Dreaded cyclists

I believe it's your vehicle suggesting a certain level of care for other road users.

Gee.....think so?
Cause when I drive a normal car I get exactly the same thing ......

Must be a vibe I send out. :whistle:
 
Last edited:
You'll find that design all over Germany.

Even Germany can design things badly. :p

Bicycles about to pass on your right appear in your right mirror before they pass. To cover the blind spot you're obliged to turn your head before you turn your car.

Actually, no, they don't. And sometimes neither do cars. That's why you are required to be on the rightmost or leftmost lane before turning right or left. No matter how carefully you look, there will be always a precise speed that will put someone in your blind spot for just the right time to make it impossible for you to notice. Particularly when your speed is very similar to the one of the vehicle in your blind spot. With bikes, all of this is even easier because of the size.

There is no rule to slow down to let other cars move into your lane (merging lanes, construction zones etc excepted).

Honestly, I don't know if German road code is different from the italian one, but here the first rule of the road code is to never put yourself or anyone else in danger, even if this means slow down or even stop when you would legally have right of way. The second rule, strictly tied to this one, is that you must always favour other road users in their intended manoeuvres, when possible. So if a car that wants to move into your lane puts on the indicator and you are well spaced, you must slow down and allow him to move. Just like when you are on a motorway and some car wants to merge. you are not allowed to block him indefinitely or to not care at all just because you have right of way.

Cars are allowed to overtake on the right in city streets.

This is another difference. Here, they don't. They are only allowed to overtake on the right if the road has multiple lanes and the traffic is proceeding queued. But again, cars should drive on the rightmost lane at any time, so there -should not be- any need for overtaking on the right except when queued.

They are governed by laws. In poor visibility weather they are required to turn on their lights,

But in practice they usually don't. This is part of the main problem: carelessness.

in clear weather you just need to open your eyes. Not making noise should be no factor in whether you as a car driver yield to them or not. My brakes work fine, the rear ones are able to lock up and the front ones are able to get rear lift-off.

I keep my eyes open, but there are still issues. Making noise is just something helpful. It can help other people notice you. I don't necessarily need to have right of way over bicycles, I would like for them to have, as vehicles, pretty much the same rules as everyone else. But, most of all, if I am to yield, I'd like to be able to notice them and have a chance to comply. I don't want to crush someone because it was impossible for me to see him.

Also, if you have good brakes on your bike, I assure you you are part of an incredibly tiny percentage of cyclists. Flat tires, bad brakes, wobbly wheels are the norm.

If the cyclist is on your right, where should he go when you want to turn? Vanish into thin air? Engage reverse?

The problem is never when the cyclist is already on my right, the problem is when he is behind (on his lane, not on mine). If he is behind me and I put my indicators on beforehand, and I'm slowing down (to turn) and he's catching up, how am I supposed to know he's there? Blind spots are there. It's not like I can look behind, my car is also going forward, even slowly. I have to look forward too, but I haven't got eyes on my back.

Speaking of blind spots, the worst ones are the ones that you get while you are already turning. The bike lane on the road is nothing compared to this. Your car is half-turned, so your mirrors is less then useless, and your lateral view is limited both in space (with the b-pillar blocking it) and in time (you have to look in both direction for pedestrians too). The first time I noticed this I was in Berlin, and I really avoided a crash not because I had looked around (I had done that, I had turned my head everywhere and I was going slowly), but because I -remembered- having overtaken a bicycle who was riding on the kerb (on his bike lane) more than 15 seconds before (in car terms, a whole month). I don't want to rely on my memory and attention to small details to be safe, driving is not a game of skill. I want to have the factual possibility to be safe.

We put stupid bumps on the roads to make roads stupid-proof for what concerns speed and we let cyclist safety (and car drivers peace of mind) be determined by the level of attention to otherwise uninfluent details? And all of this because we are afraid to give some rule to bicycle? Why, just because they are greener and cheaper and fitter? Safety comes before politics.

This is unrelated to badness, pollution, aggression, weight or evilness. You have two lanes with travelling vehicles, a vehicle from the left lane wants to move across the right lane. It's quite obvious that the vehicle from the left lane needs to yield for any vehicle on the right lane.
Imagine a bicycle wants to turn left - it needs to cross your car lane. Guess what, the bicycle has to yield to your car because it crosses your lane.

If everyone blocks the bicycle, the bicycle won't pass, and the cyclist will be cross at cars beacuse they don't let him pass, even if, as you stated before, cars have right of way. This is what I was saying before: at some point someone will need to slow down or to stop to let the cyclist pass, even with right of way. It should be the same the other way around, but it isn't, and the car driver doesn't even get the right to get cross.

How is this different from a driveway going through a house? You slowly inch your car forward as long as you can't see anything, giving everyone else enough time to decide whether to pass in front of you or to stop.

If a crash occurs, how am I able to show the police that I was slowly going forward and not darting through? The fault will always be mine, no matter what, and that's unfair. For some seconds, I would simply be hoping for the best, not positively driving safely. Usually, for narrow streets, mirrors are used to avoid this kind of problems. There is one of them in my link too. But the bike lane there is not one-way, so no mirror to see people incoming from the left. Where is safety?

If the bicycles are approaching then they will appear in your right mirror, just look into it. If they already are next to your car then you will see them by turning your head to the right. If there are lots of bicycles then why should you make lots of people wait? Instead lots of people should pass making only one wait.

So why can I not stay in the rightmost lane (bike lane). I will be the first off the light, no risk for crashes, no useless waiting, and everyone coming later will queue behind the bikes who will already be there. Otherwise, what if the line of bikes is long enough to make the light red again. When will I be able to pass? What if there are other cars behind me. What if the cars are there -before- the arrival of the bikes. We are going on the same direction, how is it possible that I have to yield even to people coming from -behind- me. This seems to be made just to incentive cycling and make car drivers pollute and pay even more (you wait, but your engine burns fuel). Which is really not fair at all.

Which is illegal.

Not everywhere. In Italy it is allowed, as it is in Denmark, for example. Lots of bicycles allowed on main pedestrian roads.

I'm both. Guess how difficult it is to explain the laws to a car driver :tease:

I know. As I said before, people who ride bikes are often the same people who drive cars, this is why we shouldn't let safety completely in the hands of their judgement. :p
 
Bullshit, they want the PRIVILEGE of being on the road they need to have the same RESPONSIBILITIES.

If by responsibilities you mean things like basic road manners and respect toward other motorists, in whatever vehicle they may be in, then yes, I would accede to that.

However, the driver of a 2+ ton vehicle should be held more accountable and have more responsibility toward the safety, control, and awareness of their vehicle and surroundings at all times, compared to, say, a bicyclist, for reasons I stated before. It's analogous as to why firearms laws are more stringent than, say, laws governing the carrying and use of knives. According to NHTSA ~40000 people are fatalities in car-related incidents each year. And although I couldn't pull up immediately any direct data on the number of fatalities, on the road, instigated by bicycles, I'll be willing to bet it's far less.
 
If by responsibilities you mean things like basic road manners and respect toward other motorists, in whatever vehicle they may be in, then yes, I would accede to that.

However, the driver of a 2+ ton vehicle should be held more accountable and have more responsibility toward the safety, control, and awareness of their vehicle and surroundings at all times, compared to, say, a bicyclist, for reasons I stated before. It's analogous as to why firearms laws are more stringent than, say, laws governing the carrying and use of knives. According to NHTSA ~40000 people are fatalities in car-related incidents each year. And although I couldn't pull up immediately any direct data on the number of fatalities, on the road, instigated by bicycles, I'll be willing to bet it's far less.
Completely and utter BS. If you want to treat cyclists different because they are lighter and cause less damage, then I should get preferential treatment over a douche driving a Hummer. After all my vehicle is smaller, has better maneuverability and stopping ability and will likely to cause less damage given similar circumstances than a Hummer. By the same token motorcycles should have preferential treatment as well...

Where do you want to draw the line? When I was on the other side of the pond I rented an ATV on one of the islands and that thing topped out at 40km/h downhill with two people on it, plenty of racing bikes can match/surpass that yet the ATV was registered and had to obey the same traffic rules as other motor vehicles. What about scooters then? They average same speed a bicycle but they still have to be registered... To make it more interesting what about the new bicycles that have electric motors in them? Should they be considered motor vehicles and be subject to the same rules and regulation or not?

By the same token pedestrians don't get preferential treatment. If I'm going the speed limit and I have a green light and hit a crossing pedestrian the only thing that I am required by law to do is stop to call the ambulance and wait until the police arrives.

If I'm driving down the road and a cycliot decides to jump in front my car because he has to make a left and I run him over its my fault simply because I'm in a car? Really? The only reason cyclists get the preferential treatment is because of the political BS surrounding the "green" form of transport and cars being "evil".

In conclusion:
If you want to be on the road with other vehicles you need to be the subject to the same rules and regulations that the vehicles you are sharing the road with. It is the only logical/fair way of doing it. The only time I may [begrudgingly] agree that certain class of vehicle/driver be treated differently is when we are talking about commercial drivers/vehicles, and then only because they are considered professional drivers and therefore go through more training than the average.
 
Cyclists getting preferential treatment is just silly.

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/10/02/intersection.png

Two vehicles approach the intersection, A wants to cross the path of B while B proceeds straight. Who gets right of way? B.
You know as well as I do that it would not be possible with two cars.....
Ok let me just make a scenario for you.

2 lane road. Vehicle A is traveling in the left lane, Vehicle B is traveling in the right lane. Vehicle A needs to turn right, at the time of the maneuver Vehicle A is completely in front of Vehicle B. Now logically speaking,
A) Should Vehicle A move to the right lane in front of Vehicle B (which is far enough behind to allow that maneuver) then proceed to make the right turn
B) Vehicle A slows down, lets Vehicle B go past, moves into the right lane then make the turn?

C) Both proceed at the same speed with Vehicle A making a sharp right w/o braking and killing some innocent babies (poor babies)

Now keep in mind that the right lane is not likely to have ONLY Vehicle B in it, there are likely vehicles behind it. Also keep in mind that if the vehicle in the right lane ALWAYS has a right of way even if behind then it would be impossible to make the turn if there is a steady flow of traffic from the right side. To add to that there are other vehicles in the left lane, some might be waiting for a right as well and some are trying to proceed forward. Now which of the 3 choices above would be best for the flow of traffic?

P.S. Not sure if German law is different but AFAIK in the US you cannot make a turn out of a multilane road unless you are in that lane unless otherwise indicated. So if you wanna go right you have to be in the right lane, left in the left lane.
 
Last edited:
2 lane road. Vehicle A is traveling in the left lane, Vehicle B is traveling in the right lane. Vehicle A needs to turn right, at the time of the maneuver Vehicle A is completely in front of Vehicle B. Now logically speaking,
A) Should Vehicle A move to the right lane in front of Vehicle B (which is far enough behind to allow that maneuver) then proceed to make the right turn

Here you make one important assumption: That B is far enough behind to allow A to move. If the cyclist B in my picture is far enough behind to let A turn then there is no problem with turning before the cyclist.
 
Here you make one important assumption: That B is far enough behind to allow A to move. If the cyclist B in my picture is far enough behind to let A turn then there is no problem with turning before the cyclist.

According to you the cycle gets the right of way if he is behind you. How far behind you does it have to be? I mean really if I'm in front of you I get the right of way, I'll be faster than a bike in any case.
 
Same thing when you turn left and there is a car coming in the other direction. There is no fixed distance when to turn and when to wait, just use your judgement. If you can turn without obstructing the other guy then turn. If you can't then wait.
 
Yesturday I parked on the (very wide) pedrestrian sidewalk in front of my house to unload my groceries for a few minutes - yes I was being lazy and breaking the law. Then a cyclist came along and scolded me for "almost blocking the sidewalk" ... while he was riding his bike on the same pedestrian sidewalk ... in the wrong direction. :rolleyes: That?s like a thief complaining about people not paying their taxes ...
 
You should scold yourself for only "almost punching him". Do the right thing next time :lol:
 
Cyclists getting preferential treatment is just silly.

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/10/02/intersection.png

Two vehicles approach the intersection, A wants to cross the path of B while B proceeds straight. Who gets right of way? B.


Yes. But to turn right, you need to be on the -right- lane. Vehicle A is doing things wrong.

The only exception to this rule is if A would be on a lane that allows turning right, in which case the lane on which vehicle B is would invariably tell vehicle B to turn right as well. The situation you have drawn here can not happen if both vehicles are following the rules.

These rules are there to avoid people having other people in their blind spot, so to avoid accidents or dangerous situations.

Same thing when you turn left and there is a car coming in the other direction. There is no fixed distance when to turn and when to wait, just use your judgement. If you can turn without obstructing the other guy then turn. If you can't then wait.

Don't forget that while you are waiting for people in the opposite direction your field of view is very wide, you don't have blind spots and everything you need to look at is in front of you and in the same direction as your movement or intended movement. It is incredibly easier to notice things this way.

The problem with cyclist is they get right of way when this is not safe, and it's not car drivers' fault either.

I think I can agree with Prizrak and say this bad design comes directly from the eco-idiocy that wants to promote greener forms of transportation instead of cars. This is right, after all: I can not win against someone wanting less pollution, but I won't accept less safety just for the sake of it. Bicycles have brakes and pedals: when safety deems they need to stop or slow down, they should stop or slow down. It slows bicycles down and it's tiresome, but nobody is forced to use bicycles, they could always take the bus or walk. Cycling is not a right, and there is a difference between making cycling easier and discriminating other people.

So, if they have a dedicated lane to ride, this is fine, but if I need to turn and pass on their lane, I want to have the possibility to do that safely, maybe getting -on- their lane to turn right.

This is already done with bus lanes, why can't we do the same with bike lanes?

http://tinyurl.com/3a24x68

You can see the bus lane stops before the crossroad to allow cars to queue up to turn right.
 
Last edited:
Yes. But to turn right, you need to be on the -right- lane. Vehicle A is doing things wrong.

The only exception to this rule is if A would be on a lane that allows turning right, in which case the lane on which vehicle B is would invariably tell vehicle B to turn right as well. The situation you have drawn here can not happen if both vehicles are following the rules.

These rules are there to avoid people having other people in their blind spot, so to avoid accidents or dangerous situations.

Having cars move into the cycle lane or having a separate turning-right-lane on the right of the bike lane only moves the issue of blind spots etc to the switching lanes maneuvre, it does not make the issue disappear. In fact it makes the problem more dangerous, because the car is moving while it is switching lanes while it is stopped or going slowly before turning.

Don't forget that while you are waiting for people in the opposite direction your field of view is very wide, you don't have blind spots and everything you need to look at is in front of you and in the same direction as your movement or intended movement. It is incredibly easier to notice things this way.

Just turn your head and use your mirrors. I can do that, why can't you?

The problem with cyclist is they get right of way when this is not safe, and it's not car drivers' fault either.

Over here it would be the car's fault.

I think I can agree with Prizrak and say this bad design comes directly from the eco-idiocy that wants to promote greener forms of transportation instead of cars.

Such designs have been used here for decades, way before all the ecoterrorists.

Cycling is not a right, and there is a difference between making cycling easier and discriminating other people.

Driving a car is not a right, and there is no need to discriminate against cyclists. Those arguments lead nowhere.

So, if they have a dedicated lane to ride, this is fine, but if I need to turn and pass on their lane, I want to have the possibility to do that safely, maybe getting -on- their lane to turn right.

...and to get on that lane you need to check for bicycles in your blind spots while moving. How is that more safe than to check for bicycles while stationary before a turn?

This is already done with bus lanes, why can't we do the same with bike lanes?

We do have separate direction bike lanes if there is enough space and enough traffic in the troublesome directions.

http://maps.google.de/?ie=UTF8&hq=&...3644,10.132884&spn=0.000725,0.002064&t=k&z=20

Cyclists going straight just go straight. Cyclists going left go straight and then stop at the right far corner. Cyclists going right go onto the separate bike lane to the right of the cars turning right.
Cars going right move across the straight bike lane where the line is dotted, and that often causes massive problems between cars and bikes if the cars keep moving, then they can't cope with looking forward for potentially red lights and looking backwards/to the side for bikes.
 
Having cars move into the cycle lane or having a separate turning-right-lane on the right of the bike lane only moves the issue of blind spots etc to the switching lanes maneuvre, it does not make the issue disappear. In fact it makes the problem more dangerous, because the car is moving while it is switching lanes while it is stopped or going slowly before turning.

Yes, so why do you need to have separate bike lanes when approaching crossroads? It only brings more problems than it solves.

Just turn your head and use your mirrors. I can do that, why can't you?

I can, but that's inherently dangerous. I think you know this. Time is an issue, because the driver needs to look ahead too. Why can't we devise a solution that makes possible for car drivers to avoid putting cyclist safety in danger? Cars are made so that they DO HAVE blind spots. The need to yield to someone coming exactly from that direction is dangerous even if the driver is Schumacher.

Over here it would be the car's fault.

That's exactly what I say it's unfair. If I can't see you, I won't see you, even if I stop my car and wait for ages. There will always be a point where I can't see you.

Such designs have been used here for decades, way before all the ecoterrorists.

They have good points and bad issues. Why is it difficult to even admit that bike lanes desing is often flawed? There is not an easy solution, but if we don't even accept the fact that there's a problem, nothing will change.

Driving a car is not a right, and there is no need to discriminate against cyclists. Those arguments lead nowhere.

Exactly. I was pointing out that riding a bike is not a right either. The only right we have is walking. And even that needs to be mediated. A serious regulation wouldn't be that bad for cyclists. (speed limits and mirrors, for example. Not because bicycle alone would need those things to ride around where nowhere else is, but because they ride in traffic and need to protect themselves, even in situation where bigger vehicles may have problems or issues granting them safety)

...and to get on that lane you need to check for bicycles in your blind spots while moving. How is that more safe than to check for bicycles while stationary before a turn?

You are almost never really stationary before a turn, are you? When was the last time you stopped to turn right (with noone in front of you, clearly) -before- having seen someone else in your right mirror?

We do have separate direction bike lanes if there is enough space and enough traffic in the troublesome directions.

We can see that when the situation gets bad, more solutions are tried. Because the design has flaws in the first place.

Cars going right move across the straight bike lane where the line is dotted, and that often causes massive problems between cars and bikes if the cars keep moving, then they can't cope with looking forward for potentially red lights and looking backwards/to the side for bikes.

This is what I was saying. Car-bikes interaction is dangerous, and it's not simply the car's fault, just like if you are crushed by the side of a bendy bus turning, it's not necessarily the bus' fault (don't overtake on bends written on the back means something).

What about simply implement the same rules as everyone else use around, for example multiple lane roads for cars? Yes, you have priority, but if the other vehicle is trying to change lane, you must favour him if the situation allows for it. Just like cars on cars. Why is it so difficult to find a solution?

Look, moving around is complicated, but we need to think for everyone, not just for one cathegory of vehicles. Like I said before, it is incredibly difficult to talk with cyclists about regulations or limiting behaviours for bicycles, just like it is difficult to tell a car driver the speed limit must be reduced or similar concepts. Why, then, deaf car drivers are stupid speeders endangering other people and cyclists are just "the good guys"?
 
Last edited:
Same thing when you turn left and there is a car coming in the other direction. There is no fixed distance when to turn and when to wait, just use your judgement. If you can turn without obstructing the other guy then turn. If you can't then wait.

When it comes to cyclist as long as my rear bumper is in front of them I'm in front and therefore can complete my maneuver :p
 
Last edited:
Yes, so why do you need to have separate bike lanes when approaching crossroads? It only brings more problems than it solves.

Not having a marked bike lane does not change the situation because the bikes would then ride on the right edge of the road, ie the same spot. A marked bike lane probably only increases driver's awareness of bikes.

I can, but that's inherently dangerous. I think you know this. Time is an issue, because the driver needs to look ahead too. Why can't we devise a solution that makes possible for car drivers to avoid putting cyclist safety in danger? Cars are made so that they DO HAVE blind spots. The need to yield to someone coming exactly from that direction is dangerous even if the driver is Schumacher.

Dangerous? How so? When you are about to turn you slow down, hence danger from cars in front of you is virtually nonexistant.
I don't think my car has a blind spot that can swallow a whole bicycle if I turn my head properly, and I don't think yours has one either. For example, if the bicycle is hidden behind your fat C-pillar then he will be visible in your right wing mirror.
I don't think Schuey is a good example for a safe and caring driver, ask Damon or Rubens or any other F1 driver :lol:

That's exactly what I say it's unfair. If I can't see you, I won't see you, even if I stop my car and wait for ages. There will always be a point where I can't see you.

See above, proper use of mirrors and headturning means you can see the bicycle. If you are going too fast to have the time to turn your head then you need to slow down.

They have good points and bad issues. Why is it difficult to even admit that bike lanes desing is often flawed? There is not an easy solution, but if we don't even accept the fact that there's a problem, nothing will change.

They work pretty well over here. Obviously there are occasional accidents, but there also are occasional accidents without bike lanes being involved.

A serious regulation wouldn't be that bad for cyclists. (speed limits and mirrors, for example. Not because bicycle alone would need those things to ride around where nowhere else is, but because they ride in traffic and need to protect themselves, even in situation where bigger vehicles may have problems or issues granting them safety)

Bicycles obeying some speed limit would not help you if you don't look for them before turning right. Neither would bike mirrors.

You are almost never really stationary before a turn, are you? When was the last time you stopped to turn right (with noone in front of you, clearly) -before- having seen someone else in your right mirror?

Quite often, actually. Depends on the type of intersection of course. Often I can make sure there is no bicycle around way before the turn - slow ones by looking forward, fast ones by using the mirror, anything inbetween by turning my head to the right. In some cases I can't be sure there are no pedestrians about to cross, so I need to slow down a lot or even stop before turning.
The key is not whether I stop before seeing someone in my mirror, the key is whether I keep going quickly without verifying that noone is around. If you do the latter you're bound for disaster, if you do the former you might stop a few times too often.

We can see that when the situation gets bad, more solutions are tried. Because the design has flaws in the first place.

Going like that, every intersection of lanes is a flaw. Go build me tons of bicycle/car/pedestrian/train/lawnmower flyovers.

What about simply implement the same rules as everyone else use around, for example multiple lane roads for cars? Yes, you have priority, but if the other vehicle is trying to change lane, you must favour him if the situation allows for it. Just like cars on cars. Why is it so difficult to find a solution?

That is exactly what is happening over here, same rules for laneswapping as with cars only. If I want to move into another lane with my car and there is another car behind me in that lane he has the right of way. Same as if there was a bicycle, I can only move over if there is enough space for both of us. If there isn't then the vehicle keeping its lane has the right of way. Not difficult at all.

Why, then, deaf car drivers are stupid speeders endangering other people and cyclists are just "the good guys"?

Go back a few pages, you'll see me ranting about cyclists going around in the dark with no lights and similar idiocy. I'm not going against car drivers, I'm going against people not able to follow the rules and take care of other road users, no matter what vehicles are involved.
You do act like a deaf car driver though :wheelchair:


When it comes to cyclist as long as my rear bumper is in front of them I'm in front and therefore can complete my maneuver :p

That's not going to end well, Lewis.
 
Not having a marked bike lane does not change the situation because the bikes would then ride on the right edge of the road, ie the same spot. A marked bike lane probably only increases driver's awareness of bikes.

While I agree that a bike lane helps cars keep a lateral distance, I assure you there is nothing easier than to avoid a crash with a bike if you don't have any bike lanes beside your car. You simply keep right since when you are sure no cyclist is in your blind spot (cars are faster, usually) and nobody is allowed to overtake you on the right, not even a bicycle, if you are not stopped at a traffic light. And when the light is green, if you have an indicator on it means no bike can overtake you either, because you are on the same lane, the rightmost. They can surely try, but then -they- will be at fault in case of accident, so it's easier to wait for the car, who was -already- in front of the bike, to turn right. This is what I meant when I said cyclists should follow the same rules as everyone else.

Dangerous? How so? When you are about to turn you slow down, hence danger from cars in front of you is virtually nonexistant.

Many crossroads comes with pedestrian crossings, for example, even in front of your car. Also, looking where you are going is always helpful. Who knows if some idiot jumps or drives straight in front of your car. The less you are forced to look in awkward directions, the better.

I don't think my car has a blind spot that can swallow a whole bicycle if I turn my head properly, and I don't think yours has one either. For example, if the bicycle is hidden behind your fat C-pillar then he will be visible in your right wing mirror.

But your car -does- have a blind spot that can swallow a bike, even if you turn your head properly and no matter what you think (I don't mean to be rude, so excuse me if my words might be), what you "think" really doesn't count very much against facts. And it is precisely when the bike is hidden behind the C-pillar than it is invisible to your mirrors too. It wouldn't be a blind spot if you could see there.

Mercedes has even invented a blind spot assist

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/28/mercedes-benz-adds-radar-based-blind-spot-assist/

Blind spot is also part of campaigns made for cyclists:

http://bicyclesafe.com/
http://seetheblindspot.tfl.gov.uk/instructions.shtml (here with trucks)

I myself have a good history on blind spots. I was exiting a multi-lane roundabout, and I was in the inner lane. During the roundabout I had passed a maxiscooter riding slowly on the outer lane. I exited the roundabout keeping my lane to leave enough room to the maxiscooter, so I was in the middle of the now three-laned road. I sped up a bit and started to manoeuvre to get back on the right lane; specifically, I put my indicators on, I checked the mirror and I turned my head. Not only I didn't see the maxiscooter, but I couldn't see him anywhere else. Since that road has no other exits, I checked my other mirrors to find him. No sign of him. He had disappeared. Only, I know this doesn't happen in real life, so I thought he could be in my blind spot. But then again, my indicators were now on since enough time for everyone to have noticed them, so I gently begun to move right. Slowly. Until I heard the clear -beep- of the maxiscooter, who then, and only then, decided it was a good idea to slow down and appear again in my mirrors.

Is it really my problem with turning my head? Or is it that people -can- and -will- be stupid, sometimes? Also, that blind spot was big enough to swallow up a maxiscooter. It is big enough for a car, or even a small van, so a bicycle can really disappear completely.

What is most important in this case is the relative speed of the two vehicles. If they are going roughly the same speed, which can happen in city traffic between a car and a bike, than there is plenty of time for the bike to stay hidden behind the C-pillar while the driver turns his head. Particularly when a car is slowing down before turning. Priority is really ok, it can be to the cyclist, but if I, as a car, put on my indicator early enough, no bike should be allowed to overtake me. It's safer for everyone.

Also, it's not a problem of the car's speed; actually, slowing down can hurt you more than speeding up: be fast enough and no bike will be in your blind spot for sure. Is it normal that driving fast can be safer than driving slow?

I don't think Schuey is a good example for a safe and caring driver, ask Damon or Rubens or any other F1 driver :lol:

Yes, here I clearly chose the wrong example... :lol:

They work pretty well over here. Obviously there are occasional accidents, but there also are occasional accidents without bike lanes being involved.

I found bike lanes in Germany to be incredibly tiresome and complicated, especially with heavy traffic. And bike lanes on the pavement are nothing compared to those on the kerb...

Bicycles obeying some speed limit would not help you if you don't look for them before turning right. Neither would bike mirrors.

It will help immensely for bike lanes on the kerb, and it will help immensely because the brake capability of a bike is only so much. Mirrors would help bikers changing lanes and interacting with cars. But really, speed limits would be enough.

Quite often, actually. Depends on the type of intersection of course. Often I can make sure there is no bicycle around way before the turn - slow ones by looking forward, fast ones by using the mirror, anything inbetween by turning my head to the right. In some cases I can't be sure there are no pedestrians about to cross, so I need to slow down a lot or even stop before turning.

If your attention shift to pedestrian, it can't be on bicycles. If it is on the right, it can't be on the left or in front of you.

The key is not whether I stop before seeing someone in my mirror, the key is whether I keep going quickly without verifying that noone is around. If you do the latter you're bound for disaster, if you do the former you might stop a few times too often.

I explained very well that I was able to avoid a crash in Berlin not because I had seen the cyclist but because I had -remembered- a cyclist riding on a bike lanes on the kerb among several walking people. I can say quite confidently that my attention and speed are not really worse than what you can expect from an average person. And I can tell for sure that I was not speeding in any way (there's no need for speeding if a 1.000 kms trip awaits you) Still, I am both scared and annoyed by this system. I want to be able to see and yield when I have to. This system doesn't allow me to do that. I think this system is perverted, actually.

But I can't really understand why is it so difficult to even agree that there are problems.

Going like that, every intersection of lanes is a flaw. Go build me tons of bicycle/car/pedestrian/train/lawnmower flyovers.

The problem is not crossing lanes on their own, the problem is dealing with visibility issues in a way that can grant safety for all road users. Instead what I see is dealing with these issues in a way that gives all the rights and privileges to what is at that time the coolest vehicle of the decades, and who cares for safety.

Actually, I could well think this is a way for nature to get rid of cyclists.

That is exactly what is happening over here, same rules for laneswapping as with cars only. If I want to move into another lane with my car and there is another car behind me in that lane he has the right of way. Same as if there was a bicycle, I can only move over if there is enough space for both of us. If there isn't then the vehicle keeping its lane has the right of way. Not difficult at all.

The car behind you (with right of way) has to favour your movement. For example, if there is enough room for both of you, the car behind you is not allowed to accelerate and close the gap to block you from merging. This clearly doesn't apply for bicycles.

Also, dedicated lanes can be a problem. The majority of problems on the road comes when the path of two vehicles intersect. Forcing this to happen (always undrivable bike lanes, for example) is wrong.

Go back a few pages, you'll see me ranting about cyclists going around in the dark with no lights and similar idiocy. I'm not going against car drivers, I'm going against people not able to follow the rules and take care of other road users, no matter what vehicles are involved.

I know. This is why I don't understand the difficulties we are having now.

I am talking about precise issues, and I have not said anywhere that it is all the bikes' fault. Still, I have explained a fact, then I have told you what happened to me, then I told you why I think this is a problem and I proposed a couple of ways to try and solve it. I dind't ask for a privileged treatment for car drivers and I don't think I showed any lack of respect towards cyclist or said they are inferior (when I did that, for example in the stupid drivers stories, I was knowing). But you simply told me I should turn my head more and slow down. Sorry, but this is exactly what makes me ask why is it so difficult to talk to someone who use a bicycle. And I still have no answer.
 
Last edited:
But your car -does- have a blind spot that can swallow a bike, even if you turn your head properly and no matter what you think (I don't mean to be rude, so excuse me if my words might be), what you "think" really doesn't count very much against facts. And it is precisely when the bike is hidden behind the C-pillar than it is invisible to your mirrors too. It wouldn't be a blind spot if you could see there.

My C- and D-pillars are tiny. Good luck hiding a bike behind them.

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/02/18/P2140004_002.JPG


Yes... to quote the article, "One of the most common accidents that occurs when merging is when one vehicle -- the one that's changing lanes -- hits another vehicle slightly behind it and to its side because the driver of the first vehicle couldn't see the second one in his mirror." No mention of turning your head. It's quite obvious that using mirrors only will lead to blind spots.

The car behind you (with right of way) has to favour your movement. For example, if there is enough room for both of you, the car behind you is not allowed to accelerate and close the gap to block you from merging. This clearly doesn't apply for bicycles.

"You're not allowed to accelerate to block a merging car" is quite different from "You have to brake even if you have the right of way to let another car in".
The first thing applies to all road users. An important thing on the road: Be predictable. Sudden changes in movement only cause trouble.
The second thing is bullshit. Let me give you an example from German driving tests. If you merge into a street with highway-like merger lanes and a car on the lane you merge into has to brake for you then you run the risk of failing that driving test.

Also, dedicated lanes can be a problem. The majority of problems on the road comes when the path of two vehicles intersect. Forcing this to happen (always undrivable bike lanes, for example) is wrong.

Driving on that bike lane would also lead to intersecting paths.

I am talking about precise issues, and I have not said anywhere that it is all the bikes' fault. Still, I have explained a fact, then I have told you what happened to me, then I told you why I think this is a problem and I proposed a couple of ways to try and solve it. I dind't ask for a privileged treatment for car drivers and I don't think I showed any lack of respect towards cyclist or said they are inferior (when I did that, for example in the stupid drivers stories, I was knowing). But you simply told me I should turn my head more and slow down. Sorry, but this is exactly what makes me ask why is it so difficult to talk to someone who use a bicycle. And I still have no answer.

You recognize the situation (turning right with bicycles involved) as dangerous. You want a solution to reduce the danger.
I say slow down, look around more. That works instantly, no need to re-model every road with another potentially flawed design, no need to change the laws to suit you better.

Oh, and that solution also works for a lot of other dangerous situations.
 
Top