"blocking the cycle path is a recipe for chaos"
I think california has the right rule here, the driver cannot constantly monitor what's coming from behind when making a turn, especially when most cyclists are almost invisible from side mirrors. Blocking the path for a safety-critical maneuver would certainly help.
> the driver cannot constantly monitor what's coming from behind when making a turn
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.
What is functionally different about that illustration other than the cyclist having to make odd movements when going straight - which would be incredibly confusing to oncoming cars turning left?
A car turning right (or left) only crosses the green cycle lane after it's rotated. Rather than having to watch for bicycles on the right coming up from behind, the car only has to watch for bicycles in front coming from the right, which is much easier.
By the time a turning car and a bike intersect paths, the bike is moving across the front of the car, as opposed to approaching from behind as the car is turning. It would be far easier to spot a cyclist moving side-to-side across your vision out the front of the vehicle than trying to spot one in your blind spot.
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.
the "odd movement" isn't something a car driver has to deal with at all. As a driver you turn right, and after completing the turn you're faced with a cycle path where a simple look to the right will be plenty to check for cyclists. It's basically splitting a complex intersection into two simpler intersections.
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.
You're imagining it happening at an unreal pace. This is really close to what most large intersections in the Netherlands look like. The shoulders for the cycle lane are actually behind the curb, and for a cyclist still feel like 'going straight'. If I'm not mistaken, this is even known as a "dutch junction".
That's why they invented hand signals. Granted not everyone is using those when they should, but it's no different from someone making an unexpected turn on a normal crossing.
We have an intersection somewhat like that in SF at 9th and Division St and as a cyclist it feels more dangerous than other intersections. A lot of cars block the bike path and a lot of cars think they have the right of way turning right vs me going straight.
Where I learned driving, the driver is definitely required to monitor what's coming from behind when making a turn. The mantra is "mirror, indicator, shoulder":
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.
But at the end of the day who is wrong in a situation where a car signals to turn into the bike lane ahead of a biker (with plenty of room, it's safe) and then signals again to turn right at an intersection if the bike decides to go around the car on the right anyways and gets hit by it?
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 are assuming a fully observable environment - where everything is visible. To be honest with you, many bikers are not, or not from every angle possible. Most of the bikes I have encountered do not follow the road signs either (especially lights & stop signs - they just breeze through). With this in mind, given cyclists are the ones in danger (As opposed to the driver sitting in his car), it's safer to give the cyclist a clear sign of a right turn. I have seen way too many times where a cyclist used his judgement to pass through a car in what i call rather dangerous way, so I rather block their path to save their life than to trust them to use their best judgement. Cyclists are often invisible, and more susceptible to injuries, and I am being cautious and not leaving any doubt about when and how I will turn, by blocking the path. When I give a right turn sign, you just cannot pass through me assuming i won't be turning in the next second.
But there's a evolutionary problem here. You don't have eyes in the front and back of your head. Bikes are small and hard to miss. They can easily slip into your blind spot while you are looking at the road and switching to look in the mirror.
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.
and I'm pretty sure that one of the touted benefits of self driving cars is that they are able to constantly monitor a whole lot more than a human driver would.
Do you also stay still while doing this, or do you have to monitor what’s in front as well? If not you’d effectively have to monitor three separate directions all at once.
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(
In Copenhagen, often you have a green light, so you can concentrate on behind. Then check ahead when behind is clear. (You are usually stopped, and if not, no driver behind will be surprised or angry by your stopping to ensure the path is clear.)
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.
> 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.
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.
The merge – or crossing if you will – is going to happen at some point anyway. The point of driving in the cycle lane would be to do the merge first, well in advance of the turn, and once you reach the turn you can safely proceed with the knowledge that you won’t miss a cyclist coming in from behind. (Probably.)
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.
and for having lived in Amsterdam for 2 years now, I guarantee that the way bikes (and traffic in general) are handled in the Netherlands is far from the safest way! :)
But living here myself, I can attest that Dutch drivers are better than US drivers.
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.
One thing that helps is the increasing number of non-car roads (pedestrians and cyclists only). Obviously that's not very friendly to drivers, but a well designed city with good public transport really doesn't need cars in the city.
- 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.
