To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

[LongTimeListener]

I had one as a motorist yesterday that just left me shaking my head.

I was at a stoplight with two left turn lanes, and I was in the right of those lanes. A bike was in the left. We both turned at the light -- so he is in the inside lane as we get onto the new street -- and then he needs to get all the way over to the right side. So he cuts in front of me to get over. Now, if it's a car this is fine, so I figure this was a legal move on his part. But he was damn lucky that I was driving in the next lane, because not everyone is paying attention -- most people aren't -- and he could have easily wound up under the car he was cutting in front of. And at that point it isn't going to be much consolation to him that he has the right of way.

Also, this was the one busy intersection in a one-mile stretch of road. There were at least a half-dozen other places he could have gotten where he needed to go.

We've asked the judges for their ruling and their verdict is that the cyclist is an idiot. Not a chance I would do that - he should have been in the right hand left turn lane behind you.

That's good to know. Obviously I gave him credit for doing the right thing -- he looked the part with all the fancy clothes so I figured he knew the law.

I have really calmed down on my driving as I have gotten older. The 25-year-old version of me probably would have hit him, or at least stopped him from crossing lanes, out of obliviousness or testosterone overload.

 

[Azrael]

I had one as a motorist yesterday that just left me shaking my head.

I was at a stoplight with two left turn lanes, and I was in the right of those lanes. A bike was in the left. We both turned at the light -- so he is in the inside lane as we get onto the new street -- and then he needs to get all the way over to the right side. So he cuts in front of me to get over. Now, if it's a car this is fine, so I figure this was a legal move on his part. But he was damn lucky that I was driving in the next lane, because not everyone is paying attention -- most people aren't -- and he could have easily wound up under the car he was cutting in front of. And at that point it isn't going to be much consolation to him that he has the right of way.

Also, this was the one busy intersection in a one-mile stretch of road. There were at least a half-dozen other places he could have gotten where he needed to go.

We've asked the judges for their ruling and their verdict is that the cyclist is an idiot. Not a chance I would do that - he should have been in the right hand left turn lane behind you.

That's good to know. Obviously I gave him credit for doing the right thing -- he looked the part with all the fancy clothes so I figured he knew the law.

I have really calmed down on my driving as I have gotten older. The 25-year-old version of me probably would have hit him, or at least stopped him from crossing lanes, out of obliviousness or testosterone overload.

What if the cyclist arrived at the intersection first?

All due respect to you both, but the rider is entitled to the lane he's in. Again, he should have given a clearer indication that he was going to slide over to the bike lane having made the turn.

 

[LongTimeListener]

It was a red light. We were both first in our lanes and were going at the same time.

 

[HC]

I had one as a motorist yesterday that just left me shaking my head.

I was at a stoplight with two left turn lanes, and I was in the right of those lanes. A bike was in the left. We both turned at the light -- so he is in the inside lane as we get onto the new street -- and then he needs to get all the way over to the right side. So he cuts in front of me to get over. Now, if it's a car this is fine, so I figure this was a legal move on his part. But he was damn lucky that I was driving in the next lane, because not everyone is paying attention -- most people aren't -- and he could have easily wound up under the car he was cutting in front of. And at that point it isn't going to be much consolation to him that he has the right of way.

Also, this was the one busy intersection in a one-mile stretch of road. There were at least a half-dozen other places he could have gotten where he needed to go.

We've asked the judges for their ruling and their verdict is that the cyclist is an idiot. Not a chance I would do that - he should have been in the right hand left turn lane behind you.

That's good to know. Obviously I gave him credit for doing the right thing -- he looked the part with all the fancy clothes so I figured he knew the law.

I have really calmed down on my driving as I have gotten older. The 25-year-old version of me probably would have hit him, or at least stopped him from crossing lanes, out of obliviousness or testosterone overload.

What if the cyclist arrived at the intersection first?

All due respect to you both, but the rider is entitled to the lane he's in. Again, he should have given a clearer indication that he was going to slide over to the bike lane having made the turn.

If the cyclist arrives at the intersection first, he would be first in the right hand of the two left hand lanes. There are two lanes turning left - like any vehicle, he should be in the one that arrives where he wants to be - not expect all other traffic to notice that he's breaking traffic laws and wait for him.

 

[Versatile]

If you need to get right immediately after a left turn and there are two left-turn lanes, you should be in right left-turn lane regardless of vehicle.

 

[Azrael]

I had one as a motorist yesterday that just left me shaking my head.

I was at a stoplight with two left turn lanes, and I was in the right of those lanes. A bike was in the left. We both turned at the light -- so he is in the inside lane as we get onto the new street -- and then he needs to get all the way over to the right side. So he cuts in front of me to get over. Now, if it's a car this is fine, so I figure this was a legal move on his part. But he was damn lucky that I was driving in the next lane, because not everyone is paying attention -- most people aren't -- and he could have easily wound up under the car he was cutting in front of. And at that point it isn't going to be much consolation to him that he has the right of way.

Also, this was the one busy intersection in a one-mile stretch of road. There were at least a half-dozen other places he could have gotten where he needed to go.

We've asked the judges for their ruling and their verdict is that the cyclist is an idiot. Not a chance I would do that - he should have been in the right hand left turn lane behind you.

That's good to know. Obviously I gave him credit for doing the right thing -- he looked the part with all the fancy clothes so I figured he knew the law.

I have really calmed down on my driving as I have gotten older. The 25-year-old version of me probably would have hit him, or at least stopped him from crossing lanes, out of obliviousness or testosterone overload.

What if the cyclist arrived at the intersection first?

All due respect to you both, but the rider is entitled to the lane he's in. Again, he should have given a clearer indication that he was going to slide over to the bike lane having made the turn.

If the cyclist arrives at the intersection first, he would be first in the right hand of the two left hand lanes. There are two lanes turning left - like any vehicle, he should be in the one that arrives where he wants to be - not expect all other traffic to notice that he's breaking traffic laws and wait for him.

Maybe he didn't know there was a bike lane in that cross street until after he made the turn.

Again, I'm not defending him or his choice.

But a cyclist has a right to the lane.

 

[HC]

I had one as a motorist yesterday that just left me shaking my head.

I was at a stoplight with two left turn lanes, and I was in the right of those lanes. A bike was in the left. We both turned at the light -- so he is in the inside lane as we get onto the new street -- and then he needs to get all the way over to the right side. So he cuts in front of me to get over. Now, if it's a car this is fine, so I figure this was a legal move on his part. But he was damn lucky that I was driving in the next lane, because not everyone is paying attention -- most people aren't -- and he could have easily wound up under the car he was cutting in front of. And at that point it isn't going to be much consolation to him that he has the right of way.

Also, this was the one busy intersection in a one-mile stretch of road. There were at least a half-dozen other places he could have gotten where he needed to go.

We've asked the judges for their ruling and their verdict is that the cyclist is an idiot. Not a chance I would do that - he should have been in the right hand left turn lane behind you.

That's good to know. Obviously I gave him credit for doing the right thing -- he looked the part with all the fancy clothes so I figured he knew the law.

I have really calmed down on my driving as I have gotten older. The 25-year-old version of me probably would have hit him, or at least stopped him from crossing lanes, out of obliviousness or testosterone overload.

What if the cyclist arrived at the intersection first?

All due respect to you both, but the rider is entitled to the lane he's in. Again, he should have given a clearer indication that he was going to slide over to the bike lane having made the turn.

If the cyclist arrives at the intersection first, he would be first in the right hand of the two left hand lanes. There are two lanes turning left - like any vehicle, he should be in the one that arrives where he wants to be - not expect all other traffic to notice that he's breaking traffic laws and wait for him.

Maybe he didn't know there was a bike lane in that cross street until after he made the turn.

Again, I'm not defending him or his choice.

But a cyclist has a right to the lane.

It has nothing to do with his right to be anywhere. If he wants to be in the left hand of two left turn lanes, that's fine. But then he needs to stay in that lane. If you're driving a car and there are two left turn lanes, you don't get to make your turn into the curb lane. In order for cycling to be safe, everyone needs to follow the rules, including those on bikes.

 

[Azrael]

I had one as a motorist yesterday that just left me shaking my head.

I was at a stoplight with two left turn lanes, and I was in the right of those lanes. A bike was in the left. We both turned at the light -- so he is in the inside lane as we get onto the new street -- and then he needs to get all the way over to the right side. So he cuts in front of me to get over. Now, if it's a car this is fine, so I figure this was a legal move on his part. But he was damn lucky that I was driving in the next lane, because not everyone is paying attention -- most people aren't -- and he could have easily wound up under the car he was cutting in front of. And at that point it isn't going to be much consolation to him that he has the right of way.

Also, this was the one busy intersection in a one-mile stretch of road. There were at least a half-dozen other places he could have gotten where he needed to go.

We've asked the judges for their ruling and their verdict is that the cyclist is an idiot. Not a chance I would do that - he should have been in the right hand left turn lane behind you.

That's good to know. Obviously I gave him credit for doing the right thing -- he looked the part with all the fancy clothes so I figured he knew the law.

I have really calmed down on my driving as I have gotten older. The 25-year-old version of me probably would have hit him, or at least stopped him from crossing lanes, out of obliviousness or testosterone overload.

What if the cyclist arrived at the intersection first?

All due respect to you both, but the rider is entitled to the lane he's in. Again, he should have given a clearer indication that he was going to slide over to the bike lane having made the turn.

If the cyclist arrives at the intersection first, he would be first in the right hand of the two left hand lanes. There are two lanes turning left - like any vehicle, he should be in the one that arrives where he wants to be - not expect all other traffic to notice that he's breaking traffic laws and wait for him.

Maybe he didn't know there was a bike lane in that cross street until after he made the turn.

Again, I'm not defending him or his choice.

But a cyclist has a right to the lane.

It has nothing to do with his right to be anywhere. If he wants to be in the left hand of two left turn lanes, that's fine. But then he needs to stay in that lane. If you're driving a car and there are two left turn lanes, you don't get to make your turn into the curb lane. In order for cycling to be safe, everyone needs to follow the rules, including those on bikes.

As I've said several times.

The cyclist's 'violation' here was in changing lanes abruptly, without a sufficient warning to surrounding traffic.

 

[YGBFKM]

Az, of course you're defending him and his choice, and you're not helping the bicyclists' cause.

 

[YGBFKM]

I had one as a motorist yesterday that just left me shaking my head.

I was at a stoplight with two left turn lanes, and I was in the right of those lanes. A bike was in the left. We both turned at the light -- so he is in the inside lane as we get onto the new street -- and then he needs to get all the way over to the right side. So he cuts in front of me to get over. Now, if it's a car this is fine, so I figure this was a legal move on his part. But he was damn lucky that I was driving in the next lane, because not everyone is paying attention -- most people aren't -- and he could have easily wound up under the car he was cutting in front of. And at that point it isn't going to be much consolation to him that he has the right of way.

Also, this was the one busy intersection in a one-mile stretch of road. There were at least a half-dozen other places he could have gotten where he needed to go.

We've asked the judges for their ruling and their verdict is that the cyclist is an idiot. Not a chance I would do that - he should have been in the right hand left turn lane behind you.

That's good to know. Obviously I gave him credit for doing the right thing -- he looked the part with all the fancy clothes so I figured he knew the law.

I have really calmed down on my driving as I have gotten older. The 25-year-old version of me probably would have hit him, or at least stopped him from crossing lanes, out of obliviousness or testosterone overload.

What if the cyclist arrived at the intersection first?

All due respect to you both, but the rider is entitled to the lane he's in. Again, he should have given a clearer indication that he was going to slide over to the bike lane having made the turn.

If the cyclist arrives at the intersection first, he would be first in the right hand of the two left hand lanes. There are two lanes turning left - like any vehicle, he should be in the one that arrives where he wants to be - not expect all other traffic to notice that he's breaking traffic laws and wait for him.

Maybe he didn't know there was a bike lane in that cross street until after he made the turn.

Again, I'm not defending him or his choice.

But a cyclist has a right to the lane.

It has nothing to do with his right to be anywhere. If he wants to be in the left hand of two left turn lanes, that's fine. But then he needs to stay in that lane. If you're driving a car and there are two left turn lanes, you don't get to make your turn into the curb lane. In order for cycling to be safe, everyone needs to follow the rules, including those on bikes.

Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[Azrael]

Was this somehow unclear?

The cyclist's 'violation' here was in changing lanes abruptly, without a sufficient warning to surrounding traffic.

Or this?

All due respect to you both, but the rider is entitled to the lane he's in. Again, he should have given a clearer indication that he was going to slide over to the bike lane having made the turn.

Or this?

He should have signaled. Even a quick index finger pointing to where he's headed would have helped you.

 

[old_tony]

And Portland finished second in a recent ranking of bike-friendly cities.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/bicyclings-top-50

I knew Madistan (wis.) had to be in the top 10.