Advocacy & Safety - Do you ever move left to communicate yielding to an oncoming left-turner?

Do you ever move left in order to communicate yielding to an oncoming left-turner?

EDIT (rephrase question for clarity): In a situation where you are approaching an intersection while a car driver is approaching from the opposite direction, and he is signalling to turn left, do you ever choose to yield to him and communicate this by moving left?

If yes, can you explain how your moving left alone might communicate yielding to an oncoming left-turner?

----

EDIT: Here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3538025&postcount=36) is the post that prompted the creation of this poll/thread:


I sometimes intentionally yield my right of way in this type of situation by moving further left.

And here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3544434&postcount=50) is the relevant portion of a post that implies agreement with Bek:


... Bek has a good idea. He's presenting a target which says "you'll get past me faster" rather than "go faster and you might hit me."

Of course, you should know a few things about moving left in a lane, HH. See, it supposedly makes you more visible to other drivers. If another driver notices you, then you can let them go first so you're guaranteed to not get run down, smooshed, flattened, etc. by them.

...

I don't get it. I'm looking for someone who can explain it.

I'm not sure. I don't understand, sorry. Do you mean MY intent to yield (which I'm not going to, for an oncoming left turn driver)?

I believe here are several options for this senario, depending on the conditions. I won't exhaust every option here.

The classic approach, which is also taught in M/C safety classes, is to get ready to swerve left around the back of the car if it turns in front of you.

edit:

OK, now there's more to your original statement. I would say no, I hold my line. Depending on the driver's apparent attention to me, I may make an obvious move that I'm accelerating, (such as getting out of the saddle).

I'm trying to communicate: "Hey, I understand you want to turn left, I'm trying not to hold you up."

I'm not going to do anything that shows I may intend to yield. NEVER! I have the right of way in this situation.

I voted "Other", because I don't yield to oncoming left-turners...it's their responsibility to yield to ME.

However, if they fail to notice me and turn left anyway, then I'll use whatever accident avoidance maneuver seems most appropriate (e.g., quick dodge left behind them, scream real loud so they stop, emergency braking, etc.).

FWIW, I rarely encounter this type of problem when cycling, compared to right hooks, "close shaves", etc.

I'm not sure. I don't understand, sorry. Do you mean MY intent to yield (which I'm not going to, for an oncoming left turn driver)?

I believe here are several options for this senario, depending on the conditions. I won't exhaust every option here.

The classic approach, which is also taught in M/C safety classes, is to get ready to swerve left around the back of the car if it turns in front of you.
I've attempted to clarify the question (see OP).

Anyway, you have a good point. I actually don't think that I yield to oncoming left turners either. I mean, either they're so much closer to the intersection that they can easily turn left before I get there, or I assert my right and ask them to yield to me (by maintaining speed, establishing eye contact, perhaps shaking my head no -- only if they're starting to inch forward -- and, possibly moving left to indicate I'm NOT yielding).

It has been suggested in another thread that moving left in this situation can sometimes be useful for communicating yielding to the oncoming left-turner. I'm trying to find someone who does this who can also explain it. So far, nada.

I voted "Other", because I don't yield to oncoming left-turners...it's their responsibility to yield to ME.

However, if they fail to notice me and turn left anyway, then I'll use whatever accident avoidance maneuver seems most appropriate (e.g., quick dodge left behind them, scream real loud so the stop, emergency braking, etc.).

FWIW, I rarely encounter this type of problem when cycling, compared to right hooks, "close shaves", etc.
Yeah, that's a good point. Why would a cyclist ever yield his right of way to a left turner, unless, perhaps, he's so accustomed to being not noticed and having his right of way violated, that he chooses to yield by default?

Hopefully Bek or SingingSabre can clear this up, since they're the yielders who move left to yield in these situations (sometimes).

I don't yield except at yield signs. I behave predictably, yielding or being overtly nice on the road leads to confusion and problems. I sometimes have to slam on the brakes and avoid: that's not me yielding :). I will move more centerish to make sure they know I'm there.

I couldn't really vote as I always am left/center biased thru interections when going straight, but never move left to convey that I am yielding and never give up my ROW (unless that is needed to prevent a collision or potential one)

Al

I couldn't really vote as I always am left/center biased thru interections when going straight, but never move left to convey that I am yielding and never give up my ROW (unless that is needed to prevent a collision or potential one)

Al
Concur.

I couldn't really vote as I always am left/center biased thru interections when going straight, but never move left to convey that I am yielding and never give up my ROW (unless that is needed to prevent a collision or potential one)

Al
+1 that is why I did not vote. Giving away our ROW only confusses the motorist.

Depends on the situation. If he has the right of way I yield to him.

If I do & I am the first one at the intersection with one one behind me I am in the center of the lane & stay there until I am through the intersection. Then I move right accordingly, after I get through the intersection.

If I am the first one in line to cross & there is traffic behind me I am in the center of the lane, but move to the right as soon as I can and am able to. Depending on the intersection & roadway somewhere about the middle of the intersection is where I can start moving to the right so traffic behind me can safely pass when we get through the intersection. But I do stay in the travel lane, not the gutter or real close to the curb.

The classic approach, which is also taught in M/C safety classes, is to get ready to swerve left around the back of the car if it turns in front of you.


WTF! Must be the same class that teaches the classic approach that you to "lay it down" if you can't avoid a collision (Which BTW is really stupid, but takes no skill other than an improper braking technique.)

To my knowledge, the MSF never taught this. I was certified as an instructor from '92-'98 and observed the course as recently as 2001.

WTF is wrong with just waving the driver through?

Sometimes people act stupid when they see a bicycle. They have trouble judging our speed or predicting our actions.

I would think that the farther laterally you are from the oncoming car, the more difficult it might be for the driver to be able to judge if they can clear a left turn in front of you.

Thus moving left, or closer laterally, will make it easier for the car to judge if they can clear you.

Maybe I buy it if it means that you help the driver see that they do have time to clear you rather than actually yielding your ROW.

no need to yield the right of way to a left turner around here
they just assume the right of way and cut in front of you

I move left not to yield, but to communicate that I acknowledge his presence and expect him to turn. Because I am further left, he doesn't need to clear as much of the intersection for me to continue unimpeded, so I'm really doing it to keep me moving along.

hmm, well, I can't speak for all the rest of the riders that can't viusualize this technique.

It's a basic technique I 've used for umpteen years. It has its place in my quiver of road positioning dynamics.

It involves a driver turning left, and a bicyclist moving left with their vector to be moving outside the approaching automobile's turn radius.

By moving towards the outside of the cars turning radius, it communicates the riders intent to clear the vehicle behind the car.

think of slow speed, four way stops. think of slow speed bicycling with a load, up a hill, and cars moving freely downhill to an unsignalled intersection. think of higher speed roads, with good sightlines and cars notching into fast left hand turns ahead of you a hundred yard, a hun and a half...

it is one of my myriad techniques in use for safe bicycling. Sometimes I add a hand signal, a VC-approved ear waggle or nose wiggle, along with a helmet head tilt, but not always.

drivers figure it out. I'm only herding them if I want them to go ahead of me anyway.

and of course...
I use the move left to vigorously CONTROL intersections and minimize hooking situations as well.

Why helemet head fails to see the mechanics of this speaks of his lack of experience and nothing of mine, because i've used the 'move left to yield' in my repitiore for a couple of decades now.


gots to think outside of the textbook, HH. Get out of the armchair and RIDE, buddy! You'll figure it out... there's more than your way to ride a bike!

I wish HH would stop making new threads to debate silly little things he doesn't agree with.

So I voted "other."

I'm not looking for a debate. I'm looking for an explanation. Can you discern the difference, SS?

Bek's #16 is moving us in the right direction. It's certainly a much better explanation than he provided in the other thread.

I can see doing this as you approach an intersection where the oncoming left turner is already into the turn (and thus has a "turning radius" to speak of). But at that point, doesn't the driver already have the ROW? Is this really yielding?

What I still can't see is approaching the same interection and starting to move left to communicate yielding when the oncoming left-turner hasn't even started his turn yet.

oh well. you can't see it. its basic traffic dynamics as far as i'm concerned.

HH, i think you don't ride enough. I'd recommend a nice heavy, utility bike for all your shopping and grocery getting, and night riding your commutes. (have you been riding much at night, HH? or just wishful thinking about lane position at night on 50 MPH roads?)

riding bikes is not always HH and the peloton dreamily moving 20mph en masse up a steep grade in full control of the right hand lane on a 50MPH arterial.


"Next up, folks, Walter Mitty's traveling bicycle circus..."

HH, it's not exactly yielding. I'm going to assume, correct me if I'm wrong, Bek, that Bek really meant to say "to indicate adequate room for a car to turn left in front of me." The lane positioning equivalent of waving them through.

I'm having trouble visualizing myself giving up the ROW just by moving left at a controlled intersection, especially if it was busy. On a low traffic country road, with a hesitant motorist about to enter a driveway I could see this working to both party's advantage, but including additional signals certainly would help.

The following scenario would happen on occasion during my previous suburban commute. I'd be stopped at a red light on a 6 lane (3 lanes each way) 45 mph road with a bunch of other traffic. Then the light would turn green and everyone starts moving. Of course, the cars get ahead, because I can't go 45 mph. ;) About a block ahead there would be an opposite direction motorist waiting to turn left into a residential or other minor street. He can't turn left because of the traffic that just got the green light is approaching. Once he sees that the last car in the "pack" has made it by, he starts to make his left turn, but he didn't see me when he started making his turn.

I have found through experience that moving left in this scenario makes the driver more likely to either (1) stop and let me through the intersection, or (2) complete the left turn faster so that I can keep going without slowing down too much. Whether the lateral movement makes me more visible, or moving further left lets him know that I'm a 20 mph bicyclist and not the usual 10 mph bicyclist in that area, or gives the impression that I will pass him behind his rear bumper, or perhaps all of the above - I honestly don't know. I do know that there were some times where I didn't move left in that situation and I found myself braking hard (and I remember quite well because rode a fixed gear on that commute).

My current suburban commute is in a newer area where all left turns must be done at a light, so this situation never happens anymore.

HH, it's not exactly yielding. I'm going to assume, correct me if I'm wrong, Bek, that Bek really meant to say "to indicate adequate room for a car to turn left in front of me." The lane positioning equivalent of waving them through.
Yes, that makes sense, and dovetails with what LCI_Brian is saying.

Perhaps another way to say it is it's letting them know that they have enough room and time to make their left. I still think something else must be going on though to make it clear that your intent is to go after them.

I ride in or near the center of the lane at intersections. I never considered it yielding to a driver turning left, but if the driver does violate my ROW, being in the middle of the lane gives me the room to execute either a dodge behind them or turn with them to avoid a collision, or at least minimize the impact.

Do you ever move left in order to communicate yielding to an oncoming left-turner?

EDIT (rephrase question for clarity): In a situation where you are approaching an intersection while a car driver is approaching from the opposite direction, and he is signalling to turn left, do you ever choose to yield to him and communicate this by moving left?

If yes, can you explain how your moving left alone might communicate yielding to an oncoming left-turner?

----

EDIT: Here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3538025&postcount=36) is the post that prompted the creation of this poll/thread:



And here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3544434&postcount=50) is the relevant portion of a post that implies agreement with Bek:


I don't get it. I'm looking for someone who can explain it.

I cannot imagine a situation where I would choose to move left to signal my intention to yield to an oncoming left turner. If the other vehicle were some huge lumbering thing, and, if I chose to yield, I would simply yield. You can do so by simply stopping, whether via track stand or putting your foot down.

There are situations where, when first in line with intentions to turn left at a red light in heavy traffic, where I know from experience that signals are timed to assure no late, amber-light-stretching cross traffic is apt to run me over, I will purposely make certain that I am first into the intersection when the light turns green for me. I then get to the left so that I can proceed with my left turn without getting held up by an unending string of oncoming traffic. Any oncoming traffic that manages to get into the intersection before I clear it passes me on my right (this is rare, as most drivers are so slow to react when the light changes that I am long gone before they get motiviated).

I feel this is a safer maneuver than pulling out into the middle of the intersection and sitting there as traffic whizzes past on both sides waiting for the light to go amber or red before I can complete my left turn. The latter works ok for cars. I don't think it the best for bikes. You cannot do what I describe at all intersections, and I would almost never do it at an intersection with which I am not totally familiar.

But, in the places where I perform that maneuver, I've never, ever had a close call as a result. It gets me through the intersection safely and out of everyone else's way. Other drivers seem to understand and appreciate the way I execute the maneuver. I've had more than a few thumbs up from drivers, never so much as a toot from any.

But, if I am not turning left, then, for me, it would be a very rare occasion if I were moving along at a decent pace into an intersection where I had the right of way, that I would give it up - and, if I did give it up, I would really give it up by slowing or stopping my own progress. Anything else, I believe, would tend to increase confusion and danger for all involved.

Caruso

I voted 'other'

I move left at an intersection to communicate I am not yielding to an oncoming left turner. I want them to acknowledge my presence and wait for me to cross. I will often times watch their actions closely and signal with the 'talk to the hand' sign to make sure they yield.

I couldn't really vote as I always am left/center biased thru interections when going straight, but never move left to convey that I am yielding and never give up my ROW (unless that is needed to prevent a collision or potential one)

Al

If anything I tend to move left to make myself appear bigger, to give more presence. To be an object that I want other traffic to notice and be aware of.

The only way I may give up ROW is more subtle, in that I may change my timing by slightly slowing as I approach an intersection where it is obvious that a car is about to turn left.

One thing I do not try to do is "beat the gun." I don't try to slip past left turning motorists "just in the nick of time."

I will often times watch their actions closely and signal with the 'talk to the hand' sign to make sure they yield.

I use this feller:

http://www.andreas.com/deadweb/sockpuppet.jpg

I don't really understand the question, but this is what I do when I am approaching a left turner.

I do not vary my line at all, I do not slow down, if anything I speed up, I try to make eye contact with the driver. Any hesitation or movement is usually interpreted by the oncoming car as signal to that I am going to let them turn in front of me and I do not want to give them that impression.

If they barge through the turn in front of me and cut me off, then I move to the left to go underneath them to avoid them, but as an avoidance manoeuvre only.

The only way I may give up ROW is more subtle, in that I may change my timing by slightly slowing as I approach an intersection where it is obvious that a car is about to turn left.

Is that really giving up ROW? This is AZ law:

"28-772. Vehicle turning left at intersection

The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and that is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard."

If you slow down in advance of intersection, you no longer constitute an immediate hazard.

Al

I can use the move left to both communicate yielding as well as vigorously claiming an intersection with bike position. It all depends totally on roadway and traffic dynamics.

drivers slotting up for unobstructed left turns on 35-45 MPH arterials moving into the center turn lane, you can move left into a mulitlane and indicate your intent to pass behind a driver.

uphill, riding slow under a heavy load, on a slower residential street or higher speed roads, with you fully claiming the lane, with a car coming up to make a left, you can signal intent to move behind the car by moving left.

moving left can signal an intent to move behind a car as well as control an intersection, BIKE 101.

or maybe its BIKE 201, seems like.

all intersections are not negotiated at 20 miles an hour in the middle of helemt head's peloton.

drivers slotting up for unobstructed left turns on 35-45 MPH arterials moving into the center turn lane, you can move left into a mulitlane and indicate your intent to pass behind a driver.

Now I really don't get it (yes Bek you can quote that statement and reference it to name call instead of attempting mature comunication)

This is the very situation where I can not see this working at all. It is the very infrastructure I ride in daily (multilane 45mph arterials with dedicated left turn lanes)

I was holding out that there was some road design/situation where this method did work for some.
Al

oh well, al, i guess you really don't get it then. You've NEVER moved left to indicate to a driver you want to pass behind them while they clear their turn first? on higher speed roads and at higher bicyclist speeds, just like any other manuver, it requires greater distances and pavement, lines of sight, etc. but it has applicability there, even on two lane rural highways.

I can use a move left to communicate both yielding as well as claiming the lane. It all depends on how you dance the traffic two-step I guess.

oh well, al, i guess you really don't get it then. You've NEVER moved left to indicate to a driver you want to pass behind them while they clear their turn first?
Indicating to a driver you want to pass behind them while they clear their turn first, without slowing down, is not yielding. If they can clear their turn first without you having to slow down then they already have the right of way and you have nothing to yield.


I can use a move left to communicate both yielding as well as claiming the lane. It all depends on how you dance the traffic two-step I guess.
You are using the term yielding here to mean something other than giving the right of way to someone else. That's what has been confusing about all this. You seem to be using it to mean: letting them know they have the right of way (not because you're yielding it to them, but because they've always had it).

Is that really giving up ROW? This is AZ law:

"28-772. Vehicle turning left at intersection

The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and that is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard."

If you slow down in advance of intersection, you no longer constitute an immediate hazard.

Al

Technically if I might arrive there before or right at the point where a driver is executing a left, I am giving up ROW... but I am not doing it in an "after you Alphonse" manner, which I feel tends to teach motorists to expect cyclists to stay out of the way of cars. (bad form)

What I really do is simply determine that if the vehicle is close, timing wise, to the point that I may meet it if it turns, I change my timing... by slowing down, rather than risk that I am not seen, or the motorist has misjudged.

It's easy to do, and so subtle that the motorist may not even be aware that I am slowing, as they generally have a hard time judging our speed properly anyway.

So yeah... technically, I am no longer "an immediate hazard," but I also don't appear to be giving anything away.

[QUOTE=Helmet Head]Do you ever move left in order to communicate yielding to an oncoming left-turner?

EDIT (rephrase question for clarity): In a situation where you are approaching an intersection while a car driver is approaching from the opposite direction, and he is signalling to turn left, do you ever choose to yield to him and communicate this by moving left?

If yes, can you explain how your moving left alone might communicate yielding to an oncoming left-turner?

I voted other....

As both a cyclist and professional driver, I don't see how moving left, imparts anything other then your not intending on turning right. Your safest course of action, is to be predictable, let the driver be his own judge of the situation, always have an escape route available in case a driver misjudges. This could be turning right, making your own left turn, sidestepping to go around the back of the other vehicle, stopping, or even bailing.

Indicating to a driver you want to pass behind them while they clear their turn first, without slowing down, is not yielding. You are using the term yielding here to mean something other than giving the right of way to someone else. That's what has been confusing about all this. You seem to be using it to mean: letting them know they have the right of way (not because you're yielding it to them, but because they've always had it).

NO, helemt head, i use the "yield by moving left" method by showing with clear intent "I'm going to move behind the car" as a sign I am yielding my right of way in BOTH ambigious right of way situations, as well as at lefts across an arterial where I clearly HAVE the right of way but feel the driver may violate it anyway.

lets run a quick and easy scenario by you.

4 way intersection. driver across from bike is turning left. both bike and car appear to be approaching the intersection at the same time.

Who has the right of way? the bicyclist.

What if the driver is showing impatience or irritation, or is distracted by their cell phone and the rider feels that by taking their rightful right of way, they may yield right into the car grill?

as a saavy bicyclist, i can indicate my intent to yield to the driver, by vectoring behind what their turning radius is going to be. driver may hesitate but then accept your yield, and make their turn. if you, as a rider, have timed it well, you can easily move back into your default lane poiition without slowing down or braking at all.

helemt head, you are telling me you have NEVER yielded to a driver by moving behind the car entering an ambiguous intersection? must not ride much.... I guess if its not in the textbooks.....

do you understand right of way can be ambiguous, helemt head? bicycling is not usually a cut and dried orderly process? Drivers might NOT always be paying attention, driving legally or even safely, and understanding and granting right of way in orderly, textbook fashion?

Right of way is not always clear cut, drivers are not always paying attention, some will violate your right of way even if you think you have got it in the bag. using a "move left to yield" is one of the tricks in a seasoned cyclists' bag, regardless of an armchair cyclists' insistence it cannot be.

Moving left to show yielding is is a nuance in my riding repitiore. i use it weekly, and I've used it everywhere from four way stops in the middle of the city, to suburban high speed six laners, to two lane rural highways.

I know how to use a move left to both claim right of way thru an intersection conflict as well as show yielding.

Bravo, Bek. After two days of prodding you've finally coughed up an explanation that actually make some sense.

I still think you're slowing down, though you may not be aware of it.

Bravo to YOU, helemt head, after two days you may see there's a foreign technique for you, that i've been using for umpteen years because it makes sense.


I still think you've a bit to learn about traffic cycling, even though you may not be aware of it.

Two words: ambiguous intersection. Maybe i'm using that nonchalant head waggle/ear wiggle combo you often post about, helmet head.

The head bobbing doesn't work quite as well at night though, and to be honest, there's a lot of riding in the dark this time of year. For most of us transportational bicyclists anyway.

Beck, nobody, not just me, but nobody, not even one other person, has recognized what you're doing as something they do or as something that makes sense. How do you explain that?

Correction: I see that there is one person who voted yes in this poll.

The only way I can see a move to the left to indicate a yielding to another vehicle is to move so far left as to be to the right of that vehicle, putting the cyclist in the on-coming lane.

umm, just because a few internet wonks don't use the vector yield doesn't mean this technique doesn't work.

moving left to yield is a one of a myriad of techniques for a bicyclists' safe negotiation of ambiguous intersection conflicts.

WHY you wonks don't grasp the idea of 'unclear right of way' or the technique of moving left to clear an ambiguous intersection is unclear.

riding bikes is not all 20 mile an hour pelotons in front of the "TEAM H.H." RV support vehicle or commuting on flat level ground at high speeds. theres a LOT of slower speed nuance involved in riding a bike.

come on head, you're trying to tell me you've never moved left to move behind a car during an intersection dance where right of way was unclear? if that's the case, you must not ride much....

What if i add one of those steely eyed-glares, an ear waggle or two, a slowing of my pedal cadence and a little finger swish to indicate my yield? then is it more apparant? I know how to do a point and yield "I'm passing behind you in this intersection" motion that works to communicate intent to yield as well.

Riders CAN indicate a yield to a car by slowing and signalling by using a point and yield.

There are also roadway conditions and traffic patterns when a rider can also indicate a yield by simply moving left, without the VC cadence drop and ear wiggles sometimes.

It's not all your textbook armchair riding, helmet head. there's more than your way to ride a bike.

right of way is not always clear.

three words: ambiguous intersection conflicts.
there's a lot of nuance to actually riding a bike.

Other, as it depends a lot on the configuration of the intersection.

I find that moving a bit to the left, a bit more in line with the car line, would make myself more immediately visible. That said, it doesn't really protect me against the guy who wants to move through me anyway.

I don't move left unless turning left except for good reason (like moving around storm rubble etc). Pulling out on GP just confuses the drivers behind me.

umm, just because a few internet wonks don't use the vector yield doesn't mean this technique doesn't work.

moving left to yield is a one of a myriad of techniques for a bicyclists' safe negotiation of ambiguous intersection conflicts.

WHY you wonks don't grasp the idea of 'unclear right of way' or the technique of moving left to clear an ambiguous intersection is unclear.

riding bikes is not all 20 mile an hour pelotons in front of the "TEAM H.H." RV support vehicle or commuting on flat level ground at high speeds. theres a LOT of slower speed nuance involved in riding a bike.

come on head, you're trying to tell me you've never moved left to move behind a car during an intersection dance where right of way was unclear? if that's the case, you must not ride much....

What if i add one of those steely eyed-glares, an ear waggle or two, a slowing of my pedal cadence and a little finger swish to indicate my yield? then is it more apparant? I know how to do a point and yield "I'm passing behind you in this intersection" motion that works to communicate intent to yield as well.

Riders CAN indicate a yield to a car by slowing and signalling by using a point and yield.

There are also roadway conditions and traffic patterns when a rider can also indicate a yield by simply moving left, without the VC cadence drop and ear wiggles sometimes.

It's not all your textbook armchair riding, helmet head. there's more than your way to ride a bike.

right of way is not always clear.

three words: ambiguous intersection conflicts.
there's a lot of nuance to actually riding a bike.
Oh, I see. You're the master vector cyclist who can't explain how or why his "technique" communicates yielding to an oncoming motorist in an "ambiguous ROW situation" (hint: no such thing here - any "ambiguity" mean the through driver has ROW, not the left-turner) and can only repeat baseless assertions and personal insults. Impressive.

Yes, Bek, I've never "moved left to move behind a car during an intersection dance where right of way was unclear", because I've never been in a situation where I was gong straight across an intersection where right of way was unclear with an oncoming someone who was turning left. If such a situation is ever ambiguous about ROW to anyone, it is only because that someone doesn't understand fundamental traffic rules.

Helemet head, you've never encountered a left turning motorist where right of way was unclear? Never felt a driver wasn't paying attention as you approached an ambiguous intersection conflict?

like I said, must not ride much. it's all textbook driving in helmet head's ersatz world, where the right of way is always clear, and granted to the cyclist if they have it.....what fantasy, what imagination!

so helemt head feels riders can't yield right of way by vectoring left, yet I use a vector yield regularily at some intersection conflicts.

To be perfectly honest Bek, if I were a driver waiting to make a left and you started 'vectoring' left, I would probably assume that you were also making a left, therefore, if no other traffic was oncoming behind you, I'd make my left.

I've blasted HH over assuming drivers understand little things like peddling faster, steely-eyed stares, head turns and such - your 'method' is no different. You might understand what you are trying to accomplish, but assuming that drivers understand your intentions is a recipe for having a bad day.

Do you drive much, Bek? If not, how are your theories about drivers any more valid than HH's concerning cylists, based on your premise that he doesn't ride much.

I don't really have an opinion about moving left in this situation, but...

My concern with moving left is this... if you do it quickly, and it sounds like it has to be quickly, on the spur-of-the-moment, did you verify that there is no one coming up from your left rear???

My guess is that many samauri urban cyclists will forget to check over their left shoulder.

My guess is that many samauri urban cyclists will forget to check over their left shoulder.

Not if they've been 'samauri urban cyclists' for more than a day or so. :p

Helemet head, you've never encountered a left turning motorist where right of way was unclear? Never felt a driver wasn't paying attention as you approached an ambiguous intersection conflict?
Since ROW is always clear when an oncoming driver meets a left turning driver at an intersection (if there is any ambiguity, the through driver has the ROW), yes, I have never encountered a left turning motorist where right of way was unclear.

I can't recall a single instance of a left-turning driver paying so little attention that they did not see me. I know it can happen, but it has never happened to me that I can recall. Certainly not in the last few years where I've really been paying much more attention to how my behavior affects the behavior of others. I find that if I'm positioned conspicuously in the travel lane for long enough before reaching the intersection, where they are looking, they will not overlook my presence. Now, if I stay in the "velotransit lane" off to the side then all bets are off. But if they overlook me in that situation, I would expect that, and not even think of it as an error on their part. I don't feel I even have the ROW to go straight when I'm traveling in the "right turn zone" of the road which is where velotransit is always placed at intersections without right only lanes.


like I said, must not ride much. it's all textbook driving in helmet head's ersatz world, where the right of way is always clear, and granted to the cyclist if they have it.....what fantasy, what imagination!
ROW rules are not esoteric theoretical textbook material, Bek. They are elementary. It's no wonder you have to resort to such oddball techniques. You apparently don't understand what's going on out there.


so helemt head feels riders can't yield right of way by vectoring left, yet I use a vector yield regularily at some intersection conflicts.
:rolleyes: