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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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).
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.
[1]: https://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/article/2a9465965ec3...
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.)