On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Velo Cape Breton wrote:

> Several cars were stopped at a red light.
> One of the cars wanted to turn right onto a side street that was about
> 5 cars back from the light.
> A cyclist zoomed up on the right hand side and the guy attempting to
> turn right onto the side street nearly smacked into him.
> The question is:   Should the cyclist have waited behind the last car
> in the line? What if he was cycling in his one metre space or bike
> lane, was he entitled to go to the head of the line and wind up at the
> light?

The first part of Bob White's answer to this question was spot on
perfect:

> Answer:
>
> Ah, the old right hook! Very dangerous.
>  
> As a bike is a vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act, the cyclist should
> not creep up on the right hand side by passing cars queued up for the
> lights / stop sign. Rather, he / she should enter the line up as
> appropriate and follow the traffic through the intersection. For the
> most part, as the vehicles are going fairly slow, the bicyclist will
> not impede the traffic. After crossing the intersection, the cyclist
> will then slide over to the right hand side, to maintain his / her
> position as "far to the right as practical", or as we teach - 1 meter
> from the curb / edge of the road. So, in this scenario, by staying
> behind the car in front while going through the intersection, the
> bicyclist is not at risk from the "right hook".

However, then he goes on to talk about bike lanes:

> Now, in the event there is a designated bicycle lane, the dynamics are
> changed. It is generally accepted that the bicyclist may proceed along
> the bike lane, "passing on the right" of stopped vehicles. In your
> minds eye, picture the bike lane somewhat like a separate lane all by
> itself. As the bicyclist gets close to the intersection, he / she MUST
> DO THE SHOULDER CHECK and establish eye contact with the cars on the
> left. The bicyclist has to be aware of potential hazards, like
> vehicles turning right, and be both visual as well as signal his / her
> intentions to proceed through the intersections (see, be seen and be
> predictable - the key components of safe cycling / Can Bike
> teachings). so, in "Slow Mo"; here is what happens ( the cyclist wants
> to proceed straight through the intersection, while still in the bike
> lane). About 3 or 4 cars prior to the intersection, the bicyclist will
> look over his her left shoulder to both get a sense of potential
> hazards (turners), as well as alert motorists that they are part of
> the traffic flow and their actions may effect the motorist, if the
> motorist plans to turn right. As the bicyclist approaches the
> intersection (say one car length), do the final shoulder check (the
> life saving one), establish eye contact with to motorist and clearly
> signal your intentions to proceed straight thought the intersection -
> this is subjective as there is no signal for going straight. What I do
> is to jam my left hand forward, slanted to an angle (11 o'clock)
> so that the motorist can see me; sometimes I will even vocalize my
> intentions or even dip my head and smile when eye contact is
> established.

Now THAT'S why I don't like the idea of bike lanes; they COMPLICATE
interaction with traffic UNNECESSARILY. Think about it. Pretty much
all you have to do on an ordinary street to avoid this problem is to
not pass on the right AT ALL and queue up with traffic; problem solved.
As soon as you have a bike lane, though, things get a LOT more
complicated as you have to figure out, "OK, I'm to the right of all
these cars; somebody could be turning right. I better make sure they
know I'm here..."

In my opinion, passing stopped traffic on the right at an intersection
should NEVER be done. EVER. Not even when there IS a bike lane.
That, too, is a problem with the concept of bike lanes; they ENCOURAGE
this very same dangerous behavior.

Here's what *I* think is the safest thing to do when there's a bike
lane (assuming you're using it in the first place).

Treat the bike lane as if it were a RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE. As you
approach the intersection, shoulder check and SIGNAL LEFT that you
intend to MERGE INTO THE THROUGH LANE. Then, when you're clear to
merge, merge over and queue up with traffic just as you would at any
ordinary intersection. Control the lane until you clear the
intersection and only THEN do you shoulder check, signal RIGHT and
merge back into the bike lane.

That being said, I don't agree with THIS, either:

> If I see a motorist with the right signal light on (I'm guessing about
> 1/4 of them don't signal anymore - be careful), I am on high alert and
> frankly prepare myself to stop, even though I am in the right.

That's the problem. Mr. White ISN'T in the right here; if he's through
traffic he should be in the THROUGH LANE BEHIND that truck not still in
the bike lane.

At least he acknowledges:

> The bike lane sometimes clouds the situation, bicyclists should never
> feel they are 100% secure in them. (Some of us "purists" feel they are
> adding to the danger and that cyclists should be and are part of the
> traffic and should be seen as such).

He's absolutely correct, in my opinion; they DO add to the danger both
by creating a false sense of security and by encouraging poor
intersection negotiation skills on the part of cyclists.

Actually, it's worth noting that the relatively well designed bicycle
lanes generally have a DOTTED LINE separating you from the main lane as
you approach the intersection; this is meant both to encourage
motorists to merge into the bike lane to turn right (which is what they
SHOULD be doing, anyway) AND to encourage CYCLISTS to merge OUT of the
bike lane if NOT turning right.

Still, if you ask me, even the best designed bike lanes just complicate
an already elegant system of traffic flow that ordinary lanes already
provide. The problem isn't the paint on the roads we have; it's the
ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards CYCLING.

John A. Ardelli
http://pedalingprince.blogspot.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/vofv/