This video is obviously a very entry-level discussion for total newbs, but it's frustrating to see how unsophisticated the conversation around bicycle infrastructure is in America. Like this is the first time anybody has ever thought of this stuff. Painted lines should never be used. There's a reason I call them "painted bicycle gutters". It should also have been mentioned that research has shown "sharrows" are more dangerous than nothing, because they give novice cyclists a false sense of security. Also, the fact that anybody would propose centre-running bicycle paths is insane. This is a perfect example of car-centric traffic engineering applying "solutions" with a total ignorance to how people actually cycle. Should sidewalks be in the centre of the road too? These are solved problems. Planners can buy the CROW manual in English and it's all spelled out in there. There's literally nothing to discover or research in this area. Crashes like a right hook are almost totally eliminated in modern Dutch street design. There are still instances of old and insufficient infrastructure in the Netherlands, but these are being replaced as roads are redesigned. This takes time, which is why it's so important to get the standards correct *now* as the design will be in place for a long time. The fact that US planners and engineers are still "testing" broken designs that will be in place for decades is getting people killed.
I feel like in the US the priority is in this order. 1. Money and doing things as cheaply as possible. 2. Safety of drivers. 3. Convince of drivers. 4 Safety of people riding bikes. The best biking areas often seem to be in parks, where they don't bother people driving cars, and I suspect often are paid from park budgets and not road budgets. Well I don't know that for sure, but that is my speculation, as I am not sure why they are often such trash designs here in the States.
Agreed. Road paint is a guideline. Wish my municipality could afford more of it. Then maybe the "sheep on the road" would have to figure out what the "symbols" mean, just like bicyclists that must survive.
@@Arjan_dv , it could be that in Europe most motorist also experience transportation by bicycles. That is a completely different culture than here in North America. Most N.Americans only travel by motor vehicle, most likely not ever even using public transport. It tends to warp the mind into one form of thinking. You European just have it better off.
Issue with sharrows being they're actually more dangerous because they can give newer riders a false sense of security, "sharrows" are just a city doing the minimum possible thing to say they have bike lanes
Not in the Netherlands. Cycle lanes continue on the junctions and roundabouts. Also cyclists get a 9 second headstart at the green light. So cyclists are on the move before a car pulls up to go to the right.
@@sm3675 Yes, that is so unfortunally. But start a grassroot movement with bike protest, especially with children. That is the same way it started in the Netherlands.
Exactly. This is my biggest problem with bike lanes. Always there where you can go without. A straight road. But as soon as there a junctions, traffic lights, roundabouts, turning and generally confusing and more dangerous traffic. The lanes just disappear. What’s the point then?
This reminds me of when I was at a red light waiting to turn right in NYC last month. The light turned green just as I noticed a few cyclists were quickly approaching from behind on the right. I didn't care who had the right of way and waited 2-3 seconds so they could safely pass me first. The asshole behind me, however, decided to honk at me for not smashing the gas and running over the cyclists even though they were clearly visible from the side view mirror and I had my right turn signal on the entire time. Pretty sure that asshole would have ran them over if I weren't there.
As a cyclist, whenever I see someone getting honked at for waiting on me I try to give the honking driver the 'wtf bro?' hand wave if I got line of sight. I cannot stand these blind idiots that can't see past the bumper of the car in front of them, whether I'm cycling or driving.
These are the unsolved issues that still exist and it's that cyclists have the same rights as pedestrians. If a pedestrian was still making their way to the intersection you would have made the turn. If a car was coming from behind they would have let the car in front turn first ahead of them. But with how you and video treat it, we're in no mans land, the cyclist is neither vehicle nor pedestrian because you wait for them to get to the intersection and cross AND they don't wait for you to turn they presume they have the right-of-way as a pedestrian at the intersection would.
@@killer2600 I think the correct solution would be to have a third category: "Cyclist" that has their own rules and responsibilities. Like For this particular scenario, since cyclists are forced to be in the right lane, they should be allowed on through like a pedestrian. If there was a bicycle lane there, instead of just a gap between the cars and the shoulder...it'd be obvious that's how it should be. The tough part is education. Some cyclists assume they are pedestrians and act accordingly. Others insist they are vehicles. They'll even wait in traffic instead of passing on the right. The law says vehicles but that really doesn't matter on the ground, especially when the laws aren't enforced on cars much less cyclists.
@@caseyb1346 Europe, especially cities in the Netherlands or Scandinavia, proove that a third category isn't necessary. Cyclists do not have the same right as pedestrians there, they have the same rights as motorbikes + the right to use bicycle infrastrcuture. Motorbikes basically have the same rights as cars with a few adjustments due to them being single lane.
Then introduce some decently large fine for parking in a way that obstructs a bike lane. should pay for itself in enforcement, and have the desired effect.
@@CH-bd6jg It's not the fines that keep the Dutch from parking in the bike lane. It's mostly out of respect for the cyclists. In the big cities dilivery drivers sometime park in the bike lanes because there is no other way to do their job. th-cam.com/video/nhVIqSqRgWM/w-d-xo.html
@@MrMoon-hy6pn More car use isn't a bad thing. But, drivers will drive, anyway. But, it WOULD, maybe, discourage improper bicycle usage. Bicycles have no place anywhere near cars.
Another big problem you didn't mention is cars parking in cycle lanes, or just stopping to drop off or pick someone up in the bike lane. The bike either has to stop and walk around the stopped vehicle or merge into the car lane to get around the stopped vehicle. As with all these things it's very difficult to retro-design cycle lanes into existing streets without reducing the number of vehicle lanes which isn't always possible (if there only was one) or desirable if it increases vehicle congestion. I used to cycle through a busy city when I was much younger but after a few near misses I tend to restrict my cycles to quieter country roads these days (which means I can't/don't cycle to work).
Yes, here in NYC bike lanes are often blocked by cars, trucks, and construction. Combine that with double parked cars and trucks, and sometimes you have to move over SEVERAL lanes into fast-moving traffic (including trucks and busses) just to get by.
In that case let’s put up taxes on bicyclists so we can put in these improvements. Why are fuel taxes used for bike safety construction? No free riders
One solution used in a few busy intersections with bike lanes here in Trondheim, Norway: The stop line for the cars is moved back a bit, and in front is an area marked in red where bicyclists going straight head can stop and wait. Since they are in front of the cars, there is no danger of collision from right turning cars. Of course that only helps if the biker reaches the intersection while the light is red: if you arrive on a green light you can't use this waiting area.
We have the same solution in Germany this only helps when traffic is waiting for the traffic light to turn green. This ain't helping for rolling traffic.
It's appalling how many drivers I see stopping in the crosswalk at red lights. Your idea is a good one, but it would also require diligent enforcement.
Many UK cities have areas just for bikes at the front in traffic lights too. Often with their own lower-down copy of the traffic lights as well. It’s extremely sensible and low-cost.
@@kaitlyn__L I've seen it in videos and I think it's a wonderful solution. Drivers here in the US often stop in the crosswalk at lights, so I imagine they wouldn't respect the bike space.
Me and my friend went to Amsterdam but I accidentally booked our Airbnb like and 1hr train ride away from the city center. Our host had a couple bikes and we rode like 2.5hrs into the city center stayed the night in the city partied and rode it back in the morning. Everything was so perfectly designed the whole journey we never felt unsafe. I’m from NYC and would never do that in a million years
Or the side of the road is full of pot holes and cracks that force a rider further out into the lane, while drivers think that cyclists are only allowed to have 3 feet of the side of the lane... when it is actually 3 feet clearance from a cyclist no matter how much the lane they take up. I've been buzzed many many times.
This year I fell off my bike and got multiple injuries including a broken rib because the bicycle gutter is so uneven and piecemeal that I lost control. I have a road bicycle but I think I need to buy a mountain bicycle because of the conditions of the bicycle infrastructure in my area. There are places where the painted bike lake is at the very edge of the road and narrows down to the width of a painted line with rough gravel on the side of the road that my bicycle could not possibly be ridden on.
I avoided driving for 25 years of my life, until I moved to the suburbs where there was no safe and efficient alternative to go to work. The bus took too long and was unreliable and there was no safe bike route. Any 4 lane road should be converted to have bike lanes with barriers that don't intersect with bus stops. If we want people to bike more and drive less, we have to stop building streets predominantly for cars. I think a lot of people would be open to it if they could still commute in a reasonable amount of time and do so safely.
I know I would consider biking to work at least some of the time if I still went into the office and it seemed safe to do so, but where I live it's barely an acceptable level of safety in a car with the way people drive and there are basically no bike lanes of any kind 90% of the way there.
Studies consistently show that the majority of people like the idea of riding a bike, but don't because they're worried about safety Infrastructure please
What, are Americans supposed to learn from dirty commies or filthy hippies or something? We’re pretty sure all it takes to be the greatest in the world is an ad campaign where we thump our chests and say we’re the greatest in the world, while never once realizing that the only reason the U.S. was _ever_ a great country is because the founders who created it started out by implementing all the best solutions that everywhere else in the world throughout all of history had ever figured out and put them all together in one country. We’re the opposite of great today because we do the complete opposite of any of that. It’s sad to watch things dissolve in front of your eyes when it’s painfully obvious that there are great solutions that have been proven over decades all over the world around you and nobody will lift a finger to try even 1/10 of any of it, because “‘Merica, f*ck yeah!”
Exactly, but that means that America is not the best in everything, as they want to be but in actuality are best at nothing, not even percentage of fat people.
@@killer2600 If you actually were invisible, partaking in traffic (except maybe as a pedestrian) would be insane and suicidal. There would be no way to cycle trough a city or town for more than 5 minutes withouit getting hit by a car if you actually were invisible to each and every driver. The logical conclusion of being invisible would be not to cycle. How does that solve anything? You probably just mean to to assume someone can't see you when in doubt or that you should let cars go first even if you have the right of way, but that's not the same as assuming you are invisible. If you were invisible and cycling in the road, every car that will overtake you is very likely to hit you, for example. Or if you're cycling in an unprotected bike lane, people who use the bike lane for parking would smash right into you or stop right in front of you, if you are invisible to them. There would simply no way to protect yourself from those things if you actually were invisible. The advice "Assume you are invisible" is very similar to the "Assume everyone is out to kill you", which is also sometimes said among cyclists. Both make no sense, as the only reasonable conclusion would be not to cycle at all.
@@FernandoHernandez-jw4yy Sure! My reason for using the phrase I did is because there are instances where people look directly at motorcycles and pull out in front of them because their brains are expecting to see a car! Substitute whatever (motorcycle, bicycle, rollerblader, whatever) but generally we have to assume that a driver is looking for cars, first and foremost.
Here in North america, cycling can often be viewed as something done only by children, or as a leisurely pastime. This is mostly because most people view it as incredibly dangerous to commute to work on their bike because of the poor cycling infrastructure. City planners then view it as pointless to improve cycling infrastructure beyond the painted gutter lanes or non-existentace that it already is because of the lack of people cycling because they don't feel safe cycling. And thus the cycle of North American cycling continues. While we probably could institute something like the Dutch cycling Network and Road rules, the automobile is King in North America and there's a lack of political willpower to do something so controversial, even if in the long run it would save lives. The general comment I've heard from people about cyclists here in North America is that they should just quit cycling and buy cars if they feel unsafe on the road. It's not to say they're building cycling infrastructure improvements, but one can only dream of cycling infrastructure like you have in the Netherlands.
I find that quite sad to see, that last part of your comment. Some people don't have the opportunity to just buy a car, since they are expensive vehicles which require money to keep them up and running. A car is "needed" in the US because of the design of the infrastructure there, which makes it even sadder.
Dear North Americans, designing roads with cyclists and pedestrians in mind isn't hard. You too can order the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic from the Netherlands. We've already done the hard work for you. The only thing that needs to change are some small adjustments to the traffic rules. Admittedly that sometimes may slightly inconvenience some drivers... oh... wait... sorry about that, I stand corrected. Nothing can be done.
Dear non North Americans, allow me to REPRASE, since SOME of you had to blow things way the fuck out of context, our MODERN roads were originally designed for motorized vehicles only. *Traveling by bike only became popular here within the last 20-25 years.* Not only that, but United States is the *third largest country in the world* by area, that's a lot of roads you're condecendingly asking us to fix....
@@edipires15 _The title should be "American Bike Lanes Have A Deadly Design Flaw"_ _Or rather “American Bike Lanes Have A LOT Of Deadly Design Flaws”_ Or "How to make America's deadly design flaws even deadlier".
@@paxundpeace9970 as a Dutch person living close to the German border. it is a complete culture shock when i pass over the border. i love Germany. but your infrastructure needs work.
It’s all about education and infrastructure. In Denmark and the Netherlands they don’t wear helmets because the drivers are also cyclists and they understand the bike culture. But even then the urban planners make sure that the right infrastructure is in place to make the cycling experience more convenient and safer. But it took these guys around 50 years before they got to this level. Also for that culture to develop. Thanks for the video. It’s a topic our city planners should start discussing with their citizens. ASAP!
Hi, I am from Denmark. Most is education and traffic laws. While we do have some great infrastructure for bicycling in some places, it is the exception and not the rule. Here it is the bike that has the right of way, and the car that has to give. In a right hand turn (which is the most common accident here as well), the issue was the limited view in the trucks and busses. This was fixed with a law of having a in mirror on the right side pointing down to see any cyclists next to the truck. This reduced the amount of casualties considerably. What is most common with dedicated bike lanes here is that they are raised just about 5 inches from the road, which does make it unlikely for a car to swing on to the bike lane. From what I can see in this video is a bad consideration of traffic laws, when there are no bike lanes, seems like they are biking mixed in with car traffic instead of keeping to the right? This seems like it is causing unnecessary risks and congestion of the roads.
Having a bike on icon on the road is almost as useless as not having any markers. We should target cities like Rotterdam with completely separated paths cars and bikes. See Not Just Bikes TH-cam channel.
THE SEXY GIRLS ARE BIGTITITS.UNO THREE IN ONE TH-cam: THIS IS FINE. SOMEONE: SAYS ''HECK''. TH-cam: BE GONE Life's story is a short journey so have fun before sleeping forever #Чо #эт #делает #на #2 #месте #в #тренде #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков .#垃圾.
this entire thing like crashing when someone turns right is entirely their fault. and this is why people hate cyclists, your not a damn car if someone is turning you wait for them, the rules of yielding should be used but they don't they just go on i mean you dont eve go 5 mph yet you don't yield and just go of course you are gonna crash.
@@Megatonaxe yield to cyclist is a thing yes, but if they are going the opposite to the flow of traffic such as using the opposite lane is messed up you either follow the rules of motor vehicles or the rules a pedestrian, or you use the damn bike lane how it's supposed to be used, but here is a cyclist following the rules of a pedestrian ie using crosswalks etc, meaning he did not have the right of way. it just depends on what path the cyclist is using. in rural areas this isn't an issue because there aren't many sidewalks so they have to ride in a supervised area or follow basic road laws set for motor vehicles. (either way cyclists are entitled pieces of shit who don't deserve respect, cool saving the environment yeah but you go like 5 mph and follow road laws. then refuse to follow the basic rules a pedestrian would follow whilst walking. they aren't exempt from the rules which is why bike lanes exist.) yeah when a car doesn't yield to a car in these situation it's one thing but the driver is at fault it is not at fault with the cyclists its the driver at fault but in areas where the cyclists just think of going first it's stupid. cyclists need to be more careful it's the same and the fact that the lanes are on the far right were accidents like this were to happen it's a serious problem. but if someone is making a right turn be cautious idk yield and follow the laws and you will be alright. earlier i went on a rant about laws and why i hate cyclists but i don't have things like bike lanes in my rural town so they are annoying people who get in your way on your 30 minute drive to work.
THE SEXY GIRLS ARE BIGTITITS.UNO THREE IN ONE TH-cam: THIS IS FINE. SOMEONE: SAYS ''HECK''. TH-cam: BE GONE Life's story is a short journey so have fun before sleeping forever #Чо #эт #делает #на #2 #месте #в #тренде #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков .#垃圾.
As a Dutch person, this problem seems strange to me. I know basically nothing about American traffic rules, but here the same traffic rules apply to cars as to bicycles (with some minor exceptions).
I just got done writing something similar about the UK and our highway code. We’re far behind you in terms of specialist infrastructure, but at least our basic rules make sense, and so sharing country roads with cars and bikes happens with very few issues due to giving each other a wide berth and everyone having proper lights. The idea they bikes are equivalent to pedestrians in the USA is very strange to me. There’s so much more speed and in a narrower cross-section than a walking human.
@@kaitlyn__L There are plenty of ways in which the US highway code is objectively bad for anyone who's not in a car. Rules do not exist in a vacuum. Unlike in the US, the Dutch infrastructure that is created to protect vulnerable road users, is backed up by a robust set of rules that has the same aim.
@@custardo indeed. Lack of presumed guilt for drivers is terrible, as are the reactions of Americans who dream-up insurance fraud scenarios when I tell them they should ask their local government to consider doing what they can to move towards that kind of policy.
@@kaitlyn__L It is weird, but bike laws are very inconsistent in the US. There are lots of states where a cyclist is equivalent to a motor vehicle, and others where they are equivalent to a pedestrian. Some states like mine do treat cyclists like cars, but have practically no other bike laws. As a result, passing or attempting to pass a vehicle that is in the rightmost lane on the right is illegal. The cyclist is therefore at fault in many right hook crash scenarios, so long as the car was completely in front of the cyclist when it initiated its turn.
_"I know basically nothing about American traffic rules"_ Sounds like you should apply to be an American civil engineer. You've got all the qualifications.
I think it's the same as for being a motorcyclist or any body participating in the traffic: always be prepared for others to make mistakes. Most cyclists I know, including my self, are always prepared and looking for cars turning right, if they have eye contact, slow down or not. That's at least halving the risk.
The biggest problem with bicycles is that they think they do not have to obey basic road rules. Double riding should be prohibited, because they block traffic single file should be the law.
in some cases, yes, it does. in cities where there are always cars parked there, it is an effective way. obviously it's not the case if there are barely any cars parked there
It is okay as long as it is not along a road with many driveways and adds some separation to protect against dooring. Otherwise it is a blind spot hook turn utopia.
@@tcg1_qc It's a horrible design for cities with snow. During winter the city can't clean the parking space/bicycle path properly, leaving it with ice which is horrible for cyclist.
In some cases where the street is too wide like with many American streets and there are businesses on the sides that requires lots of access not only you reduce the width of the lanes for the cars, reducing their speed and therefore making the street safer, but also improve vehicle access to the buildings adjacent to the street while at the same time giving a dedicated lane for cyclists thats safer due to using the cars themselves as a shock barrier against other cars (also parallel parking on this kinds of fixes should be avoided as dooring is a thing) it might not be the best option out there but is a way more usable retrofit than just a painted gutter
In Australia we changed the timing of the bike green lights at intersections so that bikes have a few seconds to get in front before the vehicle light turns green 🚦🚲🚗
Yep, speaking as a driver it makes a huge difference to have a bike lane with it's own lights because it immediately forces your attention to possible cyclists in your blind spots - and maximises separation between cyclists & cars in the intersection. The more intuitive warnings you can give pedestrians, cyclists or drivers at an intersection the better, because the danger always comes from overloading people with distractions.
Well, in most places in North America you can ALWAYS turn right in an interception regardless of the light status as long as is not specifically forbidden and is safe to do so. So in most circumstances, drivers are NOT looking at the light, but at the traffic coming from the left, making very easy to miss a cyclist going across from their right. That's specially dangerous when the light changes while they are looking left, so giving a head start to the bike lane is only going to make things worse.
@@ceresdog5362 good that you look them in the eyes before crossing. Some people get hit because they be looking on their phones. The two person who died because they hit or got with with truck which has a lot of blind spot must be going 20 or higher speed. My advice for them is to anticipate idiot drivers who is looking on the left to make a right turn
After being in an accident due to the "right hook", I always move directly behind a car signaling right. Lets them know that I'm not in their blindspot and its clear for them to take the right turn. Also, it gives me an exit to the left if they stop in the middle of the bike lane/intersection.
I wonder if that FedEx driver was signaling. Even if they weren't signaling, I would follow the back of the trailer so I could duck behind it if the driver started turning unexpectedly. It sounds like this was one of those "wide turns" where the driver is forced to cut across lanes.
@@MatthewStinar Applying the defensive driving techniques while riding helps also. In this case it would have been best for the cyclist to ride at the same speed as the fedex truck as it passes through the intersection. Sadly, you always need to assume no one sees you.
Great video, as a cyclist in NYC dooring is my biggest fear. I get the right turn risk is real, but that can be motivated with defensive biking. Getting hit by a car door though, that's an unpredictable surprise no one is prepared for.
@ItsRandxm I disagree completely with your position. I have legal right to ride bike on any state street. This is my legal right. Any driver in state of NY has privilege to drive granted by state, on condition that it will comply with road law. So, grow up, stop crying baby about how the road belongs to cars. Get use to real life, people who like riding more that bus/car, will use their rights. If you care about safety and health of your community, that you need good infrastructure for people who risk averse, for school kids, etc.
“Prioritize people over cars”. Great idea. Cars should never have been prioritized over humans in the first place. Pedestrians, jaywalkers, and other insults against non-car drivers
No, it's good that cars were prioritized in some cases. Never try walking to Vegas, for one. Two, have you ever been stuck in a car that's trapped sideways, all because the only trail available is too small? I have, it sucks. 😂
Infact "Jaywalker" was a term made up by GM when they lobbied the government in the 1940s as pro-car propaganda. Our country has a long history with big auto.
Continuous side walks where cars have to go up and over the bike lane would also do a lot to help cyclists, it works for pedestrians too. When you have to go down onto the road to cross it then it feels like you are going where cars are meant to be despite having the right of way. With a continuous bike lane cars will have to go up it like a speed bump which sends the clear message that cars are crossing a space made for bikes. Sure the law may say that bikes have the right of way but when infrastructure is clearly meant for cars then bad drivers will not pay attention to anything except other cars
Yeah those are used a lot over here in the Netherlands. As a cyclist, they are really great, because any car that you might come into conflict with is forced to go so slow that you have time to react and fix their mistake. They also have more time to look more closely and see if a bike comes. They really make a lot of sense in scenarios where you have a less busy road crossing a busier road. As a driver, they're obviously a bit less comfortable, since you're gonna go over a speed bump, but that sounds like a very small price to pay for dramatically reducing the likelihood of fatal accidents. Also, you get used to them. When I was younger, I always thought that these traffic calming measures just existed to annoy drivers. Because they clearly are intended to disrupt and slow down the uninterrupted flow of traffic. It took me some time to realize that they exist for a very good reason. That requires advocacy and education.
The problem isn't so much bike lanes themselves, but American car dependency, and lack of empathy for bicyclists (from both the local government and car drivers themselves). Here in The Netherlands, most roads are designed with bike lanes, and even on roads without them, car drivers are forced to pay attention, usually by either making them drive at low speeds, or making the road feel uncomfortable to drive on at high speed, for example, using speed bumps. Also, car drivers are instructed to respect bicyclists when they apply for a driver's license and take their exams, making both car drivers and bicyclists equals. As for intersections, in some places, the bike road extends further than the regular road, sometimes even giving bicyclists a whole space in front of the cars to park on when a light turns red, thus forcing drivers to always look ahead and mind the bicyclists. Other good solutions are roundabouts, where bikes have the right of way, as bike lanes run through them uninterrupted. Bicycling is so safe here, helmets are not really required, and you rarely see people wear them. Of course, accidents do happen, but most of the time, the bicyclist comes out of it alive and relatively unscathed, and deaths have dropped quite a bit in the last 20 or so years. There is still room for improvement, especially in certain cities, but if I compare it with how it is in North America, it's as if you're looking at an entirely different world. And I echo the Not Just Bikes recommendation. He points out very nicely where issues lie and how they can be fixed.
That clown offers little in the way of changes that can be made and fit in and work in a North American context. His solution is "Move to Amsterdam". Also, not all of Netherlands is a cycling paradise like Amsterdam.
@@wclark3196 Nothing is impossible with good will and proper planning. Sure, circumstances are different, but there is no reason to focus on more ecofriendly forms of transportation. Amsterdam is far from a cycling paradise. It has a lot of narrow streets and roads that aren't really suitable for multiple types of traffic, given that it was originally designed to be accessed via the various canals. But, if you come from a country, where you're lucky to even _have_ any cycling infrastructure at all, you can't blame the guy from NJB for overselling it. Also, there is more to The Netherlands than just Amsterdam. Other cities have better cycling infrastructure, especially those that lie further to the east and in the countryside. And other countries in Europe did it even better. I heard that some of the Nordic countries, such as Norway and Finland, have gotten their act together even better. Of course, you could go the other way, like in parts of SE Asia, where they don't seem to have any traffic rules whatsoever, and where cars and bikes go wherever they please, but I think that requires an entirely different discipline that I don't really see possible in NA myself without a serious change in attitude.
Most major roads in Shanghai have protected bike lanes, and when I drove I usually check for bikes before turning right. Most bikes here are electric bikes and they are used by people commuting or most importantly delivery men.
I am surprised Shanghai allows electric bikes in bike lanes. One fellow in my 55+ community has one and he zips along at 35 miles an hour flying by me on my adult manual tricycle. Fortunately we don't have bike lanes in our community so he is never too close when he passes me.
@@myreadingmapped When I was learning driving, the instructor specifically told me to slow down and look out for electirc bikes when crossing bike lanes on a right turn.
Many years ago when I was taking my first pushbike out on the roads the best advice I was given was the basic rule of: Never try to pass a vehicle just before or in an intersection. - At the time I was riding a bike in a major city that had never heard of such things as a bike lane, so it was all shared road usage. Over the years I've found safe riding depends on me being aware of my surroundings and taking them into account. Sitting fully upright on the bike is a big first step in this regards as it gives me improved vision.
@@Wouter_Grtsn Only reason a city is car dependent is because it is build around cars. If you build around bikes and pedestrians it will not be a car centert city but human centert
Have you been to London. Some cycle lanes have light for the cyclists. They still ignore and go through right into the traffic. I don't know about America but in U.K. They are a major nuisance. I nearly got hit 3 times by cyclists running red lights and they won't stop they will hit you and blame you for crossing the road when they should have stopped. Was only in London an hour when I nearly got hit the 3rd time. It's not the left hook but cyclists don't look.
@Robert King The part where they don't stop. People often don't use their turn signal and only slow down slightly to make the turn, leaving next to zero warning to their intention. If they actually stopped, they at least give me an idea of what they mean to do, and gives them at least an extra second to look in the mirror.
"What are the ways to solve this problem?" Trivial: bicycle only roads. If a bike route uses a separate surface from the motor route, then the bike route should have its own, dedicated right-of-way. Segregated lanes that follow a road should be abolished. They cannot be made to work, in my experience.
Traffic laws vary widely. Where I live, bicycles are classified as vehicles, not pedestrians. So they have the same obligations and rights as motorists. The major design problem with "bike paths" is that they're laid out for recreation, not transportation. They don't go anywhere in particular.
More so inattentive drivers of cars - and unfortunately everyone who drives is going to be inattentive on occasion. So designing roads that force attention at the right moments or create less opportunities for accidents is still the key solution.
@@RedRingOfDeath depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it's gas taxes, in other places it's just the taxpayers (which cyclists likely are). I'm not sure it matters, though. Roads are a public good that everyone needs to be able to use safely, including children too young to pay and poor seniors on fixed incomes who likely have already paid their dues.
I live in Manhattan and unless I’m crossing a bridge I usually feel safer on the street with the cars, for the same reason I rode on the streets in Miami and not on the sidewalk drivers only look at the road so if you’re on the bike lane or sidewalk they don’t see you if I’m in the middle of the way on the street they see me and approach more cautiously
That’s very sensible - that’s the law in the UK! You ride far enough into centre of the road that cars can see you, you avoid any doors or drain grates, you’re properly lit; and cars are supposed to treat you as if you take up the footprint of a car for overtaking etc. (You can force this by slightly weaving left to right to “protect” your buffer space as you move forward.)
I feel the same and separated bike lanes while still better for inexperienced cyclist can be a problem at intersection because the drivers don't expect the cyclists.
If there are are least 2 lanes pretty direction, the cyclist should take up the right most entire lane, forcing cars to do an actual leave change to pass you. They might get annoyed but fuck it it's your safety.
Thank you! I commuted by bike until about 10 years ago when I got a job too far from my rent controlled apartment to bike to. I just bought a condo 3 miles from work and I'm commuting by bike again, and there's a protected bike lane on my route for the first time, and I don't like it. It's too much like riding on the sidewalk, which is the single most dangerous place to ride statistically, and the parked cars reduce my visibility. I rarely have close calls with cars, and I just had one on the "protected bike lane" because the driver didn't (or couldn't because of the parked cars) see me in the "protected bike lane" I don't see how anyone who bike commutes seriously can possibly endorse these things except to cater to newbs, who would be better served by actually learning to ride safely.
In all the cities I've lived in, there's been almost NO bike lanes. So yall urban dwellers are lucky to have SOME bike lanes... Yall just don't know... The only one I've seen so far around the university I'm at is along a road with fast traffic, and starts right at a turning lane, running into a highway. It's completely useless and very dangerous. You would expect the main roads around the university to have bike lanes but they don't. But this is America for you. You're so free that in most cities you're forced to drive because the roads are only designed with the automobile in mind and everything else is an afterthought. So much for "freedom" PragerU
Living in the Netherlands, I am used to a traffic system where cycling is much more common. One solution is to give all cyclists on a junction a simultaneous green light. As they are going relatively slow and can have good eye contact, they arrange the right of way on the go and accidents are limited.
I encountered this while cycling there and thought it was the dumbest thing ever. Only works in the Netherlands where most cyclists ride at a pokey, 15 km/h pace. In N. America, you have to stretch your legs a bit to get anywhere useful.
If you're planning on bicycling, and you heard the part in this video about "bicyclists have the right of way" in this or that situation, ignore this "right" if you want to live. My law is this: if the vehicle can hit me, it just might. Driver might not see me, then hit me. Because of this, I go where the vehicle isn't going. Example: if I'm bicycling down a road and approach an intersection and I do not have any of the following: stop sign, red or yellow light, or a yield sign, I still must yield to a vehicle that might enter that intersection (from my right, and yes they do have a stop sign). So I go around it. It's moving forward, or fixing to move forward (and might T-bone me), so I avoid going near its front bumper, choosing instead to go near its rear bumper, then continue down the road. Or I go wayyyyyyy over to the left if there's little or no traffic; when I'm wayyyyyyyyy over on the other side of the street, it's very hard for that vehicle to hit me, and I'd have more time to react if poop started happening.
Hey, I work for Massbike so I'll add some things. Bikes always have priority crossing the street in a crossbike, even if they pull ahead. The best solution to solving the right hook is signal phasing that separates bike movements from turning movements. This results in no possible conflict. You can also raise the bike crossing to add even more safety.
The US rules here are the problem, basically the priority rule is insane! A road user leaving their own lane cutting across another should always have to yield, simple.
Germany? Germany and the Netherlands have nothing to do with each other when it comes to cycling infrastructure. Germany is horrendous compared to the Netherlands.
@@razorblade1596 well, germany is considerable better than the USA at least in most places, i Think thats why he mentions germany. Maybe he visted Münster, the bicycle City of germany?
As a Thai road youtuber, seeing some footage of Thailand is used here has really made me hate the way how Thai town planners don't give a f**k about people outside of a car. But in reality they don't give a f**k about anything. The public transit system is like putting caviar on top of dog poop. Roads themselves despite being so close to being a car-centric city are still rough to get through as the moon surface. Pedestrians are treated like they are the past and unknown backbone of the cities' development. Police don't give a sh*t about vendors selling things and blocking paths on sidewalks. (I'm thinking of making a video about this problem soon)
Car Culture has removed any Empathy Car owners have for pedestrians or cyclists. Most drivers outright hate pedestrian and cyclists and wish they were dead as if pushing the brake pedal or turning necks to look around is more effort than walking or cycling.
As a Dutch cyclist I notice many things and 1 thing is that a bicycle path in the US is often made in a rush. One lane has been removed and repainted into a cycle path, where in the Netherlands the entire road is being adapted to separate cars and cyclists as well as possible. Often with the safety and rules that are seen as good at that time and always checked if this is the case, to apply these improvement in other construction or improvements That right on the same road can easily be solved by having the traffic lights of cyclists and pedestrians turn green earlier. Although I often hear that traffic lights in the US are not really smart and always turn all directions on green or red. Learned this mostly from a few YouTubbers and most of it through ''NotJustBikes''
In most US cities there is a lot of pushback on real bike infrastructure because it comes at the cost of eliminating either a traffic lane, car parking, or sidewalks(often with existing street trees, curb cuts etc). The painted lanes became a popular option as a way to silence cyclist complaints without upsetting nearby car-owning residents, and this consensus has - at least until recently - meant that people who use bikes on streets are either enthusiasts who tolerate risk, or they are visibly poor(and so tend to sidewalk ride instead because they know the score and they're gonna be harassed by law enforcement anyway). These demographics are small enough that they can't push even for basic ideas like signaling, since those are more expensive than adding paint, and in many cases national traffic engineering standards dictate preference for a standard design with no considerations for bikes, so it takes exceptional effort to do more. My understanding is that the Netherlands had a situation where parents, one of the most powerful demographics of all, were pushing for the changes, because there was an expectation for kids to be able to ride. So everything became possible as soon as bicycle safety became a crisis. The trends are looking very promising for a "bottom-up" solution in the US, though. Micromobility vehicles and services(docked and dockless e-bike and e-scooter rentals) have created an environment where the actual vehicles are everywhere, easy to ride, relatively inexpensive, and without the logistical concerns of ownership. The operators of these services have a vested interest in lowering injury rates(whether it's a pedestrian tripping over discarded scooters or a customer getting hit by a car) because it's tied to their vehicle insurance as well as their brand image - they need to make a product that is foolproof. As such some have begun to lobby for and sponsor changes to traffic infrastructure, creating a virtuous cycle where their service gets more popular as the streets get safer. It's still really early, but I'm seeing gradual changes month by month. High fuel prices now are also helping along this change.
Our city budget is 170 million operationally. a typical road improvement is 10-30 million per section etc. We budget 700 thousand for pedestrian and bicyclist, but most of that is salary, so we actually have around 0-40 thousand a year to do some very small projects. Generally for any project to get done, a city council member needs to live on that block or you need a large amount of people to scream about it, plus a developer who can make money off it. The bike friendly developers in the US make more money off selling pretty pamplets called "plans" or doing special events rather than the actual bike infrastructure.
7:16 bike path on the medium of a two-way divided road is a terrible idea. To access or exit it you still have to cross heavy traffic. Plus it separates bike users from any building or business on the side of the road. Bike paths should always be on the side of a street or road, making it easily accessible to everyone.
Yes, exactly! It also removes one of the advantages of cycling: starting and ending your drive takes very little time, so you can go to shops or businesses along the street with no isshe
@@edipires15 90% of road laws are an inconvience to drivers. A trade drivers are willing to make, as these are worth saving lives of cyclists and pedestrians. Arguing that we should not have cycling lanes in the middle of the road as it would be mildly annoying to cyclists is like arguing pedestrians should yield to cars on crosswalks as stopping is annoying to drivers.
At the end of the video, the script says "be careful when riding". Which I'm sure was written as a just harmless sign-off. But it shows a bias, because even based on the description of the accidents in this video the problem isn't inattentive or negligent bikers, but inattentive or negligent *drivers*.
100% agree, every close call or major conflict I've had with a car, is a car getting up my arse, overtaking when unsafe, giving me a left hook, not giving way etc etc, the bulk of drivers are really good and are very careful around me, I always give them a thumbs up when overtaking as a thank you. But all this conflict is a car driver being impatient, making easily preventable mistakes etc
At the end of the day, it's not the drivers who die in these accidents. And having the law on your side won't help you when you're lying there like a squashed tomato. So yeah, if you value your life, be careful when riding.
@@oyuyuy we can do everything right, and be as careful as we can and some drivers will still do stupid things, 'careful' will only take us so far... we need better
@@TH-cam.Notiflcation Drivers will always make mistakes, I can guarantee you that. But takes two to collide so being careful can take you as far as you want it to.
Pretty sure putting bike lanes in the median is a terrible idea and against best practise established by the Dutch and Danish for decades. Please don't promote this as a good idea.
Every street is unique. Center median bike lanes are not ideal in most locations, but in some places they can actually have fewer traffic conflicts than curbside bike lanes. It depends entirely on the street. Blanket rules are generally never useful for street designs.
Yall are forgetting that people whom drive aren't thinking of cyclists in mind aka we need to educate drivers and cyclists on the rules of the road and how to coexist with each other. Cyclists and cars share many of the same areas on roads, idk how many times I have to educate a rider who's a grown adult to ride a bike properly vs like a 5 year old going all over the place in a neighborhood... in the end its not just looking at infrastructure but how people act with what they are doing for travel (car, bike, walking, etc). MINDSET IS KEY
Everyday when driving to work, I have to make a right turn at a intersection with traffic lights and a bike lane that's separated from the road by about 1-2 meters. Problem is I drive a van with very large right side blind spot. Everytime I get off slowly from the lights (meaning I'm not the first one at them), by the time I make my turn, I have no idea if there's a bike coming, I just have to make the turn and hope that if there ever is a bike, it's driver is smart enough to realise that I can't see them.
Its almost like all of the nonsensical design is on purpose to make the quality of life here have as many unnecessary modern inconveniences as possible. Also find it funny how politicians and billion-dollar corps preach about the environment and global warming but they only ever consider trillion-dollar convoluted bills that are unlikely to pass through congress and just benefit big tech in the long run anyway. But simple things like reducing car use through improved city planning and pedestrian/biking infrastructure never get a bill.
...seems almost comical, even though I might have been cycling on the country road for 15 minutes without a single car, there is always the instant when a car coming from one way and a car coming up from behind pass each other right next to me on a two lane road... and struggle to make corrections or clearance to avoid this... ...just a curtesy brake would avoid this.
The discussion of liability will depend state-by-state, and is likely wrong in many US states. In California, the law (CVC 21717) requires a driver to merge into the bike lane before making a right turn. Who is ahead/behind doesn't matter: the driver of the motor vehicle is liable unless they safely completed the merge in advance of making their turn.
I never understand why bike lanes are in the same directions as cars lanes, bikes have no mirrors, how are you gonna be aware of whats going on behind you. As a ciclist, if you see a car coming in your direction you can at least have some agency, instead of just being blindlesly hit from behind
What's really frustrating is that all of these problems have already been solved. It's also frustrating that many FREE ways of preventing injury and death aren't being implemented. 2 examples. Instead of painting lines so that parked cars get a big door opening zone on the left that is also a bike lane put the bike lane on the other side where it's protected by the parked cars, literally exactly the same amount of paint but 10x safer. Then reprogram all of your traffic lights in the urban center to give pedestrians and cyclists a 3 second head start. It's free and will save lives.
Right hook crashes aren't punished enough. Vehicle turning right have to check that that the way is free. They either don't do this or pursuing it anyway.
Yes It does because if a car driver kills a cyclist they won't survive in jail it's worse than being a sex offender they will kill you the minute they hear your charges
In the UK, we have the so-called National Cycle Network, claiming to be a network of quiet roads and dedicated cycle paths. We also have cycle lanes (ofc). Not too fsr from where I live, there's a partially-protected cycle path, where it starts unprotected, then turns into a protected one around halfway through. The unprotected portion always gets parked on, despite the double-yellow lines making it illegal to park there.
It seems to me that North America is almost uniquely placed to offer excellent and safe cycling infrastructure in cities at minimal cost. Why? Because most of their cities have a grid system of roads. There's no real need to allow motor vehicles on every parallel road! If they would just ban motor vehicles from, say to start with, 1 in 4 of those roads, making them for cyclists and pedestrians only, those streets would become extremely safe and also far more pleasant. Won't that make traffic worse? No, it will actually reduce traffic because more people will switch from driving to cycling when it feels safe to do so. It requires a major shift of mindset that it's not clear American planners are yet capable of, but if they did it, after a while people would see the benefits and then streets would be actively bidding against each other to get converted, and gradually the city would become a place for people not cars. Longer term, almost nobody should be driving into city centres at all, they'd provide good transit options and park & ride to make it unnecessary. But banning motor vehicles from a subset of roads is easy, cheap, and can be done immediately.
Bottom line: the law says pedestrians and bicycles have the right of way, but reality says cars do. Pedestrians and bicyclists die in crashes with cars, the drivers of the cars don't. I used to bike in LA in the days when drivers thought it was funny to throw garbage at bicyclists. I don't use bicycles to go anywhere, and I try to only bike on bike paths that are completely separate from roads. I have had way to many times where cars have tried to kill me as both a bicyclist and as a pedestrian.
This is a new kind of logic compared to the traditional design recommendations in Europe. These latter typically say that 1) bike lanes should not be separated by any visibility limiting barrier (such as parking cars or hedge); 2) bike lanes must be at least 1.5 m wide; 3) right turning lanes should never ever be to the left of straight going lanes; 4) either the right turning lane should be right of the bike lane and right turning cars should change lanes ahead of the intersection, or the bike lane should merge with the right turning lane few dozens of meters ahead of the intersection. These solutions resolve the conflict in a clear and peaceful way before reaching the intersection, so there already both the motorist and the cyclist can pay full attention to the numerous other factors that they have to be aware of.
As far as I know, there is only one study on bike lanes continuing between straight and right turn lanes and it came to the conclusion, that this design increases the rate of crashes at a high speed, leading to more severe injuries. Also, in Germany we're slowly getting rid of all these principles, as they have been proven to be unsafe. The Netherlands are a much better model then most other countries in Europe with their mediocre bike infra, which is often put to shame by new bike infrastructure in the US.
Those types of of intersections haven't used often in Germany. I am not sure if they are better. The right turn problem is solved then. But a new problem emerged that car drivers don't pay attention when they cross the straight big lane into the turning lane.
@@MephistoDerPudel The US is kind of hit or miss. The US has a lot of money and smart people so it can do really nice things, but just as often we just spray paint some lines on the shoulder and call it a bike lane. There are some places where people actually prefer to drive in traffic with cars than in the bike lane, because they are so bad.
The only way to safely design a right turn lane to the right of a cycle lane is to never merge the two lanes. Otherwise you're allowing high speed cars to travel through the cycle lane which is insanely dangerous. If you want to build an underpass or bridge to remove the conflict they could work in theory, but then you may as well just underpass the intersection, it's not like it'll be much longer and it totally removes collision risks. You can get a similar effect by keeping the cycling lane to the right of the turning lane and asking cyclists to wait for a light to cross the turning lane into a more protected cycle lane, but then you're just asking cyclists to wait for two lights and over designing around cars. A better solution is just to design as if the bike path is the primary mode for the intersection. Raise the bike path and raise the point where the road crosses the bike path as if it were a speed bump. That way cars have to take the intersection more slowly.
It’s not just at intersections though. Every driveway is a potential “right hook” location. This happened to me last week while I was biking past a gas station that has a large opening for the car to enter.
We have got to a zenith that we have too many cars on our roads. Governments bending over backwards for car drivers. We need peeps in towns and cities to get out of their cars and walk/cycle more. Especially for short journeys. Obesity levels are epidemic and type 2 diabetes rising in western world because so many people live sedentary lifestyles. Changing governments transport policies means getting people to tell them what they want. But car drivers outnumber those who want to cycle. So who wins? We all lose.
One of the biggest problems is that when drivers scan for dangers they’re not actively looking bicycles and motorcycles. They see the car because they’re looking for one. It creates a mental blind spot. How many times have you heard someone say “I never saw them” OR “they just came out of nowhere” even though the rider was right in their line of vision?
I have trouble believing the "mental blindspot" excuse. In all the miles and hours I've driven through cities, motorcycles and bicycles stick out like sore thumbs, even in traffic. I've never once been surprised by the presence of a bike.
If it's not protected lanes I don't ride on them. I've been hurt way too many times by doors and getting tapped by cars. I've know one too many people who died from distracted drivers.
In residential streets it is possible to safely mix cyclists and cars, when the speed limit has been lowered to 20 mph/ 30 kmh. But the street design must be improved with speed bumps, flower boxes and chicanes (zig-zag) to inforce the low speed limit.
I haven't found any comfort in sidewalks, unless I'm on a 30+ mph road. Drivers simply do not account for the bicycle the sidewalk. I could be doing 18ish, a car comes up beside me and slows, then mistimes their turn just right to cause a close call, despite having clear view of me about to cross. Same story with bike lanes.
@@donnybrookcycling1667 going to work theres a section where cars can only go 20mph or less (theres loads of speed humps) I'm going the same speed as traffic and cars still try and overtake and squeeze between the safe gap I'm keeping between me and the car ahead. It's crazy
I think city bikers also have the responsibility to make good judgements. We are more agile than vehicles and usually only need to focus on a couple things on the road while a car/truck has many other things to look out for aside from you. So when approaching an intersection with a vehicle to your left, always check if their right turn signal is on or if they are slowing down. And there are times if its a large truck that's already ahead of you its better to just yield for them. Make their life easier and always better safe than sorry
While you're not wrong, you're also advocating something that's already true into the face of a biased majority who are looking to blame the cyclist at all times. I think it's one of the rare times that a true statement accomplishes only harmful things. It also has a false implication that this isn't already true.
One way to reduce that right hook crash is to move into the lane behind or in front of the cars at red lights. When the light turns green, peel off to the right side of the rode to allow the faster vehicles to pass. Of coarse, this will not help when passing an intersection that has a green light.
Because of this, It’s actually often « safer » to go when the light is red… the incoming traffic being easier to monitor than someone cutting you from behind (every single close call I ever had happened in this situation)
Agreed. I’ve had two near misses. Now I just time it and go when it’s red and just time it with the traffic going across or I just dismount and walk across
In the Netherlands, this problem is solved with traffic lights. The light to the right only turns on when there is no conflicting traffic. We also have traffic lights which indicate just a green light, which means the car driver has to pay attention to cyclists. They are very rare and typically have a warning light that turns on if the cyclists or pedestrians also get a green (or are always on if the light is green)
US has right turn signals at many intersections as well, but in the majority of intersections (there are some exceptions, which have their own signage) drivers are allowed to right turn even after their turn is over, as long as the path is clear. They are also allowed to turn even when the light for traffic going straight in their lane is red (known as a ‘right on red’). This does keep traffic moving but makes the roads a lot unsafer for cyclists and pedestrians. I have been hit by a car making a right on red while I was in a crosswalk as a pedestrian. (Thankfully, I only had minor injuries since the car had just accelerated from a stop and was not going very fast.)
The Right Hook was a big issue when I moved to Eugene Oregon because of how much people cycle here. I definitely had to learn how to not kill people when driving
And I bet it's gotten worse since Oregon is the only state to stupidly extend the bike lane to the intersection instead of broken line approaching the intersection to allow bicyclists and drivers to mix and figure out who goes first approaching the intersection.
Couldn't the right hook issue be fixed by having bikes go at the same time as pedestrians, considering they're pretty much right next to crosswalks anyways? That way if the car turning right has a green light, the bikes are stopped and have to wait for the car to have a red light.
I'm a bike rider and I'm terrified when I have to ride on the street. I try to ride on the sidewalk as much as possible especially if there aren't any bike lanes
I get it! I try to manage risk. Be visible, use bicycle lights during day, have a good mirror. Let the driver know you are looking at them in the mirror as they approach by moving your head. Riders are safer in groups and pick side streets that parallel a main road (if available). First thing I'd do is get a map & look at alternative routes rather than stick to sidewalks. Be well.
It really bothers me that cities have laws against cyclists riding on the sidewalk. If as they say cyclists have the rights of pedestrians - pedestrians travel on the sidewalk and not the street so should too a bicycle. Putting bikes on the street and giving them the same rights as a pedestrian walking is where we go wrong and make things dangerous.
I feel the same way about cyclists on the sidewalk that cyclists feel about cars. Especially with the emerging prevalence of ebikes causing cyclists to go flying along at speeds far higher than is safe, I find someone who makes a point of riding their bike on the sidewalk rather... well, let's be diplomatic and say distasteful.
@@mylesleggette7520 100% agree. cyclists on sidewalks are dangerous and can cause injuries. And in the roadway, all people there are expecting danger and therefore are more conscious. On the sidewalk, pedestrians are not expecting to be hit by a bicycle wizzing by if they step to the side unexpectedly or stop to check directions.
One thing people who earn their drivers license have to do here in the Netherlands is to look behind them at every turn they make. It probably developed as a way to take into account the cyclers on the road. You will not pass your drivers test if you don’t do look back at every turn (even when turning left) 97% of the time. The right hook that you guys talked about seems like it could be quickly solved or at least reduce in frequency with this method, however I do understand introducing something like this has to be hard in places outside of the Netherlands, where bikes aren’t used as often.
You are supposed to look in the US too. Any time you turn or change lanes you are supposed to check the side mirror and then turn to look to check the blind spot. A lot of people just check their mirrors and call it good. We just have a lot of bad drivers and cars sideswipe each other due to this as well. Some of them might just figure they are in the right most lane so there is no reason to check but that is just being lazy. A car should be checking for bikes, but also for pedestrians as well.
I bike every day, to and from work and for pleasure, and every day I feel my life threatened by motor vehicles. To me, like most things in life, until offenders are made to pay for their crimes, nothing will change. Hefty tickets have to be handed out to vehicles breaking the law until it is common practice to respect all people sharing the road.
This isn't an issue of "personal responsibility". If the city is planned correctly, and the infrastructure is right, drivers should hardly have an opportunity to hit a cyclist.
@@caiofernando Very true, but in a real-world, that rarely if ever sees fruition and becomes a reality. Bicycle safety is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to doling out money. Hopefully, it will change, but, I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
I bike to work 5 days a week. I don't interfere with car traffic one second on the trip. Cycling is safe in the Netherlands. You won't see a LOT of helmets
Melbourne, Australia is a great case study for bike lanes, we have a heavy mix of all kinds of bike lanes and paths, but especially unprotected bike lanes, and getting car doored and getting turned into are still big issues. More recently cyclist-priority traffic lights have been popping up, giving cyclists right-of-way to cross intersections in the same traffic cycle as pedestrians, seperate from road traffic.
Having these improvements for cycling would be nice and greatly appreciated, but I doubt it'll ever be seriously considered. The attitude drivers have towards cyclists is that of disrespect, uncaring, even outright hostility. No amount of lights or paint will convince a driver to be careful or look up from their phone.
I agree, but the bicycle vs. car situation is no different than gun owners vs. non-gun owners, conservatives vs. liberals, moderates vs. extremists, men vs. women, millennials vs. baby boomers, affluent vs. poor, black vs. white, etc. We all are part of some fascist group where we feel victimized and harbor ill feelings about our perceived persecutors and desire to create a purer community of our own values at the expense of rights of others by any legal or illegal means possible. Even if it means violence. It is one of those freedoms given us by the First Amendment on freedom of speech and the right of assembly. No one wants to compromise any longer, moderates are a thing of the past and "We the People" became "Us the People" in an "Us and Them" polarized society where we share fewer and fewer common values. If there is a lack of empathy for bicyclists by car drivers its because of a lack of empathy for car drivers who have to deal with the many but few irresponsible bicyclists. There are people at fault on both sides and we need to find a way to get along otherwise democracy is already dying.
I rode to work for years, never had any issues and that was on no bike lanes. The reason? I acknowledged that in any interaction with any vehicle, I would come off 2nd best. I never assumed my rights, even when I knew them and never put myself in a compromising position. You really have to accept this if you’re going to cycle regularly.
Having spent time in Europe over the last few years I have been amazed at how many people use bicycles in cities. Especially Amsterdam, where there are practically no cars. And you better stay to the side of the sidewalk because they will mow you down on those bicycles! I think we should go to Europe and see how they do it. Because they do it in such a way that everyone is encouraged to ride and they don’t have pollution and they have happy people.
You can cite any law you want but there is the natural law of "gross tonnage". I always assume the motor vehicle is NOT going to know I am there when we get to the intersection. Done.
Regarding right turns, I started looking over my shoulder at approaching cars to see if they were going to turn. This worked pretty well as I could change my speed to account for any potential conflicts. The surprising (or perhaps not surprising) problem is that a lot of drivers just don't use their turn signals. And an even greater amount use them but only after starting their turn. At which point the turn signal is useless. PSA: turn signals' primary benefit is to indicate what you are going to do, not what you are already doing. Turn them on BEFORE you start turning.
You made a mistake. In the United States, bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motor vehicle operators. In a right hook situation, they have to yield to us the same way the would to opposing traffic while making a left turn.
This is a tricky problem without a legislative solution: If the same road code applies for all types of vehicles, including cyclists (it does too in my country except for two minor cases, that for this are irrelevant), it would also be illegal for a cyclist to overtake in the right lane if he is behind a right turning car. However changing lanes at an intersection, to get around the car on the outside is also against code. So cycling is by default expected to function in violation, or said differently: We all have to work around this for it to work. I drive exclusively, and rages on a daily basis when cyclists, falsely imagine they have the right of way in these situations, instead of as they are supposed to do, time their approach so they neither themselves or others are bothered.
@@Tore_Lund In my location (Pennsylvania, USA), cyclists are treated mostly the same as cars, but with a decent number of exceptions. Basically, a cyclist is required to ride in the center of whatever lane they are in. If they are going below the regular speed of traffic, they must go in the right lane, **unless they are overtaking, turning left, allowing an emergency vehicle to pass, avoiding an obstruction, or in a bike lane.** I'm not sure what exactly you are discussing here, but there is a legislative solution. Also in my state you can pass cyclists on double yellow if you triple check that it is safe.
@@tealmer3528 Interesting, Cyclists in PA indeed have more rights than in Denmark then. Cyclists here are not allowed to do left turns. They cross and wait, and then do the left turn when the light changes. It was right turns on roads with cycle paths I was referring to. Are you saying the law allows for cyclists to overtake on the left around cars turning right in an intersection?
@@Tore_Lund Yes. If you're in a bike lane in PA (a painted cycle path), you have two options. You may either turn left as you do in Denmark, or you may merge in with traffic, go to the left lane, and turn left as a car would. You also don't have to ride in the bike lane if you don't want to. However, you may not "split lanes." This means that you may only overtake by going down the middle of another lane. If you're on a one lane street, you cannot overtake.
@@Tore_Lund Also we may have more legal rights but we barely ever have bike lanes and even when we do they're almost always just pure paint. You're luckier in Denmark.
As a frequent bicyclist, I've learned that biking is inherently dangerous anytime I have to cross a road, street, parking lot entrance, etc. Even if a motorist appears to look directly at me, I never assume they actually *see* me. I've never been hit, but numerous close calls. Not to mention people who pull forward into the trail crossings while waiting to make a right turn.
That's it. You have to be defensive. It's easy to miss something small. High visibility clothing and lights can help, but you have to be prepared for evasive action.
@@wclark3196 In my experience, you can ride perfectly, have all the visibility possible, even go out of your way to choose safer roads. It helps, but there will always be those drivers simply not paying attention or, I don't know how else to put it, are too dumb.
@@donnybrookcycling1667 Nobody is arguing it isn't dangerous. Which is why you have to do everything you can to be visible and to be alert. Something small (pedestrian or rider on bike) can be very hard to see in low-light. As a passenger I've seen that when people cross the street in dark clothing. They thing they are much more visible than they are. So, high visibility clothing, reflectors, lights, if I were riding, I'd do it all. Also, I'm horrified when I see people riding with headphones on. Your hearing could save your life, you shouldn't block it so you can jam to some tunes. And, needless to say, don't be messing with the phone while riding. As you said, you have to be alert at all times.
This is such bullshit and is always brought up when talking about cycling to and with foreigners. The reality is people dont want to get in accidents in the first place. Be it because it costs them emotional anguish, time, insurance points and whatever. The liability really isn't on anyone's mind in daily life and is only relevant for court or insurance paperwork.
The biggest problem is the cyclists. They tend to forget that they have to obey traffic laws. More than once, I've seen cyclists bust into an intersection and get all pissy when they almost get hit.
With these fancy, expensive “solutions” we end up with a couple miles of “showpiece” bike lanes (usually close to city hall). Having spent their entire bike safety budget for the year, cities neglect longer distance commute routes. Example: Denver. Massive spending for maybe ten miles of protected lanes downtown which are used sparingly. Yet there is literally no north-south bike lane between Speer and the east side of downtown. The options are so sketchy that I chose not to commute for several years until my office moved locations.
One piece of advice I give to everyone who wants to ride is always assume the car has not seen you. Any chance where a car can hit you must be treated as a serious risk.
As much as I would like to cruise through intersections on green lights, I stop for a few seconds at every one, and I never assume the car is going to stop for me. I have avoided so many accidents this way it just convinces me to do carry on doing it.
lol wtf who wants to bike in the middle of the streets? Just get protected bike lanes and change the laws so the car is always liable if they hit at a right-hook turn.
The US will never reach the level the Netherlands has, even if just in the densest cities. Car culture and lack of respect will always be a hindrance for cyclists
This video is obviously a very entry-level discussion for total newbs, but it's frustrating to see how unsophisticated the conversation around bicycle infrastructure is in America. Like this is the first time anybody has ever thought of this stuff.
Painted lines should never be used. There's a reason I call them "painted bicycle gutters". It should also have been mentioned that research has shown "sharrows" are more dangerous than nothing, because they give novice cyclists a false sense of security.
Also, the fact that anybody would propose centre-running bicycle paths is insane. This is a perfect example of car-centric traffic engineering applying "solutions" with a total ignorance to how people actually cycle. Should sidewalks be in the centre of the road too?
These are solved problems. Planners can buy the CROW manual in English and it's all spelled out in there. There's literally nothing to discover or research in this area. Crashes like a right hook are almost totally eliminated in modern Dutch street design.
There are still instances of old and insufficient infrastructure in the Netherlands, but these are being replaced as roads are redesigned. This takes time, which is why it's so important to get the standards correct *now* as the design will be in place for a long time.
The fact that US planners and engineers are still "testing" broken designs that will be in place for decades is getting people killed.
Ha I was just thinking to myself: God damn this is a weak video. Not Just Bikes is so much better at this." XD
I knew it . The master of urban planning would eventually comment on this . Oh yeah and the vid was weak
I feel like in the US the priority is in this order. 1. Money and doing things as cheaply as possible. 2. Safety of drivers. 3. Convince of drivers. 4 Safety of people riding bikes. The best biking areas often seem to be in parks, where they don't bother people driving cars, and I suspect often are paid from park budgets and not road budgets. Well I don't know that for sure, but that is my speculation, as I am not sure why they are often such trash designs here in the States.
This video is like a Master lock to LPL.
This guy actually knows whats up! It is insane what the benefits would be if more countries (including US) switch to a more bike centered society.
Paint is not infrastructure!
Paint is infrastructure but not resilient one.
NJB quoted
Agreed.
Road paint is a guideline.
Wish my municipality could afford more of it.
Then maybe the "sheep on the road" would have to figure out what the "symbols" mean, just like bicyclists that must survive.
i dont agree, in rotterdam, paint works just fine, and i dont get how so many people hate it
@@Arjan_dv , it could be that in Europe most motorist also experience transportation by bicycles. That is a completely different culture than here in North America. Most N.Americans only travel by motor vehicle, most likely not ever even using public transport. It tends to warp the mind into one form of thinking.
You European just have it better off.
Issue with sharrows being they're actually more dangerous because they can give newer riders a false sense of security, "sharrows" are just a city doing the minimum possible thing to say they have bike lanes
Yup. A classic example of why the saying "paint isn't infrastructure" exists.
And drivers will still harass you for being on the road
Sharrows are often to close to parked vehicle's or the curb so people tend to ride in a risk zone.
as if that wasn‘t immediately obvious 🙄🙄
I study transport engineering and planning in the UK and have never even heard of them
The biggest problem with cycle lanes is that they end when you need them most. Such as junctions and roundabouts.
Not in the Netherlands. Cycle lanes continue on the junctions and roundabouts. Also cyclists get a 9 second headstart at the green light. So cyclists are on the move before a car pulls up to go to the right.
@@mardiffv.8775 oh no no I know im jealous of the Netherlands if I could be reborn anywhere it would be NL
@@mardiffv.8775 The Nedherlands are passionate about urban planning, we are not. Sad
@@sm3675 Yes, that is so unfortunally. But start a grassroot movement with bike protest, especially with children. That is the same way it started in the Netherlands.
Exactly. This is my biggest problem with bike lanes. Always there where you can go without. A straight road.
But as soon as there a junctions, traffic lights, roundabouts, turning and generally confusing and more dangerous traffic. The lanes just disappear. What’s the point then?
This reminds me of when I was at a red light waiting to turn right in NYC last month. The light turned green just as I noticed a few cyclists were quickly approaching from behind on the right. I didn't care who had the right of way and waited 2-3 seconds so they could safely pass me first. The asshole behind me, however, decided to honk at me for not smashing the gas and running over the cyclists even though they were clearly visible from the side view mirror and I had my right turn signal on the entire time. Pretty sure that asshole would have ran them over if I weren't there.
As a cyclist, whenever I see someone getting honked at for waiting on me I try to give the honking driver the 'wtf bro?' hand wave if I got line of sight. I cannot stand these blind idiots that can't see past the bumper of the car in front of them, whether I'm cycling or driving.
These are the unsolved issues that still exist and it's that cyclists have the same rights as pedestrians. If a pedestrian was still making their way to the intersection you would have made the turn. If a car was coming from behind they would have let the car in front turn first ahead of them. But with how you and video treat it, we're in no mans land, the cyclist is neither vehicle nor pedestrian because you wait for them to get to the intersection and cross AND they don't wait for you to turn they presume they have the right-of-way as a pedestrian at the intersection would.
@@killer2600 I think the correct solution would be to have a third category: "Cyclist" that has their own rules and responsibilities. Like For this particular scenario, since cyclists are forced to be in the right lane, they should be allowed on through like a pedestrian. If there was a bicycle lane there, instead of just a gap between the cars and the shoulder...it'd be obvious that's how it should be.
The tough part is education. Some cyclists assume they are pedestrians and act accordingly. Others insist they are vehicles. They'll even wait in traffic instead of passing on the right. The law says vehicles but that really doesn't matter on the ground, especially when the laws aren't enforced on cars much less cyclists.
@@caseyb1346 Europe, especially cities in the Netherlands or Scandinavia, proove that a third category isn't necessary. Cyclists do not have the same right as pedestrians there, they have the same rights as motorbikes + the right to use bicycle infrastrcuture. Motorbikes basically have the same rights as cars with a few adjustments due to them being single lane.
@@killer2600 show me a cyclist that gives the right of way to pedestrians or stop at a red light, specially in NYC
unprotected bike lanes never work, they just become parking spots
Then introduce some decently large fine for parking in a way that obstructs a bike lane.
should pay for itself in enforcement, and have the desired effect.
@@CH-bd6jg
It's not the fines that keep the Dutch from parking in the bike lane. It's mostly out of respect for the cyclists.
In the big cities dilivery drivers sometime park in the bike lanes because there is no other way to do their job.
th-cam.com/video/nhVIqSqRgWM/w-d-xo.html
Parking would be a better use of the real estate.
@@magnificenthonky more parking that encourages more car use?
@@MrMoon-hy6pn More car use isn't a bad thing. But, drivers will drive, anyway. But, it WOULD, maybe, discourage improper bicycle usage. Bicycles have no place anywhere near cars.
Another big problem you didn't mention is cars parking in cycle lanes, or just stopping to drop off or pick someone up in the bike lane. The bike either has to stop and walk around the stopped vehicle or merge into the car lane to get around the stopped vehicle. As with all these things it's very difficult to retro-design cycle lanes into existing streets without reducing the number of vehicle lanes which isn't always possible (if there only was one) or desirable if it increases vehicle congestion. I used to cycle through a busy city when I was much younger but after a few near misses I tend to restrict my cycles to quieter country roads these days (which means I can't/don't cycle to work).
Yes so true. And so frustrating!
Yes, here in NYC bike lanes are often blocked by cars, trucks, and construction. Combine that with double parked cars and trucks, and sometimes you have to move over SEVERAL lanes into fast-moving traffic (including trucks and busses) just to get by.
@@cheddar e
I actually came to comment this. It is the worst problem in my opinion. I also see people frequently pass other cars in wider bike lanes.
In that case let’s put up taxes on bicyclists so we can put in these improvements. Why are fuel taxes used for bike safety construction? No free riders
One solution used in a few busy intersections with bike lanes here in Trondheim, Norway: The stop line for the cars is moved back a bit, and in front is an area marked in red where bicyclists going straight head can stop and wait. Since they are in front of the cars, there is no danger of collision from right turning cars. Of course that only helps if the biker reaches the intersection while the light is red: if you arrive on a green light you can't use this waiting area.
We have the same solution in Germany this only helps when traffic is waiting for the traffic light to turn green.
This ain't helping for rolling traffic.
That sounds like a good idea - perhaps combining it with the idea of connecting protected lanes shown at 6:42 would also help.
It's appalling how many drivers I see stopping in the crosswalk at red lights. Your idea is a good one, but it would also require diligent enforcement.
Many UK cities have areas just for bikes at the front in traffic lights too. Often with their own lower-down copy of the traffic lights as well. It’s extremely sensible and low-cost.
@@kaitlyn__L I've seen it in videos and I think it's a wonderful solution. Drivers here in the US often stop in the crosswalk at lights, so I imagine they wouldn't respect the bike space.
Me and my friend went to Amsterdam but I accidentally booked our Airbnb like and 1hr train ride away from the city center. Our host had a couple bikes and we rode like 2.5hrs into the city center stayed the night in the city partied and rode it back in the morning. Everything was so perfectly designed the whole journey we never felt unsafe. I’m from NYC and would never do that in a million years
In Amsterdam you're definitely more likely to get hurt as a pedestrian by a bicycle than by a car as a cyclist.
I love it when there's broken glass all over the bike lane then drivers yell at you for not using it.
Or the side of the road is full of pot holes and cracks that force a rider further out into the lane, while drivers think that cyclists are only allowed to have 3 feet of the side of the lane... when it is actually 3 feet clearance from a cyclist no matter how much the lane they take up. I've been buzzed many many times.
I frequently encounter football sized boulders.
Overgrown bushes, huge mailboxes and garbage cans. Loose sand, mud and drains. Every type of screw and nail known to mankind.
This year I fell off my bike and got multiple injuries including a broken rib because the bicycle gutter is so uneven and piecemeal that I lost control. I have a road bicycle but I think I need to buy a mountain bicycle because of the conditions of the bicycle infrastructure in my area. There are places where the painted bike lake is at the very edge of the road and narrows down to the width of a painted line with rough gravel on the side of the road that my bicycle could not possibly be ridden on.
Bro I even get yelled at for not using a bike lane which is physically blocked by a car or contruction works.
Not Just Bikes squad!
Jazeker
Here!
Me here
Jazekerx facts !
I feel like his channel and others like it are getting super popular, im hoping it brings more awareness to the topic
I avoided driving for 25 years of my life, until I moved to the suburbs where there was no safe and efficient alternative to go to work. The bus took too long and was unreliable and there was no safe bike route. Any 4 lane road should be converted to have bike lanes with barriers that don't intersect with bus stops. If we want people to bike more and drive less, we have to stop building streets predominantly for cars. I think a lot of people would be open to it if they could still commute in a reasonable amount of time and do so safely.
I know I would consider biking to work at least some of the time if I still went into the office and it seemed safe to do so, but where I live it's barely an acceptable level of safety in a car with the way people drive and there are basically no bike lanes of any kind 90% of the way there.
e
Congrats to the Auto lobbyists.
You did a great job.
What to do with pumpkin aeeds
Studies consistently show that the majority of people like the idea of riding a bike, but don't because they're worried about safety
Infrastructure please
Ah yes. The “I will figure it out myself” approach when there are countries who have already figured out how to do biking infrastructure.
but we can't accept help from other countries...that makes us weak!
What, are Americans supposed to learn from dirty commies or filthy hippies or something? We’re pretty sure all it takes to be the greatest in the world is an ad campaign where we thump our chests and say we’re the greatest in the world, while never once realizing that the only reason the U.S. was _ever_ a great country is because the founders who created it started out by implementing all the best solutions that everywhere else in the world throughout all of history had ever figured out and put them all together in one country. We’re the opposite of great today because we do the complete opposite of any of that. It’s sad to watch things dissolve in front of your eyes when it’s painfully obvious that there are great solutions that have been proven over decades all over the world around you and nobody will lift a finger to try even 1/10 of any of it, because “‘Merica, f*ck yeah!”
Exactly, but that means that America is not the best in everything, as they want to be but in actuality are best at nothing, not even percentage of fat people.
Insular culture moment
City/
Town planners Need to shift paradigms and make Pedestrians and Bikers a PRIORITY!!! over cars PERIOD.
#1 rule of two-wheeled transportation: Assume you are invisible. I've been hit by cars by assuming people could see me. They could not.
It's truly the only real solution. You can't rely on others to protect yourself, they don't have an interest in it but you do.
@@killer2600 If you actually were invisible, partaking in traffic (except maybe as a pedestrian) would be insane and suicidal. There would be no way to cycle trough a city or town for more than 5 minutes withouit getting hit by a car if you actually were invisible to each and every driver. The logical conclusion of being invisible would be not to cycle. How does that solve anything? You probably just mean to to assume someone can't see you when in doubt or that you should let cars go first even if you have the right of way, but that's not the same as assuming you are invisible. If you were invisible and cycling in the road, every car that will overtake you is very likely to hit you, for example. Or if you're cycling in an unprotected bike lane, people who use the bike lane for parking would smash right into you or stop right in front of you, if you are invisible to them. There would simply no way to protect yourself from those things if you actually were invisible.
The advice "Assume you are invisible" is very similar to the "Assume everyone is out to kill you", which is also sometimes said among cyclists. Both make no sense, as the only reasonable conclusion would be not to cycle at all.
@@FernandoHernandez-jw4yy That is the logical conclusion and that's the fucking problem.
At some point you have to rely on being seen, or else you can basically never use the roads when anyone else is using them.
@@FernandoHernandez-jw4yy Sure! My reason for using the phrase I did is because there are instances where people look directly at motorcycles and pull out in front of them because their brains are expecting to see a car! Substitute whatever (motorcycle, bicycle, rollerblader, whatever) but generally we have to assume that a driver is looking for cars, first and foremost.
As a Dutch person, this problem seems so alien to me
Same as swedish person
I'm so jealous of the Netherlands' bike paths 😩
It's alien for pretty much everyone outside North america
especially to people living in people centric cities
Here in North america, cycling can often be viewed as something done only by children, or as a leisurely pastime. This is mostly because most people view it as incredibly dangerous to commute to work on their bike because of the poor cycling infrastructure. City planners then view it as pointless to improve cycling infrastructure beyond the painted gutter lanes or non-existentace that it already is because of the lack of people cycling because they don't feel safe cycling. And thus the cycle of North American cycling continues. While we probably could institute something like the Dutch cycling Network and Road rules, the automobile is King in North America and there's a lack of political willpower to do something so controversial, even if in the long run it would save lives. The general comment I've heard from people about cyclists here in North America is that they should just quit cycling and buy cars if they feel unsafe on the road. It's not to say they're building cycling infrastructure improvements, but one can only dream of cycling infrastructure like you have in the Netherlands.
I find that quite sad to see, that last part of your comment. Some people don't have the opportunity to just buy a car, since they are expensive vehicles which require money to keep them up and running. A car is "needed" in the US because of the design of the infrastructure there, which makes it even sadder.
Dear North Americans, designing roads with cyclists and pedestrians in mind isn't hard. You too can order the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic from the Netherlands. We've already done the hard work for you. The only thing that needs to change are some small adjustments to the traffic rules. Admittedly that sometimes may slightly inconvenience some drivers... oh... wait... sorry about that, I stand corrected. Nothing can be done.
th-cam.com/video/Jhig7mUc29I/w-d-xo.html
We wouldn’t be able to use them because they are in metric lol
@@daniellefelice7368 1 meter = 1.093 yards, so there shouldn't really be a problem.
God, save us from these arrogant foreigners.
Dear non North Americans, allow me to REPRASE, since SOME of you had to blow things way the fuck out of context, our MODERN roads were originally designed for motorized vehicles only. *Traveling by bike only became popular here within the last 20-25 years.* Not only that, but United States is the *third largest country in the world* by area, that's a lot of roads you're condecendingly asking us to fix....
The title should be "American Bike Lanes Have A Deadly Design Flaw"
Or rather “American Bike Lanes Have A LOT Of Deadly Design Flaws”
I think North American in general
In Germany we have quite the same problems.
@@edipires15 _The title should be "American Bike Lanes Have A Deadly Design Flaw"_
_Or rather “American Bike Lanes Have A LOT Of Deadly Design Flaws”_
Or "How to make America's deadly design flaws even deadlier".
@@paxundpeace9970 as a Dutch person living close to the German border. it is a complete culture shock when i pass over the border. i love Germany. but your infrastructure needs work.
It’s all about education and infrastructure. In Denmark and the Netherlands they don’t wear helmets because the drivers are also cyclists and they understand the bike culture. But even then the urban planners make sure that the right infrastructure is in place to make the cycling experience more convenient and safer. But it took these guys around 50 years before they got to this level. Also for that culture to develop. Thanks for the video. It’s a topic our city planners should start discussing with their citizens. ASAP!
Hi, I am from Denmark. Most is education and traffic laws. While we do have some great infrastructure for bicycling in some places, it is the exception and not the rule.
Here it is the bike that has the right of way, and the car that has to give. In a right hand turn (which is the most common accident here as well), the issue was the limited view in the trucks and busses. This was fixed with a law of having a in mirror on the right side pointing down to see any cyclists next to the truck. This reduced the amount of casualties considerably.
What is most common with dedicated bike lanes here is that they are raised just about 5 inches from the road, which does make it unlikely for a car to swing on to the bike lane. From what I can see in this video is a bad consideration of traffic laws, when there are no bike lanes, seems like they are biking mixed in with car traffic instead of keeping to the right? This seems like it is causing unnecessary risks and congestion of the roads.
Having a bike on icon on the road is almost as useless as not having any markers. We should target cities like Rotterdam with completely separated paths cars and bikes. See Not Just Bikes TH-cam channel.
THE SEXY GIRLS ARE BIGTITITS.UNO
THREE IN ONE
TH-cam: THIS IS FINE.
SOMEONE: SAYS ''HECK''.
TH-cam: BE GONE
Life's story is a short journey so have fun before sleeping forever
#Чо #эт #делает #на #2 #месте #в #тренде
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков .#垃圾.
this entire thing like crashing when someone turns right is entirely their fault. and this is why people hate cyclists, your not a damn car if someone is turning you wait for them, the rules of yielding should be used but they don't they just go on i mean you dont eve go 5 mph yet you don't yield and just go of course you are gonna crash.
@@hanatolelectronics2516 Except when the car fails to yield to the cyclist...
@@Megatonaxe yield to cyclist is a thing yes, but if they are going the opposite to the flow of traffic such as using the opposite lane is messed up you either follow the rules of motor vehicles or the rules a pedestrian, or you use the damn bike lane how it's supposed to be used, but here is a cyclist following the rules of a pedestrian ie using crosswalks etc, meaning he did not have the right of way. it just depends on what path the cyclist is using.
in rural areas this isn't an issue because there aren't many sidewalks so they have to ride in a supervised area or follow basic road laws set for motor vehicles.
(either way cyclists are entitled pieces of shit who don't deserve respect, cool saving the environment yeah but you go like 5 mph and follow road laws. then refuse to follow the basic rules a pedestrian would follow whilst walking. they aren't exempt from the rules which is why bike lanes exist.)
yeah when a car doesn't yield to a car in these situation it's one thing but the driver is at fault it is not at fault with the cyclists its the driver at fault but in areas where the cyclists just think of going first it's stupid. cyclists need to be more careful it's the same and the fact that the lanes are on the far right were accidents like this were to happen it's a serious problem. but if someone is making a right turn be cautious idk yield and follow the laws and you will be alright.
earlier i went on a rant about laws and why i hate cyclists but i don't have things like bike lanes in my rural town so they are annoying people who get in your way on your 30 minute drive to work.
If this content was interesting please check out 'not just bikes' or eco gecko's playlist about suburbia. Loving the urbanism content, keep it up
Not just bikes is great.
I really recommend is city beautiful by Dave Amos or "oh the Urbanity" from Canada or About here from Canada too.
Add to that list Adam Something.
Bicycle Dutch is the reference for Dutch bike paths
Don't forget City Beautiful!
THE SEXY GIRLS ARE BIGTITITS.UNO
THREE IN ONE
TH-cam: THIS IS FINE.
SOMEONE: SAYS ''HECK''.
TH-cam: BE GONE
Life's story is a short journey so have fun before sleeping forever
#Чо #эт #делает #на #2 #месте #в #тренде
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков .#垃圾.
As a Dutch person, this problem seems strange to me. I know basically nothing about American traffic rules, but here the same traffic rules apply to cars as to bicycles (with some minor exceptions).
I just got done writing something similar about the UK and our highway code. We’re far behind you in terms of specialist infrastructure, but at least our basic rules make sense, and so sharing country roads with cars and bikes happens with very few issues due to giving each other a wide berth and everyone having proper lights.
The idea they bikes are equivalent to pedestrians in the USA is very strange to me. There’s so much more speed and in a narrower cross-section than a walking human.
@@kaitlyn__L There are plenty of ways in which the US highway code is objectively bad for anyone who's not in a car. Rules do not exist in a vacuum. Unlike in the US, the Dutch infrastructure that is created to protect vulnerable road users, is backed up by a robust set of rules that has the same aim.
@@custardo indeed. Lack of presumed guilt for drivers is terrible, as are the reactions of Americans who dream-up insurance fraud scenarios when I tell them they should ask their local government to consider doing what they can to move towards that kind of policy.
@@kaitlyn__L It is weird, but bike laws are very inconsistent in the US. There are lots of states where a cyclist is equivalent to a motor vehicle, and others where they are equivalent to a pedestrian. Some states like mine do treat cyclists like cars, but have practically no other bike laws. As a result, passing or attempting to pass a vehicle that is in the rightmost lane on the right is illegal. The cyclist is therefore at fault in many right hook crash scenarios, so long as the car was completely in front of the cyclist when it initiated its turn.
_"I know basically nothing about American traffic rules"_ Sounds like you should apply to be an American civil engineer. You've got all the qualifications.
I think it's the same as for being a motorcyclist or any body participating in the traffic: always be prepared for others to make mistakes.
Most cyclists I know, including my self, are always prepared and looking for cars turning right, if they have eye contact, slow down or not. That's at least halving the risk.
The biggest problem with bicycles is that they think they do not have to obey basic road rules. Double riding should be prohibited, because they block traffic single file should be the law.
I'm sorry but parking lots DO NOT make a protected bike lane. PHYSICAL separation does.
in some cases, yes, it does. in cities where there are always cars parked there, it is an effective way. obviously it's not the case if there are barely any cars parked there
It is okay as long as it is not along a road with many driveways and adds some separation to protect against dooring. Otherwise it is a blind spot hook turn utopia.
lol
@@tcg1_qc It's a horrible design for cities with snow. During winter the city can't clean the parking space/bicycle path properly, leaving it with ice which is horrible for cyclist.
In some cases where the street is too wide like with many American streets and there are businesses on the sides that requires lots of access not only you reduce the width of the lanes for the cars, reducing their speed and therefore making the street safer, but also improve vehicle access to the buildings adjacent to the street while at the same time giving a dedicated lane for cyclists thats safer due to using the cars themselves as a shock barrier against other cars (also parallel parking on this kinds of fixes should be avoided as dooring is a thing) it might not be the best option out there but is a way more usable retrofit than just a painted gutter
In Australia we changed the timing of the bike green lights at intersections so that bikes have a few seconds to get in front before the vehicle light turns green 🚦🚲🚗
Yep, speaking as a driver it makes a huge difference to have a bike lane with it's own lights because it immediately forces your attention to possible cyclists in your blind spots - and maximises separation between cyclists & cars in the intersection. The more intuitive warnings you can give pedestrians, cyclists or drivers at an intersection the better, because the danger always comes from overloading people with distractions.
I’m noticing it’s the same in Seattle. Pedestrians and bike signals have a second or two before regular cars are allowed to go.
Well, in most places in North America you can ALWAYS turn right in an interception regardless of the light status as long as is not specifically forbidden and is safe to do so. So in most circumstances, drivers are NOT looking at the light, but at the traffic coming from the left, making very easy to miss a cyclist going across from their right. That's specially dangerous when the light changes while they are looking left, so giving a head start to the bike lane is only going to make things worse.
I wonder how many idiot drivers assume the bicycle light turning green applies to them?
@@ceresdog5362 good that you look them in the eyes before crossing. Some people get hit because they be looking on their phones.
The two person who died because they hit or got with with truck which has a lot of blind spot must be going 20 or higher speed. My advice for them is to anticipate idiot drivers who is looking on the left to make a right turn
After being in an accident due to the "right hook", I always move directly behind a car signaling right. Lets them know that I'm not in their blindspot and its clear for them to take the right turn. Also, it gives me an exit to the left if they stop in the middle of the bike lane/intersection.
I wonder if that FedEx driver was signaling. Even if they weren't signaling, I would follow the back of the trailer so I could duck behind it if the driver started turning unexpectedly. It sounds like this was one of those "wide turns" where the driver is forced to cut across lanes.
Smart. Better to give up a minute of travel time than your life.
@@MatthewStinar Applying the defensive driving techniques while riding helps also. In this case it would have been best for the cyclist to ride at the same speed as the fedex truck as it passes through the intersection. Sadly, you always need to assume no one sees you.
@@Autotad When I said "follow", I meant position and speed, so what you said and a little more. I agree you shouldn't assume they see you.
Sometimes cars don't use the right turn signal. It's hard to tell if they're turning right.
Great video, as a cyclist in NYC dooring is my biggest fear. I get the right turn risk is real, but that can be motivated with defensive biking. Getting hit by a car door though, that's an unpredictable surprise no one is prepared for.
ride further from parked cars, that is also part of defensive biking.
I never understand people riding millimeters from parked cars, that is suicidal.
I never ride less than 2 feet to parked car!!
@@abupinhus the bike lane goes next to the cars, so unless you want to ride in the road and piss everyone off then you have to accept the risk
@ItsRandxm I disagree completely with your position. I have legal right to ride bike on any state street. This is my legal right. Any driver in state of NY has privilege to drive granted by state, on condition that it will comply with road law. So, grow up, stop crying baby about how the road belongs to cars. Get use to real life, people who like riding more that bus/car, will use their rights. If you care about safety and health of your community, that you need good infrastructure for people who risk averse, for school kids, etc.
@@itsrandxm actually, by riding 2, or 3 feet from parked car, on edge of the road , I am reducing my risks.
“Prioritize people over cars”. Great idea. Cars should never have been prioritized over humans in the first place. Pedestrians, jaywalkers, and other insults against non-car drivers
No, it's good that cars were prioritized in some cases.
Never try walking to Vegas, for one.
Two, have you ever been stuck in a car that's trapped sideways, all because the only trail available is too small?
I have, it sucks. 😂
Infact "Jaywalker" was a term made up by GM when they lobbied the government in the 1940s as pro-car propaganda. Our country has a long history with big auto.
Continuous side walks where cars have to go up and over the bike lane would also do a lot to help cyclists, it works for pedestrians too. When you have to go down onto the road to cross it then it feels like you are going where cars are meant to be despite having the right of way. With a continuous bike lane cars will have to go up it like a speed bump which sends the clear message that cars are crossing a space made for bikes. Sure the law may say that bikes have the right of way but when infrastructure is clearly meant for cars then bad drivers will not pay attention to anything except other cars
I love that idea
@@catshoemike It also make cars slow down. The NL implemented this very well.
Yeah those are used a lot over here in the Netherlands. As a cyclist, they are really great, because any car that you might come into conflict with is forced to go so slow that you have time to react and fix their mistake. They also have more time to look more closely and see if a bike comes. They really make a lot of sense in scenarios where you have a less busy road crossing a busier road.
As a driver, they're obviously a bit less comfortable, since you're gonna go over a speed bump, but that sounds like a very small price to pay for dramatically reducing the likelihood of fatal accidents. Also, you get used to them.
When I was younger, I always thought that these traffic calming measures just existed to annoy drivers. Because they clearly are intended to disrupt and slow down the uninterrupted flow of traffic. It took me some time to realize that they exist for a very good reason. That requires advocacy and education.
The problem isn't so much bike lanes themselves, but American car dependency, and lack of empathy for bicyclists (from both the local government and car drivers themselves).
Here in The Netherlands, most roads are designed with bike lanes, and even on roads without them, car drivers are forced to pay attention, usually by either making them drive at low speeds, or making the road feel uncomfortable to drive on at high speed, for example, using speed bumps. Also, car drivers are instructed to respect bicyclists when they apply for a driver's license and take their exams, making both car drivers and bicyclists equals.
As for intersections, in some places, the bike road extends further than the regular road, sometimes even giving bicyclists a whole space in front of the cars to park on when a light turns red, thus forcing drivers to always look ahead and mind the bicyclists. Other good solutions are roundabouts, where bikes have the right of way, as bike lanes run through them uninterrupted.
Bicycling is so safe here, helmets are not really required, and you rarely see people wear them. Of course, accidents do happen, but most of the time, the bicyclist comes out of it alive and relatively unscathed, and deaths have dropped quite a bit in the last 20 or so years. There is still room for improvement, especially in certain cities, but if I compare it with how it is in North America, it's as if you're looking at an entirely different world.
And I echo the Not Just Bikes recommendation. He points out very nicely where issues lie and how they can be fixed.
That clown offers little in the way of changes that can be made and fit in and work in a North American context. His solution is "Move to Amsterdam". Also, not all of Netherlands is a cycling paradise like Amsterdam.
@@wclark3196 Nothing is impossible with good will and proper planning. Sure, circumstances are different, but there is no reason to focus on more ecofriendly forms of transportation.
Amsterdam is far from a cycling paradise. It has a lot of narrow streets and roads that aren't really suitable for multiple types of traffic, given that it was originally designed to be accessed via the various canals. But, if you come from a country, where you're lucky to even _have_ any cycling infrastructure at all, you can't blame the guy from NJB for overselling it.
Also, there is more to The Netherlands than just Amsterdam. Other cities have better cycling infrastructure, especially those that lie further to the east and in the countryside. And other countries in Europe did it even better. I heard that some of the Nordic countries, such as Norway and Finland, have gotten their act together even better.
Of course, you could go the other way, like in parts of SE Asia, where they don't seem to have any traffic rules whatsoever, and where cars and bikes go wherever they please, but I think that requires an entirely different discipline that I don't really see possible in NA myself without a serious change in attitude.
Most major roads in Shanghai have protected bike lanes, and when I drove I usually check for bikes before turning right. Most bikes here are electric bikes and they are used by people commuting or most importantly delivery men.
Jealous rn
Actually no I'm not jealous, just jealous of the bike lanes
I am surprised Shanghai allows electric bikes in bike lanes. One fellow in my 55+ community has one and he zips along at 35 miles an hour flying by me on my adult manual tricycle. Fortunately we don't have bike lanes in our community so he is never too close when he passes me.
@@myreadingmapped When I was learning driving, the instructor specifically told me to slow down and look out for electirc bikes when crossing bike lanes on a right turn.
Many years ago when I was taking my first pushbike out on the roads the best advice I was given was the basic rule of: Never try to pass a vehicle just before or in an intersection. - At the time I was riding a bike in a major city that had never heard of such things as a bike lane, so it was all shared road usage. Over the years I've found safe riding depends on me being aware of my surroundings and taking them into account. Sitting fully upright on the bike is a big first step in this regards as it gives me improved vision.
The right hand turn collision is not always a "don't see" situation. Majority of vehicles believe they have the right of way.
Learn designing from The Netherlands. Rotterdam can be a good example as car city with goog cycle paths
Rotterdam is generally considered one of the most unfriendly cities for bikes in the Netherlands. Groningen and Utrecht are much better.
@@JhowieNitnek But it is the best option to build to from a car dependent city
@@Wouter_Grtsn Only reason a city is car dependent is because it is build around cars. If you build around bikes and pedestrians it will not be a car centert city but human centert
@@JhowieNitnek true but rotterdam was rebuilt as a car centric city and then made cycle friendly. it makes the most sense to look at that city!
@Suddenly damn I really thought you were about to share a video with some value.
Just look at the Netherlands example, intersections are often roundabouts and the give way signs are very clear, it is very easy to get by.
The "Right Hook" crash is why ironically bikers who run reds are safer.
e
or at least jump reds
Have you been to London. Some cycle lanes have light for the cyclists. They still ignore and go through right into the traffic. I don't know about America but in U.K. They are a major nuisance. I nearly got hit 3 times by cyclists running red lights and they won't stop they will hit you and blame you for crossing the road when they should have stopped. Was only in London an hour when I nearly got hit the 3rd time. It's not the left hook but cyclists don't look.
@Robert King Yes, but it's nearly universal law that they have to stop before making the turn, which could save a lot of trouble if actually followed.
@Robert King The part where they don't stop. People often don't use their turn signal and only slow down slightly to make the turn, leaving next to zero warning to their intention. If they actually stopped, they at least give me an idea of what they mean to do, and gives them at least an extra second to look in the mirror.
"What are the ways to solve this problem?" Trivial: bicycle only roads. If a bike route uses a separate surface from the motor route, then the bike route should have its own, dedicated right-of-way. Segregated lanes that follow a road should be abolished. They cannot be made to work, in my experience.
Traffic laws vary widely. Where I live, bicycles are classified as vehicles, not pedestrians. So they have the same obligations and rights as motorists.
The major design problem with "bike paths" is that they're laid out for recreation, not transportation. They don't go anywhere in particular.
It seems like cars are the problem, not the bike lanes
More so inattentive drivers of cars - and unfortunately everyone who drives is going to be inattentive on occasion. So designing roads that force attention at the right moments or create less opportunities for accidents is still the key solution.
I wonder who pays for the roads definitely not the cyclists
@@RedRingOfDeath Everyone pays for the roads, car registration alone doesn't cover the enormous costs
@@RedRingOfDeath depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it's gas taxes, in other places it's just the taxpayers (which cyclists likely are). I'm not sure it matters, though. Roads are a public good that everyone needs to be able to use safely, including children too young to pay and poor seniors on fixed incomes who likely have already paid their dues.
@@RedRingOfDeath There’s no country in the world where taxes on cars/drivers are even close to enough to finance all road infrastructure
I live in Manhattan and unless I’m crossing a bridge I usually feel safer on the street with the cars, for the same reason I rode on the streets in Miami and not on the sidewalk drivers only look at the road so if you’re on the bike lane or sidewalk they don’t see you if I’m in the middle of the way on the street they see me and approach more cautiously
That’s very sensible - that’s the law in the UK! You ride far enough into centre of the road that cars can see you, you avoid any doors or drain grates, you’re properly lit; and cars are supposed to treat you as if you take up the footprint of a car for overtaking etc. (You can force this by slightly weaving left to right to “protect” your buffer space as you move forward.)
I feel the same and separated bike lanes while still better for inexperienced cyclist can be a problem at intersection because the drivers don't expect the cyclists.
If there are are least 2 lanes pretty direction, the cyclist should take up the right most entire lane, forcing cars to do an actual leave change to pass you. They might get annoyed but fuck it it's your safety.
@@sayrith indeed!
Thank you! I commuted by bike until about 10 years ago when I got a job too far from my rent controlled apartment to bike to. I just bought a condo 3 miles from work and I'm commuting by bike again, and there's a protected bike lane on my route for the first time, and I don't like it. It's too much like riding on the sidewalk, which is the single most dangerous place to ride statistically, and the parked cars reduce my visibility. I rarely have close calls with cars, and I just had one on the "protected bike lane" because the driver didn't (or couldn't because of the parked cars) see me in the "protected bike lane" I don't see how anyone who bike commutes seriously can possibly endorse these things except to cater to newbs, who would be better served by actually learning to ride safely.
In all the cities I've lived in, there's been almost NO bike lanes. So yall urban dwellers are lucky to have SOME bike lanes... Yall just don't know... The only one I've seen so far around the university I'm at is along a road with fast traffic, and starts right at a turning lane, running into a highway. It's completely useless and very dangerous. You would expect the main roads around the university to have bike lanes but they don't.
But this is America for you. You're so free that in most cities you're forced to drive because the roads are only designed with the automobile in mind and everything else is an afterthought. So much for "freedom" PragerU
Bike lanes, what's that? Only in selected areas in my city.
Living in the Netherlands, I am used to a traffic system where cycling is much more common. One solution is to give all cyclists on a junction a simultaneous green light. As they are going relatively slow and can have good eye contact, they arrange the right of way on the go and accidents are limited.
Unfortunally that simultaneous green light junction has only been implemented in Groningen city and it was not a succes for nation wide adoption.
I encountered this while cycling there and thought it was the dumbest thing ever. Only works in the Netherlands where most cyclists ride at a pokey, 15 km/h pace. In N. America, you have to stretch your legs a bit to get anywhere useful.
If you're planning on bicycling, and you heard the part in this video about "bicyclists have the right of way" in this or that situation, ignore this "right" if you want to live. My law is this: if the vehicle can hit me, it just might. Driver might not see me, then hit me. Because of this, I go where the vehicle isn't going. Example: if I'm bicycling down a road and approach an intersection and I do not have any of the following: stop sign, red or yellow light, or a yield sign, I still must yield to a vehicle that might enter that intersection (from my right, and yes they do have a stop sign). So I go around it. It's moving forward, or fixing to move forward (and might T-bone me), so I avoid going near its front bumper, choosing instead to go near its rear bumper, then continue down the road. Or I go wayyyyyyy over to the left if there's little or no traffic; when I'm wayyyyyyyyy over on the other side of the street, it's very hard for that vehicle to hit me, and I'd have more time to react if poop started happening.
Hey, I work for Massbike so I'll add some things.
Bikes always have priority crossing the street in a crossbike, even if they pull ahead.
The best solution to solving the right hook is signal phasing that separates bike movements from turning movements. This results in no possible conflict. You can also raise the bike crossing to add even more safety.
The US rules here are the problem, basically the priority rule is insane! A road user leaving their own lane cutting across another should always have to yield, simple.
Just look at what Europe, specially Germany and Netherlands, has done. Its that simple.
Netherlands yes, germany no.
Germany? Germany and the Netherlands have nothing to do with each other when it comes to cycling infrastructure. Germany is horrendous compared to the Netherlands.
@@razorblade1596 well, germany is considerable better than the USA at least in most places, i Think thats why he mentions germany. Maybe he visted Münster, the bicycle City of germany?
@@KeVIn-pm7pu I visited Munich last weekend and it has a lot of cyclists despite the bike infrastructure being “meh”.
@@edipires15 yeah but thats the point dont follow the example of germany many cities like munich lack a good bike infastructure.
As a Thai road youtuber, seeing some footage of Thailand is used here has really made me hate the way how Thai town planners don't give a f**k about people outside of a car.
But in reality they don't give a f**k about anything. The public transit system is like putting caviar on top of dog poop. Roads themselves despite being so close to being a car-centric city are still rough to get through as the moon surface. Pedestrians are treated like they are the past and unknown backbone of the cities' development. Police don't give a sh*t about vendors selling things and blocking paths on sidewalks.
(I'm thinking of making a video about this problem soon)
make the video!
Car Culture has removed any Empathy Car owners have for pedestrians or cyclists. Most drivers outright hate pedestrian and cyclists and wish they were dead as if pushing the brake pedal or turning necks to look around is more effort than walking or cycling.
Agreed. Harassment is a near daily occurrence, even if I'm not in the road.
As a Dutch cyclist I notice many things and 1 thing is that a bicycle path in the US is often made in a rush.
One lane has been removed and repainted into a cycle path, where in the Netherlands the entire road is being adapted to separate cars and cyclists as well as possible.
Often with the safety and rules that are seen as good at that time and always checked if this is the case, to apply these improvement in other construction or improvements
That right on the same road can easily be solved by having the traffic lights of cyclists and pedestrians turn green earlier.
Although I often hear that traffic lights in the US are not really smart and always turn all directions on green or red.
Learned this mostly from a few YouTubbers and most of it through ''NotJustBikes''
In most US cities there is a lot of pushback on real bike infrastructure because it comes at the cost of eliminating either a traffic lane, car parking, or sidewalks(often with existing street trees, curb cuts etc). The painted lanes became a popular option as a way to silence cyclist complaints without upsetting nearby car-owning residents, and this consensus has - at least until recently - meant that people who use bikes on streets are either enthusiasts who tolerate risk, or they are visibly poor(and so tend to sidewalk ride instead because they know the score and they're gonna be harassed by law enforcement anyway). These demographics are small enough that they can't push even for basic ideas like signaling, since those are more expensive than adding paint, and in many cases national traffic engineering standards dictate preference for a standard design with no considerations for bikes, so it takes exceptional effort to do more. My understanding is that the Netherlands had a situation where parents, one of the most powerful demographics of all, were pushing for the changes, because there was an expectation for kids to be able to ride. So everything became possible as soon as bicycle safety became a crisis.
The trends are looking very promising for a "bottom-up" solution in the US, though. Micromobility vehicles and services(docked and dockless e-bike and e-scooter rentals) have created an environment where the actual vehicles are everywhere, easy to ride, relatively inexpensive, and without the logistical concerns of ownership. The operators of these services have a vested interest in lowering injury rates(whether it's a pedestrian tripping over discarded scooters or a customer getting hit by a car) because it's tied to their vehicle insurance as well as their brand image - they need to make a product that is foolproof. As such some have begun to lobby for and sponsor changes to traffic infrastructure, creating a virtuous cycle where their service gets more popular as the streets get safer. It's still really early, but I'm seeing gradual changes month by month. High fuel prices now are also helping along this change.
Our city budget is 170 million operationally. a typical road improvement is 10-30 million per section etc. We budget 700 thousand for pedestrian and bicyclist, but most of that is salary, so we actually have around 0-40 thousand a year to do some very small projects. Generally for any project to get done, a city council member needs to live on that block or you need a large amount of people to scream about it, plus a developer who can make money off it. The bike friendly developers in the US make more money off selling pretty pamplets called "plans" or doing special events rather than the actual bike infrastructure.
7:16 bike path on the medium of a two-way divided road is a terrible idea. To access or exit it you still have to cross heavy traffic. Plus it separates bike users from any building or business on the side of the road.
Bike paths should always be on the side of a street or road, making it easily accessible to everyone.
Yes, exactly! It also removes one of the advantages of cycling: starting and ending your drive takes very little time, so you can go to shops or businesses along the street with no isshe
This is one of the worst ways yo place it.
Why are cyclists not allowed to be inconvenienced for the sake of safety like the rest of us?
@@AranCinar Correction: Why are DRIVERS not allowed to be inconvenienced for the sake of safety like the rest of us???
@@edipires15 90% of road laws are an inconvience to drivers. A trade drivers are willing to make, as these are worth saving lives of cyclists and pedestrians. Arguing that we should not have cycling lanes in the middle of the road as it would be mildly annoying to cyclists is like arguing pedestrians should yield to cars on crosswalks as stopping is annoying to drivers.
At the end of the video, the script says "be careful when riding". Which I'm sure was written as a just harmless sign-off. But it shows a bias, because even based on the description of the accidents in this video the problem isn't inattentive or negligent bikers, but inattentive or negligent *drivers*.
There are oodles of negligent cyclists. It's just near impossible to seriously hurt someone while riding a bike, the same reason children ride them.
100% agree, every close call or major conflict I've had with a car, is a car getting up my arse, overtaking when unsafe, giving me a left hook, not giving way etc etc, the bulk of drivers are really good and are very careful around me, I always give them a thumbs up when overtaking as a thank you. But all this conflict is a car driver being impatient, making easily preventable mistakes etc
At the end of the day, it's not the drivers who die in these accidents. And having the law on your side won't help you when you're lying there like a squashed tomato. So yeah, if you value your life, be careful when riding.
@@oyuyuy we can do everything right, and be as careful as we can and some drivers will still do stupid things, 'careful' will only take us so far... we need better
@@TH-cam.Notiflcation Drivers will always make mistakes, I can guarantee you that. But takes two to collide so being careful can take you as far as you want it to.
Pretty sure putting bike lanes in the median is a terrible idea and against best practise established by the Dutch and Danish for decades. Please don't promote this as a good idea.
Every street is unique. Center median bike lanes are not ideal in most locations, but in some places they can actually have fewer traffic conflicts than curbside bike lanes. It depends entirely on the street. Blanket rules are generally never useful for street designs.
@@boyziggy Seems more like a rare exception than a general best practice though.
Yall are forgetting that people whom drive aren't thinking of cyclists in mind aka we need to educate drivers and cyclists on the rules of the road and how to coexist with each other. Cyclists and cars share many of the same areas on roads, idk how many times I have to educate a rider who's a grown adult to ride a bike properly vs like a 5 year old going all over the place in a neighborhood... in the end its not just looking at infrastructure but how people act with what they are doing for travel (car, bike, walking, etc).
MINDSET IS KEY
Everyday when driving to work, I have to make a right turn at a intersection with traffic lights and a bike lane that's separated from the road by about 1-2 meters. Problem is I drive a van with very large right side blind spot. Everytime I get off slowly from the lights (meaning I'm not the first one at them), by the time I make my turn, I have no idea if there's a bike coming, I just have to make the turn and hope that if there ever is a bike, it's driver is smart enough to realise that I can't see them.
American designs always has a flaw. Its all about if they want to fix their infastructure.
Its almost like all of the nonsensical design is on purpose to make the quality of life here have as many unnecessary modern inconveniences as possible. Also find it funny how politicians and billion-dollar corps preach about the environment and global warming but they only ever consider trillion-dollar convoluted bills that are unlikely to pass through congress and just benefit big tech in the long run anyway. But simple things like reducing car use through improved city planning and pedestrian/biking infrastructure never get a bill.
It's almost as if it's an american channel talking about american problems for primarily American users. Every country has serious problems.
@@AranCinar true it just not as obvious as well as they rather look the us then there own country. And oh yeah there is some faults not denying that
@@emmanueld.5875 It's almost as if it's the big corporations who are contributing the most to pollution and not individuals.
It's really bad living out in the country and wanting to ride your bike too then the cars are whipping past ya at 50 or faster
...seems almost comical, even though I might have been cycling on the country road for 15 minutes without a single car, there is always the instant when a car coming from one way and a car coming up from behind pass each other right next to me on a two lane road... and struggle to make corrections or clearance to avoid this... ...just a curtesy brake would avoid this.
@@lifelores I've noticed the disappearance of the brake pedal, a disturbing development.
The discussion of liability will depend state-by-state, and is likely wrong in many US states.
In California, the law (CVC 21717) requires a driver to merge into the bike lane before making a right turn. Who is ahead/behind doesn't matter: the driver of the motor vehicle is liable unless they safely completed the merge in advance of making their turn.
I never understand why bike lanes are in the same directions as cars lanes, bikes have no mirrors, how are you gonna be aware of whats going on behind you. As a ciclist, if you see a car coming in your direction you can at least have some agency, instead of just being blindlesly hit from behind
What's really frustrating is that all of these problems have already been solved. It's also frustrating that many FREE ways of preventing injury and death aren't being implemented. 2 examples. Instead of painting lines so that parked cars get a big door opening zone on the left that is also a bike lane put the bike lane on the other side where it's protected by the parked cars, literally exactly the same amount of paint but 10x safer. Then reprogram all of your traffic lights in the urban center to give pedestrians and cyclists a 3 second head start. It's free and will save lives.
Pretty good. So many solitary commuters, it should reduce dooring dramatically. The head start idea I had not heard before. Intriguing.
Right hook crashes aren't punished enough.
Vehicle turning right have to check that that the way is free.
They either don't do this or pursuing it anyway.
in the US suburbs, 80% of drivers are unaware of the existence of road bicycles.
Completely wrong premise: Who is at fault? It doesn't matter. If I make a mistake, I am dead. If the car driver makes a mistake, I am still dead.
Yes It does because if a car driver kills a cyclist they won't survive in jail it's worse than being a sex offender they will kill you the minute they hear your charges
In the UK, we have the so-called National Cycle Network, claiming to be a network of quiet roads and dedicated cycle paths.
We also have cycle lanes (ofc). Not too fsr from where I live, there's a partially-protected cycle path, where it starts unprotected, then turns into a protected one around halfway through.
The unprotected portion always gets parked on, despite the double-yellow lines making it illegal to park there.
It seems to me that North America is almost uniquely placed to offer excellent and safe cycling infrastructure in cities at minimal cost. Why? Because most of their cities have a grid system of roads. There's no real need to allow motor vehicles on every parallel road! If they would just ban motor vehicles from, say to start with, 1 in 4 of those roads, making them for cyclists and pedestrians only, those streets would become extremely safe and also far more pleasant. Won't that make traffic worse? No, it will actually reduce traffic because more people will switch from driving to cycling when it feels safe to do so. It requires a major shift of mindset that it's not clear American planners are yet capable of, but if they did it, after a while people would see the benefits and then streets would be actively bidding against each other to get converted, and gradually the city would become a place for people not cars. Longer term, almost nobody should be driving into city centres at all, they'd provide good transit options and park & ride to make it unnecessary. But banning motor vehicles from a subset of roads is easy, cheap, and can be done immediately.
Bottom line: the law says pedestrians and bicycles have the right of way, but reality says cars do. Pedestrians and bicyclists die in crashes with cars, the drivers of the cars don't. I used to bike in LA in the days when drivers thought it was funny to throw garbage at bicyclists. I don't use bicycles to go anywhere, and I try to only bike on bike paths that are completely separate from roads. I have had way to many times where cars have tried to kill me as both a bicyclist and as a pedestrian.
More the reason why our infrastructure needs an overhaul.
This is a new kind of logic compared to the traditional design recommendations in Europe. These latter typically say that 1) bike lanes should not be separated by any visibility limiting barrier (such as parking cars or hedge); 2) bike lanes must be at least 1.5 m wide; 3) right turning lanes should never ever be to the left of straight going lanes; 4) either the right turning lane should be right of the bike lane and right turning cars should change lanes ahead of the intersection, or the bike lane should merge with the right turning lane few dozens of meters ahead of the intersection. These solutions resolve the conflict in a clear and peaceful way before reaching the intersection, so there already both the motorist and the cyclist can pay full attention to the numerous other factors that they have to be aware of.
As far as I know, there is only one study on bike lanes continuing between straight and right turn lanes and it came to the conclusion, that this design increases the rate of crashes at a high speed, leading to more severe injuries.
Also, in Germany we're slowly getting rid of all these principles, as they have been proven to be unsafe. The Netherlands are a much better model then most other countries in Europe with their mediocre bike infra, which is often put to shame by new bike infrastructure in the US.
Those can be solutions.
Those types of of intersections haven't used often in Germany.
I am not sure if they are better.
The right turn problem is solved then. But a new problem emerged that car drivers don't pay attention when they cross the straight big lane into the turning lane.
@@MephistoDerPudel The US is kind of hit or miss. The US has a lot of money and smart people so it can do really nice things, but just as often we just spray paint some lines on the shoulder and call it a bike lane. There are some places where people actually prefer to drive in traffic with cars than in the bike lane, because they are so bad.
The only way to safely design a right turn lane to the right of a cycle lane is to never merge the two lanes. Otherwise you're allowing high speed cars to travel through the cycle lane which is insanely dangerous.
If you want to build an underpass or bridge to remove the conflict they could work in theory, but then you may as well just underpass the intersection, it's not like it'll be much longer and it totally removes collision risks. You can get a similar effect by keeping the cycling lane to the right of the turning lane and asking cyclists to wait for a light to cross the turning lane into a more protected cycle lane, but then you're just asking cyclists to wait for two lights and over designing around cars.
A better solution is just to design as if the bike path is the primary mode for the intersection. Raise the bike path and raise the point where the road crosses the bike path as if it were a speed bump. That way cars have to take the intersection more slowly.
It’s not just at intersections though. Every driveway is a potential “right hook” location. This happened to me last week while I was biking past a gas station that has a large opening for the car to enter.
We have got to a zenith that we have too many cars on our roads. Governments bending over backwards for car drivers. We need peeps in towns and cities to get out of their cars and walk/cycle more. Especially for short journeys. Obesity levels are epidemic and type 2 diabetes rising in western world because so many people live sedentary lifestyles.
Changing governments transport policies means getting people to tell them what they want. But car drivers outnumber those who want to cycle. So who wins? We all lose.
One of the biggest problems is that when drivers scan for dangers they’re not actively looking bicycles and motorcycles. They see the car because they’re looking for one. It creates a mental blind spot. How many times have you heard someone say “I never saw them” OR “they just came out of nowhere” even though the rider was right in their line of vision?
I have trouble believing the "mental blindspot" excuse. In all the miles and hours I've driven through cities, motorcycles and bicycles stick out like sore thumbs, even in traffic. I've never once been surprised by the presence of a bike.
If it's not protected lanes I don't ride on them. I've been hurt way too many times by doors and getting tapped by cars. I've know one too many people who died from distracted drivers.
Bike lane are often too narrow and with parked cars on the right you really have to move on the left side or even leave to cycle lane.
Agreed, they make cyling less safe
In residential streets it is possible to safely mix cyclists and cars, when the speed limit has been lowered to 20 mph/ 30 kmh. But the street design must be improved with speed bumps, flower boxes and chicanes (zig-zag) to inforce the low speed limit.
I haven't found any comfort in sidewalks, unless I'm on a 30+ mph road. Drivers simply do not account for the bicycle the sidewalk. I could be doing 18ish, a car comes up beside me and slows, then mistimes their turn just right to cause a close call, despite having clear view of me about to cross. Same story with bike lanes.
@@donnybrookcycling1667 going to work theres a section where cars can only go 20mph or less (theres loads of speed humps) I'm going the same speed as traffic and cars still try and overtake and squeeze between the safe gap I'm keeping between me and the car ahead. It's crazy
I think city bikers also have the responsibility to make good judgements. We are more agile than vehicles and usually only need to focus on a couple things on the road while a car/truck has many other things to look out for aside from you. So when approaching an intersection with a vehicle to your left, always check if their right turn signal is on or if they are slowing down. And there are times if its a large truck that's already ahead of you its better to just yield for them. Make their life easier and always better safe than sorry
While you're not wrong, you're also advocating something that's already true into the face of a biased majority who are looking to blame the cyclist at all times. I think it's one of the rare times that a true statement accomplishes only harmful things. It also has a false implication that this isn't already true.
I hate these bike lanes that have the cars parked outside because people become a hazard and it’s dangerous for pedestrians.
I survived decades of cycling and motorcycling by applying the number one rule " Treat everyone in a cage as if they are out to kill you."
One way to reduce that right hook crash is to move into the lane behind or in front of the cars at red lights. When the light turns green, peel off to the right side of the rode to allow the faster vehicles to pass. Of coarse, this will not help when passing an intersection that has a green light.
Because of this, It’s actually often « safer » to go when the light is red… the incoming traffic being easier to monitor than someone cutting you from behind (every single close call I ever had happened in this situation)
Agreed. I’ve had two near misses. Now I just time it and go when it’s red and just time it with the traffic going across or I just dismount and walk across
I often slow but don't stop at signs if I know I'd be there first, and I treat red lights as yield signs on busy streets. Anything to be seen clearly
In the Netherlands, this problem is solved with traffic lights. The light to the right only turns on when there is no conflicting traffic. We also have traffic lights which indicate just a green light, which means the car driver has to pay attention to cyclists. They are very rare and typically have a warning light that turns on if the cyclists or pedestrians also get a green (or are always on if the light is green)
US has right turn signals at many intersections as well, but in the majority of intersections (there are some exceptions, which have their own signage) drivers are allowed to right turn even after their turn is over, as long as the path is clear. They are also allowed to turn even when the light for traffic going straight in their lane is red (known as a ‘right on red’).
This does keep traffic moving but makes the roads a lot unsafer for cyclists and pedestrians. I have been hit by a car making a right on red while I was in a crosswalk as a pedestrian. (Thankfully, I only had minor injuries since the car had just accelerated from a stop and was not going very fast.)
Bad design because it slows everybody down.
The Right Hook was a big issue when I moved to Eugene Oregon because of how much people cycle here. I definitely had to learn how to not kill people when driving
And I bet it's gotten worse since Oregon is the only state to stupidly extend the bike lane to the intersection instead of broken line approaching the intersection to allow bicyclists and drivers to mix and figure out who goes first approaching the intersection.
Couldn't the right hook issue be fixed by having bikes go at the same time as pedestrians, considering they're pretty much right next to crosswalks anyways? That way if the car turning right has a green light, the bikes are stopped and have to wait for the car to have a red light.
I'm a bike rider and I'm terrified when I have to ride on the street. I try to ride on the sidewalk as much as possible especially if there aren't any bike lanes
I get it! I try to manage risk. Be visible, use bicycle lights during day, have a good mirror. Let the driver know you are looking at them in the mirror as they approach by moving your head. Riders are safer in groups and pick side streets that parallel a main road (if available). First thing I'd do is get a map & look at alternative routes rather than stick to sidewalks. Be well.
It really bothers me that cities have laws against cyclists riding on the sidewalk. If as they say cyclists have the rights of pedestrians - pedestrians travel on the sidewalk and not the street so should too a bicycle. Putting bikes on the street and giving them the same rights as a pedestrian walking is where we go wrong and make things dangerous.
I feel the same way about cyclists on the sidewalk that cyclists feel about cars. Especially with the emerging prevalence of ebikes causing cyclists to go flying along at speeds far higher than is safe, I find someone who makes a point of riding their bike on the sidewalk rather... well, let's be diplomatic and say distasteful.
@@mylesleggette7520 100% agree. cyclists on sidewalks are dangerous and can cause injuries. And in the roadway, all people there are expecting danger and therefore are more conscious. On the sidewalk, pedestrians are not expecting to be hit by a bicycle wizzing by if they step to the side unexpectedly or stop to check directions.
More dangerous than riding on the street, and considerably slower.
One thing people who earn their drivers license have to do here in the Netherlands is to look behind them at every turn they make. It probably developed as a way to take into account the cyclers on the road. You will not pass your drivers test if you don’t do look back at every turn (even when turning left) 97% of the time. The right hook that you guys talked about seems like it could be quickly solved or at least reduce in frequency with this method, however I do understand introducing something like this has to be hard in places outside of the Netherlands, where bikes aren’t used as often.
You are supposed to look in the US too. Any time you turn or change lanes you are supposed to check the side mirror and then turn to look to check the blind spot. A lot of people just check their mirrors and call it good. We just have a lot of bad drivers and cars sideswipe each other due to this as well. Some of them might just figure they are in the right most lane so there is no reason to check but that is just being lazy. A car should be checking for bikes, but also for pedestrians as well.
We are told to do the same in driver's education in Canada. But nobody bothers once they've passed their driver's test.
I bike every day, to and from work and for pleasure, and every day I feel my life threatened by motor vehicles. To me, like most things in life, until offenders are made to pay for their crimes, nothing will change. Hefty tickets have to be handed out to vehicles breaking the law until it is common practice to respect all people sharing the road.
This isn't an issue of "personal responsibility". If the city is planned correctly, and the infrastructure is right, drivers should hardly have an opportunity to hit a cyclist.
@@caiofernando Very true, but in a real-world, that rarely if ever sees fruition and becomes a reality. Bicycle safety is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to doling out money. Hopefully, it will change, but, I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
I bike to work 5 days a week. I don't interfere with car traffic one second on the trip. Cycling is safe in the Netherlands. You won't see a LOT of helmets
@@nicolethoff2920 Obviously, biking in the Netherlands and biking in the USA are two very different adventures. Here, the automobile rules all
Melbourne, Australia is a great case study for bike lanes, we have a heavy mix of all kinds of bike lanes and paths, but especially unprotected bike lanes, and getting car doored and getting turned into are still big issues. More recently cyclist-priority traffic lights have been popping up, giving cyclists right-of-way to cross intersections in the same traffic cycle as pedestrians, seperate from road traffic.
There isn't a bike lane in my city or the county next to us.
I bike 50 km everyday.
Having these improvements for cycling would be nice and greatly appreciated, but I doubt it'll ever be seriously considered. The attitude drivers have towards cyclists is that of disrespect, uncaring, even outright hostility. No amount of lights or paint will convince a driver to be careful or look up from their phone.
I agree, but the bicycle vs. car situation is no different than gun owners vs. non-gun owners, conservatives vs. liberals, moderates vs. extremists, men vs. women, millennials vs. baby boomers, affluent vs. poor, black vs. white, etc. We all are part of some fascist group where we feel victimized and harbor ill feelings about our perceived persecutors and desire to create a purer community of our own values at the expense of rights of others by any legal or illegal means possible. Even if it means violence. It is one of those freedoms given us by the First Amendment on freedom of speech and the right of assembly. No one wants to compromise any longer, moderates are a thing of the past and "We the People" became "Us the People" in an "Us and Them" polarized society where we share fewer and fewer common values. If there is a lack of empathy for bicyclists by car drivers its because of a lack of empathy for car drivers who have to deal with the many but few irresponsible bicyclists. There are people at fault on both sides and we need to find a way to get along otherwise democracy is already dying.
I rode to work for years, never had any issues and that was on no bike lanes.
The reason?
I acknowledged that in any interaction with any vehicle, I would come off 2nd best. I never assumed my rights, even when I knew them and never put myself in a compromising position.
You really have to accept this if you’re going to cycle regularly.
Exactly!
How long until the Suburbia defenders get here
Wait... They're real?!
Having spent time in Europe over the last few years I have been amazed at how many people use bicycles in cities. Especially Amsterdam, where there are practically no cars. And you better stay to the side of the sidewalk because they will mow you down on those bicycles! I think we should go to Europe and see how they do it. Because they do it in such a way that everyone is encouraged to ride and they don’t have pollution and they have happy people.
Of course!
I think it is funny that in the Netherlands Amsterdam is generally seen as the worst place for cyclist (in the Netherlands)
You can cite any law you want but there is the natural law of "gross tonnage". I always assume the motor vehicle is NOT going to know I am there when we get to the intersection. Done.
Regarding right turns, I started looking over my shoulder at approaching cars to see if they were going to turn. This worked pretty well as I could change my speed to account for any potential conflicts.
The surprising (or perhaps not surprising) problem is that a lot of drivers just don't use their turn signals. And an even greater amount use them but only after starting their turn. At which point the turn signal is useless. PSA: turn signals' primary benefit is to indicate what you are going to do, not what you are already doing. Turn them on BEFORE you start turning.
You made a mistake. In the United States, bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motor vehicle operators. In a right hook situation, they have to yield to us the same way the would to opposing traffic while making a left turn.
This is a tricky problem without a legislative solution: If the same road code applies for all types of vehicles, including cyclists (it does too in my country except for two minor cases, that for this are irrelevant), it would also be illegal for a cyclist to overtake in the right lane if he is behind a right turning car. However changing lanes at an intersection, to get around the car on the outside is also against code. So cycling is by default expected to function in violation, or said differently: We all have to work around this for it to work. I drive exclusively, and rages on a daily basis when cyclists, falsely imagine they have the right of way in these situations, instead of as they are supposed to do, time their approach so they neither themselves or others are bothered.
@@Tore_Lund In my location (Pennsylvania, USA), cyclists are treated mostly the same as cars, but with a decent number of exceptions. Basically, a cyclist is required to ride in the center of whatever lane they are in. If they are going below the regular speed of traffic, they must go in the right lane, **unless they are overtaking, turning left, allowing an emergency vehicle to pass, avoiding an obstruction, or in a bike lane.** I'm not sure what exactly you are discussing here, but there is a legislative solution.
Also in my state you can pass cyclists on double yellow if you triple check that it is safe.
@@tealmer3528 Interesting, Cyclists in PA indeed have more rights than in Denmark then. Cyclists here are not allowed to do left turns. They cross and wait, and then do the left turn when the light changes. It was right turns on roads with cycle paths I was referring to. Are you saying the law allows for cyclists to overtake on the left around cars turning right in an intersection?
@@Tore_Lund Yes. If you're in a bike lane in PA (a painted cycle path), you have two options. You may either turn left as you do in Denmark, or you may merge in with traffic, go to the left lane, and turn left as a car would. You also don't have to ride in the bike lane if you don't want to.
However, you may not "split lanes." This means that you may only overtake by going down the middle of another lane. If you're on a one lane street, you cannot overtake.
@@Tore_Lund Also we may have more legal rights but we barely ever have bike lanes and even when we do they're almost always just pure paint. You're luckier in Denmark.
As a frequent bicyclist, I've learned that biking is inherently dangerous anytime I have to cross a road, street, parking lot entrance, etc. Even if a motorist appears to look directly at me, I never assume they actually *see* me. I've never been hit, but numerous close calls. Not to mention people who pull forward into the trail crossings while waiting to make a right turn.
A lot of people "look but don't see"
That's it. You have to be defensive. It's easy to miss something small. High visibility clothing and lights can help, but you have to be prepared for evasive action.
@@wclark3196 In my experience, you can ride perfectly, have all the visibility possible, even go out of your way to choose safer roads. It helps, but there will always be those drivers simply not paying attention or, I don't know how else to put it, are too dumb.
@@donnybrookcycling1667 Nobody is arguing it isn't dangerous. Which is why you have to do everything you can to be visible and to be alert. Something small (pedestrian or rider on bike) can be very hard to see in low-light. As a passenger I've seen that when people cross the street in dark clothing. They thing they are much more visible than they are. So, high visibility clothing, reflectors, lights, if I were riding, I'd do it all. Also, I'm horrified when I see people riding with headphones on. Your hearing could save your life, you shouldn't block it so you can jam to some tunes. And, needless to say, don't be messing with the phone while riding. As you said, you have to be alert at all times.
Also in the netherlands we solved liability by having presumed guilt of cars, making everyone drive a lot safer.
This is such bullshit and is always brought up when talking about cycling to and with foreigners. The reality is people dont want to get in accidents in the first place. Be it because it costs them emotional anguish, time, insurance points and whatever. The liability really isn't on anyone's mind in daily life and is only relevant for court or insurance paperwork.
@@MrAronymous Maybe look at the statistics before you say something untrue.
The biggest problem is the cyclists. They tend to forget that they have to obey traffic laws. More than once, I've seen cyclists bust into an intersection and get all pissy when they almost get hit.
With these fancy, expensive “solutions” we end up with a couple miles of “showpiece” bike lanes (usually close to city hall). Having spent their entire bike safety budget for the year, cities neglect longer distance commute routes.
Example: Denver. Massive spending for maybe ten miles of protected lanes downtown which are used sparingly. Yet there is literally no north-south bike lane between Speer and the east side of downtown. The options are so sketchy that I chose not to commute for several years until my office moved locations.
One piece of advice I give to everyone who wants to ride is always assume the car has not seen you. Any chance where a car can hit you must be treated as a serious risk.
'bike lanes have a deadly design flaw'
well for starters any meathead can slam into a cyclist through one. jesus christ there's no protection
But not everybody is a methhead
Well you can say that with driving
As much as I would like to cruise through intersections on green lights, I stop for a few seconds at every one, and I never assume the car is going to stop for me. I have avoided so many accidents this way it just convinces me to do carry on doing it.
Sounds efficient.
Why don't they run bikes against the flow of traffic, better visibility for everyone
lol wtf who wants to bike in the middle of the streets? Just get protected bike lanes and change the laws so the car is always liable if they hit at a right-hook turn.
Some of the solutions to these problems were already found in the 1970s in the Netherlands but good that the US is somewhat catching up
The US will never reach the level the Netherlands has, even if just in the densest cities. Car culture and lack of respect will always be a hindrance for cyclists