The current Oregon statutes governing the operation of a motor vehicle in a bike lane are confusing and unclear. The Portland Police Bureau found this out the hard way and they want to find a solution and have the laws fixed for good at the upcoming legislative session in Salem.
Lieutenant Mark Kruger from the Traffic Division came to last month’s meeting of the Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee to discuss his proposed legislative solutions and get feedback from Committee members.
It all started in Fall of 2005 when the PPB ran an enforcement action against motor vehicles driving in the bike lane while approaching a turn at 122nd and Halsey. The motorists were cited for operating a motor vehicle in a bike lane (ORS 811.435).
The motorists were confused because another law, ORS 811.355, states that they must “proceed as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway” when “intending” to make a right-hand turn.
Adding to the problem is that, because of these conflicting statutes, traffic court judges did not uphold the tickets against the motorists.
The PPB wants to fix this problem so they can effectively enforce the law and make the situation safer for both motor vehicles and bicycles.
Kruger brought two solutions to the table: 1) amend ORS 811.355 to make it clear that motorists may not be in a bike lane prior to making a right turn, or 2) amend ORS 811.440 so that motorists may be in the bike lane for a specified distance prior to making a right turn.
Lt. Mark Kruger]
Kruger — who was lauded by the committee for his willingness to get feedback — is clearly in favor of amending the law so that cars can enter into a bike lane at a certain distance (30 feet or about two car lengths) prior to executing their turn. He thinks this is much safer for everyone because the motorist will already be as far right as possible when they get to the intersection and also because it goes along with the existing law that has been on the books for 80 years.
Kruger thinks requiring a car to wait and make their turn in the intersection (like my photo above) means more potential collisions with bicycles. He said, “We want to do something that avoids the greatest amount of conflict.”
Committee members unanimously disagreed with Kruger’s proposal.
Most of them said that giving cars any legal right to enter a bike lane in any shape, way, or form was a “slippery slope” that would set a dangerous precendent.
Committee vice-chair Elicia Cardenas said,
“This would be taking a step back for our city. I think we’ve worked hard to establish that bike lanes are ‘bike space’ not ‘car space’.”
She then wondered, “Will it be like speeding, where there’s a padding before it’s enforced?”.
Committee member Keith Liden added, “I don’t want to see us compromise what a solid line means.”
Liden’s point was echoed by many committee members, who said if the change did move forward there would need to be engineering elements to go with it. They brought up making the bike lane a dotted line and/or adding signage to mark the 30-foot line where cars would be allowed. At least one committee member thought that the solution should come from an engineering fix not more legislation.
There was also concern that allowing cars to be in the bike lane would result in bottlenecks and lines of cars waiting to turn. A messenger that 2 car lengths is about 1/4 of a downtown block.
Kruger’s proposal would also require that bicycles leave the bike lane in order to get around turning cars. This is an interesting point in light of recent citations given for “failure to use a bike lane.” When the committee asked Kruger whether he had a safety concern about more bikes leaving the bike lane, he replied,
“The bike lane law is overly subjective. We feel that there is a bigger conflict with a motorist turning into a cyclist than there is a cyclist leaving the bike lane to go around a car.”
At the end of the meeting, the committee voted 11-0 in opposition to Kruger’s proposal with all votes in favor of clarifying the law so that cars may not enter the bike lane when approaching their turn.
Kruger accepted the feedback of the committee and hopes to have an official word from PDOT by the end of December.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I’m proposing a new law that would radically change the bicycle-automobile traffic dynamic: Requiring motorists to signal before turning.
(whispers) Oh, that’s already a law? Then how come nobody does it?
Hmmmm….
This also is ludicrous.
Cars in the bike lane?
Never.
Bikes waiting for cars to turn right past them so they can go forward in the bike lane?
Never.
Cars piled up in the bike lane waiting to turn?
Never.
And, as far as the police depts. wish that we be required to ride in the bike lane?
Never in a million years.
I’ve got to admit, when I approach an intersection and there’s a car in the bike lane, signal or no signal, I have a good guess as to what they’re up to (turning) and I know what I’m going to do (pull into the lane and pass them on the left).
I agree that it is a slippery slope and I’m very wary of it, but there is a practical reason for encouraging those who wish to pass right-turning vehicles to do so on the left.
Personally I’d much rather have the car far to the right right near the intersection. Makes it easier to go around them to the left.
Omigod, did I just agree with Kruger??
Perhaps they could just dash the bike lane within 30 feet of the intersection. That would be in keeping with the current useage.
“Perhaps they could just dash the bike lane within 30 feet of the intersection”
That’s the idea that was brought up. I think the fear is that dotted or not, the law won’t get enforced and cars will end up just moving into the bike lane long before the dashes begin.
My take is that this is yet another situation where we’re hoping laws will fix the problem when what we really need is to be more aware and considerate while on the road.
I find it funny that at the same time we’re discussing adding signage, more and more European cities are removing signs completely.
Removing signs?
Do you have any links or stories about that?
I’m fine with the bike lanes the way they are frankly. Like you said, you just have to be aware and not think that some line will protect you.
This one from Germany was forwarded to the Shift list today.
And this one comes from Treehugger a few weeks ago.
I just haven’t gotten around to writing about it yet…hope to get to it soon.
And Chris Smith from PortlandTransport.com wrote about the concept (known as “woonerf”) upon returning from Amsterdam last year.
Following up on Carl’s post, I will admit that I prefer it when cars move over to the right to make a right turn, mainly because of the fact that drivers so rarely use their turn signals. When they stay to the left of the bike lane before turning, there is a greater risk of my colliding with a car that intends to turn but doesn’t signal that intention . . .
What is the point of having the bike lane there then if you are going to allow cars to merge into them to turn?
There is no point, and if cars are allowed usage, we might as well just roll on up those bike lane stripes, and do away with this controversy once and for all.
Dabby makes an excellent point. Why not get rid of the bike lanes and mark all right lanes with sharrows giving bicycles equal access to the lane?
I think it makes enforcement easier for the police since all rules of the road regarding passing, signaling of turns, etc. are the same for all. It’s an easier education for drivers as well – “Bikes ARE traffic, the same rules apply.”
no signs?…check this out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iyaUHWLyhqI
it’s a video of traffic at an uncontrolled intersection in india.
awesome.
i don’t think the drivers here are that skilled though…
There is an good argument that if cars were in the bike lane 30ft prior to the intersection, cyclists would realize they couldnt pass the cars lined up at the light on the right at the last moment and possibly cause an accident. I know there are cyclists that look for a right-turning car ahead of them and wouldnt pass them, or would do so on the car’s left but Im not really sure how many cyclists are clear on the law here. This makes it awkward for both car and driver in these situations.
However, at the same time I have this sense of not wanting to give up any part the bikelane as I feel there is something to the saying, “give em an inch and theyll take a mile.” So, I think studying other areas where theyve implemented good working systems in this respect is key rather than making a super hasty decision. Its too bad that any one attempt at education doesnt seem to reach a large enough audience because education and implemention of good laws could solve many issues.
Bike lanes should be for bikes.
It should not be a ‘car’ turning lane.
It should not be a parking lane.
It should not be a bus stop.
The bike lane should be for bikes. And the, party line is that the goal of bikelanes is to increase bike safey and bike ridership. Unfortunately bikes get no special privliges or protection while in the bike line. Motorist are free to veer into the lane, (and even run cyclist over with no significant consequence). A bike line is nothing more than a shoulder to the road with little bikes painted here and there. It is sad.
Seems that the most bikeability comes from legislating exceptions for bicycles from the body of the vehicle code and certainly eliminating bicycle-only restrictions. verse visa for motorized vehicles; more restrictions for cars makes for more bikeability.
Bike lanes were conceived as set-aside space for bicycles’ exclusive, but not mandatory use. Imagine being forced into the 8-items-or-less grocery checkout line when a nearer line is open! kinda misses the point.
Current statute confuses the intent of bike lanes. Krueger thinks that drivers put their heads together so many years ago to find a way to get the damn bikes out of their way and so the bike lane was born?
Hmmm…I guess I feel safer if I know that a motorist isn’t going to turn right and whack me as I pass straight through an intersection. Forester (_Effective Cycling_) says this is the #2 cause of collisions between cars & bikes.
However, it also needs to be safe for me to proceed on the left side of the turning vehicle. I’m concerned that making that movement might also be dangerous.
I think we need Ray Thomas’s “vulnerable roadway user” statute before we start making allowances in the current bike lane statute. How about Class A Misdemeanor charges (likely reckless driving, mandatory 30 day suspension) every time a motorist fails to properly yield to a vulnerable roadway user?
SE Madison & Grand, westbound on Madison, they have the dashed-line solution implemented.
The bike lane’s solid lines turn to dashed lines where cars are supposed to cross to get into the right-turn-only lane.
It’s quite clear what it is meant to indicate, but my personal observation is that cars nearly always enter far before the dashed section of the lane. I’m not sure what the length of the dashed portion is; it may be shorter than 30 feet.
I think cars should not be allowed to use the bike lanes for driving at all. It’s dangerous to bikes as well as other cars. Some people don’t know they can use bike lanes to turn and when they make a right turn, there’s often another car coming up from behind in the blind spot. Basically, by allowing cars in the lane at all, you probably *should* use the lane if you’re a car or somebody else will and cause a crash.
So, the choice is: would I rather be sideswiped as a car moves into my lane 30 feet before the intersection, or bounce off the hood into the intersection as the car turns right? I honestly can’t think which one is better. I guess sideswiped, probably. At least I’d fall onto the sidewalk instead of the road. Oh, unless there’s a parked car next to me. Eek.
Jason: Only the #2 cause? What’s #1? I’ve been hit four times and every single time it was someone turning right without looking.
npr’s talk of the nation had a story about “woonerf” on nov. 23. listen/look for it here:
http://tinyurl.com/y4wqtc
Sounded positive in certain applications.
I think its interesting that a judge dropped the motorist tickets because there was some confusion in the law but the same was not done over some confusion over the wording of the fixed gear issue.
Word Patrick!
I think if you give cars permission to be in the bike lane 30 feet before the intersection they will be coming over there whether a bike is there or not, and if there is a bike ther they will be honking at it if they haven’t already run it over.
To “No One in Particular” – the answer to your query is, not surprisingly, the #1 cause of car-bike accidents is cars turning LEFT into cyclists.
The current situation really is untenable. Vehicles (cars or bikes) should not be turning right from anywhere except the right-most lane. I suggest just removing the bike lane altogether for the 20 or 30 feet before the intersection. That eliminates the issue of motorists getting used to driving in bike lanes, and also makes it clear to cyclists that they should be in the appropriate lane for their intended direction through the intersection (left, straight, right). It encourages motorists to merge into the right lane before turning, which is the safest behavior for everyone.
How about putting up a small curb- like in parking lots- between the bike lane and car lanes at problem intersections? Then the cars can go as far the the right as possible, against their curb, but not enter the bike lane before turning. This would have to be accompanied with a law (maybe it is already a law) stating that cars must yield to bikes in the bike lane. Would this get us somewhere closer to the Amsterdam model of having bike lanes on the other side of the parked cars, so cars have to be at a right angle to cross the bike lane forcing them to look left and right before crossing?
Probably not the best idea, but a new one.
No matter what the outcome or solution is cars wont follow the rules so we will need to be ready and alert as usual to adapt to situations developing, i.e. going around cars on the left and being very cautious passing cars on the right (or being patient and just waiting in line, which is slower but the safest thing to do).
While I would prefer the cars to be all the way to the right for turns, I agree allowing cars to enter the bike lane in a situation where they aren’t completely crossing through it is a bad idea.
Dashed bike lane situations, such as those on Broadway going off the bridge eastbound, or Hawthorne, or in multiple other areas around town make sense, there’s a place for the car to go, and a shortest route for them to get there. But if a car is going to be sitting in the bike lane, even partially, for a right turn, they will violate the space for an unknown time and will realistically begin that space encroachment at an unknown distance before their turn. Those go against the predictability of both driving and riding that keeps us safe.
I think sharrows are the best option overall, as I don’t really view a bike lane itself as a good option in high-traffic cross areas such as Downtown. It’s fine on semi-residential or throughways, but on a busy criss-cross section of town, bikes in lanes make a lot more sense.
S
Bike lanes which force riders to stay to the right of drivers who are turning range just encourage unsafe cycling. I don’t understand why so many of you folks think bike lanes are sacrosanct. Like anything else marked on the street, they are a tool to help remind people about safe ways to get from one place to another. If they encourage unsafe behavior, they should be changed. I don’t think cars merging into a bike lane at 15-25 mph is unsafe. It’s way easier for drivers to see riders when approaching them from the rear and merging into their lane than it is to pick them out in their rear view mirrors when turning right across a bike lane.
I agree with almost everything zach just said in post 28, except that I think a car merging into a bike lane will still cut off cyclists BEHIND it as it merges. I have seen drivers pull some seriously stupid moves on Broadway– passing a cyclist, and immediately merging to park; passing a cyclist, and immediately turning right.
Maybe instead of bike lanes that drivers are free to violate (what’s the ratio of bonehead bike lane violations to the number of citations issued for bonehead bike lane violations?), we should have a sharrow lane; that way, drivers are on notice that cyclists WILL be in the lane (and if their delicate sensibilities can’t handle that, they can stay in the non-sharrow lane) and it will entirely eliminate the problem of drivers cutting off cyclists as they attempt to park or turn.
Perhaps right-turning cars should be allowed to drive on the sidewalk for no more than 30′ too. By Kruger’s reasoning, that would keep ped and car conflict down.
Kudos for the 11-0 vote in opposition. Sounds like the case was clearly made.
“How about putting up a small curb- like in parking lots- between the bike lane and car lanes at problem intersections?”
I’m afraid that that would be really dangerous for a cyclist trying to cross that curb at an angle, especially in the rain. Imagine not seeing the curb at night. It could take the wheels right out from underneath you.
I totally agree with Zach. It seems to me that people get on a bike but keep thinking like a car and they want all these lines and signs telling them exactly where to go . . . as if that really protects them.
John, it seems to me that since more than a few of us on this forum seem to think that having the cars get to the right sooner is a better idea, the 11-0 vote speaks to the board’s disconnect from the community’s diverse experience and perspective.
An interesting part of the bike lane law that everyone seems to be missing is the exceptions under ORS 811.440, which includes the following:
where I include (b) because it addresses a similar situation of turning, which doesn’t come up as much on the Broadway bike line but certainly does in other places.
The question here is, what constitutes “executing a turn”? 811.355 reads “A person commits the offense of making an improperly executed right turn if the person… is intending to turn the vehicle to the right and does not proceed as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway… In making the approach for a right turn;…”. By my reading of this, the approach for a right term is part of executing a turn, and therefore is a time when one can legally enter the bike lane.
The two big questions this leaves open are just how long the approach to the turn should be (which seems to be totally undefined in the statute), and, of course, whether the situation created by these laws is a good one or not.
Seeing as how the transit mall construction will mess up and severely slow downtown traffic for a while, how about the city trying an experiment?
For the duration of the construction, bikes and motor vehicles are EQUALS on all downtown streets. Bikes may use the traffic lanes and must adhere to all laws that cars do. Cars may not pass cyclists and must treat them like other cars. Since there will be some appreciable gridlock, cars won’t be going any faster than the average rider during that time. It could be used by traffic engineers to study bike / auto interaction, find new ways of mixed mode traffic management, and measure the effects of mixed modes on business, parking, etc.
We’ll either find out that bikes make a lot of sense (and provoke some “Euro” thinking about traffic and infrastructure improvements) or come to the conclusion they make no difference at all. My guess is that bikes and mass transit will win some converts and the city will get a better handle on bike needs that will be used in furture planning.
I love it when our legislature WRITES laws that are unclear and seem to contradict each other.
thank god for the BTA. and, remember, good citizens, senators make more money than you do.
now, go take on the day.
is it me or does kruger look like a nazi?
also, who hired him for this job, given his personal assault record? I think kruger should be fired and, whoever hired him should be fired. and, rosie, who has done nothing but be an embarrassment should also be fired.
but, you know, that is just my opinion.
Since when did it become ok to cut a corner anyway?
When turning right, it is common practice to cut the corner in your car, using either an empty parking space, or the bike lane, to facilitate an early right turn.
This is illegal, and proven unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians combined.
I was cut off in this manner between a box truck and a parked van.
My handlebars were squished in from both sides.
Until I thoroughly explained it to them, the buisness who’s truck hit me was convinced that their driver was in the right.
My point is that this is an illegal practice, that we all do.
Allowing usage of the bike lane for more of this is setting us all up for disaster.
And, by the way, it is a $242 dollar fine in oregon to pull into the right hand side of the right lane in order to facilitate a right turn.
So, Kruger would in effect be changing the law, making an illegal move legal at the expense of safe bike lane travel.
One of our fine bike messengers recently got this $242 ticket in his car, to prove this point.
One more thing…
Since when in the hell are we going to allow the people we “pay” to enforce the laws to come up with new ones, then enforce the new laws they just made up?
I mean this happens on the streets of Portland all the time, but now, this is encouraging it.
This is crap….
Also,
Redneck,
If you google Mark Kruger,and nazi, you will find that your comment above explains more than you will ever know.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-40%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=mark+kruger%2C+nazi%2C+&btnG=Search
The statues already allow a cyclist to leave the bike lane to pass a right-turning vehicle; they also allow a cyclist to take a full lane if the lane is not wide enough to be safely shared with a motor vehicle, and use any available lane if you are able to keep up with the speed of traffic, usually possible downtown.
814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:
(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]
814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.
(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.
(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.
(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.
(3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §701; 1985 c.16 §339]
The statues already allow a cyclist to leave the bike lane to pass a right-turning vehicle; they also allow a cyclist to take a full lane if the lane is not wide enough to be safely shared with a motor vehicle, and use any available lane if you are able to keep up with the speed of traffic, usually possible downtown.
814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:
(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]
814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.
(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.
(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.
(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.
(3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §701; 1985 c.16 §339]
Whether a car is legally allowed to enter a bike lane to make a right hand turn nearly seems irrelevant, as they already do- all of the time. Which is particularly noticable near entrances to freeways, such as the broadway to I-5 entrance, and the SE 7th to Morrison turn. A better solution would be to install ground lights such as the ones used in pedestrian walkways on bike lanes close to heavily used turning paths. Throw in a few huge yield signs, and maybe focus on enforcing existing laws and protecting cyclists rather than changing the laws to accomodate impatient motorists.
Not to mention, asking cyclists to leave the bike lane and go around a turning car provides excellent opportunity for a collision with the motorists who are also trying to get around the turning vehicle.
Dabbby,
This is a serious question by the way.
“$242 dollar fine in oregon to pull into the right hand side of the right lane in order to facilitate a right turn”
Are you saying that it is illegal to pull to the right of the right lane or do you mean it is illegal to leave the right lane and enter the parking lane? I’m confused. If you are in the right lane, don’t you have the whole lane to work with?
It makes no sense to say that if cars enter the bike lane 30′ from their right hand turn they will not turn right into a bicyclist. That’s ludricous! Just another assinine thing said by someone who does not ride a bike in traffic.
Amend 811.355 to make it very clear that cars should never be in the bike lane except when parallel parking. Then there is no confusion for drivers.
Cars should completely clear the bike lane before they turn right – no cutting across the end of the bike lane. When I drive, that’s what I do.
Dabby said, “…Since when did it become ok to cut a corner anyway?
When turning right, it is common practice to cut the corner in your car, using either an empty parking space, or the bike lane, to facilitate an early right turn.
This is illegal, and proven unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians combined…”
Exactly, but as mentioned try getting a copy to ticket someone who does that. One morning on the way to work on SW Broadway, a taxi driver cut the corner in front of me and I hit his rear end. The cops saw it and when I complained and pointed out what he had done wrong, they gave me what I can only describe as a dumbfounded look.
I agree with Marcaroni. dumb is an appropriate term under the current circumstancezzzzz.
Dabby, with all, immeasurable, respect, I must take issue with one of your points. clearly, you said, ”
If you google Mark Kruger,and nazi, you will find that your comment above explains more than you will ever know.”
now, did you want to debate what I know about that particular coward? if so, I would happy to mud wrestle you, non violently, into submission….
TonyT,
To clarify, if you are in the right lane, intending on turning right, and you either:
Pull to the right of a car in your same lane in order to turn right, or pull part way out of your lane even, or
Pull into a bike lane, loading zone, empty parking space, or
Begin an early right turn, cutting through early either a bike lane or parking space, or, the worse reality of all, cutting sideways through the cross walk, or, as the scenario normally would be, 2 crosswalks.
These are things we all know are illegal. Well, actually the majority of citzens have no idea about the rules if the road, whether driving, walking, or bicycling. In reality, if the police don’t need to understand the laws, why do we?
The real problem is that , as Redneck mentions above, take a couple of rouge, supremist or holier than thou thinking cops, add a new chief with a track record of targeting mainly messengers, but really cyclists in general whenever she is put in a position of control (this is a fact from the past and present about Miss Sizer) and we have set ourselves up for disaster.
I say Fire Mark Kruger as we should have been done many times in the past, for many great and diffrent reasons, have a vote for a new chief so we can get her the hell out, and encourage our police dept. to practice actual ethical and pratical law enforcement, following the actual laws and ordinances that we pay them too much money to manipulate now.
Adam,
Mark Kruger and his Nazi sympathizing, along with many examples of bad police work, is a well known, undisputed fact in this town.
And, as if that is not enough, pepper macing babies and costing the city millions in a handful of lawsuits.
I think the only thing you and I would debate about Mr. Kruger is which one of us gets to light the flaming bag of pooh and and which of us gets to ring the door bell.
I would not wish to go to that “man’s” house under his current employment situation, which I am going to start working on once I have the time. you know what I am saying, dabby? enjoy the flaming poo.
The problem is really with the bike lane itself. What is the purpose of the bike lane? Without a physical barrier, it does NOTHING to protect bicyclists. Lose the bike lane and nobody gets confused.
A bit off topic, but in view of criticism of the infamous baby pepper spraying, nazi memorabilia collecting Mark Kruger, some time back, Jonathan Maus, the editor of this blog suggested that at some point in time, he would write an informative article about how, in spite of Kruger\’s notable interests and actions, Kruger was still a great guy.
I don\’t know how to locate Jonathan\’s suggestion that he was going to do this, but I fairly clearly remember him writing that he was going to do so. I\’m not quoting Jonathan\’s use of the phrase, \’great guy\’ in reference to Kruger, but I remember something admiring in his reference to that officer, that seemed to imply that such an article was merited.
Gee it would be nice to know that behind that seemingly ominous exterior of Kruger\’s, there is a guardian angel for vulnerable people.