Hacker News Reader

Comment by kristiandupont | Hacker News Reader

In Denmark, the term højresvingsulykke (right turn accident) is common, meaning when a car, typically a truck, turns right and hits a bicycle. Lots of people are killed from this every year. One theory is that it is primarily foreign truck drivers who are not accustomed to the high number of cyclists in Copenhagen.

When I initially saw the title, I was expecting it to be a mistake and actually say "Why UPS Trucks Don't Turn Right". I guess the problem is less severe in the rest of the world.

View on HN

When I cycle, I never pass a car on the right at a crossroads. Even if they are not signaling a right turn. Regardless of who has the right of way there, I am going to lose a vs. a car.

Indeed. The right of way is indeed cold comfort when you're DEAD. Of course, some times you'll be approaching a crossroads and a car will be approaching it faster and pass you just in time to run you down. :)

This is why I have a bell on my bicycle, and ring it any time I have a shadow of an excuse. (I recommend spending a few dollars extra and getting a nice bell that you like the sound of.)

> The right of way. . .

This is a situation where bikes don't necessarily have right-of-way under the law. If there's a bike lane, then yes - and in that case there really should be traffic markings to make it clear to motorists that the right turn lane is on the other side of the lane.

But if not, then bikes are using the same lane as every other vehicle on the road. So when cyclists pass waiting cars on the right at a stoplight, it's just as dangerous and illegal as if a motorcyclist or scooter rider were to do it.

That depends on where you are. In Germany it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to pass waiting cars at a stoplight on the right if there is enough space, because it is safer for them to wait a the front of the line than somewhere hidden between cars. Especially if they can get to a marked waiting area like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radaufstellstreifen_%...

Seems like cyclists dangerously undertaking (passing on the incorrect side) causes these problems. Much to the annoyance of cyclists, smart motorists would position the vehicle to prevent undertaking maneuvers when approaching a turn. For cyclists intending to go straight, the cyclists needs to take the lane, positioning themselves so they can't be overtaken by vehicles intending to make a turn.

In all cases, motorists needs to be aware of the more vulnerable road users and cyclists should take more precautions when sharing the road with 2+ ton vehicles.

From a cycling commuter for the past 5 years, 37km one way, in the Tokyo Japan area.

Some US cities have that, too, but not all of them. In the ones that don't mark spaces like that, though, there isn't really space for cyclists at the front and even pedestrians aren't particularly safe from motorists looking* to make a right turn at a red light.

* On further thought, maybe that choice of word is inappropriate.

don't count on the bell. it can barely be heard from inside a car

I've been wondering about these for dealing with that issue - anyone have any experience with one?

http://deltacycle.com/airzound-horn

Heck, I'd appreciate having a version for pedestrian use, too, sometimes.

Especially with the radio on.

of course you don't count on the bell, but, defense in depth!

as a cyclist in the US there's a very common scenario here, too - turning right, looking left, not looking into the turn and bam, cyclist at high risk.

TO CLARIFY - the situation i am most referring to is a cross street, where the car is perpendicular to your path and would be coming from your left as a cyclist.

It's generally a bad idea to "pass on the right", not just for cyclists (tho they are disproportionately harmed).

At least in California, the car is supposed to take the bike lane rather than turning over the top of it. In this way the bike only ever passes the car on the left, and motorists (provided they look when taking the lane) are less likely to hit a cyclist if they fail to check their right-hand mirror again.

http://www.sfbike.org/?bikelane_right_turns

Non-optional bicycle lanes make this unavoidable and motorists still lobby for cyclists to be kept of ‘their’ road.

I think you wouldn't be downvoted if you just wrote, "Non-optional bicycle lanes make this unavoidable".

He might not have been downvoted if he hadn't said it, but it's not like it's a farfetched idea. In Toronto Mayor Ford practically made it a campaign promise to screw over cyclists, going out of his way (and incurring great cost) in order to rip out recently installed bicycle lanes. So it's definitely a political issue, and while there might not be actual bona fide lobbyists there are definitely voters who are anti-road-cycling.

What are optional bike lanes and how do they differ from non-optional bike lanes?

From the sounds of it, an optional bike lane would be a marked lane that only bicycles are allowed to use, but where bicyclists can also legally use the other lanes on the same road.

I'm confused - having a dedicated lane somehow forces you to pass?

Imagine the bike lane is on the right. Now if cars are moving slowly you as a cyclist will be passing them on their right ("undertaking"). This is unsafe near the places where cars turn right (across the bike lane).

In California:

1. A bicyclist does not need to stay to the right of the road when approaching a place where right turns are allowed (i.e. can leave the bike lane).

2. Vehicles are required to merge into the bike lane before making a right turn, otherwise it's consider making a turn without being in the rightmost lane.

Not to say I've ever seen a single car in the bay area correctly merge to the bike lane before turning. Any case where a bicyclist is hit by a car making a right turn should be considered "failure to complete a passing maneuver."

A complication is when a car (or bus at bus stop, or whatever) is parked in the bike lane, or immediately on the curb lane, just before the right turn lane. In that case, it becomes a lot harder to get into the bike lane before making a right turn, and in SF, is a fairly common situation.

If you're just worried about cars, it's fairly safe to make the right turn lane from that non-rightmost lane, since the other car is blocking any other car from approaching there. However, bikes (and sometimes motorcyclists, but rarely are they that suicidal) are going to come up, so it's still prudent to both get into the far-right lane and check on the right. That's the most common "cars turning right from non-rightmost lane" situation I've seen, though.

My biggest question about California road rules: what kind of vehicle is a homeless guy with a shopping car full of cans/etc.? Is he a pedestrian (similar to a pedestrian pushing a stroller), or is he a vehicle like a bicycle? What if he's in a lane of traffic, going down the road at 1-2mph (which is reasonable, since he would take up the entire sidewalk otherwise).

A bad idea perhaps, but legally required, at least in Denmark. Bikes are suppose to stay as fare right on the road as possible at all time. This means that traffic aren't mixed, which is generally a good idea.

Isn't that pretty much why you always cycle with the direction of traffic? As a runner, I've been told to run against the flow for safety but almost always run into these types of situations (which is why I mostly go out of my way to run behind the cars stopped at intersections.)

I think the situation being described is more like:

    ___      ↱↑____
       |   | TB|
       |       |
       |   |   |

(where T is the truck, and B the bike, natch).

A+

no, other way around cycle against traffic to avoid right turn hit as you will be on the left side and see the trucks left turn ahead of time

This is a type of accident that is particular to countries that have bicycle lanes. Cities like for example Berlin have closed a large number of cycle lanes (where they are routed to the right of regular traffic) because of that reason, and replaced them with shared lanes.

In my locale, at least along my commute, the bike and car lanes merge at each major intersection. Maybe avoiding these accidents is the reason.

That's a sensible policy. Here in Jakarta lanes are mostly for decorative purposes only, but the roads are shared by cars, trucks, autorickshaws, motorcycles, and various forms of human-powered cards (either pushed by a pedestrian or with a mechanism based on a bicycle). It is amazingly chaotic.

But one of the first things you learn is not only to be pedantic about signalling when turning but that you need to claim space because otherwise you are asking for an accident and if you are involved in one as a car driver, it doesn't matter whose fault it is: the motorcyclist/bicyclist loses on the physics and the car driver loses in front of the police (that's one way btw that police corruption protects the poor here).

The space-claiming is key. You do not want to be passed on the left while making a left-hand turn (they drive here the same side as in the UK). That has happened to me a couple of times and it is a major reason I do not listen to the radio while I am driving (with motorcylces that way at least I can hear them). Fortunately I haven't hit anyone yet (knocking on wood).

We call this a 'right hook' in the US.

In most, if not all, cities in Canada, this is why we're told to always check our right-side blind spot before we turn right. Don't know how it is in Denmark. A quick Google search tells me that Denmark doesn't have such a law. Not sure why they don't, it makes total sense.

Not looking over your shoulder when turning will give you an instant fail in the driving test in Germany. In the US most states' drivers manuals recommend looking over your shoulder but most people don't do it. I tend to blame it on the fact that there exists no mandatory driver education and driving tests are almost impossible to fail.

When I paid several thousands of Euros for mandatory driving school in Germany I was very annoyed about the high price tag, but seeing on a daily basis how safety and efficiency of traffic is compromised when no system to educate drivers is not in place, I am glad I had a chance to go through it.

Each US state has its own licensing laws and you may have issues with the particular laws in your state, but it's certainly wrong to say there's no mandatory driver's ed in the US. California, for example, requires 30 hours of classroom education and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel instruction from a state-licensed professional driving school.

I have a CA license and my US driving school track record consists of a total of 5 hours of "classroom education" (video watching) and passing a driving test despite running a stop sign in a residential area (my German license didn't count, had to start from nil)

It's reversed in the US. Lots of accidents occur when people make a left hand turn and don't see a motorcycle/bicycle going straight in the oncoming lane.

Indeed. A big problem in DC is cars making U-Turns (i.e. a hard left turn) and cutting across the bike lanes that run along the center of Pennsylvania Ave.

I think this can be generalized to: Turning and/or crossing lanes results in more potentially dangerous situations than traveling within a traffic lane.

Lorries turning left is how cyclist die every week in here in London.

Cyclist deaths get a lot more attention that purely automobile deaths, because they are so rare, which makes them seem vastly more common than they are.

In fact, in 2013 there were 14 cyclist deaths in London. 6 of those were in a two-week period in November. That was shocking enough that there was political attention and increased police enforcement around intersections. I'm sure also increased media coverage.

9 of those deaths were from lorries, as you said. I'm sure the majority are also at intersections, as you said, since that's where most cyclists get hit by motor vehicles.

You have a point, however saying that a cyclist dies every week in London 'because they are not wearing helmets' is equally wide off the mark and erroneous.

When I initially saw your post, I thought that Denmark was driving on the left... but then I realized that much less countries then I initially thought are driving on the left side.

I doubt that lots of bicyclists get killed this way every day in Denmark. Sure, it's a risk and there're certainly accidents and deaths, but many and every day in a relatively small country?

He mentioned "every year", not "every day".

Thanks, my (embarrassing) mistake!

I'm confused. Is this cyclist on the sidewalk?

Probably on the bike path, like this situation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Vrijligge...

Cars in the middle, bikes on the red lines. When cars go right, bikers are sometimes overlooked (mostly by not looking at all).

The streets in the picture were at least designed by someone with half a clue, and most drivers would hesitate to turn right at speed here.

This is what this normally looks like (theres no collision here because as a cyclist you constantly monitor other lanes and slow down until its clear the idiots have noticed you, or just switch into the full lane):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGGeMBvM4e0

(London, so right-turn is the left-turn equivalent)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com