The bicyclist struck the car. If the car struck the bicyclist it would be an easier call but in this case we don’t know the distance between the stopped car and the bicyclist. So it’s hard to say.
If the car is ahead of the cyclist and has the turn signals on I would expect the driver to have the right away and the cyclist to give way.
What is the specific significance of a dashed vs. solid white line separating the bike lane from the right-most automobile lane?
At nearly every intersection I’ve seen (in CA) where bike lane is present, it is marked just as Grestarian describes – solid white line most of the way, but dashed white line as one approaches a corner.
Yet, there are a few cases here and there where the solid line remains solid right up to the corner. What is the significance of that? Does this mean the a right-turning vehicle should not cross the solid white line and enter the bike lane? In the cases I can think of, it’s not obvious why the line is marked any differently. But it’s not for the motorist to try to logic out the posted placards and lane markings, but just to do what they say. So what does it say when the bike lane is marked by a solid line all the way to the corner?
I’ve never been to Amsterdam, but I’ve been in the southern part of the country, down near Maastricht, since my wife’s grandfather is buried in the WWII cemetery in Margraten. And the Dutch are crazy about their bike riding - you’ll see hordes of them cycling on a rainy Sunday that would chase all but the most devoted American cyclists inside. So the place cycling occupies in the minds of the Dutch is just very different from what most of us are used to.
You are driving in the middle lane of a three-lane road/highway & want to change lanes. You put your turn signal on, check to make sure you’re clear, & then change lanes. If in the process of changing, you notice a vehicle that you didn’t previously see / was in your blind spot, you’d swerve back into your original lane, or maybe gun it to get ahead of the other vehicle. You wouldn’t stop partially in the new lane & hope the other vehicle can stop in time, would you?
Why does this change because it’s a bike in the right lane? As reported by the OP, the car stops in the bike lane which is what causes the bike to hit the mirror.
It is illegal to cross a solid line and it is permissible to cross a dashed line.
That was the rule as I had always understood it. This seems to say that a car should not cross into the bike lane, if the lane is marked with a solid line. Yet the law (quoted earlier in this thread) about making right turns says a car should cross into the bike lane, without making any mention of the kind of lines. So it’s contradictory. And I’m not sure I’ve actually seen any law that says you can’t cross solid lines; it just seems to be “common knowledge”.
We’ve had this or closely similar discussions here before, and I never got an answer that I thought really covered it. That’s why I asked again.
Because it’s a bike lane and not a car lane?
A bike is still a vehicle. It’s just in it’s own lane.
I have seen cases where two vehicle lanes are split by a solid white line leading up to an intersection (where you can’t cross the white line). As you approach the intersection, there is a dashed line, indicating that vehicles may now merge over to use that lane to turn right. Would you, the car driver in the left lane, merge right without checking that it’s clear? Would you give way to a vehicle already in that lane, or just try and barge your way in? No, you would speed up or slow down to get in front of or behind the vehicle, then safely make your turn. Why is a bike in a bike lane any different?
Again, bikes are vehicles, and bike lanes are special vehicle lanes. You treat those lanes and bikes as you would if it were a vehicle lane with cars in it.
I honestly don’t understand why this is so hard for people to get.
A very large majority of drivers either don’t know or refuse to accept bikes as vehicles.
Because bikes aren’t car sized, they “disappear” from a driver’s priorities.
Because you can’t see them in various blind spots that are different for every car. Because drivers don’t necessarily see what their brain tells them is there because perception is based on a scan and not reality.
I can’t think of anything more dangerous to a cyclist than a dedicated lane at a busy intersection.
So you think maybe we should get rid of dedicated bike lanes? How about cross walks? Those are dedicated lanes for pedestrians. Are they more dangerous to pedestrians than no crosswalks?
I’ve been in several accidents involving cars turning and crossing my path when I’m on my bike. Fortunately I haven’t been seriously hurt in any of them, although my bike has been damaged in a couple of them. In some of them, I was in a bike lane or had been in one before the intersection; in others there was no bike lane. As far as I can tell, the presence of the bike lane made no difference in these incidents.
I want to note that the stuff about the line changing to dashed as the lane approaches the intersection is a non-issue to the OP. In Oregon (at least the parts I ride in) the line does not change to dashed but stays solid all the way up to the stop line.
As an aussie I ride on the left, recently one early morning there was a police car stopped at a T intersection on my left, I had right of way being on the main road but he didn’t even look and pulled out in a right turn causing me to slam on the brakes and get a huge fright. He got out and checked everything on me and my bike, my lights, my helmet etc., I presume looking for a reason to make it my fault if I complained. Luckily I expect drivers to be oblivious so was totally legal with a hi vis vest thrown on for good measure or else I am pretty sure I would have ridden away with a fine for something just to cover his behind.
The most dangerous part of my morning ride is where the bike lane is crossed by the drive through entrance for a McDonald’s, nothing gets between people and egg mcmuffins.
people stand at the corner waiting for the light to turn green. They are much more prevalent and as such are expected to be there. As visible as they are they still get run over. Bicycles that move with traffic run the risk of pacing a blind spot in a car. In effect, they are invisible.
I’ve been in one myself. Cars represent an extreme danger to cyclists.
I’ve been in no fewer than 5, one of which was similar to the OP, although fortunately it didn’t involve an LEO.
In that one, I was in a bike lane that was separated from car traffic by a raised curb. But such curbs are never continuous; they have breaks to let cars access driveways. At one of these, a car slowed down to turn and I’m fairly sure the driver saw me and was waiting for me to go past. Unfortunately, she (the driver) was drifting to the right into my lane. I tried to avoid her, but couldn’t totally and sideswiped her. Her side mirror was one of those that folds forward, which was a good thing or I would probably have been seriously hurt. As it was, my bike went down but I, through some miracle, managed to land on my feet, or rather foot, as all my weight and momentum was absorbed by my left leg. The leg muscles felt funny for several days, but otherwise I wasn’t hurt.
Sometimes that’s the problem. Bicyclists may travel or take a long bike trip and forget where they are and or get a little arrogant in their belief they are invincible and all cars will stop and then this happens.
And it goes the same for drivers. I live in Kansas City where bikes are rare but becoming more common and quite frankly its not something I’d be looking for. So that bicyclist might be going up against drivers who just are not attuned to be on the lookout for them.
I think that ultimately the problem will be fixed by having more bicycle lanes being away from cars and using alleys, sidewalks and such where they wont have to do battle with cars. That’s what they are doing in our area where we have bicycle paths going almost everywhere which go under and over the streets. The bad part is they dont clear snow from them in winter.
That’s not what a single solid white line is supposed to mean.
Do bikes in a driver’s blind spot at lower speeds cause any more risk than a car in your blind spot at higher speeds? Yes I realize the cyclist doesn’t have a steel cage & air bags around them but you’re no less at fault if you change lanes into another vehicle given that there’s no difference in their rights
You’ve been in one yourself? Given your viewpoints, is it correct to assume as the one in the four-wheeled vehicle?
Really?
I wonder how those cars got into the HOV lane that is separated with a solid white line, must have been tricky.
Wow this is a tough call. I live in Oregon and I commute by bike. FWIW, this situation is described as “a right hook”.
The quote from the Oregon Bicycle Manual seems to be very much on point: “While it is legal to pass a line of stopped cars on streets with a bike lane, it is advisable to stop behind the first vehicle.” I would argue that 9 times out of 10 it’s inadvisable to pass ANY of the cars which are stopped. Moving up a few feet isn’t worth risking a right hook. So yes, I would agree that what the cyclist did was “unsafe passing on the right”.
Yet, the OBM specifically says it’s legal. So it seems unfair to get a ticket for it.
It is permissible to cross a dashed white line.
It is permissible to cross a solid white line, with caution.
It is illegal to cross a *double *white line.
At least, that’s the law in Illinois.