DigitalQuirk

So I was on my way home from work today, and decided to stop in at the Beer Store for some suds. It's a beautiful Friday afternoon, and as I'm leaving the Beer Store cruising in my GT, I got the windows down, sunroof open, and have Joe Jackson playing on the 8 speaker stereo, loud enough but not too loud...so I'm in my "Happy place" which puts me in a rather good mood. It also means I'm not second-guessing anyone; everyone gets the benefit of the doubt as I assume they'll follow the laws of the road.

As I pull up to one of the exits, I see a guy on a mountain bike also waiting to exit. The road in which I'm exiting on to has a concrete island divider down the middle; two lanes on each side, so the only option coming out of this exit is to turn right. He (the cyclist) is not signaling any intent to turn right, but seeing as that appears to be the only viable option, I assume he's going to turn right when traffic clears (just as I rightfully assume motorists that often fail to use their turn signal here also have to turn right). I pull up along side of him, giving plenty of room. Traffic lets up, so I proceed, still leaving him plenty of room to turn right along with me. Instead, he makes a bee-line to go straight, and when I suddenly appeared in his path, he had to brake to avoid hitting me, then he gave me a dirty look and said, "Thanks a lot." Which kind of put a damper on my mood, until I goosed the gas, lit up the tires, and returned back to my happy place. I watched him in my rear-view mirror pedal out to that divider where he stood and waited - with traffic zooming dangerously close to him from either direction - until he could cross the oncoming traffic lane.

I call this "Jay-riding." It's much like Jay-walking, but on a bike. Not only is it dangerous, it also serves to alienate yourself from motorists. Now, if there's nobody around, then there's no harm, no foul. However, if I were driving, say, a big truck and moved a lot slower, there's a good chance this guy would've ended up crushed under my wheels. I wonder, how many bicycle accidents are caused this way? Please, think and be predictable to other motorists.

joejack951

As a motorist who also cycles, why did you feel the need to pull next to him, regardless of his position at the exit? What did you gain other than a few seconds (maybe) while making the cyclist's life much more difficult? Please, think and be courteous to everyone on the road.

CMcMahon

There's a great video out where Jason Levy rides across four lanes of traffic, backwards.

He also does a 180 from the roof of a building onto another one, while firing a handgun.

I just figured that I'd keep you all informed.

edit: https://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0&q=Jason+Levy

Oh dear. *waits for the eHate*

DigitalQuirk

It was a nice, wide exit, with plenty of room to accomodate both a cyclist and an automobile; I saw no good reason to wait behind the cyclist with so much room available and only one direction in which to turn.

Wulfheir

You made a mistake, but it's okay if everyone is okay and you learn from it.

joejack951

Would you have pulled next to a motorcycle at the exit? Would you have appreciated it if someone blocked your view for no good reason when you were trying to make a turn?

JohnBrooking

If DQ gave the cyclist plenty of room, and the cyclist was on the right instead of taking the full lane, I would say the cyclist contributed more to the near-incident than DQ did. True, DQ could have given him the full lane anyway, to be a safe as possible. But I think for the cyclist to assume that someone would give him plenty of room to do something so completely non-intuitive as crossing in front of turning traffic in a right turn-only lane was much more bone-headed than DQ's assumption that the cyclist was going to turn right in it. Both made assumptions, and you could certainly argue that neither should have, but DQ's was more logical.

catatonic

The gun was just ********.....

All obvious stupid moments aside (playing in traffic, train racing, etc), that guy has some skills.

joejack951

Ok so DQ did what your average ignorant motorist might do in this situation. Would you, as a cyclist, try to squeeze in the same lane with your car just because the cyclist was off to the far right? Wouldn't you think a little more than the average motorist and realize that while the cyclist might not be doing things as perfectly as you'd do them yourself that maybe you should still treat him like he was? Is that too much to ask from another cyclist?

Roody

A bike should get to hold a place in line just like any other vehicle. If i drove, I'd get behind the bike and wait my turn. Also, it sounds like the OP was so much in his "happy place" that he wasn't really thinking about other road users. Not a good attitude for the operator of a fast, heavy and large vehicle.

Daily Commute

You both messed up. If he was in a RTOL, he should have turned right. But unless there were two turn lanes, you should have waited your turn. It's really dangerous to pass on a turn. For example, I can often corner faster than cars, should I try to squeeze between them and the curb at corners? What about left turns? Should I wizz by cars on their left at a LTOL and pass them was we all turn?

Given your dangeous impatience, you are not in a position to criticize the cyclist. If what you say is correct, he's not in a position to criticize you, either, but I don't see a post from him complaining.

Next time, wait your turn.

wethepeople

I've done that same thing on trains, alot funner then it looks.

Helmet Head

I guess there is a first time for everything, this being the first time (that I can recall) that I disagree with JoeJack.

When any driver of any vehicle (including a bicycle) blatantly keeps to the right, he is yielding the space to his left. In this particular case, the cyclist's lane positioning off to the right indicated his intent was to turn right. It was perfectly reasonable for DQ to pull alongside him like he did, just as he would probably pull alongside any slow moving vehicle who is keeping to the right like this.

It's high time for cyclists who are accustomed to keeping to the right when there is no reason to do so to realize the ramifications of doing so.

CommuterRun

What I take from the OP is, the cyclist was entirely in the wrong.

Why did he crowd to the right, indicating a willingness to share the lane, when his intention was to do something other than the only legal maneuver at this intersection, a right turn?

I would have handled this scenario much as DigitalQuirk did. Except that, instead of the usual smile and wave or thumbs-up that I normally give to all cyclists regardless if I'm on a bike or in the car, I would have given this joker the single finger salute after he made his comment.

The cyclist should have been in the middle of the lane, executed a right turn, since the intersection was right turn only, then positioned himself to proceed in his intended direction.

Daily Commute

A driver of a car doesn't have the right to do something stupid just because a cyclist does something stupid. If a line of cars leave enough space for me to squeeze by on their left in a LTOL, can I do it and turn left with them?

CommuterRun

You could, I probably wouldn't most of the time, but there's not much difference between doing that and using a bike lane or WOL to filter forward at a redlight.

The thing we need to remember is the vast majority of drivers are not cyclists and will take whatever room they're given. If the cyclist is to the right in a WOL nearly all drivers will try to share the lane and pass regardless of the circumstances. As cyclists we all know this, which is why many of us take the lane at intersections to preclude lane sharing in potentially unsafe situations.

Another thing to keep in mind is most cyclists don't know they can take the lane or are uneasy doing it, so they crowd to the right when they should be in the middle.

EnigManiac

I must chime in here and remark that I agree with most of the respondents here who rightly point out that the cyclist, regardless of his lane position or his presumed direction of travel, was first at the exit and should have been allowed to proceed, illegally or not, first. Coming along side of him obstructs his view of approaching traffic and threatens his position in the lane that he is, presumably, about to enter, so the OP should have remained behind the cyclist.

- DigitalQuirk

You expected to go into the curb lane on your right at the same time he did, forcing him against the curb, I suppose. As a cyclist, you should know that if he had turned right as you anticipated, he would be out from the curb a full third of the lane or more, yet you still expected to share the lane with him OR you planned to turn right but into the left lane, allowing him the right lane, but you would not consider such a thing ff there had been room for another car or a pick-up or an SUV or a semi instead of just a bike on your right. Sorry, DigitalQuirk, under the traffic laws, at least the regulations we have here, that would have been regarded as an unsafe and illegal right turn no matter how you tried to do it.

joejack951

Do you agree that by pulling alongside the cyclist that DQ made the cyclist's turn more difficult? What would you have done in the same situation? You have told stories before of watching a cyclist attempt to change lanes without proper negotiation. You realized this and yielded even though the average motorist probably would not have. That was the point of my post. I know the cyclist didn't do much of anything right but that still wouldn't make me want to be jerk to him.

Bekologist

I'm having visions of this respondant training errant cyclists with his RV, and it is scaring me.

Roody

Well this is what bothered me. DQ seems to be saying that everybody else should watch out for him, because he is in his "happy place" and not inclined to watch out for anybody else. ("...everyone gets the benefit of the doubt as I assume they'll follow the laws of the road.") This is the kind of arrogant, inattentive attitude that is often ascribed to "cagers" on this forum.

Also, it is not my impression that this incident even ocurred on a road. From the OP, it seems that it happened in the driveway of a beer store, although DQ called it an "exit" rather than a driveway. I agree that the cyclist would have been much better positioned if he were to the left side of the driveway, or just right of center if the driveway was for vehicles both entering and exiting.

I also think the cyclist's stopping in traffic to lift his bike over a curbed median was pretty lame. This maneuver is probably best left to those who have mastered the basic bunny-hopping skills. But of course this happened after DQ's encounter, and he probably mentioned it only to further discredit the cyclist.

Daily Commute

That's what we call advanced vehicular cycling training. It's not exactly approved by the LAB.

Helmet Head

Perhaps. It's unclear. The expected dynamics on DQ's part are similar to a double right turn only lane. When a cyclist stays to the right like that, he is behaving as if there is an implied "bike lane" on the right. In this case, it's an implied bike right turn only lane. DQ even noted that he treated it as such: "so I proceed, still leaving him plenty of room to turn right along with me." DQ had every reason to believe an d expect the cyclist to be turning right. By pulling alongside him, "giving plenty of room", is not more making his turn more difficult than pulling alongside anyone else turning right.


I don't know for sure if I would have done what DQ did here or not. But regardless of what I or anyone else would have done, the issue is whether DQ's expecting the cyclist to be turning right, and pulling alongside him, was unreasonable or not. I don't think it was unreasonable.

DigitalQuirk

First of all, I do not consider biyclists the same as other vehicles, motorcycles included. Indeed, I treat all vehicles differently based on their characteristics. For instance, I give trailer-hauling semi's a lot more room to make turns; I assume that when there's two lanes, they'll need to take at least part of the left lane to complete a right-hand turn, very much unlike a sports coupe which could slide around the same corner without so much as slowing down. Bicyclists are also different; not only are they the slowest moving vehicle on the road, they are usually significantly slower than the majority of vehicles on the road. They're also the most vulnerable. When I'm on my bike, I assume that other vehicles will overtake me and always allow them every opportunity to do so. When I'm in a motor vehicle and approach a cyclist, I plan to overtake them and adjust my speed and lane position so that I can either take part of the other lane as I pass them, or pass them slow enough that they won't be surprised. I do assume that cyclists have every right to be on the road as every other vehicle, but to treat every vehicle on the road the same is not sensible.

In this case, if the cyclist was on a motorcycle, then no, I would not have pulled up alongside him, since I usually don't need to overtake motorcycles to maintain a reasonable speed. With bicycles, I always try to think of the safest means of overtaking the cyclist. As such, when they're hugging the curb lane, I always maintain enough space between myself and them providing them with a virtual "Bicycle" lane, and slow down and drive behind them when there's not sufficient room to do so. When they're "Taking" the lane to turn left or go straight, I use my car as a buffer for them, giving them the space they need (even if it means an irate driver behind me).

My GT sits low, so by pulling up alongside the cyclist (who was sitting high up on a mountain bike), his view would not have been obstructed. I know this for a fact based on my own experience riding a bike. Also, consider the "Shield" effect my car would have for the cyclist as he pulled out with my car between him and oncoming traffic.

It's not just cyclists; I give all road users the benefit of the doubt. I have to. If I start second-guessing what everyone might do, I wouldn't get beyond the end of my street! Of course, people do make mistakes, and accidents do happen. People do go the wrong way down one-way streets, they turn when they're not supposed to, and they drive through stop signs and red lights. Usually, it's not intentional, and it is rare, so most motorists get to the point where they make predictions and assumptions on what others are going to do and most of the time they guess right because the vast majority do follow the rules of the road most of the time.

As I reflect on this, I realize that the intention of the cyclist was to take a "Short cut" to get to a side street on the other side of the road. Even though this would have been an "Illegal" and rather dangerous maneuver, the cyclist would have been much better off positioned in the middle of the entrance/exit, permitting drivers exiting to do so, while drivers entering could also safely do so, all without impeding his own progress to play real life frogger.

EnigManiac

Okay, so what does this mean? That you disrespect cyclists and dismiss them as inherently inferior, slower and undeservable of the same consideration you'd give to other users of the road, in spite of the fact that you are a professed cyclist yourself?

Sorry, DQ: say what you will, but you disrepected the cyclist----who, after the fact, chose to ride foolishly and dangerously---and didn't give him a moments consideration before or after you peeled out of the beer store parking lot. You state that other vehicles deserve to be treated differently---and rightly so, in some cases---yet, you still intended to turn into HIS lane at the same time before it was your turn, and THAT is illegal. All because you felt you were superior driving in your car and giving cheap charity by acknowledging his existence at all with the notion that you, too, are a cyclist. That is by your own admission. It doesn't matter what he did wrong. You cannot control that. You can only control what you do. And no matter how you spin it, no matter what others point out regarding the cyclists lane position or presumed intention, you neither waited your turn nor regarded him equally.

DigitalQuirk

What it means is that, while all vehicles generally have equal rights to use roads (except when it comes to weight or height restrictions on certain back roads, or highway usage), all different vehicle types need to be treated differently based on their inherent characteristics. This is not to imply that one type of vehicle is inferior to another, though in some resepects and for certain tasks, one mode of transportation is superior to another; bikes are certainly superior to cars for a quick trip to a store a few blocks away to pick up a pack of recordable CD's, for example.

In one example, I mentioned that I would yield use of both lanes to a tractor trailer making a right hand turn; I would not do the same for a compact sports coupe or, for that matter, a bicycle. It's not so much a matter that I think compact sports cars and bicycles are undeserving of requiring the use of both lanes, but rather that it's completely unnecessary based on their characteristics.

When approaching a cyclist, I anticipate that I will need to overtake them in order to maintain a reasonable speed. The typical speed of 10-15 MPH of a mountain bike is not a good speed for an automobile. Add in the fact that the speed of the cyclist will vary greatly depending on wind direction and whether they're riding uphill or downhill, and the problem becomes obvious: treating a cyclist as another motor vehicle forces a motorist to drive their car in such manner which is very inefficient and will drive down the fuel economy of the vehicle, as well as wear out the brakes faster and can cause components like the transmission to overheat which can eventually lead to failure. This is why cab drivers who spend most of their time in the city opt for heavy duty components and transmission coolers, and why the price of gas affects them directly. Modern automobiles are engineered to cruise effortlessly and very economically at speeds double of what most decent mountain bikes and relatively atheletic riders are capable of.

As such, I view bicycles as vehicles that will need to be overtaken, while giving due respect to their safety and equal right to use the road. Just as a compact sports coupe doesn't require the use of both lanes to make a right hand turn, a bicycle doesn't require the use of an entire lane which can be occupied by a vehicle a good number of times wider than them. It's not just me; based on my unscientific observations, it's how the vast majority of motorists see bicycles. If that gives one an inferiority complex, then all I have to say is there's a big demand for tractor trailer drivers today, you might want to give it a shot if you feel the need to experience presence on the road.