If turning traffic doesn't enter the bike lane, then it is turning right across the bike lane, which can lead to accidents where a bike collides with a turning vehicle. As such the correct behavior is to signal and enter the bike lane before turning. Of course, many human drivers fail to do this, so it's not surprising that people might be taken aback when they see self driving cars doing it...
I was curious and checked the Dutch regulations - in NL it's an infraction to 'wait' on a cycle lane for any reason. Cars turning across the path just give way to all traffic coming from behind until it's safe to move. It is very stressful for the driver, but blocking the cycle path is a recipe for chaos.
Perhaps because of better drivers and possibly better cyclists, the chaos that is rush hour cycling results in far fewer accidents than I would expect.
Seems to me it should be safer to block the cycle lane to avoid having traffic pass on the right, so you really only have to monitor in front and to the side when making the turn. Cyclists behind will then simply either have to adjust their speed, or decide whether to cross into the car lane and overtake on the left.
This thread made me realize I don’t actually know the rules for this here in Sweden. I’ve inquired with traffic authorities, because unfortunately when searching on their site for cycle lane rules you only find a picture of what cycle lanes look like. :o(
Don't expect the throughput of an American city road. It's not unusual that only one or two cars can make the turn before the light is red again, if there are lots of bikes.
Here's a third option to consider: the cyclist does not notice your merging in to the lane or otherwise fails to react and smashes into the back of your car. At higher speeds this can be lethal.
Good thing this is done at low speeds. The car is basically going 0mph, because they are going to turn 90 degrees. And when I'm biking, I am BY FAR more cautious when approaching intersections. As you should be in a car, bike, motorcycle, or whatever.
If you don’t merge first, you have to not only consider cyclists in the lane but also whatever may be involved with the turn itself, such as people crossing the street you’re turning into, or other obstacles.
Basically you spread the risk over time and space instead of concentrating it all into this one maneuver at the end.
It's much better for the car to have to wait. It doesn't seem to be a problem in the Netherlands or Denmark.
It's true, you have to look very carefully before making the turn, and to make the turn slowly.
In Copenhagen, the busy roads have a separate light for cars turning right vs bikes going ahead.
- Is a signal that the driver intends to turn. Drivers should also be using their actual turn signals, of course, but as a cyclist I would much rather have a driver who fails to signal merge early and turn, rather than turn with no warning. - Allows the cyclist to more easily get around to the left.
And be ran over by a bus. I don’t see how this rule makes anything safer unless cycle traffic completely stops to wait behind the car (not happening).
Correct, which is why the common style of crossing is pretty much a death trap for cyclists. A much safer design moves the cyclist crossing so cyclists and cars only ever meet at 90 degree angles[0]. Doing so takes no extra space.
[0] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6Kg0XZ0K-3U/Uv98VQ-H6lI/AAAAAAAARK...
This is what I mean. If in a car you want to turn left, the cyclist appears to be heading right, by then veers to stay straight. Otherwise, you need dedicated turning left lanes, with turning arrows - something most cities can't fit on existing streets.
These sorts of "reimagined" street intersections always end up being impractical with only a little bit of scrutiny applied. What's practical (from the point of view of someone who's biked to work every day in an urban environment for 15 years) is the bike lane turning into "shared" before the intersection, and the solid white bike lane line turning dotted with indications marking that before the intersection. Every attempt at enforced separation just ends up being less safe for all parties involved.
The key is sensible lane sharing and maintaining a common feel and look of intersections throughout a city. No cyclist, or driver needs to question what to do at various experimental intersections, and yet we continue to do things like that in urban centers using people as test subjects.
This video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bG6ZrbCO2g
This of course assumes drivers follow the marking and don't just cut across the marked bike lines, in which case it would negate any advantage of this layout.
1. look in the mirrors
2. put on the indicator (turn signal)
3. just before turning, look over your shoulder to make sure you're not running over anyone
However, given how lazily and inconsiderately many people drive, the annoying but defensive rule you describe might be the better tradeoff: make life worse for all cyclists to safe a few lives.
I view the issue people are having with Uber's Self Driving Cars not "handling right turns in bike lanes well" in the same light as the reason you take a left hand turn at an intersection from the left-most lane. If you tried to take a left from the right most lane it puts everyone to your left at danger and definitely doesn't let people coming towards you know what you are doing.
I feel the same exact thing should apply to the right lanes and bike lanes regardless if it is a car or a bike. To turn right you get as far right as you can, you check your mirrors sure, but you don't really let what anyone else is doing behind you change how you drive. I view worrying about driving in that way is possibly evidence that you are the scared, defensive-type driver. Hesitation can be a killer.
You're right, a driver is definitely required to monitor what's coming from behind them when making a turn. But when we consider limits in eyesight, moving into the lane keeps everyone safer.
I think it may be the preponderance of 3-lane boulevards and wide bike lanes in California (and west of the Mississippi, in general). On such streets, you technically can fit a fourth turning lane on the shoulder (where the bike lane is), which means cars turning right won't be blocked by traffic waiting at the light. And bike traffic tends to be pretty light on those 3-lane boulevards, just because it's very unpleasant to bike with 3 lanes of cars going 45 mph.
By contrast, virtually all the roads in Massachusetts are single-lane, where you gain nothing by letting cars enter the bike lane because there isn't enough room for them to pass the cars in front of them anyway.
Is this true? The largest city in the Northeast (NYC) does not have right on red unless posted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#North_America
(I was a bit surprised to learn that all 50 states permit it, and they lose federal funding if they don't. Other than NYC, I've never encountered a place that doesn't, but I'd thought it was really a state-by-state thing.)
[1]: https://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/article/2a9465965ec3...
Yes it's almost always the case.
Our intersections are designed a bit different from yours. In ours the stoplights are placed a bit before the intersection, compared to your lights in the intersection, or right after it. This doesn't invite to right-on-red as you do not have that clear of an overview of the incoming traffic from left.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/shr_slow_... ...Merge toward the curb or into the bike lane only when it is safe. Merge safely behind a bicyclist when preparing to make a turn. Only enter a bike lane no more than 200 feet before starting a turn. ...
This is not the case on the East coast. The bike lane line is solid all the way to the intersection.
[1] http://www.mit.edu/%7Ejfc/right.html
tldr: If someone behind you is going faster and you are in the left lane, move right.
That said, the guardian article is a year old, while the Pittsburgh complaint is from today and describes legal behavior in CA.
Basically, Uber probably changed their software's behavior to follow California law following the complaints last year and that is now resulting in complaints in Pittsburgh.
I have no clue what PA law is on this, but I can imagine the law may differ depending on jurisdictions and this would be something where engineers will have to have a variety of behaviors depending on the applicable law.
Sure; you can buy a usable car much cheaper than current flagship models too. I spent over 4k on my bike; the high-end market does exist (and is currently the only place you'll find electric shifting, but all these technologies gradually work their way down).
> If you want a small, self-driving vehicle, you might as well put four wheels and a roof on it. Cars don't have to weigh a literal ton.
A motor and batteries or fuel tank are always going to be pretty heavy though, much heavier than sensors and processors. In any case, I like the exercise and the visibility/openness. I'd expect self-driving scooters/mopeds before self-driving bikes, sure, but I'd expect them to happen eventually.
Until that utopia exists, bikes have to ride somewhere, and that's the road. Sidewalks are (typically) far more dangerous for cyclists due to short sightlines out of driveways and alleys. And driverless cars need to be able to recognize cyclists anyway.
> Eventually we'll likely see a bifurcated system where driverless cars operate at much higher speeds that they can safely do (say 100+ mph in some areas)
I agree that bicycles probably shouldn't ride in traffic on the freeways, although often they are allowed to ride on the shoulder of freeways today (at least in rural areas).