselysees-paris.com/images/sightseeing-
| images...
| koolba wrote:
| Is that a thumb?!
| Zababa wrote:
| Sorry, this was the wrong link but yes this one is a thumb.
| rrobukef wrote:
| You know, it's kinda cool. If that's the worst roundabout in
| France...
| rjsw wrote:
| The French are not very good at using roundabouts IME, they
| don't indicate which exit they intend to use.
| jethack wrote:
| Just making sure this isn't a misunderstanding: Roundabout
| signaling laws and conventions vary between countries, and
| in some countries you're supposed to signal your intent
| both entering and exiting the roundabout, while in some you
| only signal at the exit. I'm not sure about French
| conventions, but in some European countries (Germany, some
| Eastern European countries, probably others) indicating
| before the roundabout is actually illegal.
| alksjdalkj wrote:
| I'm a little skeptical that it would be safer for pedestrians
| and bikes. Bikes need to merge with traffic already in the
| roundabout instead of simply going straight through an
| intersection, and pedestrians would need to always check for
| oncoming cars rather than being able to mostly rely on lights
| telling them when they can cross.
|
| But then most of my experience with roundabouts is with large,
| multilane roundabouts so the traffic is still pretty fast -
| maybe smaller roundabouts with significantly slower traffic
| would be safer than I'm picturing.
| orthoxerox wrote:
| Proper Dutch-style roundabouts have the path for cyclists
| that follows the sidewalk, not the car lane.
|
| https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alternative_dutch_.
| ..
|
| Multi-lane intersections on major roads should just have a
| left-turn lane with a separate signal phase.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Unless it's a motorway-style roundabout with many multiple
| lanes and high velocity traffic, I much prefer to "pretend
| to be a car" when I cycle through roundabouts. The busiest
| roundabout I regularly cycle through has 2 lanes and 6
| roads intersect at it. I can't imagine wanting to use it if
| I had to operate outside the basic rules of roundabouts.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Something like this?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5l48_h5Eo
|
| Mode separation for motor, bicycle, and foot traffic; all
| traffic crosses as close to 90 degrees as possible (for
| visibility reasons); priority markings on pavement; speed
| bump on one of the entrances to slow traffic; and a lot
| more features I couldn't tell you about.
|
| ( I sometimes watch
| https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/ , but I'm no
| traffic expert )
| ryukafalz wrote:
| If you have a bike path alongside the car lanes, they seem to
| work really well. See this one for example - the red paved
| path is for bikes: https://i.redd.it/1vfvbvntky411.jpg
|
| The bike path crosses before the point where cars merge in,
| so the driver's attention isn't split. Also, it may not be
| obvious from the picture, but the car lanes are raised to the
| level of the bike path where they intersect.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| The problem with these roundabouts is that a car driver
| cannot simply "exit the roundabout". They have to watch
| front, side and rear for cyclists. IMHO a roundabout should
| only ever impede traffic on entry. Once you're in the
| roundabout your journey around and out should be entirely
| unimpeded. Following the basic principles, there should
| never be a situation where a vehicle is going around the
| outter circumference of the roundabout blocking a vehicle
| from exiting. (Even a bicycle)
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Only the front in theory: the crossing with the bicycle
| path is fairly close to 90 degrees. Even so -in practice-
| you should be checking side and rear anytime you make any
| turn on any kind of intersection (you fail the dutch
| driving exam if you forget even just once).
|
| I agree that even ideally-er the journey out should be
| 100% unimpeded, but in practice this setup seems to work
| ok. See also video I posted for you, above. :-)
| whatevertrevor wrote:
| What if they moved the bike/pedestrian crossings to
| further along the lanes away from the roundabout? This
| would give more room for the cars to exit the roundabout
| without encountering immediate cross traffic, and more
| "collection space" on the exit itself so if a driver does
| have to stop to let a pedestrian/cyclist through they
| don't impede the roundabout traffic.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Posted video link of this type of roundabout in action
| just above (
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27415631 )
|
| There's just sufficient space for 1 car to tuck in each
| time.
|
| Note that the priority here is not necessarily to
| maximize _car_ throughput at all costs; but to ensure
| safety for all modes of traffic; and to do so inside a
| given amount of space and cost.
|
| Given a different set of parameters, a different
| intersection type might be chosen.
|
| (+) That said, note in the video that there's a
| significant number of people using the bicycle lane and
| pedestrian path; I think they're carrying more people
| than the car lanes here. I'm not a traffic expert, but
| forcing the denser traffic to take a longer route in
| favor of the less dense traffic does not seem like the
| right choice here. ;-)
| tvphan wrote:
| Uh I live next to a roundabout (single lane) and it's the
| safest thing ever. I'm guessing you're American?
| failwhaleshark wrote:
| Two wrongs don't make a left, but 3 rights do.
| ajuc wrote:
| Try that in this city :)
|
| http://szczecinblog.pl/wp-
| content/uploads/2011/07/historyczn...
|
| I've visited it a few years ago and I found myself accidently
| going in circles constantly :)
| failwhaleshark wrote:
| Round and round we go... You just wanted to take the very
| scenic route to make sure you didn't miss anything. ;-)
| grantpalin wrote:
| Not hard to get into that situation here if you don't know
| which way you are going: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.63
| 02508,-123.4122954,275m/da...
| failwhaleshark wrote:
| Swindon's 7 rings of fiery death doesn't need _right turns_ or
| stop lights.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| But people don't know how to use them and just make it a free
| for all. Look no further than the Boston metro area for how
| this actually shakes out.
| perlgeek wrote:
| 15 to 20 years ago when roundabouts were first introduced to
| where I live (southern Germany), people were pretty terrible
| at using them.
|
| After about 5-10 years, people have gotten the hang of it,
| new drivers were properly educated in driving school, now
| they work fine.
|
| You've got to have a little patience, and actually expose
| people to it, then it works out fine.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People don't know how to
| use them because they never encounter them. Once they've been
| around for a while, people will encounter them and learn how
| to use them.
| landemva wrote:
| If Americans can put down their mobile phones and
| concentrate on the driving.
| teaman2000 wrote:
| There are lots of roundabouts in the Boston area (where we
| call them rotaries). People encounter them regularly and
| STILL don't know how to use them. Although recently there
| have been great strides made in using lane markings to
| steer drivers through more effectively.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Came here to say this. Yes, it can slow down traffic in some
| cases but preemptively installing roundabouts in little-used
| intersections next to parks can save headaches of wandering
| kids getting flattened.
| natmaka wrote:
| See also "Why UPS drivers don't turn left and you probably
| shouldn't either" at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25379743
| masklinn wrote:
| That definitely doesn't apply. UPS drivers have routes with
| multiple stops. Planning routes to avoid left turns is a very
| different (much more feasible, convenient, and efficient) than
| going from A to B without left turns.
| brezina wrote:
| This article is so auto-centric, the author only considers the
| safety of people inside cars. Banning left turns in cities is a
| GREAT idea! The group of people most threatened by left turning
| cars are people walking. Control F for "pedestrian" or "walk" in
| this article. Nothing. American traffic engineering is so car-
| dominant, they fail to consider the most vulnerable road users.
| Pedestrian fatalities in the USA are at 30 year highs. Design for
| the healthy human living habitat we desperately need. Good human
| habitat requires safe walking infrastructure for humans of all
| ages, sizes & abilities.
| dghughes wrote:
| My city has implemented a displaced left turn. It goes bynother
| names.
|
| Traffic wanting to turn left is shunted leftwards before the main
| intersection. Then in its own left lane left turning traffic
| turns left when all other traffic goes straight except for right
| turns. Right turning vehicles have their own light.
| awillen wrote:
| If you found this interesting, I highly recommend the book Street
| Fight by Janette Sadik-Khan. She was the Commissioner of the
| NYDOT, and she was able to make really meaningful improvements by
| looking at relatively easy, low-cost solutions that didn't
| require enormous political capital. Things like expanding the
| sidewalk at corners out into the lane where cars are parked,
| which reduces the length of crosswalks and lowers pedestrian
| injuries. It's not just an interesting book about transportation
| infrastructure, it also really has some great lessons for
| startups about finding ways to make change in large, hairy
| systems where many of the participants don't want change.
| nabilhat wrote:
| The photos in the article are irrelevant to both subject of the
| title - city streets, and turning left away from controlled
| intersections: The intersections are large, arterial-scale,
| rather than typical surface streets in a city. Both have medians
| to prevent left turns away from the signalled intersections.
|
| The first photo also provides an example of a left turn lane
| blocked by a t-bone crash of two drivers who appear to have not
| been turning at the time of their crash. That's one way to stop
| drivers from turning left, but perhaps not the best possible
| traffic control strategy.
|
| Side note - Based on a quick search of the article's tagline,
| this article was simultaneously broadcast across many outlets on
| June 2nd, 2021 [0]. Someone had a motivation to get this
| distributed far and wide.
|
| [0]
| https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22sick+of+dangerous+city+traffic%...
| bostonabrams wrote:
| Nothing evil about the motivation: this article is from The
| Conversation (my employer) and we distribute all of our
| articles widely under a Creative Commons license:
| https://theconversation.com/us/republishing-guidelines
|
| Our motivation is to publish articles by experts sharing their
| knowledge and spark discussion, as has been done here on Hacker
| News: https://theconversation.com/us/who-we-are
| lamontcg wrote:
| There's a lot of really idiotic left turns across multiple lanes
| of traffic which are allowed outside of traffic light controlled
| intersections. Those lead directly to the "wave of death"
| situation where people (if they've been explicitly given such a
| wave or not) tend to try to bolt across traffic that they can't
| see coming.
|
| A traffic safety solution would be to just eliminate those left
| turns and run the lane divider bumps down the middle of those
| roads. Businesses would probably scream quite a bit since left
| turns into their parking lots would no longer be possible, but
| you'd cut out a ton of accidents. Suicide lanes turning across
| multiple lane would also similarly need to be removed.
|
| There are a ton of drivers who try to push through deeply stupid
| left turns in the middle of heavy traffic, because they're
| technically legal. Even making them do a U-turn at the next light
| would be safer (or yes, roundabouts, please).
| dorfsmay wrote:
| Google maps, and other similar routing apps, should offer a no
| left turn option!
| cameronh90 wrote:
| And while we're at it, in the UK at least they should have an
| option for not sending you down bidirectional single track
| roads.
|
| No, that 35 mile drive down twisty single track country lane
| with occasional passing spots will not save any time over the
| 40 mile motorway. Even if the road is _technically_ 60mph,
| you'll never reach that speed unless you're on a motorbike...
| hambast wrote:
| Oh I hate this so much. Driving in any rural area like Dorset
| it'll suggest lanes you'd struggle to fit 2 bicycles abreast.
| They offer a 'no motorways' option but I'd love a 'minimum
| double track' or whatever.
| somehnacct3757 wrote:
| There's this awful route Google Maps will give you, through
| the twisty back roads of SF because it thinks it can get you
| to the 101 faster. But it's sending everyone that way, so
| there's huge traffic on these narrow neighborhood roads. It's
| not a shortcut if everyone knows about it.
|
| I think map apps should be optimizing for something more
| complex, like least amount of directions within a five minute
| arrival window. Saving two minutes of driving time isn't
| worth having to make eight more turns.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Agreed - a "least hassle" route would be better.
|
| Google maps has sent me on some really werid routes with
| endless turns left, right right left right right right left
| left right left etc etc vs just staying on a main road with
| only one or two turns for only an extra couple of minutes
| minutes more
|
| I'd be more than happy to stay on the easy main roads and
| turn once or twice rather than hack through the backstreets
| just to save <5% distance/time
| suyjuris wrote:
| > I think map apps should be optimizing for something more
| complex, like least amount of directions within a five
| minute arrival window. Saving two minutes of driving time
| isn't worth having to make eight more turns.
|
| One issue is, as you say, that shortest-path routing can
| overload individual roads. There is an interesting and
| related concept in theoretical CS: oblivious routing.
| Instead of solving "What is the shortest route to my
| target?" locally, you try to determine a selection of
| routes that, if followed by every participant, minimise
| congestion (the maximum amount of vehicles over any road,
| relative to its capacity). Surprisingly, it is always
| possible to determine such routes, even if they are not
| allowed to depend on traffic conditions (how many vehicles
| try to go from A to B, how many from C to D, etc) -- this
| is what the "oblivious" refers to.
|
| Of course, that does not solve the problem of route
| complexity.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Heck, I'd be thrilled by a "avoid intersections where the
| bottom 20% of drivers get stuck waiting for several minutes
| trying to make the turn" option.
|
| 99% of the time I wouldn't use it. But the 1% of the time that
| I'm doing something stupid the last thing I need is a
| extraneous hard intersections.
|
| It's not like Google doesn't have the location data to figure
| out the difference between intersections where traffic is slow
| and steady vs where people routinely get stuck.
| bombcar wrote:
| I use the "alternate route" hints for this - if the left turn
| looks dicey (not protected, busy) I'll keep going and let it
| reroute. Usually finds a stop light.
| jakubp wrote:
| While I don't know of the safety impact of removing left turns,
| the actual trip time impact in a busy city is severely
| understated. In my city (700k people), an old European town, city
| center has seen the removal of a few key left turns in the past
| few years. Consequences for traffic outside city center: probably
| none. Consequences if you want to drive from within the city
| center to the outside (e.g. go back from a shopping mall /
| restaurant / business meeting): walk further (many places to park
| are inaccessible) back to the car, drive a block or two more than
| you normally would. Extra time: +5 minutes to walk, +10 minutes
| for those 1-2 blocks (traffic is heavy).
|
| Now the "best" part: Consequences if you want to drive into the
| city center: you need to make a sequence of correct turns 1-2
| kilometers before your target, and if you don't, you are punished
| with extra 20 minutes in traffic at least (and still won't land
| where you wanted) - there is simply no route to where you wanted
| to go unless you pick 1 specific ideal route which many drivers
| don't know. Results: if you know the city / have good gps (Google
| Maps sometimes gets it wrong) +10 minutes in traffic, if you
| don't - + 20-30 minutes in traffic.
|
| [edit] You may ask "why you can't do a triple-right-turn?" that's
| because the city center is not a grid. Many streets are don't
| have cross-paths for long stretches around historical part of the
| city.
|
| Now the really painful part... Your trip outside the city center
| is only 5-10 minutes. Losing an EXTRA 20 minutes is a huge loss,
| it makes the ttrip almost as bad as walking - but inside a car.
| Bad for everyone really.
|
| My main beef is with the fact that many places in the city become
| almost inaccessible due to a huge reduction in possible routes.
| E.g. 7 years ago I could get to a large mall / parking area next
| to the town square maybe in 5-6 diffferent ways (allowing me to
| balance the traffic out).
|
| Now there's 1 way only from my side of the city, and I can't
| balance anything out by going where others aren't.
|
| Guess the "grid" street network is really a hard prerequisite.
|
| As for safety, safety records in the city haven't moved at all in
| the past 10 years so I don't know. (But traffic has grown so
| maybe it's ok?)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > if you want to drive from within the city center to the
| outside (e.g. go back from a shopping mall / restaurant /
| business meeting)
|
| But I don't know if being able to do this is a reasonable
| expectation in the first place. Why do you have a car in the
| centre of a city? They aren't designed for cars. Live in the
| suburbs or countryside if you want a personal car.
| scythe wrote:
| I think the trilemma is something like: improve traffic
| capacity, reduce conflict points, forgive wrong turns -- _pick
| two_. The increasing popularity of GPS makes it easier to drop
| the last item. Of course, it 's going to take some getting used
| to.
| disantlor wrote:
| I am biased but why do we even need cars in the city center, or
| at the very least why should they be convenient? Could there
| not be a situation where you walk to the edges of the city
| center to pick up your car and leave from there? There are
| specific accessibility concerns that certainly need to be
| accounted for, but the idea that the average driver loses 20
| minutes on a trip that should be 5-10 minutes doesn't seem like
| inherently an issue in this context.
|
| edit-add: biased in the sense that I really dislike cars and
| live in NYC in large part because you do not need one here
| jakubp wrote:
| In my town you have largely 4 options: - walk - drive - take
| a bus/tram - bike
|
| Walking is too slow and cumbersome for most people (e.g. 6-8
| km one way to work seems like too much to do every day), and
| impossible if you want to go shopping anywhere except on your
| way to work.
|
| Public transport is really slow and not as flexible as you
| want (many places without good connections, wait times 15-20
| minutes, transit times 20-50 minutes).
|
| So you are left really with bike (flexible, constant travel
| time regardless of traffic, keeps you fit -- but very
| susceptible to bad weather) and car (flexible, fast, great
| for transporting items -- but very susceptible to traffic).
| wongarsu wrote:
| Biking is not that susceptible to weather imho. When it
| rains you can wear a rain coat and rain trousers. When it's
| cold you can wear any outdoor jacket (gore tex is great
| even if maybe not healthy). When it snows you have to work
| a bit harder. When there is ice you can use tires with
| spikes for great grip. The worst is hot weather, since you
| can only shed so much clothing. An ebike helps here, but
| that reduces the health benefits.
| orthoxerox wrote:
| It still sucks if you have to look (and smell)
| presentable at work. Even if you bike at a leisurely pace
| you and your suit will be drenched if you bike to work in
| a rain coat and rain trousers.
| pharmakom wrote:
| Cycling in the rain is only a huge problem when the
| infrastructure is crap. Riding in a flooded gutter,
| getting splashed by passing motorists and being left-
| hooked by people who can't see clearly through a wet
| windshield is dangerous and unpleasant. Cycling on a
| dedicated bike path with good drainage, mud guards and a
| waterproof is fine, imo.
| GhostVII wrote:
| Sure if you are super motivated you can bike in any
| weather. But for 95% of people they will only be willing
| to bike if it is nice out.
|
| The average person is not going to go out and buy a fat
| bike or spiked tires for the winter. And they probably
| shouldn't, biking in winter is dangerous if you don't
| know what you are doing. And sure I could wear a full
| rain suite and bike in the rain, but that is far less
| convenient than just driving and wearing a light jacket.
| So sure it is possible to bike in all weather, in the
| same way that it is possible to walk 5k, just no one
| wants to.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Dublin, which is crap for cycling infrastructure and
| weather in the winter, has about a 25% higher cycle count
| for summer months, according to the 2019 data (the last
| year unaffected by covid).
| giantrobot wrote:
| Biking in the rain is such a laughable idea to me. I wear
| glasses, _walking_ in the rain is a pain in the ass as I
| can 't see shit, it would be impossible for me to ride a
| bike in the rain.
|
| That's just a first order problem for me. Drainage in a
| lot of city roads is pretty awful so bicyclists have a
| pretty good chance of getting swamped at intersections or
| knocked over if a bus or truck sends a wall of rain water
| their way.
|
| I guess if you don't need glasses and live in the suburbs
| biking in the rain might not be too terrible. I couldn't
| imagine it in the city center of any city I've ever been
| to though.
| [deleted]
| navbaker wrote:
| Anytime I want to spend time in DC, I definitely just drive
| to Greenbelt, park, and take the metro to whatever part of
| the city I'm trying to go to. It's a sanity-saver over trying
| to find parking.
| tw04 wrote:
| I was waiting for this response. As someone who doesn't live
| in the city center, and has no easy means of mass
| transportation to get there, my response is: fine I just
| won't go then. You lose my money.
|
| In NYC or Chicago that's probably not a big deal. In the vast
| majority of the rest of the US, that's how you kill a city
| center. I can tell you in my case, given the homelessness
| issue that's been getting worse the last decade, if you make
| it harder to get to the downtown area it will become a ghost
| town.
| lg wrote:
| One thing to remember about NYC's crazy tolls and
| congestion pricing plans is that there are not many reasons
| why visitors should need to drive in. There's NJTransit,
| PATH, light rail to Hudson valley and CT, LIRR, Amtrak, so
| many regional bus routes and frequent shuttles to EWR and
| other popular places, where most of these have park-and-
| ride options. And then of course once in the city there are
| subway and buses. Other cities that want to copy the car-
| discouraging policies should think about what the
| alternatives are.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It was cheaper and faster for me to drive 25 miles into
| Manhattan than take the train in from a walkable station.
| Then getting back out doesn't have to be at the mercy of
| the train schedule which is often every two hours for the
| line in question.
| dionidium wrote:
| This is what mid-sized American cities have been saying for
| about 75 years, most of which adopted this plan with zeal.
| And it's been a total failure. It turns out you can't save
| Downtown by making it easier for suburbanites to get there.
| Whatever you think of that approach from first principles,
| the evidence at this point is overwhelming. It does not
| work.
| morsch wrote:
| Park + ride at the outer edges of the city center. But most
| American cities are probably a lost cause.
| dsomers wrote:
| Lol, have you been to the Midwest? In small and medium
| sized cites there downtowns are often dead, including the
| small city I grew up in. All of them easily accessible by
| car. Dead city centres in North America more have to do
| with the post war experiment of subsidizing inefficient
| sprawling car dependent suburbs. If you want to actually
| understand this read more from the advocacy group Strong
| Towns[0] they also have a great YouTube channel. Now
| compare small Midwest cities to small cities in the
| Netherlands like Leiden or Haarlem and you'll see limiting
| traffic from downtowns has little to do with how well they
| do economically.
|
| [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/
| api wrote:
| That's not as true as it used to be, but I don't disagree
| with the wider point.
| dsomers wrote:
| I agree it's improving from the 90s, but when I go back
| to the Midwest from Western Europe, the difference is
| dramatic simply in the number of people downtown in
| public spaces for cites with the same population.
| api wrote:
| That's an extreme comparison! I bet only a few US cities
| would approach what you see in Berlin or Paris.
| dsomers wrote:
| I'm not talking about Berlin or Paris. I'm taking about
| small European cities I'm familiar with that have vibrant
| walkable downtowns. Off the top of my head, Leiden
| Netherlands, Haarlem Netherlands, Peacara Italy, or Zug
| Switzerland.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| If you ban cars they will be even more dead.
| dsomers wrote:
| Not true. Go to Leiden Netherlands and see how
| economically vibrant a small city can become if it
| incentives efficient land use and limits traffic in city
| centre in favour of pedestrian paths an public transit.
| j4yav wrote:
| Nice to see my town mentioned! I hope we remove even more
| of the current traffic roads in the center, it is great.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| The Unites States is not the Netherlands. If the downtown
| is already dying, banning cars will finish it off.
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| It certainly isn't any more, but before the 70s the
| Netherlands was looking at America when it came to modern
| infrastructure. Lots of cars, huge roads, pedestrian
| hostile intersections, massive amounts of and ridiculous
| highways (Just look at this crazy thing: https://mobile.t
| witter.com/notjustbikes/status/1176840020751...). It
| didn't kill the downtown in the Netherlands and they were
| in much the same position.
| Griffinsauce wrote:
| I think you're overselling Leiden as an example of this
| here, isn't traffic blocked from just one main shopping
| street and one other (steenstraat) made somewhat hard to
| access?
|
| I'm not sure I would say the latter change, which was
| recent-ish, made a big difference versus just the general
| cleanup of the inner city (better train station, spruced
| up Beestenmarkt square etc).
| dsomers wrote:
| Sure, there are still plenty of places you can drive in
| Leiden. I guess the point I'm trying to make is small
| cities in North America favour car transportation to an
| extreme. It is to the point where it's physically
| dangerous to walk to some places because their aren't
| even sidewalks and traffic travels much faster inside the
| cities than you'd ever see in the Netherlands.
|
| Compared to small cities in North America, Leiden
| infrastructure is amazing -- as is a lot of Dutch towns.
| It not that you have to completely block off all roads
| either. It's just that everywhere there are roads for
| cars, there's also equal space for bike and pedestrians
| and public transit is invested in much more. If you want
| to see a video series that compares the two look up the
| YouTube channel notjustbikes
| b3morales wrote:
| > In the vast majority of the rest of the US
|
| The cities in these places don't generally have the
| problems that the GP was talking about: the streets are
| mostly planned and overall car-friendly, and if you miss
| one turn there's likely a close opportunity to correct your
| route.
| teachingassist wrote:
| > that's how you kill a city center.
|
| This is a function of American cities being poorly
| designed. You are expected to arrive by car from the
| sprawling suburbs. I agree with your exceptions, NYC,
| Chicago: but I'd add, _almost every city in Europe_ , such
| as the grandparent was talking about.
|
| If this poor design is killed, hopefully something better
| can arise.
| pharmakom wrote:
| Honestly, your money is not worth the congestion, noise and
| air pollution it requires. It's a real shame your locality
| does not provide good rail connections.
| disantlor wrote:
| homelessness is a big issue in NYC, it doesn't seem clear
| to me that cars have much to do with it, compared to, say,
| lack of affordable housing. perhaps we could reclaim all
| the parking space to build more housing
| mschuetz wrote:
| > As someone who doesn't live in the city center, and has
| no easy means of mass transportation to get there, my
| response is: fine I just won't go then. You lose my money.
|
| The bussiest city centers tend to be the least car and most
| pedestrian friendly ones. Park the car at the border of the
| center, then walk into the center.
| jakubp wrote:
| When you say "then walk into the center", you do realize
| you are talking about a (edit) 20-30 minute walk one-way.
| A car could cut that in 2 minutes.
|
| In my lifetime I was a driver in a city where it took
| exactly 5 minutes door-to-door from my home to ANY
| location in the city (at night). During the day it was
| maybe 8 minutes.
|
| Then some years went by.
|
| I now live in a city where at night it's 20 minutes, and
| during the day it's 45-60 minutes.
|
| From 5/8 minutes to 20/45-60 minutes.
|
| It's the same city.
|
| Things change, I get it. It just feels like things are
| getting worse and worse and yeah, it elicits serious
| questions like "is this going to be my last car, ever?"
| etc. :)
| nicoburns wrote:
| You could replace cars with public transport rather than
| just moving the cars. If you don't want to build too much
| infrastructure then buses and bus lanes work well.
| alacombe wrote:
| Very convenient to haul 60lb of stuff in public
| transport...
| scatters wrote:
| > almost as bad as walking
|
| What's bad about walking? It's good for your health, good for
| the economy, good for the environment.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| If you are in a car, chances are the goal was to get there
| more quickly than you could by walking. If you are getting
| there more slowly by taking a car then it was "worse than
| walking" by this metric. No one is criticizing walking as a
| general means of transportation.
| gruez wrote:
| >Extra time: +5 minutes to walk
|
| why does removing left turns make it longer to walk? Can
| pedestrians even make "left" turns?
| tw04 wrote:
| A lot of times when they pull left turns it means they're
| pulling out the stoplights, putting barriers of some kind
| down the middle and you can't cross at that spot at all
| anymore on foot or in a car. If you have to park on the
| opposite side of the street from where you're going you may
| be walking blocks just to cross.
|
| Sure you could try jaywalking but that's probably not a
| bright move in a lot of cities.
|
| I'll be honest I have no idea why you all are downvoting.
| This literally happened in a city near where I grew up and it
| is a giant pain. I presume he was actually asking the
| question because he didn't understand why it would require
| more time.
| pharmakom wrote:
| Seems like an argument for more pedestrian priority
| crossings.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I think the downvotes are probably because none of what you
| write makes sense in the "old European city" the ancestor
| comment suggested.
|
| Although the article is about America, so _shrug_
| cyberbanjo wrote:
| It's because they have to take a different longer route to a
| different parking space.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Usual car-oriented person rant about how this measure affects
| you personally and harms your convenience.
|
| Complaining about traffic in the center of an "Old European
| town" tells me you might be doing things wrong from the get go.
| jakubp wrote:
| I am presenting a counterpoint to the claim in the article
| that "it's just 1 more block" in a real world scenario (under
| somewhat different condition though: non-grid street
| network).
|
| Do you think the phenomenon I described does not exist, or
| are you saying it's not relevant?
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| I've driven in places that forbid left turns and the impact
| is nowhere near what you say it is - your example appears
| very specific to your town where things seem particularly
| bad but also your phrasing ("punished" by traffic - guess
| what, if you're driving, _you_ are traffic) is not very
| objective for a rational, general counterpoint.
| [deleted]
| potiuper wrote:
| Tldr: roads with 5+ lanes should be one way.
| tomhoward wrote:
| Here in Melbourne Australia, lots is being done to remove right
| turns (we drive on the left here) at the busiest intersections.
|
| Several "P turns" [1,2] have been introduced in the most
| congested areas, in which you need to go straight through the
| intersection, then wait to do a U-turn at a designated place,
| then turn left into the road you wanted to turn right into (or
| vice versa if you're coming from the other direction).
|
| And because we have trams (streetcars), many intersections with
| trams have long had "hook turns" [3], signed as "right turn from
| left only", in which to turn right you must first pull over to
| the left to clear the lanes in your direction, wait for the
| lights to turn green in the road you're entering, then turn
| right. (This is not exactly eliminating right turns but it's a
| much safer and less disruptive way of doing them).
|
| It all works well when you understand it, but it confuses the
| hell out of visitors.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIREzujqOUg
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPe8NtwEqeI
|
| [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh92LirlCf8
| gertlex wrote:
| Sounds similar to a "Michigan Left"... which I've known of
| since I was a kid, though I haven't seen any new ones built
| that I know of (though, I no longer am in Michigan...)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_left
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Also common in several parts of NJ, notably driving up US1
| between Phila and NYC.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| New Jersey does jughandles where you do a right turn after
| the intersection and then a mini-cloverleaf.
|
| Detroit/Michigan go through the intersection in the left
| lane, u-turn after the intersection, then turn right at the
| light.
|
| Have lived substantial years in both states.
|
| New Jersey has the driver drive through the same
| intersection twice.
|
| Michigan has three intersections: the first one you drive
| through, the second for the u-turn and the third for the
| right turn, although the u-turn and right turn could often
| be done on a red light with low traffic, so it might be
| faster.
|
| Both require more infrastructure (clover leaf lanes or the
| u-turn and the light for it)
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Driving north on US1 between Phila and NYC, there are
| several turns where you turn/fork right before an
| intersection, and then make a left onto the minor road.
| Particularly true in the 20 miles on either side of
| Princeton.
|
| Yes, I've seen the right-turn after the intersection too.
| burlesona wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. Wow, that hook turn thing is weird! I can
| see how it works well once you get used to it, though.
| tvphan wrote:
| If you ride a bike and have to make a turn, it's a similar
| concept!
| IgorPartola wrote:
| I used to live near Boston and work in Boston. Traffic patterns
| there defy all logic until you think about the fact that the city
| was laid out before cars and so it's not sized for cars, and
| definitely not delivery trucks. My suggestion is to remove cars
| altogether from that city. Like you aren't allowed to drive a car
| into the city limits and delivery trucks are only allowed on
| certain days or hours (mail being treated separately). Then
| replace the Green line and a large number of streets with covered
| moving walkways and the rest with walk paths and bicycle lanes.
| Would the city economy suffer? Maybe. Would it be a more pleasant
| place to live and work? I think so.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > Would the city economy suffer? Maybe. Would it be a more
| pleasant place to live and work? I think so.
|
| The results of some European cities doing basically this
| suggest that the city economy likely wouldn't really suffer
| (and in fact could improve in many cases).
|
| That said you don't need to _completely_ eliminate cars;
| blocking through traffic and severely restricting car parking
| can have much the same effect. If you can take a direct route
| on foot /by bike but have to take a more circuitous route by
| car, more people will do the former.
| andi999 wrote:
| Are there any stats that left turns are/how dangerous? Here most
| (at least the majority of media reports is about) cyclist die
| when a truck turns right.
| bullfightonmars wrote:
| The biggest problem with right turns are:
|
| 1. Free rights a uncontrolled right turns that don't protect
| crossing cyclists and pedestrians through time based
| segregation. 2. No physical/grade segregation. Cyclists become
| invisible in blind spots during right turns because
| intersections are terribly designed to support anything other
| than cars. A well designed intersection puts cyclists in front
| of cars where they are visible at all times, instead of in a
| blind spot.
|
| https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/a-common-urban...
| andi999 wrote:
| This looks good. Although I do not see how this can be done
| without tearing down 10% of a city.
| dragonmost wrote:
| I can't see this being a solution in places with lots of snow
| and it also takes a lot more space than the actual road.
| MintsJohn wrote:
| That was my thought as well, when driving in city like
| environments, its always the cyclists on the right I need to be
| careful about, traffic I have to cross on the left is clearly
| visible, the cyclists on the right hide in a blind spot.
| deathanatos wrote:
| Those are almost certainly people making what I call "right
| hand turns from not the rightmost lanes", which is, IMO, the
| single most dangerous traffic violation a biker can encounter.
| It happens _often_ , it's hard to avoid, and the consequences
| are bad1.
|
| My jurisdiction (and most I have encountered) require a right-
| turning vehicle to merge first into the bike lane, if there is
| a bike lane to the right. (And no further car lanes. Some
| intersections will shunt right turning vehicles across the bike
| lane, first, into a turning lane, and then turn at the
| intersection.)
|
| My "closest call" was here: [1] I was going southbound through
| that intersection on a fresh green when a vehicle _right
| turned_ from the _left turning lane_ (i.e. he was also
| initially headed south bound). Absolutely crazy maneuver. I was
| forced into the right there (because otherwise, we were going
| to collide) and was just barely able to make it -- I could feel
| the traction in my back tire was just barely holding onto the
| road the whole way through, since I was also braking like hell.
| Driver was just like "uh, oops?"
|
| I'll usually watch the lane just left to me for drivers whose
| movement indicates some inclination of thinking about right
| turning (again, from the wrong lane). I don't know if people
| worry about blocking bikers or what. Like, if you're in my lane
| to make a right, and you're signalling that, I _prefer_ that,
| because you 're not going to pop into my lane & try to kill me.
| I'll wait behind you while you make the right. (Or merge around
| you on the left, if I can safely do so.) Or at the very
| least... if you're going to make an illegal right, please,
| _signal_.
|
| [1]: https://goo.gl/maps/U2smgkRmagmcwsBAA
|
| 1way worse than things that sound worse: car driving the wrong
| way -- which itself happens way more often than it really
| should -- it's much "better": I can see it coming. Honestly, as
| a cyclist I feel like I'm the only person out there who took a
| course on how to drive a car.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-06 23:02 UTC)