Bike lane rules?

[Firefight911]

Try going back to the previous intersection and see if anything is marked there, just as you indicated is on the west side of the intersection in question.

 

I would try to speak with a local LEO about your scenario. In particular, someone familiar with the intersection in question and ask his take on it.

 

 

[SageRider]

Kevin,

The painted line markings are optional according to the federal guidlines which were referenced in the prior posts.

Also optional is the dashed line (not present in this case)indicating motorists can merge into lane before the intersection.

From the photos provided, it is not clear that it is NOT a bike lane. Considering that there is a very obvious bike lane in the opposite direction (due to the merge across the right turn lane), and based on the overall design of the intersection, I believe it to be a bike lane.

In any case we're quibbling.

Bottom line in the OP situation:

Driver was aware of passing a bicycle then driver was slowed by traffic. Driver proceeded to start a right turn without verifying that bicycle, of which driver was aware, was clear.

Bicyclist used incredibly poor judgement passing a vehicle entering the intersection which could potentially be turning right.

[TandemGeek]

But my question was whether I would have been the one cited if there was a collision.

 

It would have come down to the responding officer's experience, understanding of the law and any biases -- hidden or otherwise. If he or she got it wrong at the scene to your detriment that would need to be sorted out after the fact.

 

I've had encountered LEOs (bearing in mind that I was in federal law enforcement for a brief period of my life / career) who appeared clueless as to what the laws of California and Georgia were as they applied to bicycles, but in others I have seen LEOs take up for the cyclists in a big way who knew exactly what the law required. The latter were far and few between where I've lived, but they do exist. In fact, the states of Georgia and Florida have both had cycling advocacy groups create cycling handbooks for LEOs in an attempt to better educate them so that they can accurately enforce the laws and/or issue citations as they pertain to the operation of bicycles on public roads.

[Caddis]

Well, the specifics of my situation may not be of much interest to anyone besides me at this point. But armed with a bit more information on what markings and signs to look for, I drove both ways through that intersection again today (because being a BMW rider, not a Harley rider, I'm an*l about this sort of ... oh wait, that's a different thread... )

 

Heading west on Baseline (like I was that day), there are no bike lane signs or markings until I get through the intersection. Then there is a bike lane designation (arrow and bicycle symbol) AND a diamond symbol on the road, followed soon after by a sign that has a diamond symbol (which I believe means "restricted lane"), the words "right lane", a bicycle symbol, and the word "ONLY".

 

Heading east through the intersection, the same road markings appear before the intersection, and a sign that has the diamond symbol, the bicycle symbol, and the word "ENDS". I don't know if that means that the bike lane (which also happens to be restricted) ends there, or if just the restriction ends. However, there are no more bicycle lane road markings east of the intersection.

 

And when I drove back to the office, I was driving on a smaller road that a solid white "fog line" on the right, and it was at the very edge of the asphault with nothing but dirt, rocks, and debris to the right of it the whole way. So I take that as a good indication that the mere presence of a "fog line" does not mean that there is an official bike lane there because no road bicycle could be expected to ride through that stuff.

 

It seems like the only way that I will know for sure what the law says about my situation is to try to get an answer out of the local law enforcement folks.

 

Short of that, I guess I will stop beating this dead horse...

 

[SageRider]

Short of that, I guess I will stop beating this dead horse...

Let us know the LEO opinion.....

[Caddis]

OK, one last clarification for Michael...

 

You indicated that I was aware of the bicyclist because I passed it before slowing down for the intersection. But that wasn't the case. I never passed the bicyclist, or even saw him until he went by me. The traffic wasn't going very fast, and that stretch of road is only about 1/4 mile long (it "starts" at a tee intersection which is where I entered the road). The bicyclist caught up to us from behind, which is partly why I was so surprised to see him go by.

[motorman587]

Caddis,

Check with your local traffic engineer. They help with our investigation, enforcement questions when we have one. Good place to get information.

[SageRider]

You indicated that I was aware of the bicyclist because I passed it before slowing down for the intersection. But that wasn't the case.

Absolutely correct per your original post. Sorry....

Twice in one week! I'm going to have to go find someone cute to spank me!

[Twisties]

http://gisweb.ci.boulder.co.us/website/pds/Transportation_gisweb/viewer.htm

 

 

It's a little slow. Click the bike-ped tab at the upper right. Click to put a check mark in the "existing" box. Then click update.

 

 

 

 

[Caddis]

Wow, excellent find, thanks!

 

That confirms that it is a "paved shoulder" from Cherryvale Rd (where I turned west onto Baseline) and only turns into an "onstreet bike lane" at 55th street.

 

[SageRider]

OK.

So the next question is how is one to tell the difference.

You had to go back and redrive the route because you weren't sure.

Most motorists, at least in California / Nevada expect a bicycle to remain to the right of a line similar to that shown.

If it's not a bike lane, then the bicyclist should have been on the traffic side of the line. How would that have gone down with traffic in the area? Would they get pissed off because the bicyclist was intruding into "their" space?

[Nice n Easy Rider]

You indicated that I was aware of the bicyclist because I passed it before slowing down for the intersection. But that wasn't the case.

Absolutely correct per your original post. Sorry....

Twice in one week! I'm going to have to go find someone cute to spank me!

Well Michael, there was that nude motorcyclist that was just in the news....

[Fubar]

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.... Just as I was about to turn right, a bicyclist flew by me on the right.

 

I did not see him coming at all.

 

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?

 

Well, check your states traffic laws. If they are anything like Florida's (and I suspect they are) motor vehicles are required to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and bicycles (and planes and boats and trains and each other) under ALMOST all circumstances.

 

Knowing the when to do what and where is the obligation of those who use the road, whether in autos, motorcycles or bicycles.

 

Here, when I ride my bike(HPV) instead of my bike(BMW), I have to obey all the rules that motor vehicles must follow PLUS others specific to human-powered transport.

 

In short, the fault, I believe, would have been yours. (But I'm not a cop or a judge or a lawyer.)

 

Of course, the best thing is no one got hurt and many are now more aware. We learn from our mistakes and, hopefully, those of others.

[Caddis]

OK, here is the official answer to my situation, in case anyone is still interested...

 

 

I went to the Boulder Police department and talked to a police officer. After discussing the situation, he said that he would have cited the bicyclist. We had a discussion about the reasons why, which included the need for the bicyclist to follow the rules of the road, and the fact that the bicyclist came up from behind at a significantly faster rate of speed than the vehicles were going, which didn't allow me a reasonable chance to know that he was there.

 

When I asked if there was a specific traffic law that applied to this situation, he got out the municipal code book and found

this. In particular, sections 7-4-34 (a) (5) (A) and (B) seem to be very specific.

 

I also asked if the situation would be any different if there was a bike lane on the right instead of just a paved shoulder, and he said that did not matter. Since the bicyclist was in the roadway, whether in a bike lane of a paved shoulder, the same laws applied.

 

Obviously, I am still going to be a whole lot more aware of the possibility of this sort of situation and do what I can to be safe. But I couldn't leave it alone until I found out what the law really says about it.

 

Thanks for listening...

[TandemGeek]

In particular, sections 7-4-34 (a) (5) (A) and (B) seem to be very specific.

 

... unless you didn't signal for the right turn (which I doubt was the case). However, I'd bet a box of donuts the cyclist didn't know what the rules were either nor did they even take notice of your turn signal. Again, I'm a long-time cyclist so just speaking from experience: very few cyclists really know the more fine details of the rules of the road.

 

Anyway, good to know that common sense and the law seem to be in sync there and that your instincts were spot on.

[Fubar]

After discussing the situation, he said that he would have cited the bicyclist. We had a discussion about the reasons and the fact that the bicyclist came up from behind at a significantly faster rate of speed than the vehicles were going, which didn't allow me a reasonable chance to know that he was there.

 

Good point. I was wrong. Since he was overtaking on the right - not a good plan, especially for a bicycle - the fault is obviously his. Can't believe I missed that point the first read. Sorry.

[Fergie]

Kathy,

Specifically what law did the bicyclist break?

Here in Vermont they have to obey the auto laws, the bike should not have passed on the right.

 

That said the bicycles here are continuing to take road over thinking they have the righ of way. Real bad thing on small twisty roads.