Potential "Protected" Bicycle Lane Right Hook Legal Issues and Engineering Malpractice
Twitter Cluster B(ike) Activists are once again being dishonest about a near collision between a bicyclist and a motorist involving "protected bicycle lane"
Cluster B(ike) activist and serial vector for lies and misinformation
wrote over the weekend on Twitter, “if people riding bikes displayed typical motorist road violence1, this would have escalated to violence2.”Under that post is a video showing a classic “right hook,” one of the most common car-bike collision types out there. Fortunately for the bicyclists in the video, this was a close call and not an actual collision!
Here’s the video for those who are unable to access Twitter:
https://youtube.com/shorts/iEEXkBvX_UU?feature=share
The risks for right hook type collisions increase greatly for bicyclists riding in “edge” and “pedestrian” type behaviors in part because it’s easy for turning motorists to not even register the presence the bicyclist or if they do, they often misjudge the speed differential as they slow down and the bicyclist catches up passing in what is often their right rear blind spot.
Here the presence of the “protected” bicycle lane does not help address this risk. Instead it encourages and increases said risk.
Us legitimate, principled-driven bicyclists have been trying to point this out for decades.
Teaching bicyclists about this common crash type regardless of the presence of "protection,” how the crash dynamics develop, and how to reduce and/or eliminate the risk of it is one of the key lessons in bicycling education programs or best selling books such as Effective Cycling and Cyclecraft. But since Cluster B(ike) activism is based on pitting “oppressor” motorists versus “Noble Victim” bicyclists, such basic life saving education is often discouraged by Cluster B(ike) activists.
Do note that this DOES NOT absolve motorists from also learning to recognize how they can help avoid such a collision, however.
The video and the varied reactions to it provide for some interesting commentary about the nature of manufactured conflicts, traffic law, and how Cluster B(ike) Activists twist and distort the truth.
The motorist is in the general-use travel lane with their vehicle’s right turn signal enabled, but since due to the clip’s short length we’re not sure of how long they had their signal enabled or whether the bicyclists recognized it. The motorist is slowing down, again unknown for how long or whether the bicyclists registered the brake lights, to make the right turn surprising the bicyclists. The bicyclist shown in the video is at a minimum coasting as indicated by his lack of pedaling the bicycle. That’s indicating he’s likely also slowing down.
The bicyclists are using a “protected” bicycle lane which is marked with green paint and crash-causing “flex posts” to separate them from the general use traffic lane users who are mainly motorists3.
Honest, legitimate, and character disorder free bicycling advocates along with savvy non-bicyclists will immediately notice there’s a potential conflict here exasperated by the “protection” prior to the intersection and that it encourages thru bicycle traffic to the right of right turning motor traffic at the same time resulting in a “right hook,” which is almost what happened to the first cyclist and the car.
A careful observation of the traffic signals in the video show standard traffic signals and a pedestrian crosswalk signals. The traffic light for roadways users (both bicyclists and motorists) traveling in the direction indicated in the video is green and the pedestrian signal is likely showing “Do Not Walk,” indicating it is not a pedestrian’s turn to enter the crosswalk to cross the street.
Let me re-iterate: the thru traffic signals for both the bicyclist and the motorist are green indicating it’s okay for both of them to enter the intersection. If both are going straight, or the motorist is going straight but the bicyclist is turning right this would not be a problem. This is clearly and factually an example of engineering malpractice. The registered Professional Engineer in charge of this design (likely a government employee protected by State Design Immunity) is a disgrace to this profession should have his or her license revoked along with a lifetime ban on practicing engineering in every jurisdiction.
A potential solution to modify this existing “design” would be to place special bicycle traffic signal heads which turn green when the regular traffic signals are red which (if followed by the bicyclist) would inform them of when they can enter the intersection conflict-free.
Furthermore, this “design” is counter to a standard “unprotected” bicycle lane which per design standards and traffic law in all fifty US states except for Oregon (the right-hook capitol of the country) are required to be dashed prior to an intersection where right turns are permitted. That’s because standard “unprotected” bicycle lanes are a preferential type of traffic lane (as are Bus Lanes and HOV Lanes) and the rules for turning right when there’s a bicycle lane present are no different than turning right when there’s a general-use traffic lanes present to the driver’s right.
Right turning drivers are required to make their turns from the right-most lane (as far to the right as practicable4) and if they’re not already in that lane, they’re required to signal, yield, and merge to any traffic already in that right-most lane. Given that bicycle lanes are typically too narrow to fit entirely in standard bicycle lanes, this practice, although it’s the law, is rare. Both non-cycling motorists and even most bicyclists are unaware of this requirement as well. (Well, and so are disgraceful “engineers.”)
Bicyclists edge-riding in this “protected” bicycle lane are also out of the field of vision and attention of oncoming left-turning motorists on top of being screened by oncoming motorists exasperating the risk of the equally deadly “left cross” collision type for intersections without dedicated left turn signal phases. Regardless of legality, these are simple facts and the “protected” bicycle lane does not make the issue any better. In fact it makes things worse for bicyclists.
But let’s get back to the Cluster B(ike) Twitter bullshit.
One user, in the replies to Bouneau wrote, “The car was ahead of the cyclist. Do cyclists not have to yield to any other vehicle?
To which several flying monkeys piped back with a plethora of replies such as:
“They literally have the right of way, go fuck yourself.”
“Ahead because he just overtook. The cyclist has a right to just cycle along without a car overtaking then cutting across him.”
“How did you get your licence without learning about right of way????? When you turn left across a lane of traffic you have to yield. When you turn right across a lane of traffic you have to yield. How the fuck do you not know this????”
“If you’re turning left or right, you need to yield to traffic following the road. So you don’t yield to other vehicles?”
“If you are turning right you have to yield to pedestrians and bikes going straight yes, this is basic drivers ed”
“Doesn't matter, if you're turning, you give way to those heading straight on (including cyclists)”
“How do you not know that turning vehicles yield? Unreal”
“What would a driver on a driving test be expected to do in this situation? The answer to that question is who is at fault in this clip. Hope that helps clarify things for you😘”
“You have shit taste in cars and no knowledge of legal driving. Stay off the roads.”
“When a bike is on the road, it is similarly as any other motor vehicle in this case. Would you just blindly turn right over an entire lane of car traffic and hope there isn't a car in that lane to the right of you”
“People believing ‘I was ahead’ is a thing in traffic laws need to retake their driving lessons”
“Imagine being so selfish you cant wait two seconds for someone else to pass you just have to be an asshole and barge in front of them. Grow up and stop being so self centered.”
“#carbrain in action ^”
“A turning vehicle always has to yield to a vehicle continuing straight, dipshit, especially when the turning vehicle has to cross the traveling lane of the vehicle traveling straight.”
“you cannot turn across oncoming traffic even if they are to your right”
Many users point out to a sign, more formally known in traffic engineering circles as modified R10-15 sign that is mounted up on the traffic light itself which as legal justification of the requirement for right-turning motorists to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists.
“No, because there is a sign RIGHT THERE saying they don’t. Tender your license if you can’t follow the rules of the road”
“What do we think this sign means?”
That sign they’re referring to looks like this in greater detail.
More on that sign later…
For once the Cluster B(ike) Activists and the swarm of flying monkeys owned that stupid driver once and for all!
Clearly this toxic behavior exhibited by these “bicyclists” will teach those darn oppressor motorists to behave and will not cause any sort of backlash!
Animosity between the two groups of road users is no more!
This seems like an open and shut case, right?
Not so fast.
It turns out motorist Twitter user may have had a point!
Boenau wasn’t done either and doubled down with his usual display of Cluster B(ike) posturing on Twitter.
He quote-Tweeted that same user who wrote, “The car was ahead of the cyclist. Do cyclists not have to yield to any other vehicles?” saying:
It was there the same user replied with something quite revealing: (which of course attracted another swarm of flying monkeys)
That Twitter user was making an interesting point when he pointed out the motorist entered the intersection first and that it was the duty of other road users who had not already entered the intersection to yield to those already in it.
He’s presumably seeing this which is a clear indicator the motorist made it into the intersection prior to the bicyclist.
That’s because in the state of Tennessee, where this “design” is located defines the border of an intersection on the roadway with the “stop lines.“
According to TN Code § 55-8-101 (32), an intersection is defined quite confusingly but it’s definition (A) that’s likely applicable to this case.
(32) "Intersection" means:
(A) The area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two (2) highways that join one another at, or approximately at, right angles, or the areas within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict; or
(B) Where a highway includes two (2) roadways thirty feet (30') or more apart, then every crossing of each roadway of that divided highway by an intersecting highway shall be regarded as a separate intersection. In the event the intersecting highway also includes two (2) roadways thirty feet (30') or more apart, then every crossing of two (2) roadways of such highways shall be regarded as a separate intersection;
Furthermore, TN Code TN Code § 55-8-101 (78) defines a “stop line” as:
(78) "Stop line" means a white line placed generally in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as adopted by the department of transportation, denoting the point where an intersection begins;
The “stop line” is likely this bold white line below:
Now recall the claims made by that Twitter user the Cluster B(ike) activists and flying monkeys so heavily mocked.
And recall which road user crossed that line first: the motorist.
TN Code § 55-8-128 which covers the topic of “Vehicle5 approaching or entering intersection” and has some specific rules that likely apply to the users in this video.
(a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway or drive.
(b) When two (2) vehicles enter an intersection from different highways or drives at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(c) The right-of-way rules declared in subsections (a) and (b) are modified at through highways and otherwise as hereinafter stated in this chapter and chapter 10, parts 1-5 of this title.
(d) As used in this section:
(1) "Drive" means any way that is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel and that leads into or from premises that are generally frequented by the public at large; and
(2) "Intersection" includes the area within which vehicles traveling upon a highway and a drive that join one another at any angle may come in conflict.
An armchair reading of (a) could be interpreted in favor of the motorist since he or she crossed the stop line first.6
But and armchair reading of (b) could be interpreted as the opposite - in favor of at least the first bicyclist. (The second was several meters behind and traffic laws apply to individual drivers, not collectives.)
A third reading could indicate that (b) might not apply here since both the motorists and bicyclists were traveling on the same highway and in the same direction. The confusing definition of “drive” might be interpreted for same-direction travel making (a) is more watertight applicable law here.
Section (c) is a different animal that depends on the definition of a through highway7, which isn’t applicable here.
As for that R10-15 “Turning Vehicles Yield to Peds and Bikes” sign?
Well, in order for a road sign to have legal force in TN, that exact signage must be included in either the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) or in a state supplement.
It does not exist in the current National MUTCD and it doesn’t exist either in the TnDOT’s Tennessee Supplement to the Standard Highway Signs Book meaning it’s likely an invalid sign with no legal force.
And by the way, for pedestrians, it actually is often interpreted to mean that drivers must yield to pedestrians already and legally in a crosswalk. It does not provide legal cover for pedestrians who cross against pedestrians signals or ones who enter the crosswalk after a motorist already has.
These legal conundrums, if interpreted this way by a law enforcement officer, crash investigator, or between parties in a civil court means a bicyclist may have issues recovering financially from the either their insurance company or that of the motorist’s if part or all of the collision is deemed their own fault.
Such potential legal inconveniences, of course, don’t occur to character disorder driven Cluster B(ike) Activists who have no actual respect for laws or equitable treatment of different road users which includes treating bicyclists properly as drivers of vehicle and not Noble Victims or “rolling pedestrians.”
Perhaps it’s the Cluster B(ike) activists who need to learn to drive.
Normal people will notice that any form of “road rage” from either the motorist or the two cyclists is missing from the actual video. At least in the short clip Boenau provided, nobody here yelled, screamed, honked a horn or did anything remotely resembling “road rage” or “motorist road violence.”
Off this phrase alone, one should notice the use of “people-first” language for one road user (bicyclists) and not the other (motorists). Then there’s the use of the term violence, a commonly inflated term by Cluster B(ike) Activists who insist there is an “epidemic” of “traffic violence” on US roads. These are features, not bugs, of Cluster B(ike) Ideology which pits “oppressor” motor vehicle drivers versus “vulnerable road users” such as bicyclists “people on bicycles” and pedestrians “people walking.” Cluster B(ike) Activists seemingly have no understanding of the actual rules of the road either instead insisting that “people on bicycles” should magically be allowed without accountability to violate basic rules of the road while “motorists” are expected to behave not just perfectly and mistake-free but in subservience to “people on bicycles.”
Interestingly enough, this bike lane, which is installed on Division Street in Nashville, TN doesn’t begin this “protection” until a few dozen yards before the intersection. In other words, there is no mid block “protection.”
The phrase “as far to the right as practicable” is often misunderstood but in this context it exempts drivers of vehicles with long wheel bases or pulling trailers due to tracking of the rear wheels over the curb.
Here’s an example of a truck which is physically incapable of turning from the bicycle lane. The video shows a bicyclist getting right hooked. Fortunately the bicyclist was able to escape before being crushed to death. A sobering piece about cycling around turning trucks can be found here.
Bicycles in TN are defined as “devices” per TN Code § 55-8-101 (7)
(7) "Bicycle" means every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride, having two (2) tandem wheels, either of which is more than twenty inches (20") in diameter;
However, bicycle riders have (most of) the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles when operating on the roadway per TN Code § 55-8-172:
(a) Every person riding a bicycle or electric bicycle, as defined in § 55-8-301, upon a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapter 10, parts 1-5 of this title, except as to those provisions of this chapter and chapter 10, parts 1-5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.
(b) Every person riding a bicycle or electric bicycle, as defined in § 55-8-301, is subject to the special regulations in §§ 55-8-171 - 55-8-177 applicable to bicycles or electric bicycles.
(c) Every person riding an electric bicycle, as defined in § 55-8-301, is subject to the special regulations in part 3 of this chapter applicable to electric bicycles.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
This is also why the bicyclists operating on the roadway are legally required to obey the traffic signals that pertain to controlling movement on the roadway and not the pedestrian signals. If they were riding on the sidewalk, they would not be granted the rights and duties of vehicle drivers and instead would be classified as pedestrians.
Furthermore the video indicates the bicyclist shown in the video stopped pedaling, likely slowing down. It’s unknown if and when he started braking. But both or either of these factors could be argued that the bicyclist was slowing down to allow the motorist to continue to pass.
"Through highway" means every highway or portion of the highway at the entrance to which vehicular traffic from intersecting highways is required by law to stop before entering or crossing the same and when stop signs are erected as provided in this chapter. The department of transportation shall be authorized to designate through highways.