UniChris

The degree to which streetsblog is full of ranting unproductively divorced from physical reality can be quite tiresome.

First, let's recognize the fundamental design problem at this location. You have a MUP that is basically an allowed sidewalk, running along a major road, and thus as it approaches the intersection, on the wrong side of a mandatory right turn lane. It's a basic fact of reality that it's a recipe for conflict to have a through traffic lane for bikes, to the right of a turning traffic lane for other vehicles. On a calmer roadway, the bike lane would have to stop short of the intersection so that turning drivers could safely merge with or even across the path of through cyclists (and potentially the reverse) as an ordinary lane change, rather than a pinch at the corner itself.

The problem in this situation is that there's an attempt with the separated path to try to save cyclists from needing to participate in a heavy flow of vehicular traffic. But at the intersection, that attempt cannot deny reality. There are only so many things which can actually be done there - and most require cyclists to cooperate in ways that are annoying in their disruption of ride experience.

One possibility is to require the cyclists to revert to being literally or at least effectively pedestrians. The classic hook turn collision is for the vehicle to hook into the path of the cyclist who is moving too quickly to stop short of the resulting collision. Turning drivers run over pedestrians who were already in a cross walk, but with the possible exception of joggers, pedestrians for the most part don't run into vehicles that are already in the process of turning. And unless the driver has immediately previously passed the cyclist on the same roadway, these are typically the fault of the cyclist for arriving from a non-visible direction at an un-react-able speed, or even the cyclist literally running into the side of the turning vehicle.

Another possibility is exclusive traffic signal phases. In practice though, cyclists don't like being told they cannot proceed when the main light is green, but are instead supposed to wait for a narrower reserved phase. Compliance ends up low; and police departments may learn that it's a great place to camp out and write bike tickets. Worth noting that the intersection in question already has a pedestrian crossing light - though we don't know if that is an exclusive phase or if either operator complied with it.

What this really drives home is that the physically separated cycling infrastructure can be quite deadly at the points where it puts insufficiently aware cyclists back into contention with other traffic. Someone used to riding and participating in a flow of traffic develops the skills to do so safely, specifically by understanding and anticipating what the operators of the other vehicles are doing - cycling on a road actually has a lot in common with driving on one. In contrast, someone who's enjoyed a run of traffic free bliss often approaches intersections insufficiently aware of how intersections work, insufficiently aware of the vehicles also approaching those intersections, and entirely out of the view and consideration of the operators of those vehicles.

Could an unfortunate cyclist have been hit by the front of a truck because its driver failed to notice they were already in the crossing during the pedestrian phase of the light? Potentially, yes. Does it sound like that is what happened? Not, really, no. It sounds like the classic case of a cyclist's own speed carrying them to the corner or side of a vehicle they didn't realize would be already in the process of executing a proper turn before they entered the roadway.

Arguing about blame isn't going to make this situation safe. Building an overpass might, but there's no way to stack responsibility on one party such that the other can safely use the intersection unaware of their situation.

The only real way to make this safer is to understand exactly why it is a dangerous situation, and use it in a way informed by that understanding.

If that leaves the situation still too dangerous to use, then what the energy and anger should probably be usefully directed to would be campaigning to move the trail crossing south to the midpoint of the loop road, and putting in a dedicated traffic light there that goes red to stop traffic when the pedestrian crossing button is pushed. Putting the light at such a position where there is no turning vehicular traffic eliminates right-on-red as a source of confusion, and makes it far simpler for cyclists and pedestrians to tell what drivers are doing - they're either slowing in preparation to honor the red light, or they aren't.