Bike lane rules?

[Caddis]

I nearly had a collision with a bicyclist today, and I'm still trying to figure out who did the wrong thing.

 

I was nearing an intersection where I was going to turn right. The line of traffic in front of me was slowing down because other vehicles farther up in line were turning right also. But the two cars directly in front of me went straight through. There is a bicycle lane (at least I think it is officially a bike lane - I will have to check the next time I go that way) on the right edge of the road. Just as I was about to turn right, a bicyclist flew by me on the right.

 

I did not see him coming at all, since I was busy checking the traffic from the other directions in front of me. If the timing was a little different, I would have turned right in front of him.

 

So would I have been at fault here if there was a collision? Do I have to check behind me to see if a bicycle is coming through the intersection faster than the rest of us?

 

What about if that bike lane isn't really a bike lane - it is just a wide shoulder on the road? Would I still be at fault?

 

 

[Kathy R]

What a butt pucker!

 

Don't bicyclists have to obey traffic laws too? If so, he was at fault, if you had your signal on to turn right. But, it's no comfort to know that you didn't know what was happening behind you. Glad it all came out OK.

[SageRider]

Kathy,

Specifically what law did the bicyclist break?

 

[Kathy R]

Michael,

I'm not sure...something to do with inattentive operation.

Passing a right turning vehicle on the right isn't probably acceptable to an officer, I would imagine.

[SageRider]

IMO, the bicyclist was suicidal.

 

However:

How is this any different (other than speed) than a pedestrian (jogger) stepping out to cross in front of a right turning vehicle?

 

The driver turning right needs to be aware of what is coming up behind before making the turn.

On the other hand, the bicyclist needs to be riding very defensively in this situation. There are enough motorists out there that will speed up to pass the bicyclist so they can turn immediately in front of the bicyclist without the bicyclist placing him(her)self voluntarily in the same type situation.

 

If an accident, plenty of blame for both the bicyclist and the survivor.......

[Dave39]

I think it's whoever is at the intercection first. Bicycles here in California must obey traffic laws, but, by the same token, they have the most of the rights of motorized vehicles (but not all)....and it's not always a matter of whose where. I've ridden my bicycle alongside cars at an intercections who suddenly turn to the right with no warning. I could see no turn signal even if used...and there's fewer and fewer motorists using turn signals these days. In such a situation I think a motorist who turns into a bike is at fault, but that's little consolation if you're on your way to ER. Bicyclists, like motorcyclists, just have to be very alert and ride very defensively if they have any sense at all.

[PBee]

If there is a marked "Bike Lane" I would think it is your/my responsibility to be sure there is no "oncoming traffic", read as bicycles, before turning through that lane.

[Firefight911]

In California, a motorist is expected to pull into the bike lane and then initiate the turn. This essentially would require the motorist to "take possession" of the lane.

 

My guess is that, had this happened in CA, you would have been at fault for an improper turn, failure to ensure a clear path, etc.

[Twisties]

Kathy,

Specifically what law did the bicyclist break?

 

In UT the bicyclist would have needed to enter the lanes going straight and pass on the left. The bicyclist would have clearly been at fault.

 

However:

How is this any different (other than speed) than a pedestrian (jogger) stepping out to cross in front of a right turning vehicle?

 

Yes, completely. Bicycles are required to follow the traffic laws and the bicyclist went straight in a right turn lane. Moreover he passed on the right within the same lane, or on the shoulder to the right of the lane. The bicyclist likely broke several traffic laws.

 

Pedestrians are not subject to traffic laws.

 

The driver turning right needs to be aware of what is coming up behind before making the turn.

 

Absurd, untrue, and impossible.

[Firefight911]

You're saying that in UT, a bicycle lane leads up to an intersection, suddenly ends, and the bicyclist is expected to magically shift to the left of traffic in order to proceed through an intersection?

 

What's the point of the bicycle lane?

 

Pedestrians are not subject to traffic laws? They're gonna get a quick lesson in physics then! They are expected to follow the laws that dictate when to cross and when not to if controlled with cross walk signs, etc.

 

"Absurd, untrue, and impossible"

 

Seriously????? Then you need to remove your REAR view mirrors and get a neck fusion to prevent you from looking over your shoulder and ensuring a clear path of travel prior to initiating a movement, whether it be a lane change or turn.

 

It's absurd to make a statement like that and assume that others are to ensure they remain clear of you. It's your responsibility, not someone else's.

 

In CA, if a bicyclist in a bike lane and a vehicle arrive at an intersection at the same time and the vehicle wants to make a right turn (into the path of the bicyclist) the vehicle is responsible to merge in to the bicycle lane when safe to do so and within 200 feet of the intersection and execute the turn when safe.

 

If the bicycle is near the vehicle the vehicle must allow the bicycle to pass prior to merging and initiating the turn.

[Twisties]

There is a bicycle lane (at least I think it is officially a bike lane - I will have to check the next time I go that way) on the right edge of the road.

 

Around here the bike lane striping ends short of the intersection. This is the point at which the bicyclist must move into the straight going lanes.

[Caddis]

I did some searching and found this , which seems to talk about the rules in California and Oregon. I have been searching the Colorado laws online, but they don't seem to be clear on this issue. I will keep looking...

[PBee]

There is a bicycle lane (at least I think it is officially a bike lane - I will have to check the next time I go that way) on the right edge of the road.

 

Around here the bike lane striping ends short of the intersection. This is the point at which the bicyclist must move into the straight going lanes.

If this is the case then what is the point of having a bike lane? This, IMO, only adds danger to bicyclists.

[Bullett]

Utah bicycle passing on the right

 

Apparently, the bicyclist, in Utah would have some fault.

 

Utah passed a law last year (I think) that requires motor vehicles to give 3 feet of space to a bicycle, caveat, however, the violation requires must be "knowing" or "intentional" or "reckless."

 

Utah's Three Foot Rule

 

I'm too lazy to look up more stuff right now. Have fun folks.

[Bullett]

Colorado bicycle statute

[Firefight911]

Colorado bicycle statute

 

Boulder, CO takes it one step further - LINKY - item #3 addresses Boulder's right turn vehicles.

[Caddis]

Interestingly, I found this , which states:

 

 

"What about intersections? Staying to the far right puts a cyclist in the path of traffic that may be turning right.

 

The City of Boulder tells cyclists to ride in the center of the lane when passing through intersections. We like this idea. It makes you more visible to traffic and discourages cars from turning in front of you.

 

Boulder has another wise law: Boulder regulations specify that if a line of cars is stopped at an intersection, a cyclist may pass them on the right up to the rear wheel of the first vehicle in line. We strongly recommend you use this tactic or just move into the lane and take your place in the waiting line of traffic. That first car in line isn't expecting anybody to pull to its right; it isn't going to see you, and it is likely to turn right on top of you. Ask former Loveland city councilman Gene Packer Gene_Packer@hp.comabout his experience with the 18-wheeler at the intersection of Taft and Eisenhower."

 

 

Of course, I was not stopped at the intersection, but moving slowly. I'm not sure if this would apply or not.

 

[Caddis]

Guess we both found the same thing, Phil...

[Caddis]

Unless I am missing something, it is still not very clear, and the laws apparently vary between states and cities.

 

So I guess the bottom line is that I will just have to add one more thing to my right turn preparation - look behind me to the right to see if a bicycle is coming up fast...

 

[Twisties]

Typical Utah Bike lane at intersection:

 

 

I look right and check mirrors before making the lane change into the bike lane/right hand turn lane (westbound). I do not check mirrors again when making the right turn. I am looking through the turn when proceeding right. I think it's roughly the same as the CA video.

 

The bicyclist must stay on approximately the right fog line (left edge of bike lane) extended, passing right turning vehicles on the left.

 

As you can see the bike lane provides a safe travel lane for most of the block, with sufficient room to avoid car doors and be out of traffic.

 

Typical non-bike lane:

 

 

I would not make any right hand or mirror checks at this right turn (southbound to westbound). I would be focusing on the turn and what is in front of me as I come around the corner.

[Twisties]

Here are some from Boulder,

 

 

The solid line is replaced by a dotted line, allowing motor vehicles to merge into the bike lane. It would appear that as in CA and UT you should check before making the merge. Once established in the bike lane I wouldn't check any further.

 

Also scrolling around a little from this location, you can see that Boulder uses the dotted line approach at some intersections, where some side streets and parking lots enter the roadway, but not at others. In some places the bike lane ends.

 

Look at both sides of the road here:

 

 

Here the bike lane ends (eastbound):

 

[Twisties]

Pedestrians are not subject to traffic laws? They're gonna get a quick lesson in physics then! They are expected to follow the laws that dictate when to cross and when not to if controlled with cross walk signs, etc.

 

The laws regulating pedestrians are not the traffic laws. Pedestrians for instance may typically travel on sidewalks and can proceed in either direction, without regard for lanes. Sage asked what's the difference. The difference is that they are subject to an entirely different set of rules and regulations than bicycles and motor vehicles.

 

As to the other issues, I posted some pics from Google Earth, we can discuss them if you like.

 

[Tony_K]

Just a little story. Back in my day about 20 years ago... jeesh. Anyway, I was a competitive cyclist. Road hundreds of miles a week.

In order to cover that much distance in Los Angeles one must use the common roadway. One day about 5 miles away from my home on a major surface street I was waiting for the light to change between the curb and the right lane. Light changed and all proceed forward but the car in the right lane stared turning right. Right into me. I was sucked under the car inbetween the front and rear wheel. I'm very thankful it was relatively slow and the vehicle stopped and I was not run over.

 

I crawled out and pulled my rather expensive road bike out. A bit shocked but mostly ok. Then the driver fled! This was pre cell phone but I always carried a pen and screamed at the guy as he took off. I got most of his plate and another person got the rest. I needed to find a pay phone and called the Glendale police. They were able to use the plate to go to his house where he was hiding! Literally hiding.

 

Anyway, I was ok. It was a misdemeanor so he got a citation and I got my stuff fixed from his insurance. But it could have been much worse.

 

Cyclists must obey all rules of the road but just like cars they don't always do it. Hitting a cyclist with a auto usually ends up with the car winning. Watch for cyclist. Just like motorcyclists we are not all outlaws.

[upflying]

In Ca, drivers are allowed to drive in the bike lane for 200' prior to making a turn.

[Dave39]

In regard to the apparent requirement in some places that a bicycle must merge to the left into the traffic lane to go straight through an intersection (and possibly cutting across right-turning cars). It sounds like insanity. I can just imagine now the angry motorists and blaring horns as a 15mph bike merges into 25-40 mph traffic to get through an intersection. In heavy urban traffic around here it would be dangerous if not impossible to ride a bike like that. Sounds like a prescription for run-over cyclists.

[SageRider]

Sage asked what's the difference. The difference is that they are subject to an entirely different set of rules and regulations than bicycles and motor vehicles.

The context was in the need to be aware of one's surroundings (mirror check, etc...) whether pedestrians or not. Pedestrians virtually always have the right of way at intersections / crossing with lights.

Could be dead right in the assertation of said rights.

 

If a motorist doesn't want the bicyclist coming up on right side, then motorist needs to merge into the bike lane at the appropriate spot. Motorist that do this also provide a path for the bicyclist to be able to merge into the main traffic lane to pass on the left of the right turning vehicle.

[tallman]

In Florida, bicyclists have the rights and obligations of a motor vehicle, unless they are at a crosswalk where the have the rights of a pedestrian.

But, they can ride through a crosswalk and still be protected as a pedestrian.

I have had more than one bicycle come flying through in front of me, going the wrong way (against traffic), when I was at an intersection and making a right.

Here the duty falls to the driver of the car.

[motorman587]

You guys need to look up the Manual of Uniform on Traffic Control Device. Link below. This is the book that all street markings, signs and other items concerning roadway markings.

 

Worked a crash and found out in the manual that at busy right turn intersection the bicycle lane will end with a dotted line. Once the bicycle is in the dotted line or no line, he or she is not in a "protected" bicycle lane and becomes a vehicle. Mean they can not pass while they are in the dotted area. The bicycle is the white solid line with the bicycle lane signs. Hope this helps.

 

 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/part9c.htm

 

So to anwser the question of this post, the motorcycle had the right of way and the bicycle had to yield.

[Kitsap]

During a training ride while in high school I had an automobile pass me just before an upcoming road to the right. The speed I was traveling and the proximity of the vehicle did not allow me to prevent me from crashing into the passenger door of the auto resulting in total damage of my bike and many bruises to myself. The driver was not happy to learn he was at fault by the local police. The passing years have dulled my recollection of the reason for this judgment but I was happy for the new bike that resulted.

[tallman]

Section 316.2065(10) and (11), F.S.)

 

A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

 

Comment: Sidewalks are not designed for bicycle speeds, but a bicycle propelled by human power may be used except where prohibited by local ordinance (e.g. in the central business districts of many cities). No bicycle may be propelled by other than human power on a sidewalk. Although a cyclist riding on a sidewalk has the rights and duties of a pedestrian, he is still a "bicycle rider" and his bicycle is still a "bicycle". Consequently, laws that pertain to required equipment and to carriage of passengers (see above) are still applicable.

 

Since a cyclist riding on a sidewalk does not have the duties (or rights) of a driver, he may ride in either direction. (However, it is safer to ride in the direction of traffic, since drivers do not expect cyclists to come from the other direction at driveways and crosswalks. Crash risk is 3 to 4 times as great for sidewalk riders who ride facing roadway traffic as for sidewalk riders who ride in the direction of traffic.)

 

At a signalized intersection, a sidewalk rider must obey the instructions of any applicable pedestrian control signal. That is, he may start to cross a roadway in a crosswalk only during a steady Walk phase, if one is displayed. If no pedestrian signal is provided, the cyclist may proceed in accordance with the signal indications for the parallel roadway traffic flow (Section 316.075, F.S.).

 

John,

Notice that unlike the Colorado wording that states a bicyclist must dismount and walk, the Florida wording does not say so and a cyclist can be riding the wrong way against traffic, or on a sidewalk, and enter an intersection while riding the bike and if you hit them (slowly making a move forward to make a right turn on red, you are held at fault (or at least that is what happened in the two cases I know of).

I wish the Florida statute required the cyclist to dismount and walk to get the saame protection offered to a pedestrian, but it doesn't.

Go figure.

I've almost hit the same person twice.

Stopped for red light, pull up into crosswalk after checking both ways for pedestrians, edge forward and look left to see if it is clear to make right on red and boom, here goes this lady on her bicycle pedaling full speed through the crosswalk, going the wrong way.

I know people who were cited as being at fault in this situation because they "hit" the cyclist (de jure pedestrian) and knocked them over in the crosswalk.

If the cyclist had to dismount this never would've happened.

Or if they used some common sense.

 

Postscript

This is the argument I would make if I were to hit the bicyclist, I was lawfully in the crosswalk and they entered it illegally, but see below (Duty to exercise due care), which is what the officers cited.

Pedestrian control signals-

 

For pedestrians the directions of a pedestrian control signal supersede those of the associated traffic signal. Pedestrian control signals may also be used at mid-block locations. The meanings of the symbolic signal indications (or of the word messages still displayed on some older pedestrian signal heads) are not described in Florida Statutes. They are described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

 

steady WALKING PERSON (or "WALK") indication: pedestrian facing the signal indication is permitted to start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal indication. Pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that the WALKING PERSON signal indication is first shown.

 

Driver duty to exercise care

(Section 316.130(15), F.S.)

Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or any person propelling a human-powered vehicle and give warning when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person.

 

Bottom line, as I was told, if you are driving and they are pedaling, and it is in a crosswalk, they'll favor 2 wheels over 4.

[Paul Mihalka]

Bottom line, I don't care what the law says AFTER it hits the fan. When I'm going to make a right turn, car or motorcycle, I look over my right shoulder. Could be pedestrian or bicycle. Same when I take a off-ramp I look over my right shoulder to make sure nobody is passing me there. Too many years in South America...

 

Note: Mysteries of English language: You say motorcycle but when it is a bicycle you say like it was a bycicle...

[Dave39]

You guys need to look up the Manual of Uniform on Traffic Control Device. Link below. This is the book that all street markings, signs and other items concerning roadway markings.

 

Worked a crash and found out in the manual that at busy right turn intersection the bicycle lane will end with a dotted line. Once the bicycle is in the dotted line or no line, he or she is not in a "protected" bicycle lane and becomes a vehicle. Mean they can not pass while they are in the dotted area. The bicycle is the white solid line with the bicycle lane signs. Hope this helps.

 

 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/part9c.htm

 

So to anwser the question of this post, the motorcycle had the right of way and the bicycle had to yield.

 

Not necessarily so if I read your link correctly. Your situation pertained to a lane dedicated to right turns only. The original question apparently did not describe a right turn lane situation as he said some cars ahead of him were going straight. It is true (here anyway) that some lanes have right turn lanes and the bike lane moves over to the left of that lane, and the bike rider is then required to move into the bike lane, but right turn only lanes do not exist at that many insections.

[motorman587]

Tim,

Under this statue you must act as a vehicle............ no riding against traffic, yes I sure you see it, but it is not legal.

The 2009 Florida Statutes

 

Title XXIII

MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316

STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter

 

316.2065 Bicycle regulations.--

 

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

 

 

And yes if the bike is on the sidewalk you must treat it as ped. So at an intersection and the green walk dude is on the ped/bike has the right of way.

[motorman587]

Dave39,

You must scroll through all the intersection and you will find the correct one in your situation. The MUTCD is the bible on uniformed traffic control device.

 

Again if the bicycle is in a protected bicycle lane, in the crosswalk with green dude, you must yield. If it is not then the bike/ped must yield to the vehicle.

 

Does not give you the right to hit the person, as someone had posted earlier the statue where you must avoid a crash at all cost.

 

Remember that just because you are correct you can be held liable in a civic suit.

 

Worked a fatatlity with a drunk/drug ped who walked out in front of non speeding car after the bars closed. Did not cite the car driver could not find anything wrong under the Florida statue. 9 years later, in civic court the family won 2 mil. with the car driver insurance company. So the point is you maybe 100% right, but you can lose in other areas. Point made, watch your 12, 6, 3, and your 9.

[Paul Mihalka]

"Worked a fatatlity with a drunk/drug ped who walked out in front of non speeding car after the bars closed. Did not cite the car driver could not find anything wrong under the Florida statue. 9 years later, in civic court the family won 2 mil. with the car driver insurance company. So the point is you maybe 100% right, but you can lose in other areas. Point made, watch your 12, 6, 3, and your 9."

 

This is not a problem of the driver or the traffic laws. It is a problem of the corrupt USA legal system. Of the 2 mil. how much did the lawyers get? Of the 2 mil. how much shows up in your next insurance bill?

[Caddis]

Wow, that sure spurred a lively conversation.

 

I hate to prolong this thread, but here is an update. I went back and looked at the intersection again:

 

 

I was traveling west on Baseline, with intention to turn right into 55th street. It turns out that the right shoulder on Baseline is NOT marked as a bicycle lane, but interestingly, once you cross 55th street, there IS a bicycle lane on the right side of Baseline. Apparently, the bicycle lane starts right there on the other side of the intersection.

 

While westbound Baseline changes from one lane to two lanes right before that intersection, note that both lanes go straight through - the right lane is not a turn only lane.

 

Here is a view approaching the intersection:

 

 

So if I understand the things that I have read (which may or may not be the case), the bicyclist who flew by me on the right was not in a bicycle lane, was not using the crosswalk or any other designated path, and therefore should be observing the vehicle rules of the road. If there were a bicycle lane, I could (and perhaps should, but Colorado laws don't seem to mention that) move into it before turning. However, it isn't a bicycle lane, so I think the bicyclist was being illegal, as well as dangerous.

 

Or am I still missing something?

 

[Twisties]

I see it your way.

[SageRider]

I'm confused....

The picture seems to clearly show a bike lane.

The way it is painted would indicate the bicycle has the right of way, and the motorist would have the responsibility of making sure it was clear to turn before doing so.

 

edit:

Heading east on Baseline, there is very clearly a bike lane that merges across to allow for a dedicated right turn lane. Since there is no dedicated right turn lane heading westbound, and the west bound bike lane is not painted with a dotted line as it approaches the intersection, motorists cannot merge into the bike lane, but must turn across it. Again, the responsibility to ensure it is clear lies with the motorist.

[Firefight911]

I'm confused....

The picture seems to clearly show a bike lane.

The way it is painted would indicate the bicycle has the right of way, and the motorist would have the responsibility of making sure it was clear to turn before doing so.

 

edit:

Heading east on Baseline, there is very clearly a bike lane that merges across to allow for a dedicated right turn lane. Since there is no dedicated right turn lane heading westbound, and the west bound bike lane is not painted with a dotted line as it approaches the intersection, motorists cannot merge into the bike lane, but must turn across it. Again, the responsibility to ensure it is clear lies with the motorist.

 

+1 to this Michael. However, how dare you make such an outlandish statement that the motorist is "responsible." Utah is gonna have a revolt now!

[Caddis]

Michael, I am curious why you say that it is clearly a bike lane. Is it because there is a white line along that separates the vehicle land from the shoulder?

 

Unless I have been getting this wrong for years, this line just marks the edge of the travel lane, and is on lots of roads. For that area to be designated a bike lane, I believe it has to be marked as such, with a diamond shaped symbol and a bicycle. It does not have these markings. However, the bike lane that starts up ahead (through the intersection) does have these markings.

 

[Caddis]

Ah, I now understand your statement about the bike lane along eastbound Baseline. However, there aren't any markings on the shoulder area of Baseline to the east of 55th street to indicate that there is a bike lane. My contention was that the bike lane starts (heading west) and ends (heading east) at 55th street.

 

However, it does seem quite odd that there would be markings to deal with the turn lane heading east, if the bike lane wasn't supposed to continue through the intersection, as you suggest.

 

Perhaps the intent was to have bike lanes all long Baseline, but either they were never marked as such east of 55th, or they have worn off, or something.

 

[Firefight911]

I am curious why you say that it is clearly a bike lane. Is it because there is a white line along that separates the vehicle land from the shoulder?

 

Yes. The white lane delineates the travel lane for vehicles while giving a space for bicycles to travel. Why bother with the lane paint otherwise, unless there are heavy fog visibility issues in that area.

 

As has been indicated, a right turning vehicle who clears the lane to his right and rear, merges into said lane, and then negotiates his right turn will mitigate being passed on the right, clearly declare intentions, as well as afford an area for bicycle to adjust position to continue through intersection to left of right turning vehicle.

 

I would always treat the space between fog line and curb as a bicycle travel lane.

[TandemGeek]

This is why cyclists are so divided when it comes to bicycle lanes and whether they do more harm than good.

 

Having been a life-long cyclist riding on public roads since 1965... I'm firmly in the "against" bicycle lanes camp for many of the reasons cited (or that are at least clearly obvious) in this thread: they create confusion and invite both bad practices and unrealistic expectations (i.e., entitlement) by cyclists. There are a lot of other things that I don't like about them as well, but I won't go into that in this thread.

 

As to the much earlier comment regarding "how the heck does someone on a bike moving at 15 mph move across a traffic lane where cars are moving 40-50 mph to make a left hand turn.... it depends:

 

1. Unless there's a constant and never ending line of cars you merely look for a break in the traffic, fix on the speed and distance of the closest car, extend your left arm and point to where you're heading, then turn and do a head check to make sure you have the time and distance needed to safely move into the lane without causing an accident and then take that lane until you can move into the left turn lane or center median / turning lane.

 

2. If the road is truly bumper-to-bumper and moving at a fast pace you do what's outlined in the Oregon guidlines posted earlier in the thread. You stay in the right lane and cross the intersecting road you want to turn left on. Once you reach the far side of the intersection you find a safe place to stop and then reposition yourself so that you can then proceed along the in the new direction with the flow of traffic on the intersecting road positioned once again along the right edge of the road.

 

Somewhat akin to motorcycles, sharing the road with motor vehicles that can kill you if you don't respect them and make sure that your own actions don't put you in peril, make you hard to see or appear to be unexpected / unpredictable to the folks who could really mess up your day if you collided. To that end, your skills need to be sharp, you need to exercise good judgement (to include staying off of really hazardous roads) and you need to ride in a predicatable and deliberate manner, communicating your intentions using hand signals and bike position to eliminate any doubt to nearby motorists about what your next move will be.

 

Trust me, as a cyclist I know most motorists merely tolerate our presence on 'their' roads. All I ask of other road users is the same thing that I ask when I'm riding my motorcycle: please do your best to pay attention to the road and get to your destination without hitting anything.

[SageRider]

+1

 

So many motorist believe that if there is a bike lane, then bicycles MUST use the lane. It creates confusion and contributes to road rage.....

I also agree that bike lanes are actually undesirable. Just pave the road wide enough to leave a safe space to ride and be done with it....

[motorman587]

If you look at the MUTCD, again, the bicycle lane are not marked properly. There should be an arrow, and the picture of bicycle.

 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/part9c.htm

 

 

[SageRider]

There should be an arrow, and the picture of bicycle.

Optional.

[Nice n Easy Rider]

+1

 

So many motorist believe that if there is a bike lane, then bicycles MUST use the lane. It creates confusion and contributes to road rage.....

I also agree that bike lanes are actually undesirable. Just pave the road wide enough to leave a safe space to ride and be done with it....

I've been on several town advisory boards which have debated whether to and/or where to use dedicated bike lanes versus wide outside lanes (WOL). Usually the experienced bicyclists favored the WOL approach while the less-experienced bicyclists and the parents of youngsters favored the dedicated bike lanes. I believe that the less experienced bicyclists and parents favored the bike lanes because they either lacked the confidence to share a lane with automobiles or were afraid to have their children do so. I think this is partly due to the perception (probably often accurate) that car drivers don't accord bicyclists the roadway rights that they are legally entitled to.

Although I think WOL are probably the correct, long-term solution, I'm not sure that this provides a safe environment for young riders to get the experience they need to become older, experienced riders. How do young bicyclists learn to ride without getting killed by rude, inpatient, and ignorant-of-the-law drivers?

 

[SageRider]

How do young bicyclists learn to ride without getting killed by rude, inpatient, and ignorant-of-the-law drivers?

Bike lanes won't save them. From themselves if they do something dangerous in a high traffic environment, or from out of control drivers.

Young, inexperienced riders should not be riding in heavy traffic environments and should be under parental supervision. One gains experience by first mastering riding in a low traffic environment.

One then gradually steps up to heavier traffic / no parental supervision.

 

[Firefight911]

How do young motorcyclists learn to ride without getting killed by rude, inpatient, and ignorant-of-the-law drivers?

Bike lanes won't save them.

Young, inexperienced riders should not be riding in heavy traffic environments and should be under parental supervision. One gains experience by first mastering riding in a low traffic environment.

One then gradually steps up to heavier traffic / no parental supervision.

 

Is it any different?

 

Again, I agree with Michael. Parental and personal responsibility. No government law, mandate, or painted lane is going to keep anyone safe. Prudent, active participation and situational awareness in the event one is participating in after careful understanding and learning of the concepts, risks, etc. will mitigate the majority of situations. Continued practice and a mindset of learning and "I am responsible for myself" is the other part of it.

[Caddis]

John, you are correct about the markings being an arrow and a bicycle. That is exactly what is in the bike lane that is on the west side of the intersection. There is also a road sign that has a diamond shaped symbol and a bicycle, and it that states that bicycles only are allowed in that lane. That is why I mentioned the diamond symbol, but you are correct that on the road itself, there is an arrow and a bicycle symbol.

 

As far as I saw, none of these things exist in the shoulder area of either side of the Baseline east of the intersection. But for my own sanity, I will check again some time.

 

And I don't think that the markings are optional, and that the presence of a fog automatically makes the shoulder area an official bike lane. I agree that bicyclists (myself included) use the wide shoulder area outside of the fog line. But I still don't think this makes it an official bike lane, which affects the rules.

 

This incident certainly opened my eyes to another thing that I need to watch for. But my question was whether I would have been the one cited if there was a collision.