 car least vulnerable, most culpable. fallowing the afore mentioned hierarchy the cyclist is then required to give right of way to pedestrians because his vehicle is faster and presumably more dangerous. Sadly, particularly at slower speeds, a pedestrian cyclist incident where the pedestrian “freezes” during that indecisive moments probably puts the cyclist in more danger than the pedestrian because even a slow speed fall for a cyclist can be grave whilst a simple assertive step in the right direction by the pedestrian would be sufficient to avoid a potentially dangerous situation for the cyclist.
I can’t reply directly underneath this comment but felt I should respond.
If I had the choice of what to collide with, I’d pick with the bike, every time.
Comparing the kinetic energy or momentum of, say, a 80kg person on a 10kg bike travelling at the same speed as a 80kg person driving a 1500 kg car, the car will have about 18 times the kinetic energy or momentum of the bike.
That kinetic energy or momentum needs to go somewhere. In a collision with the bike, a lot will go into knocking the rider off their bike. In a collision with the car, some may be absorbed by crumple zones but the rest will go into your body so will cause direct injury and send you flying into the air and further injury when you hit the ground.
I suspect the parts most likely to impale the pedestrian are the brake levers. I am not speculating, I know of several fatal accidents where pedestrians were hit by bicycles. Modern cars are designed to lift the pedestrian onto the hood, which is very soft. Then they roll onto the windshield, which also can absorb a lot of energy.
Of course, the real answer is: You don’t want to get hit by either. But the idea that bicycles are benign is leading to a lot of careless behavior on bike paths… especially by pedestrians.
I read the Idaho law, and it doesn’t really address this directly, how do you treat a red light with no turn on red combination under your Idaho Stop experiment rules?
I’d treat it as a stop sign again. However, the “no turn on red” sign is used only in intersections where there is so much cross traffic that the “right on red” is unsafe. If there is cross traffic, you obviously wouldn’t go under “Idaho Stop” rules.
You wrote: ‘Today “Right-on-Red” is legal in Germany at certain intersections, and everybody is fine with it.’ I strongly disagree here: I’m not fine with the Germany solution and I don’t know many cyclists in Germany who would be.
A few German cities are removing Gruenpfeils from their intersections again, and pedestrian and cyclists activst groups are lobbying for a complete ban of the Gruenpfeil. It’s a deadly sign.
Note that a kind of Gruenpfeil only for cyclists would be a good thing, though. But then I’d rather have a good cycling infrastructure like the Dutch have, where this is superfluous.
There seems to be a misunderstanding. The “Right on Red” or “Grünpfeil” does not imperil vulnerable road users. Cars can turn right on red, but pedestrians and cyclists have a red light at this time, so there is no conflict.
The biggest problem with the “Right on Red” is that it offends people’s sense of order. “Red means Stop”, so allowing cars to proceed with their right turn before pedestrians enter the intersection may make sense, but it doesn’t seem right to many people.
I see what you are saying – the pedestrians who are crossing right in front of the car have the green light. However, that “conflict” is pretty easy to understand for both parties, since they face each other, and the car is required to stop before proceeding. Some education may be required to make sure drivers look both ways before proceeding. In places where pedestrians are common, they usually do so anyhow.
(Replying to this and your follow-up). You’re simply wrong here, Jan. Where right on red (AFTER STOPPING) is legal, motorists universally run the red light and do not look to their right for pedestrians who are crossing with a green across the turning motorist’s path. It creates an incredibly dangerous situation in practice, which is simply reality. Many local pedestrians have taken to mid-block crossing of busy five-lane roads simply because it is safer than dealing with the right-on-red motorists.
As far as what happens when motorists turn right on a green light and their conflict with pedestrians: Those pedestrians are directly in the motorist’s line of sight (unlike above, where the motorist is looking the other way). Sure, there are motorists who will still turn into pedestrians that they can see right in front of them, but this issue is much rarer.
And yes, I walk a lot. I typically walk on urban/suburban roads about twenty hours per week.
I have to cross several Gruenpfeil intersections here in Cologne every day on my way to work, and they are the most conflict-prone intersections I encouter on my commute.
For example, turning right is optional, so car drivers who want to turn right but would like to wait for proper green get honked at and harassed by drivers behind them. I have even seen cars use the sidewalk to turn right, and this happened not just once. Two thirds of all car drivers according to the studies do no stop properly at Gruenpfeil intersections.
Also a common safety measure in Germany is having an advanced green for cyclists and pedestrians, so that these can cross the road before cars get green for turning right. This doesn’t play well at all with Right on Red either.
“People’s sense of order” in traffic planning is not a problem, it actually makes traffic a safer place: Traffic rules must be easy to understand, traffic infrastructure must be “predictabe” (see the rules of “Sustainable Safety” in dutch traffic planning). Right on red violates this principle. There are much better approaches to make a safe and fast intersection: Simultanous green, removal of traffics lights, roundabouts, the “standard dutch junction” etc. Right on Red for cars is the worst solution, and hundreds of junctions in Germany prove this. I invite you to come with me on a Gruenpfeil-tour through Cologne the next time you’re in Germany!
Perhaps the Grünpfeil isn’t working well in Cologne – it may need more education and/or enforcement – but in the U.S., it’s been working well for decades. I can see the conflict with the “Advanced green” for peds – we don’t have that here. I disagree that “right on red” is not predictable. It’s like a stop sign. Except perhaps that people have a choice of turning or not… so as good Germans, we should make it mandatory!
I think you’re biased here by spending so much time cycling. The right hook on green is much more commonly dangerous *for cyclists* because the cyclist comes up behind the motorist at a relatively high rate of speed and the motorist isn’t looking at/for the cyclist. *For pedestrians*, the right turn on green happens when the motorist is looking directly at the pedestrian, and is relatively safe.
The solution to the right hook on green is to simply take the lane and not allow a car on your left at an intersection–not to advocate for the pedestrian-hostile right-on-red.
I will reconsider my position on the “right-on-red”.
Your comment on it being safer to cross mid-block is interesting. It makes sense to “unbundle” the complex situation at intersections, and have the pedestrians cross in a place where they don’t compete for the attention of drivers with all sorts of other traffic.
The pedestrians crossing that I find most useful are mid-block, and I’ve seen a few great ones in Seattle. A mid-block crossing, with flashing lights embedded in the road, which is triggered by a motion sensor on the side of the road is ideal. The pedestrian comes to the side of the road, doesn’t have to hit any buttons or wait more than a few seconds, and nearly instantly you can watch the cars slow down and let you cross.
Some cities (nearly) ban right on red. Most of my riding was in Ithaca, NY, where most downtown intersections don’t allow them. Of course, many drivers still make the turns illegally, but in my experience they tend to stop, actually look, and then turn. My experience in California was that drivers tend to just roll through at 10mph, but the intersections in LA are also so huge that sight lines are much less of a problem than in a small city like Ithaca.
The one time I’ve been hit by a car while riding a bike (thank God only minor injuries) was when in the bike lane and starting out to go straight at a new green light; the car to my left turned right and hit me.
Since then, I always and ruthlessly pull out to the center or even “center left” of the rightmost lane (and, of course, I don’t use right turn only lanes as go-straight lanes) so that (1) no one can make a right hook around me and, (2) it leaves room for at least reasonably wide vehicles behind me to make the turn without affecting my position.
Instead of giving him the one finger salute, I motioned him over and, as the light changed, went through and