172 replies to this topic

[sebberry]

I'd like to see user-pay, but if we applied that to drivers too then we'd be paying thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in registration fees every year.

[aastra]

Making right turns across bike lanes in Oregon as versus in California:

How is a car supposed to make a right turn from a street with a bike lane? It's one of the most widely misunderstood traffic rules (at least in California). Most cyclists, motorists, even cops don't get it, and the DMV doesn't express the concept as clearly as they should.

A right-turning car is supposed to move into the bike lane before the intersection, anywhere from 200 to 50 feet before, first signalling the lane merge, then merging right to the curb lane, then finally making the actual turn when safe.

A bike lane is a travel lane, like a standard travel lane, it's just not meant to have motor vehicles "traveling" in it. But to make a right turn, any vehicle (bike, car, truck, etc) is supposed to be in the right lane, so a motor vehicle needs to safely merge into the bike lane (yielding to any traffic already in that bike lane), before making the turn.

http://www.sfbike.or...ane_right_turns

So what's the wording of the law in BC? I guess BC does it the same way Oregon does it?

[pherthyl]

Then I guess millions of dollars of bicycle infrastructure won't get built. If cyclists NEED these ammenities, then they should be the ones paying for them.

If parents NEED schools, then they should pay for them in user fees. Why should childless people pay for schools?

If you NEED a hospital you should pay for it. Why should healthy people pay for your care?

If you NEED a road to drive on, you should pay for it. Why should cyclists pay for your massive road?

Infrastructure is only affordable if everyone bears the cost. Cities build infrastructure for cyclists as well as cars in order to alleviate congestion, and improve the health of their citizens.

[sebberry]

So what's the wording of the law in BC? I guess BC does it the same way Oregon does it?

Bike lanes are restricted lanes, so cars are not legally allowed in them. You make the turn from closest lane to the curb that you are legally allowed to be in.

As for right of way with cyclists - the cyclist is permitted to pass on the right, but only when the move can be done safely. If the cyclist cannot pass safely, then he must yield to the car.

[http]

I am completely supportive of enhancing our existing bike infrastructure as long as it is 100% funded through a taxation on, or licencing of, cyclists. This seems pretty simple to me. Why is it that my dog needs to be licenced at $35/year but bikes get to use the roads (and just as often the sidewalks) for free?

I never walk anywhere, so I support taxing pedestrians to pay for sidewalks.

[sebberry]

Except for the occasional time you DO use the sidewalk.

The problem with Luton's position on the radio today was while he's busy being critical of every mode of transportation except the bike, he's forgetting about all the people who can't ride bikes, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, etc...

You can still focus on making roads friendly for bikes, but you're never going to see a mass exodus drivers leaving their cars and picking up bikes. And you still need a road network capable of safe, efficient travel.

[Langford Rat]

So what's the wording of the law in BC? I guess BC does it the same way Oregon does it?

That's part of the confusion (for me)...there seems to be two different things going on here. This is what DriveSmart BC has to say:

A bike lane is a special use lane marked on the highway like any other lane, the difference being that motor vehicles must generally stay out of it. The exception occurs at intersections where it is necessary to turn right and the line between the lanes has changed from solid to broken. In this case, the driver must do a proper lane change over the segment with the broken line prior to turning and must not affect the travel of cyclists using the bike lane.

Otherwise, if there is no broken line, the driver must remain in the right most vehicle lane prior to turning and yield to any bike traffic before turning right and crossing over the bike lane.

....so why do some of them have broken lines just before an intersection that allow you to turn from the bike lane and some do not and require to to turn from the lane to the left of the bike lane? The way it's set up at the intersection I mentioned in my post makes no sense.

[LJ]

After reading that info from Drivesmart it seems to be saying the same thing in both instances. You can turn right through a broken or solid line but must yield to cyclists.

If I were a cyclist I would be very nervous if a car ahead of me had his right turn signal on and going very slow or stopped. For all I know he is waiting for a pedestrian in the intersection and then he is going to turn right in front of me.

As a driver it is usually an afterthought to me to check for cyclists before I make a right turn unless I had just passed them.

[sebberry]

Cyclist must yield to car if the car is making the right turn in front of the cyclist.

[aastra]

...The exception occurs at intersections where it is necessary to turn right and the line between the lanes has changed from solid to broken. In this case, the driver must do a proper lane change over the segment with the broken line prior to turning and must not affect the travel of cyclists using the bike lane.

Otherwise, if there is no broken line, the driver must remain in the right most vehicle lane prior to turning and yield to any bike traffic before turning right and crossing over the bike lane.

So according to DriveSmart BC, if the line is broken you must change over to the cycling lane from the vehicle lane and make the right turn from the cycling lane, but before changing over to the cycling lane you must wait for any cyclists in the cycling lane to pass?

But if the line is solid you must make the right turn from the vehicle lane, but before making the right turn from the vehicle lane you must wait for any cyclists in the cycling lane to pass?

[sebberry]

Broken or solid, the bike lane is a restricted lane so no, you shouldn't move into the bike lane to make your turn. At least that's how I understand it.

[aastra]

But it says you must do it. What does "must" mean in this instance? As worded, the driver would seem to be obligated to follow the California example video on this page here:
http://www.sfbike.or...ane_right_turns

It's confusing. No wonder there are so many online arguments about this whole thing (in all sorts of different jurisdictions, I mean).

Consider this spot here...

There's a solid line on the cycling lane, but you can still turn right across the solid line. You have no choice but to turn right across the solid line. There's no other way to get into or out of that parking lot, isn't that right? But turning right across the solid line of the cycling lane is different from doing a proper lane change over the broken line of the cycling lane, briefly occupying the cycling lane, and then making a right turn from the cycling lane (as shown in the California video there).

And then we get into that whole issue of cyclists in the cycling lane passing on the right.

Edit: picture by Mr. Luton:
http://www.flickr.co...uton/301124714/

[Nparker]

Cities build infrastructure for cyclists as well as cars in order to alleviate congestion, and improve the health of their citizens.

And when bicycles are able to supply my local grocery store with all I need to feed myself, or when bicycles can get me to the hospital in an emergency, or when firefighters are able to douse a blaze at my home using 2-wheeled transport then yes, cycling infrastructure will deserve an equal share of my tax dollars.

Money spent on moving a relatively small number of people around on 2 wheels is MUCH better spent on improving mass transit for greater numbers of people. Our tax dollars are aleady stretched to the limit. Funding for cycling infrastructure has to come out of the same "pie" as many other projects, and I just don't see the return on investment from bike lanes (etc.) as being the best use of money in an era of increasing infrastructure needs. One has to look at this from the perspective of the greatest good for the greatest number of people etc.

[sebberry]

There's a solid line on the cycling lane, but you can still turn right across the solid line. You have no choice but to turn right across the solid line. There's no other way to get into or out of that parking lot, isn't that right? But turning right across the solid line of the cycling lane is different from doing a proper lane change over the broken line of the cycling lane, briefly occupying the cycling lane, and then making a right turn from the cycling lane (as shown in the California video there).

Perhaps California has a specific exemption for crossing over a solid white line to make a right turn, but in BC it's a bit of a hodge-podge of various sections of the Motor Vehicle Act.

As far as I can tell in BC, the driver of a car must not drive it in such a way as to cause it to cross a solid white line except in circumstances where the driver is intending to enter or exit the road, such as into a driveway or parking lot.

So you cannot make a lane change across a solid white line, but you can turn across the line.

[aastra]

So you cannot make a lane change across a solid white line, but you can turn across the line.

Succinctly put. You can turn across a solid line but you can't occupy a cycling lane that's guarded by a solid line as if it were another lane of traffic. Which brings us back to the broken line. Last night I observed how a cycling lane's solid line became a broken line in the spot where a bus is supposed to change into the cycling lane to access the bus stop, then became a solid line again in front of the bus stop, then became a broken line again in the spot where a bus is supposed to change out of the cycling line upon leaving the bus stop, then became a solid line again going forward.

It all seemed to be so clear. And then I looked at Luton's picture that I linked to above. You've got a broken line on Yates Street. You've got cyclists in the cycling lane. You've got a vehicle trying to turn right, occupying the cycling lane, and holding up cyclists in the lane behind the vehicle. That's a violation, right?

...the driver must do a proper lane change over the segment with the broken line prior to turning and must not affect the travel of cyclists using the bike lane.

Even though we can probably assume that the vehicle arrived at that spot well in advance of the cyclists, but the opportunity to complete the right turn hasn't yet arisen, so the vehicle is now affecting the travel of cyclists using the bike lane.

So what's a driver supposed to do in that circumstance? Luton comments that there's not enough space between the cycling lane and the curb for the right-turning vehicle to linger without obstructing the cycling lane.

Another question: what are the rules re: cyclists exiting and re-entering the cycling lane whenever convenience dictates?

[aastra]

For example, Fort Street...

The line is broken where the bus needs to change lanes into the cycling lane. But the line is solid again beyond the bus stop. The line remains solid beside the metered parking but becomes broken again as it nears the right turn at Vancouver Street.

[pherthyl]

And when bicycles are able to supply my local grocery store with all I need to feed myself, or when bicycles can get me to the hospital in an emergency, or when firefighters are able to douse a blaze at my home using 2-wheeled transport then yes, cycling infrastructure will deserve an equal share of my tax dollars.

What a nonsensical argument. Who's talking about equal share? Money spent on bike lines is insignificantly small compared to the money spent on roads.

Money spent on moving a relatively small number of people around on 2 wheels is MUCH better spent on improving mass transit for greater numbers of people.

I assume you have a study to back that up..

Have a look at Copenhagen sometime. Without the bike infrastructure that city would be a mess of congestion.

Our tax dollars are aleady stretched to the limit. Funding for cycling infrastructure has to come out of the same "pie" as many other projects, and I just don't see the return on investment from bike lanes (etc.) as being the best use of money in an era of increasing infrastructure needs. One has to look at this from the perspective of the greatest good for the greatest number of people etc.

Except you don't know what is the greatest good. You're just assuming and because you don't like or use bike lanes you assume they are not the best use of the money.

[Jacques Cadé]

And herein lies the problem with the John Lutons of the world. John, IT IMPACTS US BECAUSE IT'S ALL OUR MONEY! Capital reserves, CRD, Fed funding: it's my money! It's your money, damn it! Of course it impacts us, you ninny!

Fugger, are you really Adrian Raeside? His cartoon in today's paper traces your argument perfectly: http://www.timescolo...oons/index.html

[jklymak]

It all seemed to be so clear. And then I looked at Luton's picture that I linked to above. You've got a broken line on Yates Street. You've got cyclists in the cycling lane. You've got a vehicle trying to turn right, occupying the cycling lane, and holding up cyclists in the lane behind the vehicle. That's a violation, right? Even though we can probably assume that the vehicle arrived at that spot well in advance of the cyclists, but the opportunity to complete the right turn hasn't yet arisen.

No vehicle is allowed to overtake a vehicle that is turning right on their right, so the bicycles must go around on the left. The bikes in that picture are doing the right thing, as is the car.

All Luton is suggesting is that the parking be turned into a dedicated right turn lane, so the bike lane can continue straight. Seems a sensible solution to me, though at that corner there is no bike lane on the other side of Douglas anyway, so I'm not sure what the point is.

The problem really is bikes that decide to pass on the right. I use that intersection often on both my bike and car, and if I'm turning right in my car, I always block the bike lane to make sure there is no miscommunication.

Another question: what are the rules re: cyclists exiting and re-entering the cycling lane whenever convenience dictates?

They can do so, so long as they have right of way in the lane they are changing into. Just because there is a bike lane doesn't mean bicycles are restricted to the bike lane.

[aastra]

Interesting. But then aren't you violating the rules as written?

...the driver must do a proper lane change over the segment with the broken line prior to turning and must not affect the travel of cyclists using the bike lane.

What does "affect the travel of cyclists" mean in this instance?