Bike Lane Question

[rayne008]

Bike Lane Question.. Who has the right-of-way?

I've asked this before, but I'm asking again as I've seen this happen a few times..

I'm at this intersection often, driving NB 11st turning right on the very busy EB 9th Ave.
In rush hour, the lights are very long, and there are usually a dozen or so people waiting to cross 9th avenue from both sides.

11st light turns green and buddy ahead (SUV) wants to turn right, but can't due to walkers.
Road clears, he proceeds to do his turn and almost smokes a biker who was in his lane, but went straight through the intersection.

Biker gets angry and hits the SUV's mirror, yells and continues on his way.

Without knowing the actual law, these are my observations...

- SUV is concentrating on clearing the intersection after the pedestrians, before light turns red.

- Turning SUV had no reasonable way to see the biker approaching from behind, on his right hand side at relatively high speed...

Should there be a sign "Cyclist must yield to Right Turning Vehicles" sign, or "Watch for Cyclist in Bike Lane" sign for drivers?

[worth]

I'm interested to know the answer to this as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think if the bike is going through, he's suppossed to get into the car lane to the left and proceed through, not barrell through on the bike lane.

At least that's how I read the rule.

The biker was wrong.

[rd_aaron]

A bike lane is a special use lane marked on the highway like any other lane, the difference being that motor vehicles must generally stay out of it. The exception occurs at intersections where it is necessary to turn right and the line between the lanes has changed from solid to broken. In this case, the driver must do a proper lane change over the segment with the broken line prior to turning and must not affect the travel of cyclists using the bike lane.

Otherwise, if there is no broken line, the driver must remain in the right most vehicle lane prior to turning and yield to any bike traffic before turning right and crossing over the bike lane.

Bicycles using the bike lane may pass with caution on the right of traffic in the lane to their left. This is because they are in a multiple lane situation where there is an unobstructed lane on the right of overtaken traffic that the cyclist is permitted to use. The requirement to pass with caution does place an onus on the cyclist to expect something other than unconditional right of way when passing.

This is from BC but I think it should be the same. Sounds right to me anyways.

http://www.drivesmartbc.ca/cycling/p...ing-bike-lanes

[calumniate]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's why they become dotted lines at the intersections, so that cars can shoulder in and make their rights.

[CaptainCrunch]

So the biker was wrong.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

I thought the bike could just barrel through but that never made any sense to me and quite dangerous. If they have to juke over to the left, my world has changed.

I'm just going by what I read on a city site. It would be stupid for a biker to just barrel by on the right in a obvious blind spot where right hand turns take place.

[rd_aaron]

So now I also see this:

4. How do I make a right turn through a bike lane?

Turning right at marked intersections: Signal your intention. At intersections, there is a break in the bike lane. Drive
to the break, check over your right shoulder. If there is a cyclist in the bike lane, give the cyclist the right-of-way. If

the way is clear, make your turn. Do not enter the Bike Lane to make a right turn.

[bossy22]

Edit. Just saw rd_aaron's post.

In Portland they actually have moved the right lanes back so the vehicles can see the bikers. They did this because a couple of bikers have died because of trucks running them over inadvertently.

http://raisethehammer.org/static/ima...d_bike_box.jpg

sorry, don't know how to insert the image

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by bossy22

Edit. Just saw rd_aaron's post.

In Portland they actually have moved the right lanes back so the vehicles can see the bikers. They did this because a couple of bikers have died because of trucks running them over inadvertently.

http://raisethehammer.org/static/ima...d_bike_box.jpg

sorry, don't know how to insert the image

In my original situation, the biker was flying along the bike lane, not stopped waiting for a green. Not sure if that box would change my situation....

[bossy22]

Originally Posted by rayne008

In my original situation, the biker was flying along the bike lane, not stopped waiting for a green. Not sure if that box would change my situation....

To me, it's up the biker to pay attention to what the car is doing. The car quite often can't see you. A bike can go fast but can't stop very fast. I've been riding city streets for a long time. I always watch signal lights and try to predict what a driver is trying to do. Making that green light isn't worth it. Now when a driver doesn't signal, then it's another story. I've had that happen. I ended up putting a huge dent in the door and ripping the mirror off the truck as I rebounded off of it.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by rayne008

In my original situation, the biker was flying along the bike lane, not stopped waiting for a green. Not sure if that box would change my situation....

Perhaps the city should install three sets of traffic lights: one for cars in the left lane, one for cars in the right lane, and another for bicycles, with the latter two lights being synced with the pedestrian signals.

That way, the pedestrians get their defined time to walk across the road, the bike gets a defined time to go straight or turn, the car in the right lane gets a defined time to go straight or turn right*, and the car in the left lane gets a defined time to go straight.

Lots of lights to be sure, but then everyone would be able to know exactly who has the right to travel when.

* With the idea being that the bicycle light signal would turn red prior to the light signal governing traffic in the right lane so as to allow cars turning right to do so without unintentionally smoking a biker.

[Yellefan]

I bike to work every day (don't judge me!) and I always go around on the left in this situation. I don't know what's correct, but I'm not risking getting run over by a truck to find out. When I am a driver I also assume that I have the right of way if I am turning right and expect that bikes will look after themselves and make the proper decision rather than just barreling past on the right.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Yellefan

I bike to work every day (don't judge me!)

That old expression:

When I am driving a car, I hate pedestrians
When I am a pedestrian, I hate drivers.

But not matter what, I hate bikers.

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by fotze

Oh I know, I think it was probably something I read here. Hopefully I am wrong, but I always triple mega shoulder check at these places, just in case.

What is the rule where there is no distinct bike lane?

No bike lane means the car has full right of way and the bike should be following behind the car in that lane.

If the cyclist tries to zip past on the right while the car is turning and gets hit, the driver will be rewarded with points ala Carmageddon.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rd_aaron

So now I also see this:

From a safety point of view I think this is 100% wrong.

The car should enter the bike lane to make the right turn and block the cyclist from going straight. We would never allow a car to turn from the middle lane across the right hand lane of a car going straight. That is idiocy and that is what you have if you follow the cities current rules.

The correct way has to send the bike around the left hand side of the car and the car should yeild to the bike when it is entering the bike lane in the dashed section. This clearly identifes the point where the bicycles and cars interact and if car lane changing doesn't see the cyclist the cyclist has several bailout options. If the car doesn't see the cyclist while making the right turn the cyclist hits the car and has very limited outs.

[Northendzone]

i beleive that the biker has the ultimate right of way because he is going strainght and that trumps the SUV who is making a right turn - same principal as pedestrians.

the reality of the situation is that the biker will lose if he and the SUV try to occupy the smae space at the same time, so the biker should bike prudently and not try to fly thru the intersection. It wuld even be smart for the cyclist to move into the lane for traffic, proceed to ride thru the intersection and then start to move back into his lane.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by GGG

From a safety point of view I think this is 100% wrong.

The car should enter the bike lane to make the right turn and block the cyclist from going straight. We would never allow a car to turn from the middle lane across the right hand lane of a car going straight. That is idiocy and that is what you have if you follow the cities current rules.

The correct way has to send the bike around the left hand side of the car and the car should yeild to the bike when it is entering the bike lane in the dashed section. This clearly identifes the point where the bicycles and cars interact and if car lane changing doesn't see the cyclist the cyclist has several bailout options. If the car doesn't see the cyclist while making the right turn the cyclist hits the car and has very limited outs.

I think from a pure logic and safety standpoint, this is the correct answer.

Basically treat the bike lane as a 3rd vehicle lane at the intersection when the dotted line begins. As with any lane change, the car needs to yield to vehicles in the lane that he's trying to get to. Once he's made the lane change, then the vehicles (bikes) in that lane, must react to it.

[worth]

I agree that a car passing into the dashed line would make the most sense, but even if that is the correct way of doing it, there is no way I would because you know a guy on a bike is going to come up behind you and punch your rear quarter panel because you're in his bike lane.

There definitely needs to be more education on the topic, especially since this is all very new to many of us. Europeans are used to bikes and grow up around them and have no problems with them in many cities, but in North America, this is a relatively new idea and education is needed all around.

[Bill Bumface]

It's terrible lane design.

The bike lane should cut in (with dotted lines) so that it is between the through vehicle traffic and the turning vehicle traffic. Turning vehicles should signal and cross the dotted portion of the bike lane when clear of bikes, and then enter the turning lane, free to focus on vehicle traffic, not bikes:

Spoiler!

In Europe where vehicles have right of way over pedestrians, and green lights mean you may proceed without yielding to anything, most of these situations get much simpler. Having to yield to pedestrians when you have a green light is adding another decision process for the driver, and introducing a greater chance of error.