I’ve heard this is one of the things that some of the newer red light cams will get you for.
Well, that was my situation. The other driver assumed I was going to turn left, along with the other cars behind me. (It was a T-intersection: you couldn’t go straight ahead.) Instead, I was waiting to turn right – i.e., waiting either for a break in the traffic or for the lights to change.
Okay. This from the California Department of Motor Vehicles Driver Handbook …
While this clears up the question regarding the bike lane, it still is ambiguous about pulling up on the right of another vehicle. It says, “… drive close to the right edge …” so one could assume that a person not on the right edge is going to go straight. But there is no mention of whether it is legal to pull up along side another car waiting to go straight in order to make a right turn.
Vexing.
Got nailed by this in NJ a few years ago-the [del]bastard[/del] cop was actually sitting in the coffee shop parking lot and watching for that specific violation. It was one of those NJ highways (with those infernal jughandles)-3 lanes of traffic, with a 20 foot long right turn lane, with the solid white line in question going off diagonally into the (ample-wide enough for any vehicle to traverse) shoulder area to form the lane.
I crossed into the lane 20 feet before it actually and technically started (i.e. used the shoulder), and he got me. Thing is they could easily extend the lane back another 100 feet, if they so chose, thus making the shoulder legal to drive in, and to allow for better traffic flow (what a concept, huh?). That was 3 years ago-went back to that spot this year and the lane was still the same. Nothing but a revenue grab-if I lived there I would have definitely fought the sonofabitch. :mad:
Are there parking lot approaches within that 100 feet? If so, that’s probably why they can’t extend the turn lane.
This comes up all the time in Mr. Roadshow, and that is exactly right. Where I turn right on the way to work, not doing this would be very dangerous, since there is likely to be another car coming down the bike lane turning right while you are doing it from the traffic lane. Also, bicycles going straight and coming up after there are people in the bike lane already ride to the left of the turners and to the right of the traffic lane.
In this intersection the right turn line sometimes backs up past the broken line, but that seems safer, otherwise someone trying to get into the bike lane where legal might hit someone in it already. There is a police station a few blocks away, and I’ve never seen any cops ticketing cars doing this.
Huh. My dad, also driving in Ohio, was in a similar situation. He was in your position, waiting to turn right with his signal on, and another car crept into the space to the right. Bam. But my dad and the other driver were both cited. Insurance companies each paid for the (minimal) damage to their driver’s cars.
I’m not sure what the law was in Ohio (this was the late 90s), but apparently cops get a lot of discretion enforcing it.
It happens. No worries.
It may happen all the time out of ignorance, as well as self-entitlement. The right turn on red after stop is nation-wide, however, the after stop part is ignored by the multitudes. That includes the police from where I sit. The local cops can’t be bothered.
He got dinged for not pulling into the bike lane before turning. At least that’s my understanding.
This question came up in another similar thread just a week or two ago. Opinions varied.
I dug through the CA Driver Handbook (yes, it’s all on-line). My conclusion: The description there really is ambiguous about crossing a single solid white line.
As for driving in the bike lane when making a right turn:
So this leaves the question: Why are they marked in two different ways at different intersections?
Again: At most intersections where I see a bike lane approaching the intersections, the solid white line becomes a broken white line a little ways before the intersections. But at some such intersections, the solid white line remains solid all the way to the intersection.
So what is the significance of these two different ways of marking them? It would seem fishy to me if they did this for no reason.
All you California drivers may be required to use the bike lane for turning right, but if you come north of the border to Oregon, it becomes illegal. I almost got a ticket once for doing that. Fortunately the cop just gave me a warning, although he did give me a ticket for having a burnt out tail light.
I bicycle a lot and am cautious when approaching an intersection where the lead car in the intersection has its right turn signal on. I often stop well behind the car rather than pulling up beside it, even if there’s a bike lane. Sometimes this leads to a standoff where the driver and I are both waiting for the other to go, but it’s better to be that way than be hit. Which I was once in that exact situation where either she didn’t see me or forgot I was there. I wasn’t badly hurt, but am now more cautious.
At any rate, in Oregon, bike lanes are only for bikes and other small vehicles (it’s legal for Segways to use them. I think motorized scooters and wheelchairs can also use them if there’s no sidewalk.)
Does Missouri ever use solid whites other than for the shoulder? You’ll find solid whites in multi lane traffic here, for example, where it’s a “stay in your lane” advisory. But the general rule in the US is that it’s an advisory, except, as you point out, if it’s used to mark the edge of the roadway.
One example I can think of is no-passing zones on a divided highway through a construction zone.
If that’s the case, then Missouri does seem to be an exception. Illinois, a state over, is just advisory, and so far as there is a universal standard (the [Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices](http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/)), there a solid white line is advisory as well.
Missouri does appear to be one of the states that does not use the MUTCD. But I quickly looked at a couple of the other states that don’t, like California, Michigan, and Indiana, and they also regard solid whites as advisory there, too.
_Adoption.svg){kind=link}
Fog lines are an exception, of course. I’m talking solid whites that delineate lanes of traffic.
The part of the driver’s manual I linked/quoted above just states that solid lines should not be crossed during a passing maneuver, and white lines divide same-direction traffic. This would seem to prohibit crossing a white line demarcating a lane of travel as well as the shoulder. In Missouri, anyway.
In a Buffalo snowstorm, my first day making deliveries with a fairly large box truck, a cab slipped into my blind spot below my right side extended mirror, and I took off his mirror when I turned right from the “straight or right” lane. The street markings were obscured by the snow, and, in fact, snow was piled up beyond the actual curb… the police decided no one was at fault, we bought the guy a new mirror and he installed it himself.
I’m always more concerned by people making left turns into a multi-laned street, and letting themselves swing wide into the right hand lane as they turn. When I’m coming the opposite way and decide to do 'right on red after stop, I try to turn my flashers on to express my opinion that I’m entitled to the right hand lane…but if my car were newer, I’d just wait until those other folks were out of my way.
In Wisconsin, 45 years ago or more, I once drove slowly, with everyone else, on the shoulder of an interstate highway for upwards of 30 or 40 miles because the road was so icy you couldn’t use it. Every bridge was an adventure, getting onto the main road again, inching across, back onto the shoulder… very slow trip.
This morning on my way to work I took notice of the bike lane and saw that indeed it was broken as it came to ~50-100 feet from the intersection.
But as to the actual question I posed in the OP, these right turns occur when there are bike lanes present and when they are not present. They involve drivers splitting a lane that is not marked in any way as split, passing sometimes numerous cars, in order to make a right-hand turn.
I saw no mention at all of this kind of maneuver in the California Drivers Handbooks.
As yet, the question of whether this maneuver is legal or illegal remains unresolved.
Missed the edit window.
I may have been looking at the question the wrong way. I thought it might be a “right-turn” question. But perhaps it’s really a “passing on the right” question.
From the California Department of Motor Vehicles [bolding mine] …
So according to these rules, provided there is “unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in the direction of travel” it would indeed appear that it is legal to pass stopped traffic on the right in order to make a right-hand turn.
Am I interpreting this correctly?