How do YOU handle WOLs with traffic and intersections?

[Bekologist]

sticky wicket on the way home tonight. sharing wide outside lanes with motorists and steadyish commuter traffic home, got passed and was in the 'hook' position for a lot of time. Running high vis and being fairly well out into the wide lane helped keep the actual neglectful hooks to nil, but at the same time, big vc conflict:

Lane wide enough to share safely. (14 foot outside lane or very wide curb lane with or w/o delineated parking) steady traffic. lots of driveway and intersections. chatter is high, traffic is clipping along.

Where do YOU ride to prevent right hooks in wide lanes? my assertion is you cannot. if you ride too far left, motorists pass irritated on YOUR right, a violation of the rules of the road. if you ride too far right, you violate being to the right of traffic that may turn right.

Where do YOU ride?

[gcottay]

Given a wide lane enough, I share it. Though it can always happen, I have had no problem with getting hooked when riding predictably. There have been a few times when my brakes were used, but that's why I installed them in the first place.

[Ed Holland]

Any lane like that around here seems to have been turned into a bike lane... Awareness and anticipation are your friend at intersections. Often, where the road is controlled by traffic lights, I'll pull into the line of traffic in the "main" lane for stops - especially if there is a right turn at the intersection. There's plenty of safe space and time to merge back into the WOL/bikelane as we all move on the next green.

Ed

[zeytoun]

My approach is to learn the road traffic patterns. I have one of these type of roads on my commute.

At main intersections, and/or when approaching an intersection where it is common for several cars to turn right at each light cycle, then I take the lane. When not approaching one of those intersections, but instead just a slew of small intersections with occasional turners, I share the lane, but I'm in full-vigilance mode, easy on the speed, ready to break.

[Ed Holland]

Well, it certainly gets less nerve wracking once one is familiar with the roads. The first few weeks here in the USA, trying to navigate to work on unknown routes made me feel like a beginner again. Now I know the area much better and the goings on at various intersections life is much more comfortable. Another advantage of cycling is the chance to vary the route and explore a bit.

[invisiblehand]

Well, it certainly gets less nerve wracking once one is familiar with the roads. The first few weeks here in the USA, trying to navigate to work on unknown routes made me feel like a beginner again. Now I know the area much better and the goings on at various intersections life is much more comfortable. Another advantage of cycling is the chance to vary the route and explore a bit.

Was some of the "newness" due to being on the other side of the road? Or was it simply layout, and so on?

[Ed Holland]

Was some of the "newness" due to being on the other side of the road? Or was it simply layout, and so on?

Good question.
Mostly the issue was layout, what to expect in terms of traffic behaviour and that there are more 2+ lane roads here. This all took a little more thought at first. Prior to regular riding here, I had actually become quite accustomed to driving on US roads - in LA no less- but had little opportunity to ride. The left to right change does not bother me at all, I'm comfortable with either convention and use US and UK roads on a reasonably regular basis.

Ed

[chipcom]

It's really not that sticky of a problem, Bek. I'm sure you're experienced enough to know that as you approach an intersection you survey the situation and adopt the proper position/speed to keep yourself safe and keep the drivers from doing something stupid. There isn't a one-size fits all solution.

[Bekologist]

chip, don't get me wrong......its not a problem except in theory -

Vehicular cycling isn't consistently vehicular.

WOLs generally place bicyclists to the right of traffic that might turn right. riding as far right as practicable in a WOL generates a lot of ambiguity and static at each intersection and curb cut, as the cyclist is placed again and again, again and again, again and again to the right of traffic that might turn right.

I repeat, sometimes vehicular cycling isn't even 'vehicular'.

[chipcom]

I do what seems to be heresy to many cyclists...when I have to stop at an intersection, I take my place in the line of waiting traffic, WOL, BL or not. Hey, I'm old, I like the break to snort some Geritol. :p
If I see that I'll have the light and be able to proceed without stopping, that's when the decision making comes concerning whether I get out into the lane to cross the intersection or continue to share the lane, based on the traffic situation at the time.

[Bekologist]

signalized intersections are far more orderely and easy to ride vehicular, compared to the incessant unvehicularity exhibited by riders in WOLs passing minor intersections and curbcuts.

In WOLs with minor intersections and steady traffic, again and again, again and again,

the rider riding as far right as practicable in a WOL is riding unvehicularily to the right of traffic that might turn right.

[chipcom]

signalized intersections are far more orderely and easy to ride vehicular, compared to the incessant unvehicularity exhibited by riders in WOLs passing minor intersections and curbcuts.

In WOLs with steady traffic, again and again, again and again,

the rider riding as far right as practicable in a WOL is riding unvehicularily to the right of traffic that might turn right.

Not sure if it can be considered 'unvehicular', if you subscribe to the 'monkey-see-monkey-do' addendum of vehicular cycling, since other vehicles do it too if they have the room. (you remember the monkey-see-monkey-do addendum, which also makes it OK to run stops because motor vehicles do it too)

[Bekologist]

ah, the monkey see, monkey do annendum. I didn't realize. I do cross the double yellow to pass slow motorists like they do me, so I guess I see your point.....

I had the illumination this week riding busy WOLs at near motorist speeds across town.....The patent unvehicularity of riding a WOL in a near constant right hook position in the general lane sharing position of 'as far right as practicable'. This is why I generally don't start sharing lanes until they are 18 feet wide ;)

[ChipSeal]

"VC encompasses a broad range of choices and styles, all of which are VC unless they violate the basic principles and rules of the road that drivers generally follow all over the world.

Also, some of the VC rules are fairly rigid (like don't ride at night without lights), while others are suggested best practices or techniques, the not using of which does not mean you're violating VC. For example, while it is VC to merge across one lane at a time, if you pull aside and wait for a gap, that's not necessarily not VC. "

[LittleBigMan]

Where do YOU ride to prevent right hooks in wide lanes? my assertion is you cannot. if you ride too far left, motorists pass irritated on YOUR right, a violation of the rules of the road. if you ride too far right, you violate being to the right of traffic that may turn right.

Where do YOU ride?
I don't entertain thoughts of being able to control other road users. I simply ride where it's best for me and anticipate stupid maneuvers as best I can.

Most motorists I encounter are intelligent and careful. The few that aren't are the reason I use my head.

[Bekologist]

unfortunately, neither littlebigman or chipseals realism counter the patent unvehicularity of being to the right of potentially right turning traffic while riding busy WOLs. and sixty feet later, it happens again. and sixty feet later, again.

[invisiblehand]

unfortunately, neither littlebigman or chipseals realism counter the patent unvehicularity of being to the right of potentially right turning traffic while riding busy WOLs. and sixty feet later, it happens again. and sixty feet later, again.

What do you mean by "vehicular"?

Why is traveling to the right of faster traffic with a safe passing distance not "vehicular"?

[Bekologist]

what you would consider a 'safe passing distance' to prevent right hooks? in the presence of steady traffic while riding wide outside lanes, right hook positioning is a near constant phenomenon.

bicycling positioned to the right of traffic that can turn right is most definetly not vehicular... the VC crewe is consistent in complaining about bike lanes that do this. I observe WOLs generally present the same 'hook prone' road position for bicyclists. and sixty feet later, it happens again. and again. and again.

what is 'safe passing distance' when you are positioned directly to the right of a car as you both approach an intersection???

[invisiblehand]

bicycling positioned to the right of traffic that can turn right is most definetly not vehicular... the VC crewe is consistent in complaining about bike lanes that do this. I observe WOLs generally present the same 'hook prone' road position for bicyclists. and sixty feet later, it happens again. and again. and again.

With regards to the statement that riding in a WOL would still leave cyclists prone to right-hooks ... that certainly can be the case. I am not arguing that point. Moreover, I think that the point is a wise one to convey to new riders; i.e., they should still be aware/careful whether in a bike lane or bike route or WOL or ordinary street.

But what do you mean by vehicular?

Oh ... by safe passing distance, I am referring to the notion of same direction traffic passing the cyclist instead of a distance whereby one would not be prone to a right-hook.

[Bekologist]

I'm looking at 'vehicular' rather ambiguously, as it appears to all VC adherents it is.

Being to the right, or in the possible turning arc of traffic that can turn right? Most definetly not vehicular.

(as a sidenote, I think a bike lane provides more vehicularity than a WOL in these instances...it becomes an actual lane that motorists need to be cognizant of, versus unstriped WOLs that may or may not contain a bicyclist as a motorist chooses to turn right.)


busy roads, WOLs and intersections place vehicular cyclists in hookable unvehicular road positions.

'safe passing distance' when it includes a potential right turn is meaningless.

a motorist can turn right- into a bicyclist to their right!!! UNVEHICULAR.

[Bekologist]

Invisiblehand, you need to clarify 'safe passing distance' when it applies to possible right turns. Do you mean 20 feet behind every car? or two feet to the side of the passenger side mirror as you both approach a minor intersection at about the same speed? Because in a busy WOL environment, the latter is far, far more common than the former. and sixty feet later, it happens again.


and why riding to the right of a possible right turning vehicle is considered 'vehicular'. I clearly state why it is not.

Broad strokes- Biking to the right of traffic that can turn right is not vehicular.

[invisiblehand]

I'm looking at 'vehicular' rather ambiguously, as it appears to all VC adherents it is.

vehicular cyclist --> cyclist that rides according to the "rules of the road"

vehicular --> like a motor vehicle.

Actually, vehicles moving at slower speeds typically ride on the right side. No? And I guess subject to right-hooks like cyclists. Although I strongly suspect that passing cars are a lot more careful of them than my big butt on two wheels.

I bring this up Bek because -- and I believe that you do too -- I want people to consider riding "VC" when appropriate. This "VC is/is not vehicular" is just a play on words -- perhaps an entertaining one -- and a distraction from the safety advice "use yer noggin' when you ride through intersections".

[invisiblehand]

Invisiblehand, you need to clarify 'safe passing distance' when it applies to possible right turns. Do you mean 20 feet behind every car? or two feet to the side of the passenger side mirror as you both approach a minor intersection at about the same speed? Because in a busy WOL environment, the latter is far, far more common than the former. and sixty feet later, it happens again.

Well, I am trying to think of a specific and meaningful WOL with a high volume of traffic around here. At the moment, I am blanking since the only ones that come to mind are quite short and not very meaningful. So my statements will unfortunately be somewhat ambiguous.

We both understand when to slide left or right to avoid hazards and regular traffic (parking cars, right turning cars, etc.).

Assuming we are talking about a road where traffic is passing you -- congestion is not an issue -- I don't think that the lateral safe distance changes meaningfully relative to between the intersections. I might slide out a bit if an auto is gaining ground behind me as I approach an intersection and it appears that they wish to turn right ... a Chuck Harris advantage. With regards to how far behind a car it depends on how your -- the cyclist's -- velocity. I typically travel two seconds behind the auto in front of me.

If congestion is an issue -- where I catch and pass the same car and vice versa -- then I think that as the cyclist, the best strategy is to ride a bit slower and stay on a higher level of alertness.

... baby time. Will return later.


EDIT in this font ...

[invisiblehand]

I'm looking at 'vehicular' rather ambiguously, as it appears to all VC adherents it is.

... just finishing the thought regarding a situation where one is passed and passes the same cars ...

Maintaining the general path is an advantage in my opinion since these cars will probably see you and be aware of your presence. Extra care is still needed.

What does the phrase above mean? Are you using vehicular to mean "like a motor vehicle"?

[Bekologist]

wow. can't find a busy street with wide outside lanes in or around the greater beltway. Must be nice to ride where you do.

Maybe you're always riding precisely 2 feet behind motorists in orderly nonpartisan processions, and aren't familiar with speed leapfrogging and slow overtaking in busy WOLs.

Invusiblehand, why don't you explain what makes biking positioned to the right of traffic that might turn right vehicular first. Turning or potentially turning traffic should never be to the inside of thru traffic, being positioned to the right of traffic that might turn right is a violation of general vehicular rules.

ideally, motorists would never pull abreast of bicyclists and right hook them in a wide lane. the onus on safe passing is always on the overtaker, eh? that's why VC can curbhug narrow lanes and not violate rules of the road.....


perhaps you think this is just 'entertainment', invisiblehand, but illustrating the contradictions in VC is part of what I engage in in this subforum. I think its valuable to dismantle the vc platform.

If there's no issue with being to the right of potentially right turning traffic, bike lanes should also not be an issue. If vc has no issue being positioned hookable in a wol, then riding hookable in a bike lane should also cease to be an issue.

[invisiblehand]

wow. can't find a busy street with wide outside lanes in or around the greater beltway. Must be nice to ride where you do.

Maybe you're always riding precisely 2 feet behind motorists in orderly nonpartisan processions, and aren't familiar with speed leapfrogging and slow overtaking in busy WOLs.

Invusiblehand, why don't you explain what makes biking positioned to the right of traffic that might turn right vehicular first. Turning or potentially turning traffic should never be to the inside of thru traffic, being positioned to the right of traffic that might turn right is a violation of general vehicular rules.

ideally, motorists would never pull abreast of bicyclists and right hook them in a wide lane. the onus on safe passing is always on the overtaker, eh? that's why VC can curbhug narrow lanes and not violate rules of the road.....


perhaps you think this is just 'entertainment', invisiblehand, but illustrating the contradictions in VC is part of what I engage in in this subforum. I think its valuable to dismantle the vc platform.

If there's no issue with being to the right of potentially right turning traffic, bike lanes should also not be an issue. If vc has no issue being positioned hookable in a wol, then riding hookable in a bike lane should also cease to be an issue.

What do you mean by vehicular?

What do you mean by VC?

If you are using an "ambiguous" meaning then your sentences are just graffiti and an exercise in trolling. I just gave you my definitions and why VC is vehicular. Please do the same; i.e., answer the two questions above and tell us why it VC fails to be vehicular.

[Bekologist]

VC- vehicular cycling.

vehicular- as or like a vehicle. And thru traffic, routed to the right of traffic that can turn right, is neither.

but riding 'VC' in a wide lane and riding as far right as practicable for thru travel usually places a bicyclist in a distinctly 'unvehicular' position everytime there is an intersection and a car to the inside. whether it plays out as an unvehicular scenario, or a non event, is secondary.

many of us ride in this position, uneventfully, on our everyday rides-

riding to the right of traffic in a WOL as you both pass intersections simultaneously.

IF this IS 'vehicular', then bikelanes to the right of turning traffic are also vehicular.

[invisiblehand]

VC- vehicular cycling.

vehicular- as or like a vehicle.

Let me extend this for you ...

VC - vehicular cycling --> "as or like a vehicle" cycling

How can your definition of "vehicular cycling" be anything but as or like a vehicle?

VC- vehicular cycling.

vehicular- as or like a vehicle. And thru traffic, routed to the right of traffic that can turn right, is neither.

If it isn't vehicular, what is it?

You are omitting what happens without the extra lines or a bike lane. That is, the point of a bike lane is that it "creates a space for cyclists" -- if I heard him right -- according to the Portland coordinator. Without this "special space" wouldn't motor vehicles be more likely to merge right before turning right?

[gcottay]

. . . .perhaps you think this is just 'entertainment', invisiblehand, but illustrating the contradictions in VC is part of what I engage in in this subforum. I think its valuable to dismantle the vc platform. . . .

Yes, sir. You make your agenda apparent. From my perspective, though, you are capable of much better. When you are not fighting against a "VC" enemy invisible to most of the cycling world, you encourage safe, efficient and confident riding.

[joejack951]

VC- vehicular cycling.

vehicular- as or like a vehicle. And thru traffic, routed to the right of traffic that can turn right, is neither.

but riding 'VC' in a wide lane and riding as far right as practicable for thru travel usually places a bicyclist in a distinctly 'unvehicular' position everytime there is an intersection and a car to the inside. whether it plays out as an unvehicular scenario, or a non event, is secondary.

many of us ride in this position, uneventfully, on our everyday rides-

riding to the right of traffic in a WOL as you both pass intersections simultaneously.

IF this IS 'vehicular', then bikelanes to the right of turning traffic are also vehicular.

Bek, I hate to believe that you are this hard-headed but I'm going to throw out there anyway.

The reason VC advocates claim that bike lanes are not vehicular is NOT simply because they allow through traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic. There is NO road configuration, aside from a one way road with only enough width for one vehicle, that will never places through traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic. Traffic has the ability to turn right from any position on the roadway. It may not be legal, but it's certainly possible.

However, in general, motorists understand the rules of the road and know that they are to make their right turn from the furthest lane to the right or from as far right as practicable on the road. Where bike lanes fail is that they confuse the situation. Whereas with a typical narrow outside lane or undivided (into a narrow outside lane and bike lane) wide outside lane, motorist instictively understand to turn from as far right as practicable, a bike lane, with it's "bikes only" designation or worse yet, state laws preventing motorists from using a bike lane to turn, motorists are not turning from as far right as practicable any more, increasing the chances of a hooking incident with a cyclist in the bike lane.

It is the principle of not having straight through lanes to the right of a lane that carries potentially right turning traffic that VC advocates promote when they suggest a WOL over a bike lane. That's it. Clear enough?

[Bekologist]

the violating principle of thru traffic to the right of potentially turning traffic is still present in the WOL. stated in first post.

[joejack951]

the violating principle of thru traffic to the right of potentially turning traffic is still present in the WOL. stated in first post.

But there is not a LANE directing through traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic when there is a WOL. That's the objection. That is what is not vehicular. It's the LANE.

[Bekologist]

i could care less about your vc take on bike lanes, joejack. this thread is NOT ABOUT BIKE LANES.


How do YOU handle WOLs with traffic and intersectrions, joejack? Riding conditions in a busy WOL where a cyclist is too often to the right of potentially turning traffic by sheer volume of traffic and frequency of intersections.

if you think being in a potentially hookable lane position is a vehicular one, i guess you don't understand the conditions that led to my original post.

[joejack951]

i could care less about your vc take on bike lanes, joejack. this thread is NOT ABOUT BIKE LANES.

You brought up vehicular cycling in this thread in post #9. I'm simply addressing your misconceptions about WOLs and the vehicular cycling position on bike lanes/WOLs (it's tough to talk about one without bringing up the other).

How do YOU handle WOLs with traffic and intersectrions, joejack? Riding conditions where a cyclist is ge to the right of potentially turning traffic by sheer volume of traffic and frequency of intersections.

It depends. The one area where I ride that has a long stretch of wide outside lane is 2 lanes in each direction with many intersections, both major and minor, and is along a major bus route. I ride it at rush hour if I'm riding it at all (it's not part of my daily commute) and as such it's very busy. Speed limit is 40mph. I ride on the left side of the outside lane the whole time except for one decently long uphill stretch without intersections.

The one section of wide outside lane I ride daily is uphill going into work and downhill coming home. There are no spots for a right turn on the uphill so I just move over whenever faster traffic reaches me. Coming home, I've just climbed a steep hill with no passing spots before making a right turn onto this road and I'm usually followed by a few motorists at least. There's one spot for a right turn mid hill then at the bottom is stop sign and the road narrows right after it. I'll generally move aside at the top of the hill and let faster traffic pass. I'll check the intersection for traffic looking to pull out and if no one is there, I'll adjust my speed to put myself in a non-hookable position past that intersection assuming I'm still being overtaken. Once past the intersection, I generally start negotiating my way to the left side of the lane for the stop sign. If I'm on my road bike and carrying a lot of speed down the hill, I may opt to not share the lane at all as I can easily do the 25mph speed limit plus some.

For other WOLs I've used I've cautiously proceeded if going slow enough to justify keeping right while approaching minor intersections. If going faster, I'll take the left side of the lane at any and all intersections and traffic can pass me during oncoming gaps or when I find a good spot to move right (I'll slow down and let traffic pass if it's getting too backed up behind me).

if you think being in a potentially hookable lane position is a vehicular one, i guess you don't understand the conditions that led to my original post.

In this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=350927&highlight=) that you started, you describe a situation where you were right hooked by a motorist in the inside lane. Since you were in a hookable position (you got hooked after all), do you think cycling in the NOL of a multilane road is not vehicular (you should, per your own definition)? Of course, that's ridiculous but you've posted worse nonsense before.

[Bekologist]

no, joe, that's a violation of the rules of the road by another road user.

you ride the LEFT side of a WOL with 40MPH traffic on your commute? you don't find motorists choosing to pass on YOUR right, becasue that's what usually happens when I'm on the left edge of a WOL in 40MPH rush hour traffic.... BTW, I ride center bias on most 14' lanes, but a 18' WOL or wider without parking makes it, shall we say, slightly impractical to ride the left edge of a WOL with faster traffic overtaking.

[joejack951]

no, joe, that's a violation of the rules of the road by another road user.

As would be hooking a cyclist riding on the right side of a WOL lane by turning from the left side of the lane. What's your point?

you ride the LEFT side of a WOL with 40MPH traffic on your commute? you don't find motorists choosing to pass on YOUR right, becasue that's what usually happens when I'm on the left edge of a WOL in 40MPH rush hour traffic.... BTW, I ride center bias on most 14' lanes, but a 18' WOL or wider without parking makes it, shall we say, slightly impractical to ride the left edge of a WOL with faster traffic overtaking.

Well, if I was riding the left edge of a WOL, I'd fully expect to get passed on my right. By "left side" (I apologize for not being perfectly clear about this) I mean riding centerbiased in the area of the WOL generally used by straight through motorists. It's about the same distance from the inside lane line as I would be on a road with two narrow lanes (maybe 5-6 feet). There's still enough room to pass me on the right. On rare occasion, I'll get passed on my right by someone going straight. The other 99.9% of traffic that shows up on my right is turning right. FWIW, I receive FAR less harassment riding in this position with a WOL rather than a narrow outside lane with a shoulder (comparing one busy multilane arterial to another).

[Bekologist]

as would be a motorist hooking a bicyclist in a bike lane, but's let try to leave the bike lanes out of it, this is about WOLs.

[joejack951]

as would be a motorist hooking a bicyclist in a bike lane, but's let try to leave the bike lanes out of it, this is about WOLs.

The WOL does not direct the traffic using the roadway at that time into that area of conflict at the intersection. The WOL allows for and encourages the negotiation of lane position to occur prior to the intersection reducing the chances of a hook turn occuring. The WOL has no special markings that could be misinterpretted by a motorist not familiar with the vehicle code. That is why I prefer WOLs over other roadway configurations assuming that much right of way space already existed. [edit] Deleted comment about narrow outside lanes. It really only applies to certain roads and I don't feel like adding all the qualifiers to make it perfectly true. [edit]

[Bekologist]

no, the wide outside lane expressly provides the area of potential conflict.

[Torchy McFlux]

sticky wicket on the way home tonight. sharing wide outside lanes with motorists and steadyish commuter traffic home, got passed and was in the 'hook' position for a lot of time. Running high vis and being fairly well out into the wide lane helped keep the actual neglectful hooks to nil, but at the same time, big vc conflict:

Lane wide enough to share safely. (14 foot outside lane or very wide curb lane with or w/o delineated parking) steady traffic. lots of driveway and intersections. chatter is high, traffic is clipping along.

Where do YOU ride to prevent right hooks in wide lanes? my assertion is you cannot. if you ride too far left, motorists pass irritated on YOUR right, a violation of the rules of the road. if you ride too far right, you violate being to the right of traffic that may turn right.

Where do YOU ride?

I ride as far to the right as I can, but I don't think that lane position is the most important thing here.
Any time a cyclist passes a motor vehicle on the right, they need to do so with great caution and expecting the worst. I expect people to use their turn signals to indicate their intentions, but that doesn't always happen. If I'm feeling at risk of being hooked at an intersection, I'll move to the left to position myself in the middle of the lane to block passing, then move back to the right once through. In Canada, it's legal for a cyclist to take up a full lane if they feel their safety is jeapordized if they don't.

[joejack951]

no, the wide outside lane expressly provides the area of potential conflict.

How? Where is the "area of potential conflict" in a WOL?

[Bekologist]

car and bike side by side, motorist under no obligation to 'merge right prior to turning'.


you don't see the conflict? Joe, I'm describing in the original post, conditions in wide lanes with steady traffic and lots of unsignalized and minor intersections/ curb cuts, consistently places a bicyclists directly to the right of a vehicle and in a 'hookable' position. and 60 feet, it happens again.


you DON'T see any 'conflict' or 'potential conflict' in that road position?

[Allister]

Pretty much anywhere is an area of 'potential conflict'. So what?

[Bekologist]

good point. Well, just pointing out even a stalwart 'VC' riding position leaves bicyclists in hookable, 'second class' and vulnerable road position during certain operating conditions. sometimes, fairly continually.

you can't consistently control lanes approaching intersections with wide lanes and steady faster traffic. riding according to the rules of the road and destination positioned leaves the "VC" bicyclist in a hookable road position.

[invisiblehand]

car and bike side by side, motorist under no obligation to 'merge right prior to turning'.

I don't think that is true. I believe motorized traffic is expected to merge right prior to turning.

The WOL allows for and encourages the negotiation of lane position to occur prior to the intersection reducing the chances of a hook turn occuring. The WOL has no special markings that could be misinterpretted by a motorist not familiar with the vehicle code.

Theoretically, this is what distinguishes one from the other. One can also include a discussion about debris as well. In practice, however, it appears that little to no effect is seen in the data.

[Bekologist]

motorist might be 'expected' to merge right, as 'far right as practicable' perhaps, which could be interpreted require to no moving right at all.

In actuality, cyclists are right hooked despite any laws 'expecting' motorists to move right prior to turning - you can take a turn faster with a wider radius..... sometimes a WOL and riding VC in steady traffic places a bicyclist in a hookable, unvehicular lane position. and 60 feet later it happens again...

[invisiblehand]

motorist might be 'expected' to merge right, as 'far right as practicable' perhaps, which could be interpreted require to no moving right at all.

Our experiences might be quite different. The most relevant experience -- commuting -- I have is in the DC area. Otherwise, like many others, I pick and choose where to ride such that the experiences are not random. But in practice, most drivers move to the right when making a right-turn. And I suspect that with regards to criminal and tort law, a driver that makes such a maneuver resulting in an injury would be in quite a bit of trouble. As Joe described earlier, there are instances when drivers have turned from just about every position on the road; i.e., far left turning right and far right turning left. However, I would say that they are pretty rare to the point that I remember them distinctly.

Note, it is still the case that every once in a while a car will accelerate to pass on the left to make a right turn in front of me. The last time was while traveling west on Fairfax Drive (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=N+Glebe+Rd+%26+N+Fairfax+Dr,+Arlington,+VA,+USA&ll=38.882206,-77.114939&spn=0.001236,0.002358&t=h&z=19). So it is an issue and I would not tell people that lane position by itself would prevent all problems. However, I would also tell someone driving a car that an aggressive driver might try to pass them on the left to make a right-hand-turn too.

[cooker]

My approach is to ride with awareness. It's unlikely that a motorist will overtake a cyclist on their left just before an intersection and then turn right without noticing the cyclist, but it could happen. If a car overtakes me just before an intersection I watch to see if they are slowing and I will slow too and drop back, so that I am not next to them when they are in a position to turn. I usually also avoid passing cars on the right as they approach an intersection. If I do filter past slowed or stopped cars on their right, I always do so at low speed and on guard for doors, pulling to the curb, and right turns.

If I am next to cars at a stop light, and I want to go straight and they are signalling a right turn, I politely keep well out of their way to let them turn right on red. However, if they don't go before the light changes, I make eye contact and aggressively move up into the crosswalk blocking their turn just before the green, and go as soon as the light changes.

If there is a right turn only lane, I keep left of it and position myself in the right side of the through lane.

If I'm waiting on a sidestreet to cross a busy street, I try to leave just enough room to my right that a car could squeeze through and turn right, but not enough to tempt them to pass me on the right and go straight across.

[Bekologist]

...and in a wide lane with many minor intersections and steady traffic, bicyclists are placed in 'hookable' positions repeatedly. and 60 feet later, it happens again....


I think the strict VC, JF approved approach is now 'no wide lanes, narrow lanes only to purportedly ensure vehicularity- one lane, one vehicle.

unfortunately, that system falls apart with two lane roads and traffic with speed differentials...


invisible hand, do you think this type of situation occurs as frequently between other motorists, or would bicyclists perhaps be MORE prone to the hook becasue of the greater speed differential? I don't buy for a second motorists and bicyclists both face the same level of danger from faster traffic overtaking on the left....

[Allister]

I think the strict VC, JF approved approach is now 'no wide lanes, narrow lanes only to purportedly ensure vehicularity- one lane, one vehicle.


LOL. Even when he's not here, you still have to argue against him. Don't you think it's a bit obsessive? No-one else is making these arguments.