Here's a question for the hive mind. I'm genuinely undecided about it and I'm curious what other people think.
At red lights, motorists are supposed to move to the right if they want to make a right turn. In many places around here, this means (legally) moving into the bike lane. However, if there's a bike ahead of the motorists, they're stuck. For example:
This is not a legal question, just one of courtesy. Should the bicyclist move forward and around the corner in order to leave the right-turn lane free? Or should motorists just accept that sometimes bicyclists in bike lanes will be in their way?
No question. Bicycles should stay in the bike lane. Some intersections have bike boxes so bikes can move out of the way safely while remaining in the bike lane. Absent that, drivers have to yield to bikes in this situation and they should.
Right. And specifically, those "bike boxes" are sometimes wide enough that the bicyclist can move *to the left side* of the box, leaving the right side free for the car-turning-right to pull up alongside and then turn right.
But in all cases, the bicyclist should stay in their lane and not pull forward into the intersection until the light changes.
Even if there is no bike lane, drivers have to yield to bikes here just like they would have to yield to another car that's in front of them but not turning.
Yes, that's the crux of it - there is no "right" to turn right on red. It's something you get to do when and only when there is nobody waiting to go straight in the right lane. Even if it is a right-turn only lane, using it to turn right on red is a privilege, not a right.
(Personally, I would love to see right on red abolished. I wonder how many bicyclists and pedestrians have died or been seriously injured because of it.)
The model law was ‘right on red after stop’. The ‘after stop’ part is frequently forgotten.
The correct answer is (C) Bicyclists should never be put in this position. Fix the lanes so that cars and bikes are kept separate. Not enough room on the street? Fine. Eliminate a car lane, eliminate street parking, whatever it takes.
This is possible only to a certain extent. Left turns on a bicycle must cross auto traffic. Right-on-red vehicles coming from a crossing roadway, the majority of which don’t stop before the turn as they are supposed to, may not see a bike.
1000% on all of Steve_OH's points!
I make a point of getting in front of cars to allow me to proceed straight before cars start turning across the bike lane. Cars turning right and not paying attention can just mow down bikes going straight. Ask me how I know!
A different version of this question:
You’re driving your SUV or large pick up truck on a four lane road, two travel lanes in each direction. You approach a red light with no turn lane. The light turns red, and you’re in the right lane. You see someone behind you with their turn signal on. Even though you’re going straight, should you turn so you get out of their way and they can proceed?
Of course not, but you’re a real dude in a real vehicle, not some weenie on a toy! /s
You shouldn't. However, if the shoulder permits it, you SHOULD move to the left a bit in your lane and scootch forward as much as is legal and safe so they can sneak around to your right, if possible.
Follow the rules of the road, predictable is safe. As an emergency vehicle operator once said, they are all out to hit you and get you cashiered. Pull to the →right← for sirens and lights.
Or should motorists just accept that sometimes bicyclists in bike lanes will be in their way?
Yes.
Safety is a million, zillion, trillion times more important than getting home in time for the kickoff.
+1
Yup!
I'm with you.
Yes, although where she stopped is nowhere near the intersection and she shouldn't just stop in the lane any more than some car should stop several car lengths from the intersection.
She should be at the crosswalk, where she can be seen rather than back where a car that fails to use its signal may fail to yield to her.
This is why bike boxes are good (and why motorcycles and mopeds should share this space)
Crissa do you bike? Some people, I have joined the group as I have gotten older, have a hard time getting started when using their own power. So they give themselves space like this when at a light and slowly creep up trying to time the light with getting a head start. You can’t just push a gas pedal and to 5-10 mph. You start off at 1-2 mph and it can be hard to get through a light in time. This light doesn’t look like she has too many lanes to cross, but that is what many cyclists do.
Since I, for good reasons, think that right-on-red was a mistake, I don’t care if the car has to wait for the green light. They’ll be less likely to be involved in a motor-vehicle collision anyway. Chill, dude.
Here’s a situation for consideration by your readers: I drive a small coupe. Even if I’m the first car in line at a red light, there’s almost always an effin’ huge SUV or pickup to my left — no way I can see if it’s safe to make that right-on-red-after-stop. Should I a) go for it? YOLO; b) pull forward as far as possible without blocking the pedestrian crosswalk? I usually find if I do this, the vehicle to my left pulls forward also - WTH? c) pull forward, possibly blocking the pedestrian crosswalk, until I can see traffic? d) suck it up and wait?
*full disclosure: I’m also a cyclist
Yeah, what the heck is that all about with the vehicle on the left also pulling up? That's one of my pet peeves. I see that happen all the time around here in St. Louis.
Although to be fair, lately there's been a non-negligible chance that the person on my left will then do a right on red anyhow.
Post-pandemic, red lights seem to be suggestions only. And the lane the car is in has little bearing on which way they end up turning, with or without a red light.
All those can be seen frequently in Minneapolis (St. Paul drivers are less nuts).
I think people do that subconsciously when the car next to them moves because they think the light turned green. They're not necessarily looking at the light but see the car next to them start to go and just assume, for half a second until they actually look at the light, it turned green.
If you can't see to your left, you should wait for the green. Right turn on red is something you're allowed to do when conditions are right, not something you have to do ever.
Yeah, try telling that to the car in back of you who is leaning on his horn and flipping you the bird!
Sticks and stones, I just watch for the pistols …
What if instead of a bicycle, it's a motorcycle? What if it's a Smart Car? Are some vehicles less entitled to use roads than others?
Back in the day when I lived in Boulder, game day Saturdays were the worst. Being in the bike lane on the road, I would routinely get some drunk jackass shouting, "The road is for f@#$ing cars!".
No dude, this is precisely why I'm going to be as visible as possible and stay in the lane. Pulling over to the side is only inviting them to not see you and run you over.
Vehicles shouldn't stop several vehicle lengths from the intersection.
I always pull to the right or just around the corner to let the car make the right turn. It would feel rude not to.
round-a-bouts everywhere.
I commute by bike and drive ~10% of the time. It strikes me as polite to scoot to the left (onto the lane line), or just ahead into the crosswalk so the motorist can move past you and complete their turn. IMHO more goodwill on the road is better.
Exactly - moving left onto the lane line is the answer because it is the safest way to share the road as the car is turning away from the cyclist instead of towards them.
In general I stay to the left edge of the bike lane.
Yes.
I've seen places where there is a right-turn lane completely to the right of the bike lane. Bikes going straight stay in their lane; all vehicles turning right get into the right turn lane. They have to cross through the bike lane to get there, but the crossing zone is well marked. I don't suppose these are practical to build on more congested city streets.
Yes they are re-striping a lot of roads where I live (Oakland, CA) and many of them have this bike-lane-to-the-left-of-the-right-turn-lane.
It makes me nervous though, like, really? this green paint on the road is going to keep me from getting hit by a car? So I often sort of ignore those and just pull way over to the right. That's just a personal thing though.
Even without a right-turn lane to the right of the bike lane, drivers would have to cross the bike lane at some point to make a right.
Do you really? Seems like a good way to get hit by one of those cars parked in the other lane. I often see cars in that lane dart out and make a right turn at the last second in my car or while cycling. They saw you in the bike lane when they came to the intersection, then when they realize they needed to make a right, they don’t check to see if you have moved.
Until you bike a lot in the US (for me, LA), you wouldn't realize certain counter intuitive things.
Yes, the idea is to get out of the way of cars, generally.
HOWEVER, the correct answer here (since the cyclist is in this picture going straight) is to MOVE TO THE LEFT, as far in front as can be of the car in the lane which is also going straight.
Reasons:
1. Number one is to be seen by cars. Here, the most dangerous car is not the one behind you, its the car to the cyclist's left, which may not see the cyclist so could easily decide "well, I am not in the right turn lane but just remembered I need to turn right."
2. This has the added benefit of allowing the care who wants to turn right to turn right, but that's a side benefit.
3. One might wonder about "hanging back" as the cyclist, "why not let the cars all go?" Well, that just multiplies the risk set forth in Item 1 by the number of cars. Its always best to be in the most visible spot.
Even if the most visible spot seems to be the most annoying.
Good points.
Gotta go with what's safer for the more vulnerable vehicle, and being predictable and visible are what's safer.
That also means I don't hold with urban cyclists drifting through red lights when there's no cross traffic, or slipping up onto sidewalks, or riding between lanes. Not that stuff like that isn't tempting, but I've been a cyclist myself and the idea is supposed to be that you're a vehicle on the road. Motor or not.
If you're 100% sure you're visible when you do the polite thing, maybe, preferably with eye contact. But safety first, imo.
Literally they're supposed to ride between the lanes. This is the law in most of the world and California. Only Canada and 45 of the 50 states block motorcycles from filtering, and bicycles are allowed to filter in every state.
Really? You call it ‘filtering’, I would call it ‘waiting to be crushed like a bug’. Even when I’m driving my car, i prefer a buffer zone on sides as well as ahead to the extent possible; being alongside another vehicle takes away a degree of freedom for emergency maneuvering.
The cyclist is already afraid of road rage and aggression from cars on the road. Don't make them additionally worry about what direction the car behind them might want to go.
Also: Why would turning the corner necessarily mean the car can go around them? What if there's no bike lane in the crossing road?
The actual right turn drivers shouldn't be pulling into the bike lane anyway as most bike lanes aren't a car with wide to begin with. Do your right turn from the regular car lane and check that you aren't clipping any bikes.
I commute by bike daily (well, e-bike) for 13 miles each way across suburban Vancouver WA and encounter just about every possible version of this sort of intersection. Some have bike lanes and bike boxes, some have bike lanes and no bike box, some have no bike lane and barely any shoulder. My response is usually geared toward the situation.
Many of these intersections also have light signals triggered by inductive coils in the pavement which are not in the bike lane and that forces me to ride up onto the sidewalk to press the call button to get the light to change, otherwise if I am on a side street the light can cycle through and never give me a green. Sometimes there is no bike lane just a busy right turn lane and I also often pull up on the sidewalk to stay out of the way of idiot drivers who may try to squeeze past me doing a left turn.
Sometimes it is exactly as described by Kevin and then I just stop in the bike lane and wait for the light as is my right and what is expected in this situation.
Regardless I am damn visible. My e-bike has a good built-in tail light which I supplement by and additional industrial power flasher as well as a flashing vest and plenty of reflective clothing. At this point in the season my ride to work is entirely in the dark due to daylight saving time this late in the year and this far north. Can't wait for next week when daylight savings ends and it is finally light again during my morning commute. But that is another issue. I don't mind riding in the dark. I mind not being entirely visible while riding in the dark.
This isn't the way I've seen recommended. If you're turning right, you should get over into the bike lane. Where I live the lane lines and signs clearly indicate near an intersection that the lane should be shared. Of course you check for bikes when you move into that lane. If you leave the bike lane open and you're signalling a right turn, smart bicyclists will stay behind you anyway. On the right side of a right-turning car is not where they want to be.
In California, up to 200' from an intersection a car is allowed to merge with, and yield to, cyclists in their lane.
If I were the cyclist in that intersection, I wouldn't try to go forward and to the right. It looks to me like it would be unsafe, putting me at risk of getting hit by cars coming from multiple directions, and I think it would probably be illegal.
What I sometimes do when I'm a cyclist stopping at a red light on a multi-lane road is get over to the *left*, so there's less danger of getting hit by a car turning right. I'll especially do that if there aren't any cars in the left lane. It's legal, and it's often recommended in bike safety classes.
But that particular intersection? It looks very busy and not very well designed, and I don't think there's much that particular cyclist could do any better than what they're doing in that picture.
She's literally two car-lengths from the intersection. She's quite likely to be clipped by a car turning right from the wrong lane because she's hiding back there in the danger zone.
No one should stop several lengths back from where others expect them to stop.
The shocking part of that photo to me is the bicyclist stopped at a red light. In Denver, bicyclists come at my car from about any direction, even at one way streets . Stop lights/signs are just suggestions. And bicycles and those electric Uber/lyft scooters must travel in the busiest streets available instead of the low-traffic residential streets just one block to the left or right. ..,,, do I sound bitter?
Far more cars run reds.
That I doubt. As a cyclist I treat them as yellow lights. Proceed cautiously but if no one is there I ain’t sitting around waiting.
In absolute terms , most certainly. As a percentage? I doubt it is close.
The problem with the "low traffic residential streets" is that it is almost impossible to cross the busy streets while on them because there are no stop signs or lights to stop cross traffic.
Some cities pick streets that are lower traffic, but do have lights at intersections with busy roads, and turn them into shared car/bike roads. That does help, but not all areas have one that a bicyclist can get to easily.
I live in St. Paul, MN. I use a shared low-traffic route when I can; there is a nearby one with lights at busy crossings. My only gripe with is the problem mentioned by Camasonian — the lights are triggered by cars but not bikes, so I have to push the pedestrian-crossing button to get a green light. I don’t ride through red lights, ever. I prefer the shared low-traffic routes to even the dedicated (but not protected) bike lanes on busy streets, with motor vehicles whizzing by at 10 mph or more above posted limits.
The premise that the bicyclist will stop at the red light is all too frequently flawed…
That said, when I am on a bike, I do indeed stop at the red light, and if I can safely pull forward/left enough to allow cars to make the right on red, I will.
In Portland, a newish law allows bicyclists to treat stop signs as a yield sign, such that they can fly through an intersection without stopping. What do you think about that?
That should be the law everywhere. I think it is the law in Idaho.
I wouldn't say "fly through an intersection" is the way to handle a yield sign, though. Proceed cautiously at low speed, so you can stop for cross traffic if it's there.
Yeah, bikes are at such a low speed that stopping is unnecessary.
I like the idea, provided that intersections are marked as to whether cross traffic has a stop, or not, and sight lines are adequate. I think that might require specific signage, not just redefining existing stop signs.
I think it is Darwinism.
There's a meta-question: does driving 2+ tons of metal and plastic make you more entitled than someone with a 50 pounds of bicycle? Or should everyone wait their turn as equals? Or even: should the more vulnerable cyclist have more consideration?
People being the dreadful species that we are, I suspect cyclists are seen at best as impediments, at worst as targets of opportunity.
If a right turn on red is allowed, the bicyclist should move to the right to allow the car to turn. I do this in my state, where right on red is permitted. If there is no right on red permitted, there's no reason for the bicyclist to move.
Now what about someone on a trike? Or, more likely, an e-trike?
My general feeling as someone who bikes and drives regularly is that motorists should give cyclists wide berth and utmost courtesy, since they take up so little space, are at greater risk, and are a minor inconvenience. Around here, the lycra-clad club cyclists occasionally take over the shoulder of a two-lane state road that winds through many towns, and they annoy many drivers a lot. That kind of behavior is legal, but rude.
Why would this annoy drivers? Everywhere I know of forbids driving on shoulders.
In Switzerland, where I lived for 10 years, the officially recognized priority for use of the public streets is
1. Pedestrians
2. Bicycles
3. Public Transportation
4. Personal cars
5. Commercial Vehicles
This is true for situations like you describe, but also extends to things like timing of traffic signals, speed limits, lane designations, you name it. Slowing traffic down to make things a little more convenient for pedestrians or cyclists is A-OK. Drivers are fine with that.
I have a similar situation that may shed light here.
At the traffic light where the side street coming out of my neighborhood meets the artery, there are two lanes, a left turn and a straight/right turn. There's no room for anything else. If I want to turn right but there's already a car in that lane intending to go straight, I have to wait for the light, I have no choice.
It's the same situation except with a car instead of a bicycle, so there's no nonsense about giving up its right of way because it would be physically possible for it to scoot over somewhere unsafe.
Therefore, I vote: bicyclist stays where she is.
Wow. It is fascinating to me as a regular cyclist to read the responses here, almost all of which are totally different from my conflict-averse approach.
My overriding (so to speak) belief is that most drivers are on their phones most of the time. As a result I am very scared of what they can do to me with a simple one-second moment of forgetfulness at the wheel. Cars are hard and you are soft. Never forget that!
I look at that photo and here's how I assess it: 4 lanes of traffic going one way (the cyclist is in the far right lane of those 4 lanes). I assume 4 lanes also going the other way. In other words, a MAJOR thoroughfare, and no painted bike lanes even, and the sidewalk looks unused and unkempt. In other words, car land, big time. (Very Orange County in that sense, by the way). Plus all cars are late model cars, meaning, people are fairly rich around there. Rich people tend to be very entitled and have an attitude of "I paid for this car, and this road, and I have the right to go really fast and you shouldn't be here on your slow bicycle." Call me biased but that's how I read it.
Plus that cyclist has no helmet and no lights. On a huge thoroughfare. OMG.
On the side of what the cyclist is doing, we can see that two cars from the opposing side are turning to their left (camera right). So the cyclist may have determined that the cars behind her wouldn't be able to make that right turn anyway; that they would be blocked by the oncoming turning cars. As a result she sits there blocking the lane.
On the plus side (the plus side for safety, that is), the corner sidewalk to the cyclist's right has a wheelchair ramp, which makes it a lot easier to ride up on.
In this particular case, I would ride up to the traffic light pole on the right and push the button for the crossing signal, and wait there for the light, then I would ride across in the crosswalk. In other words, the cars behind the cyclist would have free reign to turn right if they wanted to. Call me over-cautious, but I'm not dying at the hands of someone on Instagram Live. Not anytime soon, anyway!
(I'll just add, for those who care, that riding on the sidewalk is legal in LA County, though illegal in most "urban" or downtown areas, and don't try it in Santa Monica! SM is famous for handing out expensive tickets to cyclists. I have no idea what the rules are in Orange County, where I assume this photo was taken.)
I am also a regular urban cyclist, in LA in my case, and you're one of the few that gave the right answer! Every visible courtesy a cyclist makes to motorists is a step forward in the campaign to make motorists see and be considerate to cyclists! It's a virtuous circle.
Of *course* the road should be painted with lanes that make this kind of courtesy easy to make and safe for cyclists. In the real world we have to make little decisions like this every day; courtesy and good will should be the default goal.
Thanks for your comment! Temperamentally, I completely agree with your comment and always hope that by being extra polite, I am winning over at least one driver to the idea that not all cyclists are there to ruin their day and their investment in a Porsche or what not.
In the real world, after years of being polite, I have come to feel that drivers in LA are basically very dangerous and very attached to the idea that their destiny in life is to drive really fast in the city, and nothing is going to change them or stop them. Not soon, anyway.
As a cyclist I always defer to cars. It’s common safety sense. Put away the ego and the small inconvenience and move over. Cars waste gas sitting there and why are you biking anyway? They are also bigger and driven by plenty of clueless morons. Safety first.
Yep. That's the way to stay alive.
I have a road right by my house that looks like it could cause this problem, since the majority of cars are turning at the intersection. But it really doesn't, because it's a low traffic road and bikes do not trigger the light to change (I learned this the hard way - by waiting ages and ages until a car finally showed up). Only cars in the roadway or the pedestrian button trigger the light to change.
So, when biking on that road 9 times out of 10 I have to pop up onto the sidewalk to hit the pedestrian cross button so the light will change. Then I wait on the sidewalk until the light changes. By then any right turner who has shown up at the intersection after me is done with their turn, and I go on green.
In the rare instance that a car is already there when I get to the intersection, I move up into the rear half of the crosswalk, leaving space on my right. Right turners can get around me, so can the rare pedestrian, and the straight drivers can see me. As soon as the light turns I can shift a bit to the right to make more room for the cars going straight.
Luckily it's a wide road, and residential, so I've never heard of a bike/car accident there in the 20 years I've lived near it.
I'm from the Netherlands. I've got just one question. Who thought it was a bright idea to allow cars in a cycling lane at a crossing?
Seriously; when you implement segregated cycling infrastructure, you stárt at the crossing. The road itself might feel more dangerous, but this is the place where the accidents happen.
You can't pick and choose which illegal/unsafe actions you permit yourself when riding a bicycle. Bicyclists routinely blow through stop signs and sometimes even red lights when it suits them. They'll also go up a driveway and ride on the sidewalk for a while if it's faster for them, even if there are pedestrians walking. In the situation depicted she can get up on the curb or a few feet around the corner instead of holding up traffic.
I bet when she's driving a car she doesn't use her turn signals.
I'm just marveling at the "Right turn on red must yield to u-turns" sign.
It's interesting how this appears to be such a relatable problem to many here but completely unrelatable to me (and I assume some other commenters). While we have some bike lanes here in Tampa they are far from ubiquitous and it's not super common to see anyone using them. The exception to that is our Bayshore Boulevard (a linear park) that has a bike lane and is heavily used by people for exercise and recreation. No one commutes by bike. It's usually about 80 degrees for the morning commute and in the 90s with a 50% chance of thunderstorms for the evening commute. Not ideal, especially if you're wearing business attire.
As someone who is a serious cyclist - I ride 10-14 hours a week outside - I try to balance making things safe for myself and not being too much of an irritant to cars.
That's a challenge.
When I'm coming to a 4 way stop sign, and a car has just beat me there, I'd rather they just go than engage in the "you go..no you go" dance. Because I've already stopped and it's a lot easier for the car to go. So sometimes I just blow through the stop sign since that's actually no less safe and easier for both of us. But that pisses motorists off.
In this specific case, if I'm stopped at a red light, and I can move somewhere to let a car behind me make a right, I'll do that. A lot of times that means moving to the far left of the lane or the right side of the lane to my left.
Would I love to not have to do that? Sure. Does it bother me or make me feel unsafe? No.