CB HI

I am open to seeing some examples in AZ with full stories.

The last photo I posted up is what cyclist got after years of hard work.

The Hawaii Bicycle League had a group of cyclist working on a plan for all 1.6 miles of Young Street, Honolulu for a very long time. Even though the plan had bike lanes, bike lane opponents were willing to not object to the final plan because there would not be any door zone parking and the final plan was really a wide outside lane with a white strip on it. Parking would be reduced and moved to the center island of the road and no left turns allowed from driveways. The mayor and city council agreed with the final plan and the city council voted funding for it. Before the plan went to bid, we had an election for mayor and the NEW mayor that had campaign commercials of him riding a bike, won. As soon as that NEW mayor got into office, he pushed the city council to defund the project.

In it's place, the NEW mayor gave cyclist one block worth of death trap bike lane, that includes door zone bike lane, no sight lines for driveways, and the really bad zigging bike lane that keeps making the travel lane even smaller incouraging extremely close passes. Under the NEW mayor, police do not ticket any of the motorist that park in the bike lane (I am actually OK with that as it is a good excuse for not riding in the bike lane). Much of the illegal bike lane parking is done by a Porsche repair shop that parks repair vehicles on the street and blocking the sidewalk (notice the red Porshe just to the right of the van blocking the sidewalk while being repaired).

Chris516

That is why, when I go through DC, I stay out of the bike lane.

northernease

Chris, neither BSB nor I make the rules. And you don't either, luckily. I am afraid what I wrote before is right: riding a bike does not automatically increases a person's IQ!

Fair winds!

BSB

"Within the right-hand lane". A bike lane is a lane.

A left turn necessarily requires crossing other lanes of traffic, since vehicles travelling in opposite directions cannot use the same lanes at the same time. That is not true of a right turn. It is a very different scenario.

Do you REALLY want to pass right turning traffic on the right? It's very unsafe. It's a good way to get hit by a car.

Chris516

So in essence, the law is saying that ALL cyclists have to acquiesce to people making a right-turn, regardless of the 'vehicle'(even a bike) AND the 'vehicles' lane position(the cyclist being in front of the right-turn 'vehicle') at ALL times?

Chris516

Agreed

Passing right-turn traffic is not what I am getting at. I am saying that, including the bike lane, in the 'lane' definition is asking for trouble. Because, By doing so, any cyclist is destined to get creamed by an impatient motorist that wants to make a right-turn without needing to look to see if a cyclist is already in the lane.

weshigh

You always have to see if the lane is clear before you change lanes. The problem with turning from the middle lane instead of the bike lane is that you right hook people, because you pull in front and then sweep across the bike lane as you turn. This happens to me all the time. People pass and then put on their signal and stop to the left of me while I am in the bike lane. I can go hoping they see me and are stopping to let by, or I usually wait because I don't trust that they see me. If instead they merged into the bike lane as they are supposed to, I merge into the lane they just came from and go around them.

Chris516

That is a given. But do you really think motorists at large, care about checking the bike lane, before they go into to make a right turn.

At first, yes. That is a problem. But again, it is inviting bad behavior towards the cyclist, who is an itinerant, impatient 'bikes don't belong on the road' kind of driver.

weshigh

I think at large, drivers don't want to kill people. I do think a lot of people don't pay attention to the bike lane. But I fail to see how turning from the lane left of the bike lane would be better? If they turn from that lane, then I have no choice but to stop or risk getting hit. If they merge first, I have more time to tell if they are merging and see that they are turning and go around them, causing no slowdown and minimizing risk. I'd rather get hit by a merging car(which generally is a slower paced maneuver, thought not always), than a full blown right turning car. There will always be last min turners but that includes both types of right turns we are talking about.

You say "at first, yes" what after the at first? How is that inviting bad behavior, but just turn across the bike lane immediately right good behavior?

Chris516

I'll be the devil's advocate and agree the majority of motorists don't want to kill people. It is an intersection, so a cyclist would have to stop, just as a driver would have to stop. I would rather get from behind, than the side. Because, A driver who is behind me, that is speeding, I can keep an eye on. A driver merging into the bike lane for the sake of a right turn is not something I would be looking for. That is me personally.

Think of getting 'buzzed' from the left while there is also the possibility of getting 'doored' from the right. Just because the motorist wants to get somewhere in a hurry. By the motorist having to stay in the regular travel lane, until the intersection, keeps the cyclist from suddenly getting run over by an inattentive motorist changing lanes.

Keith99

I'd question the idea of either cars or bikes stopping at most intersections. The vast majority of bike lanes are on semi-major roads. Ones where any stops are signals, not stop signs.

But far more important is that if everyone is stopping the what should I do with a car in the lane to my left if cars trun right from there? How can I possibly know if a car is going to turn or not. If the car was there first it is doubtful that they would see me. If instead then had merged I'm fine unless I'm a fool trying to squeeze past on the right.

BSB

That's utter nonsense, and nobody suggested anything remotely close to that. Are you just making stuff up to be argumentative?

All of those apply equally to drivers turning without merging into the bike lane. A poor driver who is going to hit you is a poor driver and going to hit you either way. Setting up traffic patterns in a manner that causes an inherent conflict doesn't solve that, but it sure does create more problems, even with good drivers.

northernease

I am not sure it is even worth further discussing this with Chris but I will try. (BTW, you are just an example, Chris: unfortunately there are lots of 'you' who, because of preconceived ideas, a fundamentalist vision of life, sheer ignorance, inadequate neuronal connections, or a mix of the above, constantly run the risk of being taken out of the picture, suddenly and dramatically, by what could be identified as 'natural selection').

For the sake of clarity, let's take bikes and bike lanes out of the picture, for a minute. I am driving my car in the right lane. Somebody, well ahead of me and without cutting me off, moves from the left lane to the right lane, while signalling. S/he then stops in the right lane, again signalling, waiting to be able to turn right at an intersection without hitting pedestrians. I definitely prefer this situation to the situation where the vehicle in the left lane waits until s/he reaches the intersection and then signals to turn right, more or less dramatically cutting me off. Not only I prefer situation #1, but I am happy to wait behind the turning car.

Bikes are vehicles (actually, there is another very interesting thread somewhere on this website discussing the politics of riding bikes and suggesting that, at least initially, in the US, bikes were not considered vehicles and, because of that, cyclists lost most of their rights). The same scenario would apply when I am riding my bike in the bike lane, which is in most cases the right-est lane. And I would have to wait until the turning car has turned right or pass to the left of it, after making sure it is safe. Such is life. Suggesting the opposite is a disservice to all, as it encourages dangerous driving on the part of both drivers and cyclists.

My two cents.