Originally Posted by
Buzzatronic
I think it's pretty simple really. Instead of "bike lane", substitute "oncoming lane" and instead of "white line" substitute "double yellow". In the case of a driver turning left across a double yellow line, they must yield to oncoming traffic. That's an absolute and if the person making the left is hit by oncoming traffic, it is the fault of the driver turning left since they did not yield the right of way.
Why would the same wording for yielding to bikes in the bike lane when turning across the bike lane be any different to yielding to oncoming traffic when turning across the oncoming lane? It would not.
But sadly my noob-ness around here has made me naive and apparently people get jollies out of blaming people who post incidents. So be it, blame me for not anticipating bad driver behavior but no one has pointing out where I broke any laws or regulations regarding biking in Washington state.
If anyone else has any constructive comments, I'll respond but other than that I'm done too.
Dude, calm down. I wasn't trying to find fault with you, just really wondering if 'yielding to the bike lane' would apply for traffic (i.e. cars and bikes) moving in the same direction.
It's certainly a foreign concept to me, anyway, and I've been riding and commuting the road in pretty bike friendly towns since '87; doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just that I'm unfamiliar with the concept. Also, as I said, requiring one user to yield does not necessarily grant another user right-of-way. There is legitimate uncertainty in a situation like you experienced, and I'm curious if there's any other information that might clarify which reading of the law is correct.