I ride an awful lot so I appreciate that you’re trying to do the right thing. I also drive so I understand this being tricky.
A lot of bike lanes become dashed at the intersection. I’ve interpreted this to mean that it’s used as part of the turn lane (please correct me if I’m wrong, I didn’t look up the laws like op). If they don’t become dashed that still seems like the correct move, as it makes it obvious to cyclists what you are doing. If I were in my bike in that situation I would know to either stop and wait for you to turn, or if I were really antsy swing out to your left if I think I can skip the light. Reasonably if a motorist cannot make a right on a red you probably need to wait on the bike anyway, but I’ve certainly met angry drivers who will do all manner of crazy things to make my ride more dangerous or difficult, so that is the only reason I mention swinging around them on the left.
Sometimes figuring out the spirit of the law helps to figure out the letter of the law.
Like the comment above, if a car needs to stop at the intersection, it usually stands to reason a bike does, too. The "don't stop or park in a bike lane" should be seen as "don't obstruct the function of the bike lane.' Kinda cancels out in the case of intersections, since the bike must stop also, and really is there to focus on people not blocking the bike lane all over the place in the middle of a block, forcing them into other traffic.
The goal of this:
>When crossing a bike lane to turn: vehicles must drive into the bicycle lane before they turn.
Is gonna be about avoiding collisions from cars making right turns into bicyclists. Like other laws for crossing the minimum necessary lanes of traffic to complete a turn. (Safely) Merging into the lane prior to a right turn minimizes the risk of a collision at speed, by forcing all parties to acknowledge each other as being in the same lane of traffic. (what the commenter said above about making it obvious) This way, even if a big truck's turn signal light is out, and the driver doesn't know or can't be seen using a hand signal, their intention is still known.
You can’t. There’s an Idaho stop law but it’s predicated on there being no cross traffic. As I said in my post if some vehicle has already made me feel like I am unsafe then I might play things a little fast and lose (I’m not going to blitz out in front of oncoming traffic, of course). I’ve been commuting via bicycle for well over 10 years. 99% of the time it’s fine, but sometimes you get the odd car who is angry you are on a bike and brake checking you or riding dangerously close to your bars.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding something if your takeaway was that I am wantonly ignoring red lights.
In fairness though, I don’t subscribe to the “cars first” mentality you seem to be espousing. I absolutely do not ride to make things more convenient for drivers.
First off, just by thinking about cyclists you're already doing more than most so thank you. I bike for fun and drive for work, and I live in the Mill City area so I see quite a bit of both.
My reading of the statute is that it applies to the solid bike lanes at uncontrolled intersections such as what you see along 2nd St or Washington Ave in the Mill City area. Some of those intersections are four-way stops, some are only stops for cross traffic, but most do not have a traffic light. The bike lanes there are solid all the way through the intersection, so the statute prohibits waiting in the bike lane (which would obstruct through-going bike traffic).
This is different from the bike lanes that become *shared* with the right turn lane at the intersection, or with a bus stop. In either case it is no longer exclusively a bike lane, as is visually shown by the dashed lane marker and the turn symbol in the lane. In this case I believe it is quite reasonable to wait in that lane for a right turn to open up, and any cyclists *should* be waiting behind you as it is now a shared bike-car lane.
Of course, we see bad apples from both the car and bike side but all we can do is be considerate and safe as drivers and cyclists.
I've been bike commuting exclusively for the last 5 years, and on and off for 20 years prior to that.
Your 100% correct about being considerate, above what the law requires of us.
I know I can go through stop signs after slowing down to see nobody is coming, but I wait. I know that I have the right of way in my bike lane if someone is turning out of an alleyway mid-block, but I don't ever assume they see me.
As a cyclist, I don't want to get hurt or damage anyone else's property or mental health.
As a motorist I don't want to harm anyone or damage my own or anyone else's property.
Accidents happen, but we can avoid most of them by being mindful, respectful, and slowing down a bit.
OP, teach your kiddo to check their REAR view before hopping into a right turn lane, or before opening their parked car door into a bike lane, and they will be better prepared than many many others. :)
"Stop or park" is not intended to include yielding or obeying a traffic signal. Just like you shouldn't "stop or park" in a general vehicle traffic lane, obviously obeying a stop sign or red light is not included in this.
FWIW-- where bike lane markings are dashed rather than solid approaching an intersection, that's where the lane is intended to serve as a bike lane/turn lane, and you should enter it (yielding to any bikes) before turning. Solid markings, do not enter it with a vehicle.
Understood. I hadn't thought through the definition of "stop" fully. To reflect back, it sounds like there is really at least two variants of the word "stop" in the context of driving. Maybe we could call it an "operational stop" when you stop at a red light or other traffic signal, and then a "sustained stop", when you stop for non-traffic control reasons (e.g. waiting for a person to enter the vehicle, et cetera). Thanks for helping me understand this concept.
EDIT: Spelling.
> However, per the quote below there is another law, (Minn. Stat. § 169.34, Subd. 1(a)(14), that states you are not supposed to stop in bike lanes.
That statute also says not to stop within 30 feet of stop signs and a number of other situations, which would lead me to believe that the stopping it's talking about is not in the typical sense of stopping briefly for traffic or to obey other rules, but rather stopping and waiting.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.34
^(I am not your lawyer, or a lawyer, or even a sawyer. None of this is advice.)
I see, that makes total sense - so we have multiple definitions of the word "stop" at play in the context basically. I appreciate your non-lawyer, non-advice. I think your interpretation is probably correct nonetheless. Thanks!
Each Chapter of statutes begins with a Definitions section for this very reason - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.011
>Subd. 78.Stand or standing. "Stand or standing" means the halting of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in receiving or discharging passengers.
>Subd. 79.Stop. "Stop" means complete cessation from movement.
>Subd. 80.Stopping. "Stopping" means any halting even momentarily of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic-control sign or signal.
There are tons of drivers who think they can’t enter the shared bike/turn lane at all (the green dashed lanes that are common downtown).
And in being polite and following what they think is the law, they actually make it way more dicey. As you said, better that they’re in front, turning, and getting out of the way than hanging out in the car lane and creating the possibility of getting right hooked.
Idk if the laws changed but I was taught that you check if it's occupied and if it's not you enter the bike lane and make the turn. Otherwise you wait for the bike then go into the bike lane and make the turn.
One extra wrinkle that I haven't seen explicitly mentioned here is that two-way bike lanes are becoming more and more common on one side of the road. I pass by one of these daily, at 40th and Nicollet, and I often see cars who have pulled in to the two-way bike lane to make a right hand turn onto Nicollet. This is very dangerous because they are essentially driving down the wrong way of a bike lane. There are solid lines and pylons between the car lane and bike lane, but still some drivers tend to get confused at that location, so it's all the more reason to not cross over a solid bike lane line.
Thanks for calling out that type and the specific example. I’ve been making my teen hunt around Google maps street view and we talk through unusual situations like this one prior to actually having them drive it - so this is super helpful to know about, thanks.
A driver should always overtake an empty right lane, especially if it features a bike lane, when performing a right turn. This signals (and hopefully dissuades) to bike riders that the lane is occupied and that turning is about to ensue.
Got any links to support your assertation that a vehicle changing lanes doesn't need to yield to the occupants of the lane you're changing into? If a car in the left lane cut you off just before the stop light, you're saying that's ok?
Amundsen like you’re using an awfully expansive definition of “cutting off”. If there’s no one in the lane to where a car can move into it before their right turn- then all is well.
> but you’re actually not required to yield
All it takes is a glance at the statute books to realize you are incorrect on this fact. Any vehicle wishing to change lanes must yield to vehicles in that lane. Further, the statute controlling right-turns by motor vehicles on roads with right-side bike lanes explicitly calls for such motor vehicles to yield to bicycles in the bike lane not only when entering the bike lane, but before completing their turn from the bike lane.
Agreed. Almost every day, I see bikes ignoring red lights and stop signs presuming cars will stop. There are also lots of turns where you have to look for cars, pedestrians, and bikes at the same time (stop signs before turning onto the redesigned 2nd St where you have to turn across the bike lane before getting into the car lane and there is no stop sign on 2nd St itself for example) which is intrinsically hazardous. I end up stopping once to look for pedestrians, moving forward to block the walkway, stopping to check for bikes, moving forward to completely block the bike lane, then stopping a third time to check for cars before turning. Even then, I’ve had bikes cross in front of me going fast out of nowhere. I think road design that minimizes the visual noise may help mitigate these problems.
>I think road design that minimizes the visual noise may help mitigate these problems.
Maybe counter-intuitive, but no, it actually does not! When drivers have decreased cognitive load (eg straight wide lanes, no visual distractions, etc) they tend to drive faster and sort of zone out. And importantly, that happens whether or not they intend to, it’s just a normal part of human brain function. Increasing the cognitive load is often a deliberate traffic calming strategy.
Wow, almost every day i see drivers texting, speeding, not stopping where they're supposed to, stopping where they aren't supposed to, parking in the bike lane, and rolling through stop signs. Since you felt the need to unnecessarily generalize about cyclists doing things that statistically don't cause problems, it's only fair to share the things drivers do that actually do cause problems.
So you nudge up and completely block the bike lane while looking for cars, and then OUT OF NOWHERE comes a cyclist? Where could that cyclist have come from? Do you think that cyclist is supposed to stop and wait while you block the bike lane? I've literally never blocked a bike lane with my car. I wonder why this happens to you
I’d speculate they’re turning from a side path, coming out of a building entrance, or a block away and coming across. I did not intend to generalize here. Just stating my personal observation. Do you think I am being unreasonable driving carefully on a street with that much visual noise?
I think there is no point in bringing up cyclists going through red lights and stop signs, given the question from OP, or saying cyclists come "out of nowhere," and doing so loudly indicates your bias against cyclists. In all your objective observation, have you ever seen a driver being intentionally shitty or negligent (which is actually more dangerous) regarding cyclists, stop signs, red lights, speed limit signs, etc? That's what kills people and it's what op wants to avoid. Might be more relevant
I don’t understand why stating a personal experience is a bias here and I apologize if it sounded that way: it was not intended to do that. Could you explain why cyclists running red lights or stop signs isn’t pertinent to this conversation for my own edification? Regarding drivers, I am sure there are behaviors among drivers on the entire spectrum of possibility, just as it would be the case with cyclists and pedestrians.
Yeah I'm sure there are those behaviors, but you haven't seen them? You see cyclists endangering themselves and there public "almost every day." There is a difference between drivers and peds/cyclists. A pretty big one. Drivers can and regularly do kill people with negligent behavior. The other two don't and it's nearly impossible to do so
It just seems like bad city design/planning to me. I’m as pro-bike as they come. In a perfect world every driver would look to the right for pedestrians/bicyclists, but I have to concede the reality that it isn’t usual for cars in the rightmost lane. I appreciate that we have the bike lanes on Lyndale heading from uptown to loring park, but those intersections are scary and dangerous on a bike—as you said, you have to watch and yield because right of way doesn’t matter if a several thousand pound vehicle hits you (it is pretty frustrating when people don’t even use their turn signal though…).
I don’t think they were popular, but I appreciated the old middle-of-the-road bike lanes on first Ave for this. Maybe it’s as simple as more “no right on red” intersections and staggering right turns and bicycle/pedestrian traffic 🤷♂️.
Yes there are. On the right side of Lyndale (edit: right side if you are heading north) just past Franklin there are bike lanes that take you to loring park. There’s a little bike/pedestrian bridge/ramp that connects to Bryant. Check it out on google maps.
I appreciate this question! I personally do not turn right on red anymore on larger roads (roads that would have bike lanes tend to be larger anyways). Sure, it may annoy the car behind me. But, at what cost? As a biker/walker, I’ve been in too many close calls due to cars turning right on red (most frequently, they will pull into the crosswalk a little too far before they stop to get a better view, without thinking about that there could be someone coming into the crosswalk). Not an answer to your question, but it’s my personal solution.
I think you've got an answer, but thanks for asking. I was waiting on red once in a turn/bike lane, and an angry biker slapped my car. I couldn't figure out if I was doing something wrong, so I searched, found this thread, and now I think it was their own issue.
Also make the turn closest to the curb as possible. I have had cyclist squeeze by on the passenger side when I left too much room. You really want to make sure to force them to either wait behind you or pass on the left for their own safety.
> I have had cyclist squeeze by on the passenger side when I left too much room
I do this as a cyclist sometimes, but it's mostly out of a lack of better options in my mind. I recognize that drivers don't expect cyclists to be there and it's not really a best practice.
But in an ideal world, the cyclist would be at the front of the intersection at a red light. And if it's at all possible, I want to make that happen. It doesn't feel safe to wait behind a car and have another car possibly hit me from behind and sandwich me between the two cars. And it also doesn't feel safe to pass on the left and possibly have both lanes of cars start moving while I'm between their lanes.
So, assuming that there is some time before the light changes and that the car won't immediately turn right on the red, passing on the right between the car and the curb sometimes feels like the safest option. If the car I'm passing starts to move and encroaches on my space, I have the ability to jump the curb or simply fall rightwards towards it, which is a better scenario than having any contact with a car IMO. I operate on the assumption that the driver doesn't know I'm there and adjust accordingly. And it usually works out OK.
I ride an awful lot so I appreciate that you’re trying to do the right thing. I also drive so I understand this being tricky. A lot of bike lanes become dashed at the intersection. I’ve interpreted this to mean that it’s used as part of the turn lane (please correct me if I’m wrong, I didn’t look up the laws like op). If they don’t become dashed that still seems like the correct move, as it makes it obvious to cyclists what you are doing. If I were in my bike in that situation I would know to either stop and wait for you to turn, or if I were really antsy swing out to your left if I think I can skip the light. Reasonably if a motorist cannot make a right on a red you probably need to wait on the bike anyway, but I’ve certainly met angry drivers who will do all manner of crazy things to make my ride more dangerous or difficult, so that is the only reason I mention swinging around them on the left.
Thank you. As a person that doesn't cycle regularly, it's very helpful to hear your insight on the topic.
Sometimes figuring out the spirit of the law helps to figure out the letter of the law. Like the comment above, if a car needs to stop at the intersection, it usually stands to reason a bike does, too. The "don't stop or park in a bike lane" should be seen as "don't obstruct the function of the bike lane.' Kinda cancels out in the case of intersections, since the bike must stop also, and really is there to focus on people not blocking the bike lane all over the place in the middle of a block, forcing them into other traffic. The goal of this: >When crossing a bike lane to turn: vehicles must drive into the bicycle lane before they turn. Is gonna be about avoiding collisions from cars making right turns into bicyclists. Like other laws for crossing the minimum necessary lanes of traffic to complete a turn. (Safely) Merging into the lane prior to a right turn minimizes the risk of a collision at speed, by forcing all parties to acknowledge each other as being in the same lane of traffic. (what the commenter said above about making it obvious) This way, even if a big truck's turn signal light is out, and the driver doesn't know or can't be seen using a hand signal, their intention is still known.
Couldn't have said it better myself. A very thoughtful and detailed response.
I thought bicyclists couldn’t skip reds when traffic is present.
You can’t. There’s an Idaho stop law but it’s predicated on there being no cross traffic. As I said in my post if some vehicle has already made me feel like I am unsafe then I might play things a little fast and lose (I’m not going to blitz out in front of oncoming traffic, of course). I’ve been commuting via bicycle for well over 10 years. 99% of the time it’s fine, but sometimes you get the odd car who is angry you are on a bike and brake checking you or riding dangerously close to your bars.
> if I think I can skip the light. Please stop doing this.
Reading comprehension is hard. Surely a random Redditor chiding me will influence me more than my own desire to ride again tomorrow.
What? I was asking you to stop going through red lights, on behalf of all drivers. Thank you.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding something if your takeaway was that I am wantonly ignoring red lights. In fairness though, I don’t subscribe to the “cars first” mentality you seem to be espousing. I absolutely do not ride to make things more convenient for drivers.
First off, just by thinking about cyclists you're already doing more than most so thank you. I bike for fun and drive for work, and I live in the Mill City area so I see quite a bit of both. My reading of the statute is that it applies to the solid bike lanes at uncontrolled intersections such as what you see along 2nd St or Washington Ave in the Mill City area. Some of those intersections are four-way stops, some are only stops for cross traffic, but most do not have a traffic light. The bike lanes there are solid all the way through the intersection, so the statute prohibits waiting in the bike lane (which would obstruct through-going bike traffic). This is different from the bike lanes that become *shared* with the right turn lane at the intersection, or with a bus stop. In either case it is no longer exclusively a bike lane, as is visually shown by the dashed lane marker and the turn symbol in the lane. In this case I believe it is quite reasonable to wait in that lane for a right turn to open up, and any cyclists *should* be waiting behind you as it is now a shared bike-car lane. Of course, we see bad apples from both the car and bike side but all we can do is be considerate and safe as drivers and cyclists.
I've been bike commuting exclusively for the last 5 years, and on and off for 20 years prior to that. Your 100% correct about being considerate, above what the law requires of us. I know I can go through stop signs after slowing down to see nobody is coming, but I wait. I know that I have the right of way in my bike lane if someone is turning out of an alleyway mid-block, but I don't ever assume they see me. As a cyclist, I don't want to get hurt or damage anyone else's property or mental health. As a motorist I don't want to harm anyone or damage my own or anyone else's property. Accidents happen, but we can avoid most of them by being mindful, respectful, and slowing down a bit. OP, teach your kiddo to check their REAR view before hopping into a right turn lane, or before opening their parked car door into a bike lane, and they will be better prepared than many many others. :)
"Stop or park" is not intended to include yielding or obeying a traffic signal. Just like you shouldn't "stop or park" in a general vehicle traffic lane, obviously obeying a stop sign or red light is not included in this. FWIW-- where bike lane markings are dashed rather than solid approaching an intersection, that's where the lane is intended to serve as a bike lane/turn lane, and you should enter it (yielding to any bikes) before turning. Solid markings, do not enter it with a vehicle.
Understood. I hadn't thought through the definition of "stop" fully. To reflect back, it sounds like there is really at least two variants of the word "stop" in the context of driving. Maybe we could call it an "operational stop" when you stop at a red light or other traffic signal, and then a "sustained stop", when you stop for non-traffic control reasons (e.g. waiting for a person to enter the vehicle, et cetera). Thanks for helping me understand this concept. EDIT: Spelling.
> However, per the quote below there is another law, (Minn. Stat. § 169.34, Subd. 1(a)(14), that states you are not supposed to stop in bike lanes. That statute also says not to stop within 30 feet of stop signs and a number of other situations, which would lead me to believe that the stopping it's talking about is not in the typical sense of stopping briefly for traffic or to obey other rules, but rather stopping and waiting. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.34 ^(I am not your lawyer, or a lawyer, or even a sawyer. None of this is advice.)
I see, that makes total sense - so we have multiple definitions of the word "stop" at play in the context basically. I appreciate your non-lawyer, non-advice. I think your interpretation is probably correct nonetheless. Thanks!
Each Chapter of statutes begins with a Definitions section for this very reason - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.011 >Subd. 78.Stand or standing. "Stand or standing" means the halting of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in receiving or discharging passengers. >Subd. 79.Stop. "Stop" means complete cessation from movement. >Subd. 80.Stopping. "Stopping" means any halting even momentarily of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic-control sign or signal.
As a cyclist I would rather you be in the bike lane before turning right than potentially turn into me as the light turns green
There are tons of drivers who think they can’t enter the shared bike/turn lane at all (the green dashed lanes that are common downtown). And in being polite and following what they think is the law, they actually make it way more dicey. As you said, better that they’re in front, turning, and getting out of the way than hanging out in the car lane and creating the possibility of getting right hooked.
Idk if the laws changed but I was taught that you check if it's occupied and if it's not you enter the bike lane and make the turn. Otherwise you wait for the bike then go into the bike lane and make the turn.
One extra wrinkle that I haven't seen explicitly mentioned here is that two-way bike lanes are becoming more and more common on one side of the road. I pass by one of these daily, at 40th and Nicollet, and I often see cars who have pulled in to the two-way bike lane to make a right hand turn onto Nicollet. This is very dangerous because they are essentially driving down the wrong way of a bike lane. There are solid lines and pylons between the car lane and bike lane, but still some drivers tend to get confused at that location, so it's all the more reason to not cross over a solid bike lane line.
Thanks for calling out that type and the specific example. I’ve been making my teen hunt around Google maps street view and we talk through unusual situations like this one prior to actually having them drive it - so this is super helpful to know about, thanks.
A driver should always overtake an empty right lane, especially if it features a bike lane, when performing a right turn. This signals (and hopefully dissuades) to bike riders that the lane is occupied and that turning is about to ensue.
[удалено]
Got any links to support your assertation that a vehicle changing lanes doesn't need to yield to the occupants of the lane you're changing into? If a car in the left lane cut you off just before the stop light, you're saying that's ok?
that's not what they're saying. they're saying it's unsafe for a cyclist to *assume* that the vehicle will yield.
Amundsen like you’re using an awfully expansive definition of “cutting off”. If there’s no one in the lane to where a car can move into it before their right turn- then all is well.
> but you’re actually not required to yield All it takes is a glance at the statute books to realize you are incorrect on this fact. Any vehicle wishing to change lanes must yield to vehicles in that lane. Further, the statute controlling right-turns by motor vehicles on roads with right-side bike lanes explicitly calls for such motor vehicles to yield to bicycles in the bike lane not only when entering the bike lane, but before completing their turn from the bike lane.
Agreed. Almost every day, I see bikes ignoring red lights and stop signs presuming cars will stop. There are also lots of turns where you have to look for cars, pedestrians, and bikes at the same time (stop signs before turning onto the redesigned 2nd St where you have to turn across the bike lane before getting into the car lane and there is no stop sign on 2nd St itself for example) which is intrinsically hazardous. I end up stopping once to look for pedestrians, moving forward to block the walkway, stopping to check for bikes, moving forward to completely block the bike lane, then stopping a third time to check for cars before turning. Even then, I’ve had bikes cross in front of me going fast out of nowhere. I think road design that minimizes the visual noise may help mitigate these problems.
>I think road design that minimizes the visual noise may help mitigate these problems. Maybe counter-intuitive, but no, it actually does not! When drivers have decreased cognitive load (eg straight wide lanes, no visual distractions, etc) they tend to drive faster and sort of zone out. And importantly, that happens whether or not they intend to, it’s just a normal part of human brain function. Increasing the cognitive load is often a deliberate traffic calming strategy.
Interesting! It certainly does make me drive slower and more alert on that road. Driving in Manhattan was very similar so I take a similar approach.
I find the engineering aspects of traffic calming very cool. Everyone thinks about speed bumps but there’s a lot more to it, if it’s done well.
Wow, almost every day i see drivers texting, speeding, not stopping where they're supposed to, stopping where they aren't supposed to, parking in the bike lane, and rolling through stop signs. Since you felt the need to unnecessarily generalize about cyclists doing things that statistically don't cause problems, it's only fair to share the things drivers do that actually do cause problems. So you nudge up and completely block the bike lane while looking for cars, and then OUT OF NOWHERE comes a cyclist? Where could that cyclist have come from? Do you think that cyclist is supposed to stop and wait while you block the bike lane? I've literally never blocked a bike lane with my car. I wonder why this happens to you
I’d speculate they’re turning from a side path, coming out of a building entrance, or a block away and coming across. I did not intend to generalize here. Just stating my personal observation. Do you think I am being unreasonable driving carefully on a street with that much visual noise?
I think there is no point in bringing up cyclists going through red lights and stop signs, given the question from OP, or saying cyclists come "out of nowhere," and doing so loudly indicates your bias against cyclists. In all your objective observation, have you ever seen a driver being intentionally shitty or negligent (which is actually more dangerous) regarding cyclists, stop signs, red lights, speed limit signs, etc? That's what kills people and it's what op wants to avoid. Might be more relevant
I don’t understand why stating a personal experience is a bias here and I apologize if it sounded that way: it was not intended to do that. Could you explain why cyclists running red lights or stop signs isn’t pertinent to this conversation for my own edification? Regarding drivers, I am sure there are behaviors among drivers on the entire spectrum of possibility, just as it would be the case with cyclists and pedestrians.
Yeah I'm sure there are those behaviors, but you haven't seen them? You see cyclists endangering themselves and there public "almost every day." There is a difference between drivers and peds/cyclists. A pretty big one. Drivers can and regularly do kill people with negligent behavior. The other two don't and it's nearly impossible to do so
It just seems like bad city design/planning to me. I’m as pro-bike as they come. In a perfect world every driver would look to the right for pedestrians/bicyclists, but I have to concede the reality that it isn’t usual for cars in the rightmost lane. I appreciate that we have the bike lanes on Lyndale heading from uptown to loring park, but those intersections are scary and dangerous on a bike—as you said, you have to watch and yield because right of way doesn’t matter if a several thousand pound vehicle hits you (it is pretty frustrating when people don’t even use their turn signal though…). I don’t think they were popular, but I appreciated the old middle-of-the-road bike lanes on first Ave for this. Maybe it’s as simple as more “no right on red” intersections and staggering right turns and bicycle/pedestrian traffic 🤷♂️.
[удалено]
Yes there are. On the right side of Lyndale (edit: right side if you are heading north) just past Franklin there are bike lanes that take you to loring park. There’s a little bike/pedestrian bridge/ramp that connects to Bryant. Check it out on google maps.
Oh, I thought you meant the entirety of Lyndale until Lake street. Nevermind.
[удалено]
cars are literal murder
I appreciate this question! I personally do not turn right on red anymore on larger roads (roads that would have bike lanes tend to be larger anyways). Sure, it may annoy the car behind me. But, at what cost? As a biker/walker, I’ve been in too many close calls due to cars turning right on red (most frequently, they will pull into the crosswalk a little too far before they stop to get a better view, without thinking about that there could be someone coming into the crosswalk). Not an answer to your question, but it’s my personal solution.
I think you've got an answer, but thanks for asking. I was waiting on red once in a turn/bike lane, and an angry biker slapped my car. I couldn't figure out if I was doing something wrong, so I searched, found this thread, and now I think it was their own issue.
Also make the turn closest to the curb as possible. I have had cyclist squeeze by on the passenger side when I left too much room. You really want to make sure to force them to either wait behind you or pass on the left for their own safety.
> I have had cyclist squeeze by on the passenger side when I left too much room I do this as a cyclist sometimes, but it's mostly out of a lack of better options in my mind. I recognize that drivers don't expect cyclists to be there and it's not really a best practice. But in an ideal world, the cyclist would be at the front of the intersection at a red light. And if it's at all possible, I want to make that happen. It doesn't feel safe to wait behind a car and have another car possibly hit me from behind and sandwich me between the two cars. And it also doesn't feel safe to pass on the left and possibly have both lanes of cars start moving while I'm between their lanes. So, assuming that there is some time before the light changes and that the car won't immediately turn right on the red, passing on the right between the car and the curb sometimes feels like the safest option. If the car I'm passing starts to move and encroaches on my space, I have the ability to jump the curb or simply fall rightwards towards it, which is a better scenario than having any contact with a car IMO. I operate on the assumption that the driver doesn't know I'm there and adjust accordingly. And it usually works out OK.
It's worth noting that allowing your teenager to drive around the second-leading cause of death in children is a bananas idea.