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.
I think that is part of the issue. Many (not all) cyclists seem to flip back and forth between being a "vehicle" or a "pedestrian" - - whichever role is the most advantageous to them at the time. Which makes it very challenging for other drivers to anticipate their movement.
IMHO if you want to be treated like a pedestrian; dismount and walk your bike across the intersection.
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.
This is exactly what I meant. The beauty of this desgin is it takes no education for both drivers and cyclists. It is clear who yields to who and where everyone should be.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
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.
They need to do this on westbound 10th avenue sw at 14 st where the "bike lane" just sort of ends so that all the cars can turn right onto northbound 14th street. There is plenty of room for something like this at that intersection.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yellefan For This Useful Post:
What we should be asking is, 'How do the Dutch handle this?'.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Addick For This Useful Post:
I don't think it is an issue at all as they are riding in an on-street bike lane. The question is, 'Which vehicle has the right-of-way?'.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
Car has right of way. answered by Constable Smith.
@Fotzemann9m@CstSmith Who has the right of way here? Bike going straight in bike lane vs car turning right?
@CstSmith3m@Fotzemann if the bicycle is behind the car, they should wait for the car to turn right.
Thanks - in this case biker was half a block away, SUV was waiting for walkers to clear, began to nose into crosswalk, biker came flying through intersection.. I've seen it happen a few times here, i know someone will get smoked soon. That and the biker bashing in a $300 mirror makes me thing something should be done.
What is this from? This is incorrect. Even if there is no pedestrians/waiting for a light, you should still signal your intention to enter the right(bike) lane, safely do so as if it were any other lane, then turn right when safe to do so.
Who in there right mind would cross a full lane to turn right allowing vehicles to crash into them?
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!
This is what we have a lots of places in Vancouver and it works quite well.
When there's not enough room to build this cross over lane, the other method is having a separate light for the bikes and not allowing right turns on red for the cars.
The car turn lane will have a flashing right turn signal that coincides with the bike lane have a red light (and pedestrians stopped too).
When the bikers have a green light, right turners have a red and can't turn.
What is this from? This is incorrect. Even if there is no pedestrians/waiting for a light, you should still signal your intention to enter the right(bike) lane, safely do so as if it were any other lane, then turn right when safe to do so.
Who in there right mind would cross a full lane to turn right allowing vehicles to crash into them?
This is from the city of Thunder Bay's website. Oddly enough the picture inside the PDF shows the car doing exactly that, crossing in front of the bike lane to make the turn.
@CstSmith
