• TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ve noticed a few intersections around me have put up “Yield to bicycles when turning right” signs.

    Sad that a basic fundamental rule of driving needs its own dedicated sign. It’d be like having a sign that says “Proceed on green”.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      We’ve started putting NO RIGHT ON RED signs at intersections, and motorists are still running over pedestrians!

      You can’t design away stupidity. The danger is people behind the wheel of these aerodynamic tanks.

      • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Just make turning at all on a red illegal. Many countries do this and we get by just fine. I went to the US a couple summer ago and wife and I got nearly taken out while walking across a street by this woman only looking left and not planning to stop at the light coming off a highway.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          To a significant extent, you can design away stupid. Look at the concept of poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) in manufacturing processes: arranging things in a way that minimizes the possibility of common errors. And note that its inventor originally called it baka-yoke (idiot-proofing) but that bluntness rocked the boat a bit too much.

          Having separate paths for bikes and motor vehicles, and appropriately controlled intersections to take that into account, is a proven life-saver.

            • drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              @futatorius@lemm.ee also replying to you

              I think there’s been a semantic misunderstanding -

              I’m saying that people are going to be stupid and you should design an intersection that accounts for it. I don’t think that’s ‘designing away stupid’ because the stupid is still present. It has merely been limited or entirely contained, but I don’t want to have a semantic argument. Just understand that we agree, and the book I reference says almost exactly what you both said.