Advocacy & Safety - Can bike lanes legally be used as turn lanes?

It is common practice here and probably just about everywhere in USA for cars to use the wide bike lanes as extra turning lanes at intersections. Is it legal? I'm sure many here who have been buzzed and right hooked by drivers who do this.

When I took an online driver improvement course last year the study material said it was ok for cars to use the bike lanes as turn lanes as long as they made sure there were no bikers in it.

I'd prefer that they merge into a bike lane if one exists to make a right turn. This would reduce the number of right hooks, as it would prevent cyclists from passing the right turning vehicle on the right, and allow a proper pass on the left. Also, it forces other vehicles to look and make sure the bike lane is clear before merging into it.

Think about it, when driving a car, you don't make a right turn from a middle lane, or left lane do you? No, you make your right turn from the right-most lane.

Yes, it makes the most sense that the car merges right before turning right. Ideally the bike lanes should be designed to make this clear, with dotted lines or sharrows or stick figures to help cyclists and drivers alike figure this out. As the car merges right, cyclists behind it who want to go straight ahead should shoulder check and then pass the car on the left. (left side picture)

What I sometimes see instead, is the car driver hesitates outside the bike lane, near the intersection, a couple of cyclists squeeze by on the right and go straight through, then the car driver starts to turn, then a dawdling cyclist still tries to stupidly pass on the right and maybe bangs self-righteously on the window. (right side picture)

That is a good point mike. However I find that the cars who cause me problems are not those I pass on the right who have slowed or stopped already with signal on but those that come flying up and pass me on the left and then execute their right turn in front of me. If there is a car ahead of me with a turn signal on I don't go past them in the bike lane unless they are stopped way back in the traffic queue.

I think drivers should merge to the far right ahead of making a right turn. It is however not legal in AZ or OR to merge into the bike lane when doing this unfortunately.

However I find that the cars who cause me problems are not those I pass on the right who have slowed or stopped already with signal on but those that come flying up and pass me on the left and then execute their right turn in front of me.
That's not a problem with bike lanes - that's a problem in general. If the car had executed a proper merge before hand, making sure the lane was clear, the right hook would not be a problem.

I get right hooked like that trying to use a proper RTOL to turn right on my bicycle. A lot of car drivers are impatient.

I would much rather have a car merge in front of me then turn into me.

Yes I see that you are right. Perhaps they should put up signs indicating that the bike lane can be used for turning at intersections. The cross hatched lines dont really make it clear since they usually only start five feet from the intersection.

If cars don't see you when turning from their lane, why do you think they'll see you when they merge into the bike lane?

I know for a fact that at least in California you are allowed to merge into a bike lane 100ft before a turn. Just took the test at DMV.

I know for a fact that at least in California you are allowed to merge into a bike lane 100ft before a turn. Just took the test at DMV.
just allowed, or actually required?

If cars don't see you when turning from their lane, why do you think they'll see you when they merge into the bike lane?

When I turn left I pull in front of automotive traffic and expect them to patiently wait for me to make my turn. If a car is going to turn left I would want them to come to the right and then execute there turn. And yes I feel a better chance of the automobile seeing me if they concentrate first on the merge then the turn. not just the turn.

I think drivers should merge to the far right ahead of making a right turn. It is however not legal in AZ or OR to merge into the bike lane when doing this unfortunately.

California got this one right. Arizona and Oregon got it dead wrong.

If cars don't see you when turning from their lane, why do you think they'll see you when they merge into the bike lane?

When I turn left I pull in front of automotive traffic and expect them to patiently wait for me to make my turn. If a car is going to turn left I would want them to come to the right and then execute there turn. And yes I feel a better chance of the automobile seeing me if they concentrate first on the merge then the turn. not just the turn.

If cars don't see you when turning from their lane, why do you think they'll see you when they merge into the bike lane?
Merging into your lane, then slowing and turning, is a lot safer than suddenly veering across in front of you

Merging into your lane, then slowing and turning, is a lot safer than suddenly veering across in front of you

Exactly. The whole idea is not to create two separate trajectories that will cross paths with each other. As in any other lane change, the driver changing lanes should respect the right-of-way of any vehicles already in the lane into which they intend to merge. If they don't have enough time or space to safely enter the bike lane in front of the cyclist, they should slow down and enter the bike lane behind the cyclist.

It is common practice here and probably just about everywhere in USA for cars to use the wide bike lanes as extra turning lanes at intersections. Is it legal? I'm sure many here who have been buzzed and right hooked by drivers who do this.

When I took an online driver improvement course last year the study material said it was ok for cars to use the bike lanes as turn lanes as long as they made sure there were no bikers in it.

In California and in many states, drivers are supposed to merge into the BL and get as close to the curb as possible before making a turn... so not only is it legal, it is required.

That drivers don't do this is merely proof that they do not fully understand their roles as operators of vehicles.

In Oregon the law is different, and motorists are supposed to only cross BL.

just allowed, or actually required?

required

The main problem is that there is very little driver education in this country. Before I read that section in the improvement course I had no idea you were supposed to enter the bike lane near intersections for turning right. The course did not state that merging far right into the bike lane was required only that it was allowed and did not elaborate on why this is a good idea. I have a coworker who was ticketed for entering the bike lane to turn right so that caused me to wonder whether the course material had been accurate. Too bad he simply paid the ticket and did not research it or take it to court.

It is common practice here and probably just about everywhere in USA for cars to use the wide bike lanes as extra turning lanes at intersections. Is it legal? I'm sure many here who have been buzzed and right hooked by drivers who do this.

When I took an online driver improvement course last year the study material said it was ok for cars to use the bike lanes as turn lanes as long as they made sure there were no bikers in it.

I presume that you are talking about right hand turns, right? IF the bike lane was laid out "correctly" it should pass to the left of the right hand turn lane not to the right of it, and/or it should transition from a solid line to a dashed line the closer to the intersection one gets.

or it should transition from a solid line to a dashed line the closer to the intersection one gets.
At the intersection approach shouldn't the stripe just be removed entirely? What good does the bike lane do that it still needs to be marked with a dashed line?

I presume that you are talking about right hand turns, right? IF the bike lane was laid out "correctly" it should pass to the left of the right hand turn lane not to the right of it, and/or it should transition from a solid line to a dashed line the closer to the intersection one gets.

That's correct, and that's how it's done here.


At the intersection approach shouldn't the stripe just be removed entirely? What good does the bike lane do that it still needs to be marked with a dashed line?

Well, the idea is it shows that the lane is "merging" out of the bike lane and into the through traffic lane (and not continuing on the right of traffic), and the through traffic lane is able to merge right in order to make their turn. So, essentially, you are taking the lane through every intersection as you should be anyway.

I actually love this setup... never even come close to being right hooked in most areas because we have our driver's so well trained to merge right, THEN turn (probably one of the few things we've been able to beat into their head. Well, that and pulling into an intersection for a left unprotected turn).

Sort of like this:

Google Maps
(http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Mckinley+and+West+Fresno&sll=36.800969,-119.763315&sspn=0.004914,0.009602&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=W+McKinley+Ave+%26+Northwest+Ave,+Fresno,+California&ll=36.765352,-119.826886&spn=0.000552,0.002401&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=36.765457,-119.826777&panoid=Q39E_LQJjjJUuvfCf245SA&cbp=11,166.48,,0,5)
The "weave" between vehicles turning right and bikes will always have to happen at some point (unless it's a take the lane situation), but I think this is one the safest ways to do it.

I presume that you are talking about right hand turns, right? IF the bike lane was laid out "correctly" it should pass to the left of the right hand turn lane not to the right of it, and/or it should transition from a solid line to a dashed line the closer to the intersection one gets.

Right hand turn lanes don't exist everywhere... sometimes the BL is just dashed right before the intersection, that is the area where a merge should take place.

The real problem is that we don't teach beginning drivers how to do this and how treat other road users... drivers' ed is a joke and this is the easiest country in the world to get and hold a driver's license. Road engineers and laws focus on flow, not safety.... and drivers think they own the road.

Right hand turn lanes don't exist everywhere... sometimes the BL is just dashed right before the intersection, that is the area where a merge should take place.

Since I just posted it in another thread, here's an example (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=W+McKinley+Ave+%26+West&sll=36.764934,-119.769353&sspn=0.009764,0.019205&g=W+McKinley+Ave+%26+Normal&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=W+McKinley+Ave+%26+Northwest+Ave,+Fresno,+California&ll=36.766096,-119.826373&spn=0.002441,0.004801&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.766971,-119.826758&panoid=Yb66c1FadSvsa4smMO72KA&cbp=12,203.16,,0,5).


The real problem is that we don't teach beginning drivers how to do this and how treat other road users... drivers' ed is a joke and this is the easiest country in the world to get and hold a driver's license. Road engineers and laws focus on flow, not safety.... and drivers think they own the road.

Driver's ed is definitely a bad joke - but people merging right before a turn seems to be well done, at least here. Like I said, that and pulling into an intersection to make an unprotected left are the few things people tend to do without fail.

Since I just posted it in another thread, here's an example (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=W+McKinley+Ave+%26+West&sll=36.764934,-119.769353&sspn=0.009764,0.019205&g=W+McKinley+Ave+%26+Normal&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=W+McKinley+Ave+%26+Northwest+Ave,+Fresno,+California&ll=36.766096,-119.826373&spn=0.002441,0.004801&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.766971,-119.826758&panoid=Yb66c1FadSvsa4smMO72KA&cbp=12,203.16,,0,5).



Driver's ed is definitely a bad joke - but people merging right before a turn seems to be well done, at least here. Like I said, that and pulling into an intersection to make an unprotected left are the few things people tend to do without fail.

Well folks in Fresno may be merging, but I have seen quite the opposite down here in Southern California... even to the extent of motorists pulling around cyclists who have a BL to the left of the RTOL, and then the motorist realizes they need to be in the RTOL and can't figure out what to do.

Below is an example of a well laid out BL, that even has a sensor in it to trigger the light. Note that it becomes dashed, then continues on to the left of the RTOL... and yet I have seen motorists come right up along beside the BL where the BL is beside the RTOL, and the motorists trys to turn into the RTOL.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.921079,-117.217247&spn=0,0.002819&z=19&layer=c&cbll=32.921051,-117.217415&panoid=DKJ7e1kJ5jpfqpcnelAX5A&cbp=12,86.59,,1,11.51

This action occurs because the motorist is not paying attention, is not planning ahead, and may not be well trained in the first place. I think too that this sort of bad driving is due to freeway mentality borne of driving high speed roads... this is just north of a 50MPH section of road. Such 50MPH arterial roads dominate the So Cal environment.

Below is an example of a BL that dashes and ends before the intersection, but there is no RTOL, in this case the motorist is supposed to merge into the BL and then turn right, from as close to the curb as practical.

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.866071,-117.24309&spn=0,0.011276&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.865947,-117.243119&panoid=k1dwsfQjafkS9tZDCZCz6Q&cbp=12,2.35,,0,20.24

Weird. Totally never see people not merging here.

In a funny way, Fresno's crappy standard and homeless problem actually makes us reasonably bike friendly. Drivers are just so used to seeing bikes everywhere. Unfortunately it also means the police tend to hassle us a little more, too... :(

It is common practice here and probably just about everywhere in USA for cars to use the wide bike lanes as extra turning lanes at intersections. Is it legal? I'm sure many here who have been buzzed and right hooked by drivers who do this.

When I took an online driver improvement course last year the study material said it was ok for cars to use the bike lanes as turn lanes as long as they made sure there were no bikers in it.

It shouldn't be legal. But, The bicycle-haters probably love it, when it happens.

The main problem is that there is very little driver education in this country. Before I read that section in the improvement course I had no idea you were supposed to enter the bike lane near intersections for turning right. The course did not state that merging far right into the bike lane was required only that it was allowed and did not elaborate on why this is a good idea. I have a coworker who was ticketed for entering the bike lane to turn right so that caused me to wonder whether the course material had been accurate. Too bad he simply paid the ticket and did not research it or take it to court.
+1
We need to train drivers more diligently and make renewal tests more than just a rubber stamp. Too often states regard driver licence fees as a cash cow and disregard qualifications.

Right hand turn lanes don't exist everywhere... sometimes the BL is just dashed right before the intersection, that is the area where a merge should take place.

True, and dashing the line before the intersection is probably a good thing.


The real problem is that we don't teach beginning drivers how to do this and how treat other road users... drivers' ed is a joke and this is the easiest country in the world to get and hold a driver's license. Road engineers and laws focus on flow, not safety.... and drivers think they own the road.

Exactly, as we've said the key is education, education, education. What they need to do is put signs explaining what the dashed line means, as well as including a couple of sharrows to indicate that cyclists have the right to take the lane.

And sadly as you said it is way to easy to get and keep a license when it should be harder to do so. And again I think that it is safe to say that those of us who ride know all too well that roads aren't designed to be safe but to move vehicles, i.e. cars from point A to point B as quickly as possible with little if any regard to anyone else who uses the roads.

It shouldn't be legal. But, The bicycle-haters probably love it, when it happens.

Why? You like getting right hooked?

when you cross a railroad track and the train crashes into you, it is your fault. The railroad train has the right of way, being its dedicated to train use. Much in the same vein, the bike lane is dedicated right of way, and a motor vehicle intruding into the bicycle right of way is not unlike a car that drives down the railroad track.
There was a recent case in Portland where the ROW is questioned as the painted bike lane did not continue through an intersection. A cyclist was hit by a turning vehicle and the judge that heard the case interpreted the case that the ROW did NOT extend through the intersection, but was interupted and only continued on the other side where the bike lane picked up again. This ruling has been subject to much criticism,but to my knowledge,still stands.
The status of bike lanes most likely is determined by State statute, rather than by Federal. So the only sure answer would be to consult your States motor vehicle code.
That said, even if your State recognizes the bike lane to be dedicated right of way, lacking enforcement, every car will use the bike lane for a turn lane.
But should you ever be hit by a car in the bike lane, sue the hell out of them.

Why? You like getting right hooked?

I don't have a drivers' license. My bike is my chief form of transportation, inclement weather notwithstanding.

I don't use the bike lane but, 'take the lane' because of that possibility. A bike lane is not an extra lane that a motorist can use as a right-turn lane.

when you cross a railroad track and the train crashes into you, it is your fault. The railroad train has the right of way, being its dedicated to train use. Much in the same vein, the bike lane is dedicated right of way, and a motor vehicle intruding into the bicycle right of way is not unlike a car that drives down the railroad track.
There was a recent case in Portland where the ROW is questioned as the painted bike lane did not continue through an intersection. A cyclist was hit by a turning vehicle and the judge that heard the case interpreted the case that the ROW did NOT extend through the intersection, but was interupted and only continued on the other side where the bike lane picked up again. This ruling has been subject to much criticism,but to my knowledge,still stands.
The status of bike lanes most likely is determined by State statute, rather than by Federal. So the only sure answer would be to consult your States motor vehicle code.
That said, even if your State recognizes the bike lane to be dedicated right of way, lacking enforcement, every car will use the bike lane for a turn lane.
But should you ever be hit by a car in the bike lane, sue the hell out of them.

That dedicated ROW thinking is ONLY in Oregon... (and perhaps in AZ from what I understand... I have NOT read the laws from AZ)

In CA, just to the south of you, a bike lane is just another traffic lane... it just happens to be space primarily set aside for narrow vehicles... It is NOT a dedicated ROW space... don't bring that thinking south or you will find problems with it right away.

A bike lane is not an extra lane that a motorist can use as a right-turn lane.

I thought that way about a year ago. Now I would rather have a car check and merge into the bike lane to turn right. I have no question of their intention if they do this. However, my problem is that they don't check.

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it's recommended procedure in Pennsylvania. I'll look at that and get back.

Edit: I can't find anything legally one way or another.

http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/Chief_Engineer/engr_library/design/StdDrwgEng_PDFs/TM14_000000.pdf

I've seen this more often in Tennessee. I tend to not ride in the trash strewn minefields of bike lanes much so I can't say how well the design works, but at least its an attempt.

It shouldn't be legal. But, The bicycle-haters probably love it, when it happens.

For your own safety and well-being, I'm sure the other posters on this thread join me in hoping that you get a clue sometime soon.

Well, the idea is it shows that the lane is "merging" out of the bike lane and into the through traffic lane (and not continuing on the right of traffic), and the through traffic lane is able to merge right in order to make their turn. So, essentially, you are taking the lane through every intersection as you should be anyway.

The dashed line is only a hindrance to that (and makes it illegal to merge far right in AZ/OR as the bike lane remains). Drivers are taught not to straddle lane lines and it is illegal to not drive fully within the lane lanes.
Better to have no line at all at the intersection approach so these complications are removed - there will likely be better compliance for drivers to move far right when turning right - instead of the perceptions and in certain states the illegal behavor of entering the bike lane before turning right.

For your own safety and well-being, I'm sure the other posters on this thread join me in hoping that you get a clue sometime soon.

I am not a motorist AND, I don't acquiesce to some two-ton piece of garbage. Just because the stupid motorist feels slowed up by a cyclist.:mad:

While I do not use bike lanes, cyclists that do shouldn't be forced to live in fear of greedy motorists.:mad:

I am not a motorist AND, I don't acquiesce to some two-ton piece of garbage. Just because the stupid motorist feels slowed up by a cyclist.:mad:

While I do not use bike lanes, cyclists that do shouldn't be forced to live in fear of greedy motorists.:mad:

It's difficult not to give way to the laws of physics... no matter what you may believe, 2 ton vehicles still trump 200 pound bike and rider.

While I do not use bike lanes, cyclists that do shouldn't be forced to live in fear of greedy motorists.

As I cyclist, I think motorists *should* enter the bike lane when turning right. Done properly, this does 2 things:

1. Forces them to check for the presence of a cyclist
2. Shows their intent of a right turn to any cyclists behind them

This may force a cyclist to slow down for a motorists, but done properly (yes, I keep repeating that, but it's important to note) it's the safest approach for everyone involved.

As I cyclist, I think motorists *should* enter the bike lane when turning right. Done properly, this does 2 things:

1. Forces them to check for the presence of a cyclist
2. Shows their intent of a right turn to any cyclists behind them

This may force a cyclist to slow down for a motorists, but done properly it's the safest approach for everyone involved.
3. Gives cyclist more space to pass on left

3. Gives cyclist more space to pass on left

I felt like I was forgetting something. I agree completely.

I'd prefer that they merge into a bike lane if one exists to make a right turn. This would reduce the number of right hooks, as it would prevent cyclists from passing the right turning vehicle on the right, and allow a proper pass on the left. Also, it forces other vehicles to look and make sure the bike lane is clear before merging into it.

Think about it, when driving a car, you don't make a right turn from a middle lane, or left lane do you? No, you make your right turn from the right-most lane.

+1

I totally agree with this

I agree with all three. I do not have any bike lane experience or at least any where cars were present enough to mater but that is exactly how I would expect things to work. It's the same way I expect things to happen on the street without a bike lane.

It's difficult not to give way to the laws of physics... no matter what you may believe, 2 ton vehicles still trump 200 pound bike and rider.

At first, yes. That is why I 'take the lane'. So the motorist can't claim, they didn't see me. I also am not going at a 'snails pace'.

The dashed line is only a hindrance to that (and makes it illegal to merge far right in AZ/OR as the bike lane remains). Drivers are taught not to straddle lane lines and it is illegal to not drive fully within the lane lanes.

I have to disagree. In theory, I get what you're saying... but it doesn't seem to hold up to practice. The dashed line when there was none before tends to encourage motorists to merge into it, whether they can do so fully or not. It's more natural.


Better to have no line at all at the intersection approach so these complications are removed - there will likely be better compliance for drivers to move far right when turning right - instead of the perceptions and in certain states the illegal behavor of entering the bike lane before turning right.

Well, this is what's done at major intersections. The bike lane ends and merges into the through lane, as the through lane is able to move into a right turn lane. The dashed bike lane is only in a case where there is no right turn lane (typically turning off of a major roadway onto a side street), and for this purpose it seems natural and works perfectly fine here.

As I cyclist, I think motorists *should* enter the bike lane when turning right. Done properly, this does 2 things:

1. Forces them to check for the presence of a cyclist
2. Shows their intent of a right turn to any cyclists behind them

This may force a cyclist to slow down for a motorists, but done properly (yes, I keep repeating that, but it's important to note) it's the safest approach for everyone involved.


3. Gives cyclist more space to pass on left

4. Causes motorist to slow down to reasonable speed to check for "other traffic" such as pedestrians, who may be crossing perpendicular to the motorists' turning path.

If a motorist does not pull to the far right, they tend to "cut the corner" and can do so at a higher speed.... which is exactly what some motorists do, which then makes a right hook more possible, (and harder for cyclists to deal with) as well as the potential for not evaluating whether there are pedestrians crossing.... thus the increasing need for signs to indicate that Motorists Must Yield to Crossing Pedestrians... the latter a symptom of motorists NOT pulling to the right as far as practical, and not properly slowing. (see the downward spiral of motorists driving too fast for the situation and then following that with wide sweeping turns... a symptom of highway driving mentality.)