Right-of-way on a narrow road

[thebankman]

If a bicyclist is headed one direction down a narrow road and a car is headed the opposite direction toward the cyclist, who has the 'right of way'? If there isn't enough room for both to go past each other, who then has the 'right of way'?

[DCCommuter]

Generally vehicle codes don't discriminate by type of vehicle. If two cars were approaching each other on this stretch of road, who would have right of way?

[Big Tommy C]

Seems logical to me to give the car the right of way since it's simply easier for a bike to get out of the road and let the car by than for the car to move over enough for the cyclist to pass.

It also follows the rule I use when I drive: Move out of the way of larger vehicles.

I only use that rule in this case, though.

[ken cummings]

From my high school training to my recent commercial driver training, No one Has the right of way (ROW), they can only yield it. On steep hills commonly the person going downhill can be expected to back up, much safer. On flat roads the first person who can get to a safe place to pull off yields, hopefully. On a road on Ocracoke Island (south of Kitty Hawk) made of a narrow strip of metal aircraft matting ( years ago) there were posts half-way between safe pull-out areas. People would race to the post. The "loser" wopuld have to back up to the pull-out.

When I am off-roading I usually pull off single-track first. Up hill or down. Why? Mostly I am a nice guy who can not afford the medical consequences of challenging for ROW.

Car vs bike. If it is narrow enough to be a problem the car can't get out of the way, ergo . . .

[crazybikerchick]

If a bicyclist is headed one direction down a narrow road and a car is headed the opposite direction toward the cyclist, who has the 'right of way'? If there isn't enough room for both to go past each other, who then has the 'right of way'?
I'm assuming this is indeed a two-way road, not a one-way road. If its a two-way road, there should be signage to indicate who has the right of way since two cars could encounter each other as well. The only places I've seen this is usually on a one lane wide bridge where there's usually a sign saying "eastbound traffic yield to westbound traffic" or something to that effect. Practically of course if its not clear its easier for the cyclist to yield being much narrower :)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

If a bicyclist is headed one direction down a narrow road and a car is headed the opposite direction toward the cyclist, who has the 'right of way'? If there isn't enough room for both to go past each other, who then has the 'right of way'?
For me, and I would think most cyclists, it doesn't matter. Good sense (and physics) says let the car have it and proceed cycling on without any problem. Such situations presumably would arise only infrequently in the US, on non busy alleys, backroads or construction sites that have only one usable lane for both directions.
For a few it might be the "driver" with the steely eyed gaze; at least for awhile, until a steely eyed cyclist with an attitude meets someone not on the same communication wavelength.

Note: Only one usable lane due to on-street/partial sidewalk parking is a common scenario for driving in narrow European city streets. Drivers never seem to have a problem alternating right of way. I drove and cycled for 10 years in Germany with this scenario and never had a problem with anyone not figuring out how to proceed without confusion.

[Cycliste]

No one Has the right of way (ROW), they can only yield it. On steep hills commonly the person going downhill can be expected to back up, much safer. On flat roads the first person who can get to a safe place to pull off yields, hopefully.

+1 on this rule decription. And I'll ad refering to the driver's manual: "ROW rules help road way users decide how to handle traffic situations. These rules are based on safety and courtesy ; they do not give you any rights. Remember, the right of way is something you give, not take. If another driver fails to follow these rules in a certain situation, you should always give the right of way for safety's sake"

This means that you should slow down and be ready to squeeze-in and maybe pull off the road/street untill you can see that the oncoming vehicle is doing the same and only at this stage proceed to continue. Most often both motor vehicle and bicycle are able to cross each other without stopping but it's up to each operator to judge if this can be done safely.

Don't forget to nod or wave a thank to the driver ;)

[sbhikes]

I drive and cycle a lot of roads like this. Generally whoever has the easiest time of it seems to be the one to yield. Usually on a narrow street with a lot of parking narrowing the road, whoever is nearest a gap in the parked cars pulls into it to let the other go by. As a cyclist I've sometimes been the giver-upper of ROW and sometimes been the receiver. People who use roads like this every day are usually quite polite about it.

[Roody]

If it is your side of the road that is obstructed, I think you should yield.

As a practical matter, I think this issue is almost always successfully negotiated between the parties. It is usually a matter of convenience, as others have noted.

[thebankman]

Thanks for the input. Occasionally I ride on roads in my neighborhood that are like this, usually there's just enough room for both of us to get by if the driver moves to their side. The other day an elderly man yelled at me out his car window and told me he had the right-of-way while he was driving right in the middle of the road and I pulled between some cars to let him pass, he never even slowed down. Yet another person who should be riding the bus!! ;)

[DCCommuter]

Thanks for the input. Occasionally I ride on roads in my neighborhood that are like this, usually there's just enough room for both of us to get by if the driver moves to their side. The other day an elderly man yelled at me out his car window and told me he had the right-of-way while he was driving right in the middle of the road and I pulled between some cars to let him pass, he never even slowed down. Yet another person who should be riding the bus!! ;)

Another example of how advice yelled from the windows of cars is almost uniformly wrong.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Another example of how advice yelled from the windows of cars is almost uniformly wrong.
And it is also another reason to pay no attention to anyone who takes seriously the "advice" yelled from car windows at strangers.

[LittleBigMan]

Reminds me of a short stretch I take lined with parked cars. There is enough room for both me and a car coming the other direction, and the car usually moves over as far as possible for me. But I wonder if they realize that I do not move over on my bike because I don't want to get close to the parked cars. I usually get closer to the oncoming car than the parked cars, because I figure he is less likely to open his door while moving.

[lyledriver]

Reminds me of a short stretch I take lined with parked cars. There is enough room for both me and a car coming the other direction, and the car usually moves over as far as possible for me. But I wonder if they realize that I do not move over on my bike because I don't want to get close to the parked cars. I usually get closer to the oncoming car than the parked cars, because I figure he is less likely to open his door while moving.

Sounds like my ride home.
I try to stay at the very edge of the door zone just in case one of those parked cars pops a door open.

Recently I had a taxi van coming towards me, in the middle of the street.
When he saw I wasn't yeilding or moving over (we both had room), he noticably swerved towards me while I made eye contact with him. This gave him more room on the passenger side of the vehicle, than the drivers side.

My first instinct was to reach out and 'touch' his mirror to guage just how close he was coming.
Of course, he was probably going 60km/h towards me, and I was doing about 15km/h.

I was shocked at how hard my neoprene glove hit the mirror, but it was satisfying to hear it smash to the ground.

[Roody]

Reminds me of a short stretch I take lined with parked cars. There is enough room for both me and a car coming the other direction, and the car usually moves over as far as possible for me. But I wonder if they realize that I do not move over on my bike because I don't want to get close to the parked cars. I usually get closer to the oncoming car than the parked cars, because I figure he is less likely to open his door while moving.
Considering that many (maybe most?) cyclists don't understand that you should stay out of the door zone, I bet most cages don't know it either.

Another group that doesn't know this is the engineers who design bike lanes that are usually in the door zone!

[genec]

Considering that many (maybe most?) cyclists don't understand that you should stay out of the door zone, I bet most cages don't know it either.

Another group that doesn't know this is the engineers who design bike lanes that are usually in the door zone!

But for the "cagers" the results of being in the door zone are not as catastrophic... oh sure, they may remove a door or two of the unsuspecting idiots that open doors into traffic, but it is not likely the driver of a vehicle in the door zone will get hurt... especially considering that the driver is usually way "over there" on the driver's side of the vehicle.

Cyclists on the other hand are "the drivers" and no doubt are not as likely to "remove a door or two."

As far as the engineer types... I still believe they should be trained for their jobs by having to ride a low power scooter all over town, just to get the proper perspective.

[Roody]

But for the "cagers" the results of being in the door zone are not as catastrophic... oh sure, they may remove a door or two of the unsuspecting idiots that open doors into traffic, but it is not likely the driver of a vehicle in the door zone will get hurt... especially considering that the driver is usually way "over there" on the driver's side of the vehicle.Sorry, I meant to say that most cagers, like most cyclists, don't realize that it's dangerous for cyclists to ride in the door zone. (I thought this was clear because I was responding to Littlebigman's post about this.)


As far as the engineer types... I still believe they should be trained for their jobs by having to ride a low power scooter all over town, just to get the proper perspective.
No, they should ride bicycles if they are designing "for" bicycles. (off topic, but of course bike facilities are really designed "for" motorists, since they're intended to keep cyclists out of their way.)

[Brian Ratliff]

(off topic, but of course bike facilities are really designed "for" motorists, since they're intended to keep cyclists out of their way.)

(emphasis mine)

Tell me, where did you get this notion? Why do assume that this statement is a statement of the obvious? I am genuinely curious about how this opinion forms in people, and you expecially, being so new to cycling. There are all sorts of intersections designed for cars which traffic engineers hopelessly screw up. Does this mean that there is a conspiracy to remove cars from the road? Why do some of us assume that bad bike lane designs are always the result of some sort of conspiracy to get cyclists off the road?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

(emphasis mine)

Tell me, where did you get this notion?
Let me guess; HH says so and that's good enuff for Mr. Roody!

[Roody]

(emphasis mine)

Tell me, where did you get this notion? Why do assume that this statement is a statement of the obvious? I am genuinely curious about how this opinion forms in people, and you expecially, being so new to cycling. There are all sorts of intersections designed for cars which traffic engineers hopelessly screw up. Does this mean that there is a conspiracy to remove cars from the road? Why do some of us assume that bad bike lane designs are always the result of some sort of conspiracy to get cyclists off the road?
HH says so and that's good enough for me.

[buzzman]

Desperately trying to steer the thread back on topic and off the above narrow road before a collision occurs. (though more than likely too late):

There are some alley ways in Boston that run along Storrow Drive and parallel to Newbury Street and Comm Ave that I will occasionally take advantage of and this happens. (car and bike meets on a narrow road- I know it's been a while)

But generally I can tell who's going to give way by how they're driving. I don't expect them to pull off but the majority of them actually do give me the lion's share by either stopping, pulling as far off to the side as they can or slowing way down. If I don't sense they are going to do that I immediately give way- I'm on a bike and it's an easier maneuver for me and I'm only too happy to demonstrate my bicycle's superior handling ability.

These alley ways are pretty potholed by the way and it's awfully nice when they give me wide berth when it's been really rainy and they're all filled with water. That's the only time I prefer they make room.

[Roody]

Why do some of us assume that bad bike lane designs are always the result of some sort of conspiracy to get cyclists off the road?
I assume that all bike lane designs -- good or bad -- are a conspiracy to get cyclists off the road. Or at least out of the way, to lessen inconvenience to cagers. And yes, this is so obvious to me that I can't defend my observation, any more than I could defend my observation that the sun rose this morning.

"Conspiracy" is not the word I chose, you misquoted me.

[Bekologist]

Roody, you need to step out of the darkness and into the light.

Bike lanes are not a conspiracy, except maybe an imperfect conspiracy to accomodate bicyclists on ever more congested roadways, dude.

Generally, I've seen signs directing downhill traffic to yield to uphill traffic,


I believe a general, universal rule of the road (one of those UROTR or whatever pithy acronym has been attached to them by the resident bike forums semanticist)

On one lane roadways out in rural settings, is whichever vehicle looks like it will have an easier time yielding, or backing down to yield ROW does so. It's a unique-in-time analysis between two vehicle operators of sometimes disparate carriage, making a spot decision on who yields and who moves forward first thru the narrow lane.

[sggoodri]

On one lane roadways out in rural settings, is whichever vehicle looks like it will have an easier time yielding, or backing down to yield ROW does so. It's a unique-in-time analysis between two vehicle operators of sometimes disparate carriage, making a spot decision on who yields and who moves forward first thru the narrow lane.

I agree that the "easier time yielding" behavior is typical on narrow rural roads.

I think this is related to the common theme in traffic rules on water or land where the more maneuverable user yields to the less maneuverable user, because yielding is easier for the more maneuverable user.

As a cyclist, it might be easier for me to yield a particular roadway to oncoming traffic, particularly if it required climbing or descending a small height discontinuity to make room for either vehicle to continue. But I can imagine other situations where the opposite would be true, particularly if there were a retaining wall or tall vegetation along the cyclist's side and not the other, such as on a mountain road. Here the automobile driver might pull onto the opposite soft shoulder to let the cyclist pass, rather than forcing the cyclist into the wall.

[Brian Ratliff]

I assume that all bike lane designs -- good or bad -- are a conspiracy to get cyclists off the road. Or at least out of the way, to lessen inconvenience to cagers. And yes, this is so obvious to me that I can't defend my observation, any more than I could defend my observation that the sun rose this morning.

"Conspiracy" is not the word I chose, you misquoted me.

I summarized your conclusion, and you, just now, accepted the term "conspiracy." I really am curious though about how you came to this conclusion. In Oregon, bike lanes are pretty much accepted and cycling is as common as it gets here in the US. There is no anti-bike lane faction of cycling advocates that I know of here in Oregon. If there is, they don't hold much sway. But we do things a bit different in Oregon and perhaps in other areas, bike lanes are actually used for the disbenefit of cyclists.

And one last thing. If an observation seems so obvious that it is indefensible, perhaps it is not obvious at all. I have no trouble defending the notion that the sun rose today. If it is so obvious, you should have no trouble defending your position on bike lanes either. But to say that bike lanes everywhere are part of a conspiracy to get cyclists off the road simply doesn't jive with me.

[genec]

I assume that all bike lane designs -- good or bad -- are a conspiracy to get cyclists off the road. Or at least out of the way, to lessen inconvenience to cagers. And yes, this is so obvious to me that I can't defend my observation, any more than I could defend my observation that the sun rose this morning.

"Conspiracy" is not the word I chose, you misquoted me.


And what is the difference between using a BL or keeping to the right as far as motorists are concerned... both allow for the smooth flow of traffic. Even motor vehicle traffic has to keep to the right if slower than all other traffic.

The advantage of BL for cyclists becomes quite clear when motorists are backed up and we do have our own clear lane.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I really am curious though about how you came to this conclusion.
Roody gave you the straight up answer. There is nothing left to be curious about the source of Roody's conclusions:

HH said it;
Roody believes it;
That settles it!

[Roody]

I said that it's obvious that bike lanes are placed to get cyclists out of the way of other traffic. Nobody can possibly disagree with this self-evident premise.

I went on to say that striping is done primarily for the convenience of motorists, not for the safety of cyclists. Evidently, many of you can disagree with this premise, and that's cool. I can't prove this second premise, but I doubt if any of you can disprove it either.

I'm just saying that it seems totally obvious to me, as obvious as the sun rising in the morning. From a cager's perspective, or even a traffic engineer's perspective, bike lanes are successful when they increase or maintain motor traffic speeds, or road capacity; unsuccessful when they do not.

BTW, I don't care for the word "conspiracy" here because it implies that somebody is doing something against somebody else. If most cyclists prefer being separated from other traffic, there is a mutual benefit, and "conspiracy" is a poor choice of terms. But then again, it was Brian's choice, not mine, so he is the one to defend it, not me.