This started out as a response to Chris L's comment, a follow-up to How to Turn Left, but it became quite long, so I've promoted it to an entry of its own.
When I suggested that a right turn across a bike lane is affected by
first merging with the bike lane, Chris responded, I'm not so sure
that this rule applies. If an auto can merge into a bike lane, then a
bike lane is a lane with motorized traffic. With the limited use of bike
lanes in Lincoln and Nebraska I would expect that may drivers will be
unfamiliar with them. The uniqueness of the intersection in question
makes for even more confusion.
I don't see any other way it can work. If motor vehicles can not merge with the bike lane, then they must turn through it leading to the dreaded left hook—a variant of the right hook, and a condition less safe than the absence of bike lanes. The other alternative is no left turn for motor vehicles.
It is true that the unusualness of bike lanes create confusion for users, both motorists and cyclists. I've seen the ambiguity used both as an argument for and against on-street bike lanes.
On the one hand, the lack of clarity causes traffic to be more careful. In the case of the bike lanes, nobody's quite sure what to do, so everyone slows down as we try to figure it out together. In my case, I noticed the person who wanted to turn left, so instead of hammering by, I slowed down to wait and see what she was going to do, and everything worked itself out.
On the other hand, when no one knows exactly what to do, traffic situations become less predictable and harder to navigate through (without loss of speed/flow), and therefore more dangerous in the face of impatient users, rather than less. Note: I don't have a lot of sympathy for impatience on the roads. Going from point A to point B as fast as one can is not a right, and things that cause one to slow down are not impinging, generally, on one's quality of life.
I have formed a personal opinion about Lincoln's bike lanes: they provide greater safety for a condition that was relatively safe to start with, the car overtaking the bike, but less safety for the case that was already a problem, car/bike collisions at intersections. They provide increased perception of safety for casual cyclists without really providing greater safety. (Modulo design, placement, existing traffic conditions, etc.) I like the lanes downtown, particularly on 14th Street, because I can blast through the traffic like a hot knife through butter. Without the lane, I would ride in the regular traffic line with the cars at a lower speed with more stops and starts. My personal convenience and speed, though, aren't the design goal of the lanes I suspect.
I've heard it said that, even if the lanes are not safer, they seem safer and encourage people to cycle who might not otherwise. Therefore, the lanes are a good thing. This is an argument that makes me go, Hmmm...
There's a huge supply of information, pro, con, and neutral, on the topic of bike lanes and other segregated bike ways. Here's a small sampling.
I chose them to try to provide a variety of views.
It seems like the jury is still out. Bicycles are truly the red-headed stepchild of transportation planning. They're not motor vehicles, which we're happy to plan for, and they're not pedestrians, whom we're happy to plan for, so we just cram them in where we can, and scratch our collective head when the fit is bad.
Back to the original question Though there's nothing in the Nebraska Statutes about dedicated bike lanes, this is what the Lincoln Municipal Code has to say:
10.14.050 Enter Traffic Lanes or Change Course Without Safety.
[...]
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any motor vehicle within any portion of a bicycle lane for a distance greater than is necessary to lawfully enter the closest lane or area designated for motor vehicle traffic or parking.
So motor vehicles are allowed to operate in order to make a safe left turn, but only as long as necessary. Signal, merge, turn is proper.
Add a Comment