Interesting situation on my ride this morning, was I correct?
Google sponsored links
sirlight
I was on the last section of my commute here in San Diego. This section of the ride is in a business park with a very wide two lane road coming up to a side street on the right. This side street is also wide, with no road markings of any kind. None of these streets have any sidewalk or bike lane. As I came up to make my right turn there were four pedestrians crossing the side street about half way across heading in my direction.
I did notice a car coming up behind me. I signaled my right turn and slowed a bit to give the peds a bit more time to cross, expecting I would swing a little wide to avoid them. The car made a right in front of me swinging wide. I gave a loud "HEY!" to indicate my disapproval with the maneuver he just pulled.
The guy pulled over, rolled down his window so we could discuss the matter. There was no yelling, just a discussion of the rules. Having ridden in Boston for many years, his opinion was that if I was at the far right of the road, I was essentially in the "bike lane" and should of held my line into the turn. Of course that would have required that I hit the peds or stop. He agreed that the turn he made was dangerous and that he would look up the laws to be sure.
I thanked him for having the discussion and went on my way.
Except for screaming at him is the first place, was I correct in this situation?
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
He agreed that the turn he made was dangerous and that he would look up the laws to be sure.
You live in a different town than I do.
genec
I was on the last section of my commute here in San Diego. This section of the ride is in a business park with a very wide two lane road coming up to a side street on the right. This side street is also wide, with no road markings of any kind. None of these streets have any sidewalk or bike lane. As I came up to make my right turn there were four pedestrians crossing the side street about half way across heading in my direction.
I did notice a car coming up behind me. I signaled my right turn and slowed a bit to give the peds a bit more time to cross, expecting I would swing a little wide to avoid them. The car made a right in front of me swinging wide. I gave a loud "HEY!" to indicate my disapproval with the maneuver he just pulled.
The guy pulled over, rolled down his window so we could discuss the matter. There was no yelling, just a discussion of the rules. Having ridden in Boston for many years, his opinion was that if I was at the far right of the road, I was essentially in the "bike lane" and should of held my line into the turn. Of course that would have required that I hit the peds or stop. He agreed that the turn he made was dangerous and that he would look up the laws to be sure.
I thanked him for having the discussion and went on my way.
Except for screaming at him is the first place, was I correct in this situation?
I think the way you handled it was fine... apparently the motorist did not have the awareness of all the traffic at the time. He was only concerned about himself.
Where did this take place... just out of curiosity.
noisebeam
I would have stopped and waited for the peds to cross.
This is also why I don't (with some exceptions) make right turns from the far right of the lane, but instead closer to the center. Otherwise you can get right hooked (or left crossed) while making a right turn.
But you handled it fine.
Al
sirlight
> Where did this take place... just out of curiosity.
This was actually Palmer Way & Impala Dr Carlsbad, CA.
John E
You did fine.
John E
... This was actually Palmer Way & Impala Dr Carlsbad, CA.
We are nearly neighbors, separated by an airport -- I work in the Carlsbad Airport Centre business park, which is immediately southwest of McClellan/Palomar.
bmclaughlin807
I was on the last section of my commute here in San Diego. This section of the ride is in a business park with a very wide two lane road coming up to a side street on the right. This side street is also wide, with no road markings of any kind. None of these streets have any sidewalk or bike lane. As I came up to make my right turn there were four pedestrians crossing the side street about half way across heading in my direction.
I did notice a car coming up behind me. I signaled my right turn and slowed a bit to give the peds a bit more time to cross, expecting I would swing a little wide to avoid them. The car made a right in front of me swinging wide. I gave a loud "HEY!" to indicate my disapproval with the maneuver he just pulled.
The guy pulled over, rolled down his window so we could discuss the matter. There was no yelling, just a discussion of the rules. Having ridden in Boston for many years, his opinion was that if I was at the far right of the road, I was essentially in the "bike lane" and should of held my line into the turn. Of course that would have required that I hit the peds or stop. He agreed that the turn he made was dangerous and that he would look up the laws to be sure.
I thanked him for having the discussion and went on my way.
Except for screaming at him is the first place, was I correct in this situation?
Sounds to me like he pulled the exact same maneuver that you did.... rather than stop and wait for traffic to clear, he pulled out and made a wider turn than he normally would have...
I'd say you were both slightly 'wrong' in that you SHOULD have stopped to wait for the peds to clear the intersection.
I'd have to agree with the bit about holding your line, though... don't go from far right to the middle of the lane WHILE making a turn... nobody can predict that. Either start and finish your turn from the right, or take the lane before the turn and hold it through the turn, THEN decide whether you should be positioned to the right or in the center of the lane.
Stay safe out there.
atbman
So he was turning right and overtaking someone else who was turning right while pedestrians were crossing the entrance to the road being turned into. This means that he was, apparently unaware of the pedestrians already crossing which might cause you to swing a little wide.
It would seem that he was not allowing a cyclist sufficient room to manouevre, by not allowing a reasonable space for right of way (I assume that cyclists are allowed some lateral space [3' ?] according to state law?). It would also seem that he assumed that you knew he was going to turn right at the same time that you were - again, is he allowed to do that in state law? To my mind, it would be an unreasonable demand to make of someone you are overtaking. In the UK, it is for the overtaking driver/rider to make sure that the road ahead of their direction of travel is clear.
On the basis of your description, the only minor criticism which any of us might make is that you might be a litle more aware of the possiblity of an overtaking car also turning right by engine sound/gear changing, etc. In his case it would seem that he was legally in the wrong, but you were, perhaps, slightly situationally less alert than might have been possible.
-=Łem in Pa=-
I would have stopped and waited for the peds to cross.
But you handled it fine.
Al
Agreed.
Or, slowed to a crawl. I wouldnt have swung wide.
On our part, we need to convey predictability just
as we expect it in return.
Great job of being containing what could have been a
volatile confrontation, though
:beer:
sirlight
Let me clarify the "holding my line" bit a little. I did not pull into the middle of the lane before making my turn. I just went a little past the corner of the intersection. I was still not past the center of the side road before I turned.
sirlight
So he was turning right and overtaking someone else who was turning right while pedestrians were crossing the entrance to the road being turned into. This means that he was, apparently unaware of the pedestrians already crossing which might cause you to swing a little wide.
This was exactly the situation. The argument I made was that if I were a car, would you zoom by and make a right turn in front of me? The reply was that since I was in the "bike lane" he had every right to make his turn. It's essentially a right hook from my point of view.
Az B
You live in a different world than I do.
Fixed.
In all my years and miles of riding, I've never, ever had anyone from the seat of a car discuss anything even remotely rationally.
I think you did fine. I probably wouldn't have yelled, but obviously, that's not a big deal.
Az
maddyfish
Nobody, you, the driver, the peds, go hurt, so you can't have done much wrong.
I would have done the same thing, signaled, waited, that you did. Likely I'd have been far enough out in the lane that if the car wanted to pass he'd have had to drive into oncoming traffic to do it. But you didn't get hit, so I'd call that good. SOmetimes cars will try to pass you at totally inappropriate times, and that's just the way it is.
capejohn
IThe guy pulled over, rolled down his window so we could discuss the matter. There was no yelling, just a discussion of the rules.
The whole story is very unusual. Very rarely is there any civilized discussion. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Just unusual.
CommuterRun
To parrot some of what has already been said:
On a bike I probably would have placed myself in the middle of the lane before reaching the intersection. Whether I did that or not I would have held my line through the turn, even if it meant slowing or stopping for the peds.
In a car I would have either passed before the turn or waited until after the turn. I would not have tried to pass in a turn. A wide lane does not equate to a bike lane, and even if it did he had no business attempting to pass in a turn.
genec
Fixed.
In all my years and miles of riding, I've never, ever had anyone from the seat of a car discuss anything even remotely rationally.
I think you did fine. I probably wouldn't have yelled, but obviously, that's not a big deal.
Az
Hmmm, I have had just the opposite situation... and basically it probably all depended on my approach. I have had many a civil conversation with motorists. Usually the result is that they continue doing what they believe is correct... but on a few rare occasions I get a "I didn't know that." Hopefully in those latter cases they change their behavior.
Helmet Head can even confirm such a case where he has seen me discuss a car/bike situation with a motorist.
deputyjones
IMHO, if you were planning on going wide and essentially taking the lane you should have done so before the turn to indicate to the driver that that was your intention, but no harm no foul. At least the guy was nice/rational enough to stop and discuss it without screaming.
Dchiefransom
This would interesting to find out. I think sharing the lane is only for moving straight ahead. I believe two road users sharing one lane during a turn is a no-no.
njkayaker
I signaled my right turn and slowed a bit to give the peds a bit more time to cross, expecting I would swing a little wide to avoid them. The car made a right in front of me swinging wide. I gave a loud "HEY!" to indicate my disapproval with the maneuver he just pulled.
The requirement for passing any vehicle is to be able to do so safely. It would seem in this case, it was really not safe to pass because one could imagine numerous things that could have happened, leading to a collision. He was not driving defensively. Passing on a turn seems fairly risky.
He agreed that the turn he made was dangerous and that he would look up the laws to be sure.
If he concidered his actions as "dangerous" before he made them, then he clearly made a mistake. Having the "right of way" doesn't mean that one is excused from the responsibility of doing something dangerous. Everybody has the responsibility to take action to avoid collisions regardless of any "right of way" issue.
was I correct in this situation?
In my opinion, what you did was (fairly) reasonable and what he did was unreasonable.
Dchiefransom
Since there was not two marked lanes going in the same direction, it sounds like the driver should read Section 22100 of the California Vehicle Code, Subsection (a) in particular.
The Human Car
FWIW MD law (not sure if CA has anything similar):
(a) Right turns.- If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn right at any intersection, he shall approach the intersection and make the right turn as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
Basically the driver of the vehicle has to be in the same position as a cyclists when making a turn.
genec
FWIW MD law (not sure if CA has anything similar):
Basically the driver of the vehicle has to be in the same position as a cyclists when making a turn.
Same law in CA.
Motorists don't read laws... they just do what they feel they need to do to satisfy their immediate needs.
Of course most cyclists don't read the laws either.
Usually lawyers are the law readers.
The Human Car
Yep that's a problem.
CB HI
Same law in CA.
Motorists don't read laws... they just do what they feel they need to do to satisfy their immediate needs.
Of course most cyclists don't read the laws either.
Usually lawyers are the law readers.Only the laws that help their case, they seem totally ignorant of laws which detract from them winning.
genec
Only the laws that help their case, they seem totally ignorant of laws which detract from them winning.
Oh I bet they know those laws exist... their "ignorance" is just part of their grand chess game.
dhofmann
The argument I made was that if I were a car, would you zoom by and make a right turn in front of me?
If you were a broken down car, I would go around you. It would still fulfill the "make the right turn as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" requirement. But since you were moving and obviously not broken down, I'd say he broke the law.
Helmet Head
This is classic. First a few comments:
I love how the motorist referred to "that space off to the right" as the "bike lane". This again confirms what I've been saying for years here: the term "bike lane" has come to mean "that space where bikes belong - you know, out of my way". To most people (cyclists as well as motorists) it does not matter whether that space is demarcated with a stripe and labeled a "bike lane".
Yes, I've witnessed genec having a rational conversation with a motorist. My experience is that how the cyclist approaches the motorist largely determines how it goes. A disarming smile and friendly greeting goes a long way towards setting the stage for a rational conversation; displaying a raised middle finger and screaming in anger tends to pave the way for the opposite.
Gene is also right about most motorists not knowing what the letter of the law says about right turns, and how in CA they are required to merge right behind the cyclist. Once it is established that a cyclist will be turning right, many seem inclined to treat it like an unmarked double right turn lane, and this is clearly what this motorist expected. To him, the rightmost right turn lane was blocked, but the leftmost was open, so he could continue with his right turn. This is not supported by law, but is consistent with how many people treat right turns with cyclists. By this unwritten rule, you changed "lanes" in the middle of a turn. As others have noted, it's not a good idea to turn so late when you've been riding in the margin.
It is precisely because of this problem that John Franklin argues in his book, Cyclecraft, that it is good practice to use a clear lane-controlling/conspicuous position prior to turning right (actually in his book he's talking about left turns, but he's British).
Another good best practice that I advocate is looking back over your left shoulder prior to reaching any intersection, regardless of whether you are going left, straight or right, especially if you're riding in the margin. You look back to make an assessment of what is going on behind you, and to signal that you plan to move left into a more lane-controlling/conspicuous position, especially if there is someone behind you. This should be an automatic habit. It's this habit that causes you to notice traffic behind you earlier (you said you realized he was there, but probably much later than if you had looked back earlier), the look back is also what triggers you moving left out of the margin.
A mirror is useful to assess what is going on behind you even earlier, and plan accordingly.
I used to work in a building in the northwest corner of PA Rd and ECR.Did you do anything wrong legally? I don't think so.
Could you have done something better? Yes, I believe so: move left early and stop for the peds in a way that would have blocked the car too, or take the wide line around the peds yourself.
JohnBrooking
I largely agree with HH. I don't think you were wrong to not stop for the peds, if you determined that slowing down was sufficient. The mistake was the motorist's in assuming that it's okay to pass a bike even during a turn. Summarizing everyone else, the more vigilance on your part, and the more obvious you make your intentions, the better.
Cyclaholic
This is classic. First a few comments:[LIST=1]
I love how the motorist referred to "that space off to the right" as the "bike lane". This again confirms what I've been saying for years here: the term "bike lane" has come to mean "that space where bikes belong - you know, out of my way". To most people (cyclists as well as motorists) it does not matter whether that space is demarcated with a stripe and labeled a "bike lane".
......
So thanks to bike lanes there's at least a part of the road where motorists now accept us as belonging? This is fantastic! Up untill now most motorists beleive that we don't belong on any part of the road at all.
That's a great result thanks to bike lanes, thank you for bringing it to our attention.
bmclaughlin807
FWIW MD law (not sure if CA has anything similar):
Basically the driver of the vehicle has to be in the same position as a cyclists when making a turn.
How does that work if there are two turning lanes? According to that law it's illegal to use the second turning lane. ;)
Helmet Head
How does that work if there are two turning lanes? According to that law it's illegal to use the second turning lane. ;)
There is an exception for this in CA:
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.
The Human Car
How does that work if there are two turning lanes? According to that law it's illegal to use the second turning lane. ;)
FWIW Using two turning lanes falls under following a traffic control device.
Inquiring minds want to know. ;)
sirlight
As others have noted, it's not a good idea to turn so late when you've been riding in the margin.
I would expect that since I had already signaled before I came to the intersection, my actions should have been obvious.
Could you have done something better? Yes, I believe so: move left early and stop for the peds in a way that would have blocked the car too, or take the wide line around the peds yourself.
Let me try to clarify this situation a little more again:
When getting to the intersection, the peds were walking directly toward me on the street I was about to make a right turn into. They were not crossing in front of me as I came to the intersection.
When I say that I had to swing wide, it was not moving left from my position near the shoulder. Since the peds were only about half way through their crossing of the side street, I went a little farther into the intersection than normal before making the turn. This was still not past the middle of the side street though. There is also no lane markings of any kind on the side street.
Check out the intersection on google maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=33.13904,-117.272202&spn=0.001051,0.001808&z=19
As a side note, I have had problems at this intersection before. There were no peds involved that time though. Since the motorcycle cop behind me pulled over the SUV that did it, there must have been some law broken.
I guess this all boils down to "take the lane" and take it early. Do your best to prevent people from doing dumb, dangerous things.
Booger1
Sounds like you were in as big of a hurry as the car that passed you.All you had to do was wait for the pedestians to cross the street and we wouldn't be having this disscusion.You were both wrong.
noisebeam
I guess this all boils down to "take the lane" and take it early. Do your best to prevent people from doing dumb, dangerous things.
That's right. I very often begin right turns from the centerish, often even the left side of the lane and maintain a constant distance from curb.
It is also a reason I often don't signal a right turn. Drivers often assume that even if you are starting from a centerish position, you will turn into the right most position.
Al
Helmet Head
I would expect that since I had already signaled before I came to the intersection, my actions should have been obvious.
To the contrary, signaling right and then continuing straight (albeit for a good reason, to go around behind the oncoming peds to your right) and not turning right as you were indicating you would do probably made your actions -- continuing straight -- unexpected, not obvious.
Let me try to clarify this situation a little more again:
When getting to the intersection, the peds were walking directly toward me on the street I was about to make a right turn into. They were not crossing in front of me as I came to the intersection.
When I say that I had to swing wide, it was not moving left from my position near the shoulder. Since the peds were only about half way through their crossing of the side street, I went a little farther into the intersection than normal before making the turn. This was still not past the middle of the side street though. There is also no lane markings of any kind on the side street.
This is exactly as I understood it before.
Check out the intersection on google maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=33.13904,-117.272202&spn=0.001051,0.001808&z=19
Yes, this is how I pictured it.
As a side note, I have had problems at this intersection before. There were no peds involved that time though. Since the motorcycle cop behind me pulled over the SUV that did it, there must have been some law broken.
The motorist clearly broke the law in this case too. You did not. My only point is that riding a bike in traffic is more complicated than driving a car, and you're more vulnerable. So in terms of personal responsibility, there is more you can and should do. Perhaps because kids can ride bikes in the street, many people underestimate the complexities and responsibility involved with riding a bike in traffic.
I guess this all boils down to "take the lane" and take it early. Do your best to prevent people from doing dumb, dangerous things.
Yes, and you do this by adopting good habits in concert with best practices, including looking back over your left shoulder as you approaching any intersection, and positioning yourself appropriately for the current situation. And if something undesirable and/or unexpected happens, that's an almost certain indication you could have done better.
CB HI
So thanks to bike lanes there's at least a part of the road where motorists now accept us as belonging? This is fantastic! Up untill now most motorists beleive that we don't belong on any part of the road at all.
That's a great result thanks to bike lanes, thank you for bringing it to our attention.
What a total load of BS. Before bike lanes ever existed, most motorist accepted cyclist on the road. I had fewer conflicts with motorist before bike lanes existed than after bike lanes became prevalent; and motorist began to believe the only place cyclist belong are on the sidewalk or in the gutter.
sirlight
The motorist clearly broke the law in this case too. You did not. My only point is that riding a bike in traffic is more complicated than driving a car, and you're more vulnerable. So in terms of personal responsibility, there is more you can and should do. Perhaps because kids can ride bikes in the street, many people underestimate the complexities and responsibility involved with riding a bike in traffic.
I agree. In some situations even if you know the law, forcing the issue with a driver that does not can still get you killed. Actually I have logged over 13,000 miles in the past 7 years, mostly commuting. The number of unpleasant encounters with drivers have very few. The important thing is that after every close call, you learn what you could have done to avoid it and take better action next time.
Helmet Head
I agree. In some situations even if you know the law, forcing the issue with a driver that does not can still get you killed. Actually I have logged over 13,000 miles in the past 7 years, mostly commuting. The number of unpleasant encounters with drivers have very few. The important thing is that after every close call, you learn what you could have done to avoid it and take better action next time.
That's one way to go, and is called the school of hard knocks, which we all attend. The question is do you stick with only that, or do you try to learn how to avoid these unpleasant encounters before they actually occur? I think that's important since these encounters could turn out to be much more serious than unpleasant.
And that, of course, is what learning best practices is all about, which is based on lessons already learned by others (the hard way) and compiled into set of practices that one can incorporate into his habits. This is why I've studied a half dozen books on the topic, have been trained to be a traffic cycling instructor, and participate in these types of forums.
Carusoswi
To the contrary, signaling right and then continuing straight (albeit for a good reason, to go around behind the oncoming peds to your right) and not turning right as you were indicating you would do probably made your actions -- continuing straight -- unexpected, not obvious.
Exactly. If you hadn't signaled, one would expect the motorist to assume that you weren't turning. Hopefully his reaction would be to wait for you to cross (again, assuming that you weren't going to make a turn).
So, the OP confused the driver.
Of course, had you not signaled, the motorist might have waited, then, expecting you to continue straight, would have made his turn behind you, and you might then have made your turn into his path. Lord only knows whether the motorist would also have noticed the pedestrians crossing at that point.
I think this would have been a great situation in which to slow your pace and time your turn so that the motorist and, perhaps, also the peds would have been out of the way.
While I always signal left turns, I rarely signal right turns. There is rarely a reason to do so in most situations unless there is the potential for you to be passed on the right (rarely the case in right turns on a bike). If there is traffic stopped or yielding from the right, I would signal so that they need not wait in anticipation of my crossing their path, but, otherwise, I generally do not signal right turns.
It's great that no one was hurt, and wonderful that you and the motorist had the opportunity to speak rationally about the incident.
Caruso
Cyclaholic
What a total load of BS. Before bike lanes ever existed, most motorist accepted cyclist on the road. I had fewer conflicts with motorist before bike lanes existed than after bike lanes became prevalent; and motorist began to believe the only place cyclist belong are on the sidewalk or in the gutter.
Take it up with HH, he's the one saying that bike lanes are the part of the road where we're accepted by motorists. Anyhow, what's the sidewalk or the gutter got to do with it?
Helmet Head
Take it up with HH, he's the one saying that bike lanes are the part of the road where we're accepted by motorists. Anyhow, what's the sidewalk or the gutter got to do with it?
What I'm saying is consistent with what CB HI is saying. That is, yes, bike lanes demarcate space where we're accepted, but we were already accepted, at least as much as we are now, before bike lanes were created, and bike lanes have reduced the total amount of space where we are accepted.
On roads with bike lanes, we're often only accepted in the space demarcated by the bike lane. Before there were bike lanes, we were accepted at least as well as we are now.
On roads without bike lanes, we're now often only accepted if we're riding in space that is out of the way of same-direction faster traffic, in the way that riding in bike lanes makes us seem to be out of the way of same-direction faster traffic.
In other words, bike lanes have created an expectation about bicyclists on roadways that did not exist prior to bike lanes, at least not to the extent that it exists now, and keeps getting worse the more bike lanes we have. That expectation is: if bicyclists are on the road, they should be out of the way of same direction faster traffic; if same-direction motorists are impacted by the presence of cyclists, then the cylcists must be doing something wrong. If I understand him correctly, this is what CB HI means when he writes, "before bike lanes ever existed, most motorist accepted cyclist on the road. I had fewer conflicts with motorist before bike lanes existed than after bike lanes became prevalent; ...".