Near Miss of the Day 225: Poor road design puts cyclists and drivers in conflict

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

The phrase 'poor road design' always sounds to me like 'dangerous gun' or 'killer road'.   In other words, it's a cop-out.  The objects don't cause the problem.  Our manner of using them does.  

Not really as roads can be designed well or not. In this case, I think it would be better if the cycle lane didn't go round the corner if it can't continue. It encourages cyclists to go on the inside of vehicles and then just dumps them into the road with the other traffic pulling left at the pinch point. Without the cycle lane, it'd just be a normal corner and cyclists would know to not try to go by the side of the cars.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

The phrase 'poor road design' always sounds to me like 'dangerous gun' or 'killer road'.   In other words, it's a cop-out.  The objects don't cause the problem.  Our manner of using them does.  

Not really as roads can be designed well or not. In this case, I think it would be better if the cycle lane didn't go round the corner if it can't continue. It encourages cyclists to go on the inside of vehicles and then just dumps them into the road with the other traffic pulling left at the pinch point. Without the cycle lane, it'd just be a normal corner and cyclists would know to not try to go by the side of the cars.

Well, I think that 'badly designed roads' are everywhere.  I ride a lot of them daily, and I drive on a lot of them several times a week.  If there's a cyclist in front of me approaching a bollard 'pinch point', I slow down.  If I can do it, everyone should be able to do it.  That they don't, is no reflection on the road, but rather on the thick cumstain who's driving the car.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

The phrase 'poor road design' always sounds to me like 'dangerous gun' or 'killer road'.   In other words, it's a cop-out.  The objects don't cause the problem.  Our manner of using them does.  

Not really as roads can be designed well or not. In this case, I think it would be better if the cycle lane didn't go round the corner if it can't continue. It encourages cyclists to go on the inside of vehicles and then just dumps them into the road with the other traffic pulling left at the pinch point. Without the cycle lane, it'd just be a normal corner and cyclists would know to not try to go by the side of the cars.

Well, I think that 'badly designed roads' are everywhere.  I ride a lot of them daily, and I drive on a lot of them several times a week.  If there's a cyclist in front of me approaching a bollard 'pinch point', I slow down.  If I can do it, everyone should be able to do it.  That they don't, is no reflection on the road, but rather on the thick cumstain who's driving the car.  

Agreed, but it's clearly worse design to put a pinch point straight after a corner rather than on a straight section.  In this instance, there's a pinch point after a corner and a bike lane that leads up to it and then dumps the cyclists into the danger zone. Without the cycle lane, it just becomes an ordinary corner without being as dangerous.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

The phrase 'poor road design' always sounds to me like 'dangerous gun' or 'killer road'.   In other words, it's a cop-out.  The objects don't cause the problem.  Our manner of using them does.  

Not really as roads can be designed well or not. In this case, I think it would be better if the cycle lane didn't go round the corner if it can't continue. It encourages cyclists to go on the inside of vehicles and then just dumps them into the road with the other traffic pulling left at the pinch point. Without the cycle lane, it'd just be a normal corner and cyclists would know to not try to go by the side of the cars.

Well, I think that 'badly designed roads' are everywhere.  I ride a lot of them daily, and I drive on a lot of them several times a week.  If there's a cyclist in front of me approaching a bollard 'pinch point', I slow down.  If I can do it, everyone should be able to do it.  That they don't, is no reflection on the road, but rather on the thick cumstain who's driving the car.  

Can one not look at it exactly the other-way-round, though?

Crap drivers are everywhere.  If Dutch (and a few other) road designers can design roads better, everyone should be able to do it.  That they don't, is no reflection on the nation's drivers but on the idiot who designed the road.

Getting drivers to not be crap, and maintaining that, seems more of a challenge than fixing the roads.  Once a road is fixed it stays fixed, drivers seem to backslide immediately the test or safety-course is over.

Actually, in general, infrastructure designers of all kinds often seem to be morons.

  Town-planners, road-traffic-engineers and architects, all consistently seem to produce things while giving no thought to what it's like to actually use them.  E.g. near me are some totally unecessary double sets of parallel steps, where one could _easily_ have been a slope to enable wheel-chair users, cyclists, push-chair-pushers and shopping-trolley users to have access, but whatever dimwit architect originally designed it just didn't bother to think about it.  (Probably a safe-bet that it was designed by an able-bodied, non-cyclist, man)

  And just next to that is a badly designed road that brings pedestrians and motorists into conflict constantly.

We must have special schools where such designers are taught how not to think.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

The phrase 'poor road design' always sounds to me like 'dangerous gun' or 'killer road'.   In other words, it's a cop-out.  The objects don't cause the problem.  Our manner of using them does.  

Agreed, if the driver had checked their nearside mirror or just done a shoulder check at any pount before moving they would have seen the cyclist. You can see that there is a cycle lane that enters the junction, assuming that there will not be anyone there, not looking and driving through (and on a poor line to boot) is akin to firing a loaded gun with your eyes closed and then blaming the fact you closed your eyes as to why you killed or came close to killing someone.
All too easy to blame road design (it is shit) but a behavioural change and actually operating a killing machine in a way that takes account of those around you that you can easily harm makes this road layout not that big a deal.
It's the hazard the driver presented through zero attention that is the route cause, yet another example of dangerous driving that on another day will end in death.
Plod won't do shit though, even WMP only take this type of close call as a minor indiscretion. It again highlights the absolute disgrace of coming up with dangerous cycling laws and the vilification of people on bikes yet this shit and worse is ignored every single day in every town, city and elsewhere or simply reduced to a minor infraction.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Agreed, if the driver had checked their nearside mirror or just done a shoulder check at any pount before moving they would have seen the cyclist. You can see that there is a cycle lane that enters the junction, assuming that there will not be anyone there, not looking and driving through (and on a poor line to boot) is akin to firing a loaded gun with your eyes closed and then blaming the fact you closed your eyes as to why you killed or came close to killing someone.

I disagree entirely, the driver was in the correct position on the road and driving as you'd expect. The cyclist approached at speed, into a blind spot down the inside of the vehicle when it was not safe to complete his over(under)take.

Feel free to blame the road design for encouraging it, or the cyclist for following it rather than using their brain (like someone driving into the sea as their sat nav tells them to); the driver wasn't at fault here.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

All too easy to blame road design (it is shit) but a behavioural change and actually operating a killing machine in a way that takes account of those around you that you can easily harm makes this road layout not that big a deal.

As per the above, the cyclist could be argued to be "actually operating a killing machine" and could easily harm someone with such a lack of attention. 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

It's the hazard the driver  cyclist presented through zero attention that is the route cause, yet another example of dangerous driving that on another day will end in death.

Fixed that for you!

Just to be clear, I believe the road is more at fault than the cyclist, and could quite easily see myself putting myself in a similar position believing the infrastructure would be suitable. However, I have also as a cyclist pulled out of a junction when I'd have been better waiting, took a corner a little quickly and gone a little wide etc. etc. It is worth noting the cyclist blamed the infrastructure not the car or its driver. We can make mistakes too, having the usual pop at the person behind the wheel here actually does nothing to improve driving standards, in all probability it'll achieve the opposite!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

The phrase 'poor road design' always sounds to me like 'dangerous gun' or 'killer road'.   In other words, it's a cop-out.  The objects don't cause the problem.  Our manner of using them does.  

Agreed, if the driver had checked their nearside mirror or just done a shoulder check at any pount before moving they would have seen the cyclist. You can see that there is a cycle lane that enters the junction, assuming that there will not be anyone there, not looking and driving through (and on a poor line to boot) is akin to firing a loaded gun with your eyes closed and then blaming the fact you closed your eyes as to why you killed or came close to killing someone. All too easy to blame road design (it is shit) but a behavioural change and actually operating a killing machine in a way that takes account of those around you that you can easily harm makes this road layout not that big a deal. It's the hazard the driver presented through zero attention that is the route cause, yet another example of dangerous driving that on another day will end in death. Plod won't do shit though, even WMP only take this type of close call as a minor indiscretion. It again highlights the absolute disgrace of coming up with dangerous cycling laws and the vilification of people on bikes yet this shit and worse is ignored every single day in every town, city and elsewhere or simply reduced to a minor infraction.

It is not the drivers fault at all. If you look at the image of the road without cars on you will see that it is a tight gap. If either road user was at fault it was the cyclist for undertaking. Like it or not the cycle lane came to an end. There is a give way line at the end of it. The car had priority. Just because the car driver is less vulnerable that does not mean the onus is always on them to avoid conflict. All road users should be trying to avoid conflict, but in this case the cyclist made a poor choice to put himself in that position, and it was driven by poor road design. The worse the driver did was cut the corner of the cycle lane by an irrelevant margin, and by the looks of the pictures of the road empty there is no room to do anything else.

Is there any situation you would accept a cyclist might be at fault?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

The phrase 'poor road design' always sounds to me like 'dangerous gun' or 'killer road'.   In other words, it's a cop-out.  The objects don't cause the problem.  Our manner of using them does.  

those are false analogies. Guns are, by and large, designed to harm intentionally, so a well-designed gun kills better than a badly-designed gun. But a good gun designer recognises that people make mistakes, and that mistakes made with a gun can be deadly - that is, guns are dangerous - so a well-designed gun also makes it difficult to kill unintentionally, which is why they have safety features.

Roads are designed to convey people between places. A well-designed one does that and prevents people making mistakes, as best it can, because designers recognise that mistakes made on the road can be deadly, and that badly-designed roads do not prevent people making mistakes.

If you're interested in how design does this sort of thing, and why it is generally (but not always) a bad idea to blame the user, a classic introduction is Donald Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things