Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Jarrow on December 2, 2011 at 9:36am

The right turn lane is still the far right hand lane - there's still no straight-through lane to the right of turning cars.  I don't see how a lack of a dedicated turn lane makes a difference in terms of that, especially as there is often no dedicated bike lane and bicyclists use the right side of the road as their lane.   And if you're going to be so insistent on upholding traffic law, which I can personally admire, please apply that law equally to bicyclists when dealing with traffic situations.   Red lights, turns, right of way, one way streets, etc.  ;)

Michelle Gregorek said:

You are referring to a dedicated right turn lane.  I was not.  Where I commute there is usually parking spaces that take up the dedicated right turn lane showing in the picture you posted.  Which means, NO RIGHT TURN IN FRONT OF BUSES AND BIKES.

Richard Jarrow said:

How can you think that?   There's no precedent for any vehicle going straight through the path of another vehicle trying to turn.   Bicycists don't mind swerving all over traffic and riding whereever they like in the lanes and in-between lanes - even all the way to the left - so why are you insistent on the bike lane being on the far right hand side in this instance?   If a car is turning right, the bike lane is immediately to the LEFT of that car turning right. I've seen painted bike lanes in just that configuration.  You're foolish if you think creeping up the blind spot of a driver while they're turning right (who justifiably has their attention turned towards their LEFT - to prevent them from getting t-boned in an intersection) and intending to go straight is going to turn out well.

Michelle Gregorek said:

"I mean, there's not a lane going straight that is to the RIGHT of a vehicle turning right, is there?  ;)"

Yes there is.  It's the bike lane.

Richard Jarrow said:

"Turning in front of a cyclist" is such an ambiguous term..  If a car is making a right turn, then that vehicle is in the right-most lane.  I mean, there's not a lane going straight that is to the RIGHT of a vehicle turning right, is there?  ;)    Cyclists shouldn't be to the right of a vehicle turning right unless that cyclist is also turning right.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle Gregorek on December 2, 2011 at 9:55am

Well Richard, I have to get back on my bike now so I will leave you with one question.  Have you even watched the video linked to in the initial post?  Please watch it if you have not.  Enjoy this beautiful day!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Jarrow on December 2, 2011 at 10:06am

I have, and found it severely lacking in mentioning the responsibility of the bicyclists on the road to also participate in the traffic law. Even in the section of the video where the car is turning in front of the bicyclist, at a stop sign they still don't show that bicyclist coming to a complete stop at the stop sign.  

Stand at a busy intersection downtown and see how many cyclists actually wait for a green light, or who actually stop at a stoplight or stop sign.  Not to mention one-way streets, especially downtown in the loop.    I'm not disagreeing that EVERYONE has to take the traffic law seriously, emphasis on EVERYONE - drivers and bicyclists alike.  

Let's take your situation.  You knew that car was turning right.  You knew you were going straight.  Why push the issue and keep yourself to the right of that car.  If you really wanted to be in that lane and there was no dedicated lane, you stay BEHIND the car - not even with its doors.   Sounds like there wasn't a lot of wiggle room either way.   And if you were willing to be that close to a car, why not just let that car turn right and get to the left side of it, as in that pic I put in my other post?  The logic of that lane configuration is correct even if there are no dedicated lanes or paint on the street.

Michelle Gregorek said:

Well Richard, I have to get back on my bike now so I will leave you with one question.  Have you even watched the video linked to in the initial post?  Please watch it if you have not.  Enjoy this beautiful day!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Jarrow on December 2, 2011 at 10:13am

I've heard the term, and you are correct that cars shouldn't push a cyclist to the right to get their turn in, but a cyclist should also recognize that if a car is turning right, they don't need to remain on the right side of that car, especially if they're coming up from behind that car.   I've had cyclists basically come up on my right side (even WITH a dedicated turn lane), knowing I was turning right (I'm good with signaling) and basically block my turn until they feel it's acceptable to jump the light and get out of the way or go with traffic at the green.  All while there was no reason to do so - they could have come up on my left side, and neither one of us would have been interfering in the others intended path.

Cameron Puetz said:

The text of the law addresses vehicles that are passing a bicycle and then begin making a turn before safely completing their pass. This isn't really a concern at intersections with turn lanes like the picture you posted, as the lane markings make it obvious for turning traffic to move to the right of all traffic including bicycles before beginning a turn. This is more of a problem at interactions without turn lanes where car will turn from the right most car lane, which may involve turning across a bike lane, or across the path of a cyclist that they are sharing a lane with. This is a huge hazard to cyclists, commonly referred to as a right hook.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scotto 6.8 on December 2, 2011 at 10:19am

Richard,

Not every driver is good with signaling, so it would be hard to do what you are proposing (what I think you're proposing-cyclist gets to the left of any car that is turning right) in the first place.  

Apart from it being unnecessary and generally not a good idea.  Not all cyclists weave back and forth as you say, so forcing them to weave back and forth will make it more dangerous for all (cyclists inexperienced at weaving, and drivers not knowing what the cyclist thinks he's doing weaving back and forth).

Scott

Richard Jarrow said:

I've heard the term, and you are correct that cars shouldn't push a cyclist to the right to get their turn in, but a cyclist should also recognize that if a car is turning right, they don't need to remain on the right side of that car, especially if they're coming up from behind that car.   I've had cyclists basically come up on my right side (even WITH a dedicated turn lane), knowing I was turning right (I'm good with signaling) and basically block my turn until they feel it's acceptable to jump the light and get out of the way or go with traffic at the green.  All while there was no reason to do so - they could have come up on my left side, and neither one of us would have been interfering in the others intended path.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by igz on December 2, 2011 at 10:25am

not every intersection is designed the same way, and im not going to explain each of them, but i will point out a few. 

 

one is like your picture, richard.  its pretty straightforward for cyclist and motorist save for that ambiguous moment where the right turn lane starts and the bike lane continues.

 

one is where there is a right turn lane, and one continuing, no bike lane. what should happen here (and you can refer to your trusty city of chicgo bike map for this one) is to be positioned in between the two lanes - right of the car proceeding forward, left of the car making the right turn. pretty straightforward as well, just make sure you are not turning into the path of a car on your left.

 

this is the fucked up one, and the scenario where 'right hooks' happen. one lane. period.  there may or may not be a bike lane - doesnt matter.  bike lanes at these types of intersections often end 100ft or so before the intersection, start up again about 100ft after it.  the cyclist is forced to remain on the right side of the road. as he approaches the intersection, he still has the right of way.  well before the 100ft, a car should have his intentions clearly signaled with a blinking turn signal. if there are no obstructions (including human beings on bikes), he can make the maneuver in preparation for the turn.  if a cyclist is already in that space (he should be watching - he would know if he recently passed a cyclist or if a cyclist is just ahead of him).  now, if the cyclist is behind the car that is already making the maneuver into the right, well, thats just suicidal tendencies and/or lack of common sense. 

 

cyclists too have to remember that cars have blind spots. if a car is making that turn and you are near his quarter panel, he probably doest see you.  he should have seen you as he approaced you from behind, but he may have been texting at that moment, who knows.

 

and yes, if there is a stop sign, a cyclist should be stopping. ESPECIALLY if there are cars present.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mindfrieze on December 2, 2011 at 10:56am

Richard, I agree, it's bad form for a cyclist to overtake a motorist on the right when that motorist is indicating a turn or clearly about to turn.

 

I think what the ordinance is intended to prevent is a faster motorist overtaking a slower cyclist (at an intersection with no right turn lane similar to the one in the photo ) and then abruptly turning across the path of that cyclist, so close that the cyclist crashes or has to take evasive maneuvers to avoid a crash.

 

This is a relatively common type of crash that is almost unavoidable from the cyclist's perspective. 

Richard Jarrow said:

...a cyclist should also recognize that if a car is turning right, they don't need to remain on the right side of that car, especially if they're coming up from behind that car....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fran Kondorf on December 2, 2011 at 11:24am

Lots of good points, and I think Iggi summed it up pretty well.

I've been cut-off enough times to learn to stay behind a right-turning vehicle and just wait until they've turned. If I get there 1st I'll take the lane. 

And I totally agree with stopping completely. Those red octagonal things with the 4-letter word are there for a reason. A few more seconds vs. getting creamed? I'll wait a moment, thanks.

Richard- kudos to your signalling. I've often thought that they stopped equipping cars with them since nobody ever bothers any more. And it's only gotten worse since the cell phone revolution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Jarrow on December 2, 2011 at 11:28am

Hehe it's not just crazy cyclists out there - drivers are nuts, too!  :-P   I'm so freakin' glad I take the blue line every day and don't have to drive to and from work any more.

Fran Kondorf said:

Richard- kudos to your signalling. I've often thought that they stopped equipping cars with them since nobody ever bothers any more. And it's only gotten worse since the cell phone revolution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich S on December 3, 2011 at 3:13am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5rSSqJsUhKU

I just watched this video about London's bicycle lanes. There's a nice feature at the 1:50 point that I would like to see at intersections in Chicago. They're mirrors that make it easier for cars to see cyclists in their blind spot. I'd like to see them a bit bigger with a sign below about drivers yielding to cyclists before turning right. 

There were some other nice features of the London bike lanes. I liked the blue pavement which I think would send a stronger signal to cars about respecting bike lanes. The traffic boxes and advance traffic lights were cool too. I couldn't help but notice the lack of parked cars on the London streets in this video ... no doors!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Jarrow on December 3, 2011 at 5:38am

Hmm, some innovative ideas in that video.  I hope the blue paint is sufficiently robust to not get slick in rain or cold weather, however.   The mirrors are a decent addition, with Londons notorious non-grid street design (especially compared to Chicago) I bet they're especially useful.   London is a VERY congested city, when I visited years ago there was no way I would have wanted to even drive around much less bicycle.   It was walking and taxis and the underground for me.

Rich S said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5rSSqJsUhKU

I just watched this video about London's bicycle lanes. There's a nice feature at the 1:50 point that I would like to see at intersections in Chicago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Jarrow on December 3, 2011 at 6:57am

And I prefer driving in the winter cuz there's less bicyclists acting unpredictably in traffic.   Unfortunately neither of us will simply get what they want.   Traffic does move - and bicycles are a reality.  So is sharing the road.  Which brings me back to my main point of being on these forums and trying to get a feel for the cycling community, the need for traffic consistency and generally following the traffic laws.

h' said:

Well, the reality of what bicycling is like doesn't always line up with what it seems like it would be like.

I feel -safer- cycling when the automotive traffic is at a near-standstill...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page