Car with turn signal--should cyclist approaching from behind stop?

This morning I was traveling eastbound on Kinzie, approaching Wells with a green light. I intended to go straight through the intersection (and ultimately did).

As I approached the intersection, a pickup truck also traveling eastbound was slowing down, with its blinker on, to turn right on Wells.

My first thought was, "I have the right of way here because I am in a traffic lane (the bike lane) and intending to proceed straight." So I didn't slow down.

Of course, the truck "cut me off" and I had to brake abruptly.

Looking back, I feel that this near-accident was foreseeable. Perhaps I should simply have yielded to the turning driver.

At the same time, shouldn't the "right" thing be that a driver wishing to turn right yields to the traffic in the (bike) lane to his right?

Maybe the answer is that, as in so many other instances, it is dangerous to assume drivers know the law and thus the safest action is to ride extremely defensively.

Views: 1602

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on May 14, 2014 at 8:58am

I generally agree, unless the first car is signaling a right turn.  Then you're blocking them.

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on May 14, 2014 at 9:35am


Yeah, the ordinance is poorly worded.  The language does suggest it will only apply where the motor vehicle has first overtaken the bicyclist.  However, other parts of the Ordinance, and the Illinois Vehicle Code, require drivers to use due care to avoid striking a person on a bicycle, and to make right turns from the farthest right part of the roadway, and to use a turn signal.  That section was of course written before the creation of our new bike lanes.  

There is no good reason why a driver should only have to give way where he or she has first overtaken a bicyclist.  My guess is that it was written based on an assumption that this will generally be the case...


Alex Z said:

I don't think this is technically correct...Brendan, if you are still reading, can you advise?

Tominator said:

Sounds like cyclist was overtaking the car, however, in which case she does not have the right of way.

Motorist has to yield if it's overtaking the cyclist. But if a bike is coming up on a right turning car, that car is not very likely to see the overtaking cyclist. Cyclist has to yield.



Julie Hochstadter said:

So it sounds like legally you had the right of way to go straight, but everyone is suggesting you yield to avoid getting hit (copied below from Brendan's blog post) 

9-16-020(f)  Turning right in front of a bicycle
When a motor vehicle and a bicycle are traveling in the same direction on any highway, street or road, the operator of the motor vehicle overtaking such bicycle traveling on the right side of the roadway shall not turn to the right in front of the bicycle at that intersection or at any alley or driveway until such vehicle has overtaken and is safely clear of the bicycle.

Are drivers educated on this (i.e. are there signs, PSAs, significant test questions on the driver's license exams)?

This does seem to be one of the bigger potentials for crashes.  

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on May 14, 2014 at 9:43am

I wonder if new laws will be written soon to account for the new infrastructure....

Permalink Reply by David P. on May 14, 2014 at 10:38am

You may have been right, but you're also correct that it was a foreseeable situation and I agree with your final conclusion. Waiting for you may have been correct, but you're still the one who's going to get hurt. When I'm approaching an intersection in which I either know someone in front of me wants to turn across my path or it's even a possibility and I'm unable to keep stay directly behind or to the left of the vehicle, then I position myself for my own safety - I either (if possible) put myself at the very least ahead of the vehicle's cowl (ahead of driver's eyeballs) or much farther ahead in the case of large trucks or, if that is not possible or not prudent, I position myself behind the car's rear quarter so that if the driver moves into my path I have room to react, or don't need to react. Smart, attentive positioning in conflict zones really goes a long way towards reducing near-misses. When I was a teenager I read 'Road Craft', a really good British driving manual that had some effect on how I drove but also on how I rode once I started riding in urban traffic. This was probably one of those things.

Permalink Reply by Kevin Mulcky on May 14, 2014 at 11:05am

I use the same technique. If I suspect a car might be turning right (with or without a signal), I'll line up behind it instead of risking being caught in a right-hook scenario if the light turns red while I'm trying to get to the front of the traffic queue. 

Mike Schwab said:

At a stop light with a lineup of cars, stop behind the first car at the red light.  Follow them through the intersection.


Permalink Reply by Simon Phearson on May 14, 2014 at 11:37am

I think the ordinance makes a lot more sense if you factor out the possibility of there being bike lanes to the right of right-turners. If the rightmost lane is always a car-traffic lane, then cyclists won't generally be overtaking moving traffic on the right. That's true even if you factor back in the recent change explicitly permitting bike passage on the right - I'm skeptical the requisite safe circumstances are likely to arise when moving traffic in the rightmost lane is turning right.

The ordinance provides a useful protection for cyclists in bike lanes, but I think in the end it wasn't intended for them. It doesn't really contemplate how driver/cyclist interactions are likely to work out at intersections, as the responses have made clear.

Brendan Kevenides said:


Yeah, the ordinance is poorly worded.  The language does suggest it will only apply where the motor vehicle has first overtaken the bicyclist.  However, other parts of the Ordinance, and the Illinois Vehicle Code, require drivers to use due care to avoid striking a person on a bicycle, and to make right turns from the farthest right part of the roadway, and to use a turn signal.  That section was of course written before the creation of our new bike lanes.  

There is no good reason why a driver should only have to give way where he or she has first overtaken a bicyclist.  My guess is that it was written based on an assumption that this will generally be the case...


Alex Z said:

I don't think this is technically correct...Brendan, if you are still reading, can you advise?

Tominator said:

Sounds like cyclist was overtaking the car, however, in which case she does not have the right of way.

Motorist has to yield if it's overtaking the cyclist. But if a bike is coming up on a right turning car, that car is not very likely to see the overtaking cyclist. Cyclist has to yield.



Julie Hochstadter said:

So it sounds like legally you had the right of way to go straight, but everyone is suggesting you yield to avoid getting hit (copied below from Brendan's blog post) 

9-16-020(f)  Turning right in front of a bicycle
When a motor vehicle and a bicycle are traveling in the same direction on any highway, street or road, the operator of the motor vehicle overtaking such bicycle traveling on the right side of the roadway shall not turn to the right in front of the bicycle at that intersection or at any alley or driveway until such vehicle has overtaken and is safely clear of the bicycle.

Are drivers educated on this (i.e. are there signs, PSAs, significant test questions on the driver's license exams)?

This does seem to be one of the bigger potentials for crashes.  

Permalink Reply by daWillinChi on May 15, 2014 at 3:59am

Technicalities aside, is common sense lost in the advent of entitlement?

I see a car passing me and has his blinkers on. I know I have the right of way for being on the bike lane.

Yes, he should've seen me. Yes, he should yield until safe to turn, etc and so on and so on.

But, hey, I'd rather be uninjured and stop and see if he's going to just turn right or yield.

Permalink Reply by S on May 15, 2014 at 4:33am

+1 on this, it doesn't help you any if your estate wins that multi-million dollar lawsuit.

J.A.W. said:

Technicalities aside, is common sense lost in the advent of entitlement?

I see a car passing me and has his blinkers on. I know I have the right of way for being on the bike lane.

Yes, he should've seen me. Yes, he should yield until safe to turn, etc and so on and so on.

But, hey, I'd rather be uninjured and stop and see if he's going to just turn right or yield.

Permalink Reply by David of the North (David606xx) on May 15, 2014 at 7:19am

I had a lovely interaction with a driver on Clark the other day--very similar scenario. I saw her turn signal, tapped my brakes and got behind her bumper where I flashed her a hand signal that she was clear to complete her turn. She signaled back, and as she eased right, I eased around her on the left and took the open lane. 

Generally, I find it safest to assume that drivers don't see me. I try to be aware of the zone where cars don't need to be and ride there. Sometimes that's the centerline or even an empty oncoming lane, but it's always about recognizing the natural flow of all vehicles and pedestrians and finding one's place in it.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service