The 5 feet either way won't make an appreciably difference in safety for a cyclist passing through the intersection... MAYBE it would make you a tiny bit more noticeable... Probably not.... especially in an intersection of that size.

The absolute best thing you can do is realize that it's a dangerous intersection (aren't they ALL?) and use defensive practices when riding through it.

Now, obviously, there was no same direction faster traffic present, or the left-turner would have seen them and yielded (most likely), or proceeded anyway and crashed into them too (much less likely but still possible to which bmclaughlin807 is eager to attest).

Not obvious at all. It is entirely possible that there was same direction traffic for which the cyclist had to account while still presenting an enticing gap for an over-eager left-turner. Clearly the gap effect could have played a role as it often does in these left crosses.

The 5 feet either way won't make an appreciably difference in safety for a cyclist passing through the intersection... MAYBE it would make you a tiny bit more noticeable... Probably not.... especially in an intersection of that size.

The absolute best thing you can do is realize that it's a dangerous intersection (aren't they ALL?) and use defensive practices when riding through it.
Just about every freaking intersection I ride thru on a daily basis is that wide. I know from experience/observation that drivers will be looking in a tunnel down the 2-3 lanes of thru travel before turning left. 5ft over helps a bit. 12ft over is even better and what I suggested in post#10.

Al

Why would you use the RTOL to go straight if the only thing that changed is the stripe? That seems to be very irrational. The space to travel straight using the right most thru lane when there is faster traffic in the right most thru lane is still there.

Al

In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of irrational drivers out there. They do a lot of stupid things... like tracking off the line on one side or another, rather than maintaining a safe distance from surrounding objects...

I've been pushed out of the road by a motorist that moved right when the bike lane I was in ended while I was next to them... the lane didn't narrow or anything... but the motorist moved right towards the white line anyway. :(

Without a bike lane the position that I've found causes the absolute least amount of friction with motorists is on or just to the right of the white line...

If you look at the picture... even with your changes, the driving lane narrows at the intersection... so you're going from a very wide driving lane with a bike lane to the right of it to a wide lane with no bike lane. There WILL be some amount of friction involved... Most likely a negligible amount... but some.

What I fail to understand is WHY you want to change it at all... I could understand it if the lane was straight through or right turn... but not when there are totally separate lanes for all involved... why not just leave it as is?

Edit: the only change to the intersection that I can see that would SIGNIFICANTLY increase safety would be making it left turn on green arrow only.

@AdamJaz
I have been left crossed before (slightly different from a left hook; in my case, the crosser came from a street to the left of me, making a left turn onto the street I was on). In my case, I was against the median of the road when it happened, and only escaped by the skin of my teeth.

Now, I very carefully watch people who are posed to cross paths with me. Once a left hook or cross is initiated by the driver, it is very hard to avoid without that driver's cooperation. There is a certain danger zone when your intended path will take you on a collision course with the intended path of the motorist if he leaves his position at a certain time.

Being out of the bike lane or towards the left edge of the bike lane does help a little, but I think the case is overstated by some here. There is a bit of an argument that a cyclist in the bike lane is less relevent to a motorist and so being outside the bike lane will increase your relevence to the driver and make you more noticeable by default. In my experience, I can see a case for it in extreme circumstances, such as you are in a bike lane next to the curb and are riding very close to the right edge of it, but the effect is small if you are cycling elsewhere in the bike lane.

My best advice is to keep your head up in these situations and if you are triggered to the motorist starting to move out during that danger zone period where your paths will cross, take a vector away from the motorist and try to get the driver's attention. Realize that the driver might not even be looking in your direction; the piller on modern cars tends to obscure the drivers vision in that direction, and most drivers will not be able to look along their curving path to see obstacles ahead. Instead, they have their eyes pointed straight ahead on a tangent to their path, so small things, like bicyclists, might not even be looked at.

In these situations when I can see the accident as it starts to develop, I'd instinctively veer away from the car, and start waving and shouting at the driver to draw his eyes to the movement. I don't do this on every intersection; just those where the driver has already started out on the collision path with me. The hope is to get the driver's attention, since it is very difficult to evade. Veering away, which I think you tried to do, will merely move the collision point a little further down and give the driver more time to recognize the developing situation.

Overall, it is a very difficult situation to evade from once it has started developing because any evasion path will either take you across the path of the car, or tangental to it. The best that you can do is maximize your visibility to the driver by not allowing yourself to get along side a car to the left of you which will uncover you as you reach the intersection, and watching all cars perched in a position to cross your path very carefully and start on an evasion path before they are fully committed to their turn. Wave the car off and yell as you do this; people are drawn to human body language gestures of panic or command, especially if those gestures are directed at them - it short-circuits the brain and tells the driver that there is something there to avoid and they will understand reflexively, as opposed to simply seeing a cyclist shaped body and having to interpret from scratch what that shape means to them. The yelling is not for the noise you make, but for the facial expression you offer up to the driver; again, it is human nature to react to these facial expressions and gestures, and people will react faster if you offer them up as you are evading.

All this is regarding motorists who have jumped the gun and are starting out on the collision path. Ideally it never comes to that. Avoid traveling in gaps in traffic; use strategies which will have your position shielded by passing traffic. If there is no passing traffic, then take the lane, at least part way, so the driver doesn't have to look so far off to his left to see you, and you have more room to evade. Finally, learn the signs that a convergence of situations will make it likely that the motorist will jump. Gaps across all three lanes of traffic is a good sign. People tend to like to jump right after the last obstacle has cleared their path; look for situations where you are caught on a collision course right after being uncovered by a passing car. You can start seeing these convergences as they develop, and avoiding the potential for an accident becomes a lesson in timing. Learn to hang back or accelerate to avoid these convergences of situations which will make it more likely that a motorist will jump. For instance, if a gap across all three lanes opens up and you are about to ride into it, hang back for a second - stop accelerating. See if the motorist in the opposite side left turn lane reacts to the gap opening up. If he or she doesn't, then you are probably golden - the motorist has probably seen you. Proceed, but with a watchful eye turned toward the threatening car. If the motorist jumps, start reacting - what you are looking for is an immediate braking on the motorist's part. If you get that braking, hang back for an instant to ensure the braking means that he or she's seen you, then proceed. The third case is, of course, when the motorist doesn't brake. Dodge away from the car and accelerate as fast as you can to get across the path of the car before the collision takes place. Turning away from the car will only keep you in the car's path for a longer period of time. Hopefully it never comes to this, though in this instance, it did come to this and, well, **** happens.

You probably know all this already. Oh well. It's just my $.02. I hope the recovery goes well and you are back on your feet before too long.

If your question is about the Tucson lane the obvious answer is that after the intersection the road changes from three through lanes to four through lanes with the addition of a car pool lane on the right side.

You're suggesting that the bike lane maintain lateral position through the intersection which would put it between the curb lane (carpool) and the second through lane.

Silly.
What's silly is changing lane configuration mid-intersection. Yes, a lane might be added on the other side, but lanes normally continue in line on the other side of an intersection. Normal lanes that is. This is also yet another example of a bike lane not being treated as a normal lane.

Edit: Added in line above; apparently that was needed for clarification for some people.

You all are funny.

Bike lane argument, check.
Amateur analysis, check.
Claims regarding reading comprehension, check.

I think all we have left is for certain someones to threaten other certain someones with the Ignore List.

OP, I'd consider following this thread further only if you have a thick skin. **** happens, and there are things to learn from it, but after a page and a half, you've now got yourself an ideological war that's been being waged for the last two years. You've already heard what there is to say on the subject regarding the public debate. If you want candid advice, ask several people by PM what they'd do to help you avoid this situation. All you are going to get out of the public forum at this point is a bunch of political and ideological posturing.
Noisebeam's post #10 is practical advice, and not a hint of ideology, Brian. Your seeing it as "ideological war", or the subsequent debate about it, says much more about you and your ideology than anything else.

I suggest we stick to debating the practical pros and cons of riding through intersections like this one way or another.

Are you blind or just extra dense today?

The bike lane continues on the other side of that intersection.

There is no lane configuration change mid-intersection. That occurs after the intersection.

I can draw arrows to the bike lane that continues after the intersection if it will help you in your difficult search for understanding.
You're being dense if you refuse to admit the lateral position change required in the intersection to get from one bike lane to the other bike lane.

Are you blind or just extra dense today?

The bike lane continues on the other side of that intersection.

There is no lane configuration change mid-intersection. That occurs after the intersection.

I can draw arrows to the bike lane that continues after the intersection if it will help you in your difficult search for understanding.
Sorry, I meant "continues along the same line" on the other side.

Show me an intersection where a normal (not bike) lane "continues" on the other side of an intersection that is not in line with the other side.

Pete and others claim the bike lane and RTOL are completely separate. My question then, is the marked part of the roadway in the photo a "bike lane" or is it a "RTOL"?

In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of irrational drivers out there. They do a lot of stupid things... like tracking off the line on one side or another, rather than maintaining a safe distance from surrounding objects...

Actually I haven't noticed irrational drivers. I've seen aggressive and inattentive. Just about every motorist I've observes using a WOL tend to track to the left lane line.
I'd much rather have drivers respond to me instead of a white line which drivers tend to ignore when making lateral changes. In case you haven't noticed drivers just swoop into the RTOL with little regard to if the strip is dashed or not or if a BL is striped. Far better to not count on the BL to keep me protected and instead have them respond to me.


I've been pushed out of the road by a motorist that moved right when the bike lane I was in ended while I was next to them... the lane didn't narrow or anything... but the motorist moved right towards the white line anyway. :(

Sounds like you need to improve your observational and/or communication skills with other drivers.


Without a bike lane the position that I've found causes the absolute least amount of friction with motorists is on or just to the right of the white line...

I'd bet you have even less friction if you traveled on the sidewalk, at least until you get to intersections.

If you look at the picture... even with your changes, the driving lane narrows at the intersection... so you're going from a very wide driving lane with a bike lane to the right of it to a wide lane with no bike lane. There WILL be some amount of friction involved... Most likely a negligible amount... but some.

Some friction is good. It means that drivers are responding to each other and staying alert. In any case the lane narrowing a bit or not is sufficiently wide to share as it was when the left BL stripe was present.


What I fail to understand is WHY you want to change it at all... I could understand it if the lane was straight through or right turn... but not when there are totally separate lanes for all involved... why not just leave it as is?
Because in the many thousands of arterial intersections I've traveled thru (some with RTOL, some without) I find those with WOL vs. BL tend to be easier to work with and communicate to other drivers when they are treating me as another vehicle instead of a guy on a bike who they expect to be in some static position. Another problem I have with BL to the left of RTOL especially in Arizona is the areas just prior and past the stop line in the BL collects lots of debris and quickly nuts, bolts, glass, rocks etc. are thick within one week of sweeping. My desires are based on my real world experiences. not some theoretical or hopeful result.

Bottom line though for me. Having BLs to the left of RTOLs is of small concern to me relative to having BL striped fully up to intersections with no RTOL.

Al

Pete and others claim the bike lane and RTOL are completely separate. My question then, is the marked part of the roadway in the photo a "bike lane" or is it a "RTOL"?
The answer, of course, is both. It is a combined lane for right turning traffic, and it is also for through cyclists. No through traffic is allowed in that lane, except for cyclists.

Sorry, I meant "continues along the same line" on the other side.

Show me an intersection where a normal (not bike) lane "continues" on the other side of an intersection that is not in line with the other side.Unfortunately Honolulu has such an intersection. Piikoi St. at Kapiolani Ave. goes from two-way traffic to one-way traffic and forces 3 traffic lanes to change lateral position crossing the intersection. That is the primary reason this intersection has one of the highest accident rates in Honolulu.

Bad design for any type of lane.


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Piikoi+St.+at+Kapiolani+Ave.,+Honolulu,+HI&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.38984,58.183594&ie=UTF8&ll=21.294697,-157.846321&spn=0.001162,0.002655&t=k&z=19&om=1

Pete and others claim the bike lane and RTOL are completely separate. My question then, is the marked part of the roadway in the photo a "bike lane" or is it a "RTOL"?

It is neither. I believe traffic engineers call that a "dropped lane".

In the region which you circled, there is only a single lane present. The dotted line is only for guidance purposes and is optional. It does not demark a lane.

In looking at the police report diagram and a real world photo of the accident scene, The bike lane is to the left of the RTOL and not a part of it.

You are apparently blinded by your fear/hatred of bike lanes.
Pete and others claim the bike lane and RTOL are completely separate. My question then, is the marked part of the roadway in the photo a "bike lane" or is it a "RTOL"?
Where did I type that?

Here's what I actually typed:

"The RTOL is inside the BL area."... Seems you are talking out of both sides of your mouth today.

So the 11 foot RTOL is inside the 3.75 foot bike lane?

Bad road designs help create accidents.

So you really claim the bike lane is 14.75 feet wide at the intersection, and the RTOL is included in that 14.75 foot bike lane. Why then, is the extra painted line needed between the through lane and the curb?

Grow up Pete.
Bad road designs help create accidents.

Why is so hard for you to understand and appreciate the desire to reduce the likelihood of experiencing this:
I got taken to the hospital by paramedics.

My bike is done. My jeans are done. My tibial plateau is broken.

I scraped up my arms pretty well, lost enough blood on scene that the cops used hydroxide on the cement. I bruised more or less everything. I was flipped upside down and went flying. It was crazy.

If there were other vehicles nearby going the same direction, then the bike light wouldn't have been noticed. If no other vehicles are nearby, then whether the bike is in the bike lane or not should not matter for a driver to notice a light coming at him. He should be able to see the bike light if he's looking for vehicles approaching in the right through lane. Even if the bike rider had been to the left of the right through lane, the driver apparently would have missed his light anyway. A more accurate picture might be taken at night to see if there is background lighting. No matter what constant light I have on the front, I want a bright one blinking.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcp03395bj8.jpg)
Notice how the bike lane/RTOL smack right into the pedestrian island, unless of course you actually make a right turn. I would love to watch you ride straight into the pedestrian island.

What happened to the bike lane at the right turn?

Actually, the bike lane does not run into the island, it goes to the left of it.. The right stripe of the bike lane becomes the island curb.

Then why does the bike lane not maintain lateral position through the intersection (right next to the through lane)?
http://paradigmhosting.net/images/euclid.jpg

Actually, it does. If a cyclist is riding just to the right of the bike lane stripe well before the intersection, and goes absolutely straight when the road widens on the right to accomodate the right turn only lane, he/she would end up in the bike lane as it comes up to the intersection to the left of the right turn only lane. The road was widened on the right and the bike lane went straight through the interface with vehicles entering the right turn only lane.

You can design the bike lanes all you want, you can put all different kind of painted lines down, but you still haven't done a damn bit of good if people don't bother to look both ways completely before making a left hand turn that isn't protected. It doesn't matter where the bike lane is, the driver should have looked way beyond that to the sidewalk to make sure there wasn't someone trying to walk across the street either. The driver didn't see him (whether it was due to neglect or he just honestly didn't see him we don't know) and he got hit.

To the original poster, I wish you a quick recovery. Make sure you keep your wounds clean and free from any infection. Regardless of any kind of compensation you may receive because of this, laying in a hospital bed for days fighting an infection while receiving IV antibiotics is not a fun way to spend those days. I encourage you to take the time to heal properly, so many people rush back in and only agitate injuries because they don't bother to follow their physicians directions.

Your case seems pretty much open and shut, more so that the police officers assigned fault to the driver of the truck. So you shouldn't have much of a problem getting a settlement out of the insurance company. Be kind and respectful, but stand firm and check in for updates. I feel that as long as you don't act like a jerk, lie, or make threats then you'll be just fine and get a rather nice settlement. If they start ignoring you and leading you around (some smaller, local companies have been known to do that) then consider a lawyer. Just remember there is a fine line between compensation and flat out greed.

-Nate

It is neither. I believe traffic engineers call that a "dropped lane".
A dropped lane is a lane that is dropped. There is no lane that is dropped here.


In the region which you circled, there is only a single lane present. The dotted line is only for guidance purposes and is optional. It does not demark a lane.
What do you mean by "the dotted line ... is optional"?

By contending that a dashed stripe does not demarcate a lane, you are suggesting that once a bike lane stripe goes from solid to dashed the bike lane is no longer there. In OR, that would mean motorists are allowed to drive to the right of that dashed NOT-a-bike-lane stripe. Is that what you intended to mean?

If there were other vehicles nearby going the same direction, then the bike light wouldn't have been noticed. If no other vehicles are nearby, then whether the bike is in the bike lane or not should not matter for a driver to notice a light coming at him. He should be able to see the bike light if he's looking for vehicles approaching in the right through lane. Even if the bike rider had been to the left of the right through lane, the driver apparently would have missed his light anyway. A more accurate picture might be taken at night to see if there is background lighting. No matter what constant light I have on the front, I want a bright one blinking.
That's a lot of conjecture that ignores the role of relevance in inattentional blindness and what John Franklin refers to as the "zone of maximum surveillance".


People tend to fear most being hit from behind whilst cycling – the only type of crash best prevented by segregation – but this risk is very small, especially for someone who rides conscientiously. Most crashes are as a result of turning or crossing movements, and occur because the cyclist is not seen, or his actions not predicted. All drivers give most attention to those parts of the highway where there is risk to themselves, and see much less easily anything, or anyone, outside of a quite narrow field of vision. A cyclist is safest riding within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vc99.html

Where do you propose a bike lane should continue in a situation where there are four through lanes on one side of an intersection (three normal width lanes + a bike lane) and five through lanes on the other side of the intersection (four normal width lanes + a bike lane)?
On the near side of the intersection I would END the bike lane 100-200' prior to the intersection. At 200' feet prior to the end of the bike lane, I would post this sign:

BIKE LANE ENDS 200 FEET
CYCLISTS MERGE LEFT


On the other side of the intersection, I would start (not continue) a bike lane at the far right of all the traffic lanes, and then only if it was at least 500' to the next intersection or junction.

Actually, the bike lane does not run into the island, it goes to the left of it.. The right stripe of the bike lane becomes the island curb.1 foot of space between the stripe and the pedestrian island, does not count as a bike lane.
Notice the white line that curves through, before the pedestian island. What do you believe the purpose of that line is?

Actually, it does. If a cyclist is riding just to the right of the bike lane stripe well before the intersection, and goes absolutely straight when the road widens on the right to accomodate the right turn only lane, he/she would end up in the bike lane as it comes up to the intersection to the left of the right turn only lane. The road was widened on the right and the bike lane went straight through the interface with vehicles entering the right turn only lane.Look at the other side of the intersection. To get to the bike lane on that side of the intersection, a cyclist must move to the right while crossing the intersection to get to the bike lane that on the right side of the carpool/bus lane.

...
The absolute best thing you can do is realize that it's a dangerous intersection (aren't they ALL?) and use defensive practices when riding through it.

Yup. Keep your head in the game. Keep your eye on any and all potential left-turners, possibly adjusting speed and position somewhat in anticipation of common driver mistakes.

@AdamJaz
I have been left crossed before (slightly different from a left hook; in my case, the crosser came from a street to the left of me, making a left turn onto the street I was on). In my case, I was against the median of the road when it happened, and only escaped by the skin of my teeth.

Now, I very carefully watch people who are posed to cross paths with me. Once a left hook or cross is initiated by the driver, it is very hard to avoid without that driver's cooperation. There is a certain danger zone when your intended path will take you on a collision course with the intended path of the motorist if he leaves his position at a certain time.

Being out of the bike lane or towards the left edge of the bike lane does help a little, but I think the case is overstated by some here. There is a bit of an argument that a cyclist in the bike lane is less relevent to a motorist and so being outside the bike lane will increase your relevence to the driver and make you more noticeable by default. In my experience, I can see a case for it in extreme circumstances, such as you are in a bike lane next to the curb and are riding very close to the right edge of it, but the effect is small if you are cycling elsewhere in the bike lane.

My best advice is to keep your head up in these situations and if you are triggered to the motorist starting to move out during that danger zone period where your paths will cross, take a vector away from the motorist and try to get the driver's attention. Realize that the driver might not even be looking in your direction; the piller on modern cars tends to obscure the drivers vision in that direction, and most drivers will not be able to look along their curving path to see obstacles ahead. Instead, they have their eyes pointed straight ahead on a tangent to their path, so small things, like bicyclists, might not even be looked at.

In these situations when I can see the accident as it starts to develop, I'd instinctively veer away from the car, and start waving and shouting at the driver to draw his eyes to the movement. I don't do this on every intersection; just those where the driver has already started out on the collision path with me. The hope is to get the driver's attention, since it is very difficult to evade. Veering away, which I think you tried to do, will merely move the collision point a little further down and give the driver more time to recognize the developing situation.

Overall, it is a very difficult situation to evade from once it has started developing because any evasion path will either take you across the path of the car, or tangental to it. The best that you can do is maximize your visibility to the driver by not allowing yourself to get along side a car to the left of you which will uncover you as you reach the intersection, and watching all cars perched in a position to cross your path very carefully and start on an evasion path before they are fully committed to their turn. Wave the car off and yell as you do this; people are drawn to human body language gestures of panic or command, especially if those gestures are directed at them - it short-circuits the brain and tells the driver that there is something there to avoid and they will understand reflexively, as opposed to simply seeing a cyclist shaped body and having to interpret from scratch what that shape means to them. The yelling is not for the noise you make, but for the facial expression you offer up to the driver; again, it is human nature to react to these facial expressions and gestures, and people will react faster if you offer them up as you are evading.

All this is regarding motorists who have jumped the gun and are starting out on the collision path. Ideally it never comes to that. Avoid traveling in gaps in traffic; use strategies which will have your position shielded by passing traffic. If there is no passing traffic, then take the lane, at least part way, so the driver doesn't have to look so far off to his left to see you, and you have more room to evade. Finally, learn the signs that a convergence of situations will make it likely that the motorist will jump. Gaps across all three lanes of traffic is a good sign. People tend to like to jump right after the last obstacle has cleared their path; look for situations where you are caught on a collision course right after being uncovered by a passing car. You can start seeing these convergences as they develop, and avoiding the potential for an accident becomes a lesson in timing. Learn to hang back or accelerate to avoid these convergences of situations which will make it more likely that a motorist will jump. For instance, if a gap across all three lanes opens up and you are about to ride into it, hang back for a second - stop accelerating. See if the motorist in the opposite side left turn lane reacts to the gap opening up. If he or she doesn't, then you are probably golden - the motorist has probably seen you. Proceed, but with a watchful eye turned toward the threatening car. If the motorist jumps, start reacting - what you are looking for is an immediate braking on the motorist's part. If you get that braking, hang back for an instant to ensure the braking means that he or she's seen you, then proceed. The third case is, of course, when the motorist doesn't brake. Dodge away from the car and accelerate as fast as you can to get across the path of the car before the collision takes place. Turning away from the car will only keep you in the car's path for a longer period of time. Hopefully it never comes to this, though in this instance, it did come to this and, well, **** happens.

You probably know all this already. Oh well. It's just my $.02. I hope the recovery goes well and you are back on your feet before too long.


See that's some good advice based on experience, not someone reciting their religious chants from memory.

That sucks, heal fast.

A dropped lane is a lane that is dropped. There is no lane that is dropped here.

The bike lane is dropped. It reappears after the right turn only lane is formed.


What do you mean by "the dotted line ... is optional"?

By contending that a dashed stripe does not demarcate a lane, you are suggesting that once a bike lane stripe goes from solid to dashed the bike lane is no longer there. In OR, that would mean motorists are allowed to drive to the right of that dashed NOT-a-bike-lane stripe. Is that what you intended to mean?

A dashed line is different from a dotted line - dashed lines are what you see in the roadway separating lanes to indicate that cars can merge across the line - dotted lines are for guidance and hold no legal significance. So, yes, if the bike lane line is dropped and replaced by a dotted line, then a car can drive to the right of it, which is what happens in this case if a car wants to turn right in the case of the OP. After the bike lane reappears, then cars can no longer enter it. I got this from the MUTCD when I was reading it a while back. These dotted lines are optional and are only for guidance. It is acceptable from the MUTCD's perspective to stop the bike lane line, form the right turn only lane, and then make the bike lane reappear without using the dotted lines. Of course, things are usually clearer if you use the dotted lines; otherwise, as you are driving or cycling along, you feel like you've entered outer space with no lane lines to guide you.

Many times, in Oregon, the bike lane line will be dropped and replaced with a dotted line on the leadup to an intersection. Cars are then allowed to merge across the dotted bike lane line to make a right turn. This is usually on intersections with low trafficed side-streets, where it does not make sense to form a right turn only lane.

Here's the link to the MUTCD covering lane markings (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part3/part3b1.htm). Dropped lanes and the associated dotted lines are described in section 3B.05. Look at Fig. 3B-10 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part3/fig3b-10_longdesc.htm) for the dotted line application in the case of an exit ramp. It is an exercise left to the reader to apply this to the bike lane situation. As a hint, simply imagine the right most lane in figure 3b-10 to be a special use lane with a solid white line rather than the dashed lane line. Now, apply the dropped lane, and you get the optional dotted line as shown in the intersection of the OP.

Bike lane is dropped; right turn lane with a bike lane to the left of it is then formed after the transition region.

Where do you propose a bike lane should continue in a situation where there are four through lanes on one side of an intersection (three normal width lanes + a bike lane) and five through lanes on the other side of the intersection (four normal width lanes + a bike lane)?

edit:

Here is an intersection where a normal (not bike) lane "continues" on the other side of an intersection that is not in line with the other side.

http://paradigmhosting.net/images/sillyserge.jpg

Of course it is in line. "In line" on roadways means "parallel to the center of the road". Thus a driver follows the "line" of the road as he goes around a curve; being "in line" does not necessarily mean a straight line when talking about roadways.

Anyway, all of the normal lanes follow normal roadway "lines" through the intersection, parallel to the center of the road.

The bike lane in the intersection of the OP does not do that: it moves laterally relative to the center of the road (and moves laterally relative to all of the normal lanes since they of course remain parallel to the center of the road).

And as CB HI noted, even if there exceptions here or there, those are all going to be examples of bad roadway design. Yet for bike lanes it's quite normal, and not even recognized as being a problem. This is because bicycle traffic is not consider to be part of normal traffic, and as long as there is space for them to ride, that's all that matters. That is not treating bike lanes like normal lanes.

And as far as what I "fear" about this intersection, what I "fear" is that the bike lane encourages cyclists to ride in a manner that is contrary to the best interests in terms of being noticed, and results in more cyclists being injured or killed than there would be they were not overlooked. See the OP for an example of this.

Yup. Keep your head in the game. Keep your eye on any and all potential left-turners, possibly adjusting speed and position somewhat in anticipation of common driver mistakes.
Good advice, of course, but, as usual, there is no hint as to how someone is actually supposed to accomplish this reliably. What does one have to do in order to make sure he keeps his "head in the game"?

One of the best ways I know is to be constantly thinking about what lateral position would be best in order to optimize buffer space, sight lines and conspicuity to others. It's all too easy to fall into a lull when riding a bike, and one of the best ways to keep your head in the game is to keep reviewing the current traffic situation and re-evaluating whether you're in the best lateral position. That's what keeps your head in the game. That's what gets you in the most conspicuous position in the first place (which reduces the likelihood of being overlooked), and gets you to pay attention to the oncoming driver with respect to whether you've been noticed or not.

1 foot of space between the stripe and the pedestrian island, does not count as a bike lane.
Notice the white line that curves through, before the pedestian island. What do you believe the purpose of that line is?


The bike lane next to the island is the same width as the bike lane leading up to it. We've got lots of those around here. It's easily seen in the picture. That curved arrow is for the traffic taking a right turn, in the right turn lane to the right of the bike lane.

Look at the other side of the intersection. To get to the bike lane on that side of the intersection, a cyclist must move to the right while crossing the intersection to get to the bike lane that on the right side of the carpool/bus lane.


Yes they would, and it's not any problem at all. Leading up to the intersection, the cyclist rides straight to stay in the bike lane, with traffic that wants to turn right having to cross the bike lane to get into the right turn lane. We've got those around here also, and they're not a problem.

...
One of the best ways I know is to be constantly thinking about what lateral position would be best in order to optimize buffer space, sight lines and conspicuity to others. It's all too easy to fall into a lull when riding a bike, and one of the best ways to keep your head in the game is to keep reviewing the current traffic situation and re-evaluating whether you're in the best lateral position. That's what keeps your head in the game. ...

I don't think so. A rider can think in terms of optimizing lane position and find the best possible lane position, and still be oblivious to immediate threats. Read Brian Ratliff's post to see how an experienced rider might think while dealing with a busy intersection. Lane position is just one aspect and not the most important one.

Robert

The bike lane next to the island is the same width as the bike lane leading up to it. We've got lots of those around here. It's easily seen in the picture. That curved arrow is for the traffic taking a right turn, in the right turn lane to the right of the bike lane.You are not clicking on the picture and actually looking at it, are you.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcp03395bj8.jpg)
I did not say arrow, I said curved line and that is what I meant.
There is a curved line that cuts through the bike line before the pedestrian island. That line is there because that is where the bike lane dead ends. Notice how the right bike lane stripe does not continue past the curved line.

The pedestrian island is 1 foot away from the extention of what was the dividing line between the left bike lane line and the through lane. At the point of the pedestrian island, that line only marks the right side of the through lane to guide motorist to keep them from driving into the pedestian island.

Please at least click on the photo and look at it closer this time.

You are not clicking on the picture and actually looking at it, are you.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcp03395bj8.jpg)
I did not say arrow, I said curved line and that is what I meant.
There is a curved line that cuts through the bike line before the pedestrian island. That line is there because that is where the bike lane dead ends. Notice how the right bike lane stripe does not continue past the curved line.

The pedestrian island is 1 foot away from the extention of what was the dividing line between the left bike lane line and the through lane. At the point of the pedestrian island, that line only marks the right side of the through lane to guide motorist to keep them from driving into the pedestian island.

Please at least click on the photo and look at it closer this time.

I see it now. I also still see no problem with it. That's the same place I'd be riding in heavy traffic without any bike lane stripe.

I see it now. I also still see no problem with it. That's the same place I'd be riding in heavy traffic without any bike lane stripe.WOW, another example of any bike lane is good, no matter how bad the design.

Looking at the actual picture, If I were where the motorist was I'd think that a biker in the bike lane was turning. I still wouldn't hit him though.

You are lucky that you are not hurt worse. I hope for a fast and complete recovery for you.

WOW, another example of any bike lane is good, no matter how bad the design.

Bad design? I already stated I'd ride right there without a bike lane, so now the design is bad. Is this an example of any bike lane is bad, no matter how good the design?

Traffic engineering should not be guided by the likely behavior of the incompetent.

That's how you ride, isn't it?

I don't think so. A rider can think in terms of optimizing lane position and find the best possible lane position, and still be oblivious to immediate threats. Read Brian Ratliff's post to see how an experienced rider might think while dealing with a busy intersection. Lane position is just one aspect and not the most important one.

Robert
What are you talking about?

Did I say that a rider who thinks in terms of optimizing lane position and finds the best possible lane position can't still be olivious to immediate threats? Of course not. So why did you feel compelled to state the obvious? That is, A rider can think in terms of optimizing lane position and find the best possible lane position, and still be oblivious to immediate threats. Duh.

Did I say lane position is the most important aspect? No, I did not. So why do you think it's relevant to point this out too?

Are you just being a jerk?

Using that definition, the bike lane that the OP was riding was "in line" as well.



Then so does the traffic lane pictured above. The lane that you think is just fine.

Your irrational fear of bike lanes and your nonsensical "arguments" against them are also noted once again.
The traffic lane that I think is just fine adjusts laterally just as much as does the center of the road which divides the traffic into both directions.

The bike lane in question adjusts laterally relative to the center of the road, which in that case lines up across the intersection in a straight line. So do all the other normal traffic lanes.

Non-responsive, but I'm not in the least bit surprised.
Non-responsive? Your question is akin to asking what temperature an oven needs to be set to in order to freeze water. There is no answer to such a question, and pointing that out is the appropriate response.

Bad design? I already stated I'd ride right there without a bike lane, so now the design is bad. Is this an example of any bike lane is bad, no matter how good the design?

To be more precise just another example of over the top rhetoric; from a poster (CB HI) with an obsession for wailing about the evils of bike lanes, wherever, whenever.

Your right turn risk comment is a red herring, as it applies to through cyclists in the lane as well.

No at least in the lane, you are not in and part of the right turn lane. I would think a cyclists in that bike lane was turning right.

Not at all.

I asked you a specific question about how you suggest fitting a specific number of travel lanes on a specific road.

The fact that you think my simple question "is akin to asking what temperature an oven needs to be set to in order to freeze water" speaks volumes about your irrational fear of bike lanes.
Traffic lanes crossing intersections need to maintain a constant lateral position relative to the center of the road as they cross the intersection and when they reappear on the other side. That's what normal lanes do. That's not what this bike lane does.

If a new lane is added on the other side that did not exist before, then it should be done in a way that does not interfere with keeping the existing lanes from continuing in line. If that can't be done, then the new lane should not be started on the other side of the intersection. Instead, the required lateral adjustment to the lane(s) should be done after the intersection, and then the new lane can be added. That's what they do with normal lanes. That's not what they did with this lane.

What this bike lane does do is misguide cyclists into roadway positioning that makes them more likely to be overlooked and hit. See the OP. If you care about cycling safety.

Traffic lanes crossing intersections need to maintain a constant lateral position relative to the center of the road as they cross the intersection and when they reappear on the other side. That's what normal lanes do. That's not what this bike lane does.

LOL. You'll argue against pretty much anything, won't you? You're the one that reckons that cyclists must constantly assess and adjust laterally to suit conditions, and now you're claiming it isn't normal.

You also decry bikelanes to the right of right turn only lanes, but then think it's a problem when the lane is to the left of the RTOL and adjusts back to the kerbside after the intersection where there is no RTOL. Where do you think it's gonna go?

In the case of the bikelane in the RTOL in this specific case is concerned, that is actually the best design if there isn't room for a full extra lane plus bike lane, and is also the position I adopt for intersections with RTOLs but without bikelanes. Isn't that your exact criteria for choosing whether or not ti use a bikelane?

Cars in the RTOL are slowing for the turn anyway, and if the driver has any sense, they will stay behind the cyclist as they continue through the intersection. Through car traffic doesn't have to slow or move laterally at all, and the cyclist can easily slide back into the bike lane once through the intersection. If you think that that intersection is unsafe or confusing for cyclists and motorists you are even more of a newbie than I previously suspected.

You argue that the bikelane should end 200' before the intersesction because they force riders into an unsafe kerbside position next to right turning traffic, but when a bikelane does direct cyclists into the safer position in front of, or to the left of right turning traffic, you argue against that.

Get some consistency, man.