genec

SUV fails to merge.

genec

And I believe I have indicated that in every post.

mr_pedro

Yup, here is a place were I also start taking the lane well in advance: https://goo.gl/maps/sWMnh Cars turning right will rarely check to see if they are hitting a cyclist that wants to go straight.

It is not asking for trouble if you teach motorists that a turning vehicle has to give way to traffic going straight. And when making a right turn even if there is no bike lane, you still have to look out for pedestrians crossing the street as they are also considered traffic going straight on the same road.

mr_pedro

Ah here is how it works in Maryland: https://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...id-white-lines
In Maryland a solid white line means that changing lanes is discouraged

gyozadude

In driving school here in California, the assumption is that a solid white line, whether at a left turn signal, or toll crossing, etc, should be considered a solid wall than cannot be crossed without great caution. It's also a traffic violation to cross over such lines except if entering traffic from being completely off the roadway (pulling out of the driveway). However, I rarely see enforcement of solid white lines. Here, almost all the bike lanes go dotted line near intersections. Regardless, because bikes have the right of way in the bike lane, a car technically must cross into the bike lane to make the right turn. So that truck made an illegal lane change into the bike lane prior to making the turn. Any argument that says the OP was passing on the right is baseless since he has a bike lane and is not only designated as such but has a solid white line that is supposedly impermeable by until within the boundaries of an intersection or at such time a motor vehicle is pulling out of the main flow of traffic to park along the side of the road. And in either case, motor vehicle still has to change lanes and thus must yield to bike traffic. I don't think there is ambiguity in the matter. Effectively, a bike lane on the right, means cars are turning from the 2nd lane from the right. They must yield to any traffic in that lane on the right before entering or crossing over that lane.

But either way, the cyclist loses either by getting hit, or by having to avoid such drivers in a near death, multiple F-bomb experience.

cyccommute 

If the vehicle made a turn from a left lane across a right turn/through lane, yes, I'd have a problem with it. But the bike lane isn't that kind of lane. A marked off lane like this one is a gray area. If the motorist had behaved like in the minivan driver did, that would be illegal. That's a classic right hook. But the SUV driver safely passed, had plenty of room, signaled the turn to following traffic and slowed to make the turn. She did merge into the bike lane to make the turn, Joey was just not paying attention.

JoeyBike

There were several other letters of the alphabet deployed from the bomb bay as well. This is why I laid music over such a short video.

spare_wheel

What the heck kind of lane do you think it is?
A pretend lane?
Also, can you please find the applicable Colorado Statute that says bikes must yield their right of way to motorvehicles.

cooker

You mentioned that you almost got caught "like an amateur", suggesting that your experience should have helped you avoid almost getting run over/run off the road, but I'm interested if you also think you (or she, or both) were legally in the wrong. You've admitted at least one mistake on your part - obscured vision, which might be viewed as a violation of the law. The flashing lights (in this case) may have contributed to the near miss, even if they help protect you in other encounters, and they might also be technically illegal - I don't know. She was ahead of you and merging at the dashed line when you caught up to her.

So what do you think? Were you legally at fault for this near collision, or a victim of her failure to follow traffic rules?

cyccommute 

A bike lane is something else. Just like others, I don't like these kinds of lanes because they are a very gray area. The lane is carved out of the travel lane of the road but it doesn't necessarily have its own right of way. In my state (not New York) for example, a bike lane could be considered to be the shoulder of the road. Based on some case law here that involved the death of a cyclist and a right hook, a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder of the road does not have the right-of-way when being overtaken by a vehicle in the travel lane. A motorist can make a turn across the shoulder in front of the cyclist and it is up to the cyclist to avoid the accident. The cyclist that was killed was deemed at fault and was his estate was awarded no damages.

If the cyclist were in the travel lane to the left of the shoulder, the motorist may not turn across the cyclists path or, in the event of an accident, the motorist would be at fault and would be liable for damages.

In your case, how would you have proceeded if there were no lane marking? If the lane had be marked with sharrows, for example, the motorist passing you would have proceeding properly to signal and turn with the distance that she had. You would have gone around the vehicle like you did the stupid minivan driver on the left side and thought nothing of it.

Frankly, these types of bike lanes are stupid. I hate them with a passion because no one knows how to use them. Bicyclist assume that they have the right of way...they may not...and motorists assume that they have the right of way...and they may not have it either. If I am approaching an intersection on one of these dumb things, I always assume that one car in the line is going to turn and proceed accordingly. At the dashed white line (or even before it) I merge into the traffic flow and follow behind the cars. At the very least, I don't pass on the right while a couple of carlengths from the intersection. If any of the cars are signaling a turn, I don't pass. I also assume that about 20% of the cars aren't going to signal anyway and proceed with great caution.

cyccommute 

Yes, that exactly what it is.

And this is pretty common sense stuff. The following vehicle has to maintain control of his vehicle and yield to the vehicle in front of it.

cyccommute 

I agree 100%. The right-of-way may be a gray area but the reality of the situation is that he saw the vehicle pass, he should have noticed the vehicle slowing and he shouldn't have attempted to pass on the right until such time as he figures out why the vehicle had slowed down. And, since the driver clearly signaled both the slowdown and the turn, a reasonable course of action would have been to avoid placing yourself in a situation where you could get squished.

But then we are talking about Joey here.

FBinNY 

Yes, we seem to agree that the reality of situations has to trump the law, and I never meant to imply any disagreement. Where we disagree slightly is on whether the driver of the Black SUV (second scenario) did anything wrong. I agree that they should have moved over and taken the lane prior to turning, but since there was room and they did signal, feel the OP was more in the wrong there.

No dispute in the first scenario. The driver of the brown car should not have even begun a pass so close to an intended right turn.

turbo1889

My thoughts:

~ First incident (whitish mini-van), was a true right hook and was legally 100% heavy vehicle driver at fault. Bike rider could have helped avoid the situation by not riding in the "slice zone" as he was right next to the white line on a narrow lane where by his lane positioning "body language" he was just begging drivers of full size faster moving vehicles to try to pass him in the same lane, a dangerous situation even if there was no right hooking going on. Get "In" (take the lane) or get "Out" of the main travel lane (ride on shoulder to the right of white line) that is how I ride. Don't make a habit of walking the fence on the white line, fence walkers get pushed off of the fence. The only time I ride the white line is when the white line in question is between the straight through lane and the right hand turn lane at a high speed (definition "high speed" = 45mph or higher traffic speeds) intersection. Riding "In" wouldn't have been a problem since there are two full lanes going that direction and faster traffic would be easily able to change lanes and pass in the left lane if the cyclist was "In" and controlling the right lane. Riding "Out" on the shoulder edge would not have prevented the right hook and may have even further encouraged it but at least riding in that position the rider (assuming experienced rider) would have been more aware of the possibility of a right hook and would have been watching out for it better, and in the mean time he wouldn't be exposed to near as much risk of "getting sliced" (high speed sliding impact between the right side of a high speed vehicle passing too close and the left side of a cyclist, rarely lethal but you can get cut up and banged up pretty bad) where if he is riding just barely to the left of the white line in "the slice zone" by his riding position "body language" he is just about begging people to do that trying to squeeze past him staying in the lane with another vehicle in the lane to the left. Long story short, although the heavy vehicle was the the belligerent party and 100% legal fault responsible the lane positioning of the cyclist was far from ideal and nearly the worst position possible (riding salmon and/or side-path/pedestrian riding without slowing and checking the intersections before proceeding at speed across them would have been worse but as far as on roadway right way riding lane positioning was terrible and may have helped "tempt" the heavy vehicle driver into attempting the belligerent maneuver in question.

~ Second incident (Blueish Truck/SUV), both the heavy vehicle driver and the cyclist were at fault and without both of them working together and both committing moving violations there would have been no close call or potentially collision. It would be up to the judge/jury as to how the fault got divided out (50/50, 25/75, 10/90, etc . . .). The moving violation that the heavy vehicle driver committed was failing to merge over to the right most lane (the bike lane in this case) before making a right hand turn as is required in order to prevent this exact type of situation. If you are driving a heavy vehicle down a four lane highway in the left (fast) lane of the two lanes in your direction and decide to make a right hand turn and do not first merge over into the right lane but instead cut across that right lane you are committing a vehicular code moving violation and if that maneuver results in a collision at least some of the fault will be on you for making such a belligerent maneuver and in the course of doing so violating the right of way of the vehicle in the right hand lane. The exact same rules and principles apply when it comes to bike lanes as well. If there is a marked bike lane to the right of the main traffic lane, heavy vehicles in the main traffic lane wishing to turn right must first merge at least partially into the bike lane without violating the right of way of other vehicles (bikes) already in that lane before making the right hand turn. In this cast the heavy vehicle in question failed to do this and as a result there is a proportion of fault there. But, it is also true that a vehicle that is proceeding straight in a lane (including bicycles, including in bike lanes) are responsible for avoiding collisions with stuff that is right in front of them and not ramming into such stuff, including vehicles that are ahead of them with directional indicator on and moving over into their lane (or by the direction indicator can be reasonably expected to be moving over into the lane ahead of them). The heavy vehicle in question was fully ahead of the cyclist in question and did have its directional indicator on to move over into the cyclists lane (or in this case cut across it) and the cyclist failed in his road responsibilities for not running into stuff or nearly running into stuff right in front of him in his lane including other vehicles. Technically, because there was a bike lane he was not attempting to pass on the right because he has his own marked lane and he can certainly proceed forward in that lane if clear to do so irrelevant of whether traffic in other lanes whether to his left or right are moving in their lanes or not. But he was not clear to do so since he had another vehicle fully ahead of him with its directional indicator on indicating a move into or across his lane and the cyclist failed to take responsibility to ensure a clear path in front of him. You can't just run into stuff including other vehicles in your lane ahead of you or stuff that can be reasonably expected to move into your lane ahead of you with sufficient warning for you to slow down or take evasive action. Just as full size vehicle drivers can't just maintain speed and mow down slower cyclists in the lane ahead of them cyclist can't just maintain speed and slam into slower moving vehicles ahead of them either. The cyclist failed in his responsibility in this area considering the vehicle in question as recorded on the video most certainly was fully ahead of him and had its directional indicator on providing the cyclist with more then enough warning to either reduce speed or to safely merge over to the lane to the left to go around the vehicle ahead in the lane to the left as it moved over to the right. If either one of the two drivers had followed the rules of the road and fulfilled their responsibilities there would have been no close call, it would have been even better if both drivers had followed the rules of the road and fulfilled their responsibilities and then it would have been doubly sure that there would have been no close call.

gcottay

I take both incidents as reminders that safe and skilled riding can keep us out of potential trouble and that bike lanes and intersections are a frequent test.

agent pombero

Wow, scary close calls there Joey. Situations like these are exactly the reasons that pushed me to finally buy a helmet mounted camera. I got a Contour ROAM 2 from REI today and I'm super excited to go riding with it! It will be recording every moment of every ride I do --- because the sheer number of idiots in cars, SUVs, and trucks is astounding. Cameras are the only way to capture these fools and serve them court papers.

FBinNY 

I agree that drivers should be more aware of the rules of the road, but we live in an era where everything is dumbed down, and people aren't expected to know anything anymore. I've seen folks drive the wrong way up one way streets because they were following GPS based route instructions (the street was recently made one way, and the database was older).

But we shouldn't blame drivers for not being psychic, or anticipating changes that are imposed without any education. Bike lanes are new in many places, and in some cases may be introduced with an ad campaign saying drivers must stay out of them. That's, OK, except that they probably omitted saying "except when approaching an intended right turn", so the driver is left to his own devices to figure out that that's the intend of the broken line zone before intersections.

Some years ago, I chose to fight a traffic citation, and my defense was based on lack of proper signage. Expecting the "ignorance is no defense speech from the judge, I asked the judge about specific similar situations in the area. He was fair and admitted that he had no idea, so I closed with if the judge doesn't know, how are the rest of us expected to? --- case dismissed.

The State (or city) has an obligation to support changes in the traffic rules with an adequate education campaign.

JoeyBike

If my mind wanders at the moment a driver ahead of me does something stupid in their own lane and i run into them from behind - my fault.

If someone makes a boneheaded move out of their lane and into mine under the same circumstances we share blame IMO.

The SUV should have merged right onto the bike lane, then turned instead of effectively turning right from the left lane across my lane.

Giving a turn signal in no way gives you permission to cut someone off. The driver is required to make their move without causing another road user to make drastic maneuvers.

genec

BTW I did not find anything in Louisiana law that specifically requires a motorist to enter a bike lane prior to turning... the closest thing I could find was this:

https://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88023
and this:
https://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88017

The latter which states... (1) Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

Note that neither law is as clear as this CA law with regard to the requirements of motorists toward bike lanes when turning:

21717. Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100. (and again, Oregon law is different...)

So the LA law seems to be somewhat ambiguous with regard to the responsibility of motorists toward bike lanes, and thus cyclists.

And in neither state vehicle code could I find a definition of a bike lane or a vehicle lane, or if a BL is a separate lane or part of an existing lane. It may be buried in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it.

And of course, as always... cyclists have to watch for motorists, as motorists DO NOT watch for cyclists.

dynaryder

The minivan was a blatant right hook.

The pickup was also a right hook. Although the driver was far enough away,he did not merge into the bike lane(he had plenty of space to do this) and turned across it.

asmac

Things can happen fast. Glad you're ok. Are people really serious that you shouldn't pass on the right? What a strange concept when applied to bicycles although this is what can result for cars: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...a-langley.html!

I-Like-To-Bike

Be sure to post of any experiences you (or anybody else) has with getting court papers served by this method.

JoeyBike

Thank You. Took 61 posts to get that at A&S. Over at Commuting I had two "Glad you're OK" in the first 16 posts.

spare_wheel

There is nothing gray about right of way in a bike lane. It's illegal for a vehicle to turn against oncoming traffic in a separate lane. The issue of what Joey should or should not done is a separate issue.

asmac

It's not exactly a Mardi Gras crowd.