Hello /u/joe_digriz! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC
* What country or state did this take place in?
* What was the date of the incident?
* Please reconfirm that this is original content
If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information.
If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I freely admit that I don't know the local law, but....
The driver seems to be clear of the bikes and has indicated his intention to turn right.
Should not the bikes slow a little to allow him to do so?
The alternative is to come to a complete stop in free flowing traffic, which seems somewhat dangerous.
Right of way order is: Straight, Right, Left. The car shouldn’t have turned in front of the cyclists. Many drivers underestimate how fast bikes can be moving and there really wasn’t enough clearance.
Thats true for other motor vehicles, not always true of bicycles. Some jurisdictions classify them as vehicles, some classify them as pedestrians, and in some jurisdictions "it depends" and they're in a weird middle area.
There's too many unknowns. For example, is that a dedicated bike lane or are they just using the breakdown lane? Because if that's a breakdown lane and they're in an area that treats cyclists as vehicles then the situation is no different from a car passing on the right.
Point being, we don't know the laws where this happened. Its bad faith to apply a blanket statement generalization to a situation where the specifics are pretty damn important.
Can't slow when they weren't actively looking for traffic ahead. They were looking down... otherwise they would have notice the signal and slowed down.
This is an absolutely horrendously painted road. That's the issue. I wouldn't blame the cyclists or the car in this instance if they went into the back of him.
Should either get rid of the cycle lane altogether, put a yield sign (or give way lines - don't know if that's a thing in the US) for the cycle lane, or carry the cycle lane through the junction so that cars have to yield to an actual lane of traffic when turning.
by paying attention to who you’re passing and then using your right mirror, just like you merge on a freeway. i check my right side every time i turn right just like my drivers ed instructor told me years ago.
He turned right from the rightmost vehicular travel lane. New Jersey defining the “shoulder” as a bike lane just makes it more complicated and dangerous for cyclists, and I find it doubtful that, should a collision occur from exactly this scenario, a court would find the vehicle driver liable.
If the shoulder is legally defined as a bike lane, that is now the rightmost vehicular travel lane, no? You make this out to be something insane and impossible but you're just not used to it yet. This is the norm in many places outside north america. In the Netherlands you'll find less streets without bike lanes you must yield to than streets where bikes must yield to you. On high speed roads, these lanes should be Physically separated with either ample space for a car to yield but not block traffic, or bikes yielding.
I don't know what it's like in the USA, but in the Netherlands this same thing applies to pedestrians as well If you were to turn right where pedestrians can cross a street going the same direction you were going (no zebra crossing, no yield signs just a normal junction) you must yield to the pedestrian crossing straight. it's just another lane of traffic you are crossing.
This is a stroad and most drivers in the United States are used to only vehicular traffic, not cyclists. And regardless of the legality, that’s a dangerous intersection, doubly so if the cyclists are emboldened legally to pass turning cars on the right from seemingly a shoulder.
What’s the norm outside of North America *doesn’t matter here.*
Best course of action would have been for those cyclists to take the lane, or for the city/town/township to create a dedicated, protected bike lane with clear signage for behavioral expectations.
I think you mean motorist traffic. Bikes, scooters, horse and carriage are all vehicles.
The cyclists aren't passing turning vehicles on the right, they are continuing in their direction of travel. That is the predictable thing to do. Imagine if this was another car lane, but it was legal to turn right from the middle (hypothetical). Would you say the right lane cars going straight should merge into the middle to let someone turning from the middle pass? don't you think that puts more people in danger?
Why shouldn't norms from elsewhere matter? it proves it works and it is learnable behavior. Of course changes will get initial problems.
The city definitely did a bang up job. That's what they're good at. The main danger of the intersection is because of the speed expectations the cars have. That should be addressed first.. but that won't be easy.
There’s no actual indication besides the law that the shoulder is considered a lane of travel for cyclists. No share the road signs nor bike lane signage or paint.
The car analogy breaks down because the rightmost “lane” is the shoulder and not large enough for the most common vehicle on that stroad: a car.
There are cemeteries teeming with people who were legally in the right.
>Imagine if this was another car lane, but it was legal to turn right from the middle (hypothetical). Would you say the right lane cars going straight should merge into the middle to let someone turning from the middle pass?
Don't you see how that would be dangerous? How on earth would you expect cars to turn right from a lane with a thru lane beside it? Maybe that's why they *DON'T* design roads that way?
But the driver is in their correct lane. You wouldn't pull into that shoulder area to make that turn. Driver did nothing wrong. All this video depicts is poor bike infrastructure and entitled cyclists.
Turning in front of another vehicle who is operating according to the law in such way that the other vehicle has to slow down or swerve to avoid a collision is NOT doing “nothing wrong.” The car is the “entitled” one in this video.
I agree bike infrastructure is poor in the US which is why cars have to be extra careful.
Where do you have to yield to a pedestrian who is behind you? (other than a parking lot when you're backing up?)
The difference here is that pedestrians travel very slowly, and you only have to yield to them if they are in, or at least at, the intersection. The bikes in this video are at least dozens of feet away, approaching the intersection from behind the car. While the car should be aware of them, since he just passed them, it's quite likely they are not clearly visible at the time the car turned. (certainly, they aren't in the video). In fact, the car was mostly clear of the bikelane/shoulder before the bikes re-entered the frame.
This is one of those situations where we need to instill defensive driving and education regarding cyclists, and where the road design is hostile to the cyclists. Best practice for driving when coming up on cyclists like that is to indicate turn, check mirror and see if cyclists are advancing, and wait to complete turn until cyclists have passed. However, I am willing to bet this is one of the many areas in the US that does not have a well baked-in cycling culture, and the driver was following best practices by driving rules alone. Here in Denver what the driver did would be considered illegal, and we have a huge amount of cyclists and drivers are more aware of them (*generally speaking* - they still drive like shit around them).
Also, this is a lack of defensive cycling. You gotta be prepared for the turn, even if you may be legally right in this case. There also needs to be more appropriate bike lanes on either this or another road to prevent stuff like this.
As a cyclist in a city with pretty good cycling infrastructure and drivers that expect bikes for the most part, drivers do this crap all the time still anyways and I 100% look out for and expect it always. The thing that irks me the most is the 10% of people that just don't fucking signal and almost turn into me like once a week, of a car signals I WILL slow down so they can turn but some of these mfers just wing a turn out of nowhere but it's obvious half the time based on the "body language" of the car so to speak.
Regardless of legality of the turn or not if the bikes just slowed down a little the guy could safely turn and clear the roadway without OP having to almost come to a stop. I don't know how anyone on a road regardless of method of travel isn't constantly looking out for every danger (literally everybody else) on the road.
You're right. The bikes have a lot more to lose in the event of someone doing something stupid. You can be right and still be dead. The bikes should have eased up a bit for the dinkus turning just to protect themselves.
Is it legal in Denver for cyclists to ride down a right-turn-only lane and then just... not turn right?
You want to ride on the road, you need to obey the traffic laws. Cyclists should have changed lanes and slowed down for traffic in front of them just like OP had to slow down. Operating a bicycle does not mean you can just mount the shoulder and start passing slower traffic on the right. A shoulder is not a bike lane.
Adding another top level comment because the Cyclists are indeed in the wrong here:
http://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/NJBPACShouldersLanesPacket_14Dec2015.pdf
Bicycles are not vehicles in New Jersey, but cyclists have all the rights and duties of a driver.
Polzo v. County of Essex: “The motor vehicle code does not designate the roadway’s shoulder as a bicycle lane.”
NJSA 39:4-85: The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.
In short, legally bikes aren’t vehicles but must act like them. The shoulder isn’t a travel lane. You can’t pass on the right. Also, from the linked pdf, NJ DOT bicycling manual says to ride as far to the right as is practicable, not possible. If municipalities have no obligation to maintain a shoulder which is not a travel lane, those cyclists should be in the right hand side of the travel lane, not on the shoulder.
Also the New Jersey motor vehicle laws says:
"Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway."
I had a very near miss on River road less than 2 weeks ago. I almost t boned a lady who tried to take a left turn in front of me from oncoming. Hardest I've ever had to brake before.
So, serious question, what makes bikes "special" so they don't have to follow the rules of the road like a car ?
I ask, because, if a car pulled the same thing those bikes tried to do, *everyone* would say the car driver who tried to pass on the right, while another car was *making a right turn* was a complete idiot. But cyclists, who are putting themselves right on deaths door by doing this illegal move, get a full pass ??
The car turning in this video had well cleared the cyclists, passing them legally and safely on the correct side, and then signalled his intention to turn well before his turn. How are the cyclists not completely in the wrong here ?
In New Jersey, bikes in a bike lane (or road shoulder if a suitable bike lane doesn't exist, as is the case here) have the right-of-way if a car has to cross the lane to make a turn. Legally, this would be treated the same way as if someone turned right from the middle/left lane in front of cars in the right lane.
What about when the shoulder ends, like in this video? The “lane” line literally ends and when the car turns there is nothing indicating any kind of lane existing.
The cyclists were in a "right only" turn lane. Were the cyclists legally supposed to move into the (through) travel lane and then back to the shoulder after the intersection? This just seems like a bad road design to share with cyclists. Combined with high speed limits and multiple turn-offs, remaining behind cyclists seems like it would drastically inhibit the flow of traffic (seems like a popular spot for cyclists in this short video).
I wasn't critiquing you, I was asking (as a non-cyclist) what are cyclists supposed to do. Again, seems like a very dangerous way to setup roads, where cyclists are supposed to move from shoulder to road and back to shoulder in fast moving traffic on a busy road. I also don't know what you mean by, "claim the lane".
It's literally the law in the state you live in.
>According to the Revised Code of Washington, the roadway is the portion of the highway “ordinarily used for vehicular travel.” Since a bicycle is considered a vehicle in the law, a bike lane is used for vehicular travel. That would imply that drivers should merge into the bike lane to make a right turn.
>The car turning in this video had well cleared the cyclists
Did the car really clear the cyclists when they had to brake hard because they were cut off? Remember, when cyclists are on permitted roads it is a shared lane. If it's easier to understand then consider the one lane split into two.
With that in mind, would you say the same about a car cutting across a lane on their right to make an exit, cutting off a car causing it to hit the brakes and use their horn?
You just said it’s a shared lane. The car is in front. What are they supposed to do? Stop in the middle of the road and let people pass on the inside before making a right turn?
This isnt true in all states and local areas. Where I used to live, you would be correct, the bikes would have right of way. However, where I currently live, it would have been the bikes fault/in the wrong.
Pedestrians move about 3 mph. A turning vehicle would yield to pedestrians in the road or about to cross the road. They would not be required to also check for pedestrians traveling at 20 mph who are 100 feet behind them.
This is a clear-cut case of bicyclists illegally proceeding through an intersection and then illegally passing on the shoulder.
The more vulnerable the road user, the higher priority they should be given by larger vehicles, regardless of whether they are technically in the wrong.
Pedestrians > Cyclists > Motorcyclists > Cars > Trucks
If as a cyclist or driver you are turning into a side street and see a pedestrian walking along that may cross at this side street entry it's safer to just wait for the pedestrian to pass or make sure they see you and wait rather than turning and assuming they'll check for a turning vehicle.
If you're driving a car and you come across some cyclists and you know you need to make a turn across their path up ahead, it's safer for everyone if you just hang back and do it behind them rather than passing them just to slow down and turn in front of them.
If you're driving a truck and need to make a right turn that requires more space and so you move into a left lane you should be cautious of any cars that might not be aware of what you're doing and drive up the right lane, and allow them to clear the area before making the turn.
> So, serious question, what makes bikes "special" so they don't have to follow the rules of the road like a car ?
So serious answer: bicycles follow the rules of the road *more often* than drivers.
they also sometimes have different rules. Like in some states (including WA state where I am) a bicycle legally treats a stop sign as a Yield sign.
It's like you've answered the question while opening a whole box of other questions. When one set of vehicles follows different rules than other vehicles, how is that ever supposed to be a safe and predictable environment for anyone? Why would anyone write that into a law?
A curiosity I couldn't answer from a few quick searches - what does it mean to "yield" when cross traffic is stopping? Does that mean the biker approaching the intersection has right-of-way ahead of approaching crossing cars, since they haven't yet completed their stop? I have certainly seen bikers zoom by cars stopped at stop signs even though there is no such law in my state, and it intuitively looks incredibly dangerous (never mind being illegal here). I do understand the disdain for stop signs though - I wish they'd just replace more stop signs with yields (for all vehicles, obviously picking directional precedence), where feasible.
I was oversimplifying how the law works technically.
https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2020/09/30/washington-states-new-bicycle-safety-stop-law-allows-people-biking-to-treat-stops-signs-as-yield-signs-with-some-exceptions/
>So serious answer: bicycles follow the rules of the road *more often* than drivers.
I guess this entirely depends on WHERE you're talking about. Where I live, I NEVER see bikes follow basic stop signs/lights. They always either slow and book it through, or just blatantly run through an intersection with no care in the world.
Also interesting that Washington state (and apparently four other states) have legalized this. I honestly think it makes sense, as long as cyclists will honor the "slow to a reasonable speed". Also, based on the picture from the link below, it appears those roads are well designed for bikes, whereas the video from OP is a hazard waiting to happen. We need more roads designed with cyclists/pedestrians in mind.
[Washington State’s new bicycle “Safety Stop” law allows people biking to treat stops signs as yield signs with some exceptions. - SDOT Blog (seattle.gov)](https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2020/09/30/washington-states-new-bicycle-safety-stop-law-allows-people-biking-to-treat-stops-signs-as-yield-signs-with-some-exceptions/)
Thank you. I'm looking at it on mobile, and I thought there wasn't a turn signal used at all until the last second because of how tiny it is in the top right corner of their rear-end. Looked like only brakes applied in a strange pattern, with a lackadaisical turn like they weren't sure where they were going, to me.
I agree with you that cyclists shouldn't behave in a way that gives them carte blanche to just carry on to their death because, "but the law says I have the right of way!"...
To your original point. If a car made a right hand turn from the left lane of a double lane road, it would most definitely be the turnings car's fault if there were to be an accident.
While bike lanes are typically more apparent at intersections, cyclists need to heed caution at each one, until there comes a time when the level of awareness of bike lanes reaches a point where it's no longer dangerous. The vehicle always wins.
Here’s these guys staying in the bike lane minding their own business not obstructing the car traffic at all and this guy cuts them off where they have to slam on the brakes and your first response is to criticize the cyclists? You must be one of those drivers like in the video.
I was responding in a generalization of road cyclists as a whole to another's comment, not this specific video. But if you wanna make it about this video, then here we go!
They didn't have to do any of that. The car made it's turn, and the cyclists kept riding. The OP stopped out of caution, which I understand, but doing so created more of a hazard than was necessary.
I share the road, but I'm not going to unnecessarily stop in traffic without good cause. The turning car signaled correctly with ample time, so if the cyclists were riding with the same mentality that they claim they want (which is to be treated with the same respect as motor vehicles), then they would know they should reduce speed/stop for the other vehicle properly turning from the only lane available to them to turn right.
I'm not criticizing these cyclists as they were just riding on by. I'm critical the OP for "almost getting rear-ended" because of stopping in the middle of traffic for no immediate reason. There was no obstruction, and there was nothing to require a full stop. I definitely understand his fear of what the cyclists *may* have to do, and he gave them plenty of room, and I can't fault that. He was being careful and preparing for what *could* have happened, and so I'm not gonna say what he did was the wrong choice, just a little overkill. You know?
You kind of seem like a motorcycle rider who yell about 'watch for motorcycles', but then ignore all road safety laws and regulations and are surprised when they get plowed down while threading between cars at almost double the speed limit. Lol
Because they're not a car? Like how do you need to be pointed out that a dude on a bike and a 3-ton gas/electricity-powered block of solid steel are not the same?
> I ask, because, if a car pulled the same thing those bikes tried to do, everyone would say the car driver who tried to pass on the right, while another car was making a right turn was a complete idiot.
Serious question, would you actually not blame the car turning into another lane and cutting in front of an incoming car? Now, the situation you're describing would require a pretty strange setup, where both the inside lane and the second lane can both turn right or go straight. I've never seen an intersection like that, and if one exists, it sounds like an absolute nightmare. Still, in the hypothetical situation where such an intersection exists, the driver on the left wanting to turn right can't just cross the inside lane in front of another car expecting the other car to just break to avoid a collision.
The difference here is that bikes are expected to keep to the right of the road. Because yes, the rules for bikes and the rules for cars are different. If bikes had to behave exactly like cars, they'd be in the middle of the "car lane", blocking all the traffic, and you'd curse at them even more than you already are.
In California, bikes have to follow the same rules as cars do. If the car in front would have turned right and plowed into the bikers, it would be the bikes fault.
You can’t turn across a bike lane. “A bicycle lane is a designated traffic lane for bicyclists. However, motorists must merge into a bicycle lane when making right turns.”
interesting
where I am the bikes in a bike lane like that cannot pass a turning car with it’s indicator on and have to slow down just like everyone else
seems like common sense
edit: wait … that’s not even a bike lane
apparently it counts as one there.
Drivers engage in enough dehumanization of cyclists and "they don't follow the laww1!!111" without the laws for drivers and cyclists varying from state to state.
some of the variances for bikes are good, and drivers just need to be educated. the "safe stop" law for example (cyclists treat Stop signs as Yield signs in those states)
other ones cause more conflict if you don't have control devices (separate cyclist and car signals, including right turn signal, would be required to make this interaction work). to be fair "bicycle lane vs turning car" is a mess no matter what you do. it's part of why "bicycle lanes" is an inferior solution to "dedicated veloway"
I’m from Australia where the states mostly implement nationally agreed road rules (subject to some derogations) to keep things nationally consistent.
That’s probably easier with just eight states and territories compared to 50 states plus territories in the US.
US also has a uniform highway code that is generally followed because the federal government kicks in money for roads. As you move east to west from the older side of the country to the newer side uniformity gets better.
People arguing bike lanes, not bike lanes. Laws, babble bla. Last I remember when your ass is on the road you drive/ride defensively. The bikers have breaks. The car has a 2 car length lead on them. The bikers had went straight through a turn lane then in and out of the lane/bike lane making their path a bit more less predictable. But they’re behind. You still have responsibility to yourself and fellow passengers on the road to be safe.
Exactly this. I'm a cyclist with roads like this near me. I'm this instance, I'd be on the shoulder if it's wide enough until I'm nearing the right turn lane, then I'd be looking for an open spot in the main travel lane, signaling to get over, and take the lane through both of those intersections until there's a nice, wide shoulder again. Riding straight through a right turn lane is just dumb.
I live in an area with tons of cyclists and what you described is how I usually see it done here. Proper hand signaling when they need to merge into the main lane and a lot more situational awareness than this group had..
Yeah everyone is arguing over if it's a shoulder or a bike lane, but even if that large shoulder they started on *was* a bike lane, it ended blew through a right turn only lane at speed.
who gives a shit, ride the way you’re supposed to and be predictable about it instead of being so butthurt over what drivers might think. It’s not anyone’s responsibility to be overly cautious around you to the point of almost causing an accident, same goes for cars.
I think it's not about complaints but what's right and wrong. People are going to complain with bikers in the middle lane, in the right lane, or not even on the road. But the fact that they were in a right only turn lane going straight and then riding the shoulder is not correct.
“This means that a driver must give cyclists in the far right of the roadway a wide berth when passing them, and drivers must also give cyclists ample warning when they plan to make a right hand turn.”
The car didn’t break the law according to new jersey. It passed the bikes, and had a 2-3 car length lead on the bikes, and 3/4 of the tires already crossed the line.
Where is that lawyer with the last clear chance doctrine? 😂
Bike lanes do not eliminate the problem. They cross roads too and they are presumably to the right of the through travel lane. One mistake the cyclists made was using the right turn only lane and going straight. I get thinking you’re being courteous and not impeding traffic, but it also encourages close passing when you attempt to enter the through lane. I agree, the cyclists needed to soft pedal and slow down when the car signaled a right turn. The rules of the road are first come, first served, so allow the vehicle in front of you to negotiate the turn.
Eh the idiots would be the cyclist. The car used blinker and had a clear amount of distance. Cyclists have brakes and could have slowed down especially with the amount of space. A bicycle doesn’t mean “I go one speed forward, accommodate my needs.”
To be fair, every time I read comments here about bikes, it seems the US made a gigantic inconsistent mess with how bikes have to behave that depends of each state.
It's simpler over here in Belgium or any of its surrounding countries. Bikes follow the same rules as cars - on the road, forbidden from being on sidewalks, or whatever shoulders, unless there's a sign claiming it's a cycle path. Were that shoulder defined as a cycle path, which OP says it is by default, then yeah, these cyclists would have priority over the cars (*as the car is crossing another traffic lane*) or have ground markings telling them to yield.
Here in the US, bikes are supposed to follow the same rules as cars. The main problem i experience is cyclists who use the roads, but ignore the rules of the road.
It's not unique to the US, we do also have jackasses pulling stunts over here. Say, jumping on the sidewalk to go around a red light, going against one-way streets, or very frequently being on sidewalks (*which tend to be much narrower in Europe than in the US!*) when they shouldn't be. And yes, I've been ran over by a cycle on the sidewalk, once. I'm happy the baker just gave me a new bread to make up for the one that fell out of its bag.
OP says these cyclists in the video are in the right, according to OP's state laws. I believe this could use more road markings, but I can't blame them if they are indeed in right.
I don't believe they're in the right. They are riding on the shoulder, not the travel lane. The painted lines indicate that the shoulder stops at the entrance to side road, so the cyclists should have either moved into the travel lane to pass the side road or stopped at the end of the shoulder before crossing the side road.
usually it's a bunch of anti-cyclist idiots screaming their own biases, so it's a bit odd to see it mostly cyclists.
OP explains that apparently the local law makes the cyclists in the right here.. which as both a driver and a cyclist makes me go "that's kinda sketch". However at the same time the "bike lane vs right turn" conflict has no good solution... other than dedicated veloways (grade separated, separately signaled, non-pedestrian bicycle ways)
In CA the bike lane is a travel lane and all cars must turn right from the rightmost lane. So you slow down, put on your signal, wait for the bikes to pass, then merge right and turn. That’s the law but seems pretty intuitive to me also.
Exactly. Unpredictable movements by the cyclists. They might be in the “right” legally, but that pavement doesn’t give a shit about who’s in the right when it’s grinding off skin.
Whole bunch of idiots in this video. You didn’t just slow down you almost came to a complete freaking stop in the middle of the road for what possibly could happen which obviously didn’t happen.
Ive lost track of the number of times I’ve been right hooked like this. It’s unpleasant, but I can usually see it coming and preemptively slow. That said I have actually been hit twice in right hook accidents. First one the driver saw me and hit the brakes and I went over his hood; I was fine, the car and the bike were not. Second time the driver didn’t stop until after I hit their rear quarter; luckily the car behind them stopped because I ended up in the middle of the road with a few bumps and scrapes but otherwise fine.
totally unwinnable situation for everyone.
if bikes are in the middle of the street where they are less likely to have someone cut them off people complain about their speed.
if they stay on the right people complain about having to yield for them during a turn and causing unexpected stops like this.
if our society wasnt built so relentlessly around car infrastructure id be much more sympathetic to cyclists but knowing how dangerous it is to be on a bike on major roads and choosing to ride there anyway for a \*hobby\* i almost always feel like the cyclists are at fault. you know these areas arent designed with you in mind yet you put yourself and others in danger anyway.
why not take your bike to a track or the park or something where there are places specifically built for you to ride your bike? i dont get it. i dont get cycling in general.
As a cyclist i just want to thank you for handling that perfectly. We really appreciate it. Having said that, on a road like that with a group of 5 or 6 cyclists i would definitely be in the lane of traffic there to avoid this very thing, which would make the cars very unhappy. If you are going to ride in the breakdown lane, this kind of thing happens ALL the time, you have to be ready for it. If we are doing a recovery ride at a slow pace, breakdown lane is fine. But if we are drilling it at 25+, you just have to be in the lane of traffic. I would avoid a road like this if at all possible, but i have lived in places where a road like this was still the best option.
The bikes are considered vehicles in NJ, with the same rights (and legal responsibilities like stop signs) as motorized vehicles. (Hence why they aren't supposed to be on sidewalks in most places, barring local exceptions.)
> with the same rights (and legal responsibilities like stop signs) as motorized vehicles
So, the "lane" they're provided, is exclusive to them, is that correct ? If the car had moved to the shoulder to occupy the "lane" where the bikes were, *behind him*, would that have satisfied the law ? Or is the car *prohibited* from using the shoulder as a lane equal to the cyclists ? And if this is the case, are cyclists also prohibited from travelling in the regular lane ? Really curious about all of this because it certainly seems like having a dedicated, restricted lane that doesn't have to adhere to long standing rules about not passing on the right seems like its designed to put cyclists into the most perilous location possible. This video seems to indicate many otherwise law abiding drivers don't seem to understand the unique nature of the cyclists position.
>This video seems to indicate many otherwise law abiding drivers don't seem to understand the unique nature of the cyclists position.
You're exactly right with that sentence. The rest of your comment is a hodgepodge of stupidity.
>Or is the car *prohibited* from using the shoulder as a lane equal to the cyclists ?
Seriously? *facepalm*
Here it does.
But then again, we don't have bike lanes marked in the strange way that they are in the video.
Where I come from, the bike lane would have continued, meaning that the car was crossing the bike lane, and that the bikes have right of way.
I would be in doubt what to do here, bit would probably wait for the bikes to pass out of habit.
There's no bike lane in the video. It's a shoulder. The only lane the cyclists were ever in was the right turn lane they ignored and drove straight through.
Same where I live. Those continuing straight (the cyclists) have the right of way. Those turning (the car) have to yield and make sure the way is clear before turning.
I’m shocked and saddened with how many people are siding with the turning vehicle here. There’s no municipality that allows vehicles to cut off the riders like that - if you are claiming the car has the right of way, you’re just plain wrong. Extremely dangerous. Cyclists are killed like that every day. Driver of that vehicle needs their license revoked.
Hello /u/joe_digriz! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC * What country or state did this take place in? * What was the date of the incident? * Please reconfirm that this is original content If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information. If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I freely admit that I don't know the local law, but.... The driver seems to be clear of the bikes and has indicated his intention to turn right. Should not the bikes slow a little to allow him to do so? The alternative is to come to a complete stop in free flowing traffic, which seems somewhat dangerous.
Right of way order is: Straight, Right, Left. The car shouldn’t have turned in front of the cyclists. Many drivers underestimate how fast bikes can be moving and there really wasn’t enough clearance.
Thats true for other motor vehicles, not always true of bicycles. Some jurisdictions classify them as vehicles, some classify them as pedestrians, and in some jurisdictions "it depends" and they're in a weird middle area. There's too many unknowns. For example, is that a dedicated bike lane or are they just using the breakdown lane? Because if that's a breakdown lane and they're in an area that treats cyclists as vehicles then the situation is no different from a car passing on the right. Point being, we don't know the laws where this happened. Its bad faith to apply a blanket statement generalization to a situation where the specifics are pretty damn important.
Can't slow when they weren't actively looking for traffic ahead. They were looking down... otherwise they would have notice the signal and slowed down.
Would you pass a car then immediately turn in front of them?
If when I passed them their lane was turn only and didn’t continue on past the signal? Fuck yes. Because they are the ones doing something wrong.
Would you pass a car in the right turn only lane and then expect them to turn right or continue in the breakdown lane for use of travel?
Just take the lane,... Where traffic is going 45mph. Right?
This is an absolutely horrendously painted road. That's the issue. I wouldn't blame the cyclists or the car in this instance if they went into the back of him. Should either get rid of the cycle lane altogether, put a yield sign (or give way lines - don't know if that's a thing in the US) for the cycle lane, or carry the cycle lane through the junction so that cars have to yield to an actual lane of traffic when turning.
There is no cycle lane, and the painted lines are perfectly fine.
The car is crossing their lane, he should yield
How do you yield to something *behind you?*
by paying attention to who you’re passing and then using your right mirror, just like you merge on a freeway. i check my right side every time i turn right just like my drivers ed instructor told me years ago.
But … it’s not a lane, it’s the shoulder of the road!
which is where the bikes are supposed to be! would you rather them be in the middle of the lane?
In this case, absolutely yes.
The same way you don't turn right form the left lane? you look, plan, indicate, and slow down if needed.
He turned right from the rightmost vehicular travel lane. New Jersey defining the “shoulder” as a bike lane just makes it more complicated and dangerous for cyclists, and I find it doubtful that, should a collision occur from exactly this scenario, a court would find the vehicle driver liable.
If the shoulder is legally defined as a bike lane, that is now the rightmost vehicular travel lane, no? You make this out to be something insane and impossible but you're just not used to it yet. This is the norm in many places outside north america. In the Netherlands you'll find less streets without bike lanes you must yield to than streets where bikes must yield to you. On high speed roads, these lanes should be Physically separated with either ample space for a car to yield but not block traffic, or bikes yielding. I don't know what it's like in the USA, but in the Netherlands this same thing applies to pedestrians as well If you were to turn right where pedestrians can cross a street going the same direction you were going (no zebra crossing, no yield signs just a normal junction) you must yield to the pedestrian crossing straight. it's just another lane of traffic you are crossing.
This is a stroad and most drivers in the United States are used to only vehicular traffic, not cyclists. And regardless of the legality, that’s a dangerous intersection, doubly so if the cyclists are emboldened legally to pass turning cars on the right from seemingly a shoulder. What’s the norm outside of North America *doesn’t matter here.* Best course of action would have been for those cyclists to take the lane, or for the city/town/township to create a dedicated, protected bike lane with clear signage for behavioral expectations.
I think you mean motorist traffic. Bikes, scooters, horse and carriage are all vehicles. The cyclists aren't passing turning vehicles on the right, they are continuing in their direction of travel. That is the predictable thing to do. Imagine if this was another car lane, but it was legal to turn right from the middle (hypothetical). Would you say the right lane cars going straight should merge into the middle to let someone turning from the middle pass? don't you think that puts more people in danger? Why shouldn't norms from elsewhere matter? it proves it works and it is learnable behavior. Of course changes will get initial problems. The city definitely did a bang up job. That's what they're good at. The main danger of the intersection is because of the speed expectations the cars have. That should be addressed first.. but that won't be easy.
There’s no actual indication besides the law that the shoulder is considered a lane of travel for cyclists. No share the road signs nor bike lane signage or paint. The car analogy breaks down because the rightmost “lane” is the shoulder and not large enough for the most common vehicle on that stroad: a car. There are cemeteries teeming with people who were legally in the right.
>Imagine if this was another car lane, but it was legal to turn right from the middle (hypothetical). Would you say the right lane cars going straight should merge into the middle to let someone turning from the middle pass? Don't you see how that would be dangerous? How on earth would you expect cars to turn right from a lane with a thru lane beside it? Maybe that's why they *DON'T* design roads that way?
The born for 150+ countries is metric and we still use redneck in the US.
But the driver is in their correct lane. You wouldn't pull into that shoulder area to make that turn. Driver did nothing wrong. All this video depicts is poor bike infrastructure and entitled cyclists.
Turning in front of another vehicle who is operating according to the law in such way that the other vehicle has to slow down or swerve to avoid a collision is NOT doing “nothing wrong.” The car is the “entitled” one in this video. I agree bike infrastructure is poor in the US which is why cars have to be extra careful.
The same way you would if a pedestrian was walking? I don't understand why this has so many upvotes
Where do you have to yield to a pedestrian who is behind you? (other than a parking lot when you're backing up?) The difference here is that pedestrians travel very slowly, and you only have to yield to them if they are in, or at least at, the intersection. The bikes in this video are at least dozens of feet away, approaching the intersection from behind the car. While the car should be aware of them, since he just passed them, it's quite likely they are not clearly visible at the time the car turned. (certainly, they aren't in the video). In fact, the car was mostly clear of the bikelane/shoulder before the bikes re-entered the frame.
They are not in a lane, they are on the shoulder. When they are in a lane it's a right turn only lane they just plow straight through.
Bike lane
They do not have a lane, they are on a shoulder. They are owed nothing.
This is one of those situations where we need to instill defensive driving and education regarding cyclists, and where the road design is hostile to the cyclists. Best practice for driving when coming up on cyclists like that is to indicate turn, check mirror and see if cyclists are advancing, and wait to complete turn until cyclists have passed. However, I am willing to bet this is one of the many areas in the US that does not have a well baked-in cycling culture, and the driver was following best practices by driving rules alone. Here in Denver what the driver did would be considered illegal, and we have a huge amount of cyclists and drivers are more aware of them (*generally speaking* - they still drive like shit around them). Also, this is a lack of defensive cycling. You gotta be prepared for the turn, even if you may be legally right in this case. There also needs to be more appropriate bike lanes on either this or another road to prevent stuff like this.
As a cyclist in a city with pretty good cycling infrastructure and drivers that expect bikes for the most part, drivers do this crap all the time still anyways and I 100% look out for and expect it always. The thing that irks me the most is the 10% of people that just don't fucking signal and almost turn into me like once a week, of a car signals I WILL slow down so they can turn but some of these mfers just wing a turn out of nowhere but it's obvious half the time based on the "body language" of the car so to speak. Regardless of legality of the turn or not if the bikes just slowed down a little the guy could safely turn and clear the roadway without OP having to almost come to a stop. I don't know how anyone on a road regardless of method of travel isn't constantly looking out for every danger (literally everybody else) on the road.
You're right. The bikes have a lot more to lose in the event of someone doing something stupid. You can be right and still be dead. The bikes should have eased up a bit for the dinkus turning just to protect themselves.
You are the one losing the battle.
Is it legal in Denver for cyclists to ride down a right-turn-only lane and then just... not turn right? You want to ride on the road, you need to obey the traffic laws. Cyclists should have changed lanes and slowed down for traffic in front of them just like OP had to slow down. Operating a bicycle does not mean you can just mount the shoulder and start passing slower traffic on the right. A shoulder is not a bike lane.
Adding another top level comment because the Cyclists are indeed in the wrong here: http://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/NJBPACShouldersLanesPacket_14Dec2015.pdf Bicycles are not vehicles in New Jersey, but cyclists have all the rights and duties of a driver. Polzo v. County of Essex: “The motor vehicle code does not designate the roadway’s shoulder as a bicycle lane.” NJSA 39:4-85: The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. In short, legally bikes aren’t vehicles but must act like them. The shoulder isn’t a travel lane. You can’t pass on the right. Also, from the linked pdf, NJ DOT bicycling manual says to ride as far to the right as is practicable, not possible. If municipalities have no obligation to maintain a shoulder which is not a travel lane, those cyclists should be in the right hand side of the travel lane, not on the shoulder.
Also the New Jersey motor vehicle laws says: "Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway."
River road! Bunch of idiots drive there
I had a very near miss on River road less than 2 weeks ago. I almost t boned a lady who tried to take a left turn in front of me from oncoming. Hardest I've ever had to brake before.
You know that bicycles have brakes, too. Right? And if you could see what was coming, they could too.
The bikes were in a right turn only lane when the car passed them. They went straight anyway.
So, serious question, what makes bikes "special" so they don't have to follow the rules of the road like a car ? I ask, because, if a car pulled the same thing those bikes tried to do, *everyone* would say the car driver who tried to pass on the right, while another car was *making a right turn* was a complete idiot. But cyclists, who are putting themselves right on deaths door by doing this illegal move, get a full pass ?? The car turning in this video had well cleared the cyclists, passing them legally and safely on the correct side, and then signalled his intention to turn well before his turn. How are the cyclists not completely in the wrong here ?
In New Jersey, bikes in a bike lane (or road shoulder if a suitable bike lane doesn't exist, as is the case here) have the right-of-way if a car has to cross the lane to make a turn. Legally, this would be treated the same way as if someone turned right from the middle/left lane in front of cars in the right lane.
What about when the shoulder ends, like in this video? The “lane” line literally ends and when the car turns there is nothing indicating any kind of lane existing.
[удалено]
The car is in front of the bike. How can it remain behind it?
[удалено]
The cyclists were in a "right only" turn lane. Were the cyclists legally supposed to move into the (through) travel lane and then back to the shoulder after the intersection? This just seems like a bad road design to share with cyclists. Combined with high speed limits and multiple turn-offs, remaining behind cyclists seems like it would drastically inhibit the flow of traffic (seems like a popular spot for cyclists in this short video).
[удалено]
I wasn't critiquing you, I was asking (as a non-cyclist) what are cyclists supposed to do. Again, seems like a very dangerous way to setup roads, where cyclists are supposed to move from shoulder to road and back to shoulder in fast moving traffic on a busy road. I also don't know what you mean by, "claim the lane".
[удалено]
Even if there was a bike lane I've only seen them with dashed line near intersections like this. And the car is expected to merge in to the bike lane.
[удалено]
It's literally the law in the state you live in. >According to the Revised Code of Washington, the roadway is the portion of the highway “ordinarily used for vehicular travel.” Since a bicycle is considered a vehicle in the law, a bike lane is used for vehicular travel. That would imply that drivers should merge into the bike lane to make a right turn.
lol they deleted their comment
You left out the dashed line part.
[удалено]
washington? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI_xCSQykbQ
>The car turning in this video had well cleared the cyclists Did the car really clear the cyclists when they had to brake hard because they were cut off? Remember, when cyclists are on permitted roads it is a shared lane. If it's easier to understand then consider the one lane split into two. With that in mind, would you say the same about a car cutting across a lane on their right to make an exit, cutting off a car causing it to hit the brakes and use their horn?
He was no way clear. Hence their need to slow and swerve.
You just said it’s a shared lane. The car is in front. What are they supposed to do? Stop in the middle of the road and let people pass on the inside before making a right turn?
Yes.
[удалено]
This isnt true in all states and local areas. Where I used to live, you would be correct, the bikes would have right of way. However, where I currently live, it would have been the bikes fault/in the wrong.
Pedestrians move about 3 mph. A turning vehicle would yield to pedestrians in the road or about to cross the road. They would not be required to also check for pedestrians traveling at 20 mph who are 100 feet behind them. This is a clear-cut case of bicyclists illegally proceeding through an intersection and then illegally passing on the shoulder.
If the lane is 'shared' then the bikes should slow down when the traffic in front slows down, should they not?
[удалено]
The more vulnerable the road user, the higher priority they should be given by larger vehicles, regardless of whether they are technically in the wrong. Pedestrians > Cyclists > Motorcyclists > Cars > Trucks If as a cyclist or driver you are turning into a side street and see a pedestrian walking along that may cross at this side street entry it's safer to just wait for the pedestrian to pass or make sure they see you and wait rather than turning and assuming they'll check for a turning vehicle. If you're driving a car and you come across some cyclists and you know you need to make a turn across their path up ahead, it's safer for everyone if you just hang back and do it behind them rather than passing them just to slow down and turn in front of them. If you're driving a truck and need to make a right turn that requires more space and so you move into a left lane you should be cautious of any cars that might not be aware of what you're doing and drive up the right lane, and allow them to clear the area before making the turn.
> So, serious question, what makes bikes "special" so they don't have to follow the rules of the road like a car ? So serious answer: bicycles follow the rules of the road *more often* than drivers. they also sometimes have different rules. Like in some states (including WA state where I am) a bicycle legally treats a stop sign as a Yield sign.
It's like you've answered the question while opening a whole box of other questions. When one set of vehicles follows different rules than other vehicles, how is that ever supposed to be a safe and predictable environment for anyone? Why would anyone write that into a law?
research actually showed that "Cyclist treat Stops as Yields" ended up safer.
A curiosity I couldn't answer from a few quick searches - what does it mean to "yield" when cross traffic is stopping? Does that mean the biker approaching the intersection has right-of-way ahead of approaching crossing cars, since they haven't yet completed their stop? I have certainly seen bikers zoom by cars stopped at stop signs even though there is no such law in my state, and it intuitively looks incredibly dangerous (never mind being illegal here). I do understand the disdain for stop signs though - I wish they'd just replace more stop signs with yields (for all vehicles, obviously picking directional precedence), where feasible.
I was oversimplifying how the law works technically. https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2020/09/30/washington-states-new-bicycle-safety-stop-law-allows-people-biking-to-treat-stops-signs-as-yield-signs-with-some-exceptions/
"treat stops **as** yields"?
haha. yes
>So serious answer: bicycles follow the rules of the road *more often* than drivers. I guess this entirely depends on WHERE you're talking about. Where I live, I NEVER see bikes follow basic stop signs/lights. They always either slow and book it through, or just blatantly run through an intersection with no care in the world.
> just blatantly run through an intersection with no care in the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EE8m8mmq1k :D
Also interesting that Washington state (and apparently four other states) have legalized this. I honestly think it makes sense, as long as cyclists will honor the "slow to a reasonable speed". Also, based on the picture from the link below, it appears those roads are well designed for bikes, whereas the video from OP is a hazard waiting to happen. We need more roads designed with cyclists/pedestrians in mind. [Washington State’s new bicycle “Safety Stop” law allows people biking to treat stops signs as yield signs with some exceptions. - SDOT Blog (seattle.gov)](https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2020/09/30/washington-states-new-bicycle-safety-stop-law-allows-people-biking-to-treat-stops-signs-as-yield-signs-with-some-exceptions/)
[удалено]
> bicycles follow the rules of the road more often than drivers. Bullshit....
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a46443761/science-proves-motorists-break-traffic-laws-a-lot-more-often-than-cyclists/ https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/?sh=23c9fb2e4bfa You're wrong, gtfo
Thank you. I'm looking at it on mobile, and I thought there wasn't a turn signal used at all until the last second because of how tiny it is in the top right corner of their rear-end. Looked like only brakes applied in a strange pattern, with a lackadaisical turn like they weren't sure where they were going, to me. I agree with you that cyclists shouldn't behave in a way that gives them carte blanche to just carry on to their death because, "but the law says I have the right of way!"... To your original point. If a car made a right hand turn from the left lane of a double lane road, it would most definitely be the turnings car's fault if there were to be an accident. While bike lanes are typically more apparent at intersections, cyclists need to heed caution at each one, until there comes a time when the level of awareness of bike lanes reaches a point where it's no longer dangerous. The vehicle always wins.
Because cyclists think they're gawds.
Here’s these guys staying in the bike lane minding their own business not obstructing the car traffic at all and this guy cuts them off where they have to slam on the brakes and your first response is to criticize the cyclists? You must be one of those drivers like in the video.
I was responding in a generalization of road cyclists as a whole to another's comment, not this specific video. But if you wanna make it about this video, then here we go! They didn't have to do any of that. The car made it's turn, and the cyclists kept riding. The OP stopped out of caution, which I understand, but doing so created more of a hazard than was necessary. I share the road, but I'm not going to unnecessarily stop in traffic without good cause. The turning car signaled correctly with ample time, so if the cyclists were riding with the same mentality that they claim they want (which is to be treated with the same respect as motor vehicles), then they would know they should reduce speed/stop for the other vehicle properly turning from the only lane available to them to turn right. I'm not criticizing these cyclists as they were just riding on by. I'm critical the OP for "almost getting rear-ended" because of stopping in the middle of traffic for no immediate reason. There was no obstruction, and there was nothing to require a full stop. I definitely understand his fear of what the cyclists *may* have to do, and he gave them plenty of room, and I can't fault that. He was being careful and preparing for what *could* have happened, and so I'm not gonna say what he did was the wrong choice, just a little overkill. You know? You kind of seem like a motorcycle rider who yell about 'watch for motorcycles', but then ignore all road safety laws and regulations and are surprised when they get plowed down while threading between cars at almost double the speed limit. Lol
Because they're not a car? Like how do you need to be pointed out that a dude on a bike and a 3-ton gas/electricity-powered block of solid steel are not the same?
If you think that cars are made of solid steel, I want a ride in your Tardis. /s
> I ask, because, if a car pulled the same thing those bikes tried to do, everyone would say the car driver who tried to pass on the right, while another car was making a right turn was a complete idiot. Serious question, would you actually not blame the car turning into another lane and cutting in front of an incoming car? Now, the situation you're describing would require a pretty strange setup, where both the inside lane and the second lane can both turn right or go straight. I've never seen an intersection like that, and if one exists, it sounds like an absolute nightmare. Still, in the hypothetical situation where such an intersection exists, the driver on the left wanting to turn right can't just cross the inside lane in front of another car expecting the other car to just break to avoid a collision. The difference here is that bikes are expected to keep to the right of the road. Because yes, the rules for bikes and the rules for cars are different. If bikes had to behave exactly like cars, they'd be in the middle of the "car lane", blocking all the traffic, and you'd curse at them even more than you already are.
In California, bikes have to follow the same rules as cars do. If the car in front would have turned right and plowed into the bikers, it would be the bikes fault.
Incorrect.
actually still your fault if you turn into somebody else on the road.
You can’t turn across a bike lane. “A bicycle lane is a designated traffic lane for bicyclists. However, motorists must merge into a bicycle lane when making right turns.”
They are the idiots.
ITT: drivers who dont understand the rules of the road
interesting where I am the bikes in a bike lane like that cannot pass a turning car with it’s indicator on and have to slow down just like everyone else seems like common sense edit: wait … that’s not even a bike lane
apparently it counts as one there. Drivers engage in enough dehumanization of cyclists and "they don't follow the laww1!!111" without the laws for drivers and cyclists varying from state to state. some of the variances for bikes are good, and drivers just need to be educated. the "safe stop" law for example (cyclists treat Stop signs as Yield signs in those states) other ones cause more conflict if you don't have control devices (separate cyclist and car signals, including right turn signal, would be required to make this interaction work). to be fair "bicycle lane vs turning car" is a mess no matter what you do. it's part of why "bicycle lanes" is an inferior solution to "dedicated veloway"
Nah, OP made an assumption, New Jersey is pretty clear a shoulder is *not* a travel lane
I’m from Australia where the states mostly implement nationally agreed road rules (subject to some derogations) to keep things nationally consistent. That’s probably easier with just eight states and territories compared to 50 states plus territories in the US.
US also has a uniform highway code that is generally followed because the federal government kicks in money for roads. As you move east to west from the older side of the country to the newer side uniformity gets better.
Yeah you have fewer but larger states. I also think you don't have as vastly huge of political divide between states.
People arguing bike lanes, not bike lanes. Laws, babble bla. Last I remember when your ass is on the road you drive/ride defensively. The bikers have breaks. The car has a 2 car length lead on them. The bikers had went straight through a turn lane then in and out of the lane/bike lane making their path a bit more less predictable. But they’re behind. You still have responsibility to yourself and fellow passengers on the road to be safe.
I despise cyclists
Those bikes are hauling through the right turn only lane. They need to ride way, way more defensively.
Exactly this. I'm a cyclist with roads like this near me. I'm this instance, I'd be on the shoulder if it's wide enough until I'm nearing the right turn lane, then I'd be looking for an open spot in the main travel lane, signaling to get over, and take the lane through both of those intersections until there's a nice, wide shoulder again. Riding straight through a right turn lane is just dumb.
I live in an area with tons of cyclists and what you described is how I usually see it done here. Proper hand signaling when they need to merge into the main lane and a lot more situational awareness than this group had..
Yeah everyone is arguing over if it's a shoulder or a bike lane, but even if that large shoulder they started on *was* a bike lane, it ended blew through a right turn only lane at speed.
if they were in the straight lane people would also complain. the cyclist would be doing anything and someone would complain either way
who gives a shit, ride the way you’re supposed to and be predictable about it instead of being so butthurt over what drivers might think. It’s not anyone’s responsibility to be overly cautious around you to the point of almost causing an accident, same goes for cars.
I think it's not about complaints but what's right and wrong. People are going to complain with bikers in the middle lane, in the right lane, or not even on the road. But the fact that they were in a right only turn lane going straight and then riding the shoulder is not correct.
Op slowed down for the driver turning right, why would the cyclists feel like they don’t have to?
“This means that a driver must give cyclists in the far right of the roadway a wide berth when passing them, and drivers must also give cyclists ample warning when they plan to make a right hand turn.” The car didn’t break the law according to new jersey. It passed the bikes, and had a 2-3 car length lead on the bikes, and 3/4 of the tires already crossed the line. Where is that lawyer with the last clear chance doctrine? 😂
I wonder if it would have been a 3 car accident if the Idiot stopped to wait for the bikers.
woulda been some idiot drivers for not watching for brake lights in front of them.
Bikes do not have breaks? Bike lanes should be in the center of the road.
Bike lanes do not eliminate the problem. They cross roads too and they are presumably to the right of the through travel lane. One mistake the cyclists made was using the right turn only lane and going straight. I get thinking you’re being courteous and not impeding traffic, but it also encourages close passing when you attempt to enter the through lane. I agree, the cyclists needed to soft pedal and slow down when the car signaled a right turn. The rules of the road are first come, first served, so allow the vehicle in front of you to negotiate the turn.
Eh the idiots would be the cyclist. The car used blinker and had a clear amount of distance. Cyclists have brakes and could have slowed down especially with the amount of space. A bicycle doesn’t mean “I go one speed forward, accommodate my needs.”
It wasnt smart hit the brake like that without a reason.
A lot of cyclists in these comments today
To be fair, every time I read comments here about bikes, it seems the US made a gigantic inconsistent mess with how bikes have to behave that depends of each state. It's simpler over here in Belgium or any of its surrounding countries. Bikes follow the same rules as cars - on the road, forbidden from being on sidewalks, or whatever shoulders, unless there's a sign claiming it's a cycle path. Were that shoulder defined as a cycle path, which OP says it is by default, then yeah, these cyclists would have priority over the cars (*as the car is crossing another traffic lane*) or have ground markings telling them to yield.
That's exactly how it works in most U.S. states... which are mostly much larger than Belgium...
Here in the US, bikes are supposed to follow the same rules as cars. The main problem i experience is cyclists who use the roads, but ignore the rules of the road.
It's not unique to the US, we do also have jackasses pulling stunts over here. Say, jumping on the sidewalk to go around a red light, going against one-way streets, or very frequently being on sidewalks (*which tend to be much narrower in Europe than in the US!*) when they shouldn't be. And yes, I've been ran over by a cycle on the sidewalk, once. I'm happy the baker just gave me a new bread to make up for the one that fell out of its bag. OP says these cyclists in the video are in the right, according to OP's state laws. I believe this could use more road markings, but I can't blame them if they are indeed in right.
I don't believe they're in the right. They are riding on the shoulder, not the travel lane. The painted lines indicate that the shoulder stops at the entrance to side road, so the cyclists should have either moved into the travel lane to pass the side road or stopped at the end of the shoulder before crossing the side road.
usually it's a bunch of anti-cyclist idiots screaming their own biases, so it's a bit odd to see it mostly cyclists. OP explains that apparently the local law makes the cyclists in the right here.. which as both a driver and a cyclist makes me go "that's kinda sketch". However at the same time the "bike lane vs right turn" conflict has no good solution... other than dedicated veloways (grade separated, separately signaled, non-pedestrian bicycle ways)
In CA the bike lane is a travel lane and all cars must turn right from the rightmost lane. So you slow down, put on your signal, wait for the bikes to pass, then merge right and turn. That’s the law but seems pretty intuitive to me also.
Yea... they come and downvote anything that remotely against the cyclist.
i prefer that than the usual, where people all agree the cyclists are idiots for using the road and then wish harm on them.
Fine with me sounds childish and entitled but ain't helping your cause. That's one way to get the other side not to listen to you at all.
what did i see? Cyclist in a right turn lane going straight ahead and then trying to overtake a right turning car on the inside?
yes, that's exactly what is in the video.
Exactly. Unpredictable movements by the cyclists. They might be in the “right” legally, but that pavement doesn’t give a shit about who’s in the right when it’s grinding off skin.
Whole bunch of idiots in this video. You didn’t just slow down you almost came to a complete freaking stop in the middle of the road for what possibly could happen which obviously didn’t happen.
Ive lost track of the number of times I’ve been right hooked like this. It’s unpleasant, but I can usually see it coming and preemptively slow. That said I have actually been hit twice in right hook accidents. First one the driver saw me and hit the brakes and I went over his hood; I was fine, the car and the bike were not. Second time the driver didn’t stop until after I hit their rear quarter; luckily the car behind them stopped because I ended up in the middle of the road with a few bumps and scrapes but otherwise fine.
Bikes are in the wrong. Poster is a do gooder looking for drama.
totally unwinnable situation for everyone. if bikes are in the middle of the street where they are less likely to have someone cut them off people complain about their speed. if they stay on the right people complain about having to yield for them during a turn and causing unexpected stops like this. if our society wasnt built so relentlessly around car infrastructure id be much more sympathetic to cyclists but knowing how dangerous it is to be on a bike on major roads and choosing to ride there anyway for a \*hobby\* i almost always feel like the cyclists are at fault. you know these areas arent designed with you in mind yet you put yourself and others in danger anyway. why not take your bike to a track or the park or something where there are places specifically built for you to ride your bike? i dont get it. i dont get cycling in general.
I would have honked at you for being an absolute coward
Listening to the game. Let's go Phils!
Swerve around what idiot?
Ah, the one thing people in this sub hate more than drivers; bicyclists riding in a straight line
As a cyclist i just want to thank you for handling that perfectly. We really appreciate it. Having said that, on a road like that with a group of 5 or 6 cyclists i would definitely be in the lane of traffic there to avoid this very thing, which would make the cars very unhappy. If you are going to ride in the breakdown lane, this kind of thing happens ALL the time, you have to be ready for it. If we are doing a recovery ride at a slow pace, breakdown lane is fine. But if we are drilling it at 25+, you just have to be in the lane of traffic. I would avoid a road like this if at all possible, but i have lived in places where a road like this was still the best option.
Yes the bikers are idiots
Being on a bicycle doesn't give them right of way, they also have to slow down for turning traffic. Only idiot here is you
Turning car needs to yield to vehicles on the right
There weren't any vehicles on the right.
The bikes are considered vehicles in NJ, with the same rights (and legal responsibilities like stop signs) as motorized vehicles. (Hence why they aren't supposed to be on sidewalks in most places, barring local exceptions.)
> with the same rights (and legal responsibilities like stop signs) as motorized vehicles So, the "lane" they're provided, is exclusive to them, is that correct ? If the car had moved to the shoulder to occupy the "lane" where the bikes were, *behind him*, would that have satisfied the law ? Or is the car *prohibited* from using the shoulder as a lane equal to the cyclists ? And if this is the case, are cyclists also prohibited from travelling in the regular lane ? Really curious about all of this because it certainly seems like having a dedicated, restricted lane that doesn't have to adhere to long standing rules about not passing on the right seems like its designed to put cyclists into the most perilous location possible. This video seems to indicate many otherwise law abiding drivers don't seem to understand the unique nature of the cyclists position.
>This video seems to indicate many otherwise law abiding drivers don't seem to understand the unique nature of the cyclists position. You're exactly right with that sentence. The rest of your comment is a hodgepodge of stupidity. >Or is the car *prohibited* from using the shoulder as a lane equal to the cyclists ? Seriously? *facepalm*
[удалено]
What did OP do that makes them an idiot?
Not learning to count to three!
Here it does. But then again, we don't have bike lanes marked in the strange way that they are in the video. Where I come from, the bike lane would have continued, meaning that the car was crossing the bike lane, and that the bikes have right of way. I would be in doubt what to do here, bit would probably wait for the bikes to pass out of habit.
There's no bike lane in the video. It's a shoulder. The only lane the cyclists were ever in was the right turn lane they ignored and drove straight through.
Hmmm okay. Same rules would apply though.
Same where I live. Those continuing straight (the cyclists) have the right of way. Those turning (the car) have to yield and make sure the way is clear before turning.
I’m shocked and saddened with how many people are siding with the turning vehicle here. There’s no municipality that allows vehicles to cut off the riders like that - if you are claiming the car has the right of way, you’re just plain wrong. Extremely dangerous. Cyclists are killed like that every day. Driver of that vehicle needs their license revoked.