JoeyBike

I see everything reflective bouncing my light back to me. Rear car reflectors built into tail lights, street signs, orange cones and barrels, etc. Apparently I see more of that than the camera in this case. It seems like those rear lights on the turning SUV did not reflect at all, where the car at the very start of the vid bounce light back at me like crazy - which is why I included that car in the vid so it would be clear what I was seeing.

Modern tail lights are bright enough to not fool me, plus modern cars have a third brake light in or near the center of the rear window which DOES NOT reflect light. So if that's lit there is a foot on the brake pedal.

Any number of things contributed to this issue. I wasn't paying close enough attention, my brain interpreted the flashing blinker as something else, the car was old and the blinking light sucked, as did the brake light, no third brake light, the driver did some strange fakie maneuver (at least in my review of the vid), I assumed things about the next two intersections that did not help me, the driver turned across the bike lane instead of taking the bike lane first, the road was wet, I was a bit too relaxed in the bike lane (fighter pilot mode turned off), and the sun was right in my eyes compromising my ability to see any of the above through dark sunglasses and glare.

There is a lot to learn from the experience from an A&S standpoint. I am not new to cycling with cars yet still get surprised by a fairly mundane act now an then.

JoeyBike

It all started when bike lanes were added. Third time this year including the two in the vid. I avoided a dozen other potential incidents by assuming the worst when riding IN bike lanes.

Obviously I need to adjust my riding style around bike lanes. Maybe slow down and smell the roses a bit, although that just invites more right hooks in my opinion as motorists get impatient faster.

jerseyJim

As I understand it, the safest way to handle right hooks is as he did in the second one, turning with the hooker.

wphamilton

It's almost like the bike lanes are telling motorists that you can look out for yourself now and they no longer have to pay attention isn't it?
@jerseyJim, the safest way to handle it is merging behind the turning vehicle and then moving over again after the intersection (neither passing nor turning). For me, turning with (inside) is a last resort.

JoeyBike

Me too. In the first scenario I had done my homework, the second I was "asleep at the wheel".

spare_wheel

Wow. Just wow.

I don't what the law is in NY but in OR a bike lane is a legal vehicle lane with legal right of way. In OR is the responsibility of motorists to yield to oncoming traffic prior to turning across a bike lane. IMO, the lady should have parked her a** and waited for Joey to pass.

Joey's only mistake was riding in the bike lane. IMO, anyone traveling at close to the prevailing speed of motorised traffic should always take the full vehicle lane.

spare_wheel

She cut him off plain and simple.

mr_pedro

LOL

Okay I don't know the exact law in the US and it probably changes by state. In the Netherlands the law is like this:

A car is not allowed to cross a solid line.

If the bike lane has a dashed line then a right turning car is obliged to signal, then drive all the way to the right of the road (as soon as there are no bikes next to it), blocking passage for the bikes coming from behind and then make the turn.

If there is a solid line separating the bike lane then the car has to signal and move all the way to right up to the solid line, blocking passage for other cars coming from behind. When the turn comes the car has to give way to the bikes on the bike lane before it is allowed to turn. So a bike lane with a solid line gives bikes extra protection, but according to your interpretation of the rules there is no difference between a solid or a dashed line?

The general rule that applies is that between all traffic* on the same road, traffic going straight has right of way over traffic* that is turning. If there is a dashed line the car is allowed to block the bikes from coming from behind as long as there is enough space for the bikes to break.




*In the Netherlands traffic means: cars, bikes, pedestrians, tractors, busses, trams, everything.

cyccommute 

Yes, I'm talking about the second vehicle. The minivan driver was an idiot.

PatrickGSR94

Thankfully I learned (and did the test) on a manual transmission car, but it was also just a ride around the block. The only "gotcha" on the test was a STOP sign placed on the DMV property in an odd location (not an intersection) such that if you don't stop at the sign, you fail. But other than that it was pretty much kid stuff.

CACycling

From the California DMV Handbook section on bike lanes:

"When you are making a right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other driveway entrance, you must enter the bicycle lane only after ensuring there is no bicycle traffic, and then make the turn. Do not drive in the bicycle lane at any other time."

squegeeboo

I see what you're saying. And I'm not sure what the actual rule is for solid bike lanes. Well designed ones have the dashed lines near intersections to handle this. But having a lane of traffic that can go straight to the right of a lane of traffic that can turn right is just asking for trouble. Their aren't a lot of bike lanes in Rochester, NY, but we do have a good amount of wide shoulders, which introduce the same exact issue, except now it's even more ambiguous about what to do. I end up moving into the car lane at that point, esp. around intersections where lots of cars turn right.

jerseyJim

I recently had the opportunity to talk about this situation with a League of American Bicyclists safety instructor. I was right hooked and I tried to go around the back of the car and to the left. Well as I cut behind the car he stopped short and I slammed face first into the back of the car (hatchback). They advised me that turning with the hook is the safest alternative.

Any licensed safety instructors here can confirm or deny?

cyccommute 

Watch the video again. The car passed him and had from 2 to 3 carlengths on him before signaling a turn. There was plenty of room for the motorist to make the turn if Joey had slowed as he should have. As the overtaking vehicle, he has the responsibility to be in control of his vehicle. If you replace the bicycle with a car, should the overtaking vehicle have the right of way? Of course not, especially with a clearly indicated turn on the part of the lead motorist.

cyccommute 

I don't live in New York.

genec

Yes, she did.

But as cyclists we have to know that motorists will rarely do the right thing. In fact it is quite human to do that which gives you the best advantage, whether it is right or wrong.

FBinNY 

The second instance (SUV/camper back) is a perfect example of the potential hazards that bike lanes introduce.

They create confusion for drivers about correct lane placement when making a right, and they create confusion among cyclists about right of way at an intersection. In most states, a driver should move right into the bike lane in anticipation of his turn, and an approaching cyclist seeing the turn signal combined with the lane change should understand that a right turn is happening, and slow or stop behind the turning vehicle and continue when the way is clear.

The pavement markings in the video, show a broken line coming to intersections so the intent is there.

But there's no education, so the driver possibly didn't know he was not only allowed to enter the lane before turning, but that was the preferred action.

For those, who think the right of way through the intersection is with the cycllist should stop and imagine what the rules would be if this were 2 car lanes. Here there would be a no right sign controlling the left lane to prevent car/car right hooks or a traffic signal, showing a red for the right lane while the left was free to make the right.

BTW- painted lanes are bad enough, when the lanes a re curbed off, even greater confusion happens, since there's no practical way that a motorist can see if the way is clear of a cyclist in the blind spot (that's why they call it a blind spot). intersections with curbed off bike lanes, need to be no right turn for cars, or have signals installed with signage saying "right turn on green arrow only".

Joey is right in saying the bike lanes made things worse, since without them, the he would have been attentive to the potential of a right turn, and the SUV would have made his intent more obvious (hopefully) by moving right in preparation of the turn.

IMO (opinion only) with or without bike lanes, the key is education (for both cyclists ad motorists) about the rules of the road, and the unique hazards shared use entails. The creation of bike infrastructure doesn't magically solve all problems, it just changes them, solving some, but creating others.

genec

If the turning vehicle did that to you, while you were in a car, you would holler that you were cut off... not to mention that the turning vehicle turned NOT from the lane closest to the curb as required by law. That is exactly why BL have dashed lines... motorists are supposed to merge safely into the BL and then turn (except in Oregon).

jowilson

Make your presence known more. Use brighter, wider angle lights and maybe ride with your hands on the brake lever hoods. They may be less likely to think you're an athlete and probably treat you like a car more. What was the speed limit in those areas?

PlanoFuji

If street signs (when they are not distant) are reflecting your headlight back at you, then you don't have it oriented properly. The light from your headlight should not be angled that high up.

JoeyBike

There is still some debate as to "do I have to do anything to accommodate a vehicle turning from their lane across MY lane? Yes, it would be polite to do so, but am I required by law to change my speed or behavior at all just because someone turns on a blinker?

Obviously it is more life and death on a bike. But had I been on a motorcycle in a second vehicle travel lane (with no bike lane involved at all) would I be expected to respond in any way to a turn signal on a wet road i.e, should I slap on my brakes? Why is it my problem to change my course of action just to go straight? (other than to not get crushed)

Is someone riding a bike in a bike lane considered a vehicle with equal standing on the road, in possession of their own lane, or something else?

genec

The key is education... just as you stated... We allow drivers to take to the roads long before they understand their responsibilities... and then drivers make up their own versions of what they think are the laws based on monkey see monkey do observation of other motorists. This is why we have to tell motorists the laws at intersections with signs like this:

bikepro

I watched the video again and have to agree. SUV completes pass and signals. OP continues at speed until SUV starts to turn. Clearly needs to work on "defensive riding" skills.

genec

The issue is the legal requirement verses reality.

Just as you legally can take a lane, the reality is that you will face undo resistance in doing so, and may even be stopped by a LEO and told to illegally ride on a sidewalk. This is an autocentric society and people make up their own version of the laws to justify their implied right to drive (it is a privilege, not a right). Sorry Joey. Reality bites.

FBinNY 

I wouldn't have a problem. I drive in the city all the time and cars pass, then clear, signal and turn. That's par. I agree that the black SUV should have moved over, but wonder if Louisiana or New Orleans made any effort to educate anybody about the specific (and new) rules of the road when these lanes were created. Or do we now expect people to be psychic.

In any case, debate about the specifics of the rules of the road are one thing, but basic street smarts are another. Since the cylcists are the ones who'll face the worst consequences, it falls on them to do what's necessary to protect themselves.