The Human Car

Please click on this diagram of a narrowing lane:
Merge.gif

The green is a cyclist on a bike and the purple is driver in a motor vehicle.
As you can see, the lane narrows from wide (about 16') to narrow (about 12').

The cyclist is maintaining course relative to the right edge of the lane.
The overtaking motorist is maintaining course relative to the left edge of the lane.

Most of us recognize that when there are parallel paths, both the slower driver and the overtaking driver have ROW to continue along their paths. I suspect we mostly agree that once the cyclist has established right of way in the narrower part, the overtaking motorist must yield to him. But in this case the paths are not parallel - the two paths are moving towards each other from a spacing that is sufficient to side-by-side sharing, to one that isn't - and the cyclist has not yet established right-of-way in the entire lane. So who has the right-of-way?

Do you agree the cyclist is transitioning from riding off to the side of space normally used by vehicular traffic to riding within that space, and, so, is required to yield to overtaking traffic before merging into that space? Or is the driver required to merge for the cyclist? Why?

Would you normally look back in this situation if you were on the bike, and signal your intent to merge left? Would you slow or even stop if you could not establish right of way, or would you just keep on going counting on overtaking traffic to your left and behind to yield to you?

[Same as HH’s poll but with the frame tilted]

bmclaughlin807

You've got two possibly conflicting questions in your post... so... what do you want the answer to???

My opinion: Cyclist. The cyclist is in front and in the same lane. They are NOT in separate lanes, hence the cyclist already has the right of way over the car, and the car has the responsibility to pass safely.

If I felt that there was no room to share and there was a car close enough to force me to think about negotiating who has the right of way, I'd signal, then merge (IF the car appears to acknowledge me and slows down).. otherwise I'd slow down and let the asshat pass. If the car is back far enough that I'll be fully in the lane well ahead of him and he'll still have room to slow down, then I won't signal, I'll just assume my position in the lane.

Bekologist

how far back is the vehicle? 3 feet, 10 feet, 50?

how fast are the motorists travelling?

I'm of the camp the bicyclist, moped, vehicle, wheelchair, jogger, scooter, pedestrian ahead has the right of way regardless of how a single lane narrows.

San Rensho 

Who cares what the right of way is? Insisting on the right of way when you are on a bicycle is a sure way of getting killed.

In that situation, if I am in front and can do so safely, I will get into the middle of the lane so that the car cannot pass me. If not, I will let the car pass and then get in the middle of the lane in back of him so no other cars can attempt to pass me.

zeytoun

There's a difference between knowing and insisting.

I believe the person in front has ROW. If I were the bicyclist, I would possibly yield that ROW though, depending.

njkayaker

It is one lane. It's a passing situation. Rear vehicle yields.

This doesn't mean the lead vehicle, what ever it is, should expect the rear vehicle to yield. Calling the lead vehicle a bicycle doesn't change anything.

The problem is that, if the lead vehicle is a bicycle, the driver in the rear vehicle typically doesn't think the bicycle should even be on the road!

You can only take ROW if it won't lead to a collision. A requirement to avoid a collision is always implicit. ROW issues don't change that! (This principle may not be a legal one but it is certainly a practical one.)

(Keep in mind that one can drive a vehicle recklessly and not violate ROW.)

The Human Car

Because there is a lot of confusion over what is safe and what the law requires.
Some examples that I have seen:
Cyclist at fault in an accident for not riding in the middle of the lane like a motorcycle
Cyclist ticketed for riding in the middle of the lane just like a motorcycle.
Cyclist at fault in an accident for not using a crosswalk
Cyclist ticketed for using a crosswalk
Edit: IMO there should be a concern over "cyclists have to yield to everything."

JohnBrooking

I think I agree with this. It being technically a single travel lane (no bike lane or shoulder) is the primary determinant.

However, I voted "Other" before I read this reply, on the theory that in most merge situations, a Yield sign is posted for clarification in one or the other approaches, and since there is no such sign here, it is ambiguous. And if there had been a disappearing bike lane, then I think that analysis would still apply.

However, in reality it doesn't much matter, because as njkayaker wisely pointed out, motorists are not going to know the difference anyway. In my experience, many motorists approaching a stop sign or red light, faced with a bicycle in front and to the right of them, have an automatic reaction to speed up in order to pass the cyclist before they have to stop. Or, if they fancy themselves nice to cyclists, pass with plenty of room and stay way over to the left when they stop, to "leave you room" on the right. (Which I never take.) So no matter who legally has the right of way, in practice it has to be a negotiation subject to the situation and individuals involved at the time.

Personally, in this situation, I slow down and use my mirror to observe cars approaching from behind. If it looks like I have time, I'll proceed with a head turn to verify (and to signal my intention to move), then move out into the lane to take my place. If there's someone coming up fast, I slow down more and let them by, then try again. Usually I don't get trapped, and I hardly ever get honked at either. (Maybe the motorists are nicer around here, but giving them plenty of reaction time is also key.)

chipcom 

The cyclist is, in effect, merging into the flow of traffic and therefore must yield to the flow of traffic. Whether it is/was a single lane or not has no relevance.

Example: A car parked on the street pulls out in front of a moving vehicle in the same lane...was the moving vehicle supposed to stop/slow to allow the parked vehicle to merge into his path just because they are in the same lane and the parked vehicle is ahead of the moving vehicle?

The Human Car

Playing devils advocate for a second, from my experience from days of lesser experience and knowledge this situation has a low probability of a rear end collision and a higher probability of a sideswipe. So if the rear vehicle can safely get beside and take the lead by at least a bit doesn’t that make the cyclist the rear vehicle with the obligation to yield?

So in any sideswipe situation due to narrowing of the lane it will always be the cyclists fault. Agree, disagree? And would you be comfortable with that as law?

Helmet Head

Great analogy: the single parked car in the very wide outside lane.

Now consider the situation where this lane narrows from the left, and the parked car is the last car in the parking zone.

Does the green car moving slowly in the "parking zone" (note where the red curb starts demarcating the end of the "parking zone") of the very wide lane have the right to proceed here, or is the driver obligated to yield to the driver of the purple car? Is this significantly different from the situation in the OP? How?

fordfasterr

I have a few sections of my daily commute that are exactly like this (in both directions!).

I usually look back and jump right in and take the lane.

No waiting, no signaling, no stopping - just GO.

njkayaker

It's materially different than a stopped car pulling out from a parking spot. The parking spot is not part of the roadway.

The bicycle is in the roadway. The bicycle is the flow of traffic. Think of the situation with a motorcycle instead of a bicycle.

If the bicycle and the car were riding side-by-side before the lane reduced in width, I would expect that the best choice would be for the cyclist to yield to the car. Here are a few reasons why: 1) the cyclist is more likely to be aware of the car than vice versa, 2) the car might not be able to slow down enough to avoid the side-swipe, and 3) the car may have less space to manuever.

I am not sure but I think in the event of a sideswipe collision, the car would be at fault legally (barring any other complications).


Simple. The parking area is not a travel lane. The parked car must yield (but may not).

It's different than the first case because the first car is in the flow of traffic.

bmclaughlin807

Negative. The situations are NOT the same... And there are LAWS written about pulling into traffic from parking areas/on street parking.

While they may be similar from a personal safety standpoint, they're not the same from a legal / right of way standpoint.

And this is where we all fight and argue... what's LEGAL is not necessarily SAFE for us to do. As anyone who rides a bike for any length of time will almost certainly attest.

chipcom 

It isn't pulling out from a parking spot....it's my scenario pal (don't make me take my toys and go home )...there is no 'parking spot', it's just someone parked on the street...which is legal in many places, ya know.

chipcom 

Talk about a grey area...or an accident waiting to happen - you got moving traffic merging into a narrower lane right at the edge of a WOL that allows parking. If the vehicle on the left is moving and the other vehicle is stationary...I'd say the moving vehicle has ROW, but if the vehicle on the right is already moving and out of the 'parking zone', and ahead of the other vehicle as shown, it would have ROW.

JohnBrooking

I sort of see Chipcom's point now, too. I think the basic ambiguity here is that the law says nothing about two vehicles sharing a lane side-by-side, because with two cars, it generally can't happen. But I also think two vehicles both already moving in the same lane is different than if one vehicle has been parked and is just starting to move. Most side-by-side movement in the same lane is passing, bringing me back to njkayaker's POV.

Regardless, my behavior is the same, stated above.

Helmet Head

Neither Chipcom nor I is talking about designated parking spots. It's just a wide curb lane where parking is not prohibited. When no one is parked there, it's just as legal to drive closer to the curb as it is away from the curb closer to the center of the road. By assuming that such an area is "not part of the roadway" or "not a travel lane", you're kind of making my point - the pavement further left is "higher priority" in terms of right of way. I think this applies to the margin of a wide lane that cyclists tend to use (whether it is demarcated as bike lane or shoulder or not).

Helmet Head

I think the point of Chipcom's example, and certainly with mine based on it, is that it can happen with two cars. There are "very wide lanes" where two cars can fit, often the right half of such lanes are used for parking, but not always. And these lanes do often eventually narrow.

Helmet Head

I'm just not sure. I think it's just as likely that the moving vehicle on the right is still arguably in the process of merging into the "main travel area of the lane", to which he has yielded right-of-way by being off to the right, and he can't just start using it; he needs to yield and merge into it respecting the right-of-way of those who have it.

Keith99

Actually what you are saying is pretty close to the law in California. There is only one situation where you have the right of way. All the laws say one vehicle is required to yeild the right of way, they never say the other vehicle has it. The only time you have the right of way is when it is yeilded to you.

bmclaughlin807

Except for one little fact...

It's against the law for the CARS to share a lane like that. It's acceptable for a bike and a car to share the lane.

So... it all boils down to:

It REALLY seems that you'd like nothing more than to make it illegal to share a lane with a car, regardless of lane width.

Helmet Head

There is no law, that I know of, that makes it illegal for cars to share lanes like that. If you know of one, please cite it. That would be very interesting.

randomgear

If the cyclist is traveling slower than the speed of traffic, I would expect the cyclist (as a slow vehicle) to yield to the faster vehicle. If the cyclist is traveling at the speed of traffic, and assuming that the green rectangle in the diagram is one bicycle length, the cyclist should yield to the car, if only because the distance is too short to signal a turn and pull in front of the vehicle safely.
If the cyclist is traveling faster than the vehicle, and can expect to continue to be able to do so, then it's time to crank it up to 400 watts and let the vehicle eat dust!

The Human Car

As a cyclist I will agree that’s what should be if we get sideswiped but I know from diving in New York the car whose bumper is in front of the other one is the one who is not at fault. So my guess is who is at fault would really depend on if the LEO was trained in cycling issues/law enforcement (cyclist not at fault) or if the LEO went by same road same rules (cyclist at fault.)