flangehead

Texas DOT pretends to educate road users with billboards and social media so they can say they're doing something.

The activity is completely inconsequential but I follow them just for the entertainment value.

However, a recent one got me thinking. The video says a motorist is supposed to move into the bike lane to make a right turn ("next to curb"). I don't think that is required by law in TX, though I could be wrong. Other states?

When cycling I take the lane in this situation to prevent a right hook. When operating a motor vehicle, I stay in the motor vehicle lane and stay behind a cyclist in the bike lane until they've cleared and I can turn right. I don't do what WBSTX suggests.

Thoughts?


https://x.com/WalkBikeSafeTX/status/...701425992?s=20

NewATBikeComute

Seems like the correct move, based on the painted line changing to white dashes instead of solid white. No longer a protected bike lane at that point. I have seen the same in MA. By requiring the car to get into the 'lane' (half-lane in that video), it does force the driver to make a conscious choice to be either behind, or clearly ahead of the cyclist before reaching the intersection.

RCMoeur 

The Uniform Vehicle Code and many state laws require a vehicle driver to make a turn from the right-hand edge of the roadway. Bike lanes are generally defined as part of the roadway. I like the concept, as it makes it clear who should go first (driver either moves in in front or behind a bicyclist), and reduces the chance of a right-hook crash - unless the rider chooses to try to pass on the right.

Bike lanes separated from adjacent travel lanes by raised devices or barriers typically prevent a motor vehicle from entering the bike lane, so moving to the far right isn't practicable in such a case.

flangehead

Thank you both for your help. I found the clause in the Texas Transportation Code about approaching as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. I'd missed that.

FBinNY 

I 100% agree that having motorists merge into the bike lane as they approach their turn is the safest way. It avoids right of way confusion and potential right hooks.

The problem is with part two of the concept, namely that, as with any lane change, one must yield to oncoming traffic already in the lane.

Specifically right turning motorists must yield to cyclists in the bike lane when making that move to the right the same way they'd yield to a car.

Iride01 

I don't have any gripe with them recommending that. Maybe some future discussion might change my mind.

However they also should talk to drivers about that separated path seen in the video. Turning traffic in some, maybe many places also have a responsibility to avoid persons or cyclist on it if the pedestrians or cyclist continue straight across the intersection.

Mtracer

I agree that a driver pulling to the far right and into the bike lane would be safest. The problem for a cyclist is most drivers aren’t going to do this. So to avoid a right hook the cyclist takes the lane to block a driver from pulling up beside them.

But since the lane would be partially blocked even if a car did pull into the bike lane, it doesn’t changed anything for other drivers. Unless of course the bike lane is unusually wide and functions more like a right turn lane. In which case, I’d be take the lane anyway since I’m going through the intersection.

Bleu

It hardly seems safe to encourage untrained/poorly trained car drivers to move into the bike lane at all. But the idea to not right hook someone is good. Seems the real problem is the separate but equal nonsense of bike lanes and the way they are put on roads. Unless bike infrastructure is truly separate, it makes things even more dangerous at intersections.

I-Like-To-Bike

What sort of truly separate practical bike infrastructure (or integrated and equal zero infrastructure) are you thinking about for city streets that eliminates any need for courtesy, driving/riding right of way disciple, and/or good sense to avoid potential conflict with bicycle riders when motorists make left or right turns or cross the street at intersections and driveways?

Iride01 

Truly separated infrastructure would require over or under passes at ever place a bike path and motor vehicle path intersect. Even drive ways! And obviously anything termed s separate bike path isn't going to go everywhere I wish to go on a bicycle. So we still need to focus on the integration of bicycles with motor vehicles for those times. And that's going to take a change of how drivers are trained. Which in the USA, most are not. They just learn from a parent or friend that learned from their parent or friend. Even if one took high school drivers ed, most are a joke IMO. They only train for skills needed to move the car on the road and to pass the written test. little if any about how to interact with traffic other than don't hit the other cars.

mschwett 

As others have noted, not possible without grade separation (tunnels, overpasses) or a truly insane amount of signalization.

pie in the sky, money no object, blank sheet of paper … high enough density and mixed uses to allow many trips to be handled by a surface network of bicycle, pedestrian, and autonomous PEVs (for the elderly, mobility impaired, etc), a level of vehicular service access one story below grade, then a robust and fine grained subway network for the bulk of trips in the 5-30 mile range. Giant garages at the perimeter connected to the long distance highway system, but no roads for cars in the city. The surface rights of way could be much smaller, the elimination of parking would 1.5x or double land use efficiency, and the only conflicts you’d need to mediate would be between pedestrians and bicycles/pevs, easily handled with good shared path design.

flangehead

I’m a case in point.

Bleu

I never said practical as it pertains to the USA which begrudges every dime spent on non-car transport as wasted money. Actual training and vetting of class D drivers is the best and most economical method. But that would cost something, and it would remove thousands of dangerous clowns from the roads, if it were enforced of course.

RCMoeur 

Pathways with grade separations on independent alignments (Arizona Canal in the Phoenix area, Cherry Creek Trail in Denver, Cedar Lake path in the Twin Cities area, San Gabriel River & Santa Ana River paths in SoCal) typically work well, as long as they are well maintained and patrolled. Things do get complicated when you have parallel at-grade travel paths with turning movements across each other, though.

I-Like-To-Bike

Where NOT in the USA is unlimited money gladly spent for tunnels and overpasses at every intersection and all the drivers are trained saints to assure that there will be no conflict with bicyclists?

Bleu

Unlimited money spent...nope.. Actual training of car drivers, just about everywhere...