Vehicular Cycling (VC) - "Right Turn ONLY except Buses & Bikes" Lane- Vehicular?

You're riding down a busy, 50mph road, 6 lanes of traffic, center turn lane. At the county line, the designation of the right hand lane changes to "RIGHT TURN ONLY EXCEPT BUSES AND BICYCLES' you have miles yet to go on this busy arterial, and the 'right turn only except buses and bikes' continues as a classed lane past your destination or turnoff.

is riding in a lane classed for specific types of vehicles vehicular? or does a vehicular cyclist have to avoid riding in a right turn lane because it's not for thru traffic?

I ride on an arterial that has exactly this situation. To the right of the road are several strip shopping centers. When I ride in the right lane I am in constant fear of being right hooked. I haven't been able to figure out the safest way to ride.

If it's the rule of the road, it's vehicular.

It seems the foresterites suggest ignoring rules which are contrary to ordinary vehicular operation. a 'regular' classed vehicle would not be able to travel straight in the right hand turn lane. but special class vehicles can use it.

You're riding down a busy, 50mph road, 6 lanes of traffic, center turn lane. At the county line, the designation of the right hand lane changes to "RIGHT TURN ONLY EXCEPT BUSES AND BICYCLES' you have miles yet to go on this busy arterial, and the 'right turn only except buses and bikes' continues as a classed lane past your destination or turnoff.

is riding in a lane classed for specific types of vehicles vehicular? or does a vehicular cyclist have to avoid riding in a right turn lane because it's not for thru traffic?

All you are doing is playing silly semantic games that demonstrate only your extreme desire to find some illogicality in what you think to be vehicular cycling. Nobody should bother with such foolishness, not even me. Yet I find that I have to make this point, not your point.

You're riding down a busy, 50mph road, 6 lanes of traffic, center turn lane. At the county line, the designation of the right hand lane changes to "RIGHT TURN ONLY EXCEPT BUSES AND BICYCLES' you have miles yet to go on this busy arterial, and the 'right turn only except buses and bikes' continues as a classed lane past your destination or turnoff.

is riding in a lane classed for specific types of vehicles vehicular? or does a vehicular cyclist have to avoid riding in a right turn lane because it's not for thru traffic?

Sounds like the shopping mall/outlet district on US 1 north of Lewes, Del. It's generally like having a whole lane to yourself. And it's clean! I ride in the left tire track to avoid right hooks. If a bus caught me from behind I would move to the right tire track but not give up the entire lane.

john, can't anwser that straight for the crowd, eh?

Worthless, bub, worthless.

'nobody should bother with such foolishness'- this is a real life road scenario, john, not a 'silly semantic game'.

you are SO ACERBIC. does anybody like you, old man?

SOOO, how should us vehicular cyclists ride this type of road, big bad john?

I have never seen a lane like this. How do you ride in it? Do you ride so buses can pass you? Do you ride down the center? Do you ride at the left edge? And so I understand, do cars get into this lane to turn right? Seems like a scary place to be.

I have never seen a lane like this. How do you ride in it? Do you ride so buses can pass you? Do you ride down the center? Do you ride at the left edge? And so I understand, do cars get into this lane to turn right? Seems like a scary place to be.
There are two such lanes within three miles of my house in Austin. One is on Northcross Blvd, "RIGHT TURN ONLY EXCEPT BUSES AND BIKES". The other is on Far West Blvd, "RIGHT TURN ONLY EXCEPT BIKES". I can't figure out how to correctly ride those streets.
The signs imply that bikes are supposed to ride in the right lane, even if they are continuing straight.

It seems to me to be a bad idea to sign the roads that way. What do you suppose motivated them to make the signs like that?

I ride it like Galen, Diane. and its a heck of a lot nicer than the 50 mph plus narrow lanes on the other side of the county line where there isn't the special class lane.

despite the chestbeating of the foresterites, holding a lane on a 50 mph arterial isn't fun or a walk in the park. its an exercise of stoicism against 1000's of distracted and angry drivers. in a 'right turn only except buses and bikes it's you, some buses, and some right turners. like galen says, "It's generally like having a whole lane to yourself"

the main traffic flow is in another lane.

My question was serious. I just can't picture how I would ride a lane like that. I would personally feel nervous being in a lane where other traffic can merge on over and turn right while at the same time I have to keep letting faster people go by. I would much prefer to ride on the far left edge, or on the right edge of the next lane over.

So, he he, right turn only except bikes. How do you turn right then?

my question, and the scenario, is serious also, Diane. a real traffic situation, but the great 'vehicular cyclist' himself just mocks me for 'silly semantic games'.

Maybe it's possible John F. thinks this is a carefully crafted hypothetical situation constructed solely for the sake of argument. However, here in Austin it's a real question that's puzzled lots of people.

On Far West, the right lane is swept clean and the traffic volume is far smaller than in the other two lanes. However, right-turning cars tend to drive erratically around me. Some follow behind me in the right lane for longish distances, others race ahead of me and merge in front of me quite suddenly and often without signalling in order to make their right turn. I guess it's something like a standard bike lane with lots of right turning traffic across it.

I'll go take pictures tomorrow on a long ride.

i really find john's tone offensive. "nobody should bother with such foolishness" what a pedantic, angry man.

john, can't anwser that straight for the crowd, eh?

Worthless, bub, worthless.

'nobody should bother with such foolishness'- this is a real life road scenario, john, not a 'silly semantic game'.

you are SO ACERBIC. does anybody like you, old man?

SOOO, how should us vehicular cyclists ride this type of road, big bad john?

Here is your question: "[I]s riding in a lane classed for specific types of vehicles vehicular? or does a vehicular cyclist have to avoid riding in a right turn lane because it's not for thru traffic?"

Your question is not about how to ride in such a situation. It is a question that plays semantic games with whatever you think to be vehicular cycling, the kind of question that a lawyer asks when he wishes to discredit a witness. I repeat, nobody should pay attention to such foolishness.

why are you even bothering to try and ridicule me, john? its a real traffic scenario.

would you care to answer the question for the crowd, john? you're the high and mighty vehicular cyclist.

should a vehicular cyclist avoid riding in a right turn only lane, even if the signage says it's allowed for bikes?

can't believe john's insulting acerbic nature

My question was serious. I just can't picture how I would ride a lane like that. I would personally feel nervous being in a lane where other traffic can merge on over and turn right while at the same time I have to keep letting faster people go by. I would much prefer to ride on the far left edge, or on the right edge of the next lane over.


If the cyclist operates in the center or left half of the described travel lane, then there is no dangerous violation of the destination positioning rule (of vehicular cycling), because the through-cyclist is not operating to the right of right-turning traffic. It is okay for a bicycle driver traveling straight to operate in line with right-turning traffic, just not to the right of it. Of course, the special lane must also continue on the other side of the junction, as appears to be true in this special case.

The main problem with these limited-use-through/RTO lanes is that motorists may expect a greater level of convenience than possible with the cyclist operating center or left in them. Some motorists attempt to overtake other traffic when using the less busy RTO lane, or expect to turn right on red, and may be delayed by a straight-traveling cyclists.

In my area, we have arterials where the wide right lane is marked as a continuous right-turn-only lane for one commercial driveway after another, for long distances. The through lane is narrow. Ride in the narrow through lane, and lots of straight-traveling drivers get mad, often passing on both sides. Ride in the middle of the continuous RTO lane, and only the right-turners get mad. Ride on the right of the RTO lane at the junctions, and get right-hooked. I hate these roads. A better design would be to leave the outside lane dual-destination and wide, perhaps with sharrows. Or, move the extra width to the through lane, and stripe off the rightmost area as shorter, narrower individual right turn pockets.

...It is okay for a bicycle driver traveling straight to operate in line with right-turning traffic, just not to the right of it. Of course, the special lane must also continue on the other side of the junction, as appears to be true in this special case.

I think that's the answer I was looking for.

I think that's the answer I was looking for.

However, I think it's important to caution cyclists about traveling straight from ordinary right-turn-only lanes. First, the lane may not continue ahead, so an emergency merge mid-intersection with the through lane traffic would result. Second, other road users might assume you're turning right and move in front of you at the junction. Third, if you stop at a signal, you're blocking potential right-on-red turning traffic that might be behind you. Lastly, it's usually illegal.

... so riding in 'right turn only EXCEPT bikes and buses' lanes is vehicular. not that I need steve to tell me that, just wondering what the 'vc' crowd thought of it. john forester thinks my posting about it was foolishness, despite the reality of this roadway scenario.

... so riding in 'right turn only EXCEPT bikes and buses' lanes is vehicular. not that I need steve to tell me that, just wondering what the 'vc' crowd thought of it. john forester thinks my posting about it was foolishness, despite the reality of this roadway scenario.

I think the operational complexities of these lanes are a lot more interesting than the semantics. Vehicular cycling leads one to think of a number of reasons one might not always want to be in such a lane.

wow.I find this type of lane hardly 'operationally complex', steve.

it's remarkably like riding any other lane of traffic from which traffic might turn right, except without the thru traffic, steve.

However, I think it's important to caution cyclists about traveling straight from ordinary right-turn-only lanes. First, the lane may not continue ahead, so an emergency merge mid-intersection with the through lane traffic would result. Second, other road users might assume you're turning right and move in front of you at the junction. Third, if you stop at a signal, you're blocking potential right-on-red turning traffic that might be behind you. Lastly, it's usually illegal.
Check. The "RIGHT TURN ONLY EXCEPT BIKES" lane on Far West continues through several intersections, then ends with a mandatory right turn where it joins a freeway access road. I move one lane to the left to continue straight through. That has never been a point of confusion to me.

Some of the 'complexity' may be localized. The shopping district I referred to in my earlier post I only ride once or twice a year when I am on vacation at the beach. But, due to the fact that there is a significant young, east-European immigrant summertime work force who travel almost entirely by bicycle, the locals and vacationers are aware to some degree of cyclists more than they might be at some other locality. Also I think the speed limit is low.

However, when riding one of these restricted lanes, one must still be vigilant for no-look merges from the left through lane especially if traffic is slow, slowing or stopped at a traffic signal and you are overtaking on the right.

When I first saw this thread, I had to think about it. We don't have "right turn only except cyclists and buses" lanes.

After reading a bit, I noticed that I sometimes ride in the left tire track of the RTOL. Other times, I rode in the right tire track of the rightmost through lane.

But this just sort of came naturally. Is it "vehicular?" Who knows. All I know is I'm comfortable and cops don't ask questions. :)

The really hilarious part about this is that one RTOL is a favorite place for drivers to race ahead of the long line of traffic and cut in ahead of everyone closer to the light to save time. When I'm using this lane, drivers have to wait behind me, so it screws up their cutting job. Oooo, the cyclist is holding up "traffic." Oh, well, eventually I started taking a parallel street, it saves me an extra light, and the jockeys can go for it. I still end up waaaaay ahead of them.

Chocolate-Mint.

So why is there so much fuss about a lane classed for bikes but everybody is yawning about a lane classed for buses AND bikes?

So why is there so much fuss about a lane classed for bikes but everybody is yawning about a lane classed for buses AND bikes?
...I don't know....ask Bek, he brought it up. :)

I'm trying to get to if this type of lane is considered 'vehicular' by the vehicular cyclists.

regular traffic can't travel straight in this lane. only buses and bikes. is it considered 'vehicular' to ride in a special classed lane?

and what if the signs say 'right turn only except bikes'?

what if the signs say 'bikes only'? ;)

I'm trying to get to if this type of lane is considered 'vehicular' by the vehicular cyclists.

regular traffic can't travel straight in this lane. only buses and bikes. is it considered 'vehicular' to ride in a special classed lane?

and what if the signs say 'right turn only except bikes'?

what if the signs say 'bikes only'? ;)
I'm not very religious in the vehicular cycling sense (or any other.) I prefer truth to religion.

If they build some piece of road with requirements, I'll try to do as the Romans do (or are supposed to do, or something,) but in the end, I'll adapt.

Ok?

:beer:

So why is there so much fuss about a lane classed for bikes but everybody is yawning about a lane classed for buses AND bikes?

Speaking from a purely operational standpoint, a bus-width lane seems like a better width for cycling than the narrow bike lanes built where I live; a bus-width lane allows me to stay out of the door zone without riding on top of a lane stripe, and with plenty of buffer space to the adjacent line of traffic, and a lane used by buses and other motor traffic will get swept automatically by that traffic, rather than filling up with debris like the bike lanes where I live. Also, if motorists understand that they are allowed and expected to use the lane for turning right, I am less likely to experience right-hook conflicts.

Then again, we don't have any bus lanes where I live, so I'm just speculating.

so autocentric where you live, steve. ;) no bus lanes? you must have substandard infrastructure and public transit there.

oh, and i'm sure the standard argument is 'people don't WANT to use public transit so why have infrastructure to support it?' despite 35 percent of the american population that DOESN'T drive.

anyhoo,for the rest of the crowd....

riding in a long stretch of "right turn only lane EXCEPT buses and bikes." vehicular?

In my area, we have arterials where the wide right lane is marked as a continuous right-turn-only lane for one commercial driveway after another, for long distances. The through lane is narrow. Ride in the narrow through lane, and lots of straight-traveling drivers get mad, often passing on both sides. Ride in the middle of the continuous RTO lane, and only the right-turners get mad. Ride on the right of the RTO lane at the junctions, and get right-hooked. I hate these roads. A better design would be to leave the outside lane dual-destination and wide, perhaps with sharrows. Or, move the extra width to the through lane, and stripe off the rightmost area as shorter, narrower individual right turn pockets.
I ride thru a 1/2mi stretch like this, there are 5 RTOLs in quick succession, separated by short stretches of gore area. I choose to ride in the right most narrow thru lane, as I don't want to have to several times in a row enter the RTOL from the gore area. I do get honked in this area. Interestingly traffic is usually very light, even so in using narrow outside thru lane, drivers more often chose to honk and close pass vs. using inside lane. The happens far more than if the multiple RTOL was not there.
Al

al, you are the honk attractor.

al, you are the honk attractor.
I've never been honked at while driving in a wide lane.
Al

So why is there so much fuss about a lane classed for bikes but everybody is yawning about a lane classed for buses AND bikes?

bike lane = 4' wide debris filled crap.

bus/bike/right turn only lane = 12' wide, clean and well paved.

i disagree with steve's assessment of the reclassifying of transit, bikes and right turn lanes to dual purpose lanes. this would cause congestion for buses, add traffic to the right turn lane, and create much more crowding for bikes on 50 mph arterials and hinder expediency of bicycling along this type of classed roadway, increasing the potential for right hooks.

I ride daily on a road that's setup similarly to how Bek has described his road. The only difference is that the right lane is not marked for bikes and buses; it's a shoulder that turns into a right turn lane at all intersections except for private driveways and a few small businesses. In between intersections in each direction you have a full lane width shoulder, 2 traffic lanes, and a center median. At intersections, the shoulder becomes a right turn lane and at all lighted intersections and some non-lighted intersections, the median becomes a left turn lane.

There are some midblock right turn lanes going into small neighborhoods that I have no issue using to go straight at slower speeds. There are other right turn lanes that you couldn't pay me enough to go straight through, including the ones going to the Acme (which I pass every work day) or Lowes parking lots, or the apartment complex near my neighborhood (again, I avoid the right turn area here every day regardless of my speed or traffic). These turn lanes get too much use from people exiting and entering the roadway. The width of the right turn lane means that most motorists are not going to try and right hook a cyclist using that area of the road. But, at the same time, the speed on the roadway is high enough that when right hooks do happen, they occur at very high speeds (the right turn lanes are long enough to be used as deceleration lanes by full speed traffic). Traffic entering the roadway is much more concerned with spotting a gap in the high speed motor traffic than checking for cyclists going straight from an area where no other traffic is going straight from. This is my biggest issue with using the lesser used right turn lanes which is why I avoid them whenever it's easy enough to do so (when my speed is greater or when there are gaps in traffic).

So, my thoughts are that these types of right turn + bike/bus lane installations are not that problematic at lighter use intersections where the vast majority of traffic is going straight. If you can avoid using the right turn area to go straight without causing a big interference with straight through traffic then I would do that though. At heavily used intersections, such as those at shopping area entrances or high density living areas, cyclists should be using the right most through lane to avoid any of the hazards I listed above.

Is what I described vehicular? For the few slow moving vehicles (aside from cyclists) that I've seen using this road I would say yes.

i don't think you've described the same riding scenario as I have at all, joe.

On the type of road I've described, at the major intersections- like traffic signals- the "right turn only EXCEPT buses and bikes" continues past the intersection. with heavy, 50 mile per hour traffic on the other lanes, the expedient position for a vehicular cyclist is continuing to use the classed lane thru the major intersection.

i don't think you've described the same riding scenario as I have at all, joe.
Bek, can you better describe, illustrate, photograph, the situation you have? I don't get the county line part.

its' a change at the county line. you've seen differences between counties before, haven't you?

i was going to ride up there to take pictures this morning, but have an early afternoon ride planned in the opposite direction.

how difficult is it to visualize a six lane, busy, 50 mph road with a right hand lane signed "right turn only EXCEPT buses and bikes" and continues that way for miles?

heavy traffic in the thru lanes. right turning traffic, buses and bikes in the right hand lane. like galen describes on the last page, it's like having the lane mostly to yourself.

Bek,

Where is this? I used to live in the Seattle area.

how difficult is it to visualize a six lane, busy, 50 mph road with a right hand lane signed "right turn only EXCEPT buses and bikes" and continues that way for miles?
It's difficult as I have no idea how many turns there are, how far apart, where they go, and for how long the RTOL which apparently starts at a county line (which is important, why?), continues. Is it a thru lane that turns into a RTOL? or an added lane?
Al

Here is a video of riding past multiple RTOLs.

youtube 9WZoXNbxXgc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WZoXNbxXgc)

Of course this is not the same scenario as presented by Bek, but it is a different implementation to accomidate the same type of traffic flow need. That is why I show it.

Al

Brian, north of Seattle, on Aurora Avenue- Highway 99 - once it crosses the Snohomish county line. up in suburban spawl-dystopia.

i disagree with steve's assessment of the reclassifying of transit, bikes and right turn lanes to dual purpose lanes. this would cause congestion for buses, add traffic to the right turn lane, and create much more crowding for bikes on 50 mph arterials and hinder expediency of bicycling along this type of classed roadway, increasing the potential for right hooks.

That's not what I said. You are speaking about combination bike/bus/right turn lanes. I was talking about right-turn-only lanes where through travel is prohibited for everyone.

not that you've ever seen or ridden the type of road in the original post, but whatdyathink, steve?

a lot less traffic, only buses and the ocasional right turner, and bikes, along a busy, high speed arterial? vehcular? any more preferable road design? seemed like you were suggesting bikes stay in the lanes with a lot of heavy, fast traffic. which, as far as i can tell, in actuality, (not hypothetically) discourages transportational cycling, regardless of lane width.

If this is a case of three unrestricted lanes changing to two unrestricted thru lanes and one RTOL/bike/bus lane, I can't see how the change is substantial for cyclists.

Previously to outer lane restriction if a cyclist is using full outer lane, motorist has two addtional lanes to pass with.

With outer lane restriction, those three lanes of traffic are now squeezed into two. If two lanes can handle the traffic, I can't see how three with a cyclist using outer lane can not.

Al

It seems that the sign offers cyclists the option of using the RTOL. I didn't see mention of a sign which said cyclists were banned from the next lane over.

not that you've ever seen or ridden the type of road in the original post, but whatdyathink, steve?

a lot less traffic, only buses and the ocasional right turner, and bikes, along a busy, high speed arterial? vehcular? any more preferable road design? seemed like you were suggesting bikes stay in the lanes with a lot of heavy, fast traffic.

It would help if you would use quotes so I could determine which of my words you misunderstood.

I don't like cycling roads that have continuous right-turn-only lanes (where straight travel is prohibited) next to narrow through lanes. If I am in the narrow through lane, people honk at me; if I am continuing straight ahead in the right turn only lane, I am operating unlawfully and inconsistent with the markings, and will have problems where the lane ends.

The right turn only lanes that cause me headaches here won't ever become bus-and-bike lanes because the lanes are intended to eventually become through lanes when the rest of the road is widened, and because in my suburb, there is unlikely to ever be enough bus traffic to warrant bus lanes on surface streets. This has nothing to do with my preference; that's just reality.

I should note, every bike lane that doesn't end prior to a junction or proceed left of an RTOL should be considered a "bike and right turn lane" in order to minimize right-hooks. Some states explicitly require merging into the bike lane when approaching a right turn. Making the bike lane as wide as a bus probably reduces some of the problems I experience with bike lanes. I don't know if it would cause any new ones.

steve, you WOULDN'T be operating unlawfully in a "Right turn only EXCEPT buses and bikes" lane.