[u801e]

> how do you know whether you’ll be next to a car wanting to turn right by the time you reach the junction?

Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction. If you plan to go straight, you get behind the vehicles that are going to make a right turn or go straight. Depending on how dense traffic is, you'll have to do this further in advance from the intersection. A lot of the time, you'll find that gaps are created in traffic by traffic lights. You can use one of those gaps to easily change lanes in advance for example.

> https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/state-of-the-a...

The problem with the NACTO guidelines for this design is that cyclists are hidden by parked vehicles until shortly before the intersection, so, if a cyclist is approaching from behind the motorist, it's not possible for the motorist to see the cyclist before they start making their turn.

Even with the curb extension, according to their example and measuring the distances in the provided diagrams on pages 12 and 13, a motorist will only be able to see roughly 8 feet down the cycle lane. That won't work when the cyclist is traveling at about 16 feet per second. The typical reaction time for something not completely expected is at least 1 to 1.5 seconds. The document also makes the assumption that the cyclist will yield to the car in that case, but many of them assume they have the right of way and that the motorist will stop prior to a collision.

The other problem is that current US law and driver education states that drivers must make their turns as close to the edge of the road/curb as practicable and yield to pedestrians. They don't say anything about treating cyclists as pedestrians, and they do say that cyclists are considered vehicles and have all the rights and duties of vehicle operators (meaning they're expected to follow the rules of the road).

In contrast, Dutch law and driver education is complementary to the intersection design you reference. But you're not going to change the law and driver education/training overnight.

[Someone]

"Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction"

Aha! You assumed that there are multiple lanes. That wasn't explicit in "This can also be prevented by not trying to pass right turning vehicles on the right and only pass them on their left"

I read that as "ride in the same lane as the cars, but pass them on their left".

I still think that's way scarier than the Dutch approach where nobody needs eyes in their back to detect each other, just eyes that can look in front of you.

Having separate cycle lanes, as this will, also solves the "driver education states that drivers must make their turns as close to the edge of the road/curb as practicable" problem.

It won't solve the problem of "cyclist is traveling at about 16 feet per second", but those cyclists, IMO, are suicidal, if they do so in places where they can't know things will end up OK.

[u801e]

>> "Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction

> You assumed that there are multiple lanes.

No, I didn't. If there's a single lane, then you ride in the center of it. If there are multiple lanes, then you use the leftmost lane for a left turn, the rightmost lane for a right turn, and the lane in the middle for going straight.

> I read that as "ride in the same lane as the cars, but pass them on their left".

By ride in the same lane, I mean in serial (one after the other), not parallel (two vehicles besides each other). So, if the car ahead of you is turning right, you would end up passing them on their left as they leave the lane to proceed onto the intersecting road. If the car is behind you, they would simply make the right turn behind you while you're traversing the junction. Under no circumstance would a car be parallel to you on your left and take a right turn while crossing your path straight through the junction.

> I still think that's way scarier than the Dutch approach where nobody needs eyes in their back to detect each other,

No one needs that. That's why vehicles are equipped with mirrors and why it's illegal to turn from a lane that's not the left or right most lane (other than dual turn lanes).

> Having separate cycle lanes, as this will, also solves the "driver education states that drivers must make their turns as close to the edge of the road/curb as practicable" problem.

Drivers already do that. Normally the right most lane is considered as far right as practicable for the purpose of making a right turn, but putting cycle lanes to the right of right turning traffic actually causes the turning conflict problem.

> It won't solve the problem of "cyclist is traveling at about 16 feet per second", but those cyclists, IMO, are suicidal,

16 feet per second is about 10 mph which is about 16 km/h. I don't think that's a suicidal speed and is actually relatively slow from a transportation point of view. My own bicycle commute is about 15 miles (24 km) long and I average about 11 mph (18 km/h). If I only rode at a speed less than 16 km/h, I would not be able to complete the commute in a reasonable period of time.

On the road itself, it's quite safe to traverse junctions at 25 mph (40 km/h).

[Someone]

"Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction"

Aha! You assumed that there are multiple lanes. That wasn't explicit in "This can also be prevented by not trying to pass right turning vehicles on the right and only pass them on their left"

I read that as "ride in the same lane as the cars, but pass them on their left".

I still think that's way scarier than the Dutch approach where nobody needs eyes in their back to detect each other, just eyes that can look in front of you.

Having separate cycle lanes, as this will, also solves the "driver education states that drivers must make their turns as close to the edge of the road/curb as practicable" problem.

[Doxin]

> Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction.

Over here in the netherlands we're phasing these out, crossing traffic at a diagonal like that means that drivers will need to look almost 180 degrees behind them to spot you. It's a fine solution if there's only one lane of cars, but as soon as there's more than one lane merging movements just make it plain too dangerous.

[u801e]

> crossing traffic at a diagonal like that

I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to convey. What I was saying was that the cyclist should change lanes to the one corresponding to their desired direction of travel through the junction (like one would do when in a car or on a motorcycle).

> means that drivers will need to look almost 180 degrees behind them to spot you.

Why couldn't they use their mirrors?

[Doxin]

You're right, crossing isn't the right word here. The point largely stands though: merging into a lane of car traffic is dangerous as a cyclist.

> Why couldn't they use their mirrors?

They can, but don't. People look in their mirrors for cars, not for cyclists. This is the same problem as cars overtaking cyclists and then making a right turn as if the cyclist isn't there.

In general you want to separate traffic that goes as different speeds. There's no good reason to mix bicycle traffic into car traffic: there are alternative solutions that avoid doing so.

[u801e]

> merging into a lane of car traffic is dangerous as a cyclist.

Not really. You really only need to check your mirror, then look back and be certain drivers approaching from the rear see you and slow down. Only then should you change lanes.

> People look in their mirrors for cars, not for cyclists.

That would only apply if the cyclist was overtaking (which isn't a common situation). Besides, motorcyclists ride in traffic and Ste seen.

> In general you want to separate traffic that goes as different speeds.

Limited access highways/motorways accommodate traffic going at significantly different speeds. For example, on uphill grades, trucks can be going as slow as 60 km/h whole faster traffic is going 120 km/h. On the unlimited sections of the Autobahn, trucks are limited to 80 km/h and faster traffic may be going around 150 km/h.

Given those examples, there should be no issue with cyclists going 15 to 40 km/h among faster traffic going 30 to 80 km/h.

> There's no good reason to mix bicycle traffic into car traffic: there are alternative solutions that avoid doing so.

The only solution that would work is a completely separate path with infrequent intersections and little to no pedestrians.

Once there are frequent intersections, then there are conflicts unless separate traffic signals with exclusive phases are used (which leads to more delays and noncompliance).

Side paths van work at lower speeds (15 km/h or less), but those speeds won't work for the distances people need to travel unless they're willing to invest significantly more time in traveling compared to other modes of transportation other than walking.

For example, my bicycle commute in the afternoon involves riding from work to my childrens' school, picking them up, taking them to an after school program, and then riding back home. The total distance I have to cover is 15 miles. While moving, I average about 11 mph. My lowest speed up hills is about 5 mph. My top does downhill is about 27 mph. Almost all of my commute is on roads with traffic where I take the lane while riding.

If I rode at 16 km/h or less on this commute, them I would never be able to get the kids to their destination on time.

So, from a transportation point of view, using the roads where I can ride at higher speed safely is the best and safest option.