Advocacy & Safety - Near Miss

I was riding with two friends a week ago and had a pretty scary experience. We were on a rural road and were about to make a left turn into a parking lot. We had taken the center of the lane. As we approached the parking lot, a car came up from behind us and slowed down. The first rider was about 20 feet in front of us and she signaled a left turn. The two trailing riders (including me) were shifting and hadn't reached the parking lot, so we hadn't yet signaled the turn.

As the first rider began her turn, the car pulled into the left lane and sped up to pass. I'm still not sure if the driver stopped because she saw the cyclist or because she heard us screaming at her. There was the predictable adrenaline-fueled argument in the parking lot after disaster had been averted. We told the driver that the cyclist had signaled her turn, and her response was that the two rearward cyclists hadn't, so she didn't know anyone was turning. I almost think she has a fair point; she may not have been able to see the lead cyclist. I know that when in a car making a left turn across traffic, you have to assume that no one is going to pass you from behind while turning. Cycling should be the same, but with the vulnerability of being on a bike, I think in that same scenario from now on I will give the signal from the back of the pack long before the turn, just to be on the safe side.

Has anyone else run across this? What are your thoughts?

I apologize if this is just common sense; I don't do a lot of group rides.

If all drivers used adequate caution around bicyclists, drove sober, had unobstructed views ahead of them, and knew what a hand signal was when they saw one then there would be far fewer problems on the road. However, since none of these things are guaranteed, a quick look over the left shoulder when making a left turn is often well worth the effort even though you may not necessarily be required to do so.

In Florida, a driver (of a car - I've not really thought about this as it applies to bikes) turning left must yield to a car that is overtaking and passing if that vehicle has established itself in the opposite lane. This fact is counterintuitive; most people figure that the overtaking car must yield to the vehicle ahead that is signaling a left turn. That means that on a road with one lane each direction, when you turn left across the oncoming lane, you not only have to yield to oncoming traffic, but you must check behind you as well to see if an overtaking car has established itself in the left lane to complete the pass. If you turn left in front of a car that is passing you, you are at fault.

However, an overtaking car does not have the right of way before it is established in the opposite lane. Thus, if you are approaching a car that is signaling a left turn, you cannot pull into the left lane to pass it - you have to slow and allow it to make the turn.

Applying these rules to the situation you describe, it's a tough call (it's also frequently a tough call when that accident involves cars). The driver clearly had the right of way in passing you, but it is less clear about the rider in front. The lesson her is that when you are turning left across an oncoming traffic lane, makes sure you check behind as well as ahead.

Sounds like the driver was totally at fault.

Simple way to look at it is to say "if we'd been in cars instead of on bikes, would you have done the same thing?"

Because in a car you would have been slowing for the car in front to make it's turn left anyway.

That's an interesting quirk in the traffic law, Kerlenbach. You've given me something to think about.

I wear a helmet mirror so that I always know what drivers are doing ahead and behind me, whether it's legal or not.

As for whether the driver was right or wrong, I think the more important question is whether I end my ride dead or alive.

I'd say, if you were on a bicycle, riding to the left of the lane, that you've established that you are making a left turn. When you hug the white line, you're going straight or right; if you hug the yellow line, you're making a statement or a left turn. The hand signal just verifies it.

But quite frankly, this incident, to me anyhow, just points out how we all need to be diligent in watching out for what others are doing. Had you been in a car and had a directional light out, you may have had the same exact problem. Throw in the occasional mistake (on any drivers part) and you get "stuff happening".

What if it had been a line of 3 cars ahead of her, the lead car signaled a left turn and the next 2 cars were going straight. The lady decided to pass all 3 cars and hit the car turning left, who would be at fault.

1. The driver turning left
2. the 3rd driver for not also signaling left to let the lady know that someone ahead was turning left
3. the lady who improperly passed a group of other vehicles on the road.


The idea of cyclist in a group ride having the last riders signal all turns EARLY is a good safety measure, but it is not a requirement and does not relieve other vehicle operators from their responsibilities.

As already indicated, this one is simple.

Turning cyclists should best signal early. Overtaking motorists should best watch for the hand and lane-position signals.

As a rider, I do tend to get a bit lazy when the rider ahead of me signals clearly and early. (This is not the road forum so I can mention riders ahead of me.)

As a driver, I am extremely careful of cyclists riding near the center line because that in itself is such a clear signal of a likely left turn.

The last rider should have possibly signalled to the car to hold back and not pass.

riding le lanterne demands prudent blocking and signalling for the good of the group.

le lanterne!

In Florida, a driver (of a car - I've not really thought about this as it applies to bikes) turning left must yield to a car that is overtaking and passing if that vehicle has established itself in the opposite lane. This fact is counterintuitive; most people figure that the overtaking car must yield to the vehicle ahead that is signaling a left turn. That means that on a road with one lane each direction, when you turn left across the oncoming lane, you not only have to yield to oncoming traffic, but you must check behind you as well to see if an overtaking car has established itself in the left lane to complete the pass. If you turn left in front of a car that is passing you, you are at fault.

However, an overtaking car does not have the right of way before it is established in the opposite lane. Thus, if you are approaching a car that is signaling a left turn, you cannot pull into the left lane to pass it - you have to slow and allow it to make the turn.

Applying these rules to the situation you describe, it's a tough call (it's also frequently a tough call when that accident involves cars). The driver clearly had the right of way in passing you, but it is less clear about the rider in front. The lesson her is that when you are turning left across an oncoming traffic lane, makes sure you check behind as well as ahead.

Wrong. In Florida, the overtaking vehicle has to first signal the intent to pass, then the overtaken vehicle cannot speed up or move left to impede the overtaking vehicle. Get it right before you post.

I always look back over my shoulder and signal a left turn to make it really clear to following traffic I am turning. On more than one occassion, right after I made a clear left turn signal, cars have passed me on the left.

I don't know if the cars interpreted the left turn signal as my telling them to pass me, or if they were just f@cking with me intentionally, but living in Southern Florida, road rage capital of the US, I tend to think its the latter.

I was riding with two friends a week ago and had a pretty scary experience. We were on a rural road and were about to make a left turn into a parking lot. We had taken the center of the lane. As we approached the parking lot, a car came up from behind us and slowed down. The first rider was about 20 feet in front of us and she signaled a left turn. The two trailing riders (including me) were shifting and hadn't reached the parking lot, so we hadn't yet signaled the turn.

As the first rider began her turn, the car pulled into the left lane and sped up to pass. I'm still not sure if the driver stopped because she saw the cyclist or because she heard us screaming at her. There was the predictable adrenaline-fueled argument in the parking lot after disaster had been averted. We told the driver that the cyclist had signaled her turn, and her response was that the two rearward cyclists hadn't, so she didn't know anyone was turning. I almost think she has a fair point; she may not have been able to see the lead cyclist. I know that when in a car making a left turn across traffic, you have to assume that no one is going to pass you from behind while turning. Cycling should be the same, but with the vulnerability of being on a bike, I think in that same scenario from now on I will give the signal from the back of the pack long before the turn, just to be on the safe side.

Has anyone else run across this? What are your thoughts?

I apologize if this is just common sense; I don't do a lot of group rides.

My conclusion is that the driver saw cyclists in front of her "in the center of the lane". This would not, to me, as a driver, suggest that you were about to turn left. Your position should have been on the left of the lane and, as you have already decided, you should have been signalling.

For another road user, a reasonable conclusion would have been that you were "taking the lane" in order to ensure that drivers did not overtake too closely and doing so would give you some room to move to the right, should a motorist seem to be coming past too closely.

My opinion is that all three of you should have been signalling to give anyone coming up behind the maximum opportunity to understand you intentions and that, since taking the lane gives an ambiguous message, moving to the left of the lane is also a requirement.

Good luck with future rides and remember it is sometimes us who are in the wrong.

My conclusion is that the driver saw cyclists in front of her "in the center of the lane". This would not, to me, as a driver, suggest that you were about to turn left. Your position should have been on the left of the lane and, as you have already decided, you should have been signalling.

For another road user, a reasonable conclusion would have been that you were "taking the lane" in order to ensure that drivers did not overtake too closely and doing so would give you some room to move to the right, should a motorist seem to be coming past too closely.

My opinion is that all three of you should have been signalling to give anyone coming up behind the maximum opportunity to understand you intentions and that, since taking the lane gives an ambiguous message, moving to the left of the lane is also a requirement.

Good luck with future rides and remember it is sometimes us who are in the wrong.

When making a left turn [from the right side of the road], the safety of an individual rider and that of a nearby group is a function of the distance between them. The rider at the front was 20 feet ahead. How far ahead does the rider at the front need to be, before they can be considered sufficiently separated to constitute a separate entity?

We all know that a motorist will likely want to overtake all of the cyclists in one maneuver. And from this perspective a small gap actually increases the danger. It behooves a group of cyclists making a left turn to do so as a tight group, with all individuals indicating a desire to turn. This removes any scope for motorists approaching from behind to claim uncertainty as to the groups intentions.

The law is an ass with regard to drivers attempting to overtake left turning vehicles. See Bellon v. Heinzig (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:UnURXEj4ZqYJ:court.osdir.com/347/347.F2d.4.html+%22turning+left%22+%22yield+to+overtaking+vehicles%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) for a Ninth Circuit, Montana, Appeal Court ruling on a semi passing a slower left turning truck and in a no-pass zone! The driver of the slower vehicle was still found to have been partially responsible for not ensuring that it was possible to execute the turn in a safe manner.

Scott v. Gilbertson, is an example of a contrary decision, but I am unable to access the actual text of the ruling.

Ray Thomas (Attorney) in Portland, Oregon also has something to say on the matter of yielding to overtaking vehicles (http://www.stc-law.com/slowmoving.html), but not in the context of the cyclist attempting a left turn.

(Snipping a lot of good stuff) I know that when in a car making a left turn across traffic, you have to assume that no one is going to pass you from behind while turning. Cycling should be the same, but with the vulnerability of being on a bike, I think in that same scenario from now on I will give the signal from the back of the pack long before the turn, just to be on the safe side.


When operating a vehicle on a public road, one has both the moral and legal duty to pass slower vehicles with due care and in a safe manner.

This motorist failed to do so with near catastrophic consequences.

For any road user it is prudent to check for passing vehicles before executing a left turn. For a vulnerable road user like a cyclist, it would be imperative not to "assume no one is going to pass you."

Best practices would have each cyclist doing a shoulder check before committing to the turn.

In a group, it would be helpful for "tail-end Charlie" to signal. But he would be wise to hang back a few extra feet when doing so as he will be reducing his stopping power while signaling, and can easily cross wheels with those ahead.

Thanks vitamaltz for bring this back to our attention!:)

My conclusion is that the driver saw cyclists in front of her "in the center of the lane". This would not, to me, as a driver, suggest that you were about to turn left. Your position should have been on the left of the lane and, as you have already decided, you should have been signalling.

For another road user, a reasonable conclusion would have been that you were "taking the lane" in order to ensure that drivers did not overtake too closely and doing so would give you some room to move to the right, should a motorist seem to be coming past too closely.

My opinion is that all three of you should have been signalling to give anyone coming up behind the maximum opportunity to understand you intentions and that, since taking the lane gives an ambiguous message, moving to the left of the lane is also a requirement.

Good luck with future rides and remember it is sometimes us who are in the wrong.


This was what I was wondering too... and what is this "left lane" that the OP said the motorist pulled into? When I make a left turn from a narrow road, I am as close to the center stripe as possible... when I make a left turn with a left turn only lane, I am centered in that lane. There should be no ambiguity as to what my intentions are... On the flip side, there is no requirement for the last cyclist to "group signal."

The motorist pulled into the oncoming traffic lane; it was just a two lane rural road. We had fully taken the lane.

Interesting, I saw about 20 bike cops doing a training ride the other day. They were making a left turn across traffic, and they each individually signalled when they were preparing for their turn... the riders at the front were turning long before the riders at the back were signalling. It's something all of us should think about and try to do differently, I guess.

The motorist pulled into the oncoming traffic lane; it was just a two lane rural road. We had fully taken the lane.

I don't know about US/state law, but ours is that riders turning right (your left) should position themselves on the crown of the road, i.e. just inside the centre line. From your description, it would seem that the lane was too narrow to allow acar to overtake your group safely within that lane - please correct me if I'm wrong. In that case, perhaps moving completely to just inside the centre of the highway might have encouraged her to undertake. "Taking the lane" in that case might have been best, but you could have moved to, say, 2/3rds of the way across the lane, but all of you signalling.

As I said earlier, if I had been driving behind you, I might well have assumed that you were taking the lane and so would have moved into the oncoming lane to overtake you safely (which one should in those circumstances. Of course, if there was oncoming traffic, then, regardless of the lack of signalling from the rear two, she should not have overtaken anyway.

Bit of a mixed bag of "who'stoblame", it seems to me.


Interesting, I saw about 20 bike cops doing a training ride the other day. They were making a left turn across traffic, and they each individually signalled when they were preparing for their turn... the riders at the front were turning long before the riders at the back were signalling. It's something all of us should think about and try to do differently, I guess.

Is this road striped as a passing permitted zone thru an intersection? wow