Bicycle - Car Right of Way at Intersections

[Donald G]

TRAFFIC SITUATION ...

A car, in the right hand lane, is approaching a green light at an intersection and signalling a right had turn. There is a bicycle lane between he car and the curb (green patched) that continues straight through the intersection. The car and the bicycle are travelling side by side as they approach the intersection.

Is the onus on the bicycle (travelling straight through the intersection) to yield to the car making the right hand turn or is the onus on the car making the right hand turn to yield to the bicycle as it proceeds straight through the intersection?

[LordEd]

My belief: Bicycle has right of way as the car is crossing the bike's lane of traffic.

http://drivesmartbc.ca/cycling/passing- ... bike-lanes

the driver must do a proper lane change over the segment with the broken line prior to turning and must not affect the travel of cyclists using the bike lane.

However,

Bicycles using the bike lane may pass with caution on the right of traffic in the lane to their left. This is because they are in a multiple lane situation where there is an unobstructed lane on the right of overtaken traffic that the cyclist is permitted to use. The requirement to pass with caution does place an onus on the cyclist to expect something other than unconditional right of way when passing.

[Bsuds]

If I can't make the turn before the cyclist gets to the intersection I will slow down and let him go thru first.
I think that is the correct way to do it but even if not I would rather not hurt someone.

[Donald G]

Thanks LordEd. That clearly explains it.

[Hmmm]

NEVER EVER TURN RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE CYCLISTS. I hope this is clear now. Seriously you needed to ask? Get off the road!

[LoneWolf_53]

TRAFFIC SITUATION ...

A car, in the right hand lane, is approaching a green light at an intersection and signalling a right had turn. There is a bicycle lane between he car and the curb (green patched) that continues straight through the intersection. The car and the bicycle are travelling side by side as they approach the intersection.

Is the onus on the bicycle (travelling straight through the intersection) to yield to the car making the right hand turn or is the onus on the car making the right hand turn to yield to the bicycle as it proceeds straight through the intersection?

Hmmmm............. I'm afraid if you paid attention to signage on the streets, you'd be aware that if you are the car driver, it's your duty to yield to the bicyclists.

If one thinks about it for but a moment it makes complete sense, since the bicycle lane is in fact a lane, and it's always been incumbent upon whomever takes it upon themselves to cross a lane, to ensure that it is safe to do so, just as I have to yield to pedestrians crossing the intersection if they are present.


The signs are there folks, possibly not everywhere, judging by the appearance of this thread, but I have seen them and there's no mistaking what they say.

Thanks LordEd. That clearly explains it.

Not accurately enough to my thinking. The Coles notes version is motorized vehicles must yield to bicycles in their lane, and signage confirms this. Signs are up and in place, they supersede any ideas and info gleaned elsewhere.

[kgcayenne]

I don't understand how many people do not comprehend such things. What the hell is wrong with our licencing where we have iron-clad restrictions on youths, yet a startling number of drivers are ignorant of some very simple principles!

[tgm929]

NEVER EVER TURN RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE CYCLISTS. I hope this is clear now. Seriously you needed to ask? Get off the road!

Nothing like yelling the wrong information. No wonder motorists get frustrated with cyclists. If the cyclists don't know the rules why would they expect the motorists to know. But thanks for your rude and ignorant attempt to clear it up.

If the bike lane has a broken line the vehicle needs to make a lane change into the bike lane (obviously not if there is a bike beside him). Once the vehicle has safely changed lanes a cyclist can no longer pass him on the right. If a cyclist comes along behind a vehicle legally in a right lane waiting to safely make a turn the cyclist must wait behind the vehicle until he turns, just like any other user of the road.

If it's a solid line, the vehicle cannot enter the bike lane at all and can not proceed to turn right until there is safe to do so.....i.e. there is not a cyclist coming in the bike lane that would be impeded.

[Partmanpartfish]

I don't understand how many people do not comprehend such things. What the hell is wrong with our licencing where we have iron-clad restrictions on youths, yet a startling number of drivers are ignorant of some very simple principles!

Every one of us is ignorant of some very simple principles, some or another. Because we are imperfect machines. We're lousy computers with lousy memory banks. We forget all sorts of things that we might have known twenty, thirty or fifty years ago. That's the way The Good Lord made us, and He backed us up with lousy warranties, to boot.

Even cops on general duty probably forget loads of stuff their brethren on traffic consider basic. That's life. That's the way it goes.

But most of us try to muddle through and do the best we can.

Common sense often works. If I'm making a right and sense there may be a conflict with a bicyclist, I twist my head and make eye contact, just to let them know I know they're there and won't plow them down. That usually works and they usually appreciate it, even if I don't remember everything I learned in driving school as I guess some do.

[Hmmm]

If the bike lane has a broken line the vehicle needs to make a lane change into the bike lane (obviously not if there is a bike beside him). Once the vehicle has safely changed lanes a cyclist can no longer pass him on the right. If a cyclist comes along behind a vehicle legally in a right lane waiting to safely make a turn the cyclist must wait behind the vehicle until he turns, just like any other user of the road.

If it's a solid line, the vehicle cannot enter the bike lane at all and can not proceed to turn right until there is safe to do so.....i.e. there is not a cyclist coming in the bike lane that would be impeded.

What are you talking about? The question was if the car is in the right lane and the cyclists in in their lane, does the car have the right to cross in front of the cyclists to make the right. Not in those words but that was what was being asked. The answer is Never. If a car were to do this then they could very well kill the cyclists, unless the rider slammed on their brakes. You think this is wrong?

If anyone feels this is ok, then please STOP DRIVING. I cannot believe some people actually would think that is ok. I've seen many cars turn right in front of cyclists before but that is because I figured they thought they had time to do it, not that they wrongly thought it was their right.

[Ken7]

If I can't make the turn before the cyclist gets to the intersection I will slow down and let him go thru first.
I think that is the correct way to do it but even if not I would rather not hurt someone.

Now if you are several vehicle lengths ahead of the bike with the intent to turn right, what do you do? I personally pull into the bike lane so they have to slow and wait to proceed what ever they want to do, go straight or turn right also. I'm not 100% sure if that is correct, however a bicycle is a vehicle and has to follow same rules.

[tgm929]

What are you talking about? The question was if the car is in the right lane and the cyclists in in their lane, does the car have the right to cross in front of the cyclists to make the right. Not in those words but that was what was being asked. The answer is Never. If a car were to do this then they could very well kill the cyclists, unless the rider slammed on their brakes. You think this is wrong?

Maybe try and read what I said again. As I said obviously if the cyclist is beside you or close behind you don't cut him off or hit him.

But once you have safely entered the bike lane (marked by a broken line) the cyclist cannot legally pass you on the right. He must wait behind you until you turn.

[tgm929]

Now if you are several vehicle lengths ahead of the bike with the intent to turn right, what do you do? I personally pull into the bike lane so they have to slow and wait to proceed what ever they want to do, go straight or turn right also. I'm not 100% sure if that is correct, however a bicycle is a vehicle and has to follow same rules.

You're 100% right Ken, as long as the bike lane is marked by a broken line.

[Hmmm]

Maybe try and read what I said again. As I said obviously if the cyclist is beside you or close behind you don't cut him off or hit him.

But once you have safely entered the bike lane (marked by a broken line) the cyclist cannot legally pass you on the right. He must wait behind you until you turn.

You're correct. I didn't comment on that because the OP didn't ask about this. The Op wrote: "The car and the bicycle are travelling side by side as they approach the intersection.

Is the onus on the bicycle (travelling straight through the intersection) to yield to the car making the right hand turn or is the onus on the car making the right hand turn to yield to the bicycle as it proceeds straight through the intersection?"

This was what I commented on. The answer is never turn in front of the cyclist in this situation.

In your scenario, if you are a sufficient distance in front of the cyclists and the bike lane becomes broken then you must enter it before turning right, so as not to cut off the cyclists.

[Partmanpartfish]

In your scenario, if you are a sufficient distance in front of the cyclists and the bike lane becomes broken then you must enter it before turning right, so as not to cut off the cyclists.

Keep in mind not all streets have bike lanes. Pandosy is one. My rule is don't make a right turn if a bike is going to crash into you.