On my journey home last night, I was riding in the bike lane, approaching red traffic lights. There were a couple of cars stopped at the lights, with the one in the adjacent lane indicating for a left turn. There was another rider a few lengths ahead of me.
As the other rider was almost level with the car indicating a turn, the lights changed to green and the car started to move to make it's turn. The bike rider, clearly intending to go straight ahead, continued his pace unchanged—swerving with the car as it cornered, shouting at the driver and bashing repeatedly on the car.
Was he justified in his rage and aggression?
Let's go to the road rules, specifically Rule 141:
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle…
So far, so good: cyclists are allowed to pass on the inside. However:
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal.
So the rider couldn't have been more wrong and his ignorance of the road rules makes his self-righteous pounding on the innocent driver's car all the more regrettable.
I was well aware of the rule that prohibits overtaking to the left of another vehicle turning left, but I'll admit that I had to come away and check that there were no subtleties in the rules that give priority to traffic in a bike lane. And under rules 153 and 158 the existence of a bike lane bestows no special rights in this situation.
Driving/riding in a way that avoids collisions is a key concept underlying the road rules, but this rider totally ignored that, preferring to ride in a manner that guaranteed a collision. Let's be clear here, this was not an emergency situation: the driver hadn't suddenly and unexpectedly turned in front of the bike. On the contrary, the car was stationary and indicating a turn well before we arrived. There was time and space for the rider to slow or stop to avoid the car but he chose to continue, seemingly with the intent of escalating a confrontation. (Did he actually speed-up? Hmm, not sure about that*hellip;)
Anyway, that's sheer lunacy, and it looked a lot like the action of someone who deliberately wanted to engage in a bit of argy-bargy.
I used to be like this. It's not a good look. Even when I think I'm in the right these days I just let it slide. A friendly wave does me for all circumstances. If you're in the right the motorist will feel guilty, if you're in the wrong it's an acknowledgment. Most motorists do the right thing most of the time, so rage is a waste of time on the odd person who might just be having a bad day. It's points in the karma bank.
I, too, am much more mellow than I used to be. It's common sense: even if you're in the wrong, you don't need someone yelling at you about it. As a means of getting your message across, it's a pretty hopeless approach.
I've found eye contact and a rueful shake of the head often puts a very sheepish look on the face of someone who's done something dangerous or stupid. And recently, after being squeezed by a hasty motorist, at the next set of lights I tapped on his window and politely asked "What's your rush to get to the red light?" Again, an embarrassed look and no answer forthcoming.
And jimmay's point is well made: even though it's legal, doesn't mean it's always a safe maneuver. I reckon many drivers don't realise that cyclists have this special dispensation, and even if they do they don't expect to be overtaken on the left and consequently don't look.
I suspect it's a self-righteous belief that he had right of way, and an eagerness to beat it into anyone who thought otherwise.
I've only been riding for a few weeks and I've already had a few cars speed up to overtake and make a left turn just before I get to an intersection, which is a clear violation of 144.a. I'm very grateful for good brakes and a healthy sense of paranoia.
I'm not sure that 141(2) applies here.
141(1) does not apply if it is a multi-lane road.
153(4) states "A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane"
148(1) says that a driver must give way to vehicles in the marked lane into which they are moving.
158(1) allows vehicles to drive for up to 50 metres in a bicycle lane if they are leaving the road (which they would be if turning left).
Putting these together you could say: At first the car is not turning left, it is changing into the bicycle lane which means it must give way to the bicycle. Once the car is in the bicycle lane it is turning left which means that it then has the right of way over bicycles.
Now 153(4)(b)(ii) says that the bicycle lane ends at the intersection (unless it is continued with broken lines) so does 149 'Giving way when lines of traffic merge into a single line of traffic' apply as the bicycle lane and the car lane are the same lane through the intersection.
The only situation I can think of where the car had right of way would be if the bicycle lane was not continued across the interection with broken lines and the car did not start turning left until it was in the intersection. All of the others mean that the car must first give way to the cyclist.
I can say for sure that the road rules are not straightforward...
I disagree: rule 141(2) is quite explicit: whether or not the bike and car are in separate lanes doesn't enter into it. A cyclist can't ride past on the left of another vehicle that is signalling a left turn. End of story. That's a bit worrying when you think about it because the situation that Mark mentions—a car rushing past to turn left in front of a bicycle—appears to be a legal turn under this rule. I reiterate that this wasn't the case in this situation, although I concede that one too many encounters like that could make even the mildest cyclist a bit tetchy on the subject!
I agree that 141(1) would not apply because the bike lane is a separate traffic lane, but this near-miss happened in the intersection and the bike lane does not continue into the intersection, so I reckon 141(1) is back in play.
While we're plumbing the depths of the road rules, 148(1) would appear to have precedence over 158(1), that is you can only drive in the lane once you've given way to vehicles in that lane. Hmm, interesting: a car can turn in front of a bike but it's got to give way to merge into a bike lane…
"what's your rush to get to the red light" here applies to the cyclist too - sometimes you shouldn't pass on the left, and when there's someone actually indicating (SHOCK!:)) at lights, its probably one of those times unless you're sure that they're not going to change to green...
Wait a length or two back, it won't kill you. Save the righteous anger for the people who don't indicate and randomly turn left...
In my experience cars are usually in the wrong more than bicycles. That does not make us perfect and not prone to mistakes of our own.
Cyclists who behave like that give the rest of us a bad name. By the sounds of it that was easily avoidable.
I once realised that if I have time to start yelling at a driver, I wasn't in any real danger. The times where I've actually been in serious peril, I've been too busy reacting and getting the hell out of the way to start yelling abuse. Since realising that I've been a lot calmer on the road :)
Ben's right in that you can often see drivers doing something that really is wrong and dangerous (either through ignorance or carelessness) and as cyclists we are particularly vulnerable. As a result, it's not surprising that we tend to explode when we're needlessly put at risk.
But this wasn't such an incident. No doubt backing off and letting the driver make his turn unimpeded would have inconvenienced the cyclist momentarily, but my experience tells me this is a better than escalating a pointless conflict. Keep your powder dry, as eccles suggests.
I think I've reached the same view as Damian—much of the bad stuff that happens out there you've just got to let slide with a shrug and a sigh. Bellowing at people is not going to change their behaviour. And in any case, like Damian, I've never found time to hurl abuse while I've been in a real pinch. (Although I've sometimes found a lungful of vitriol immediately afterwards!)
Further, I know for a fact that I sometimes make errors of judgement, so I can't really hold others to a higher standard. Well, actually I can: the potential impact of a driver's error of judgement is much greater than that of a cyclist, so drivers do need to be held to a higher standard. (See Urban Commuter's discussion of the dominant threat to see what I mean.) That said, being mindful that people make honest mistakes and are predictably selfish goes a long way to keeping yourself out of trouble.
Don't forget there's an 'and' in there: signalling left AND turning. And yes, cyclists are somewhat vulnerable to cars speeding up and turning left in front of them; regardless of the law, this is dangerous because they can underestimate the velocity of the bike. This is why many advocate 'taking the lane' so that traffic behind will be discouraged from doing this; bike lanes can make this difficult.
Well, I think it's pretty unambiguous if a car is stationary at a traffic light and indicating a left turn: chances are they are going to make a turn, so when the light goes green you've got to let them go. However, if the lights are still red the car can't be turning so it must be OK to pass.
You guys might want to check out this story which just happened in Toronto - an off duty (and suspended) cop got out of his car and slugged a cyclist who was in front of him on the road and dared to stop at a yellow light.
If you follow the links - it was all caught on video
(P.S. just go to bikingtoronto.blogspot.com and go down a little if that link above doesn't work).
That doesn't strike me as entirely sane behaviour. All the more reason to avoid unnecessary conflict on the roads: there are nutters out there...
Comments
Although cyclists are permitted under the road rules to overtake on the left, this is a major blind spot for most motor vehicles. For my own safety I would prefer a car in front of me before I try to overtake.