The basic speed limit, not to go too fast under the existing conditions, is often lower than the posted speed limit.
When facilities like the bike lane in the video are built in which 10 mph, or even 5 mph, is excessive speed, and, worse, when we are required by law to use them, then we get clobbered three ways. If we ride at safe speeds, the utility of bicycling for transportation and exercise is greatly reduced. If we ride faster than is safe, then we may crash, and be held at fault. If we avoid the facilities, we may be cited for not staying in our place, and harassed. And this, when bicyclists rarely can ride at the posted speed limit.
I’ll also quote my friend Mighk Wilson’s comments about the video:
It’s important to differentiate between “fault,” which is a legal matter for our purposes here, and “contributing causes.” If we only address fault we will usually fail to prevent crashes…
So who contributed to your crash? Obviously the motorist…he’s 100% legally at fault. But the designer of the bike lane also contributed, by leading you into blind spots where you’d be in conflict with turning vehicles. You yourself contributed by traveling at a speed at which you were unable to see, react and brake for the turning vehicle. Our bicycle advocacy groups contributed by insisting that bicyclists should always get to pass stopped motor traffic even when it’s risky to do so. Our land use planners contributed by allowing commercial driveways so close to major intersections. I could go on…
Part of the problem here is not only that the bike lane leads to blind conflicts, as Mighk points out, but also that it leads to false expectations of what is safe. I’d also add that planners, and lots of other people, contributed to causation of the crash by generating patterns of land use and mode choice which lead to traffic congestion. It is ironic that while it was only safe to travel at low speed in the bike lane, the traffic in the travel lane was stop-and-go, and had stopped completely. Whether a cyclist would have been able to travel safely at a higher average speed without a bike lane is open to question.
This situation is all too common, regardless of what kind of bicycle facility (if any) is provided. Bicyclists naturally want to filter up alongside slow or stopped traffic. When doing so, there are always naturally blind spots, so it’s really important to always slow down and watch for opposing left turning traffic, especially if there is a break in the line of cars. Those drivers can’t see you and you can’t see them if you’re going too fast. While it is technically the driver’s fault for not yielding to oncoming traffic (i.e. the bicyclist), this type of crash is very avoidable by being cautious in these situations.
Charlie gives good advice but I’d add some points to his.
* It may be possible to pass on the left, though in the case of this particular crash, it was not: both through lanes to the left of the bike lane were congested.
* It may be possible to filter forward between lanes, though this poses risks similar to those of passing the right.
* Waiting in line may decrease travel time as well as conflicts, by placing the bicyclist in a better place to continue (for example, in line with right-turning traffic or to its left).
Nice discussion and now I will watch the video. Too many want to assign a single cause and a “fault” to a crash or a mishap. As John and Mighk point out, these are complex situations.
Ouch. Actually, when I saw the curbcut on the right and the break in traffic on the left, I pretty much knew what was next. The cyclist in the bike lane was probably not visible to the motorist making the left turn, since the bike was likely screened by the stopped cars. But the break in the line of cars at the intersection should have been an alarm bell to watch for someone turning across the path of the bike lane. This is an example of where bike lanes create a hazard by allowing a free flowing lane (the bike lane) to be screened from legal left turning traffic. Note this situation would not be any different if the bike lane was “protected”.
I have similar scenarios at several places on my daily commute, so am familiar with the hazard. Several close calls on my bicycles and motorcycle later, I can pontificate….
Also, I don’t think it is technically correct to say the cyclist is “filtering” forward since in this case the cyclist has his own traffic lane and it is not congested. That doesn’t mean that one can use it without prudent control of the bike in these types of situations.
Thanks John. Great teachable moment. Have you forwarded this to the LCI list?
The location of the crash, in California, has been identified — Google Street View. Here are some relevant California laws:
Bicycle operation on roadway: keep right except for stated exceptions including one for hazards. Does the threat of a left-cross collision qualify as a hazard? CVC section 21202.
Mandatory bike lane law. Bicyclist may leave the bike lane when traveling as fast as “the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time” What is the normal speed of traffic which is congested and stopped? CVC section 21208.
Overtaking and passing on the left: CVC section 21750
Overtaking on the right is permitted where there is room for two or more lines (not only lanes) of traffic, but there is no requirement in this section to overtake only when it can be done safely: CVC section 21754
Requirement to pass on the right only when safe: CVC section 21755
I have been on the other end of a similar situation (turning left across two lanes, in a car). Fortunately, the vehicle in the fast-moving inside lane that slammed into my passenger side was a car and no-one was injured. All the fault was assigned to me as not having the right of way.
Regarding the bicycling specifically, it’s quite obvious that having a bike lane separated from traffic by a few feet of grass would have eliminated the blind spot. (Contrary to popular belief, they do have driveways and left-hand turns in northern Europe, just as they do suburbs, hills, and winters.)
How would this work? Would the cyclist on a separate sidepath still have the right of way over left turning traffic? If so, then the motorist would have to scoot across the oncoming lanes and then stop short if a cyclist was about to enter the second intersection. If the cyclist had a stop sign, the cyclist would lose level of service and still have to watch for turning traffic. I see that as just as likely to result in crashes unless some sort of signal intervention was installed.
I’m not sure I follow you. Putting the bike facility even farther right puts the cyclist essentially in the position of a sidewalk rider, which really isn’t a good thing, considering the higher risks taken by the sidewalk/sidepath rider.
An aside: I noted that this wonderful bike lane was, as shown in the early part of the video, one of sub-standard width.
I imagine this would work exactly the same as it does whenever (whether riding or driving) I see something in my path – I optionally say ‘duh’ and use a device created for exactly these situations: the brakes.
It would be great to be able to maintain the same comfortable speed throughout the entire commute but sadly it’s not possible. Even the Concorde was sometimes put in a holding pattern – I saw it with my own eyes. This is the price for sharing the world with others – still massively preferable to crashing (IMHO).
This is not exclusively a bike lane problem, though it may appear so in the video. I was hit in my Jaguar a few years ago when a similar left turner did not stop to consider the effects of traffic in the main RH traffic lane, impacting my car in the LH front quarter. Lesson – do NOT turn left through traffic based on a gap in one lane and, if you are part of oncoming traffic, proceed with EXTRA caution. In such a situation, the motorist at least has a cage of steel.
Here’s the advice of a lawyer. After the collision, the video should be about ninety seconds long. The cyclist’s entire conversation should be comprised of the following: “I think I’m hurt. I think my bike is damaged. Call the police. Call an ambulance.” Then sit (or lay) down and shut up. If the driver argues with you, repeat as needed. Winning any argument on the street is pointless. After a bike-car collision, there is not an paramedic crew in the world that’s going to argue with a transport.
I think it would a slam dunk getting the cops to write a citation for illegal left turn. From there it would either be the auto insurance companies hammering out a deal (in a no-fault PIP state) or the motor driver’s insurance company hammering out a deal with the cyclists’s health insurance carrier and offering a check.
There is no droit moral (moral fault) in American law. There is only liability. As my first boss out of law school said: “in America, the only form of remorse that exists in our system involves the writing of a check.” It sounds crude, rude and insensitive, but after a wreck, you gotta remain focused on that one thing: “Is this going to increase the odds of getting me a check, and a bigger check.”
I’ve been bicycling and driving a car for more than 5 decades. BOTH of the people in this collision are at fault in that more situational awareness on the part of either would have kept this from happening. When you (cycling or in a car) see a gap in the lanes to your L (w/ slow or stopped traffic) and a lot entrance on the R, EXPECT that a vehicle in the opposing traffic flow will be making a L turn through that space. Also, a good view of the cyclist (by car driver) was blocked by cars in the lane to L of cyclist. BUT, driver should move across lanes of traffic more slowly / carefully in these situations as well.
it would have been more accurate for you to say that either the bicyclist or the motorist could have prevented the crash, rather than that both are at fault. Fault is a legal judgment. Laws vary. The California laws I cited in an earlier comment would appear to place some fault with the motorist for an unsafe left turn and some with the bicyclist for an unsafe pass on the right, while still reflecting the presumption that the bicyclist should ride in the bike lane. As to preventing the crash, the bicyclist was doing the more unexpected thing, overtaking on the right of stopped traffic, and so ought to exercise a high degree of caution.