Advocacy & Safety - Situation-making a left turn followed by a cyclist

I was in my car, first in line in a Left turn lane at a controlled intersection, turning from one busy street onto another. A cyclist was just behind me in the turn lane. Once I made the turn, my destination was a quick right into a parking lot, about 40 feet from the intersection.

As I make the left turn I align my car with the right curb of the rode, so I'll be in position to make my right turn into the parking lot.

As I turn left, the cyclist drifts farther right than me, and attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough. So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper.

What should I do?

-wait for him/her to pass on the right?
-continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn?

I tell ya, if he would've just taken the lane, this would be a whole lot easier.

Wait for him to pass.
No big deal.
Your own words are " turning from one busy street onto another" he
apparently thought he was doing what was best for that situation probably
not aware of what you were doing. He was riding a busy area the way he thought
it was best. You were aware of him, he probably will be more aware next time
he rides this area. No harm, no big deal.

heres to awareness :beer:

I was in my car, first in line in a Left turn lane at a controlled intersection, turning from one busy street onto another. A cyclist was just behind me in the turn lane. Once I made the turn, my destination was a quick right into a parking lot, about 40 feet from the intersection.

As I make the left turn I align my car with the right curb of the rode, so I'll be in position to make my right turn into the parking lot.

As I turn left, the cyclist drifts farther right than me, and attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough. So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper.

What should I do?

-wait for him/her to pass on the right?
-continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn?

I tell ya, if he would've just taken the lane, this would be a whole lot easier.

Be sure you are signaling, and since you are well aware of the cyclist, simply stop and wait for them to pass. The option to stop always exists... so few motorists seem to realize it though. You can use that wide pedal near your feet to make the car stop.

Actually if you can really "block the cyclist" then you have effectively "taken the lane..." but if you are driving a huge SUV or similar vehicle, chances are you can't get close enough to the curb.

Remember, as a motorist, you can always slow down, you can aways stop... the effort to do so is really quite minimal... just some slight pressure to the wide pedal on the floor. I don't think you'll strain yourself or anything. Try it. Then simply relax on that wide seat you are sitting on, and look at the traffic... check your mirrors, look out the windows... where is the cyclist? Look again, make sure your desired path is well clear... and no one is approaching to cross your path... OK, now you slowly proceed. Hey, that's easy. Now you try it.

I'll third it. I agree with the 2 replies.

+1 to the above posts. Slow or stop to avoid right hooking the bicyclist. The first driving obligation is, after all, to avoid crashes. I'm curious as to whether or not the OP signalled a right turn in time for the cyclist to see it.

It sounds like the bike driver wasn't exercising very good traffic judgement. He was attempting an illegal pass on the right, or he was following too closely, or, if the car driver was signalling the turn, the bike driver wasn't watching for turn signals on cars ahead of him.

As the motor vehicle driver, I'd switch from left turn signal to right turn signal as soon as I entered the intersection. Hopefully the cyclist would get the idea you're turning right after you complete your left hand turn, and not pass you on the right.

I have an intersection like this on my bike commute (turn left, first right is about 10 feet after the intersection and is a busy gas station). It's stupid to try to pass on the right on a bike in this situation, even if they're not signaling a right turn, because it's difficult in most cars to signal a right turn while the wheel is turned to the left, and many motorists don't even think that is an option. Usually I'll stay behind the car in front of me, and if they start slowing down to make the right turn I'll pass them in the left lane after we have both cleared the intersection, after ensuring the car that is behind me and still in the intersection isn't trying to pass me on the left. In this situation it's just as easy for the cyclist to brake since we're usually doing about 10-13mph max, so if I have to brake and stay behind the right turning car until the motorist completes his/her right hand turn I will.

Of course if the cyclist decides to be stupid and pass you on the right while you're signaling a right turn, and you see them doing it, you should stop and let them complete their dangerous maneuver if possible. If you get rear ended by another car when you stop then the dumbass that rear ended you is at fault for following too closely. If you and the cyclist collide while you are turning into the driveway that's not as straightforward.

Watch everything, and everybody, when you are driving a car...and when you are driving a bike. In the position that you describe, the cyclist was wrong. But that doesn't let you off the hook for not paying attention.

I was in my car, first in line in a Left turn lane at a controlled intersection, turning from one busy street onto another. A cyclist was just behind me in the turn lane. Once I made the turn, my destination was a quick right into a parking lot, about 40 feet from the intersection.

As I make the left turn I align my car with the right curb of the rode, so I'll be in position to make my right turn into the parking lot.

As I turn left, the cyclist drifts farther right than me, and attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough. So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper.

What should I do?

-wait for him/her to pass on the right?
-continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn?

I tell ya, if he would've just taken the lane, this would be a whole lot easier.
The other responses here surprise me, especially Gene, who I thought knew better.

When preparing to make a right turn, you are legally required to drive as far right as practicable.

California:


Turning Upon a Highway

22100. Except as provided in Section 22100.5 or 22101, the driver of any vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as follows:

(a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except:

(1) Upon a highway having three marked lanes for traffic moving in one direction that terminates at an intersecting highway accommodating traffic in both directions, the driver of a vehicle in the middle lane may turn right into any lane lawfully available to traffic moving in that direction upon the roadway being entered.

(2) If a right-hand turn is made from a one-way highway at an intersection, a driver shall approach the turn as provided in this subdivision and shall complete the turn in any lane lawfully available to traffic moving in that direction upon the roadway being entered.

(3) Upon a highway having an additional lane or lanes marked for a right turn by appropriate signs or markings, the driver of a vehicle may turn right from any lane designated and marked for that turning movement.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm

Oregon:



ORS 811.355 states:
“811.355 Improperly executed right turn; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of making an improperly executed right turn if the person is operating a vehicle, is intending to turn the vehicle to the right and does not proceed as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway:
(a) In making the approach for a right turn; and
(b) In making the right turn.
(2) The offense described in this section, ...http://www.stc-law.com/bicycle.html

So, assuming you properly signal your merge right to the "as close as practicable to the right" position, and you can make the merge safely and reasonably, you should "continue [your] line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make [your] right turn", though I wouldn't think of it as "blocking" any more than any time you need to slow down when there is someone behind you.

The other responses here surprise me, especially Gene, who I thought knew better.

When preparing to make a right turn, you are legally required to drive as far right as possible.

California:
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm

Oregon:
http://www.stc-law.com/bicycle.html

So, assuming you properly signal your merge right to the "as close as practicable to the right" position, and you can make the merge safely and reasonably, you should "continue [your] line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make [your] right turn", though I wouldn't think of it as "blocking" any more than any time you need to slow down when there is someone behind you.

Emphasis added on "as far right as possible"...it's actually as close to the right as practicable before making the turn. We need to make sure we're not confusing "as far right as possible" with "as close as practicable"

For example, if the motorist is driving a long vehicle and entering a narrow driveway, they may not be able to get as close as possible to the curb and still get into the driveway without mounting the curb with the rear tire. In that case it would be practicable for the motorist to leave a gap between their vehicle and the curb, possibly a large enough gap for a cyclist to try to squeeze through. If the cyclist is obviously trying to "shoot the gap", and the motorist sees this before starting the turning movement, the motorist has the option of stopping to let the cyclist complete the unsafe passing maneuver, or intentionally turning across the cyclist's path and hoping the cyclist stops or swerves out of the way. This may not directly apply to the op, but it's good to keep exceptions like this in mind, especially when driving around long pickup trucks, commercial vehicles, etc.

The other responses here surprise me, especially Gene, who I thought knew better.

When preparing to make a right turn, you are legally required to drive as far right as possible.

California:
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm

Oregon:
http://www.stc-law.com/bicycle.html

So, assuming you properly signal your merge right to the "as close as practicable to the right" position, and you can make the merge safely and reasonably, you should "continue [your] line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make [your] right turn", though I wouldn't think of it as "blocking" any more than any time you need to slow down when there is someone behind you.

Uh go back and read my response again... and notice that I give the same turning advice... but also mention that large SUVs and similar cars often cannot turn from that close to the curb. I even said "block the cyclist."

Having that reading comprehension problem again?

Emphasis added on "as far right as possible"...it's actually as close to the right as practicable before making the turn. We need to make sure we're not confusing "as far right as possible" with "as close as practicable"

For example, if the motorist is driving a long vehicle and entering a narrow driveway, they may not be able to get as close as possible to the curb and still get into the driveway without mounting the curb with the rear tire. In that case it would be practicable for the motorist to leave a gap between their vehicle and the curb, possibly a large enough gap for a cyclist to try to squeeze through. If the cyclist is obviously trying to "shoot the gap", and the motorist sees this before starting the turning movement, the motorist has the option of stopping to let the cyclist complete the unsafe passing maneuver, or intentionally turning across the cyclist's path and hoping the cyclist stops or swerves out of the way. This may not directly apply to the op, but it's good to keep exceptions like this in mind, especially when driving around long pickup trucks, commercial vehicles, etc.
Good catch. I can't believe I did that. I corrected my post. Thanks.

As I make the left turn I align my car with the right curb of the rode, so I'll be in position to make my right turn into the parking lot.

As I turn left, the cyclist drifts farther right than me, and attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough. So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper.

What should I do?



Both you and the cyclist made an error not uncommon to the area.

In many states a vehicle is allowed to turn left into any lane moving in the direction of the roadway being entered. In Oregon a left turning vehicle at an intersection must turn to the closest available lane. IMO this is the best practice.

Your turn should be slow, into the furthest left lane, followed by a shift in your signaling to indicate a right handed lane change, from the right lane proceeding to the driveway followed by a signaled turn into the driveway from a position as far right as practicable.

Should the cyclist have followed the same rule they would have been behind you through the intersection into the same lane, your switch from left hand to right hand signaling would be clearly visible, and the cyclist could choose then to pass on your left or merge right with you and proceeding at a safe speed to accommodate your signaled right hand exit from the road.

Had only you made the proper turn, the cyclist may have been able to proceed or yield at their judgment, as you would also make your judgment on whether to wait until the cyclist had passed to merge right, as being sure it is a safe lane change maneuver is your responsibility.

In many states a vehicle is allowed to turn left into any lane moving in the direction of the roadway being entered. In Oregon a left turning vehicle at an intersection must turn to the closest available lane. IMO this is the best practice.

In AZ the law reads:
"If practicable the driver shall make the left turn from the left of the center of the intersection and shall make the turn to the left lane immediately available for the driver's direction of traffic."

Note the 'If practicable.' If I am making left followed by an immediate right, it is not practicable to turn into nearest inside lane, then cut across lanes of traffic to make the right turn. Sometimes these right turns may be 20' from the intersection, which would mean, on a three same directioned lane road, a left turn followed by a right turn to cross two lanes of at 90deg. Impracticable and dangerous.

Of course if not making an immediate right, turn into nearest inside lane, then if making a right later, merge safely across other lanes then make the right. But if making an immediate right, wait until there is no potential right turner that may be going into the same outside lane and turn into it and make your immediate right.

As to the OP situation. Turn into outside lane - 40' is marginally to soon of a right turn to go into inside lane then merge across to outside lanes. Accommodate the cyclist - they have indicated the desire and carelessness to pass on right at potential right turn so let them. If you slow to wait they will continue to pass on right given the style of cycling they have already evidenced.

Al

Uh go back and read my response again... and notice that I give the same turning advice... but also mention that large SUVs and similar cars often cannot turn from that close to the curb. I even said "block the cyclist."

Having that reading comprehension problem again?
Gene,

You quoted, the OP, who asked:

What should I do?
wait for him/her to pass on the right?
continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn?

To which you responded:


Be sure you are signaling, and since you are well aware of the cyclist, simply stop and wait for them to pass. The option to stop always exists... so few motorists seem to realize it though. You can use that wide pedal near your feet to make the car stop.
...
Remember, as a motorist, you can always slow down, you can aways stop... the effort to do so is really quite minimal... just [apply] some slight pressure to the wide pedal on the floor. I don't think you'll strain yourself or anything. Try it. Then simply relax on that wide seat you are sitting on, and look at the traffic... check your mirrors, look out the windows... where is the cyclist? Look again, make sure your desired path is well clear... and no one is approaching to cross your path... OK, now you slowly proceed. Hey, that's easy. Now you try it.

That all adds up to (a), wait for him/her to pass on the right, the way I understand it. Did I miss something?

Now, in the middle of all that, you also wrote this:



Actually if you can really "block the cyclist" then you have effectively "taken the lane..." but if you are driving a huge SUV or similar vehicle, chances are you can't get close enough to the curb.

But that doesn't sound like (b), continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn?, either.


So, did I not comprehend your words, or did you not comprehend your words?

To be clear, what is your answer to his question?


wait for him/her to pass on the right
continue [his] line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make [his] right turn

Recycle has it right:

The first driving obligation is, after all, to avoid crashes.

It doesn't matter what someone should or shouldn't do, if a crash is imminent you should prevent it first before you do anything else.

As to the OP situation. Turn into outside lane - 40' is marginally to soon of a right turn to go into inside lane then merge across to outside lanes. Accommodate the cyclist - they have indicated the desire and carelessness to pass on right at potential right turn so let them. If you slow to wait they will continue to pass on right given the style of cycling they have already evidenced.

I understand that, and would agree, except that the OP wrote that "[the cyclist] attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough." In other words, the motorist is in front of the cyclist, albeit not by much, as he commences his turn. Sounds like he could do it safely. Stopping and waiting encourages and sanctions the wrong behavior.

I understand that, and would agree, except that the OP wrote that "[the cyclist] attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough." In other words, the motorist is in front of the cyclist, albeit not by much, as he commences his turn. Sounds like he could do it safely. Stopping and waiting encourages and sanctions the wrong behavior.

Depends how far ahead the motorist is - it read to be almost a side by side situation - the cyclist was feet from his bumper.

Can he safety turn in front of accelerating cyclist? I very much doubt it.

The real issue is it is very hard to know - I know can quite accurately sense how far I am from others when passing at relatively constant speeds. It is much harder to estimate when speeds of each party are changing rapidly - the motorist is slowing for turn, the cyclist is accelerating. That situation means it is better to wait than estimate clearance in error.

Al

My advice would be to stick to the law in your area OP.

At the speed considered safe by most for making these turns (-slow-) 40' is plenty of room for a stepped maneuver.

You're under no obligation to turn quickly or accelerate upon completing your turn, and if you are signaling properly drivers behind you will see clearly why you are going the proper speed as opposed to the norm. If no one drives that way in Oregon because it -does- require a slow speed maneuver, ignore the ones behind you except where you are required to observe for everybody's safety such as in the lane change. They are behind you.

Drive in a predictable manner and you've done all you need to do for the guy behind you, car or bike. Most people consider driving that conforms to traffic regulations to be the most predictable sort of driving. Personally, I'd be far less confident in any driver working to accommodate me from the fore simply because I'm on a bicycle. Esp. if said cyclist demonstrates a willingness to utilize a left hand turn lane on a busy thoroughfare. Do the cyclist a favour and drive the right way and forget about it however they ride, they are behind you. Your duty of care in lane changes, turns at intersections or when leaving the roadway, all places where you must check that traffic can yield to your maneuver safely or you must yield to the oncoming before making your maneuver isn't just the minimum requirement, in most cases it is ideal.

My advice would be to stick to the law in your area OP.
Don't forget the cyclist also needs to also turn into the nearest lane available then merge right across in stepped motion.

If the motorist turns into nearest lane - slowly - then steps across it will further miscommunicate that the motorist is planning turning right only 40' from intersection. This will only encourage the cyclist to try to over take them on right instead of turning with and behind them.

I know in AZ if I turned into inside lane - slowly - the driver turning left behind me will turn into middle or outside lane as I am or should be merging toward outside lane. Just like the cyclist was trying to do illegally.

Anyway, can you envision the path of a left turn followed by a right turn in 40' There is hardly a path that would be considered 'merging' across, only 'cutting across': Turn into inside lane. Car enters it for the car's 10' length. Then you have to merge car laterally in the next 20' to be at start of right turn with nose of car at turn point and rear 10' behind it.

Al

Had only you made the proper turn, the cyclist may have been able to proceed or yield at their judgment, as you would also make your judgment on whether to wait until the cyclist had passed to merge right, as being sure it is a safe lane change maneuver is your responsibility.

Don't accommodate things behind you outside your duty of care = balance.

Gene,

You quoted, the OP, who asked:

To which you responded:


Be sure you are signaling, and since you are well aware of the cyclist, simply stop and wait for them to pass. The option to stop always exists... so few motorists seem to realize it though. You can use that wide pedal near your feet to make the car stop.
...
Remember, as a motorist, you can always slow down, you can aways stop... the effort to do so is really quite minimal... just [apply] some slight pressure to the wide pedal on the floor. I don't think you'll strain yourself or anything. Try it. Then simply relax on that wide seat you are sitting on, and look at the traffic... check your mirrors, look out the windows... where is the cyclist? Look again, make sure your desired path is well clear... and no one is approaching to cross your path... OK, now you slowly proceed. Hey, that's easy. Now you try it.

That all adds up to (a), wait for him/her to pass on the right, the way I understand it. Did I miss something?

Now, in the middle of all that, you also wrote this:


But that doesn't sound like (b), continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn?, either.


So, did I not comprehend your words, or did you not comprehend your words?

To be clear, what is your answer to his question?


wait for him/her to pass on the right
continue [his] line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make [his] right turn

My answer is both.

I did not cite law as you did, but I gave a simple practical answer that included the fact that many larger vehicles cannot get close to the curb and make a turn... the latter situation which you were enjoined by others to correct in your statement that focused on law, and not reality.

The cyclist is wrong, and several responders pointed that out... but we also made the point that the OP, a motorist, who was aware of the cyclist, should therefore do what they can to ensure that they did not hit the cyclist.

Since others agreed with my comment, I suggest that you have the comprehension issue. Quit trying to think like a lawyer (or software writer) and perhaps the lack of logic in the real world, will start to sink in.

The OP asked what he should do, not in the past tense. This indicates to me he intends to consider the information in replies in future, similar traffic situations. Hindsight is 20/20 except when trying to determine what the vehicle behind you is doing at any given time. Making the proper turn maneuver is what the OP should consider in a similar situation, in this instance it potentially would have made the question moot.

The OP asked what he should do, not in the past tense. This indicates to me he intends to consider the information in replies in future, similar traffic situations. Hindsight is 20/20 except when trying to determine what the vehicle behind you is doing at any given time. Making the proper turn maneuver is what the OP should consider in a similar situation, in this instance it potentially would have made the question moot.

What exactly is the "proper turn maneuver?"

Can you describe the "proper turn maneuver" for a VW? For an SUV... how about a 28 foot motor home... how about a 40 foot tractor trailer rig.

Does the "proper turn maneuver" differ for any of these vehicles in any way?

Seems to me the OP was trying to do whatever they could to avoid a collision with a foolish cyclist. Perhaps the foolish cyclist should admonished, not the motorist who was well aware of the situation.

My answer is both.
How convenient. Anyway, if you think it's clear in your original post that your answer is "both", we'll have to agree to disagree on that.



I did not cite law as you did, but I gave a simple practical answer that included the fact that many larger vehicles cannot get close to the curb and make a turn...
Duh. So what?


the latter situation which you were enjoined by others to correct in your statement that focused on law, and not reality.
"Enjoined by others to correct"? You mean the possible/practicable typo???

The focus of my post was on reality, it just happened to be supported by law.



The cyclist is wrong, and several responders pointed that out... but we also made the point that the OP, a motorist, who was aware of the cyclist, should therefore do what they can to ensure that they did not hit the cyclist.
No one disagrees with that. Obviously if there is a risk of collision he shouldn't cut off the cyclist. I gave the OP the credit to assume he wasn't asking: should I cut him off even it might kill him?.



Since others agreed with my comment, I suggest that you have the comprehension issue.
The only comprehension issue I have with your comment is trying to see how you're suggesting that he should go ahead and turn right from a position that is "as far right as practicable". I suggest the people that agree with it agree with it because they don't see it saying that either.



Quit trying to think like a lawyer (or software writer) and perhaps the lack of logic in the real world, will start to sink in.
What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Ah yes, the usual exploding of the reply into little bits... have a good time with it. It's not worth my time.

What exactly is the "proper turn maneuver?"

Can you describe the "proper turn maneuver" for a VW? For an SUV... how about a 28 foot motor home... how about a 40 foot tractor trailer rig.

Does the "proper turn maneuver" differ for any of these vehicles in any way?

Seems to me the OP was trying to do whatever they could to avoid a collision with a foolish cyclist. Perhaps the foolish cyclist should admonished, not the motorist who was well aware of the situation.

The Oregon drivers manual is where from I extrapolated the proper turn maneuver for the intersection/situation described by the OP, who clearly indicates he is in a car. It'd be the same for an SUV, and I expect that there are safety regulations regarding wide turning vehicles such as tractor trailers, except they weren't a part of the OP's post or mine.

The OP like it or not made a substandard maneuver according to the regulations in Oregon, so did the cyclist, my advice is simply that making the proper turn initially would better serve the OP & whoever is behind him whatever they are doing. All the OP would have needed to do had he executed such a turn properly are the things he would be required to do in any case, and that has better potential to avoid confusion & accidents than any other suggestion of stopping or blocking.

I don't think he's looking for an answer beyond prevention.

He should also use proper and legal turn signalling - which would result as contrived as a proper turn in this situation.

That would be done by using his hazards flashing to signal both his left turn and his soon to be made right turn, both of which to be proper and legal must be made 100' before the turn.

Al

The Oregon drivers manual is where from I extrapolated the proper turn maneuver for the intersection/situation described by the OP, who clearly indicates he is in a car. It'd be the same for an SUV, and I expect that there are safety regulations regarding wide turning vehicles such as tractor trailers, except they weren't a part of the OP's post or mine.

The OP like it or not made a substandard maneuver according to the regulations in Oregon, so did the cyclist, my advice is simply that making the proper turn initially would better serve the OP & whoever is behind him whatever they are doing. All the OP would have needed to do had he executed such a turn properly are the things he would be required to do in any case, and that has better potential to avoid confusion & accidents than any other suggestion of stopping or blocking.

I don't think he's looking for an answer beyond prevention.

Anywhere I've driven, attempting to obey that law would result in the motorist being passed on the right by other drivers wondering why he's turning so slow into the left hand lane. He would then be left sitting in the left hand lane waiting for everyone to make their turn around him into the right lane. If you are going to be turning 40, 50, 100, 200 feet from an intersection, why would anybody pull into the left hand lane then negotiate right for their turn? My advice for the OP would have been to continue making his right turn manuever unless he actually felt as though the cyclist was being put in danger. Forcing the cyclist to abort his illegal (and stupid) passing manuever does not sound like it would have put the cyclist in danger.

The only application I see for that Oregon law is when there is multiple turning lanes but it doesn't sound like that is the case here. I make a left turn onto a major aterial every day on the way home from work. Pulling into the left hand lane then negotiating right afterwards (how long afterwards is proper anyway?) would cause an added headache for everyone involved as I can guarantee you motorists would be passing (legally) in the right hand lane probably before I even straightened up my line coming out of the turn.

and I thought genec was crazy for bringing up the need to help the OP with his tractor trailer quad axle turns in a snowstorm. I'd think you'd remember your last post "where practicable"?

Tell me, how would you leave your driveway in Oregon noisebeam? Do you think the 100' suggestion might be based on a median speed? Perhaps vehicles executing a left hand turn at 10-12 mph may not need to wait 100' before changing lanes as opposed to the vehicle merging right at 100+mph?

Besides, the Oregon regs regarding turns are explicit, and hazard lights don't mean you are turning in 2 directions.

Poor guy just wants to know how to ride best with bicycles, and you guys want to help him by putting him in a big rig with his hazards on while simultaneously crushing, blocking the guy as you let him pass on the right out of respect for the dead.

Buddy OP, all you needed was the turn proscribed in your drivers manual. Please refer to it with common sense when you've got a question, Oregon has a pretty good manual for doing that if you aren't a crackhead, noisebeam, genec or an HH. These guys are good for entertainment value, but even if you wrap them all up into one, they suck incredibly in application.

Anywhere I've driven, attempting to obey that law would result in the motorist being passed on the right by other drivers wondering why he's turning so slow into the left hand lane. He would then be left sitting in the left hand lane waiting for everyone to make their turn around him into the right lane. If you are going to be turning 40, 50, 100, 200 feet from an intersection, why would anybody pull into the left hand lane then negotiate right for their turn? My advice for the OP would have been to continue making his right turn manuever unless he actually felt as though the cyclist was being put in danger. Forcing the cyclist to abort his illegal (and stupid) passing manuever does not sound like it would have put the cyclist in danger.

The only application I see for that Oregon law is when there is multiple turning lanes but it doesn't sound like that is the case here. I make a left turn onto a major aterial every day on the way home from work. Pulling into the left hand lane then negotiating right afterwards (how long afterwards is proper anyway?) would cause an added headache for everyone involved as I can guarantee you motorists would be passing (legally) in the right hand lane probably before I even straightened up my line coming out of the turn.


guy..he's in Oregon.

guy..he's in Oregon.

So what? Aside from an existing law that hardly anyone is familiar with (and in my opinion doesn't solve any problems), what difference does it make if he's in Oregon or Delaware?

So what? Aside from an existing law that hardly anyone is familiar with (and in my opinion doesn't solve any problems), what difference does it make if he's in Oregon or Delaware?

Sorry man, I completely forgot that BF A&S is where traffic law is subjective even in application. If I had only remembered that I could've answered the OP properly.

I'll fix that up..

OP, joejack has called me out, when I answered you earlier I considered your question and your locale, the proper thing for me to do to would have been to remind you that you are above the law. My apologies. I meant no harm. Please refer to joejack, or when he is unavailable to HH or John Forrester for the information you were looking for. Traffic regulation via law is not a consideration for motor vehicle drivers, it is actually a trick by "the man" to get you to buy more war bonds if you enjoy pinochle. If you enjoy scrabble or candyland board games and prefer these to pinochle, please refer to federal laws regarding the disposition of subdued whooping cranes as state traffic regulations do not apply to these board games.

Thank you for understanding,

Thomas Jefferson
President & CEO of GIRLZ GONE WILD
101 Dalmatian St. Suite Sucre
Alberta, Wisconsin A1A 1A1
Finland

and I thought genec was crazy for bringing up the need to help the OP with his tractor trailer quad axle turns in a snowstorm. I'd think you'd remember your last post "where practicable"?

Tell me, how would you leave your driveway in Oregon noisebeam? Do you think the 100' suggestion might be based on a median speed? Perhaps vehicles executing a left hand turn at 10-12 mph may not need to wait 100' before changing lanes as opposed to the vehicle merging right at 100+mph?

Besides, the Oregon regs regarding turns are explicit, and hazard lights don't mean you are turning in 2 directions.

Poor guy just wants to know how to ride best with bicycles, and you guys want to help him by putting him in a big rig with his hazards on while simultaneously crushing, blocking the guy as you let him pass on the right out of respect for the dead.

Buddy OP, all you needed was the turn proscribed in your drivers manual. Please refer to it with common sense when you've got a question, Oregon has a pretty good manual for doing that if you aren't a crackhead, noisebeam, genec or an HH. These guys are good for entertainment value, but even if you wrap them all up into one, they suck incredibly in application.


Sam... go back and read what I wrote initially... and you'll see that you and I are in agreement.

Now I did not see anything about the motorist being in a left lane and then moving right or any such thing... he states he is a left only turn lane, makes the left turn and aligns his vehicle along the curb... nothing different from what some manual specifies, nor that anyone would normally do otherwise. (Oregon or otherwise). HH came along and mentioned that one must be as close as practical to the curb and cited law for us (that I bet no motorist could cite)... the OP said he was lined up with the curb and ready to make a right... meaning he had enough room to make the right turn, but due to the practical nature of the design of vehicles, there is probably a gap between the curb and the vehicle... which the curb hugging cyclist was using to try to slip past the car.

The OP motorist was astute enough to know the cyclist was there and wanted to know how to avoid pinching off the cyclist in the future, should such a situation arise again. I advised waiting for the cyclist to clear. NO advise about how close to the curb one should be... will change the situation in any way. As long as a cyclist can and will try to pass around on the right, there is nothing practical a motorist can do... except be aware and work to prevent a collision.

The cyclist could be smarter... but the OP is not the cyclist... therefore any "solution" regarding educating the cyclist are just empty words in this case.

Frankly, the bottom line for any of us that are driving and are in compliance with the law and face any situation that could lead to harm of another should be simply "Do No Harm."

The Driver (OP) did nothing wrong. The design of the street and driveway are a bit dorky... being that there is a driveway just beyond a corner... but that happens all over... gas stations on corners are a classic example.

Be aware, watch out for the other guy, and keep in mind that you can always STOP to prevent a collision.

And "100 feet" as noisebeam mentioned... right... that would pretty much take out any corner store or gas station everywhere in the country.

Sam... go back and read what I wrote initially... and you'll see that you and I are in agreement.

Now I did not see anything about the motorist being in a left lane and then moving right or any such thing... he states he is a left only turn lane, makes the left turn and aligns his vehicle along the curb... nothing different from what some manual specifies, nor that anyone would normally do otherwise. (Oregon or otherwise). HH came along and mentioned that one must be as close as practical to the curb and cited law for us (that I bet no motorist could cite)... the OP said he was lined up with the curb and ready to make a right... meaning he had enough room to make the right turn, but due to the practical nature of the design of vehicles, there is probably a gap between the curb and the vehicle... which the curb hugging cyclist was using to try to slip past the car.


Huh? Why are you assuming that?



The OP motorist was astute enough to know the cyclist was there and wanted to know how to avoid pinching off the cyclist in the future, should such a situation arise again.

Huh? Why are you assuming that?

What he asked was whether he should wait and let the cyclist go by, or go ahead and turn right in front of him. He didn't indicated the desire for knowledge about how to avoid pinching off anyone in the future.



I advised waiting for the cyclist to clear.

That's what I thought you did, then you told me I didn't comprehend you, to which you replied you advised BOTH: waiting for him to clear AND turning right in front of him (whatever that means to you).



NO advise about how close to the curb one should be... will change the situation in any way. As long as a cyclist can and will try to pass around on the right, there is nothing practical a motorist can do... except be aware and work to prevent a collision.

As long as the cyclist is far enough back, he can turn right.



The cyclist could be smarter... but the OP is not the cyclist... therefore any "solution" regarding educating the cyclist are just empty words in this case.

Very good! Now if you could just learn to refrain from going on and on about advice for the motorist when talking to the cyclist in the situation...



Frankly, the bottom line for any of us that are driving and are in compliance with the law and face any situation that could lead to harm of another should be simply "Do No Harm."

Duh. But, "doing harm" was never on the table.



The Driver (OP) did nothing wrong. The design of the street and driveway are a bit dorky... being that there is a driveway just beyond a corner... but that happens all over... gas stations on corners are a classic example.

What's dorky about it?



Be aware, watch out for the other guy, and keep in mind that you can always STOP to prevent a collision.

Not one hint about preventing collisions in the OP. Not one hint of anything about any kind of potential collision. Nothin'. Nada. Zippo. Why are you assuming so much?

Not one hint about preventing collisions in the OP. Not one hint of anything about any kind of potential collision. Nothin'. Nada. Zippo. Why are you assuming so much?

"As I turn left, the cyclist drifts farther right than me, and attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough. So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper."

Bike going straight, car turning right across it's path.

That's not a potential collision to you? Really?

Tell me, how would you leave your driveway in Oregon noisebeam? Do you think the 100' suggestion might be based on a median speed? Perhaps vehicles executing a left hand turn at 10-12 mph may not need to wait 100' before changing lanes as opposed to the vehicle merging right at 100+mph?

Besides, the Oregon regs regarding turns are explicit, and hazard lights don't mean you are turning in 2 directions.

Buddy OP, all you needed was the turn proscribed in your drivers manual. Please refer to it with common sense when you've got a question, Oregon has a pretty good manual for doing that if you aren't a crackhead, noisebeam, genec or an HH. These guys are good for entertainment value, but even if you wrap them all up into one, they suck incredibly in application.
The law and drivers manual (in AZ and many other states inc. OR 811.335) with no exception (such as for speed) state that one must indicate a turn 100' before making it. Obviously, as per your driveway example (and many other examples such as two intersections less than 100' apart) this is not always possible and if possible not always safe. It must drive folks nuts who feel they must always follow the letter of the law - which is why I mentioned the absurdity of using hazard blinkers - it was a joke, OK. Instead it is better to follow the intent (only if the letter can't be followed), which is to clearly and early signal turning intentions.

Same with the left turning (and right turning too) law. Turn into the lane closest - when practicable. This law even has the implied exceptions for when not practicable. Not practicable means in this case if one is going to make an immediate right turn following. The intent of the law is to keep orderly and predictable flow, both for following left turning drivers, but also very importantly for right turning vehicles, so they can use the outer most lane to turn into. The intent is safe and predictable driving.
That means to be safest and predictable, if making a right turn immediately after a left, then turn in a way which gets one to the right (outside) of the lane most predictably and without interfering with right turning traffic. So wait until there is no oncoming nor any oncoming right turning traffic and turn into the right lane and make your right turn. This is safer as one will not encourage another overtaking vehicle to cut to your right causing potential interference.

The alternate is to turn into the inside lane, with then the possibility of a right turning vehicle being there that one must negotiate with, or a faster driver, perhaps a cyclist, also making a left turn turning wide. Other drivers would wonder why the left turner is going into the inside lane for a next right turn.

Don't get me wrong. I am a stickler for following traffic laws including turning laws for going to the closest available lane - and I always do this when there is not a compelling reason not to. But if I will be making a right turn immediately after my left - I will not drive in a contrived, more confusing and less safe way, just to follow the letter of the law. Just as I won't put on my turn signal 100' before a turn if I am crossing another intersection before the turn I intend to make.

Al

"As I turn left, the cyclist drifts farther right than me, and attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough. So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper."

Bike going straight, car turning right across it's path.

That's not a potential collision to you? Really?
Yes. Really. Now, there are different ways to interpret those words, and I don't know what you're picturing or what actually happened, but if the cyclist was fast and close enough for there to be a real potential collision, the question in the OP would be idiotic.

I, for one (and apparently the only one), give the OP a bit more credit than that.

Yes. Really. Now, there are different ways to interpret those words, and I don't know what you're picturing or what actually happened, but if the cyclist was fast and close enough for there to be a real potential collision, the question in the OP would be idiotic.

I, for one (and apparently the only one), give the OP a bit more credit than that.

It's not a matter of the OP asking an "idiotic question." He's asking about the best way to handle a cyclist that is trying to overtake him on the right when he is preparing for/attempting to make a right run, after turning left into a new street.

So yes, there is much more than a hint of a potential collision in his post. In fact, the potential for collision is the driving factor behind his post.

BTW, the OP was quite clear about the cyclist being "close enough for there to be a real potential collision." How can you read "So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper" and not see that there's potential for a real collision given that circumstance?

It's not a matter of the OP asking an "idiotic question." He's asking about the best way to handle a cyclist that is trying to overtake him on the right when he is preparing for/attempting to make a right run, after turning left into a new street.

So yes, there is much more than a hint of a potential collision in his post. In fact, the potential for collision is the driving factor behind his post.

BTW, the OP was quite clear about the cyclist being "close enough for there to be a real potential collision." How can you read "So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper" and not see that there's potential for a real collision given that circumstance?
Note his second choice:

"continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn..."

What's the potential for the collision? The cyclist continues accelerating even as the motorist moves his car directly in front of him and slows, thus slamming into the back of the car? I guess I'm giving the cyclist a bit of credit too. I'm assuming he's not you ;).

I think the driving factor of the OP is not a question of collision avoidance, but whether it is legal/appropriate/reasonable to move in front of a cyclist, thus blocking him, in a situation like that. My answer is, absolutely, emphatically, YES.

I wish the OP would come back to clarify all this.

DISGUSTING! HH< you think it's appropriate to right hook a bicyclist...... because the bicyclist is 'riding wide' in a corner?

DISGUSTING!!!!! Really, you stoop so low.

Right hook????

The question is about whether it's okay to move in front of a cyclist and block him before turning right. That's not a right hook, Beck.

I'm sorry, I strongly disagree, cager.

moving in front of a bicyclist and BLOCKING them as you turn right IS A RIGHT HOOK, cage boy.

I was in my car, first in line in a Left turn lane at a controlled intersection, turning from one busy street onto another. A cyclist was just behind me in the turn lane. Once I made the turn, my destination was a quick right into a parking lot, about 40 feet from the intersection.

As I make the left turn I align my car with the right curb of the rode, so I'll be in position to make my right turn into the parking lot.

As I turn left, the cyclist drifts farther right than me, and attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough. So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper.

What should I do?

-wait for him/her to pass on the right?
-continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn?

I tell ya, if he would've just taken the lane, this would be a whole lot easier.
Drive defensively.

The cyclist may have put himself in harm's way through impatience, but you still need to watch out for him, even if he was in the wrong.

Would any of you please tell me where the OP says he's turning onto a four-lane/two each direction street? He could well be turning onto a single-lane per direction street, rendering all of this hoohah about "nearest lane, then turn right" pointless.

As both a driver and a rider, or even a pedestrian, his primary duty is/was to avoid an accident. The same concept applies in the air and on the water, as well as on land. Waiting for the JAB to pass improperly on the right was the best way to avoid an impending, highly possible accident.

I'm sorry, I strongly disagree, cager.

moving in front of a bicyclist and BLOCKING them as you turn right IS A RIGHT HOOK, cage boy.
No one said anything about moving in front of the bicyclist "as you turn right". It's about the motorist moving into a line near the curb in front of the cyclist BEFORE he even gets to the right turn, much less as he is turning right. From the OP:

So I'm about to turn right ...
-[Should I] continue my line to the right edge of the road by the curb, blocking the cyclist, and make my right turn?

A right hook is about cutting off a cyclist with the side of your car, not blocking him with the back of your car.

That's clueless, helmet.

a motorist can right hook a cyclist by pulling ahead of them and abruptly taking the lane to turn right; how you don't consider that type of ROW violation a right hook is splitting internet hairs and doesn't reflect when it actually happens to a bicyclist.

Driver pulls ahead, brakes and abruptly takes the lane to make a turn, cutting off the bicyclist.
It's a hook, dude.

And unless you are discussing a completely seperate scenario than the original poster, he IS describing a ROW violation and the 'hook' scenario- that's why he posted it.

"As I turn left, the cyclist drifts farther right than me, and attempts to accelerate past me, but isn't quite fast enough. So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper."

Bike going straight, car turning right across it's path. It's a classic hook.

but hey, helmet head, whatever you think. :rolleyes:

You guys would have a fit if a motor vehicle tried to pass you on the right while making a left. I don't see how doing the same dangerous and stupid thing on a bicycle makes it any more acceptable.

Bike going straight, car turning right across it's path. It's a classic hook.

The only thing "classic" about this situation is the absurd strict obedience to the imaginary "stay as far right as possible at all times" law that this cyclist was operating according to. The motorist was in front of the cyclist the whole time, moving towards the right side of the road and slowing down for a turn. How much more obvious of an indication to turn do you want the guy to do? This cyclist was an idiot. Luckily, the OP was aware of him the whole time and made it a non-incident. Unless the cyclist was actually past my rear bumper on my right side or fiercely acclerating towards the right of my rear bumper (I can't imagine the stupidity this would take), I would have made my turn.

you and helmet head are remarkably intolerant of your fellow riders' foibles.

such intolerance for any cyclist deviation from 'best cycling practices'.:rolleyes: I cannot believe joe and helemt's indifference towards hooking a bicyclist they admit they would both go ahead and hook him anyway.


Oh well, leave it to a couple newbie 'VC' internet safety nannies to admit they'd potentially hook a bicyclist because of his road position.

Huh? Why are you assuming that?

1. Huh? Why are you assuming that?

2. What he asked was whether he should wait and let the cyclist go by, or go ahead and turn right in front of him. He didn't indicated the desire for knowledge about how to avoid pinching off anyone in the future.


3. That's what I thought you did, then you told me I didn't comprehend you, to which you replied you advised BOTH: waiting for him to clear AND turning right in front of him (whatever that means to you).


4. As long as the cyclist is far enough back, he can turn right.


5. Very good! Now if you could just learn to refrain from going on and on about advice for the motorist when talking to the cyclist in the situation...


6. Duh. But, "doing harm" was never on the table.


7. What's dorky about it?


8. Not one hint about preventing collisions in the OP. Not one hint of anything about any kind of potential collision. Nothin'. Nada. Zippo. Why are you assuming so much?

You know, it's a royal PITA responding to these subdivided questions. Do you also want to know the meaning of "is"?

1. I am "assuming" "that" because the motorist is moving to the right to be as close to the curb as he can while still leaving room to physically make the right turn... yet the cyclist is moving closer to the curb in an effort to move around the motorist who is also moving in that direction. A vehicular cyclist would ride in front of or behind the motorist making a turn.

2. Of course this is for the future... do you think the motorist is waiting on line at some intersection for this response. sheesh. :rolleyes:

3. Yes, I suggested he should wait, primarily... the motorist was aware of the cyclist, and only the motorist knew where he was driving, and what the potential for collision was... the cyclist was just swinging wide to get around the motorist. I also suggested that if there were a way to actually take the lane, that might work also... but I put a LOT of emphasis on stopping and waiting.

4. Sure, if the cyclist is behind the rear bumper... And if that was the case then the motorist was pretty much in the clear and really what would be the reason for posting?

5. Uh, it's a cycling forum, so we are allowed to discuss cycling. And the cyclist in this case was in the wrong and the motorist was trying to deal with what was perceived as an awkward situation.

6. Wrong... otherwise this never would have even been brought up... but the motorist was concerned about the bumper of his car and the cyclist meeting.

7. That such a turn cannot be well indicated by a motorist. That there is hardly time (distance) to recover from the left before swinging into the right turn. However this situation exists all over... especially where gas stations are on corners... a classic example.

8. The OP clearly stated "So I'm about to turn right with a cyclist feet from my bumper. " The OP also indicated that the cyclist was on his right... Guess that is not a potential collision situation for you... eh? Obviously it was a situation that concerned the OP.

What there was no indication of was: is this turn a double left only lane, or if it was from a 4 lane road to a 4 lane road or what. So the "assumptions made" were that the motorist was making a left turn that resulted in the vehicle legally being in the right lane on the cross street. If in fact there were 4 lanes on the cross street... then the situation is quite different.