JoeyBike

So it's OK to blatantly cut someone off, almost kill them, if you use your turn signal? What if she did the EXACT same thing without the turn signal? Would that be cutting me off, or just turning without a signal?

Here is the deal: I dozed off and missed some cues, she failed to yield right of way by turning RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME at speed. All of this nonsense about the SUV making a perfectly legal move is frightening. It's obvious. I have video evidence right here. She turned right in front of me and nearly caused an accident. All I did was continue doing what I was doing when she passed me and she cut me off big time.

What the SUV did was perfectly legal until you add a cyclist in the bike lane to the picture. Then it becomes a failure to yield right of way.

Silly A&S.

Please, some of you. Don't ever drive a car.

genec

I have seen the type of behavior you are talking about... as I do drive on CA freeways... yes, drivers do make sudden lane changes, yes, they do this without turn signals, yes, as the driver behind, you feel cut off... but as you point out if we take the bike lane as yet another lane, then what the driver has done is swoop across the lane. And if I as a motorist have to step on my brakes because some motorist swoops across me, then that motorist has taken liberties they should not have, and I have had to make a defensive move due to those liberties. It ain't right, but indeed, it is done.

Just because a driver gets away with it, doesn't make it right.
I saw a driver pull out from a side street right in front of another motorist the other day... made the motorist on the main road slam on the brakes (I was in a BL further back, watching)... no body was hurt, no metal bent, but it was clearly a poor move on the part of the driver entering the major road.

So in your mind, if they miss, well "good enough?"

genec

Yeah I too have seen this a lot... especially when I ride my upright commuter... folks think I am just slowly tooling along, but I hit and maintain a good 18MPH on that thing.

turbo1889

Apparently I take a lot more words then you do to say the same thing.




Sorry about that, I figured by the time I posted and the thread was several pages long already that would have already been said, probably multiple times. So I just jumped into my analysis of what I saw after watching your video.




As to everyone else who has been posting as to whether the law requires a full size heavy vehicle to safely merge over into the bike lane to the right (when such exists) before making a right hand turn and find fault with a heavy vehicle that does not do this but instead cuts right across the bike lane when making a right hand turn resulting in a collision with a cyclist in that bike lane the law DOES NOT need to specifically address the question in the specific reference of bike lanes. Standard vehicle code that prohibits making a right hand turn from anything other then the right most lane when there are multiple marked traffic lanes in the same direction of travel without first safely merging over into the right most lane (or conversely the same thing in application to a left hand turn and safely merging over into the left most lane before performing such a turn) in addition the law may also be worded as requiring a right hand turn to be made from a position to the far right of the roadway surface or some other such wording along those lines (or conversely the same thing in application to a left hand turn being made from left most positon of the roadway marked for the direction of travel).

To put it another way lets take for example a one way street with two standard heavy vehicle travel lanes, one on the right and one on the left, no bike lanes, no shoulder edge, just two lanes both in the same direction on a one way street. Now lets put two cars on that street both headed in the same direction one in each lane. If the car in the left lane passes the car in the right lane and then immediately takes a right hand turn across the right hand lane, across the path of travel of the car in the right lane without first safely merging over into that right lane and doing it so closely that the car in the right lane can't avoid the collision and slams into the car taking a right hand turn from the left hand lane directly across its path of travel in a T-bone collision. The car that pulled that crazy maneuver trying to take a right like that from the left lane and "right hooking" the car in the right lane is the one that is in trouble with the law, it would severely surprise me if any of the 50 states don't have a law on the books to cover that kind of situation, and unless their laws also specifically exclude that same law from applying to bike lanes and bicyclists as vehicles on the roads then it does apply in those cases as well. Or in other words you don't need a law specifically requiring full size heavy vehicles to safely merge over to the right into a marked bike lane before taking a right hand turn for them to have to do so. Rather in order for them to get away with not doing it you would need a law specifically to say that the same rules for heavy vehicle lanes and heavy vehicle traffic do not also apply to bike lanes and bike vehicles as well.


Believe me, the "marked lane" situation does have legal ramifications. I have for several years tried to convince my state house rep. in my home state legislature to put up a short simple addition to my state's bicycle FRAP law that specifically states that:

FRAP does not require cyclists to ride on the shoulder edge outside of the main travel lane but if they do choose of their own free will to do so their presence on the shoulder legally makes that shoulder edge around them and in their path of travel a bike lane by their presence in it and choice to use it as a legal bike travel lane.

And as a result they get the legal protection of requiring other vehicles to safely merge into their lane and not side-swipe them or right hook them. As of present if your not riding in a marked travel lane but to the right of the white line legal protection from "Right-Hooks", "Left T-Crosses", "Right Entry Mow Downs", and "Nose Outs" is not on firm ground and it can and has be argued that not being in a marked travel lane you have no right of way at all. Since I and most other cyclists in my area choose to ride on a shoulder edge of sufficient width and condition to be a reasonably safe, sane, and effective place for us to ride on roadways where heavy vehicle traffic is moving at very high rates of speed (60+ mph) clarification that we are not giving up our rights by doing so, especially with a FRAP law in effect which many interpret as requiring shoulder edge riding on such high speed highways, and yes that needs to be clarified as well that FRAP does not require riding on the shoulder edge and leaving the choice of whether to do so or not up to the judgment of the cyclist based on conditions at the time and place where they are riding.

genec

Here's the irony with your last paragraph... we have folks here that have suggested that if the vehicle on the left makes the merge, however close, regardless of the need for the driver on the right to have to brake... it was OK. Those folks are saying that once the driver on the left has signaled and moved over, the driver that was in a static position in the right lane has an obligation to avoid colliding with the motorist in front, regardless of how close the merge was.

I guess a safe merge is out of the question. If nothing was hit, it's all fair game.

turbo1889

I certainly agree that a "safe legal merge" means you are far enough ahead of the other vehicle. Just like when you are driving a car and pulling out into traffic from sitting stopped at a stop sign waiting for a gap big enough to safely pull out into. You can't just pull out and if you manage to get your car out into the lane before someone slams into you from behind tires squealing it their fault not yours, don't work that way, and you do have to give the other vehicle enough room in order to safely merge into their lane ahead of them.

My point with the second incident in the video that JoeyBike shared was that there was fault on both sides. Although judging distance in videos can be deceiving due to different lens effects it looks to me like the blue truck/SUV at one point was far enough ahead to safely merge over into the bike lane preparing for a right hand turn in front of the cyclist and the cyclist would probably have had to stop pedaling and apply a little bit of brakes but that would have been all of it. The heavy vehicle, however, failed to merge over when they could safely do so when far enough ahead and instead stayed in the lane to the left of the bike lane and slowed down in it which allowed the cyclist in the bike lane who was not aware of the turn signal and proceeding at a steady pace to close the distance so that when they finally did turn after having the turn signal blink for a while they turned right in front of him right across his lane.

If the driver of the blue truck/SUV had instead merged over when they were safely far enough ahead to do so and then slowed down after merging in preparation for the turn only a very distracted or obtuse cyclist would have continued to maintain pace try to slam into their rear end or pass on the right (would have been a real pass on the right if the cyclist would have had to move to the right of the bike lane to pass a vehicle in the bike lane on its right side).

Errors on both sides came together to produce that second near miss. If the heavy vehicle driver would have safely merged over when they were far enough ahead to do so (from my looking at the video that would have been at about 1:07 to 1:08 time stamp, close but do-able at that time stamp if the heavy vehicle driver had merged over then and then applied the brakes after merging to slow for the turn) then the cyclist unless very distracted or very obtuse would have been able to apply reasonable braking action to avoid a problem. An annoyance and an inconvenience most certainly and possibly resulting in a few mutterings under the breath about getting cut off and shoving four tires up someone 4-wheel drivers fat rear but not a bad near miss situation like what did happen. It is also true that the cyclist failed to notice the turn signal and the "body language" movements that the heavy vehicle was making in advance of the way it made its right turn that would have allowed the cyclist to avoid the situation even without the heavy vehicle driver performing the turn correctly and first safely merging over into the bike lane far enough ahead of the cyclist and then braking gently and making the turn.

cooker

Next time, stop and wait until it's red before you proceed

Seriously, I think all three(*) of you were legally a bit at fault here.

The motorist tried to do the right thing - she signalled a lane change/turn and stayed out of the bike lane until the line got dashed, probably thinking it would illegal to merge into the bike lane earleir where the line was solid. She then tried to merge and turn as one action at the dashed line.

Had she merged earlier, some cyclists and others, including some police, might have said she did the right thing, while others would probably be blasting her for crossing the solid line and using sacrosanct bike territory, so she can't win either way. She did what she believed was right. However, she failed to appreciate you were right in her blind spot when she did turn, probably not recognizing how fast you are and thinking you were still well back.

As for you, or any road user, when a car ahead and to the left of of you is signalling right, it means they intend to merge into your lane, and when you are two or three car lengths back, the appropriate thing is not to catch up, move into their blind spot, and pass them on the right, but to hang back and let them merge. You failed to do that, partly due to having impaired your own vision with overly dark sunglasses, and partly from deceiving yourself with your own blinking light. It's certainly not her fault that you put yourself in danger with those two choices, both of which are probably illegal.

(*) The third contributant was the municipality that painted a bad stripe on the road. They dashed only a tiny portion at the end of the block as if to discourage motorists from safely merging into the lane earlier, and encourage them to make a last minute unsafe combined merge and turn.

dynodonn 

Yes, you are correct. Like you, I have considerably more skin in the game than motorists, and with my personally giving the utmost attention to and moving slower around US motorists when I'm passing or about to pass on their right side.

I do drive a car on occasion, and I take considerable care when I'm driving around other road users..............Glad you're OK.

noglider 

Passing right, passing left, makes no difference to me. In NY and NJ, you yield to the traffic in the lane you are merging into or across. If your move causes someone to change direction or brake, then you didn't yield. I don't see how joeybike did anything wrong. I see he responded quickly, because he's prepared for these moves.

I keep low expectations. I expect people to hook me left and right at every single opportunity. Lately, no one has been doing it, probably because I've figured out how to ride visibly. I've been amazed at how well car drivers are treating me lately. The last few bike commute trips have had zero bone-headed moves.

JoeyBike

Great advice

Me too. When I turn across a bike lane I assume all cyclist behind me are biking the posted speed limit at least, same as if they were motorcycles. An old man on a Townie gets the same respect as a roadie. I can't judge a cyclists speed through a rear-view mirror, so I don't make any assumptions that may kiil them as I very well know most recreational cyclists have no idea how to dodge a good right hook.

JoeyBike

Me too. Except one time. Almost made me pay for it too.

spare_wheel

It's amazing to see self-proclaimed cyclists consider a bike lane a second class lane and a cyclist a second class road user.

spare_wheel

This statement is hilarious. Bikes don't own the roads but...apparently...cars/trucks do? In reality no one owns the road. We are *supposed* to respect each others right of way. Moreover, when motorists are driving very lethal pieces of equipment it is their responsibility as human beings to be extra careful around vulnerable road users. The @#$%$ in that truck saw Joey and cut him off without checking to make sure the way was clear. This is pure sociopathy. If something like this had happened to me I would not have continued on my way. That coward would have had to break numerous traffic laws to escape seeing me again near the window of her truck.

genec

We consider ourselves 2nd class due to the way we are treated. I rarely am treated as an equal road user... more often it is as an obstruction to be avoided.

This is not to say that I am never treated as a driver of a vehicle... it does happen, and when it does, it feels good. But most of the time I am simply treated as if I am an interloper, "in the way."

This is not exclusive to cyclists either... motorcyclists get this all the time... and some drivers are so selfish that they don't consider ANY other road user but themselves. So this second class feeling should come as no surprise to seasoned road users.

no motor?

I agree with you Gene. If Joey had been driving another vehicle the same size as the pickup they never would have turned in front of him - at least not without more to worry about.

FBinNY 

Great in theory, and maybe on the highway, but not in the reality of city driving. Otherwise, lane changes, stopping to unload passengers or cargo, or anticipating to park, making any turn would be impossible.

The Black SUV driver had passed Joey 10 seconds and a block or two in advance of the turn, had plenty of room and signaled a right (could indicate either a lane change or turn) and at that point it was Joey's responsibility to understand the intent and adjust accordingly. Yes, the SUV could have broadcast his intent more clearly by moving over a bit mote, but that doesn't change anything.

Bike lanes or not, one of the largest single causes (if not the largest) of bicycle fatalities in cities is cyclists not being aware of what's happening around them, and crashing into right turning vehicles. In some cases this happens with tractor trailers who have already 3/4s completed the turn meaning that there was plenty of time.

We could debate right of way until the cows come home, but cars do need to and will trun right, and some will signal and others won't so it's up to cyclists to be aware of their surroundings and exercise extreme caution when sliding up into the right rear blind spots of vehicles.

I've been right hooked a number of times by cars that came up and turned before actually completing the pass, but that isn't what happened here. Joey was passing to the right of a car which was signaling a right which was clearly his fault.

cooker

It's not OK, but there is a difference. One is trying to do the right thing, and bungling it, the other is doing it altogether wrong.

JoeyBike

So, if I signal a turn I can make that turn no matter what is going on behind me or next to me in an adjacent lane. Really??

Please use mass transit for the sake of the rest of us.

FBinNY 

No that's not what I'm saying, and I suspect you know it.

Cut out the sacred cow nonsense. T

The black SUV was a number of car leangths and signaling for at least 5 seconds, and over a distance of a full block or more. It's obvious to anyone that he's giving you clear notice of intent, and giving plenty of room to a adjust.

City streets aren't the thruway, and cars have a right to stop, pull over or turn. They do have the responsibility of leaving adequate room, and giving notice of intent.

You're the one who started closing the gap and passing AFTER the driver signaled. If this were a 2 car motor vehicle accident the driver passing on the right of the signaling vehicle would be found at fault.

So we understand, this is VERY different from the first (brown caravan) where there was no adequate room, time or signal by the driver.

spare_wheel

When you change lanes do you just signal, go for it, and hope for the best?

TomCat_Ford

Please stop riding the way that you do for the sake of the rest of us; we don't want to read your obituary.

spare_wheel

Exactly. (just not in the way you intended)

That truck driver could have slowed down and waited for Joey to continue on in his lane. Instead, the minor sociopath gunned across a lane that they knew very well was occupied by an oncoming human being on a bike.

spare_wheel

Fixed it for you:

Please stop driving; we don't want to read your obituary.

JoeyBike

It would be sadly ironic for me to get killed in a bike lane after all I have been through the past 30 years fending for myself without the slightest provisions for bicycles available to me.

TomCat_Ford

My post was primarily made to point out the idiocy of your comment. But at the end of the day, you're the one who is riding, as you say, "asleep at the wheel."