Do you have the right of way in this situation? The bike lane isn't painted through the intersection, and I'm not sure it's reasonable for drivers turning right to not only look for walkers going both ways, but also cyclist who are way farther behind.
From the Toronto Star's automotive columnist:
Quote:
First, contrary to popular belief, passing on the right is not illegal per se, at least depending on how one interprets The Ontario Highway Traffic Act, Section 150 which specifically mentions only ‘motor vehicles’, and not bicycles. There are also a bunch of provisos therein which would need a greater legal mind than mine to ferret out any information to the contrary.
But it should be clear than cars turning right on a green light are obligated to ensure that the way is clear, of pedestrians and cyclists.
The issue is: IF the car driver doesn’t understand the law, or doesn’t see the biker (I have been at that very intersection at dusk, and some cyclists are near-invisible under those circumstances because their lighting is non-existent or insufficient), then we know who is going to suffer most.
So, yes, the cyclist does have the right of way, but (s)he should proceed with extreme caution, eyeball the motorist if possible, watch the right front wheel for signs of turning in and/or acceleration, and continue only if certain the car has stopped.
I dunno, the only real moron is the guy on the bike IMO. I guess the guy crossing should be looking both ways just in case, but you really don't expect some doofus to be riding his bike on the wrong side of the road.
eh. I expect people to follow the rules, and the common disregard a large number of cyclists have towards road rules and their unpredictability are what makes me hate em. Some jackass deciding to jaywalk is the same thing, and it would be hypocritical to think otherwise.
Quote:
First, contrary to popular belief, passing on the right is not illegal per se, at least depending on how one interprets The Ontario Highway Traffic Act, Section 150 which specifically mentions only ‘motor vehicles’, and not bicycles. There are also a bunch of provisos therein which would need a greater legal mind than mine to ferret out any information to the contrary.
But it should be clear than cars turning right on a green light are obligated to ensure that the way is clear, of pedestrians and cyclists.
The issue is: IF the car driver doesn’t understand the law, or doesn’t see the biker (I have been at that very intersection at dusk, and some cyclists are near-invisible under those circumstances because their lighting is non-existent or insufficient), then we know who is going to suffer most.
So, yes, the cyclist does have the right of way, but (s)he should proceed with extreme caution, eyeball the motorist if possible, watch the right front wheel for signs of turning in and/or acceleration, and continue only if certain the car has stopped.
There’s no point in being “dead right”.
Obviously there is a lot of confusion on the bike law, as this was answered but a CPS member in a previous thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
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.
That sounds like it's more if the cyclist is lane splitting and moves to the front of the line. Your question has to do with a cyclist biking in a designated bike lane.
-Edit- should clarify that the CPS guy interpreted the question as a lane splitting question, while fotze mentioned a bike lane.
A car is to safely change lanes into the bike lane before making their right turn. You'll notice most bike lanes do switch from a solid white to dashed close to intersections.
Obviously if a car is in front of a bike, the bike should wait behind or pass on the left, the same thing any other car/vehicle would do.
Does riding a bike like a jerk get you downtown faster? We tested the theory to find out
So it seems that being a jerk pays off if all you care about is getting to work quickly. If you look at the bigger picture, however, you might want to reconsider. Not only did The Jerk have the most dangerous ride to work, dodging buses and harassing pedestrians, he was also the only one who professed a need for a shower. Tack on 10 minutes, at a minimum, for a shower, and the time until he sits at his desk is pretty much the same as everybody else.
I guess they had to think of a way to make it seem that riding like a jerk is not beneficial so as to make it seem like they are not promoting it. I don't care if you drive, walk, or bike to work please have a morning shower. No one wants to sit next to the smelly coworker.
Not done in Calgary, but here is a video from the show Top Gear filmed in London where a bicyclist following all the rules of the road beats out a car, public transit, and a boat to a destination.
Obviously there is a lot of confusion on the bike law, as this was answered but a CPS member in a previous thread.
No, I think they are saying the same thing.
1) If the bike and car are both waiting at a red light and it turns green, because they are at an equal place, the bike has the right of way. Same as pedestrians crossing.
2) If the bike is riding parallel to the car and they both have the green, because they are at an equal place, the bike has the right of way. Same as pedestrians crossing. (if you are turning right and a pedestrian is ABOUT to enter the crosswalk, you still have to give them right of way)
3) If the car is clearly signalling to go right, has partially turned into the bike lane and the bike is far enough behind to see the back signal blinking, then the car has the right of way. (if a pedestrian sees that a car is about to turn right, they shouldn't run into the intersection)
-=-=-=-=-
Cycling safety advocates say that in the case of #1, if the cyclist wants to avoid the "right hook" as it is called and they were the first to the intersection, they should GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE AND MOVE INTO THE VEHICLE LANE. When the light turns green, proceed through the intersection and move back to the bike lane. Yes, it will piss off drivers going straight since it will slow down their getting through the intersection, but it is a legal manoeuvre for the cyclist and prevents accidents. FYI - the "right hook" is the single greatest cause of cyclist fatalities.
In doing some research on the "right hook" and how to protect myself (since I've been in a number of close scrapes) I found that lawyers make a good deal of money, particularly in the U.S., fighting "right hook" litigation in court. There is such a fuzzy grey area between 2 and 3 that it makes it difficult to determine fault. Often the cyclist will say that he was parallel with the car and the car will say that he was at the intersection, signalling right LONG before the bike got there.
Now, yesterday *I* was pissed off. I was in the bike lane, approaching a red light. The car turning right was signalling, so had the light been green, he clearly would have had the right of way. But the light was red, so if I could make it to the intersection, it becomes scenario 1 and I have the right of way and he would have to wait for me and the other 5 bikes behind me to go through the intersection before he could move. So to avoid that, he pulled his car right a bit, into the bike lane, preventing me from getting to the intersection. AND HE HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO. Cars turning right at a stop light can pull over into the bike lane and block the cyclists if the motorist is the first to the intersection. And at least I'm not going to be run over by this guy. But now he set a precedent for cutting off the bicycles in the bike lane, so the next 6 cars behind him also turning right figure that they all can go as well. By the time all 6 cars pull through, the light is turning yellow and I have to wait for the next light change.
The Following User Says Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
Six years after a Vancouver cyclist was hit while ill-advisedly swerving into highway traffic, a B.C. judge has dismissed the man’s attempt to blame the crash on the driver who hit him, arguing that he was “the author of his own misfortune.”
The 20-year-old driver, rather than being a careless speeder — as the cyclist claimed — had merely done her best to cope with a man darting into her lane with “virtually no warning,” according to a decision by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
“She was entitled to assume that … cyclists would obey the rules of the road.”
In a March trial, Mr. Miles, 42, took Ms. Kumar to court seeking damages. The exact dollar amount was not specified in court documents. In addition to missing weeks of work as a result of the collision, Mr. Miles was also seeking damages for “pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and for various past and future pecuniary losses.”
Instead of a lane change with "virtually no warning", this artcile states "Miles shoulder checked, spotted a car approaching in the left lane, then used a hand signal before making his move."
Still looks like this was an unsafe lane change. Assumptions could go either way on who was in the right or wrong and we are going of so little information. Perhaps the cyclist thought the car saw him and would accommodate him into the lane to make a left turn. He was wrong. Or maybe the car was screwing around with their radio but there was no evidence to prove this.
The judge ruled the cyclist was at fault.
I don't really see how this belongs in this thread though, cars cut off other cars all the time.
I am thinking about getting turn signal lights for the bike. Cars ignore hand signals. In the above case, a hand signal was deemed "virtually no warning". Of course, the time between the signal and the move into the other lane is the crux of any dispute. Just like a car, I can't signal and then immediately have the right to your lane. This morning I just pulled over to the side, came to a full stop and waited for ALL cars to pass before hopping into the far left lane. I am not comfortable pulling out in front of a car, signal or not.
The cyclists name in the Vancouver incident mentioned was a bus driver named "Sky Miles". Im sorry, with a name like that its no wonder he was a dou$%eb@g cyclist.
After biking to work this summer for 18km each way (90%) on path I can attest to the odd decisions some cyclists make. Going from bike lane to sidewalk to road. If cyclists are to be allowed to travel on roads, I dont understand why cops dont ticket them. The worst part this morning a guy did this action right in front of a cop and the cop didnt do anything. Almost like either it wasnt his problem or not worth his time.
Peds to walk 5 across on the paths really piss me off but dou$%eb@g peds are a topic for a different topic.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
@CstSmith
