Gnurple dot Net

It’s a subject of contention between drivers and cyclists. If you try to take the arguments and merits of both points of view, it becomes an interesting thought exercise.

Imagine a biker approaching an intersection of a four-lane highway. The biker is in the right of the right hand lane. Traffic is moderate — not enough to form any traffic jams, but enough that the cyclist has cars constantly moving past his left.

There’s a car in the right-most lane with a right-turn signal on. The cyclist, riding in the right-most part of the road, sees this car just to his left and just in front. When the car brakes and turns right, their maneuver will take enough time that the cyclist will be forced to slow down or else T-bone the right-turning car.

The cyclist says, “Hey, that car cut me off! I was ahead of them, they passed me on the left, and now they’re braking and turning right in front of me!”

The driver says, “What’s wrong? I’m in the right-most lane and I’m turning right. Vehicles behind me should brake and let me maneuver, and pass me on the left if it’s safe.”

If you imagine that these are both vehicles in the same lane, then the driver is right: the vehicle behind must slow down and allow the one in front to complete its turn. That’s what would happen if both were cars, right?

Where do you draw the line? Who is ahead and who has right of way?

The problem becomes clear: you have two sets of vehicles moving at significantly different speeds, sharing the same lane.

This would be a much easier exercise if there were separate lanes: let’s say I’m driving along in the right lane and a car passes me on my left, then turns into my lane and brakes for a right turn. They force me to brake and avoid rear-ending them. They drove aggressively and cut me off. They should have merged into the right lane much further back.

Two vehicles, sharing the same lane, and moving at significantly different speeds: a recipe for confusion and trouble.

This situation also causes problems at traffic lights. Imagine a cyclist stopped at a red light. They’re in the right-most part of the right lane. A car drives up to the light beside them. The car signals to turn right. The light turns green. Who goes first?

The cyclist says, “I was here first; I go first!”

The driver says, “I’m at the front of this lane, and I’m turning right. Other vehicles should allow me to maneuver.”

If both were cars, the one in front has clear right of way. The problem once again is two vehicles, traveling at significantly different speeds, sharing the same lane.

Technically, I think the right thing to do is for the cyclist to take the lane at the light. The light is red so this is not unsafe or inconvenient to other traffic, and it makes the right of way clear.

However, this becomes a bit more difficult for our first case of the right-hand turn. IF there is a vehicle that’s going to turn, you DO want to take the lane and let them complete their turn in front of you or pass them on the left, but TAKING the lane is more difficult because there’s traffic to your left moving at significantly higher speeds than you are.

For what it’s worth, I find that if there’s a right turner in front of me, they’ll slow down to my speed to make the turn. This forces the traffic behind to slow down, and makes it safe for me to take the lane and pass the right-turner on the left. The key is to be aware of the traffic in front of you and behind you so that this situation doesn’t spring up on you by surprise.

Also for what it’s worth, regarding the red-light situation above, I usually stay to the right when I hit a red light. I make eye contact with the car beside me and if they want to turn, we sort it out with waving-hand gestures. If the driver is impatient they set me back by all of one or two seconds while they turn, which is fine by me. I’d say most of the time (7 to 3 against, perhaps) I end up going first by mutual agreement anyways.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS