Bike Lane Issue - What to do?

This is a real situation that confronted me yesterday at an intersection between a secondary road and a side street with a traffic light. The question is: does a bike, in the bike lane, stop or not...and then, is so, how long?

Here's how it looked:
http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/...3/a53621c2.jpg

The reason I ask:

• There was no solid line through the bike lane to the curb as there would be at an intersection without a bike lane
• There was no danger presented to the bike from cars turning on from the side street
• The light was abnormally long considering there was no traffic entering from the sidestreet

I chose to treat it as a stop sign and proceeded after I was sure there were no pedestrians or cars entering from the side street. My initial inclination was to stop and wait for green, but as I pondered the set up and the lack of a solid line, I decided to proceed.

Thoughts on this?

No one knows what bikes are supposed to do and bike lanes like this perpetuate the confusion. Most cyclists will say "No danger to me if I blow through this" and a few will say "A red light is a red light".

I say show up at a city council meeting and say "Hey, what am I supposed to do here? I don't want to break any laws." The point being that the city planners are perpetuating the confusion.

Oh, if you want a real answer, not a political one, treating it like a stop sign works for me.

There's an identical intersection that I go through frequently.

It seems to me that I'm supposed to stop at the stop light. If there were two car lanes and only one light, both of them would be expected to stop. I don't see how this is any different.

(I don't always stop :rolleyes: ... but if there's left-turning traffic from the intersecting road, I do.)

That is confusing. I'd say to treat it as a stop sign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

There's an identical intersection that I go through frequently.

---

I often ride through a similar T-intersection that is a three way stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

It seems to me that I'm supposed to stop at the stop light. If there were two car lanes and only one light, both of them would be expected to stop. I don't see how this is any different.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

(I don't always stop :rolleyes:

---

(looks around, pretends to be an oblivious tourist, runs stop sign)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

... but if there's left-turning traffic from the intersecting road, I do.)

---

There is some chance that the left turning traffic is ... another bike! Meaning - traffic that will be entering the bike lane.

What about people crossing the road? I would assume you would stop to give way to them.

If there's a cross signal and a green man light I would say you would have to stop.

I agree that pedestrians in the cross walk always have the right of way over a bike. Ironically, in this situation, I was actually next to a large utility truck that was stopped at the light and would not have seen a pedestrian without getting into the cross walk and stopping.

To Mel's point, it actually "felt" to me that the design was intentional but not completely thought through relative to pedestrians...but designed to "usher" the bike along unimpeded. Interestingly, I looked at an old satellite photo and see that past design had the wide "stop line" all the way to the curb...so, the current configuration is a modification.

As I've pondered over night, I'm very comfortable with my decision to treat it as a stop but can think of other scenarios where I would have waited for the light.

ETA: Laura, I am a tourist here, so I guess that approach would work :D

I treat it like a regular stop light. But then, when there's a red light at an intersection with a bike lane, I will usually scooch over to the left (taking the trafic lane) and get in line with any waiting cars in order to avoid being right-hooked by turning motorists. Once I get past the intersection I'll merge back into the bike lane (provided that I'm in Little Rock where a local ordinance stipulates an MBL rule), otherwise I'll just ride with the flow of traffic... bike lanes here in AR are few and far between anyways.

Tom

I also would have treated that intersection situation like a stop sign. Bike lanes on Long Island are also far and few, actually barely any.

~ JoAnn

I have treated these situations as stop or yield signs depending on how well I can see potential peds or other hazards. I also figure that if I just blow on by I will give any bike-hating motorists sitting at the red light one more reason to hate cyclists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laura*

There is some chance that the left turning traffic is ... another bike! Meaning - traffic that will be entering the bike lane.

---

Even if it's a car or truck, there's at least a possibility that it will swing wide and enter the bike lane. I'd just as soon obey the law and let it go. Even if it does mean I have to spend an extra 45 seconds thinking about the amazing Napoleons at the bakery just up the street, and how I've probably earned one by riding. :p

I'd treat it like a regular red light... around here at least one city has been clarifying their position by going out and making sure they've painted a stop line all the way across...

In any case although technically you should be able to go through without having or causing any problems, remember how sloppy a lot of drivers are and how many will make a wide turn into that bike lane...

I treat it as a stop light.

On Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, a lot of cyclists were ignoring an intersection like you described. During a City Hall meeting, residents rose up in revolt. Their driveways were a little bit beyond the intersection (on the cyclists' side) and because of the high speed of the road, they needed the red light to pull out of their driveways safely. When cyclists disregarded the light it put not only them, but the riders lives in jeopardy.

All rules that apply to cars apply to bikes on roadways. So, if this is a red light for cars, it is a red light for you. Legally, you must stop and wait for the light to turn to green in order to proceed.

+1 with spokewench.

I believe here in California that you do have to stop at T-intersection with light. You are a vehicle, albeit unmotorized. So you do have to stop.

I've had long drawn out argument with coach from well known fund raising organization.

error on side of caution.

Good responses. I agree that the most sensible response is "a light is a light..."

Interestingly, here's an old satellite view of the intersection...it USED to have lines going through the bike lane, NOW, it doesn't.

http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/...3/ea95b6be.jpg

I am amazed...the side street served by the light only has nine houses, and the main road has a speed limit of 15 mph! I wonder what politician lives on that side street...

Aw, heck, for nine houses I'd definitely blow the light. :p

The intersection I'm thinking of definitely needs a light - it's quite busy in both directions. It also doesn't have a stop bar through the bike lane. It was re-paved not too long ago, so just out of curiosity I had to look at aerial maps. All of them show the intersection just as it is now, with no stop bar in the bike lane. Yahoo's image dates to 2008, which I believe was before the re-paving.

I'm not interested enough to drill down through all the levels of Florida highway engineering regulations to find out more details about stop bar design, but it does seem pretty strange.

Another thing to consider is not just your safety & the safety of pedestrians and other travelers, but also the scenario: if you are hit for whatever reason as you are traveling, your position legally will be much stronger if you stopped than if you blew through the light. Whether it happens at that intersection or a few blocks down the road.

For me, I treat them as stop lights and stop. Funny, this morning I saw another cyclist up ahead a ways and his option was to move up on the sidewalk (opposite the side street), continue on, then on the other side move back into the road.

After a bit, I actually did still catch up and pass him (about 8 blocks), I guess time saving is all relative.

In another situation, however, I did a left turn on red because my poor little bike did not trigger the sensors. I only did this after just missing the first green left and sitting through 1 complete cycle. So with no cars, I made my left.

Culver City and a $500 ticket for blowing a red light in a similar situation says that a stop light is a stop light.....there wasn't a bike lane, but you are considered a vehicle on the road either way

nah, i go thru a couple of these every day on my way to work, and i never stop. i dont see any reason to, with good visibility and mindful of any traffic turning into the car lane next to my bike lane, seems goofy to me to stop. i slow but, no, i dont stop.

Whoa, good question.

Legally, I suspect you're responsible for stopping and waiting as in a car, although this does vary some from state to state.

Realistically, if it was me, I'd probably do what you did and come to a stop, wait, then get fed up and ride through the red.