Example of bike lane problem: unusual or typical?

[Helmet Head]

The SF Chronicle has this short story (http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2007/05/bikes_vs_cars_c.html) on bikes vs. cars. Here is an excerpt:


The latest CHP data on car-bike collisions that resulted in injury or death shows, most often, the cyclist is at fault. Take a look for yourself at the CHP statistics covering more than 11-thousand accidents around the bay during the past five years. Sixty percent of the time, the cyclist caused the crash. The most common violations that led to accidents were riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile's right of way, unsafe speed and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Cyclists who caused collisions were nearly three times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, compared to drivers who caused accidents.


One of the responses is a great example of ramifications of the false sense of security fostered by bike lanes, coupled with them being inherently contrary to the vehicular rules of the road.


As an avid bike rider, who has been hit by a car, I think that the rules set by the SFPD are unclear.
In my case, I was struck by a car while I was riding in the bike lane. The car pulled into a parking spot headfirst. The officer at the scene reported I was passing on the right, making my action illegal. But I was in the bike lane, traveling at a normal speed. I was left fully liable for nearly 10k in hospitol bills, and a broken bike.
The grey area in bicycle/automobile right of way and laws is emmense. To report that bicyclists are more neglegent in traffic is neglegent in itslef. I feel cyclists in our city are getting a bad rap. I don't beleive in critical mass, I beleive in critical manners. Our city is growing too fast, and I beleive we, as San Franciscans, need to be a little more curtious to each other. Lets not become another NYC. We are a city known for tolerence, lets not forget that.


Note how he feels he did nothing wrong since he was in the bike lane. He claims he's an "avid biker", but he's clearly not an A&S regular, because his post is riddled with confusion.

He claims the gray area in bike/car ROW and laws is "immense". What he doesn't recognize is that the only bike/car ROW gray area in the law has to do with bike lanes. I'll bet he's a big supporter of bike lanes too, but I doubt he would be as big a supporter if he understood the role it played in his crash.

Do you think this BikeinBlue guy is an unusual or typical representative of how cyclists currently think?

[genec]

Cyclists who caused collisions were nearly three times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, compared to drivers who caused accidents.

Sounds to me like this is more of a direct cause than a line of paint.

[sbhikes]

Sixty percent of the time, the cyclist caused the crash. The most common violations that led to accidents were riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile's right of way, unsafe speed and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Cyclists who caused collisions were nearly three times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, compared to drivers who caused accidents.

This means 40% of the time it's the motorist's fault. Almost half.

Riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile's right of way, unsafe speed, ignoring traffic signals and signs, and riding while drunk are not caused by bike lanes.

As for BikeinBlue, I think he's not telling the whole story. There may also be a residual effect there due to the CM issues they are having in SF. He also may just need a little training on how to use a bike lane safely. Again, the bike lane did not cause the problem. Other mistakes did.

Finally, how is yet more harping on your hatred of bike lanes furthering your mission to teach Vehicular Cycling to the world? Or is this topic yet more evidence that VC is only about anti-bike lane whining and not about safer cycling practices? Can't you guys teach people how to ride a bicycle safely in the world that currently exists without constantly trying to find places to place blame? This is why Hurst is so much more effective.

[chipcom]

I think this once again bears out why I refuse to use California as a model for the rest of the country - and why HH and JF are so out-of-whack with many of us...because their experiences are based on California.

As to the premise of the OP...cyclists tend to pass on the right whether there is a BL stripe or not - the root cause is the notion that passing on the right is ok, which is shared more and more by motorists too, not the fact that there was a BL stripe.

[zeytoun]

As to the premise of the OP...cyclists tend to pass on the right whether there is a BL stripe or not - the root cause is the notion that passing on the right is ok, which is shared more and more by motorists too, not the fact that there was a BL stripe.
In another thread, HH told me that passing on the right was VC.

In general, I think the issue behind that behavior is general impatience/reptilian brain competition. The roads are reaching their limits in some cities (60% of L.A.'s surface is roadway, for example), but traffic continues to increase. We can't be late. So we pass on the shoulder, we cross double yellows to pass, we pass on the right in our bike or our big SUV.

[Helmet Head]

Sounds to me like this is more of a direct cause than a line of paint.
I agree. Nor have I ever claimed otherwise.

[Helmet Head]

I think this once again bears out why I refuse to use California as a model for the rest of the country - and why HH and JF are so out-of-whack with many of us...because their experiences are based on California.

As to the premise of the OP...cyclists tend to pass on the right whether there is a BL stripe or not - the root cause is the notion that passing on the right is ok, which is shared more and more by motorists too, not the fact that there was a BL stripe. Of course you are correct about the root cause - feeling it is okay to pass on the right.

However, I think bike lanes give most cyclists a false sense of security, it makes them think they have the right of way simply because they are in a bike lane. BikeinBlue's words exemplify this. Can you blame him? On multilaned roads, it is not illegal to pass on the right. So to a cyclist who is in his own lane, it feels natural to pass on the right. I strongly suspect uninitiated cyclists like this are less vigilant when they are riding in bike lanes because they are riding in bike lanes. It probably does not occur to them that they are doing something that requires extra caution (if they should do it at all) because they are in a bike lane. After all, they support bike lanes because they are "more comfortable" when riding in bike lanes.

Anyway, do you think this is guy is typical or unusual?

[Helmet Head]

In another thread, HH told me that passing on the right was VC.

In general, I think the issue behind that behavior is general impatience/reptilian brain competition. The roads are reaching their limits in some cities (60% of L.A.'s surface is roadway, for example), but traffic continues to increase. We can't be late. So we pass on the shoulder, we cross double yellows to pass, we pass on the right in our bike or our big SUV. It is not illegal to pass on the right. It is not contrary to VC to pass on the right with due caution.
It is contrary to VC to pass on the right obliviously assuming it's a perfectly reasonable thing to simply because you're in a bike lane.

Most cyclists never heard of VC. I'll bet BikeinBlue, an "avid cyclist", never has. These are the folks we should be trying to reach.

[Helmet Head]

This means 40% of the time it's the motorist's fault. Almost half. Well, it means the primary cause of the crash 40% of the time was the motorist's fault. But if you accept the Multiple Causation Theory that Ratliff, Sr. has been posting about, and is consistent with common sense, there are almost always secondary causes, some of which are surely the bicyclist's fault. If the bicyclist can avoid to make mistakes that are secondary causes to crashes - and VC is about avoiding secondary as well primary cause mistakes - then he should be able to avoid almost all crashes. Arguably, over 99%. This is the basis for defensive driving.

Riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile's right of way, unsafe speed, ignoring traffic signals and signs, and riding while drunk are not caused by bike lanes. Indeed, violating the basic rules of VC are the primary causes of most bike-car crashes. The role of bike lanes is indirect, insidious really, and probably more relevant where the cyclist's mistake is a secondary cause. Bike lanes are probably only related to primary causes of bike-car crashes where they entice the cyclist to ride the wrong way on a street, or pass on the right obliviously, as was the case for BikeinBlue.

As for BikeinBlue, I think he's not telling the whole story. There may also be a residual effect there due to the CM issues they are having in SF. He also may just need a little training on how to use a bike lane safely. Again, the bike lane did not cause the problem. Other mistakes did.
A car in the outside lane slowed down, the cyclist did not react, he kept riding along in the bike lane, starting to pass the slowing car, which then cut right head first into a parking spot. You think this driver intentionally cut off this cyclist due to a residual effect from CM issues? This is a classic midblock right hook and could have happened anywhere with door zone bike lanes and an empty parking spot.

Finally, how is yet more harping on your hatred of bike lanes furthering your mission to teach Vehicular Cycling to the world? Or is this topic yet more evidence that VC is only about anti-bike lane whining and not about safer cycling practices? Can't you guys teach people how to ride a bicycle safely in the world that currently exists without constantly trying to find places to place blame? This is why Hurst is so much more effective. This is a good point. I don't hate bike lanes. I do wish the members of this forum, to start, would better recognize the role that bike lanes play, often insidiously, in bike-car crashes.

[Bekologist]

pass on the right, or hooked by drivers????

a lot of bike lanes on your commute WHEN you bike commute, head, which isn't very often.


what a wank.

[Helmet Head]

In the Contest thread, Nate entered this, which Diane and others agreed with:

Pro-bikelane - We support bicycling for the masses
Anti-bike lane - We do not support bicycling for the masses

In these terms, the question in this thread can be phrased as: is BikeinBlue typical of "the masses" that Nate, Diane and other pro-bikelane folks seek to support?

Of course, the ultimate question is: is supporting bike lanes really supporting/benefiting folks like BikeinBlue?

[Bekologist]

who the heck is bikeinblue, and were they quoted in the Chronicle, or are you merging two disparate blurbs to support your smear against bike infrastructure?

[Helmet Head]

who the heck is bikeinblue, and were they quoted in the Chronicle, or are you merging two disparate blurbs to support your smear against bike infrastructure?
Click on the link in the OP and all will be clear. It's an article, with user comments. BikeinBlue was one who posted a comment.

[Bekologist]

who says bicyclists that haven't heard of VC use caution while passing cars on the right?

how off base.

Honestly, i think it's a MUCH larger issue of drivers hooking bicyclists by failing to yield than bicyclists 'passing' cars turning on the right. what a mischaracterization by the head.

[Bekologist]

sounds like bikeinblue was HOOKED, head.

[genec]

This is a good point. I don't hate bike lanes. I do wish the members of this forum, to start, would better recognize the role that bike lanes play, often insidiously, in bike-car crashes.

Well is it the lanes themselves or motorists that do not understand their role in the use of lanes and their relationship to cyclists? And yes, the different roles in different states do add confusion... as once did the RTOL variations, at one time, also confuse motorists.

Lets face it, road workers on the roadway confuse some motorists... which is why CALTRANS had the whole "Give them a brake." campaign. Also part of the problem could also be the very inconsistent way BL are created and "signed" in CA. Go to Oregon to see well implemented and consistently well signed BL.

Chipcom has a point in that CA probably has the worst overall inconsistent implementation of BL...

But that is just my observations and humble opinion.

[Helmet Head]

who says bicyclists that haven't heard of VC use caution while passing cars on the right?

how off base.

Honestly, i think it's a MUCH larger issue of drivers hooking bicyclists by failing to yield than bicyclists 'passing' cars turning on the right. what a mischaracterization by the head.
Drivers in the outside lane of traffic slowing down to turn right, or slowing down to park, have no obligation to yield to a cyclist who is passing them on the right, even if they just passed him, even if there is a bike lane.

[joejack951]

sounds like bikeinblue was HOOKED, head.

How quickly do you pull into a parking spot, Bek? This motorist who hit Bikeinblue (or who he hit) had to be barely moving when Bikeinblue passed him. I highly doubt the motorist passed the cyclist quickly then turned at 20mph into a parking spot. Passing on the right and being hit by a right turning vehicle that you saw up ahead moving slowly is not the traditional right hook that can sometimes be blamed on the motorist.

[Bekologist]

I drive about 6 days a year, joe. can't ascertain how i pull into parking spots. ask helmet head, HE drives a lot.

however, i doubt your analysis or the police's analysis of bikeinblue's actions.

i can't say what or how bikeinblue was riding. but hooks are much more the fault of the drivers than the cyclists, isn't that right, joe? you get hooked once a week, and you do everything right, dontchya?

[joejack951]

I drive about 6 days a year, joe. can't ascertain how i pull into parking spots. ask helmet head, HE drives a lot.

however, i doubt your analysis or the police's analysis of bikeinblue's actions.

i can't say what or how bikeinblue was riding. but hooks are much more the fault of the drivers than the cyclists, isn't that right, joe? you get hooked once a week, and you do everything right, dontchya?

Great, now you've latched onto a misinterpretation of something I said and will continue to use it to try and discredit what I write. I feel so special :rolleyes:

I would say that right hooks that result in collisions (not the kind where someone swoops across the lane in front of you to prepare for a turn up ahead) are often the result of motorists not noticing cyclists up ahead on the right, motorists not understanding how to make a turn in the presence of a bike lane/cyclist, cyclists not understanding right of way laws and not riding defensively, and cyclists not paying attention. It's about 50/50 in my book as to who is to blame for most right hook collisions that I've read about. But, I'd say the vast majority could be avoided by cyclists not riding so far right in the absence of faster same direction traffic and not passing on the right without due diligence.

[natelutkjohn]

In the Contest thread, Nate entered this, which Diane and others agreed with:

Pro-bikelane - We support bicycling for the masses
Anti-bike lane - We do not support bicycling for the masses

In these terms, the question in this thread can be phrased as: is BikeinBlue typical of "the masses" that Nate, Diane and other pro-bikelane folks seek to support?

Of course, the ultimate question is: is supporting bike lanes really supporting/benefiting folks like BikeinBlue?

So do I get royalties for showing up in a HH post and not being interrogated at the same time?

[genec]

Drivers in the outside lane of traffic slowing down to turn right, or slowing down to park, have no obligation to yield to a cyclist who is passing them on the right, even if they just passed him, even if there is a bike lane.

Whoa, this is an interesting issue... let's break it down for a second... say a cyclist is riding in a WOL... and moving along at just under the speed limit... and a motorist who knows they are about to turn right into the local grocery store lot speeds up, moves left to pass the cyclist (crossing the lane stripe, but not the double yellow) and then the motorist slows and swings into the lot.

At what point did the motorist gain ROW over the cyclist using the same lane? At what point did the motorist know they were turning right? Did the motorist, when behind the cyclist, have ROW over the cyclist? When the motorist overtook the cyclist, in the motorist's effort to move ahead, was the motorist violating the destination positioning concept?

Now the cyclist is on the right of the motorist... but based on the actions of the motorist, why should the cyclist believe the motorist is doing anything but going straight... according to the concept of destination posititioning?

Now we can go well beyond this and speculate that the observant cyclist will note the slowing of the vehicle that just passed and could make an assumption that the motorist make make a turn... and that cyclist should probably prepare for some sort of action... but based on destination positioning... the cyclist cannot predict anything... other than the motorist is doing something. The smart cyclist would position themselves behind the motorist and not assume a right, straight or left movement from the motorist.

Now lets add a BL stripe.

Everything is just about the same except the motorist feels they are in their own lane... as does the cyclist. The motorist doesn't move to the left and cross a different lane stripe (as often noted by advocates, the motorist passes the cyclist in the BL without thinking). At this point they both have equal ROW in their respective lanes. At some point the motorist is going to turn right... and knows this. Now here is the tricky part... is the motorist "changing lanes" before the turn?

[Helmet Head]

It's about 50/50 in my book as to who is to blame for most right hook collisions that I've read about. But, I'd say the vast majority could be avoided by cyclists not riding so far right in the absence of faster same direction traffic and not passing on the right without due diligence.
JJ, to clarify... What you mean by "not riding so far right in the absence of faster same direction traffic" helps avoid right hooks is that when same direction traffic slows to the speed (or slower) of the cyclist, the cyclist should merge left, right?

[sbhikes]

How the heck does support of cycling for the masses end up being about getting hooked by an impatient car parker?

This morning I was riding OUTSIDE the bike lane stripe in the lane on a residential street and yet a truck, who had only just pulled into the street and so was going my speed, insisted he had to pass me. Naturally this required he pass into oncoming traffic, which in this case was present, and really step on the gas, this enveloping me in a cloud of noxious fumes. Did the bike lane cause this?

[Helmet Head]

Drivers in the outside lane of traffic slowing down to turn right, or slowing down to park, have no obligation to yield to a cyclist who is passing them on the right, even if they just passed him, even if there is a bike lane.
Whoa, this is an interesting issue... let's break it down for a second... say a cyclist is riding in a WOL... and moving along at just under the speed limit... and a motorist who knows they are about to turn right into the local grocery store lot speeds up, moves left to pass the cyclist (crossing the lane stripe, but not the double yellow) and then the motorist slows and swings into the lot.

At what point did the motorist gain ROW over the cyclist using the same lane? At what point did the motorist know they were turning right? Did the motorist, when behind the cyclist, have ROW over the cyclist? When the motorist overtook the cyclist, in the motorist's effort to move ahead, was the motorist violating the destination positioning concept?

Now the cyclist is on the right of the motorist... but based on the actions of the motorist, why should the cyclist believe the motorist is doing anything but going straight... according to the concept of destination posititioning?

Now we can go well beyond this and speculate that the observant cyclist will note the slowing of the vehicle that just passed and could make an assumption that the motorist make make a turn... and that cyclist should probably prepare for some sort of action... but based on destination positioning... the cyclist cannot predict anything... other than the motorist is doing something. The smart cyclist would position themselves behind the motorist and not assume a right, straight or left movement from the motorist.

Now lets add a BL stripe.

Everything is just about the same except the motorist feels they are in their own lane... as does the cyclist. The motorist doesn't move to the left and cross a different lane stripe (as often noted by advocates, the motorist passes the cyclist in the BL without thinking). At this point they both have equal ROW in their respective lanes. At some point the motorist is going to turn right... and knows this. Now here is the tricky part... is the motorist "changing lanes" before the turn? :beer:
I'll have what you're having. Seriously, this is another great post, Gene. Very insightful. Gets at the heart of the matter. Perfect counter-example using an analogy with a WOL.

Frankly, I don't think the laws are clear on this. My take on it is that whenever approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, the cyclist who chooses to stay in a lane-sharing position off to the right (whether that space is demarcated as a bike lane or not) does so at his own peril (this is why I call the margin the "danger zone"). He must decide whether staying that far right in the danger zone is "practicable" for the circumstances.

When you add in the BL stripe, it's still sharing of the outside lane. The BL stripe just obscures that fact and makes it less likely for the cyclist, like BikeinBlue, to recognize the potential hazard of riding in the danger zone.

[natelutkjohn]

How the heck does support of cycling for the masses end up being about getting hooked by an impatient car parker?

My thoughts exactly :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

How the heck does support of cycling for the masses end up being about getting hooked by an impatient car parker? The day you realize the connection will be the day you finally understand what I've been talking about all these years. Until you make that realization about the connection, probably not. For a hint, reread the last few posts in the exchange Gene and I are having.

This morning I was riding OUTSIDE the bike lane stripe in the lane on a residential street and yet a truck, who had only just pulled into the street and so was going my speed, insisted he had to pass me. Naturally this required he pass into oncoming traffic, which in this case was present, and really step on the gas, this enveloping me in a cloud of noxious fumes. Did the bike lane cause this? Yes, quite probably the bike lane was an influencing factor. After all, being outside of the bike lane you were likely to be doing something wrong in the eyes of truck driver, so he may have felt justified in teaching you a lesson.

[MarkS]

A car in the outside lane slowed down, the cyclist did not react, he kept riding along in the bike lane, starting to pass the slowing car, which then cut right head first into a parking spot. You think this driver intentionally cut off this cyclist due to a residual effect from CM issues? This is a classic midblock right hook and could have happened anywhere with door zone bike lanes and an empty parking spot.
Are you saying that a driver has the right to cross a bike lane any time he or she wants, without regards to the occupant of that lane? Its a SOLID line. This is the part that I don't get. And why would the cyclist be at fault if a vehicle plunged ahead across a solid line?

My understanding is that the driver of a vehicle must check for the occupants of a lane before crossing a lane marker -- not just diving in when it feels good.

[genec]

:beer:
I'll have what you're having.

Pure Hoppiness... Alpine Beer Company (http://alpinebeerco.com/). Good stuff. Hard to find. O'Briens (http://local.yahoo.com/details;_ylt=Ar0RvuNB99CfSm13lK0ttCWHNcIF?id=20873332&state=CA&city=San+Diego&stx=O%26%2339%3BBrien%26%2339%3Bs&csz=San+Diego%2C+CA&fr=ush3-yp&ed=w3IZR6131Dy69ryPE9IjyAQwOcE9tD51dFYY1PVJenCJ4qI5s71uV5_D&lcscb=UlbtW6fpmWp) has it on tap. :D

Even the wife likes it... enough to pick up a bottle or 6 whenever she has to go out to the east county.

More on O'Briens. (http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/2056/) Apparently their web site is down... but the link here will give you plenty of info.

[genec]

Are you saying that a driver has the right to cross a bike lane any time he or she wants, without regards to the occupant of that lane? Its a SOLID line. This is the part that I don't get. And why would the cyclist be at fault if a vehicle plunged ahead across a solid line?

My understanding is that the driver of a vehicle must check for the occupants of a lane before crossing a lane marker -- not just diving in when it feels good.

That may be your understanding... and the way it is written into law... but most motorists don't know that, and few ever check for occupants of a bike lane. Don't assume you have been seen.

This is the basis for what HH and others are saying... that essentially the cyclist feels safe in the BL, but there is no "protection" per se. Motorists don't care about you as a cyclist, unless you are in their way. (simplistic, but fairly true)

[sbhikes]

A car in the outside lane slowed down, the cyclist did not react, he kept riding along in the bike lane, starting to pass the slowing car, which then cut right head first into a parking spot. You think this driver intentionally cut off this cyclist due to a residual effect from CM issues? This is a classic midblock right hook and could have happened anywhere with door zone bike lanes and an empty parking spot.

If the car slowed down, why would the cyclist need to react? Wouldn't that seem like the car was slowing for him? If the car driver then did cut off the cyclist, then he probably should have reacted, if he was able, but how was this the fault of the bike lane and not either of the two parties involved?

As for the CM issue, I'm saying that possibly the cop gave the cyclist the citation rather than the driver perhaps because of residual effects from all the CM nastiness up there, not that the driver or cyclist did anything in particular because of CM. But that's just speculation.

This is a classic right hook that could happen to any slower, small vehicle on any street regardless of bike lanes or not. As long as the motorists figure they've gotten ahead they just do whatever they heck they want. And if they haven't yet gotten ahead, they seem to figure out a way to get ahead whatever it takes to do so, no matter if it makes any sense or not.

[Helmet Head]

Are you saying that a driver has the right to cross a bike lane any time he or she wants, without regards to the occupant of that lane? Its a SOLID line. This is the part that I don't get. And why would the cyclist be at fault if a vehicle plunged ahead across a solid line?

My understanding is that the driver of a vehicle must check for the occupants of a lane before crossing a lane marker -- not just diving in when it feels good. You're confusing a bike "lane" with a lane, which is a lane in name only (it is not recognized to be a lane by law or by most drivers).

A driver in the rightmost traffic lane should not be expected to remember to check for traffic to his right before merging right out of the road. If a cyclist rides with that expectation, he does at his own peril. The fact that a bike lane encourages a cyclist to ride with that hazardous expectation (usually subconscious), as exemplified by BikeinBlue as well as you now, and this is the connection that Diane cannot see, is my point.

[Helmet Head]

If the car slowed down, why would the cyclist need to react? Because it's hazardous to pass a vehicle on the right that is in the rightmost lane. I wouldn't pass a cyclist on the right, let alone a car. He should react in order to avoid passing on the right (unless he's sure it's safe, and, even then, with the understanding that he's doing it at his own risk).

Wouldn't that seem like the car was slowing for him? Maybe, maybe not. I, for one, would not risk life and limb on it. That's why I always slow down, merge left, and pass on the left in these situations. It's ingrained instinct now.

If the car driver then did cut off the cyclist, then he probably should have reacted, if he was able, but how was this the fault of the bike lane and not either of the two parties involved? See MarkS's post above. The bike lane makes the cyclist feel he's safe to pass on the right, that he has the ROW, when he doesn't. The bike lane creates a false sense of security.

This is a classic right hook that could happen to any slower, small vehicle on any street regardless of bike lanes or not. As long as the motorists figure they've gotten ahead they just do whatever they heck they want. And if they haven't yet gotten ahead, they seem to figure out a way to get ahead whatever it takes to do so, no matter if it makes any sense or not. Anything is possible, but it is much less likely, probably by at least an order of magnitude, for a driver in an inside lane to suddenly swerve/turn/merge right without first checking for traffic in the adjacent traffic lane to his right than for a driver in the rightmost lane to suddenly swerve/turn/merge right without first checking for traffic in the adjacent space to his right (whether it happens to be demarcated as a bike "lane" or not).

[e0richt]

I think this once again bears out why I refuse to use California as a model for the rest of the country - and why HH and JF are so out-of-whack with many of us...because their experiences are based on California.

As to the premise of the OP...cyclists tend to pass on the right whether there is a BL stripe or not - the root cause is the notion that passing on the right is ok, which is shared more and more by motorists too, not the fact that there was a BL stripe.

I dont agree with that one... a bike lane does encourage someone to pass on the right thinking its legal... heck I had a question about filtering using a bike lane and was told yes because its a "bike" lane... interestingly enough even though there are signs that the bike lanes are for bikes only, cars use them to get to lights to make right turns and to pass cars that are making left turns. I was bothered by this at first but then I realised that because the cars use it as a lane, they are more likely to look for other traffic before jumping into it...

[zeytoun]

See MarkS's post above. The bike lane makes the cyclist feel he's safe to pass on the right, that he has the ROW, when he doesn't. The bike lane creates a false sense of security.
See MarS's post above. He appears to be asking you about whether you are saying a car has a legal "right" to cross the bike lane at any time without risking being "at fault".

This is not the same as assuming that vehicle drivers will follow the law. Make no such assumption, and ride accordingly.

21717. Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100.


Added Ch. 751, Stats. 1976. Effective January 1, 1977.
22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

Amended Ch. 1996, Stats. 1959. Effective September 18, 1959.

22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.
If drivers followed the law, this would prevent many right hooks. Drivers are to signal, merge into the bike lane, and turn right. A motorist who turns across the bike lane, without merging, is in violation of California law. As a merger, the motorist would be required to yield right-of-way to any present users of the lane.

That being said, make no such assumption about drivers following the law (most don't even know what the law says about right turns and bike lanes), and ride accordingly.

[randya]

Law enforcement officers are generally undertrained in bicyclist issues and have a pro-motorist, anti-cyclist bias. I wouldn't believe any statistics CHP or any other law enforcement agency provided vis-a-vis cyclist vs. motorist responsibility for crashes without undertaking an independent review of the data.

I won't vote in this poll because this is not a black and white issue and none of the selections allow for 'other'.

[natelutkjohn]

I won't vote in this poll because this is not a black and white issue and none of the selections allow for 'other'.

haha, only 3 votes so far, you definitly aren't alone in that.

[joejack951]

JJ, to clarify... What you mean by "not riding so far right in the absence of faster same direction traffic" helps avoid right hooks is that when same direction traffic slows to the speed (or slower) of the cyclist, the cyclist should merge left, right?

I must have been distracted when I typed that as that's really unclear. What I meant was that riding further left encourages faster traffic that plans to turn right to merge right behind the cyclist, assuming the cyclist had always been further left before the faster traffic caught up with him, instead of trying to pass first then turn right. Most motorists are not willing spend the extra effort to change lanes and pass a cyclist when they could just as easily wait a bit for the cyclist to clear the intersection then turn. I've found this to be true for me in both narrow and wide lanes.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

haha, only 3 votes so far, you definitly aren't alone in that.
The angel dancing triplets are awaiting their partner. How 'bout it Gene?

[MarkS]

If drivers followed the law, this would prevent many right hooks. Drivers are to signal, merge into the bike lane, and turn right. A motorist who turns across the bike lane, without merging, is in violation of California law. As a merger, the motorist would be required to yield right-of-way to any present users of the lane.

That being said, make no such assumption about drivers following the law (most don't even know what the law says about right turns and bike lanes), and ride accordingly.
Yes, you've summed it all up. The question is, then, how was it that the cyclist in the OP got hit while lawfully riding in the bike lane and yet was held legally responsible for the accident? Is this something that he should have/could have fought?

Certainly you can't depend on drivers doing the right thing, but in the event that someone does pull in front of you when you're making way at 20 MPH it would be nice to know that at least the law is on your side.

[John Forester]

If the car slowed down, why would the cyclist need to react? Wouldn't that seem like the car was slowing for him? If the car driver then did cut off the cyclist, then he probably should have reacted, if he was able, but how was this the fault of the bike lane and not either of the two parties involved?

As for the CM issue, I'm saying that possibly the cop gave the cyclist the citation rather than the driver perhaps because of residual effects from all the CM nastiness up there, not that the driver or cyclist did anything in particular because of CM. But that's just speculation.

This is a classic right hook that could happen to any slower, small vehicle on any street regardless of bike lanes or not. As long as the motorists figure they've gotten ahead they just do whatever they heck they want. And if they haven't yet gotten ahead, they seem to figure out a way to get ahead whatever it takes to do so, no matter if it makes any sense or not.

I have remarked before this, Diane, that your statements demonstrate that you are dangerous on the road. Why would the cyclist assume that a car on his left front slowing down was slowing down for the cyclist? That is the first strong danger signal telling the cyclist to stay clear of that motorist. Yes, I know that sometimes, but rarely, this turns into mutual slowing with the motorist expecting the cyclist to overtake on the right. However, this is sufficiently infrequent, and the cyclist so vulnerable, that the cyclist must never count on this being the situation. Stay behind that motorist, or, if possible, overtake on his left.

[zeytoun]

The question is, then, how was it that the cyclist in the OP got hit while lawfully riding in the bike lane and yet was held legally responsible for the accident? Is this something that he should have/could have fought?

Certainly you can't depend on drivers doing the right thing, but in the event that someone does pull in front of you when you're making way at 20 MPH it would be nice to know that at least the law is on your side.
One of the complaints of the bicycling advocates is pointed out by the article referenced in the OP. It points to a recent study that shows that SFO police officers frequently refuse to fill out a police report when requests are made by an injured cyclist. Another complaint is that the police officers do not adequately understand the ROW laws when it comes to accidents, and make a bad assignment of fault. If this is the case with the OP, he should fight it.

The bigger picture issue in this thread that HH started, is that he cherry-picks his information to fit his argument. The commentor was clearly speaking about legal/financial liability. HH has repeatedly insisted his idea of responsibility is not about legal/financial liability, but that it is an attitude that one takes in order to avoid future accidents. And yet when someone is clearly speaking about legal/financial responsibility, he jumps on their statement as if it were proof of cyclists lacking his attitude of "total responsibility".

This is an irresponsible assumption. Whether or not a cyclist could have ridden more defensively to prevent an accident, they should not be criticized when, after the accident, they complain about legal liability not being properly upheld.

This assumption does not foster understanding. If one expects others to understand the difference between legal responsibility, and an attitude of responsibility, criticizing someone who is speaking about legal responsibility for their "lack" of an attitude of responsibility is confusing to normal people.

Let's all ride with an attitude of responsibility for our own safety. But when a cyclist is hit, let's encourage assigning legal/financial faut in accordance with the law. And let's not confuse the two.

[Helmet Head]

One of the complaints of the bicycling advocates is pointed out by the article referenced in the OP. It points to a recent study that shows that SFO police officers frequently refuse to fill out a police report when requests are made by an injured cyclist. Another complaint is that the police officers do not adequately understand the ROW laws when it comes to accidents, and make a bad assignment of fault. If this is the case with the OP, he should fight it.

The bigger picture issue in this thread that HH started, is that he cherry-picks his information to fit his argument. The commentor was clearly speaking about legal/financial liability. HH has repeatedly insisted his idea of responsibility is not about legal/financial liability, but that it is an attitude that one takes in order to avoid future accidents. And yet when someone is clearly speaking about legal/financial responsibility, he jumps on their statement as if it were proof of cyclists lacking his attitude of "total responsibility".

This is an irresponsible assumption. Whether or not a cyclist could have ridden more defensively to prevent an accident, they should not be criticized when, after the accident, they complain about legal liability not being properly upheld.

This assumption does not foster understanding. If one expects others to understand the difference between legal responsibility, and an attitude of responsibility, criticizing someone who is speaking about legal responsibility for their "lack" of an attitude of responsibility is confusing to normal people.

Let's all ride with an attitude of responsibility for our own safety. But when a cyclist is hit, let's encourage assigning legal/financial faut in accordance with the law. And let's not confuse the two. You have some good and fair points, Zey. I agree in this case the legal liability probably should have fallen on the motorist. But with respect to what is more relevant to cyclists in general, I think, is that the best way to avoid the 10k in bills is to avoid the crash in the first place, and so I tend to focus on the attitude and best practices that are likely to do that: the attitude and practices of vehicular cycling. In particular, it's about being able to not only answer this question while sitting at a desk:

"If the car slowed down, why would the cyclist need to react? " - sbhikes

It's about knowing the answer instinctively and acting according to it, in real time.

"Stay behind that motorist, or, if possible, overtake on his left." - John Forester

Edit: I believe bike lanes hinder cyclists from understanding this and learning it instinctively.

[zeytoun]

I agree in this case the legal liability probably should have fallen on the motorist. But with respect to what is more relevant to cyclists in general, I think, is that the best way to avoid the 10k in bills is to avoid the crash in the first place
For him, once the accident has happened, legal liability is more relevant.

For us as cyclists, learning a lesson from his mishap is quite relevant.

For traffic in general, reinforcing the law is imperative.

Here's what someone brilliantly wrote in the "Stop Sign" thread.

Two guys are driving along. As they approach a red light the driver goes right through without slowing down. The passenger thinks, "OK, maybe he just didn't see the light" and doesn't say anything.

They come to another red light and the same thing happens. The passenger says, "Hey, you went right through that red light!" The driver says, "Oh, my brother drives like this all the time."

Finally they come to another traffic light, but this time it's green. The driver comes to a complete stop and waits at the light. "What are you doing? The light's green!" the passenger says.

"My brother might be coming the other way," the driver says.
If we ignore the issue of personal responsibility when cycling (mistakenly pursuing "liability" to its exclusion, for example), we put ourselves in danger.

If we ignore the issue of enforcing the law equitably (mistakenly pursuing "responsibility" to its exclusion, for example), we encourage illegal behavior.

These are not mutually exclusive goals, these are both vital for us as cyclists, and users of the road.

[Helmet Head]

For him, once the accident has happened, legal liability is more relevant. Absolutely. But my audience is not him. In the offchance that he stumbles onto this forum and thread, he's still only one of many, of which only one is him. To all the rest of us, the legal liability is not relevant.

For us as cyclists, learning a lesson from his mishap is quite relevant. Right. Hence my focus here.

For traffic in general, reinforcing the law is imperative. Perhaps. In any case, it's out of scope for this forum.


If we ignore the issue of personal responsibility when cycling (mistakenly pursuing "liability" to its exclusion, for example), we put ourselves in danger.

If we ignore the issue of enforcing the law equitably (mistakenly pursuing "responsibility" to its exclusion, for example), we encourage illegal behavior.

These are not mutually exclusive goals, these are both vital for us as cyclists, and users of the road. I agree, and this is John Ratliff's argument. I just think that on this forum of cyclists the first topic -- personal responsibility of the cyclist -- is much more relevant.

What is there to say about legal liability on this forum? We all agree about most of it, I'm sure. What is there to talk about? And what can we do about it? It's personal responsibility of the cyclist where we have the most control and disagreement, so, naturally, that is where most of the discussion and focus is here.

[genec]

.

"Stay behind that motorist, or, if possible, overtake on his left." - John Forester

.

Hey Forester and I had the same exact answer... :D

BTW I would avoid overtaking on the left unless you were very sure the motorist was well into a right turn... anyone that is flaky enough to pass a cyclist, not be destination positioned, and suddenly make a right turn, is flaky enough to bail on that turn in mid stream and suddenly pull a left back into traffic... Stay behind that motorist.

[Helmet Head]

Hey Forester and I had the same exact answer... :D

BTW I would avoid overtaking on the left unless you were very sure the motorist was well into a right turn... anyone that is flaky enough to pass a cyclist, not be destination positioned, and suddenly make a right turn, is flaky enough to bail on that turn in mid stream and suddenly pull a left back into traffic... Stay behind that motorist.
"Pull a left back into traffic?" What are you picturing? I do this all the time, and in every case, the car I'm passing is in the rightmost traffic lane, and I pass on the left with a wide margin.

[zeytoun]

In any case, it's out of scope for this forum.
How so? This is the Advocacy and Safety forum. Advocacy is about arguing on behalf of someone else to ensure justice/change/etc. Safety is about preventing damage, injury, and death.

Promoting enforcement of bicycle/car traffic laws is an Advocacy topic. How is that out of scope for the Advocacy and Safety forum?

Should we perhaps change this to the Safety forum?

[Helmet Head]

How so? This is the Advocacy and Safety forum. Advocacy is about arguing on behalf of someone else to ensure justice/change/etc. Safety is about preventing damage, injury, and death.

Promoting enforcement of bicycle/car traffic laws is an Advocacy topic. How is that out of scope for the Advocacy and Safety forum?

Should we perhaps change this to the Safety forum? What I meant by "For traffic in general, reinforcing the law is imperative" is out of scope for this forum is that debating about whether "reinforcing the law" is "imperative" is out of scope. Imperative to what?

Okay, maybe it is relevant to cycling advocacy, and arguably maybe even to cycling safety, so "out of scope" is probably not correct. Fine. I'll take it back, if I may. But I still think there is little to talk about beyond encouraging each other to support cyclists who are treated poorly by the legal system in your area. Forester has a chapter in his book on how yet another manifestation of cyclist inferiority thinking is unfair treatment of cyclists in situations like this. I think we can whine and complain about it, but, at least for now, I really don't think there is much we can actually accomplish in this area. In the mean time, there is a lot we can do in the area of personal responsibility of the cyclist, and the role that plays in reducing the likelihood of crashes.

Edit: Growing acceptance of vehicular cycling, starting with growing acceptance of vehicular cycling in the cycling community, including on forums like this, is probably the best thing we can do to address unfair treatment of cyclists by the legal system.

[zeytoun]

I'll take it back, if I may.
Of course.

I really don't think there is much we can actually accomplish in this area.
I think there is much that needs to be accomplished, whether we "can" or not.

Imperative to what?
Did you get why I reposted the joke? The rules of the road are only something you can depend on if they are followed.

Forester has a chapter in his book on how yet another manifestation of cyclist inferiority thinking is unfair treatment of cyclists in situations like this. I think we can whine and complain about it, but, at least for now, I really don't think there is much we can actually accomplish in this area.
You've applied a label to a situation that oversimplifies it, and reduces critical thinking.

You agree that legal liability probably should have fallen on the motorist (if it was a right hook like we think, of course).

And yet people who think that it is "unfair" for a LEO to assess the cyclist as being at-fault, exhibit cyclist inferiority?

I think that saying that car drivers are going to do what they want, so let's accomodate them for our own safety's sake, and not "whine" when we get hit, is an example of Bicycle-Motorist Codependence. Take charge of your own safety, but don't use the "there is nothing we can do" excuse to stifle criticism of illegal motorist behavior.