5 ms·

This is a fundamental traffic design failure. Prior to the existence of bike lanes, motor vehicles never had to yield to something behind them (perhaps 30 or 5

This is a fundamental traffic design failure. Prior to the existence of bike lanes, motor vehicles never had to yield to something behind them (perhaps 30 or 50 meters behind them) while traversing an intersection. In a busy intersection where one also has to attend to pedestrians, other cars, etc., moving in different directions, trying to track what's going on behind you can be almost impossible (and thus quite dangerous for all). My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal, and draws lots of swearing (and worse) from bicyclists. But there's just no other good way to keep everyone safe.

scblock 7y ago
Especially not trams, right? No motor vehicle has ever had a tram approach from behind them before we had bike lanes.
- downerending 7y ago
  What's a tram? EDIT: Okay, it's a surface-grade light rail train. In the cases I'm familiar with, there's always a red light forbidding crossing through the path of such a train. So, you're not yielding to the train, you're obeying a signal that's in front of you.
mauvehaus 7y ago
First off, thank you for doing what you're doing as a driver to prevent this kind of crash. You're right, cyclists are blithering idiots about drivers doing this, but it protects them even if they don't understand that. As a cyclist (about 15,000 total miles, half touring, half commuting split between Boston and Cleveland), my solution to the problem is to not design the infrastructure in ways that sets cyclists up for the crash. It is absolutely woefully bad design that cycle lanes on the right continue all the way to the intersection. A solution that works for experienced cyclists to to end the bike lane some distance before the intersection. This forces a merge in a zone where there's no risk of a right hook. I float this with the full understanding that it only works for cyclists who are capable of making the merge at around 20mph/30kmph. And/or where the topography is favorable. No, you don't have to be able to sustain that speed, but being able to do it in short bursts greatly expands your choices when riding in urban traffic. My experience has been that nobody minds much at that speed, especially if you merge back into the "bike lane" while you're still in the intersection but after you're past the lanes people would be turning right into. Turning traffic has to slow anyway to make the turn, after all. This is a specific case of a general rule I try to apply when riding: Make people choose to hit you; don't let them do it accidentally. I would add that this is really only a valid strategy in urban traffic where even the major arterials only flow under 30mph because the density of turns and stop lights prevents higher speeds. Major arteries in the suburbs or around malls are a nightmare for riding because traffic generally flows a lot faster. Some of the most hair-raising riding I've done was near a mall while bike touring. It was basically unavoidable, and also absolutely miserable.
- u801e 7y ago
  > A solution that works for experienced cyclists to to end the bike lane some distance before the intersection. This forces a merge in a zone where there's no risk of a right hook. Unless the road has sufficient room for a bike lane of a minimum width of 5 feet, then you end up with a lot of close passes from cars in the right lane and also end up riding in the door zone of parked cars to your right. In those cases, it makes more sense to just ride in the center of the right-most lane available for traffic and get more room from cars passing you. This would work for streets that have multiple lanes for same direction traffic. > Major arteries in the suburbs or around malls are a nightmare for riding because traffic generally flows a lot faster. Some of the most hair-raising riding I've done was near a mall while bike touring. It was basically unavoidable, and also absolutely miserable. It really depends on how much traffic is present. I've ridden on roads in the center of the right lane with speed limits ranging from 35 to 45 mph without much of an issue. Drivers almost always change lanes to pass me or slow down behind me before passing.
  - mauvehaus 7y ago
    > Unless the road has sufficient room for a bike lane of a minimum width of 5 feet, then you end up with a lot of close passes from cars in the right lane and also end up riding in the door zone of parked cars to your right. Thank you for clarifying. Yes, cyclists riding in a regular traffic lane should absolutely take the center of the lane for all of the reasons you've listed. Again, make people choose to hit you; don't let them do it by accident.
bckygldstn 7y ago
At least in California it's illegal not to fully occupy the bike lane before turning right. But in reality most cars don't do it and most cyclists would get mad if they did.
- r00fus 7y ago
  I do this all the time - it forces me to treat bikes like other vehicles & the bike lane like any other traffic lane.
nserrino 7y ago
> My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. In California, that's not illegal, it's the law. It's on the driver's test. Kind of counterintuitive at first, but seems much safer and also more consistent with the way turns are handled with any normal lane.
- downerending 7y ago
  Might be in my state, too. Most bikelanes here have a solid white stripe all of the way to the intersection, which would seem to forbid this.
  - u801e 7y ago
    What do you do when making a right turn when there's a bus only lane to your right?
    - downerending 7y ago
      Same thing, though I think all our bus lanes are right-turn lanes, too. In any case, I trust bus drivers a lot more than bicyclists. :-/
u801e 7y ago
> This is a fundamental traffic design failure. Prior to the existence of bike lanes, motor vehicles never had to yield to something behind them (perhaps 30 or 50 meters behind them) while traversing an intersection. This is true. The closest thing thing to this is checking for pedestrians, but even the fastest pedestrians aren't moving more than 7 to 8 mph and will almost always check for vehicles prior to entering an intersection. A cyclist could be moving anywhere from 10 to 20 mph and could be quite far from the intersection and still end up in a crash with a turning vehicle. > My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal In most states in the US, it's not illegal. The law states that right turns must be made as close as practicable to the right hand edge or curb.
- downerending 7y ago
  I'm glad to hear that. In my area, the bike lane striping is a solid white line, suggesting that edging over is illegal. Bad UI, I guess.
  - MattSayar 7y ago
    I understand solid white lines to mean "crossing is legal, but discouraged"
nsm 7y ago
> My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal, and draws lots of swearing (and worse) from bicyclists. But there's just no other good way to keep everyone safe. Which state/country are you in? This is actually required in California, and I'm always annoyed at the majority of drivers who simply DO NOT come and occupy the bike lane intentionally, making it confusing for me (as a bicyclist) whether they are going to wait for me or not. (coupled with how a lot of drivers just don't use turn signals accurately).
MiroF 7y ago
> My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal, and draws lots of swearing (and worse) from bicyclists. But there's just no other good way to keep everyone safe. Funnily enough, that's exactly what you're supposed to do and is required by law in every state i've lived in.

scblock 7y ago

Especially not trams, right? No motor vehicle has ever had a tram approach from behind them before we had bike lanes.

downerending 7y ago
What's a tram? EDIT: Okay, it's a surface-grade light rail train. In the cases I'm familiar with, there's always a red light forbidding crossing through the path of such a train. So, you're not yielding to the train, you're obeying a signal that's in front of you.

mauvehaus 7y ago

First off, thank you for doing what you're doing as a driver to prevent this kind of crash. You're right, cyclists are blithering idiots about drivers doing this, but it protects them even if they don't understand that. As a cyclist (about 15,000 total miles, half touring, half commuting split between Boston and Cleveland), my solution to the problem is to not design the infrastructure in ways that sets cyclists up for the crash. It is absolutely woefully bad design that cycle lanes on the right continue all the way to the intersection. A solution that works for experienced cyclists to to end the bike lane some distance before the intersection. This forces a merge in a zone where there's no risk of a right hook. I float this with the full understanding that it only works for cyclists who are capable of making the merge at around 20mph/30kmph. And/or where the topography is favorable. No, you don't have to be able to sustain that speed, but being able to do it in short bursts greatly expands your choices when riding in urban traffic. My experience has been that nobody minds much at that speed, especially if you merge back into the "bike lane" while you're still in the intersection but after you're past the lanes people would be turning right into. Turning traffic has to slow anyway to make the turn, after all. This is a specific case of a general rule I try to apply when riding: Make people choose to hit you; don't let them do it accidentally. I would add that this is really only a valid strategy in urban traffic where even the major arterials only flow under 30mph because the density of turns and stop lights prevents higher speeds. Major arteries in the suburbs or around malls are a nightmare for riding because traffic generally flows a lot faster. Some of the most hair-raising riding I've done was near a mall while bike touring. It was basically unavoidable, and also absolutely miserable.

u801e 7y ago
> A solution that works for experienced cyclists to to end the bike lane some distance before the intersection. This forces a merge in a zone where there's no risk of a right hook. Unless the road has sufficient room for a bike lane of a minimum width of 5 feet, then you end up with a lot of close passes from cars in the right lane and also end up riding in the door zone of parked cars to your right. In those cases, it makes more sense to just ride in the center of the right-most lane available for traffic and get more room from cars passing you. This would work for streets that have multiple lanes for same direction traffic. > Major arteries in the suburbs or around malls are a nightmare for riding because traffic generally flows a lot faster. Some of the most hair-raising riding I've done was near a mall while bike touring. It was basically unavoidable, and also absolutely miserable. It really depends on how much traffic is present. I've ridden on roads in the center of the right lane with speed limits ranging from 35 to 45 mph without much of an issue. Drivers almost always change lanes to pass me or slow down behind me before passing.
- mauvehaus 7y ago
  > Unless the road has sufficient room for a bike lane of a minimum width of 5 feet, then you end up with a lot of close passes from cars in the right lane and also end up riding in the door zone of parked cars to your right. Thank you for clarifying. Yes, cyclists riding in a regular traffic lane should absolutely take the center of the lane for all of the reasons you've listed. Again, make people choose to hit you; don't let them do it by accident.

bckygldstn 7y ago

At least in California it's illegal not to fully occupy the bike lane before turning right. But in reality most cars don't do it and most cyclists would get mad if they did.

r00fus 7y ago
I do this all the time - it forces me to treat bikes like other vehicles & the bike lane like any other traffic lane.

nserrino 7y ago

> My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. In California, that's not illegal, it's the law. It's on the driver's test. Kind of counterintuitive at first, but seems much safer and also more consistent with the way turns are handled with any normal lane.

downerending 7y ago
Might be in my state, too. Most bikelanes here have a solid white stripe all of the way to the intersection, which would seem to forbid this.
- u801e 7y ago
  What do you do when making a right turn when there's a bus only lane to your right?
  - downerending 7y ago
    Same thing, though I think all our bus lanes are right-turn lanes, too. In any case, I trust bus drivers a lot more than bicyclists. :-/

u801e 7y ago

> This is a fundamental traffic design failure. Prior to the existence of bike lanes, motor vehicles never had to yield to something behind them (perhaps 30 or 50 meters behind them) while traversing an intersection. This is true. The closest thing thing to this is checking for pedestrians, but even the fastest pedestrians aren't moving more than 7 to 8 mph and will almost always check for vehicles prior to entering an intersection. A cyclist could be moving anywhere from 10 to 20 mph and could be quite far from the intersection and still end up in a crash with a turning vehicle. > My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal In most states in the US, it's not illegal. The law states that right turns must be made as close as practicable to the right hand edge or curb.

downerending 7y ago
I'm glad to hear that. In my area, the bike lane striping is a solid white line, suggesting that edging over is illegal. Bad UI, I guess.
- MattSayar 7y ago
  I understand solid white lines to mean "crossing is legal, but discouraged"

nsm 7y ago

> My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal, and draws lots of swearing (and worse) from bicyclists. But there's just no other good way to keep everyone safe. Which state/country are you in? This is actually required in California, and I'm always annoyed at the majority of drivers who simply DO NOT come and occupy the bike lane intentionally, making it confusing for me (as a bicyclist) whether they are going to wait for me or not. (coupled with how a lot of drivers just don't use turn signals accurately).

MiroF 7y ago

> My "solution" to this problem is to carefully but fully occupy the bike lane before making such a turn. Yeah, it's illegal, and draws lots of swearing (and worse) from bicyclists. But there's just no other good way to keep everyone safe. Funnily enough, that's exactly what you're supposed to do and is required by law in every state i've lived in.