Hacker News Reader

Comment by flerchin | Hacker News Reader

What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed. At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be?

View on HN

The most common cycling injury is a right hook, where a car drives past the cyclist then turns right (into the cyclist or without enough space for them to stop). At intersections, many cars will be turning right. Allowing cyclists to proceed past the intersection before the drivers do will increase their safety.

(as an aside, right turning vehicles at intersections are allowed to behave much the same as a cyclist doing an Idaho stop - turning right on red, rolling stop)

> (as an aside, right turning vehicles at intersections are allowed to behave much the same as a cyclist doing an Idaho stop - turning right on red, rolling stop)

Ironically, didn't DC just ban cars from turning right on red at the same time they allowed bikes to do this kind of thing?

In most states you are legally supposed to fully stop before making the right...

I'm in MI though and we have Michigan Lefts - I have also heard them called Minnesota lefts, where you turn left after the intersection.

I don't really see how banning right on red would address the right hook problem. Right hooks happen when the light is green.

At least in Ontario, this is yet another example of cyclists not knowing the rules of the road. Driver turning right is not obligated to yield to cyclists unless there is a bike lane _and_ it is physically separated and/or painted green and can legitimately stop flush to the right edge of the road before the turn, blocking everyone behind. Most drivers will let cyclists through anyway because as a driver you cannot rely on unlicensed people knowing the rules.

In the US, most states have a law that requires drivers to be as close as practicable to the right edge or curb before making their right turn. This precludes the possibility of through traffic passing a right turning vehicle on the right. As a motorist, when I turn right, I move close to the edge or curb to prevent cyclists from trying to pass me on the right. Most cyclists either wait behind me or pass me on the left.

When I cycle and I want to go straight through the intersection, I ride in the middle of the travel lane. Motorists will either wait behind me, pass me on the right to make a right turn, or pass me on the left and go straight (or make a left). But I don't have issues with right hooks because I take the lane.

"because as a driver you cannot rely on unlicensed people knowing the rules."

I agree, but I will add that I can't rely on licensed people to know and follow the rules either. The driving test is a joke in the US.

There should be much more of that infrastructure

As a cyclist, I agree!

Which part of the highway traffic act allows cars to drive into cyclists again?

That is not what I am saying. At all.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/globe-drive/culture/comm...

We were talking about the right hook as a major danger to cyclists. That article is all about "cyclists shouldn't pass turning drivers on the inside". While that can be a contributing factor in some right hook collisions, many (most?) right hooks do not involve that situation. The article does highlight an error that most drivers make: if you're turning right across a painted bike lane are supposed to shift over tight to the curb when that lane becomes dashed. The driver essentially merges into the bicycle lane (and needs to do that merge action safely, which is the actual cause of most right hooks).

In my experience (as a regular biker) intersections are dangerous in two main ways:

1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me. 2. I'm very vulnerable when first starting up and it's easy for turning drivers to miss me or for my balance to push me slightly left or right.

An Idaho stop law means that I'm able to proceed through a red light when there's no moving cars around which largely solves (2).

Additionally, in my area I can take a main street or side streets. I generally take the main road for the same reason drivers so: there's stop signs every 600ft on the side roads. If I could cruise down the side street without stopping constantly I'd be much more likely to take it which keeps me out of the traffic on the main road.

“No moving cars”. This is exactly a kind of language that makes for ambiguity and misinterpretations of Idaho stop. If I am a car that has just stopped at the all way stop before you reached your stop line, am I a “moving” car or not?

That's talking about red lights not stop signs, maybe I should be more clear.

My point is that the rule allows me to either go mid-cycle when the cross traffic is clear or at least jump the gun a bit and start moving during the all-red phase. Either way it's safer for me since I'm not having to start with a bunch of cars that can accelerate faster than me in a space where "unexpected" movements are common.

> 1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me.

Try signalling. One of two things will happen: they will either realize that you are coming to a stop or they won't have a clue what the signal means (even though it is in the driver's manual, at least around here). Either way, they will slow down.

Signaling while stopping is hard since the "proper" way is to use your left hand is signal a stop and that's also the hand that controls the good brake.

But even then, I'd be surprised if the driver who's reckless/inattentive enough not to pay attention to the person in front of them at a stop sign both noticed and understood what the signal meant. Worth a shot though.

> But even then, I'd be surprised if the driver who's reckless/inattentive enough not to pay attention to the person in front of them at a stop sign both noticed and understood what the signal meant.

I have used it in several circumstances where I am fairly certain the driver was responding to the signal. Whether the understood the signal or not is an open question. If they didn't, it seemed to be enough to get them to slow down -- which is all that I can really ask for.

As for the whole signalling while braking situation on bikes, it's kinda nuts. I have to make a left turn while going down hill at one point of my commute. It's pretty much signal, brake with both hands, signal and turn. I understand why bikes don't apply both brakes with one lever, but it is awkward at times.

I would guess the majority of people have no idea what manual signals are, or that they even exist. I would bet that there is a sizable percent of people who think a manual left turn signal is somebody waving them past.

Signalling how? If they’re coming to a stop at stop sign, and intending to continue ahead, how do you suggest they signal?

It appears to vary from region to region, but it is left arm out then bend down at the elbow in my neck of the woods. It's the same signal that drivers are supposed to use if the need ever arises. (Though the only reason I can think of a driver needing hand signals is if their turn signal is damaged, in which case they shouldn't have the vehicle on the road!)

You're describing a stop signal. They're asking how to signal continuous travel through an intersection.

I don't think there is a proper signal, but I used to signal my intention of continuous travel to oncoming traffic by pointing straight ahead. My city, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that bike traffic was supposed to go straight through an intersection while all motor vehicles had to turn onto the main street. The road markings were only for motor vehicles, while far less noticable road signs were for bikes. It got interesting at times, since some motorists assumed everyone had to turn.

The city has since resolved that with a clearly marked bike lane. (Though it's fun watching vehicles as large as semi's try to fit into the bike lane, thinking it gives them the right to go straight through.)

> 1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me.

> They're asking how to signal continuous travel through an intersection.

No, they are not.

Ah, I see. I misread what they were saying.

Not the OP, but here's my observation: When I have to stop at a light until it turns green, I have to navigate the intersection while the cars around me are entering it as well. Suddenly there's a car trying to pass me, a car in the oncoming lane turning left, etc. If I can skirt through the intersection while the light is red and there's no transverse traffic, I can get through without interacting with any other moving vehicles.

I've also been involved in car(-car, not car-bike) accidents before where some idiot at a light was looking at their phone while stopped, and did something stupid when they noticed others moving in their peripheral vision. Plausibly, such idiots could be the cause of a lot of accidents at intersections.

> What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed.

The study[1] where they stated that said it only decreased in the year after the law was passed. They didn't check what happened in subsequent years.

> At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be?

The study they used to justify that conclusion compared two cities in two different states in different parts of the US. They didn't have before and after data after the law was enacted to make a direct comparison (since the law was enacted in the early 1980s). In my opinion, the study doesn't really support the conclusion that not coming to a full stop is safer. It would have been better had the study compared multiple locations with similar characteristics over the same time period.

[1] https://meggsreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/idaho-law-ja...

The separate timing this law creates keeps cyclists apart from the rest of traffic.

Segregating cyclist traffic across space by using separate roads works best, but when the amount of cyclists is low, it turns out segregating across time works well enough.

Because the cyclists who weren't treating stops as yields started doing so and traffic became overall more predictable for all parties involved.

Stopping a moving bicycle messes with the rider's balance and forces them to focus their awareness on balance and to look down at their feet to make a complete stop (otherwise they'd tip over). By allowing the rider to merely slow down it lets them maintain focus on the road and the hazards that might be around them.

Most people who are comfortable riding in traffic are experienced enough at cycling that they can stop without staring at their feet.

As a regular cyclist, I have never had to look at my feet when stopping. Why would they need to look down?

It depends on where you are and your habits. I never looked down on city roads until I placed my foot on a grate and realized it wasn't nearly as grippy as I thought =)

I haven't been riding in a long time but when on trails (i.e. "in the woods") I wouldn't look down. You saw that ground as you approached it and it's all the same for the most part. Differences in elevation are easy to see with peripheral vision.

In the city there's potholes and puddles of unknown depth with who-knows-what buried in their depths, haha.

BTW: I'm legally blind in my right eye so all I have on my right is peripheral vision so I may not be the best example. I've probably developed a near-instinctual glance.

As a non-regular cyclist, I have no idea why you would have to look at your feet when breaking.

Lots of good reasons here, another smaller factor that may come into play is that clipless and toe cage pedals lead to a non-zero number of injuries, especially when the cyclist is trying to stop in a stressful situation (eg President Biden a few months ago)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com