smasha

yup. a bicyclist in auckland was hit by a car in a bicycle lane, and the police issued a ticket... to the bicyclist.

https://cyclingauckland.co.nz/front/2.../#comment-4330

apparently, the motorist is NOT getting a ticket for driving in the bike lane.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...html#DLM303043

2.3 Use of lanes... (1) A driver, when driving, must not use... (f) a special vehicle lane reserved for a specific class or classes of vehicle unless(i) the vehicle is one of the class or classes of vehicle for which the lane is reserved; or (ii) the vehicle is an emergency vehicle being used in an emergency.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...html#DLM302197

special vehicle lane means a lane defined by signs or markings as restricted to a specified class or classes of vehicle; and includes a bus lane, a transit lane, a cycle lane, and a light rail vehicle lane

rydabent

incredible!!!!!!

sggoodri

According to the cyclist's description of events, the cyclist was riding in the travel lane when he saw an opportunity ahead to pass traffic by using a bike lane; when he moved into the bike lane he was immediately hit from behind by a driver who had merged into the bike lane while approaching/preparing for a turn that is equipped with a slip lane or turn only lane.

The police charged the cyclist with making an unsafe lane change, i.e. changing lanes without yielding. The cyclist doesn't appear to be challenging the merits of that charge; rather, he contests the motorist's use of the bike lane on approach to the turn.

From the cyclist's comments:

mnemia

I don't know about NZ law, but aren't motorists SUPPOSED to change over to the bike lane in preparation for a turn? Of course, this would still be subject to interpretation over whether the motorist was just using the bike lane to pass other traffic, or actually preparing for a turn.

prathmann

I don't know the NZ law on this either, but in the US it depends on which state you're in. E.g. California requires motorists to safely merge into the bike lane (if it's the rightmost lane) before making a right turn whereas Oregon prohibits motorists from driving in the bike lane.

Chris516

UGH

I hate those.

I am always concerned, that when I slip between two stopped vehicles in order to get in the right or right-turn lane, despite my looking intently for oncoming traffic, some moron is going to come out of nowhere then have to hit their brakes hard. Also, Even though they won't have hit me, they will still claim they never saw me. The same goes for the moron at the traffic light, or in a traffic jam who I pass in front of.

CyclingGiant

Why would the police issue the cyclist a ticket?

Sound to me the driver was the one completely at fault because he illegally crossed into the bike lane.

Doohickie

Whether the car belonged there or not, there was a car in the lane. If a cyclist entered the bike lane and violated the right of way of another vehicle, the cyclist deserves a ticket, regardless of what the other vehicle is. When you change lanes you are responsible for doing so safely.

However, yeah, sounds like the car deserved a ticket as well, unless the bicycle lane becomes a shared bike lane/right turn lane at the intersection. Perhaps the driver jumped the gun a little, but if the collision occurred in the shared zone it would be tough to ticket the motorist.

Roody

I'm afraid that this kind of thing happens a lot. The other day my adult son was riding as far right as he could when he was clipped by a car mirror, knocking him off his bike. The driver yelled at him to get on the sidewalk. He followed the woman home and called the police to report this crime. The Lansing Township (Michigan) cop who showed up told my son that he was to blame because he should have been riding on the sidewalk.

Michigan law gives "the rights and responsibilities of a vehicle" to cyclists. It's illegal to ride on sidewalks in many locations. And, BTW, there was no sidewalk where my son was riding!

Daves_Not_Here

+1 Cyclists have rights AND responsibilities. That means we can sometimes be at fault in an accident.

It sounds like the bike lane was a shared turn lane.

Daves_Not_Here

We don't know that he illegally crossed into the bike lane - you have to enter the bike lane to turn right. The alternative would be to stay to the left of the bike lane while approaching the turn and then hook right at the last minute. That would be a bummer for the cyclists on the right side in the blind spot.

smasha

read the link from the top - https://cyclingauckland.co.nz/front/2...ad-cycle-lane/

it's a dedicated bicycle lane, and they've been complaining since at least march to get the cars out of it. it's not even wide enough hold a car!

NZ law seems to allow cars to use the lane for turning, but only for the minimum distance required to make a turn, up to a maximum of 50m.

regardless of whether or not the bicyclist screwed up with the lane-change, the car should NOT have been in the bike lane, and should be ticketed for being there.

whether or not the bicyclist screwed up is subject to debate, and there are no impartial witnesses. whether or not the car was in the bike lane seems to have been established on scene and "justified" by the motorist and attending officer, but no ticket was issued to the motorist.

CB HI

Interesting how some here seem to think that a motorist illegally in the bike lane, might have the right of way****************************************???

pbd

Because in some states in the US, not only is it legal to merge into a bike lane in preparation for a right-hand turn, it's actually REQUIRED. As has been mentioned, such is the case in California.

If you're turning right and there is a bike lane to the right of the travel lane, you are required to merge into the bike lane before the turn. In essence, the bike lane also functions as a turn lane.

So really it depends on the law in that location. The motorist may very well have had right-of-way, or may even have been required to merge into the bike lane in preparation for a right-hand turn.

unterhausen

it's complicated, in this case it seems like the cyclist may well have precipitated the accident. Although it could be another case of a motorist passing a cyclist on the right.

smasha

the part about the bicyclist making an unsafe lane change seems complicated, because there are no impartial witnesses... just two people with different stories. based on that, there's not enough evidence to legitimately issue a ticket against the bicyclist. it goes to court, and the bicyclist and motorist each has a different story... this would likely (should likely) result in no prosecution against the cyclist, based on lack of evidence.

the part about the car being in the bike lane isn't complicated at all... under NZ law, considering the slow speed of traffic at that time of day (see the video) and apparently the car was more than 50m from the turn, not to mention that the car can't even fit entirely within the bike lane (the law requires a vehicle to be entirely within a lane)... there's NO legal justification for the car being there. that's de facto evidence (which may have been admitted on scene by the motorist) in support of ticketing, and prosecuting, the motorist.

the purpose of a ticket isn't to demonstrate fault, it's to fine someone for doing something that's illegal. there are four possible scenarios here:

a- neither the bicyclist nor the motorist contributed to the accident by doing something illegal: neither should be ticketed.
b- the bicyclist made an illegal lane change, and should be ticketed.
c- the motorist was illegally driving in the bicycle lane, and should be ticketed.
d- both the bicyclist and the motorist contributed to the accident by doing something illegal: both should be ticketed.

that's how it works in NZ. based on that, the motorist should get a ticket just for being in the bike lane. whether or not the bicyclist should get a ticket should depend on what evidence there is to support the allegation of illegal lane change... and "your word against theirs" doesn't cut it.

unterhausen

yes, it seems that the motorist should be ticketed in any event.

hotbike

There's really no purpose of having bike lanes if stuff like this is going to happen.

smasha

somewhere, there's a politician or bureaucrat bragging about the good work they did, installing a bike lane.

Chris516

Typical!!

Ignorant motorists compounded by ignorant LEOs'!

smasha

i hope that's being followed up, either directly or with help from the local cycle advocacy group. that shouldn't be left there.

if a little girl is playing in the street, she shouldn't be there. but if a car hits her, the motorist is still at fault and needs to be ticketed. so even if the bike shouldn't have been in the street (which of course, isn't the case, but let's just say) then the motorist (and cop!) is still wrong.

as a road user (regardless of vehicle) there's an obligation to not hit things, even things that are not supposed to be there. especially if that "thing" is a person.

CB HI

And in California, the distance from the turn that a motorist may use the bikelane in preperation for the turn is marked by a dashed line. Such laws do not give the motorist free run to take over the bikelane. Did you even watch the video, what those motorist were doing was illegal.

pbd

The dashed line is not the law, it is a convenience or a reminder, much like a "sharrow". Additionally, the dashed lines are only used at intersections, and even then not at all intersections. If you're turning into a driveway or parking lot, you still are required to merge into the bike lane, even though the line will be solid, not dashed.

And I did watch the video, the cars are all lined up to turn left. They have merged into the bike lane ahead of the turn, exactly as they are supposed to do. Could the cars in the video have waited longer before merging? Sure. But looking at the video, that's how people here do it all the time, and that's likely how I'd do it. If I know I have to merge over before a turn and I come to a long line of cars waiting to turn that have already merged over, I'm going to merge over behind them and wait in line. The best thing for a bicycle to do at that point is wait in the line with the other cars.

If New Zealand's law is the same as Oregon's regarding merging before turning, then those cars are breaking the law. But to me, if New Zealand's laws are the same as California's, those drivers appear to be acting legally. I suspect that New Zealand's law is not the same as either Oregon or California, so I don't know if it's legal there or not. I'm just saying that does look legal to me with regard to California's law.

smasha

NZ law (as i understand it)... cars are allowed to use the bike lane when they're turning through it, but only for the minimum distance required to make the turn, and in no case more than 50m (about 50 yards). queuing (lining up) in the bike lane is not legal because the cars are in the bike lane longer than they need to be... and the video documents that cars are occupying the lane for much more than 50m.

the law also requires vehicles to be entirely within a lane, which those cars are not... they don't fit in the bike lane, and they're straddling across the line into the next lane.

cars are also legally required to give way to bicycles (and emergency vehicles) using the bike lane. since they're all bumper to bumper, that's not possible.

these are just a few of the ways that those cars, and certainly the car involved in the crash, are in violation of NZ law for being in that bike lane.

CB HI

Most US states also have a similar distance detailed in the law. Generally 100 to 200 feet before a turn.

Contrary to pdb claims of being legal in California, motorist are only allowed to enter the bike lane 200 feet before their turn. The same distance the dashed line is suppose to be painted.

https://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21209.htm

It did not take long to look up the California law. Too bad many who live there, wrongly make claims about what the laws say without ever reading their laws.