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.