
Collision Course: a type of road junction that is dangerous for cyclists (2018) - ColinWright
https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-road-junction-will-keep-killing-cyclists/
======
makomk
Someone saw the Tom Scott video about this from a couple of days ago?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU)

~~~
mym1990
Is it somewhat ironic that at :15 seconds into the video a car hurls through a
stop sign?

~~~
thaumaturgy
At 1:26, a car rolls through it too. Quite as a few, as he sort of points out
near the end.

I like this as an example of a problem that can be solved by engineering far
more easily than by changing human behavior.

------
petercooper
Another solution is to block off the eastern exit, turning it into a T
junction. It's low traffic, there are multiple alternative routes and the road
to the east is short and insignificant. This technique is used a lot in towns
nowadays to shut off dangerous junctions onto arterial routes (and to prevent
'rat runs').

The alternative route round works out at 5 minutes longer but in a national
park that's pretty good, and the lives saved should be worth it. Map view
here:
[https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ipley+Manor+Stables/@50....](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ipley+Manor+Stables/@50.8634844,-1.4616827,15z)

~~~
usrusr
An even simpler solution that I have seen implemented on some open field
crossings is to deliberately block the view line somewhere close. It doesn't
have to be blocked on the entire approach, just enough to ruin the illusion of
having sufficiently observed the entire crossing road. It could be a billboard
with traffic safety propaganda (or ads), some greenery or a stack of
photovoltaics. Not much bigger than a bus usually.

~~~
gpderetta
this solution is actually discussed in the article and dismissed because it
would be very visually intrusive with the rest of the forested land and
because careless drivers might still only give a quick glance after not seeing
any cars while approaching the junction from far away.

~~~
FeepingCreature
Right, they presume that the entire approach would have to be covered. But the
parent asserts that a short fence would be enough. (I'm inclined to agree.)

------
chrisseaton
Something to add to this is that 'stop' signs are pretty rare in the UK
compared to somewhere like the US. People wouldn't be expecting a 'stop' sign
at a junction like this, so they're expecting to yield, and due to the blind
spot they think they are yielding.

~~~
Dylan16807
> People wouldn't be expecting a 'stop' sign

It's bright red!

~~~
chrisseaton
> It's bright red!

I'm not saying it isn't.

But in the UK most junctions are yield, so drivers don't approach junctions
thinking 'I might have to stop' they think 'I'll have to yield', so if they
aren't paying attention their default is to yield.

~~~
xxpor
Are there not multiple warning signs there's a stop sign ahead?

The MUTCD version:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MUTCD_W3...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MUTCD_W3-1.svg)

~~~
chrisseaton
I think that's an American sign. The context of the article is the UK. We
don't that exact sign in the UK. I think there is a 'stop in 100 yards' sign
but I can't recall ever seeing one. But the point was people aren't paying
attention to the signs... so another sign doesn't solve that.

~~~
xxpor
MUTCD == the (American) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, it was
intended to demonstrate what I was talking about.

If you add multiple (large) signs ahead of the actual control device, you'll
have higher compliance, since the unusual sign doesn't appear out of the blue.

~~~
2019-nCoV
Maybe in NA. In the UK the likely solution would be to install a roundabout.
You can’t ignore an upcoming obstacle, in which you’re forced to give way.

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
Gotta say, as a biker, I love roundabouts for that reason- and people who _don
't_ ignore the obstacle go flying [1]. As a driver, I love the idea of
drifting around one sometime when I have the skill and there's legitimately
nobody nearby. Also forces people to focus, which is nice.

[1]
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=car+hitting+roundabout&t=vivaldi](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=car+hitting+roundabout&t=vivaldi)

------
phkahler
When 2 objects are on a collision course moving in straight line motion, the
heading to the other object does not change.

For this reason, efforts to detect asteroids heading toward earth by detecting
their motion against the background sky will fail over short time spans.
That's because the ones on an actual collision course will not appear to move
against the background for a few days prior to impact. An impactor will seem
to come out of nowhere.

~~~
jstanley
The Earth moves in an orbit around the sun, so the only way this would be a
problem is if the asteroid were not visible at all until only a few months (or
even less?) before impact.

~~~
Cogito
To a first-order approximation, and from far enough away, a collision with the
Earth is a collision with the Solar System.

Our motion within the Solar System is relatively small if the asteroid is a
very long way away; it's easy to find scenarios where a fast moving asteroid
will appear stationary over a 6 month period.

------
cellis
Reminds me of the time I almost died riding on The Embarcadero. This
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Embarcadero,+San+Francisco...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Embarcadero,+San+Francisco,+CA/@37.80494,-122.4039694,179m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80858066993643ad:0x77178399d59a1e7f!8m2!3d37.7992627!4d-122.3976732)
is the intersection. This is the link to the view you would have as a cyclist
[https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8051081,-122.4030922,3a,74.5...](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8051081,-122.4030922,3a,74.5y,268.57h,70.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPQXGu79Rxu575JjSzjZsyxcwoAZ6fZo0LticqV!2e10!3e11!7i11000!8i5500)

Long story short, I was an idiot cyclist thinking I had calculated
everything[1], when in fact, I hadn't. Someone in a car going northbound at
about 60mph on Sansome had to slam on their brakes to save my life as I
crossed from the right bicycle lane to chestnut. I was super lucky they were
watching, and their brakes worked, and that they had enough reaction time.

From then on I have never ran stoplights. The problem is that, as they say,
the first one is free. You might start out as a cyclist running a simple stop
sign on a dead street. But as you get more comfortable, the temptation is to
run ever more complex street lights. In my case, I only did it when I didn't
see any cars. The problem with intersections like this is there are cars you
_cannot see_.

[1] - Things to calculate:

1\. Southeast bound car traffic on Embarcadero.

2\. Whether there were southeast bound muni trains on the Embarcadero dividing
route.

3\. Whether there were northwest bound muni trains on the Embarcadero dividing
route.

4\. Cars behind you on northeast bound Embarcadero ( I had to cross from the
bikelane on the left )

5\. Northbound cars on Sansome. This is what I missed.

~~~
hinkley
I don't know who needs to hear this, but the driver who gets mad at you for
running a light might be a fellow or former cyclist.

There is nowhere you gotta be that is so important that you should be
committing moving violations to get there. The rules of the road apply to you
ever bit as much as a car, and you have absolutely no moral authority at all
if you won't even follow the goddamned traffic laws.

You are not only risking your own life, you're making the rest of us look bad,
and creating hostile drivers that other people have to deal with.

~~~
xenocyon
I don't run lights myself, but I don't agree with the theory of perfect
symmetry of moving violations. The risk one poses to others by breaking
traffic laws is different for a pedestrian, a cyclist, a car, a semi-trailer,
and a jumbo jet. Insisting that all violations matter the same is nonsensical.

In places, this recognition has actually been codified into law (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop)).

~~~
cgriswald
I’m not really certain where I stand on that, but several thoughts come to
mind.

It’s If a bicyclist and a driver approach a four way stop and the driver runs
it, he can kill the bicyclist. If the bicyclist runs it, the driver can kill
the bicyclist. While the risk is not symmetrical the outcome is the same.

One would think that the party with more risk would be less likely to run the
stop sign but in my experience (which is probably not typical world wide) in
the Bay Area the opposite is true. Although admittedly it seems the law just
isn’t enforced here. Maybe unequal laws would more likely be enforced and some
combination of personal risk plus enforcement would achieve the desired
outcome.

Additionally many bicyclists are also drivers. So it might be prudent to
penalize them for the behavior equally so that it discourages the behavior in
general and removes dangerous drivers more easily; assuming their behavior on
different vehicles correlates.

~~~
pmontra
I add another point. All cyclists are also pedestrians. Maybe not in the Bay
Area but pedestrians often run traffic lights when there are no approaching
vehicles. A cyclist feels closer to a pedestrian than to a driver in my
experience. So, no traffic, no danger, run the traffic light. The same cyclist
(and pedestria) will stop when driving a car.

~~~
Benji_San
As someone who runs red lights from time to time both as a pedestrian and
cyclist I more or less think this is the general view, especially if we take
into account that bicycle lanes, at least in my country, often are linked to
the pedestrian lights. I would never run a light in a car and if I ride my
bike on the road I behave as a car.

Another imo. important part of this is the (perceived) risk of running a red
light. If I run a red light on my bicycle I yield for everyone, i.e. my speed
is low and I only have to watch for cars that go straight through the crossing
which are easy to predict. Basically no need to interact with anyone, simply
watch out for cars. Following the lights is the opposite, my speed is
generally higher and I have to interact with turning cars. All crashes
involving cars that I've been in have either been cars that should have
yielded when turning or cars that are blowing through stop/yield signs. This
is generally how bicyclists get hurt and I mainly see it as an infrastructure
issue. The problem is that infrastructure is relatively expensive to change
and so the blame often seem to focus on the cyclist for "not following the
rules" or "not wearing a helmet" and nothing really seems to change.

~~~
pmontra
Yes, that's it. Actually infrastructure did change in the last 30 years
(roundabouts, etc) but to make cars safer, not bicycles. Those improvements
were quite successful. Unfortunately they bring cars closer to bicycles any
time they narrow the road. Old style intersections like the ones in the
article suffer from the constant bearing problem but the cyclist can usually
see a car coming from the other road. A car approaching from behind doesn't
have to steer toward the side of the road where the cyclist is. With
roundabouts and narrow lanes, not much so. Modern roads are also much more
dangerous for pro riders. Check how many crashes there are in a bunch because
of infrastructure built for cars. That was not the case in the 90s.

------
jonathanbull
If anyone's looking to learn more about road layouts (who isn't?!), Road Guy
Rob has a good channel:

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqdUXv9yQiIhspWPYgp8_XA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqdUXv9yQiIhspWPYgp8_XA)

------
rangibaby
Every road is dangerous for a cyclist. Really the only solution is to adopt
pedestrian-centric traffic laws like The Netherlands or Japan.

In Japan, blowing a stop sign and killing a cyclist would be a "dangerous
driving causing death" charge, which would result in a prison sentence, loss
of your license, a fine, and ~$1,000,000 in compensation to the family of the
person you hit.

~~~
laurieg
In reality, it doesn't always work quite like this. Japan has a system of
assigning a percentage of blame to both parties in a traffic accident. "He was
80% to blame for not yielding, you were 20% to blame for being too far out in
the road."

While in general this system works fairly well, there does seem to be a lot of
pressure to share blame as much as possible. The only person I know how got
100%/0% was T-boned by a driving going through the middle of a red light.

Also, cars are often judged to be be much more at fault than cycles. Perhaps
this is why bicycles can often be very reckless on the roads: taking blind
corners without slowing down, cycling on the wrong side of the road against
traffic etc.

~~~
rangibaby
In reality it does work quite like that if someone dies and you are judged to
have driven dangerously (危険運転致死傷罪).

------
aidos
This is a fascinating look at a perfect storm of a junction. For both vehicles
to be unaware of each other just seems unfathomable, especially that this
occurs in a place where you’re effectively on an open plain with good
visibility in all directions.

I’ve stayed down the road from here (East Boldre) on a number of occasions so
I’m familiar with the junction having both driven and cycled through it. I’ve
even cycled through there with my kids in a bike trailer, which makes me feel
a little sick.

A number of comments are suggesting larger engineering endeavour to fix the
issue so it’s probably worth pointing out a few things about the environment,
as it’s a fairly unusual place. This is a national park that’s been fairly
untouched for a long time. There are a lot of large animals wondering around
but rather than being fenced in, they mostly roam freely. They often just have
reflective collars to help stop collisions at night where they frequently
congregate on the road.

Furthermore, in the Uk in general, intervention seems to be strongly
discouraged. Certainly compared to NZ, where I grew up, over here there seems
to be more of an expectation that people should do the right thing without
being nannied. I was told that when it comes to road intervention, it’s only
post incident that changes will be made to prevent future situations from
occurring.

Another anecdote. Where I worked in south London there was a junction on a
hill where traffic coming down the hill wasn’t allowed to turn across the
traffic coming up. There was a sign, but it wasn’t especially obvious. On a
weekly basis there was a surveillance van with a camera that sat the fining
people (later, through the post) if they broke the no turning rule. We
complained to the council a number of times about it because we often saw near
misses. It wasn’t until the day a motorbike went through a car windshield that
a change was implemented. And, even then, it was only a chance to the signage.

------
analog31
I read this article a while back, and immediately one intersection in my
locale came to mind. So on my next trip through it in my car, I took a careful
look. Sure enough, my impression was that it would be hard to see a cyclist,
or even an approaching car. Of course I'm always careful, but now I'm extra
careful.

------
DanBC
I'm curious about whether planting trees and bushes would help. This would
make drivers know that they haven't seen the other road, and would make them
slow down on approach to the junction.

~~~
HarryHirsch
That's not the worst idea, like that they'll take the stop sign serious. In
Europe, stop signs can only be installed at certifiably dangerous junctions,
but in the current state the intersection doesn't look half as bad as it
actually is. With a few strategically placed bushes impressions might actually
match on-the-ground facts.

------
jimbob45
Was doing some charity bike ride when I was 16 and, halfway through, there was
something like this. I'd zoned out and was gonna cycle on through the
intersection when someone called out for me to stop. If I hadn't, I'd have
been splattered by a speeding Corvette. I wonder if this may have played a
factor.

------
antoncohen
As an American I find it very odd that they blame the angles of the roads for
making it dangerous. Until recently that intersection had no stop signs. One
road had a yield, meaning most of the time no one stops in _any_ direction, on
_either_ road. That gets drivers in the habit of not stopping.

Maybe if varies by state, but I grew up in a rural area of California, but
every intersection I can remember has had at least one road required to stop
(either a two-way stop sign, four-way stop sign, or traffic lights).

I get that stop signs are nearly illegal in the UK and some other parts of
Europe, but that is the problem. In the US a driver on the minor road has to
stop, look both ways, then proceed. It is to much safer than the driver on the
minor road getting in the habit of not stopping and just plowing through a
road that has the right of way.

~~~
adrianN
The problem with stop signs is that cyclists also need to stop and on a
bicycle you really notice all the wasted energy.

~~~
antoncohen
On this intersection the cyclists that got hit were on the main road, meaning
they wouldn't have to stop.

If a cyclist on the minor road had a clear view, slowed down down, and looked
both ways, they wouldn't need to come to a complete stop. A cyclist treating a
stop sign like a yield sign is pretty only endangering themselves. A motorist
plowing through a yield sign that should be a stop sign, or plowing through a
stop sign, that is dangerous to other people.

------
Symbiote
Why is the cost to bend one of the roads slightly, creating an offset
junction, £100,000?

~~~
RandomBacon
My guess: purchasing the land, paying for studies, laying new road, removing
old road.

£100,000 sounds cheap. Two people already died. If I was a family member of a
third victim, I would've wanted the government to pay £100,000. I would be
asking government officials if it was worth it.

(Approx 125,000 USD at today's exchange rate)

~~~
Symbiote
There's a linked response from Hampshire County Council [1]:

"We are working with partners at New Forest District Council, the National
Park Authority, English Nature, The Verderers, The Forestry Commission and the
police to explore what can be done longer term and are currently carrying out
a review of the junction, which we hope to finalise in the new year. The land
beyond the paved road surface is Crown land and this will require permissions
to be granted to us for any realignment of the road to be carried out."

Crown land (part of the national park, presumably) means it "belongs" to the
queen, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Other comments on that discussion say the same offset junction has been done
in many other places.

The best thing is probably for anyone who lives in Hampshire to write to their
MP.

[https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-
course/#addendum](https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/#addendum)

------
henvic
I read this article when it was out two years ago, and this is the most
important takeaway from it:

> And secondly, significant movement of the head will bring previously
> obscured sections of road into view.

I've been doing it ever since, always translating and rotating my head quickly
on crossings.

------
cromulent
Previous (quite lengthy) discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16112163](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16112163)

------
jakear
I wonder if a “Stop Ahead: XXX Killed at this intersection” sign would be
effective. Sure it’s non-standard. But that’s something of a +1 in this
situation.

~~~
downerending
I've often thought it would be useful to put a permanent marker of some sort
at the spot of every traffic fatality. In the US, people often put crosses up,
but this is haphazard, and of course can't be in the roadway. Maybe a painted
gray X or something.

The point is that a crap-ton of these would serve as a useful warning to the
wise.

------
basicplus2
They could install at least two speed humps on approach, one, to disengage the
blind spot and a second really large one to force cars to almost stop.

~~~
kspacewalk2
From the article:

>Speed bumps are a reasonable idea in terms of being a low-cost intervention,
but regulations permit their use only under street lighting, so they cannot be
used here.

~~~
DreadY2K
Also (adding more detail): The reason why you can't install lights is because
there aren't any wires for the electrical grid, so that would cost a lot of
money to add, and the locals would likely object to the extra source of light
pollution.

------
hackeraccount
I follow him on the why the cars don't see the cyclists. Why don't the
cyclists see the cars?

~~~
sitharus
The Tom Scott video has a good animation on this:
[https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU?t=119](https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU?t=119)

Because of the layout of the junction the cars are actually approaching from
behind the cyclists.

~~~
heisenzombie
Wow: The _very first_ car in that video to arrive at the stop sign fails to
stop.

Of the vehicles in the video we see traversing a stop sign, I count 5 cars
that come to a stop and 5 that do not. (One bicycle crosses: it comes to a
complete stop).

~~~
Symbiote
That surprised me.

Stop signs are so rare in the UK -- I can only think of one in the area I grew
up -- that they're taken seriously. Or at least, I thought they were.

"Until 2016, each stop sign had to be individually approved by the Secretary
of State for Transport.", though that requirement has been removed.

------
derekp7
I have an idea. What about putting a solar powered radar that lights up a
flashing sign when cross traffic is detected to draw the driver's attention.
Even better would be coupled with signalling that indicates which direction a
vehicle is approaching from. Even more advanced would be to compare the
vehicle speeds from both roads, and change the warning from yellow to red
flashing lights if a collision is immanent.

Actually, I'd like to see that last part put into place at any hazardous
intersection, in case a driver misses seeing a stop sign or red light.

~~~
folmar
Generally one would prefer safety features to be fail-safe, not fail-deadly,
i.e. traffic lights that give you green when there is no cross-traffic is OK,
but warning only if something is detected is used only in limited
circumstances.

------
TwoBit
The author dismisses the question of why the cyclist shouldn't check the cross
traffic by implying it's onerous or unexpected to do so becauseof the angle.
IMO this intersections real problem has little to do with visibility acronyms
and everything to do with simply two roads intersecting with nothing to
adjudicate the intersection. I bet $100 the are even more car-car crashes here
than car-bike crashes.

