
A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists - thebent
http://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-road-junction-will-keep-killing-cyclists/
======
Svip
I feel a lot of commenters are simply focusing on what signs can do or what
sort of junction to build, rather than focus on the fact that on high speed
primary country roads, bicycles shouldn't be sharing the road with the cars.

In Denmark, a lot of high speed roads (excluding motorways, of course) out in
the country have separate dual-way bicycle lanes near it but not attached to
it. (Example:
[https://i.imgur.com/dS6jqXS.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dS6jqXS.jpg))

That way, the cyclists can cross the side roads on their own accord, where
they are more visible and have their own junction with the side road.
Additional, one can set up a traffic light that only turns red for the cars
when a cyclist is crossing (i.e. activated by a button).

Furthermore, one might consider signage that warns drivers about cyclists in
the junction:
[https://i.imgur.com/CX6SJdW.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CX6SJdW.jpg)

Also, a way to reduce speed of the motorists without putting in stop signs
would be to add chicanes just before the junction, so they are _forced_ to
slow down.

Plus, as I've mentioned before (see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15977162](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15977162)),
I also think it is because UK drivers don't really have enough training with
how to deal with bicycles and the fact that they are also participants on the
road.

~~~
keir-rex
There’s a subset of drivers in the UK who have a resentment to sharing the
road with cyclists. Their primary arguments follow; “car drivers pay road
tax...” or “cyclists should be forced to sit a driving/road test...” blah
blah.

There are certainly cyclists who do nothing to help the reputation for the
rest but car drivers fail to realise how vulnerable cyclists and motorcyclists
are.

~~~
papermule
Why shouldn’t cyclists need a license to ride on the road? Others road users
must have one.

\----

It's a shame I'm getting downvoted, but the current state of affairs is that
in cities like London bicycles, cars and trucks will be sharing the road for
the near-mid future.

I'd rather not have trucks or cars in the city, and ideally cyclists would
have their own road separate from cars and pedestrians, but I think that's a
pipe dream.

Until then what else can do we? At least if we require tests for cyclists,
like we do for cars, buses and trucks, it might help reduce the number of
cyclists doing risky things that perhaps they aren't even aware of?

Sure there are still reckless drivers, but at least they have a license that
can be revoked and points that can be fined. How do we ban reckless cyclists
from the road?

~~~
chimprich
> Why shouldn’t cyclists need a license to ride on the road?

Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road,
would you still want cyclists to have a licence?

In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce
the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly
increase the number of motorists.

This dual effect would have a number of negative impacts. More motorists lead
to more congestion, more CO2 emitted and poorer air quality. Poorer air
quality leads to health problems, up to and including deaths. CO2 causes
climate change, and greater congestion has an economic impact. Fewer people
cycling mean fewer people getting exercise, leading to more health problems,
up to and including deaths.

I'm confident these problems would overshadow the small improvements in
cyclist safety you might gain with a cycling licence requirement. There are
better ways to improve cycling safety.

~~~
papermule
> Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road,
> would you still want cyclists to have a licence?

Of course! In a world where there were only cyclists there would still need to
be a set of rules that all cyclists are required to follow. Those might
include how to behave at intersections, how and when you should overtake other
cyclists, and so on. To be allowed to cycle, each cyclist should have
demonstrated that they understand and follow these rules by taking some kind
of test.

> In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce
> the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly
> increase the number of motorists.

I don't think so. I expect the government to continue to penalize use of motor
vehicles in cities such as London. The bicycle will remain the cheaper mode of
transport.

~~~
rout39574
> Of course! In a world where there were only cyclists there would still need
> to be a set of rules that all cyclists are required to follow.

What about walking? People can run into other people, knock them down stairs,
it's a risk...

I think that most observers find the idea that bike use is a public hazard,
and must be restricted to be obviously ludicrous.

~~~
cgriswald
I don't. In the United States, bicyclists must follow largely the same rules
of the road that drivers of motor vehicles must follow. They can even be
ticketed for violating those rules although usually the tickets don't have
much in the way of teeth (except things like DUI while biking).

Here in the Bay Area, it's a rare bicyclist that actually follows the rules.
Talking to other bicyclists, I've found a large number of them are simply
ignorant to the fact that the rules apply to them as well; or they have
adopted some bizarre version of the rules or a sense of entitlement.

I could talk anecdotes for hours, but one particularly egregious example is a
bicyclist who showed up to a 4-way stop _after I was already moving through
the intersection_ , cut through my path, and gave me the finger, all without
even slowing down, much less stopping.

Requiring bicyclists to pass at least a basic test would go a long way towards
clearing things up or at least changing the "bicyclists don't have to follow
the rules" culture that exists here, making the roads safer for themselves,
walkers/runners, and drivers alike.

~~~
beat
Forcing bicycles to follow rules designed for cars is often silly and
sometimes actively dangerous. For example, the bike route from downtown to my
house involves making a left turn on a busy street. For a mile and a half, the
street is nice and wide, with generous bike lanes in both directions -
sensible and safe. But the moment I have to turn left? By _car laws_ , I need
to stop in the middle of the road, with traffic coming up behind me (often at
40+mph), and wait until I have a clear path to turn left, which can take a
while. _This is deadly_.

So I do the illegal. I turn _right_ on the quiet side street and immediately
u-turn to the stop sign, to wait to cross both sides. It's not a dangerous
maneuver for me or anyone else, although it would be dangerous for a car to do
so.

See the problem?

edit: A car waiting to turn left is in considerably less danger. It's much
easier for traffic coming from behind to see, so it's less likely to be hit.
And if it is hit, the driver is protected by the car itself. At worst, the car
gets totaled. But a bicycle hit at 40mph? The cyclist is likely going to be
killed. It's not just silly to follow the car law - it's hazardous.

~~~
dabbledash
That u-turn sounds legal for everybody.

I think one the purposes of traffic law is to make the behavior of all
participants predictable. My only issue with cyclists is I feel I can never
predict what they're going to do.

~~~
squiggleblaz
"That u-turn sounds legal for everybody."

There's usually laws about how far you can see, how far you have to be from an
intersection etc.

"My only issue with cyclists is I feel I can never predict what they're going
to do."

This is not entirely the fault of the cyclists, it's the fault of the law
givers

The laws are not written in such a way that it appears safe to people using
bikes to follow all the rules, so everyone is compelled to come up with their
own rules. The build of roads is the same; a small detour for a person in a
car can become quite substantial for a person on a bike.

At the moment the laws get written and the roads get design assuming almost
everyone is going to use a car, and then they say "well, is it physically
possible to follow it on a bike?" \- if they consider bikes at all.

If governments wanted people to ride bikes predictably, they must consider
them when crafting the laws. It's probably quite okay for people riding bikes
to act differently than people driving cars: just like people walking around
behave differently. It will then take some time to spread the word and regain
the trust of cyclists. But it's a more helpful solution than saying "they must
follow rules and infrastructure designed for cars in the same way as cars,
except that they must not delay me: that way they will be predictable and
safe".

------
temp-dude-87844
There's a lot of math in this article about blind spots and car pillars and
whatnot, but a Google Maps Street View appears to show the terrain and brush
blocking the view on approach [1][2], making all of this math largely moot.
That the drivers in question didn't even so much as slow down for this
approach is beyond reckless, aside from the other lawbreaking that followed.

The 'Give Way' sign is idiotic, put a Stop sign on the other, flatter road, or
make it a 4-way stop. The drivers causing accidents were blowing through the
intersection, and shame on the wording of the law that they were able to
weasel out of harsher punishment.

Altering the roadway geometry, either as proposed, or more drastically with a
roundabout, is a brute-force solution on this country road when other societal
measures don't suffice, but it seems that there's plenty of room to enact
other changes before you dig up the road.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8638239,-1.4511249,3a,75y,26...](https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8638239,-1.4511249,3a,75y,269.62h,66.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgp5ZPCZzLXnphyQnR_xhww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
[2]
[https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8634141,-1.452595,3a,75y,269...](https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8634141,-1.452595,3a,75y,269.9h,68.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZFSqQto6dDxulLvfKmzH6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

~~~
mrb
« _make it a 4-way stop_ »

You may be unaware, but 4-way stop signs are very uncommon outside of the US.
In fact, in the UK they have always been formally prohibited by the Department
for Transport in 2002.

As a European driver, I discovered the existence of 4-way stop signs when I
moved to the US, and I have always found them dangerous in a counter intuitive
way: drivers are so used to 4-way stop intersections, that they may adopt the
habit of (1) doing _rolling stops_ and (2) assuming an intersection with a
stop sign is almost always a 4-way stop. Both of these 2 habits are
dangerous... At least that's my personal experience. I prefer the
_consistency_ of my home country where _every_ stop is a 2-way stop, therefore
I'm never surprised by non-stopping traffic at an intersection.

~~~
nraynaud
They do exist in Germany.

~~~
Karnickel
I won't dispute it because of the general "If you've never seen a black swan,
is that proof that none exists? (No)" fallacy, but speaking as a German, I
cannot remember having seen one in Germany, ever. So even if one exists it's
an exceedingly rare thing.

When I lived in the US I always found it unnecessary that _everybody_ has to
stop. In Germany we always have a "main" road and a "secondary" road, and
those on the main road don't have to stop. That priority pattern is kept from
major roads to tiny roads. Then there's the "right before left" rule when the
roads are equal - creating a priority without signs and without "everybody has
to stop" rule.

~~~
klodolph
In the places where I see four-way stop, there is some constant but not heavy
traffic during parts of the day, so if you had a primary / secondary road with
only a two-way stop, the secondary road would not flow well. However, the
traffic was not high enough to warrant a signal.

This makes sense to me, and I don't see how other systems would be anything
but worse. A signal would have a short cycle and only delay people during
large parts of the day, a two-way stop would cause problems in one direction,
it seems excessive to tear out a bunch of road to put concrete in, etc.

It is of course very natural that the roads in the US are built to completely
different standards than Germany, given how incredibly different the layout of
US cities are from German ones, broadly speaking.

~~~
kuschku
Almost every such intersection in Germany was replaced with roundabouts,
afaik. Perfect use case for them.

------
bdamm
Good write-up about a phenomenon I’d never expect to matter in a car. In
aircraft it is the norm for mid-air collisions to occur this way. For example,
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706)
but there are many others. Aircraft in the US now have autonomous transponders
broadcasting their location to each other. The author overlooks this fact
since the “pilot training” to avoid this problem actually does not work very
well. The pilot training is to take advantage of services that can alert you
to other traffic, such as Air Traffic Control.

~~~
Zak
> _The author overlooks this fact since the “pilot training” to avoid this
> problem actually does not work very well._

This is critical in the context of the author claiming that drivers should be
expected to recognize the risk in this situation. Pilots are required to
undergo significantly more training and expected to be much more methodical
about operating their vehicles than drivers. In spite of all that, they're not
very good at watching for this kind of scenario either.

Instead, a combination of air traffic control, transponder-based traffic
warning systems and the fact that air traffic is vastly more sparse than road
traffic make collisions between aircraft rare events. If a particular
intersection design causes collisions, the primary fault should be considered
to be with the intersection rather than the drivers.

~~~
pdelbarba
IIRC CBDR is not really in the FAA PPL curriculum at all. I only recall a
quick mention from my CFI when I went through it. It's much more heavily
emphasized to military pilots as missiles are designed to predict an impact
point and fly towards that rather than the aircraft (lead pursuit) so pilots
are trained to determine if a missile is maintaining guidance towards them by
seeing if it appears stationary in space.

------
Scarblac
This type of "Shared Space" junction in a rural area in the Netherlands is an
interesting solution:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@53.093333,6.2410165,255a,35y,32...](https://www.google.com/maps/@53.093333,6.2410165,255a,35y,328.48h,44.92t/data=!3m1!1e3)

Several bad accidents happened here before this was implemented, none since
2009 when it was. Note that there are distinct paths for bicycles next to the
roads, but that's standard.

There are _no signs_ , no rules, but the roads can't be taken in a straight
line anymore and it's certainly suggested that the junction is a pedestrian
area. Drivers get confused which grabs their attention and makes them _slow
down_.

~~~
pas
> no signs

Wow. I thought there must be at least one sign saying "shared space". But
apparently not :o

> no rules

So cops can't ticket you if you cause an accident? I guess the rules are just
the basic driving rules. Give way to people coming from your right, and anyone
who goes straight has some advantage. But since this is basically an unmarked
roundabout (drivers are supposed to keep to the right), that rules probably
doesn't apply.

~~~
Scarblac
I meant no special rules for this kind of setup, its precise status is quite
undefined, it's certainly not a roundabout.

In the Netherlands if a motorized vehicle is in an accident with a weaker
traffic participant (pedestrian or bicyclists) they are automatically liable
anyway, that doesn't change. So you're left with give way to the right and
don't hit each other, yes.

------
gklitt
The conclusion of the article reminds me of the idea behind blameless
postmortems for system outages. Human mistakes are inevitable, and it's our
responsibility to design resilient systems that acknowledge that simple fact.

While software engineering is an immature discipline in many ways, blameless
postmortems seem like a counterexample -- they're a well-known best practice
in software that don't seem as common in some other fields.

~~~
jdavis703
Most vehicle collisions are not blameless though. They are caused by
inattentive people; I've almost been hit multiple times by people either on
their cell phone, or chatting with a passenger in their vehicle.

Other times drivers are purposely driving with a priority on agressivenss over
safety.

If we ever get to a state of zero traffic fatalities then maybe blameless
post-mortems would make sense. But there's too much blatantly bad behavior
occuring.

It would be as if a pilot crashed buzzing the control tower. Clearly a human
operator was being reckless and deserves punishment.

~~~
underwater
If you acknowledge that people are inherently inattentive or malicious then
you can design a system that protects people even when someone is to blame.

~~~
jessaustin
Such a system probably wouldn't include people driving automobiles?

------
djsumdog
I know most comments indicate that even without the maths, the rolling
geography would seem to block the view, and that the best solution would be a
4-way stop, a roundabout or the split road suggestion in the article.

But going back to the a-pillar, Volvo did have a concept design with a see
through a-pillar. I'm not sure why it never made it to market. I'm guessing it
didn't pass their safety requirements?

[http://www.dangar.com/brochure12.htm](http://www.dangar.com/brochure12.htm)

~~~
azernik
Judging from the considerations evinced in this article, pillar strength and
thus rollover safety do seem to be limiting factors:
[https://www.redbook.com.au/car-news/toyota/toyota-patents-
tr...](https://www.redbook.com.au/car-news/toyota/toyota-patents-transparent-
pillars-invention-108558?csn_tnet=true)

It also indicates, however, that the industry is putting real development
effort into solving the problem, whether through clever optics like Toyota's
efforts, or cameras and screens like Jaguar's concept.

~~~
caf
I would have thought you could build an open truss pillar that was as strong
as a solid one.

------
SamReidHughes
A vehicle doesn't have to be obscured by the pillar for you not to notice it.
If you're both moving at a constant speed, anything on a collision course will
have the same bearing and appear relatively motionless. If you look left and
right, your eyes might saccade right past the target.

~~~
wahern
I think I found this link from another HN post. In any event, "A Fighter
Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads" discusses this:

    
    
      If you get to a junction and move your head right and left
      to look for oncoming traffic, you need to understand that 
      you cannot guarantee that you have seen approaching traffic.
      It is entirely possible for our eyes to ‘jump over’ an
      oncoming vehicle during one of the saccades. The smaller
      (and specifically, the narrower) the vehicle, the greater
      the chance that it could fall within a saccade. You are not
      being inattentive, you are physically incapable of seeing
      anything during a saccade. Remember the ‘Think Bike!’
      adverts, where a driver pulls out into the path of a
      motorcycle? I am convinced that it is the phenomena of
      saccades and fixations that is most likely to lead to this
      sort of accident.
    

From [http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-
guide.pd...](http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pdf)

------
Vinnl
> The truly contemptible human error is not in a single person carelessly
> failing to see. It (...) is in our incessant support of a system which cries
> “human error” as an excuse to do nothing, rather than as a stimulus to
> understand that error in order to create a solution.

Interestingly, I've seen parallels at work, when doing retrospectives: "this
didn't go well mostly due to human error (slacking, forgetting, etc.), so the
lesson for next time is to just do that better."

Instead, I'd prefer us to be looking for a way to prevent human error to cause
problems in the future. But I guess the reason for us often not doing that is
probably because it's too much effort compared to the perceived benefit - and
that's probably true most of the time.

------
u801e
Why does this junction not have a roundabout? Would having one there reduce
the chances for a crash by forcing vehicles to reduce their speed when
approaching the intersection?

~~~
djsumdog
Another comment explained how the UK hates stop signs, but yes, a roundabout
would be a great and very British/European solution that would probably be
very effective.

~~~
jasonmaydie
I still don't understand this comment. A stop sign a simple 100$ fix to the
problem but we hate stop signs so...

~~~
u801e
Why should it be necessary to always have to come to a complete stop before
yielding to traffic on the intersecting roadway? A stop sign doesn't prevent
one from failing to yield to traffic even after coming to a complete stop.

------
bagels
Thinking back to all of the times I've been hit or almost hit on a bicycle,
visibility hasn't been a problem.

I think by far, the most common was the 'right hook', where the driver passes
on the left, and makes a right turn in to a driveway.

After that were various intentional murder attempts, such as the taxi driver
that honked at me, drove around me, and then tried to brake check me.

------
rwbcxrz
As a driver, I do my best to slow down a bit at any intersection, but
particularly ones like this. Unfortunately, that tends to frustrate anyone
driving behind me, sometimes to the point that they’ll try to overtake me
(illegally) before the intersection.

In my mind, better traffic engineering is the best solution, but that seems
unlikely, at least in the US. I’d imagine that the article’s suggested changes
would cost more to build, even for new construction. To compound the issue, I
get the feeling that most drivers would prefer it if cyclists weren’t allowed
to ride on public roads.

~~~
wffurr
Slowing down an intersections like you describe really ought to be the minimum
standard of attentiveness required on the part of drivers, but instead, as you
point out, many drivers are far too impatient for that.

Traffic engineering combined with a different legal standard that places
greater liability on the driver for exercising due caution would go a long way
towards fixing this, and hopefully doing something about the mass carnage on
the world's roadways.

------
dav
I find myself with a somewhat similar problem, if not as dangerous, at four
way stops often in San Francisco. When coming to a stop at an intersection
where the slopes of the roads involved match certain configurations, most
commonly on a road that has descended a slope to meet the intersection, my
rear view mirror almost perfectly obscures the space that a car stopped at the
road to my right occupies. I glance left, glance right, and see nothing, then
suddenly stop short after starting to proceed as the movement reveals a
vehicle that was there all along.

------
imglorp
This is also of high interest to motorcyclists who even have a name for the
phenomena: SMIDSY (Sorry, Mate I Didn't See You).

OP was focused on the A pillar and some other effects, while this excellent
video goes a little further into some perception psychology about camouflage
and how we perceive moving objects across backgrounds. You can ignore the
motorcycle stuff but the explanation is enlightening.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU)

------
_0ffh
Relevant link: [http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-
guide.pd...](http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pdf)

"A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads" explains the same thing,
and more. Plus, it gives practical tips on how to mitigate these problems.

------
DaveInTucson
Basic rule of the road: if you haven't made eye contact with someone, you
should assume they haven't seen you and don't know you're there.

I mean, they could improve the intersection by making it a full stop, but
educating bicyclists not to ride out in front of somebody who will hit you if
they don't slow down seems like a good step too.

~~~
proto-n
The article describes that the cyclists don't see the car either because it is
coming up on them _from behind_ (at a 94 degree angle, with higher speed).

You can't know you haven't made eye contact if you don't know they are there.

~~~
DaveInTucson
I'm not sure if I would describe a 94 degree angle as "behind them", but I
would also observe it's a good idea to exercise caution in navigating a blind
intersection whether you're on a bike or in a car.

------
subroutine
Could it also have something to do with the wild horses hanging out at the
intersection:

[https://goo.gl/qTSZWJ](https://goo.gl/qTSZWJ)

Perhaps they are not 'wild', I'm just not used to seeing horses near a
roadway, without a fence between us. Is this a common thing in England?

~~~
angle_eyes
It's not common throughout the country, but the roads in question are within
the New Forest where there are a large number of ponies and other animals
roaming free ..

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest#Ponies,_cattle,_pig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest#Ponies,_cattle,_pigs)

~~~
nicktelford
It's also worth noting that while wild, New Forest animals are _very_
comfortable around people and cars, to the degree that they're often wandering
around in village centres, standing in the middle of the road etc.

If you go camping there, you should expect ponies to wander in to your
campsite, especially if you leave food out. I've had one poking its head in to
our tent before.

They basically have total right of way, and they know it.

------
Declanomous
>We must note that there are two parts to the definition of dangerous driving.
Firstly the standard of driving must be “far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver”, and secondly it must be “obvious to a competent
and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous”.

The longer I use the road in any function (cycling, driving, walking, etc),
the more I am convinced that the vast majority of people are not competent
drivers. So if one is interpreting the guidelines as whether an average person
could have made the mistake, then they will surely come to an incorrect
conclusion, as the average person is absolutely terrible at driving.

I'm reasonable good at controlling my car and I'm fairly aware of what is
going on around me. I never drive distracted or drunk, and I follow all of the
rules of the road. However, I don't consider myself a particularly good
driver. I am lucky thus far that none of the mistakes I've made have resulted
in harm to anyone. My skill in handling the car and my general attentiveness
have prevented accidents (or perhaps even deaths), but there have been plenty
of times where I've had near misses due to human error.

I've often wondered whether other people are fundamentally more competent
drivers; whether they had a trait that I lacked. The more rides I take with
other people, the more I am convinced that most people are fundamentally
terrible drivers. Human nature and human perception are not suited for
driving. It is nearly impossible to be a competent driver, regardless of how
much care you take. Some of the worst drivers I know are the most careful.
They diligently check every mirror and every blind spot before making a move,
yet do so at such a slow pace that all the information they gathered when they
checked each of the prior locations is irrelevant. Their caution can only go
so far, as they eventually need to move to reach their destination, and at a
certain point their hesitance is a danger to others, as massive differentials
in speed one of the biggest hazards in driving.

Humans are just astoundingly incompetent drivers on all levels. Most people I
know can't even adjust their mirrors so they can be used without moving their
head substantially. How can a person be a competent driver if they have
deprived themselves of easy access to what is happening next to their vehicle
or behind it.

According to the World Health Organization, traffic deaths are the 10th
leading cause of death in the world. There is no more likely 'accidental'
cause of death than a car accident; each of the nine causes of death more
common than car accidents are diseases. In 2013, 1.4 million people died from
road traffic accidents, and 54 million people were injured.

I love driving. I love the open road, and the freedom that comes with it, but
the truth of the matter is that people are terrible at driving. The sooner we
have an alternative to people driving cars, the better.

~~~
ajmurmann
This is true! It's one of the big reasons I cannot wait for self driving cars.
I love driving on empty country roads but feel it's impossible to 100% safely
drive on busier roads, especially if you also need to read road signs because
you don't know where you are going (what's up with US traffic sighs being
covered in text btw.? That's obviously a terrible idea!).

I came to this conclusion a few weeks after I had gotten my drivers license. I
was meeting onto a Autobahn exit. I had a big truck in front. I check the
mirror. All fine. Look over my shoulder to check blind spot and my girlfriend
who was the passenger starts screaming because the truck in front had jammed
on its breaks. I immediate slowed down and all was well. However it was a
reasonably close call. Even now, many years later I'm unsure what I should
have done differently. I need to look over the shoulder, I couldn't have kept
meaningful, more space between me and the truck because I needed to adjust
speed to the lane I wanted to merge into. I'm convinced it's a situation that
can't be reliably handled 100% of the time given human limitations. Yet most
people I talk to think that you just need to get gud.

~~~
jdavis703
The truck almost certainly had a good reason for stopping. The question then
becomes why you couldn't you see what the truck driver had seen (debris in the
road, a broken down car, etc). Obviously you can't always see around a large
truck, but often times danger can be spotted by looking far ahead. For example
coming around a blind cliff I was able to deduce there was a person who would
be standing in the middle of the road because I saw a photographer on the
opposite side. I started slowing and my instructor was like "what are you
doing?" which then turned in to "how did you know a person would be in the
road?"

~~~
ajmurmann
That's just a heuristic though. Given humans can't look into multiple
directions at once therr is always the chance that something unforseen well
happen in the direction you just stopped looking at. If the truck hadn't
stopped, maybe the car behind me in the gap I wanted to me into could have
accelerated to closer the gap. Unlikely, especially on the Autobahn, but could
easily happen in LA.

~~~
jdavis703
You're right we can't see or predict everything. I just heard a story where a
pilot had to drop a snake out of their small private aircraft while flying
over a highway. There was a high likelihood that a driver below had no way of
knowing a snake might fall out the sky and perhaps shatter their windshield.
Most things that happen on the road though aren't that random.

I once had a bicyclist coming down a curvy mountain road. There was something
about their riding that seemed uncomfortable, so I started slowing down. The
biker then wiped out and crossed over the yellow line, stopping a few feet
from my truck. If I hadn't been proactively scanning and thinking about
everything that could go wrong they probably wouldn't have been able to get
up, and say "thanks for not running me over."

I don't write this to judge you, or brag about myself. I've made plenty of
mistakes myself. This is more a general lesson for people: synthesize all
inputs received while driving and take proactive steps to mitigate potential
risks.

------
jiri
Driver should be moving his/her head slightly to eliminate this phenomena, to
change angles of view. Very useful when approaching difficult situation in a
moving car. One has to anticipate these effects and try to disturb linearity
in movement by changing your car speed non-linearly to alter viewing angles in
some situations.

These approaches together it will help driver to much better asses other
objects speed and direction of movement and generally it improve one situation
awareness.

This is something you can do about it if you dont want to wait for all
crossroads to be rebuilt ;-)

------
pfarnsworth
I have a Honda Fit and I find the exact same problem when I’m driving in areas
with a lot of pedestrians, especially San Francisco. The pillar is especially
wide in the Fit and I’ve almost hit several pedestrians because their walking
speed exactly coincides with the speed of my car and they get blocked by the
exact same pillar so I never see them.

It has happened about 6 times so now whenever I drive in areas with
pedestrians I move my head right in the middle of the car so that my view is
no longer obstructed.

------
andybak
For reference:
[https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8632384,-1.4532871,3a,90y,...](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8632384,-1.4532871,3a,90y,161.23h,75.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swMw3UmSj5XheUtniJfifAg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwMw3UmSj5XheUtniJfifAg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.36434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

------
killjoywashere
I got hit by a car, as a cyclist, in exactly this kind of intersection. Got a
Bankart repair on my left shoulder as a reward, but also got the motivation to
go to medical school. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Incidentally,
as a sailor, I totally get the constant bearing decreasing range problem. That
phrase still sends shivers down my spine. I can't tell you how many times I've
thought about what's on the other side the front pillars.

------
tbihl
It's interesting that they were so focused on CBDR, but then totally dropped
the ball when it was time to extend the analogy to overtaking (where you
assume to be overtaking if you are >22.5° abaft the other vessel's beam, which
is not the case at a 94° angle.)

------
ztjio
We have a few intersections like this near me, and as a cyclist I can assure
you that you really don't see anything. It's crazy. But luckily they are all
traffic controlled with full on signals so there's no ambiguity about what one
should be doing.

------
tahw
I understand the geometry in this situation and its impact, but if you're on a
bicycle and you don't come to a complete stop at an intersection with
potentially 40mph cross-traffic, you're going to have a bad time no matter
what the angle is.

------
giardini
A few speed bumps at the intersection would slow drivers. Speed bumps are
cheap and effective. You can lay several in series to encourage drivers to
slow. It would be a shame not to use them in such an instance, where lives
might be saved.

~~~
iamnotlarry
Speed bumps have proven to be undesirable tools in many situations. For
instance, it is often the case that motorists will increase their speed after
a speed bump to make up for the time lost because of the speed bump.

~~~
larkeith
In this situation it's fairly irrelevant, as it would serve to slow down
drivers approaching and within the intersection - a few mph faster afterwards
is far less likely to come with a butcher's bill than continued high-speed
crossings of the intersection.

------
billfruit
Does cyclists count as pedestrians, and if so is entitled to ride on the
opposite direction as follow ed by vehicular traffic.That is if cars drive on
the left, then cyclists ride on the right, as do pedestrians?

------
trhway
>With this design, no longer would it be reasonably possible for any driver to
simply blow through the junction. Drivers would have to come almost to a stop.

just put a good bump there, or a couple.

------
pmarreck
Why can't they just add stop signs to the east-west route? That way the north-
south can keep right-of-way and the threat of collision is eliminated

------
rbrbr
Build cars with the driver seat on the left then. All this discussion over an
obvious flaw which removed would solve the problem.

------
csours
Unrelated, a few days ago I was thinking about this intersection:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5075019,-96.3308952,243m/dat...](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5075019,-96.3308952,243m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Traffic on Hwy 164 does not stop, Hwy 39 does stop. However Hwy 39 has yield
lanes that can be used to enter 164 via a right turn, and only slowing down,
and not coming to a complete stop.

A few years ago there was a lot of gas drilling in the area, and the trucks
working the drilling sites would use the yield lanes - to turn left!

This made me pretty mad, until I thought about it for a while. In a big truck
you would not be able to see traffic from both directions, so they used the
yield lane to 'square up' to traffic.

\---

When you design your User Experience, consider the human. Humans slip up[0],
momentarily forgetting to do the right thing.

If your design becomes dangerous due to a slip, it is the worst kind of
design. You see this kind of design on older industrial equipment - for
instance presses without safeguards. Managers back then would make the same
comment you regularly see on articles like this: 'All you have to do is pay
attention, and it's safe.'

This is, frankly, stupid. If all it takes for a system to become unsafe is a
momentary lapse in judgement, then the system is unsafe.

Manufacturers learned this via lawsuits (both for in-plant and user injuries)
and now there are strict safety standards.

In the case of this unsafe intersection, responsibility is diffuse - it is
split between driver, cyclist, local government, and the original contractor.

In a controlled environment like a hospital or manufacturing plant, you can
measure near-misses as proxies for dangerous events. At a rural intersection,
who would measure near-misses? An individual cyclist may have a near-miss and
comment on it to her friends; would any drivers ever hear about it? Would the
government ever hear about it? Would anyone care?

0\. [https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-
gloss...](https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-
human-computer-interaction/human-error-slips-and-mistakes)

\---

To improve your perception in situations like this, you can add two tools -

1\. Always take your foot off the gas and cover the brake when going through
intersections. This naturally slows you down a bit, and if there is an issue
you are in position to stop.

2\. Owl bob your head from time to time. It sounds stupid, but it moves you
out of your blind spots, and also clears saccadic masking -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking)

~~~
scottishfiction
> In the case of this unsafe intersection, responsibility is diffuse - it is
> split between driver, cyclist, local government, and the original
> contractor.

Arguably, the cyclist had right of way and did everything expected of them in
the situation. Also, the original contractor was following the specifications
given to them by local government. Therefore responsibility can really only be
placed with two parties; primarily with local government as they should be
designing fault-tolerant intersections, and secondarily with the driver
approaching from the east.

~~~
csours
I guess "responsibility" implies legal responsibility - I meant something more
generic, like capacity or function.

------
GarvielLoken
Road Junctions don't kill people, people kill people.

------
ams6110
First rule of cycling: assume drivers don't see you.

~~~
JonahBraun
In the article, the author explains that from the cyclists orientation, the
car approaches from 94 degrees.

~~~
ams6110
Doesn't matter. If you're cycling and you see a moving car, assume the driver
doesn't see you. Never cross the path of a moving car even if you have the
right of way or a green light etc. When you approach a junction, your head
needs to be on a swivel constantly looking left and right and you need to be
prepared to stop even if you have the right of way. This pretty much goes for
motorcyclists as well.

I'm not blaming the cyclists here, but the reality is that when you are
cycling it doesn't matter whose fault it is if a car hits you. You're still
dead.

~~~
recursive
If you read the article, then you'd know that the cyclist probably did not see
the car at all.

~~~
jmts
The cyclist may not see the car if they stare blindly into the distance in
front of them. GP is making the point that the cyclist should be aware of
their surroundings, and taking precautions accordingly. This includes looking
for approaching traffic down the length of a side road on approach to an
intersection.

While I don't discount that there may be freak scenarios, as a motorcyclist I
agree. If I don't see a car, a pedestrian, a bird, a kangaroo, a log on the
road, I go to hospital. It's as much my responsibility to ensure my own safety
as anyone else's.

------
matte_black
Wow, after all these years I finally learned the name of this phenomenon,
constant bearing decreasing range.

I recall a scene in the movie Sin City where two cars crash and the camera was
moving in CBDR to the perpendicular car as it zoomed into the impact site. I
thought it was a cool shot.

Also I’ve almost hit pedestrians several times when they were obscured by my A
pillar. Sometimes I wonder if I would have actually hit them if anyone would
have believed I didn’t see them, now I know the proper term to describe the
cause of such an accident.

~~~
jmts

        > Sometimes I wonder if I would have actually hit them if anyone would have believed I didn’t see them
    

As a daily motorcyclist that also drives a car, I'm uncomfortably aware of how
much of your vision the A-pillar obscures. Not to mention the passenger side
one, the B-pillars, and seating.

That said, it is as much my responsibility (or any road user, or pedestrian)
not to put myself into a dangerous position as much as it is for you to do
your best to keep an eye out.

~~~
toomanybeersies
It seems to be worse in newer cars. Most cars I've driven have been older
models, pre-2000, every time I have to drive a new car, I'm always surprised
at how bad the visibility is, they all have tiny rear windows and massive A
pillars.

I used to own an old Datsun truck from the 1980s and the A-pillar blindspot
was tiny because it had small, vertical A-pillars. A-pillars are a lot thicker
and a lot more angled in newer cars.

This study [1] (from 2001) here goes into some details about A-pillar
blindspots and how newer cars have worse visibility. I'm sure in the 17 years
since the study was performed, cars have only gotten worse.

[1]
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.884...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.884.49&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

~~~
korethr
It sounds like what happens in every other instance of engineering: trade-
offs. Emphasise performance in one metric -- preventing roof collapse and
preserving the integrity of the passenger compartment in this case -- and it
can come at the cost of other metrics (here, visibility). I don't think
vehicle engineers are deliberately making cars hard to see out of, but I do
think it's possible that those setting the policy which drives A-pillar
thickness don't realize such is making cars less safe from a visibility
perspective.

~~~
toomanybeersies
The cynic in me says that it's a liability thing.

Manufacturers are more likely to be liable if you roll your car and the roof
caves in, killing you.

Manufacturers are less likely to be found liable if you couldn't see through
your A-pillar and hit a cyclist, as apparently proven by the article.

It's very hard to point the finger at the driver for their roof caving in,
there's nothing the driver can do to stop that from happening. But there's
plenty a driver could do to avoid trouble from blindspots.

------
civileng1982
Really disappointed at the solution.

~~~
metaphor
Care to explain your reason(s) for disappointment, and/or posit a sensible
alternative for consideration?

~~~
rayiner
Forcing drivers to make left turns just to stay on the same road is a recipe
for more car accidents. The proble could be resolved simply by putting up a
stop light.

~~~
matte_black
If the goal is to maintain speed through the intersection they could have
built a bridge to overlap the other road.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
This is in the New Forest National Park. You can’t just go constructing
massive structures because drivers are too lazy to read signs.

~~~
matte_black
As the body count begins to rise we’ll see how much that really matters.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
In terms of targeting infrastructure to reduce cycle casualties in Britain,
overbridges at rural crossroads are about no. 73689532686 in the list.

------
peterburkimsher
I posted this 2 days ago, but for some reason it didn't make it to the front
page like yours.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16094431](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16094431)

~~~
dredmorbius
Unless there's a significant discussion in a previous submission, this sort of
comment isn't particularly useful.

HN's collective choice in what to promote / demote is exceptionally fickle and
happenstance.

Rather like success in the SV start-up world.

In both cases, backing a winner is generally more rewarding than doubling down
on an attempt which, through no fault of its own, has failed.

HN also periodically give a second chance to submissions deemed high quality.
So you've got that option as well.

~~~
user5994461
submissions had different titles

