Please, I beg you… without dredging up the entire bike vs. car debate points about bikes being lawless jerks and drivers being inconsiderate, what do you think OF THIS SITUATION:
A cyclist, in the bike lane, is passing cars that are lined up at a traffic light. The lead car starts to turn right on a green signal (turn signal was reported to be on, cyclist says he didn’t see it), but stops when she sees the cyclist approaching. The cyclist hit the side view mirror of the car and was thrown from his bike.
The cyclist was cited for unsafe passing on the right.
Now, I can understand how these types of accidents can happen. I have to deal with this situation several times a day. Drivers are just not trained to be aware of cyclists in bike lanes on the right side of their car. Cyclists have a duty to be aware of this, much like drivers need to be aware of not staying in another driver’s blind spot.
If anyone is at fault here I would put it on the driver. But that is tenuous. The cyclist wasn’t injured enough to be transported to the hospital so this is likely a case of “no harm, no foul.” Cyclists need to be aware of cars that might turn right, but motorists should be checking the bike lane before turning right.
But what the cyclist was cited for I just can’t agree with. The driver of the vehicle just happened to be a LEO driving a patrol vehicle.
Hah, I like how you left the most significant fact for the end. IMO, it’s *transparent *that the accident had to be reported because it involved a police car, and it had to be the cyclist at fault, otherwise there would be a blight on the LEO’s record, which would affect them much more adversely than it would the cyclist.
No. I wasn’t even trying to assess who was actually to blame, which would be difficult on the limited second-hand information, anyway. I was just describing how the real world works.
ETA: In fact, my opinion based on the limited info is that probably nobody was to blame and if there were no injuries and nobody wanted to make an issue of it, it would have been good to leave it at that. And it usually would have gone that way, except for it involved a police car and thus had to be reported, and thus had to be the cyclist’s fault.
If the officer was planning to turn, he should have been in the right turn/bike lane. However it might have been a change in plans and he wasn’t originally planning a turn.
He still should have checking before making a move.
While it’s certainly illegal for a car to proceed in the bicycle lane it certainly isn’t illegal for a bicycle to be traveling in the bike lane (which is why such a lane exists in the first place). Out here in California, the bicycle lanes are usually demarcated with a solid white line – which becomes a dashed white line along the last few dozen feet where car drivers are expected/required to slide to the right in preparation for a right turn at the corner and fading to the right is required so they don’t impede the following traffic from going straight ahead past said corner. It is commonly accepted that the operator of the heavier/faster vehicle is required to yield to lighter/slower vehicles and pedestrians. Furthermore, since the automobile driver must have been traveling fast enough to pass the bicyclist before that accident, then he/she should have seen (noticed) the rider while passing and should have remembered and considered it when maneuvering around the corner. The Cyclist should definitely challenge this one in court.
What has irritated me in my town is the sight of drivers traveling in the bike lane for hundreds of feet – essentially using it as an extra right-hand lane to slide by the congested traffic – in preparation for a right turn at the corner. That’s just rude, selfish, and hazardous!
–G!
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
…–Freddy Mercury (Queen)
…Bicycle Race
…Jazz
Not sure of exact circumstances. But it is VERY common for motor vehicle operators (“driver” implies a certain level of attention and proficiency) to pass a bicycle immediately prior to intending to turn right, then stop and wait for the bicycle to pass.
The big problem with this is it forces the cyclist to trust the d
Stranger who is operating the car, a stranger who has just demonstrated poor planning and poor judgment. I am not OK with allowing such to decide when it is safe for me to proceed.
The proper response for the cyclist in this case is to come to a complete stop, fold their arms, and glare a hole in the mirror of the car. Exaggerated hand gesture indicating “after you, my liege” is optional.
For the love of all that is holy, you don’t HAVE to pass the bicycle! It works out faster for the car if they wait for the bicycle to pass the turn point, because they will then not suffer the delay caused by the cyclist slowing while deciphers their intent, and they will maintain the same speed as the bicycle instead of having to stop. You will always end up coming to a complete stop, because no sane cyclist will pass you while you are still rolling, and may well keep faking that they are starting to pass you, simply to maximize your delay.
There is no evidence the driver ever passed the cyclist. It is entirely possible the cyclist came onto the roadway after the driver was already at the light and caught up to the driver. I’ve had that happen many times. I know where this happened and this would not be out of the question. The report did not specify how long the cyclist had been on this road.
Regardless of whether the driver passed the cyclist or not, I still think it is pretty outrageous the cyclist was cited for passing on the right. This happened in Oregon.
This exact thing happened to me (as a driver) over 30 years ago - I knocked someone off his bike but was not ticketed. I remember it very clearly, even now!
There was no bike lane. I was in a pick-up truck with a camper shell and properly in the right lane waiting to turn at a light on a city street; Palo Alto California. The cyclist attempted to pass me on the right as I turned and I knocked him off of his bike - he wasn’t hurt at all. But he was very upset with me. (I was very upset with me too; I was quite shaken up.) Police were called, some people stayed to be witnesses for me. I was not ticketed because IIRC the cops determined that the cyclist was at fault because he was disobeying traffic laws and passed me on the right and he was directly in my blind spot as I was turning. I don’t recall if the cyclist was ticketed.
I think that now I am a more experienced driver, this wouldn’t happen now. But I still think the cyclist in that instance was careless and not properly defensive. I’ve also been a cyclist on many, many occasions and it’s prudent to keep the automobile driver’s POV in mind as well.
It’s not the same exact thing if there was no bike lane.
This is one of those situations where the laws are inconsistent, sometimes poorly considered, and almost no one knows what the law actually is. Even if you do know the law you have to drive or ride with the assumption that others don’t.
As a cyclist, I generally avoid passing cars at an intersection unless they’re stopped, even when there’s a bicycle lane. I’ll either ride up to the front if the cars are all stopped, or move out of the bike lane early and claim the main lane till I’m through the intersection. Anything else is usually too risky.
Well it is the same thing, really, pursuant to the California laws linked to above.
So it’s legal for an automobile driver to use the bike lane if done so properly. And often, the driver has to pause for traffic or pedestrians before proceeding. And if a cyclist passes the driver on the right as the driver is about to make a turn, or is already turning, then presumably the cyclist is in the wrong?
I say nobody’s fault, unless you count the city planner who thought a bike lane was a good idea in the first place. There is NO WAY to execute a right turn without the possibility of an unseen biker getting creamed. It is an inherent flaw in the design of the system.
While I say nobody is at fault (IMHO, of courses), still it falls to the biker to be defensive, as he is the one most likely to lose in this type of calamity.
Then again, if one has ever ridden a bicycle in Amsterdam (I have), it’s almost bizarre how cyclists are given right of way by drivers. Bike lanes everywhere and the sight of bicycle in even the busiest of intersections makes drivers slam on their brakes and allow the cyclist right of way.
No. It isn’t. In the case in the OP, the car was not in the rightmost lane when turning. A more analogous situation would be making a right turn from the next lane over, and hitting the car that is in the right lane.
The driver should be in the rightmost lane to make his turn. When there is a bike lane, that means the driver should merge (safely) into that lane prior to turning. Obviously, he can’t fit entirely in that lane, but he should be in it far enough for the bicyclist to not be able to pass, and to know he shouldn’t try to pass.
Isn’t that law for the case where someone passes on the shoulder? Yeah, I don’t agree with the either. I think that I, as a car driver, could be cited for that if I used the bike lane to get around someone in my lane who was stopped to make a left turn.
The California law about using the bike lane as a right turn lane is not applicable in this situation because it didn’t happen in California. As I understand it, in Oregon, it’s illegal for a car to travel along a bike lane for any distance, even if intending on turning right.
Personally, when cycling I always note which cars have their turn signals on when approaching an intersection with a red light. If the lead car(s) do, I’ll usually stop behind and to the right of it(them) and wait before going through.
If I’m at the red light before any cars and a car comes up intending a right turn, I will often move over to the curb/edge and wave them through. Some people are reluctant to turn right on red if there’s a cyclist there. Which is good, but I don’t want to hold them up. Plus, it eliminates any potential conflict when the light turns green.