Yesterday I put up this picture:
As a matter of courtesy, not law, I asked what this bicyclist should do. Just stay there because it's a bike lane and that's that? Or, because it's also a right-turn lane, move up a bit and let the right turners make their turns?
I genuinely didn't know how this was going to go, but I didn't expect such a lopsided response:
I'm surprised that such a huge majority think she should stay put. Is that because many of you don't live in states where you can make a right turn on red? It doesn't matter there, of course. Aside from that, though, it takes no effort to stop a little further up instead of right in the lane blocking traffic. So why not do it?
Apparently this argument cuts no ice. Bicyclists can stop where they like, and motorists shouldn't worry about it. End of story.
The bicyclist is just another vehicle. If you are in the lane behind a car that is going straight, you also can't right-on-red? It's exactly the same. I do think the biker should move up for her own safety, but not out of the way so people can go around. That's not expected.
I am sometimes annoyed by a slow biker in my lane (not many bike lanes in my suburb), but I follow at a safe distance and wait for a safe passing point.
This. The biker has an equal right to use the road as intended.
Sure. But if you can let the motorist pass without putting yourself in an unsafe situation, why not do so? All you're doing is pissing off yet another motorist.
I ride my bike a lot. I'm a realist when it comes to this. This is like the car that is *just* blocking you from making a right on red and has plenty of room to move so you could get through. They don't have to. But to not do it is just a jerk move.
Equal right to use the road is not 'blocking the bike lane' tho. There might be other bikes tangled in the traffic behind her, and they're now less safe because they can't filter.
There is an intersection near my home where if I keep my car to the left of the rightmost lane, vehicles wishing to make a right-on-red can do so.
So I keep to the left of the lane.
As a courtesy.
+1
I do the same on my motorcycle or bike.
Me too.
The bike is an inferior sub-bike vehicle because it cannot keep up with a real vehicle's speed and as such ruins the day of anyone unlucky enough to be stuck behind it.
I voted about 5 times. You probably should set an "already voted" cookie.
I think it's tough to have a single answer on this. I put "stay in place", but I personally would pull forward, however I ride on the roads a lot. A lot has to do with how specifically comfortable someone is with being on the road. By pulling forward, I think the cyclists loses their "anchor" next to the curb, which can make them feel exposed.
Also, it gets to the weirdness of how we do bike lanes. The point of a bike lane is to give cyclists a dedicated safe zone on the road, so there just shouldn't be much of an impetus to have them take cars into account.
I'm looking at the paint on the road and I see that that little red car is wider than the lane because, duh, it's a bike lane. I don't know why anyone would think it's sitting in a right turn lane for cars. What the motorist actually wants is for the cyclist to get on the sidewalk and stay there so that the car can make its right turn.
On a practical note, standing your ground is a great way for a cyclist to get hit by a car.
Bingo.. The truck at the head of the right lane has the legal right to make the right on red. Passing cars to the right in the bike lane would be the equivalent of passing cars on a shoulder, highly dangerous and very illegal.
It is not illegal to pass to the right of a bicycle at a light, and no, they should NOT turn right without merging with the bike lane.
That is why the bike lane is dashed there.
It's a lane for bikes. Why would a car pull in to it to make a turn? Just stay in the "car" lane and (after checking for cyclists) make your turn.
If that picture was taken in California, then iIRC before you turn right you're supposed to pull into the bike lane and proceed for a little bit, so that that way you weren't you won't turn right in front of a bicyclist. Does not change the fact that it's still a lame for bikes the bike has just as much right as the car to be there and if it's a red light and the bicyclist is waiting for the light to change, then there's no reason why the bicyclist ought to move: If it were a car we wouldn't insist at the car move after all.
Well, bicycles, like any vehicle, shouldn't just stop and block the lane when there's room in front of them.
How many bike lengths does she have remaining? How many car lengths? Stopping way back from the line is unsafe.
You clearly aren't aware of the concept of the "Right Hook" in cycling. If you were, you'd know that hanging back keeps you from being run over by a sudden turn. And in most cases, even when the cyclist is killed, the driver is held blameless.
TBH Kevin, I would attribute to the wording of the questions. Since the rules say its a bike lane, of course it is 'OK' for her to stay there.....and in the second question 'should' indicates it is expected....so if there was another option of 'She can move out of the way if she wants to be nice, but doesn't have to'.
But just my 2 cents of an opinion.
Do Kevin & the 18% also think motorcyclists should get out of the way?
No comment so far about why the rider might be so far back. It looks unusual and not what most riders would do, certainly not what I've done. There is something on the road in front of her but probably not a crosswalk, and the stop line looks like it's in front of the pickup.
So this is just a WAG because the situation looks so odd, but maybe the pickup is a diesel and she's staying well back of the exhaust; no telling, in other words, whether this is her usual MO. And that's all I've got.
You stay back because you don't want to be crushed by the pickup if it decides to turn right.
Then you're an idiot who's making sure you get crushed when if it turns right.
Stopping in a blind spot is bad, which is why she should move forward.
Sure - why bother to have any consideration for others on the road? I'm hope that she wouldn't complain if drivers show her similar courtesy.
I don’t understand the poll question. If the cyclist pulls forward, won’t they still be in the lane and thus still blocking the car from turning right? What am I missing?
Oh good, so I'm not the only one who was confused. Also, note that there's a car making a left hand turn. Which means the red car is probably going to have to wait, with or without the cyclist.
Yeah, where is she supposed to go that would allow the red car to turn? Hug the pickups blind spot? Get up on the curb? I guess she could pull forward a few feet, but that isn't going help the right turner.
I guess I'm the only one seeing it this way, but American drivers are terrible around bikers and pedestrians. Absolute idiots. When right on red was first allowed car accidents involving pedestrians went up 60% and bikers by 100%, according to a recent Guardian article. The biker most certainly should not move up and shift over to a less visible spot to allow a car to squeeze by her. More likely the cars just won't see her since they are focused like a laser on their right hand turn and so clips her in the process.
And in the picture I think it is very obvious what she is doing. She left enough space in front of her so that a car turning right from the rightmost car lane (! not the bike lane!) won't clip her.
This is why cars should merge with the bike lane, and do so in California.
Most deaths aren't from those up at the stop line, but back where she is.
Kevin is simply wrong about the law.
The relevant question isn't whether it is legal for a car to make a right turn on red. The relevant question is whether it is legal for cars to drive in a bike lane. In the picture on his post the lawbreaking isn't the right turn on red, it is that the car is in the bike lane to begin with.
Here in Washington State most bike lanes are designated with a double width white line which universally means that you can't cross into that lane. That is what it means when you see a double white line on the freeway. So no, it isn't legal for a car to pull into the bike lane to make a right turn. Usually they aren't wide enough for a car anyway.
What the car is supposed to do is stay in his lane and then make a right turn from there while signaling and looking back to make sure there are no bikes in the way.
There are places where the bike lane shifts left to make a bike box and then there is a right turn car lane to the right of the bike lane. When they put these at an intersection they turn a section of the bike lane into a dotted white line so that cars know this is where they can cross the bike lane into a right turn lane.
You are flat wrong.
State law allows cars to merge with, and yield to, bikes in dashed lanes - and cross within 200 feet of an intersection.
There is the law, and then there are the things vehicle operators do to make getting around on the roads safer and more enjoyable.
It is not necessary for the bicyclist to move forward (and, in some cases, doing so may be dangerous), but it is often a nice thing to do.
Ultimately, we should have more separated bike lanes. Painted bike lanes are often filled by cars, which reduces their functionality and safety. A separate lane with a barrier would never invite this kind of incursion.
The solution to this is not the responsibility of the bicyclist, but the road designer. A dedicated lane for right turns needs to provide a bike lane between it and the through lane to its left so that bicyclists going straight won't block cars turning right.
Right on red by default is the law everywhere in the US* except New York City.
*Have you ever noticed that the abbreviation for the United States, U.S., is spelled the same way as the word, "us"?
>>Have you ever noticed that the abbreviation for the United States, U.S., is spelled the same way as the word, "us"?<<
OMG!
I came to the comments section to make exactly the same observation: "states where you can make a right turn on red" is all of them. (Trust a Californian to have missed that little detail.)
By coincidence, I was in Philadelphia this past weekend for the first time in decades. When "right turn on red" was first introduced nationally, circa 1975, Philly was also exempt from the law in PA, as NYC was in New York. I was embarrassed to have to ask the hotel clerk if that was still the case, almost 50 years later. He told me that it is now legal there, and reassured me that mine was nowhere the dumbest question he has been asked.
Here in Seattle they are converting most traffic light intersections to forbid right turns on red. I'm not sure what the legal basis is but they're definitely doing it.
As a regular bike commuter I used to frequently face the dilemma in Kevin's photo, but no longer. But when I do drive, sitting and staring at a "no right on red" sign is way annoying.
The city says that Seattle's pedestrian death rate is way down.
My employer's firewall blocked the survey, but I would have voted for "move out of the way if you can cyclist!" Heck, on roads like this where there are 3 lanes going straight and a (car)driver going straight decides to block people who want to go right on red I get annoyed. I myself try not to unnecessarily block the right-on-red lane out of courtesy.
Kevin lives in Irvine but the world is changing from auto oriented dominance slowly and slowly. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23939076/norway-electric-vehicle-cars-evs-tesla-oslo
"Over the last decade, Oslo has joined Bergen, Trondheim, and Stavanger (Norway’s four largest cities) in committing to meet all future trip growth through transit, biking, and walking — not cars. Seeking to reduce driving, Oslo has removed over 4,000 parking spots since 2016 while also building bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and adjusting traffic patterns to reduce through traffic. Those efforts helped the city achieve a remarkable milestone in 2019: For a full year, not a single pedestrian or cyclist was killed in a crash."
"Bicyclists can stop where they like..."
Shame on you, Kevin. No one said that. The bicyclist stops where she belongs--in the bike lane. You're giving away your bias by turning that into "where they like."
Also, bikes shouldn't stop in the bike lane. It's a travel lane. For bikes. She's not at the intersection yet.
I didn't see the poll choice for this. Can you perhaps point it out to me, Kevin?
"Aside from that, though, it takes no effort to stop a little further up instead of right in the lane blocking traffic. So why not do it?"
I think I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "a little further up". Certainly you don't mean into the intersection. That wouldn't make sense, help the car, or be safe. She could move closer to the curb, I suppose, but I'm not really convinced there's enough room for a car to squeeze by her in the lane safely. It doesn't seem right to expect her to cling to the curb while larger vehicles whiz by.
I live in an area where we do have right turn on red. We don't have a lot of cyclists, which is maybe why I'm fine with the few I encounter taking whatever right of way they're entitled to in an effort to stay safe. Sure, as a driver, I'd love to be able to turn left on red and get on my way, but also as a driver, I don't want to risk endangering people, so the lack of good bike lanes and safety measures for them tends to stress me out. (Again, not the cyclists' fault.)
I would liken it to motorists who hog the whole right lane when they intend to go straight and not leaving enough room for the someone behind them to turn right. It's just a lack of thought of other cars and drivers.
It seems that motorists ofren want to complain about the behavior of bicyclists, despite the fact that motorists have all the advantages. It's almost impossible for a cyclist injured by a motorist to prevail in court, unless the motorist was impaired and left the scene. Police hardly count accidents involving cyclists as motor vehicle accidents when they involve a motorist, so accidents are undercounted. And the infrastructure always puts the motorist first.
I say cyclists should take whatever they can legally and safely get.
When I bike around, I try my best to be courteous. Same as when I drive.
This bike is not being courteous. Move your ass and let the car by, sheesh.
This just hardly ever happens. I don't mind waiting for the green on the very rare occasions that it does.
Also, yeah, the bike is just another vehicle. When the vehicle ahead of you isn't turning right, you're kind of stuck. That's how it goes.
I voted stay but would also try to make room for traffic as a cyclist.
that being said, people need to re-educate themselves. we live in what I call an Auto-Centric Society or short Auto-cracy ????
and we need to learn to be able to share the streets, bikes, pedestrians, cars...
Cars should start taking back seats and stop feeling entitled to 'their' streets
I voted for "It's OK to stop" because it's allowed. But that doesn't mean I like it. Depends on circumstances. How the road is marked, traffic lights & signs, inclement weather, bike (or cyclist) loaded up with stuff, children or clearly inexperienced adults, seniors - I'll wait.
But if it's a more open situation, and I'm in a rush, and there's a fit cyclists (wearing bike gear), I might tap the horn.
Ive been an urban bike commuter for 35 years. I move when a vehicle is turning if there is a safe way for me to do it. I also make eye contact with the driver so they know Im being courteous and its clear to go.
I think (hope) each time I do it that it creates good will between us ancient enemies, cyclists vs driver
No one has noticed that the pickup in front of our female bicyclist has a window down and an arm hanging out of it? Maybe she stopped short because she doesn't want their attention. In any case, there are too many variables at play here to correctly summarize what this one bicyclist is doing in this one instance.
But its a bike lane. Can she move forward? Sure. Is it her obligation? No. #trustbicyclists
I hope these thoughts make some sense
The picture is lousy first off. If this is a 2 lane road WITH a bike lane then to me the onus for safety is on the guy in the pickup truck right lane. Why? Well he SHOULD have his right turn signal ON (same for motorcyclists). This would then make this picture seem "right" and the bicyclist who does NOT have that turn signal capability should ONLY pull up as far at the right front tire of the care behind the pickup
The problem is NO ONE seems to use turn signals anymore but given the disparity between a motor vehicle and a bicycle perhaps this rider is shell shocked and does not want to take the chance.
Also note in the photo there is a car turning in front of the pick up so no matter what, that pick up would need to stop to allow the other vehicle to clear the intersection before it could turn right on red. I think the cyclist is practicing an abundance of caution
We are assuming that all the drivers are obeying the rules of the road and the person LEAST protected of all of them is the bicycle rider. I, myself am guilty of NOT using a turn signal on occasion. But a 3,000 PLUS pound car or truck sharing the pavement with a bicyclist better darned sure make every effort to stop themselves from hitting that rider
Just my $0.04 worth (2 cents worth adjusted for inflation)
The best cyclist is a run over cyclist.
Anyhow I put this to the cyclist spouse and the response was that the courteous thing to do is go way to the edge and share the lane with the car.