Just slow down and let the guy pull into traffic. What's the big deal? Are you trying to win a strava segment or something? This kind of thing happens all the time.

I have to agree with cyccommute. I live on a through street with such a T intersection at one end. The only car to ever to yield the right of way was a police car (I was in a car too). Everyone assumes the straight through has right of way.

i would disagree here. the vehicle already on the road and going straight has the right of way. the vehicle in this case should have no reason to believe he is entering (what might be ) an uncontrolled intersection and thus would proceed with the right of way. the vehicle turning off of the road and onto another has to yield to oncoming traffic. this is a no-brainer.

the big deal is that the whole point of traffic protocol is to ensure that driving behavior is standard, expected, and PREDICTABLE. if i have the right of way, i take it. if i don't, i don't.

how many times have you, on a bike and stopped at a 4-way stop, waiting for a vehicle to your right (perpendicular) to proceed after arriving at the intersection first, said driver waves at you to go ahead ? while this courtesy is appreciated, i never take him up on it (unless perhaps it's rather obvious he is doing more then being nice, like looking at a map or otherwise "stopping/pausing". i will not go because if he decides to go and hits me, guess who is at fault (and also severely injured) ? that's right, ME. your suggestion above violates the entire expectation of PREDICTABLE behavior.

completely incorrect. RED car has the right of way. already on the road, GREEN car is entering.

man, i'd hate to be sharing the road with some of you on here ....

In WA this is correct UNLESS one of the roads is classified as an arterial. (which is something you just have to know, there are no signs for that). Arterials have the right of way.

It's not clear to me if both the roads in this T are even roads at all (vs lanes in a parking lot).

Slowing down to avoid a collision with an inattentive driver does not violate the entire expectation of predictable behavior. It’s common courtesy. I strive to be both predictable and courteous. I know. It’s a pretty high bar. Probably unachievable for most people.

so, the guy who you assume is turning right into YOUR lane of traffic, and who must yield right-of-way to you, to be inattentive. ok, i'll give you that are being cautious while having the right-of-way. now, i'm sure the drivers behind you would appreciate you hitting your brakes to slow down for the guy who is expected to yield to you just so you can be nice, thus creating an entirely unnecessary slowdown of all the traffic behind you. this is where being COURTEOUS becomes a conflict with PREDICTABLE, so not really a high bar to strive for.

i cannot believe this is even being debated here. straight-thru drivers have the right-of-way, period. drivers turning/merging into existing traffic do not, period. this is about as fundamental and predictable a driving protocol, if not THE MOST, as there is.

Right-of-way is irrelevant when you’re on a bike. I just ride my bike and try not to be a jerk about it. Cars pull out in front of me all the time. It’s a total non-event.

You'd fail driver's test anywhere in Europe. Don't know if rules in USA differ.

If there's a sign, or a traffic light, that's another matter, but the way it's in the picture - car on the right has the right of way.

You have got to be kidding me. Show me any law in any European country stating that a motorist from a side road entering into another road, with no traffic controls, has right of way over a person already driving on the straight-through road. I seriously doubt that is the case anywhere. The way you're saying it, in this linked map, a motorist pulling out from the parking lot drive on the right side onto the main road would have right of way over a motorist driving from the bottom towards the top of the road in this aerial view, and that is simply wrong: https://goo.gl/maps/MZ38mKBke6F2

OP: where on the road/lane were you located? This is a good example where positioning yourself in the lane where a car driver would be can help with pull-outs like this. If you're off to the side or edge, it's easier for a motorist to misjudge your speed or not even see you at all. The motorist is looking for traffic approaching in the places where cars would normally be. So placing yourself in that location, with a bright flashing light if it's daylight, can help your chances with motorists seeing you and waiting if you have the right of way.

Of course none of that helps if the motorist is just generally a d-bag driver.

Except when you have to take evasive action because some motorist made a jerk-off dick move and did not respect your right-of-way.

While I would describe it differently, that's exactly why it's irrelevant.

It's totally relevant. Everyone wants to get to their destination hassle-free. That's why right-of-way laws exist. Without them it would be chaos on the roads. With right-of-way laws, traffic moves relatively normally. When someone violates that right of way, someone else generally has to make a corrective action, or take evasive action, or there's a crash. It's the same whether you're in a car or on a bike. If there's only corrective action, like slowing down a bit, or making a slight course change, it's a non-event for both cyclists and motorists alike. If evasive action is required, it can be stressful and annoying, for both cyclists and motorists. And if there's a crash things get even worse, generally more so for a cyclist.

I'm not sure why you try to downplay right-of-way laws for cyclists. They apply the same to all traffic, all vehicles, all vehicle operators, and it's why generally, for the most part, the roads are not filled with chaos and anarchy.

I don't really care what the laws are. It's simple-minded to think that the same rules should apply the same to bikes and cars.

And that is one of the root causes of antagonizing relations between motorists and cyclists. Newsflash, the same rules DO apply to us, and it's best for everyone if motorists and cyclists alike follow them.

Thinking the laws do not apply to you does no one any good. :notamused:

I get along fine with traffic. Go when it’s safe to go. Slow when it’s safe to slow. It ain’t rocket science. I think it’s funny when the law-and-order types get all worked up about rules and right-of-way, when most drivers don’t know and couldn’t care less.

Of course it doesn't really matter after-the-fact. But I think most of these types of discussions are for the person asking to be able to affirm that he was right and the motorist was wrong. Or it's for future reference so that the OP will know if he should have, by law, yielded to the motorist, or if the motorist should have yielded to him.

The fact that you get along fine with traffic tells me that you generally follow established ROW rules and laws.

The rules in the US do differ, and frequently even differ among the various states. In California the vehicle code is clear that the car on the through street has the right-of-way even if the other car is coming from the right. I know the German law is the opposite - cars coming from the right have right-of-way over cars on a through street *in the absence of any signage*. But most through streets do have yellow signs indicating that traffic on them does have the right-of-way.

There's no law describing what you call "side road". If there's no yield, or stop sign, you follow the right hand rule.
This goes for all the EU countries as far as I know. I'm 100% certain for my country.

Pulling in from a parking place is different - what you say applies there. But if there's a road connecting to another road - it's the right hand rule.

FEEL is irrelevant -- that's why there are traffic laws. And since bikes have the same rights/duties on the roads as cars (all 50 states), follow the law. There IS no right of way based on mode of transport, other than ON FEET.

Given the ubiquitous nature of information today, there is no excuse for not knowing what your local laws are. ("AmLegalPublishing" can be your friend, too....)

Interesting. AFAIK, here, the lines cutting through the "intersection" explicitly denote a dominant arterial which doesn't need to yield.

Not in WI at an uncontrolled "T" intersection. I'd suspect most states are the same.

From WI statutes 346.18:

(3m) Uncontrolled “t" intersection. At an intersection where traffic is not controlled by an official traffic control device or by a traffic officer, the operator of a vehicle approaching the intersection on a highway which terminates at the intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching the intersection on a highway which continues through the intersection.

I don't mean I have an opinion. I mean I make a decision but sometimes I'm wrong. Whenever something goes wrong such as a near collision, I stop and ask how it happened and what role, if any, I played in it. Sometimes I think it's my turn to go and I turn out to be wrong. So when I do go, it's because I think I'm right. I don't want to say I know I was right until after the fact. Uh, is that clearer? :innocent:

We all goof up, sure. But, like many, you seem to be reading between the lines of my reply -- my point was, and always will be, to the best of your ability, eliminate 'think' and 'feel', and arm yourself with knowledge. Barring massive TBI, that can never be taken from you as long as you live.

Not condescending when I say this, but I hammered this home with my kids in their teen years; only some of them got it. (Guess the others 'felt' they didn't NEED my...advice, LOL.)