Arlington BAC Meeting – June 1st

[DismalScientist]

@Megabeth 117033 wrote:

3. Enforcement of Cars Using Bike Lanes for Right Turns

I would hope you mean that right-turning cars should use the bike lane after a careful merge. Right turns should be made as close to the curb as practicable. Turning right across a bike lane means that a driver needs to simultaneously look behind and scan for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Turning right across bike lanes rather than in the bike lanes leads to potential right hooks.

[RideTheWomble]

Agreed. The proper procedure is for the car to cross into the bike lane where the leftmost line goes from solid to dashed. When a car follows this procedure, it lets me know his/her intentions, allows me to slow behind the car or safely pass it on the left, and keeps the car from right-hooking me.

[sjclaeys]

No, no, no. If the bike lane has a solid line at the intersection, it is unsafe for both cyclists and other drivers to use the bike lane as a right turn lane. Plus, it is a bike lane, not a right turn lane. If a right turn lane is needed at an intersection, then it should be formally created in accordance with the applicable standards, etc. If a right turn does not exists, it should not be created by allowing drivers to squeeze one in where they think it should be.

[DismalScientist]

I would daresay that a bike lane with a solid line at an intersection is mismarked.

If this were the meaning of solid lines for bike lanes, than parking to the right of bike lanes would be inaccessible.

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2010/07/drivers-must-merge-into-bike-lanes-before-turning-right.html

[Steve O]

@RideTheWomble 117041 wrote:

Agreed. The proper procedure is for the car to cross into the bike lane where the leftmost line goes from solid to dashed. When a car follows this procedure, it lets me know his/her intentions, allows me to slow behind the car or safely pass it on the left, and keeps the car from right-hooking me.

Using the turn signal also helps to know the driver’s intention.

If only.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 117051 wrote:

I would daresay that a bike lane with a solid line at an intersection is mismarked.

If this were the meaning of solid lines for bike lanes, than parking to the right of bike lanes would be inaccessible.

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2010/07/drivers-must-merge-into-bike-lanes-before-turning-right.html

At least on Eye Street in DC, the lane is striped solid mid block, dashed for a few car lengths before the intersection, and solid for the last car length at the intersection. This is supposed to tell drivers that the place to enter the right lane to make a right turn is in the dashed part – not before it (because that would render the lane useless), and not after it (because then they would be right hooking across the bike lane) They are supposed to fit neatly to the right of the bike lane by the time they approach the crosswalk. I would say this works out as intented about 99% of the time.

Of course as this is a door zone bike lane, they must cross the solid mid block stripe in order to park – but that is a different movement than entering the lane to make a right turn. Similarly they may enter the bike lane at any point to avoid a collision, IIUC – and if there are no bikes present, they may even enter it simply to have more room from opposing traffic (or maybe that is Va law and NOT DC law, I do not recall for sure)

It may well be that this is all too confusing for some motorists, but again, it seems to work well on Eye Street, and most other places that I have observed.

[sjclaeys]

Here is what Virginia law says:

§ 46.2-846. Required position and method of turning at intersections; local regulations.

A. Except where turning is prohibited, a driver intending to turn at an intersection or other location on any highway shall execute the turn as provided in this section.

1. Right turns: Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

Seems to me that the question is whether the edge of the roadway is the solid line between the bike lane and the rest of the road. If it isn’t the edge of the road, then what is the point of having a bike lane? I also do not see what the policy reason is to allow a car to use a bike lane as an impromptu right hand turn lane other than to appease drivers’ desire to not let anything slow down their progress. After all, if you want to make a right hand turn, having to wait because the car in front of you is going straight or making a left is so inconvenient. Regarding right hooking, the solution is to require drivers to follow the law, make a complete stop at the intersection, make sure there is no crossing car or pedestrian traffic and looking to your right to make the bike lane is clear. Not hard, just requires attentive, responsible driving.

[Steve O]

@sjclaeys 117057 wrote:

Not hard, just requires attentive, responsible driving.

There is no freaking way I am going to depend on this. There is also almost no way I am going to pass a car on the right that I believe is planning to turn right–even if I believe them to be attentive and responsible. I will always move out into the lane behind the car and let them turn. If they end up going straight, then I just slide back over. If they do turn right, then they are more comfortable that I am not on their right, creating a conflict, and I am way more comfortable knowing that I am not going to get run down.

[dasgeh]

@sjclaeys 117057 wrote:

I also do not see what the policy reason is to allow a car to use a bike lane as an impromptu right hand turn lane other than to appease drivers’ desire to not let anything slow down their progress. After all, if you want to make a right hand turn, having to wait because the car in front of you is going straight or making a left is so inconvenient. Regarding right hooking, the solution is to require drivers to follow the law, make a complete stop at the intersection, make sure there is no crossing car or pedestrian traffic and looking to your right to make the bike lane is clear. Not hard, just requires attentive, responsible driving.

So this is where your understanding (cars turn right from main travel lane) and mine (cars turn right after safely merging into the bike lane) differ. A bike lane isn’t wide enough for a car to slide up to the right of another car. So a car shouldn’t merge into the bike lane into basically one car length before the intersection, and then should merge over to turn only if there’s no bike coming. Then the driver can look for pedestrians, without having to also look over their shoulder for bikes. A bike coming up behind a car that has already merged into the bike lane should merge and go around the car to the left.

Va law was written before va had bike lanes so isn’t helpful

[sjclaeys]

I still do not see why it is so hard to have the car turn from its lane. The only reason I am hearing is an excuse for inattentive driving. Here are the situations I have encountered due to the practice of cars using a bike lane as a right turn lane: 1) Riding bike in lane approaching intersection and stop at light. Wait for light because I am going straight. Car on my left also waiting at light because going to the left. Second car comes up behind me in lane and honks wanting me to get out of the way; 2) Drive car to intersection, stop at intersection to the left of the bike lane with righthand turn signal waiting for signal to change or for a safe right on red. Second car pulls up to my right in the bike lane to also make right hand turn because in such a hurry. I’d like to hear how either situation is ok and safe.

[Anonymous]

@sjclaeys 117097 wrote:

I still do not see why it is so hard to have the car turn from its lane. The only reason I am hearing is an excuse for inattentive driving. Here are the situations I have encountered due to the practice of cars using a bike lane as a right turn lane: 1) Riding bike in lane approaching intersection and stop at light. Wait for light because I am going straight. Car on my left also waiting at light because going to the left. Second car comes up behind me in lane and honks wanting me to get out of the way; 2) Drive car to intersection, stop at intersection to the left of the bike lane with righthand turn signal waiting for signal to change or for a safe right on red. Second car pulls up to my right in the bike lane to also make right hand turn because in such a hurry. I’d like to hear how either situation is ok and safe.

Situation #1 the car should not honk at you; just as they should not honk at another car in the right driving lane when no turn lane is present and the car in front is going straight, but people do. Would you really have preferred that incredibly impatient driver making the right turn from the lane to the left of you? I certainly wouldn’t.

Situation #2, if you had merged into the bike lane to wait for your right turn, the other car couldn’t have come up to your right like that. The problem wasn’t them using the bike lane, it’s that the two of you were doing it differently, and therefore unpredictable to each other.

[sjclaeys]

@Amalitza 117101 wrote:

Situation #1 the car should not honk at you; just as they should not honk at another car in the right driving lane when no turn lane is present and the car in front is going straight, but people do. Would you really have preferred that incredibly impatient driver making the right turn from the lane to the left of you? I certainly wouldn’t.

Situation #2, if you had merged into the bike lane to wait for your right turn, the other car couldn’t have come up to your right like that. The problem wasn’t them using the bike lane, it’s that the two of you were doing it differently, and therefore unpredictable to each other.

I am surprised that so many want the rules set by what is convenient for inattentive and aggressive drivers. Oh well. Don’t really see the need for bike lanes then.

[bobco85]

@sjclaeys 117114 wrote:

I am surprised that so many want the rules set by what is convenient for inattentive and aggressive drivers. Oh well. Don’t really see the need for bike lanes then.

I disagree. In my experience, a driver making a right turn pays more (not all) attention to their left (cross traffic and pedestrians) than the right (bike lane and/or pedestrians at the corner), so a cyclist coming up in the lane to the right of them is far less likely to be seen. It’s a combination of an actual blind spot (right side of a vehicle has larger blind spots) and a driver’s inattentiveness.

The guidelines for making a right turn with a bike lane are similar to those for parallel parking (vehicle signals, pulls into bike lane, parallel parks). I would much rather a driver merge into the bike lane (an inconvenience to me) first instead of right hooking me (much greater inconvenience to me) because they were scanning for pedestrians and traffic.

On your situation with the aggressive driver honking at you: if there is room, you can both avoid this nasty interaction and turn it into a positive one by moving slightly over to the left to give them room to turn behind you. I look behind me when stopped at intersections to check if the person behind me has their turn signal on, and if so, I will let them go behind me (a good 33% of the time they will even say “Thank you”).

[Steve O]

@sjclaeys 117114 wrote:

Oh well. Don’t really see the need for bike lanes then.

Except for maybe those long sections of road that don’t have intersections?

[Anonymous]

@sjclaeys 117114 wrote:

I am surprised that so many want the rules set by what is convenient for inattentive and aggressive drivers. Oh well. Don’t really see the need for bike lanes then.

That is an inaccurate and unfair characterization, and I suspect you know it. I disagree with you, but I understand and respect that you are arguing for what you believe is more safe. I would appreciate being accorded the same respect.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/6528/drivers-must-merge-into-bike-lanes-before-turning-right/

This is the reason. Not “convenience” for “aggressive” drivers.

[Author]

Posts