Advocacy & Safety - ROW in wide -> narrow transition - who yields? (part 2)

Please click on this diagram of a narrowing lane:
55929

The green is a cyclist on a bike and the purple is driver in a motor vehicle.
As you can see, the lane narrows from wide (about 16') to narrow (about 12').

The cyclist is maintaining course relative to the right edge of the lane.
The overtaking motorist is maintaining course relative to the left edge of the lane.

Most of us recognize that when there are parallel paths, both the slower driver and the overtaking driver have ROW to continue along their paths. I suspect we mostly agree that once the cyclist has established right of way in the narrower part, the overtaking motorist must yield to him. But in this case the paths are not parallel - the two paths are moving towards each other from a spacing that is sufficient to side-by-side sharing, to one that isn't - and the cyclist has not yet established right-of-way in the entire lane. So who has the right-of-way?

Do you agree the cyclist is transitioning from riding off to the side of space normally used by vehicular traffic to riding within that space, and, so, is required to yield to overtaking traffic before merging into that space? Or is the driver required to merge for the cyclist? Why?

Would you normally look back in this situation if you were on the bike, and signal your intent to merge left? Would you slow or even stop if you could not establish right of way, or would you just keep on going counting on overtaking traffic to your left and behind to yield to you?

[Same as HH’s poll but with the frame tilted]

You've got two possibly conflicting questions in your post... so... what do you want the answer to???


So who has the right-of-way?My opinion: Cyclist. The cyclist is in front and in the same lane. They are NOT in separate lanes, hence the cyclist already has the right of way over the car, and the car has the responsibility to pass safely.


Would you normally look back in this situation if you were on the bike, and signal your intent to merge left?If I felt that there was no room to share and there was a car close enough to force me to think about negotiating who has the right of way, I'd signal, then merge (IF the car appears to acknowledge me and slows down).. otherwise I'd slow down and let the asshat pass. If the car is back far enough that I'll be fully in the lane well ahead of him and he'll still have room to slow down, then I won't signal, I'll just assume my position in the lane.

how far back is the vehicle? 3 feet, 10 feet, 50?

how fast are the motorists travelling?

I'm of the camp the bicyclist, moped, vehicle, wheelchair, jogger, scooter, pedestrian ahead has the right of way regardless of how a single lane narrows.

Who cares what the right of way is? Insisting on the right of way when you are on a bicycle is a sure way of getting killed.

In that situation, if I am in front and can do so safely, I will get into the middle of the lane so that the car cannot pass me. If not, I will let the car pass and then get in the middle of the lane in back of him so no other cars can attempt to pass me.

Insisting on the right of way when you are on a bicycle is a sure way of getting killed.
There's a difference between knowing and insisting.

I believe the person in front has ROW. If I were the bicyclist, I would possibly yield that ROW though, depending.

It is one lane. It's a passing situation. Rear vehicle yields.

This doesn't mean the lead vehicle, what ever it is, should expect the rear vehicle to yield. Calling the lead vehicle a bicycle doesn't change anything.

The problem is that, if the lead vehicle is a bicycle, the driver in the rear vehicle typically doesn't think the bicycle should even be on the road!

You can only take ROW if it won't lead to a collision. A requirement to avoid a collision is always implicit. ROW issues don't change that! (This principle may not be a legal one but it is certainly a practical one.)

(Keep in mind that one can drive a vehicle recklessly and not violate ROW.)

Who cares what the right of way is?
Because there is a lot of confusion over what is safe and what the law requires.
Some examples that I have seen:
Cyclist at fault in an accident for not riding in the middle of the lane like a motorcycle
Cyclist ticketed for riding in the middle of the lane just like a motorcycle.
Cyclist at fault in an accident for not using a crosswalk
Cyclist ticketed for using a crosswalk
Edit: IMO there should be a concern over "cyclists have to yield to everything."

It is one lane. It's a passing situation. Rear vehicle yields.

This doesn't mean the lead vehicle, what ever it is, should expect the rear vehicle to yield. Calling the lead vehicle a bicycle doesn't change anything.

The problem is that, if the lead vehicle is a bicycle, the driver in the rear vehicle typically doesn't think the bicycle should even be on the road!

You can only take ROW if it won't lead to a collision. A requirement to avoid a collision is always implicit. ROW issues don't change that! (This principle may not be a legal one but it is certainly a practical one.)

(Keep in mind that one can drive a vehicle recklessly and not violate ROW.)

I think I agree with this. It being technically a single travel lane (no bike lane or shoulder) is the primary determinant.

However, I voted "Other" before I read this reply, on the theory that in most merge situations, a Yield sign is posted for clarification in one or the other approaches, and since there is no such sign here, it is ambiguous. And if there had been a disappearing bike lane, then I think that analysis would still apply.

However, in reality it doesn't much matter, because as njkayaker wisely pointed out, motorists are not going to know the difference anyway. In my experience, many motorists approaching a stop sign or red light, faced with a bicycle in front and to the right of them, have an automatic reaction to speed up in order to pass the cyclist before they have to stop. Or, if they fancy themselves nice to cyclists, pass with plenty of room and stay way over to the left when they stop, to "leave you room" on the right. (Which I never take.) So no matter who legally has the right of way, in practice it has to be a negotiation subject to the situation and individuals involved at the time.

Personally, in this situation, I slow down and use my mirror to observe cars approaching from behind. If it looks like I have time, I'll proceed with a head turn to verify (and to signal my intention to move), then move out into the lane to take my place. If there's someone coming up fast, I slow down more and let them by, then try again. Usually I don't get trapped, and I hardly ever get honked at either. (Maybe the motorists are nicer around here, but giving them plenty of reaction time is also key.)

The cyclist is, in effect, merging into the flow of traffic and therefore must yield to the flow of traffic. Whether it is/was a single lane or not has no relevance.

Example: A car parked on the street pulls out in front of a moving vehicle in the same lane...was the moving vehicle supposed to stop/slow to allow the parked vehicle to merge into his path just because they are in the same lane and the parked vehicle is ahead of the moving vehicle?

This doesn't mean the lead vehicle, what ever it is, should expect the rear vehicle to yield. Calling the lead vehicle a bicycle doesn't change anything.
Playing devils advocate for a second, from my experience from days of lesser experience and knowledge this situation has a low probability of a rear end collision and a higher probability of a sideswipe. So if the rear vehicle can safely get beside and take the lead by at least a bit doesn’t that make the cyclist the rear vehicle with the obligation to yield?

So in any sideswipe situation due to narrowing of the lane it will always be the cyclists fault. Agree, disagree? And would you be comfortable with that as law?

The cyclist is, in effect, merging into the flow of traffic and therefore must yield to the flow of traffic. Whether it is/was a single lane or not has no relevance.

Example: A car parked on the street pulls out in front of a moving vehicle in the same lane...was the moving vehicle supposed to stop/slow to allow the parked vehicle to merge into his path just because they are in the same lane and the parked vehicle is ahead of the moving vehicle?
Great analogy: the single parked car in the very wide outside lane.

Now consider the situation where this lane narrows from the left, and the parked car is the last car in the parking zone.

Does the green car moving slowly in the "parking zone" (note where the red curb starts demarcating the end of the "parking zone") of the very wide lane have the right to proceed here, or is the driver obligated to yield to the driver of the purple car? Is this significantly different from the situation in the OP? How?

I have a few sections of my daily commute that are exactly like this (in both directions!).

I usually look back and jump right in and take the lane.

No waiting, no signaling, no stopping - just GO.

The cyclist is, in effect, merging into the flow of traffic and therefore must yield to the flow of traffic. Whether it is/was a single lane or not has no relevance.

Example: A car parked on the street pulls out in front of a moving vehicle in the same lane...was the moving vehicle supposed to stop/slow to allow the parked vehicle to merge into his path just because they are in the same lane and the parked vehicle is ahead of the moving vehicle?

It's materially different than a stopped car pulling out from a parking spot. The parking spot is not part of the roadway.

The bicycle is in the roadway. The bicycle is the flow of traffic. Think of the situation with a motorcycle instead of a bicycle.


Playing devils advocate for a second, from my experience from days of lesser experience and knowledge this situation has a low probability of a rear end collision and a higher probability of a sideswipe. So if the rear vehicle can safely get beside and take the lead by at least a bit doesn’t that make the cyclist the rear vehicle with the obligation to yield?
So in any sideswipe situation due to narrowing of the lane it will always be the cyclists fault. Agree, disagree? And would you be comfortable with that as law?

If the bicycle and the car were riding side-by-side before the lane reduced in width, I would expect that the best choice would be for the cyclist to yield to the car. Here are a few reasons why: 1) the cyclist is more likely to be aware of the car than vice versa, 2) the car might not be able to slow down enough to avoid the side-swipe, and 3) the car may have less space to manuever.

I am not sure but I think in the event of a sideswipe collision, the car would be at fault legally (barring any other complications).



Great analogy: the single parked car in the very wide outside lane.
Now consider the situation where this lane narrows from the left, and the parked car is the last car in the parking zone.
Does the green car moving slowly in the "parking zone" (note where the red curb starts demarcating the end of the "parking zone") of the very wide lane have the right to proceed here, or is the driver obligated to yield to the driver of the purple car? Is this significantly different from the situation in the OP? How?
Simple. The parking area is not a travel lane. The parked car must yield (but may not).

It's different than the first case because the first car is in the flow of traffic.

The cyclist is, in effect, merging into the flow of traffic and therefore must yield to the flow of traffic. Whether it is/was a single lane or not has no relevance.

Example: A car parked on the street pulls out in front of a moving vehicle in the same lane...was the moving vehicle supposed to stop/slow to allow the parked vehicle to merge into his path just because they are in the same lane and the parked vehicle is ahead of the moving vehicle?

Negative. The situations are NOT the same... And there are LAWS written about pulling into traffic from parking areas/on street parking.

While they may be similar from a personal safety standpoint, they're not the same from a legal / right of way standpoint.

And this is where we all fight and argue... what's LEGAL is not necessarily SAFE for us to do. As anyone who rides a bike for any length of time will almost certainly attest.

It's materially different than a car pulling out from a parking spot. The parking spot is not part of the roadway.

It isn't pulling out from a parking spot....it's my scenario pal (don't make me take my toys and go home :p)...there is no 'parking spot', it's just someone parked on the street...which is legal in many places, ya know.

Great analogy: the single parked car in the very wide outside lane.

Now consider the situation where this lane narrows from the left, and the parked car is the last car in the parking zone.

Does the green car moving slowly in the "parking zone" (note where the red curb starts demarcating the end of the "parking zone") of the very wide lane have the right to proceed here, or is the driver obligated to yield to the driver of the purple car? Is this significantly different from the situation in the OP? How?

Talk about a grey area...or an accident waiting to happen - you got moving traffic merging into a narrower lane right at the edge of a WOL that allows parking. If the vehicle on the left is moving and the other vehicle is stationary...I'd say the moving vehicle has ROW, but if the vehicle on the right is already moving and out of the 'parking zone', and ahead of the other vehicle as shown, it would have ROW.

I sort of see Chipcom's point now, too. I think the basic ambiguity here is that the law says nothing about two vehicles sharing a lane side-by-side, because with two cars, it generally can't happen. But I also think two vehicles both already moving in the same lane is different than if one vehicle has been parked and is just starting to move. Most side-by-side movement in the same lane is passing, bringing me back to njkayaker's POV.

Regardless, my behavior is the same, stated above.

It's materially different than a stopped car pulling out from a parking spot. The parking spot is not part of the roadway.

The bicycle is in the roadway. The bicycle is the flow of traffic. Think of the situation with a motorcycle instead of a bicycle.
...
Simple. The parking area is not a travel lane. The parked car must yield (but may not).

It's different than the first case because the first car is in the flow of traffic.

Neither Chipcom nor I is talking about designated parking spots. It's just a wide curb lane where parking is not prohibited. When no one is parked there, it's just as legal to drive closer to the curb as it is away from the curb closer to the center of the road. By assuming that such an area is "not part of the roadway" or "not a travel lane", you're kind of making my point - the pavement further left is "higher priority" in terms of right of way. I think this applies to the margin of a wide lane that cyclists tend to use (whether it is demarcated as bike lane or shoulder or not).

I sort of see Chipcom's point now, too. I think the basic ambiguity here is that the law says nothing about two vehicles sharing a lane side-by-side, because with two cars, it generally can't happen. But I also think two vehicles both already moving in the same lane is different than if one vehicle has been parked and is just starting to move. Most side-by-side movement in the same lane is passing, bringing me back to njkayaker's POV.

Regardless, my behavior is the same, stated above.
I think the point of Chipcom's example, and certainly with mine based on it, is that it can happen with two cars. There are "very wide lanes" where two cars can fit, often the right half of such lanes are used for parking, but not always. And these lanes do often eventually narrow.

Talk about a grey area...or an accident waiting to happen - you got moving traffic merging into a narrower lane right at the edge of a WOL that allows parking. If the vehicle on the left is moving and the other vehicle is stationary...I'd say the moving vehicle has ROW, but if the vehicle on the right is already moving and out of the 'parking zone', and ahead of the other vehicle as shown, it would have ROW.
I'm just not sure. I think it's just as likely that the moving vehicle on the right is still arguably in the process of merging into the "main travel area of the lane", to which he has yielded right-of-way by being off to the right, and he can't just start using it; he needs to yield and merge into it respecting the right-of-way of those who have it.

It is one lane. It's a passing situation. Rear vehicle yields.

This doesn't mean the lead vehicle, what ever it is, should expect the rear vehicle to yield. Calling the lead vehicle a bicycle doesn't change anything.

The problem is that, if the lead vehicle is a bicycle, the driver in the rear vehicle typically doesn't think the bicycle should even be on the road!

You can only take ROW if it won't lead to a collision. A requirement to avoid a collision is always implicit. ROW issues don't change that! (This principle may not be a legal one but it is certainly a practical one.)

(Keep in mind that one can drive a vehicle recklessly and not violate ROW.)

Actually what you are saying is pretty close to the law in California. There is only one situation where you have the right of way. All the laws say one vehicle is required to yeild the right of way, they never say the other vehicle has it. The only time you have the right of way is when it is yeilded to you.

I think the point of Chipcom's example, and certainly with mine based on it, is that it can happen with two cars. There are "very wide lanes" where two cars can fit, often the right half of such lanes are used for parking, but not always. And these lanes do often eventually narrow.

Except for one little fact...

It's against the law for the CARS to share a lane like that. It's acceptable for a bike and a car to share the lane.

So... it all boils down to:

It REALLY seems that you'd like nothing more than to make it illegal to share a lane with a car, regardless of lane width.

Except for one little fact...

It's against the law for the CARS to share a lane like that. It's acceptable for a bike and a car to share the lane.

So... it all boils down to:

It REALLY seems that you'd like nothing more than to make it illegal to share a lane with a car, regardless of lane width.
There is no law, that I know of, that makes it illegal for cars to share lanes like that. If you know of one, please cite it. That would be very interesting.

If the cyclist is traveling slower than the speed of traffic, I would expect the cyclist (as a slow vehicle) to yield to the faster vehicle. If the cyclist is traveling at the speed of traffic, and assuming that the green rectangle in the diagram is one bicycle length, the cyclist should yield to the car, if only because the distance is too short to signal a turn and pull in front of the vehicle safely.
If the cyclist is traveling faster than the vehicle, and can expect to continue to be able to do so, then it's time to crank it up to 400 watts and let the vehicle eat dust!

I am not sure but I think in the event of a sideswipe collision, the car would be at fault legally (barring any other complications).
As a cyclist I will agree that’s what should be if we get sideswiped but I know from diving in New York the car whose bumper is in front of the other one is the one who is not at fault. So my guess is who is at fault would really depend on if the LEO was trained in cycling issues/law enforcement (cyclist not at fault) or if the LEO went by same road same rules (cyclist at fault.)

so right hooks are now legal? the bike has yielded the right of way......

how far from the curb is the bicyclist?

Nobody’s turning, everyone is going straight so no right hook, just two vehicles heading down a funnel. Most people have acknowledged that the person behind has to yield to the one in front so the question is at what time slice are we talking about; pre passing or at the time of an accident. I am merely commenting that there is a possibility that the time slice used to determine fault can come from when the accident happened and if so the cyclist would likely be at fault since they were at the time of the accident the one in the non lead position.

I will also mention that it seems to have escaped the notice that my op in this thread is an exact clone of HH’s op http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=349202 same roadway, same diagram, same angles (or at least to the best ability my graphic software will reproduce) yet I am getting totally different poll results then HH. The only difference is I “framed” the roadway differently then HH.

My point in this little exercise is to show that who has the legal right of way in a long taper is not only not clear but dangerous as each side has (or can have) the perception that it is the other side that has to yield.

Here ya go... a nice, easy summary of state passing laws: http://www.safe-route.org/laws/passing.php


28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties
A. WHEN OVERTAKING AND PASSING A BICYCLE PROCEEDING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, A PERSON DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE SHALL EXERCISE DUE CARE BY LEAVING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND THE BICYCLE OF NOT LESS THAN THREE FEET UNTIL THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS SAFELY PAST THE OVERTAKEN BICYCLE.
B. IF A PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION AND THE VIOLATION RESULTS IN A COLLISION CAUSING:
1. SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-105 TO ANOTHER PERSON, THE VIOLATOR IS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL PENALTY OF UP TO FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
2. DEATH TO ANOTHER PERSON, THE VIOLATOR IS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL PENALTY OF UP TO ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS.
C. SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A BICYCLIST WHO IS INJURED IN A VEHICULAR TRAFFIC LANE WHEN A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE OR PATH IS PRESENT AND PASSABLE.



California
No law directly on point. Overtaking law (here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21750-21759)) states “The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.”
Colorado
No law directly on point. Overtaking law, “42-4-1003. Overtaking a vehicle on the left.”, (here (http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d1b/64e90/64e92/65a66/65a95?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0)) states “The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.” (italics added)

Maryland
No law directly on point. Overtaking law, “§ 21-303. General rules governing overtaking and passing vehicles.”, (here (http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/205c3/21dd6/21e34/21e3f?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_tr21-303)) states “The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle that is going in the same direction shall pass to the left of the overtaken vehicle at a safe distance.” (italics added)
Massachusetts


Now: Who do you think has the right of way??? EVERY state law I've ever read says that the passing driver has the responsibility to do so safely.

There is no law, that I know of, that makes it illegal for cars to share lanes like that. If you know of one, please cite it. That would be very interesting.


21755. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another
vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement
in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off
the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.

So.. true... it's not against the law to pass another vehicle on the right.. But it IS against the law to using a parking lane/area to do so.

I have a very strong feeling that if two cars WERE to attempt to drive side by side like that for any great length, a police officer WOULD find a reason to ticket one (Or both, depending on circumstances)

Personally, I think I'll ditch the bike and get a horse, they appear to have even MORE rights than bicycles!


21759. The driver of any vehicle approaching any horse drawn
vehicle, any ridden animal, or any livestock shall exercise proper
control of his vehicle and shall reduce speed or stop as may appear
necessary or as may be signalled or otherwise requested by any person
driving, riding or in charge of the animal or livestock in order to
avoid frightening and to safeguard the animal or livestock and to
insure the safety of any person driving or riding the animal or in
charge of the livestock.

Here's a note for you: There is no right of way when passing. Check out your local right of way laws... they don't mention passing another vehicle (at least, none of the ones I just checked do)... that's handled under the passing laws, which state that the overtaking vehicle must pass safely...

California Right of Way Laws (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21800-21809)

Here ya go... a nice, easy summary of state passing laws: http://www.safe-route.org/laws/passing.php
Now: Who do you think has the right of way??? EVERY state law I've ever read says that the passing driver has the responsibility to do so safely.
Good point but on the same token every state says you can’t enter the main travel way till it is safe to do so. So the question is; is the motorist passing or is the cyclist merging?

Put up or get out. Cite your sources. ;) :D

Let's see 'em.

how is a cycling riding ahead of other traffic in a lane 'entering' the main travel way, human car???

where is the bicyclist riding in the wide lane to begin with? and is the diagram to scale? how far back is the car that a bicyclist has to yield, versus not?

I think you vehicularist really are attemting to ERODE bicyclists rights to the road, dudes. or pushing a pogram of narrow lanes only, depsite the posted speed limits. lame-o.

Like I stated on page one, I'm firmly in the 'vehicle ahead has the right of way'.

WHEN OVERTAKING AND PASSING A BICYCLE PROCEEDING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, A PERSON DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE SHALL EXERCISE DUE CARE BY LEAVING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND THE BICYCLE

how is a cycling riding ahead of other traffic in a lane 'entering' the main travel way, human car???

where is the bicyclist riding in the wide lane to begin with? and is the diagram to scale? how far back is the car that a bicyclist has to yield, versus not?

I think you vehicularist really are attemting to ERODE bicyclists rights to the road, dudes. or pushing a pogram of narrow lanes only, depsite the posted speed limits. lame-o.

Like I stated on page one, I'm firmly in the 'vehicle ahead has the right of way'.

WHEN OVERTAKING AND PASSING A BICYCLE PROCEEDING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, A PERSON DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE SHALL EXERCISE DUE CARE BY LEAVING A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND THE BICYCLE

Shhh... you're interrupting his concentration. He's busily searching and trying to find some snippet of law to support his statement.

from the Ohio Revised Code

4511.44 Right-of-way at highway from any place other than another roadway.

(A) The operator of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley about to enter or cross a highway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all traffic approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.

Merging into the travel lane is considered entering the roadway. Thus, if the cyclist is in the roadway, they are already in the travel lane and have ROW (as in the pic where the cyclist is on the straight line and the motor vehicle is merging left), but if the cyclist is merging left (as in the pic where the motor vehicle is on the straight line and the cyclist is on the angled approach from the right), he is in effect merging into the traffic lane and must yield to traffic there. In HH's example with the 'parking' area, the car pulling out must yield.

chip, in this scenario, the bicyclist is riding in a wide lane as it narrows. no 'entering' the lane.

the trailing vehicle legally needs to yield right of way.

Look at the poll results: 2:1 says it is the cyclist must yield over the motorist yielding. So you guys that think the motorist must yield are in the minority in this thread.

I realize that everyone has their own point to make and I will try and play when I have time but for now what I wanted to accomplish has been accomplished. And I have a lot of junk on my plate right now.

So.. true... it's not against the law to pass another vehicle on the right.. But it IS against the law to using a parking lane/area to do so.

I have a very strong feeling that if two cars WERE to attempt to drive side by side like that for any great length, a police officer WOULD find a reason to ticket one (Or both, depending on circumstances)

The "strong feeling" is correct.

Note what "passing" means. Travelling "sided by side" isn't "passing" unless there is a difference in speed.

The law allows travelling "side by side" for the purpose of passing. If it allowed other reasons for travelling "side by side", the "passing" qualification is either unnecessary (or incomplete). What is implied is "but not for any other purpose" (and I'll go out on a limb and say this is a legal implication).

--------------------


Good point but on the same token every state says you can’t enter the main travel way till it is safe to do so. So the question is; is the motorist passing or is the cyclist merging?
But the cyclist is in the main travel way!

--------------------

bmclaughlin807 is quite knowledgable about this stuff!

I'm going Navy on this one...

yield to the bigger boat.

Those 5 seconds of inconvenience is not going to kill me.

Playing "I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY!" with a semi could.

WTF is so complicated about that?

Its like a wise man once said, "Common sense...its NOT so common anymore."

all you 'yield to vehicles behind me' are a bunch of nambypambs. how far from the curb are you riding? how far behind is the vehicle?

This flies in the face of what I thought the vehicularist camp would subscribe to.

now its waiting for cars to rightfully claim what is already yours? how do you people get anywhere on your bicycles? throw your arm out if you need greater passing clearance.

this is partly tongue in cheek, I am well aware of how and when to yield to fast moving, overtaking traffic as a lane narrows but seriously! show some traffic cojones, people.

and what actually did the human car want to accomplish with this thread anyway?


I realize that everyone has their own point to make and I will try and play when I have time but for now what I wanted to accomplish has been accomplished. perpetuate the bicyclist inferiority complex????

I'm going Navy on this one...

yield to the bigger boat.

Those 5 seconds of inconvenience is not going to kill me.

Playing "I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY!" with a semi could.

WTF is so complicated about that?

Its like a wise man once said, "Common sense...its NOT so common anymore."

As I said earlier:


You can only take ROW if it won't lead to a collision. A requirement to avoid a collision is always implicit. ROW issues don't change that! (This principle may not be a legal one but it is certainly a practical one.)

(Keep in mind that one can drive a vehicle recklessly and not violate ROW.)

Avoiding collisions is explicit in the navigation rules "governing" the operation of vessels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussions of ROW that appear to not be informed by the "avoid collisions" principle are pretty meaningless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


all you 'yield to vehicles behind me' are a bunch of nambypambs. how far from the curb are you riding? how far behind is the vehicle?
This flies in the face of what I thought the vehicularist camp would subscribe to.
now its waiting for cars to rightfully claim what is already yours? how do you people get anywhere on your bicycles? throw your arm out if you need greater passing clearance.
this is partly tongue in cheek, I am well aware of how and when to yield to fast moving, overtaking traffic as a lane narrows but seriously! show some traffic cojones, people.
and what actually did the human car want to accomplish with this thread anyway?
perpetuate the bicyclist inferiority complex????

There is a lot of basic lack of understanding in this thread that leads me to hope I am never on the road with some of the posters!

If it is safe to do so, "taking the lane" (using hand signals) is may be quite appropriate at the least because it communicates your intention to the trailing vehicle. This would be no different that a leading car using its signals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


As a cyclist I will agree that’s what should be if we get sideswiped but I know from diving in New York the car whose bumper is in front of the other one is the one who is not at fault. So my guess is who is at fault would really depend on if the LEO was trained in cycling issues/law enforcement (cyclist not at fault) or if the LEO went by same road same rules (cyclist at fault.)

Those rules (common in the US, I think) are used to decide fault for collisions between cars (in "simple" situations).

What would happen if "sideswipe" occurred between a car and a pedestrian?

It appears that the general legal principle is that car drivers are qualified (by the driver license) and so have more responsibility than others who are not so qualified such as pedestrians (certainly) and bicycles (likely). Also, concider that, in a collision with a car, the pedestrian and the bicyclist are at a severe disadvantage. The laws are, it seems to me, informed by that. The car driver has more responsibility because he is operating a more dangerous device!

Bicycles are in a bit of a legal limbo because they aren't quite cars and they aren't quite pedestrians.

and what actually did the human car want to accomplish with this thread anyway?

perpetuate the bicyclist inferiority complex????

That was unkind. Look at the poll results in these two threads:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=349202
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=349626

It is the same op and same narrowing of the lane just the frame of reference changed in the pic. Result: no clear consensus among cyclists who has the legal right of way. Conclusion: A long taper is a bad design in accommodating cyclists.

that's a flawed conclusion.

And Sorry, Barry, but YES, it appears you (and Helemt Head) are perpetuating the bicyclist inferiority complex. shudders even mentioning that forester crapology

Barry, I'll ask one more time, because the original scenario was unclear-

HOW FAR FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD IS THE BICYCLIST RIDING AS THE LANE NARROWS? I'm usually riding 6-8 feet from the lane stripe in all but the widest of wide lanes, but thats just me...

3 feet from the curb, 2 feet of bicyclist, (optimized 3 feet of clearance) gives the driver 8 feet to drive in. as the bicycle moves left, even 1 foot left, the lane becomes unshareable and the passing car needs to legally give right of way to the bicyclist.

Of course, you and I both know that doesn't happen, but seriously, what kind of anti-bicycling message are you perpetuating here? institutionalizing bikes need to yield to vehicles behind them???

and if this is a veiled VC promotion of narrow lanes, realize many bicyclists hug the curb in narrow lanes so as to get away from the auto traffic or avoid riding bikes altogther....

If a car wants to pass,I'll slow down,stop,walk,whatever.I don't care who's right or wrong.In a bike(me) vs car situation,if I get hit I lose.So I'm 30 seconds late....who cares,if I get hit I'm going to be alot latter then that.If your in that big of a hurry and want to take on a car,be my guest.

Barry, I'll ask one more time, because the original scenario was unclear-

HOW FAR FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD IS THE BICYCLIST RIDING AS THE LANE NARROWS? I'm usually riding 6-8 feet from the lane stripe in all but the widest of wide lanes, but thats just me...

3 feet from the curb, 2 feet of bicyclist, (optimized 3 feet of clearance) gives the driver 8 feet to drive in. as the bicycle moves left, even 1 foot left, the lane becomes unshareable and the passing car needs to legally give right of way to the bicyclist.

Of course, you and I both know that doesn't happen, but seriously, what kind of anti-bicycling message are you perpetuating here? institutionalizing bikes need to yield to vehicles behind them???
Currently I am working on is detailing road design issues in the state of Maryland that cause cyclists difficulty and trying to recommend “can do” solutions to those problems.

If you have a problem with me preferring and recommending these designs:
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=55931&d=1191388756
over this design:
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=55929&d=1191384492
That is your prerogative and if you think that is “anti-bicycling” again that is your prerogative. If your point is how cyclists can ride safely in any road condition then bully for you. But please excuse me for trying to weed out some of difficult road conditions that the untrained cyclists have difficulty with. I feel very strongly in order to protect the rights of a cyclist, who has the right of way has to be clear as possible in the road design and the long taper des not cut it. The long taper is a design to accommodate drunk drivers, not cars and cyclists sharing the same lane. That is my opinion and if you want to disagree with that fine but it will be your turn to be the anti-cyclist.

Trying to answer your question; since I am looking at road designs all I can really say is the cyclist will be riding were a typical cyclist would ride in this situation, make what ever point you want out of that.

from the Ohio Revised Code

4511.44 Right-of-way at highway from any place other than another roadway.

(A) The operator of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley about to enter or cross a highway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all traffic approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.

Merging into the travel lane is considered entering the roadway. Thus, if the cyclist is in the roadway, they are already in the travel lane and have ROW (as in the pic where the cyclist is on the straight line and the motor vehicle is merging left), but if the cyclist is merging left (as in the pic where the motor vehicle is on the straight line and the cyclist is on the angled approach from the right), he is in effect merging into the traffic lane and must yield to traffic there. In HH's example with the 'parking' area, the car pulling out must yield.

I'm already in the travel lane. Sorry, this doesn't apply. Yes, the lane was wide... yes, I was sharing it. But ... I'M STILL IN THE LANE! In all actuality, the cars aren't driving in their normal position while I'm there, anyway... they're traveling further left than customary (They're on or near the centerline, where if they weren't passing a cyclist they'd be further right)

Barry, on my commute I've currently got an abrubt lane narrowing transition, and trust me, the average bicyclist has just as many or more problems with those versus gradual narrowing.

you appear to be pushing a road design where bicycles travelling along will need to yield to overtaking traffic, versus trailing vehicles being required to ascertain safe passing. I think your approach and analysis, and 'solution' causes more problems than it solves.

bikes ahead of traffic have the right of way, less so in abrupt lane narrowing situations that require a sudden merge rather than gradual merging. sorry, but that's my on the road experience and common sense talking. your approach seems to take away bicyclists' right to the lane via engineering controls..