4 ms·

The bike lane on the right scenario is just stupidity. In what other context is it permitted to turn right across another straight-ahead lane to the right? When

• Johnny555 8y ago
  Where else would you put it? If you put it on the left, then bikes are going to have to cross the car's path to get in/out of the bike lane. So either way, cars and bikes will be merging past each other. However, in California, cars are not supposed to "turn right across another straight-ahead lane to the right", they are supposed to merge safely into the bike lane and turn right from the bike lane, letting any bikes behind pass the car on the left. https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/ https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/
  • u801e 8y ago
    > Where else would you put it? Just have the cyclist ride in the right-most lane available for traffic. Then there are no crossing movements to deal with. Cars making a right turn will either be directly ahead of the cyclist or directly behind the cyclist.
    • Johnny555 8y ago
      Does that really solve the problem of cars turning to the right in front of cyclists? Seems like the same motorist that would pass the cyclist in the bike lane and turn right in front of him, would also pass the cyclist in the roadway and turn right in front of him.
      • u801e 8y ago
        In my experience, it does if one rides in a way to take up the entire lane. Many motorists don't perceive bike lanes as actual lanes of traffic they have to yield to when making turning movements. But they will do so for general purpose lanes.