In the "unclear on the concept" department

[katew]

I roll up to the intersection of Fairfield and Blanshard, that eternal light, westbound. The Blanshard walk signals are still on, so we're in for a 30-minute wait or so.

At the stop line is a queue of cars in the left/through lane, and a bicycle in the middle of the right/through lane. Behind it is a car signalling right. I can see the steam coming out the driver's ears from back where I sit.

So, I roll up to the other cyclist and say, "Hey, there's a car trying to turn right behind you," and scootch over to give her room to make way. Just because that's the nice thing to do.

She looks affronted. "Well. I am sitting right where I belong." <indicates bike marker on the light-trip sensor on the pavement, fixes self in place>

Thank goodness the light turned green soon after.

It never occurred to me that people might interpret those markings as, "BIKES STAY RIGHT HERE."

[beegull]

I applaud her stubborness. Those right/through lanes are a raw deal for cyclists, since if you split the lanes and cosy up to the left/through lane, there could be a car going straight through on your right by the time the light changes. Awkward. If you scooch over the the right, the car directly behind you might clear, but once again, by the time the light changes, there might be a new right turner coming up, who then, inevitably, pulls into the intersection to start their turn, and is stopped by a pedestrian, and again you're forced into some dangerous maneuver or made to wait for the car, the pedestrians, and the duck trailing the string of ducklings across your path.

There's an intersection, on Esquimalt at Head and Esquimalt, heading into deep Esquimalt, where they (they being the magical the road-line gnomes) have actually made a little mini-bike lane on the left-hand side of, but very much blocking, the right turn lane onto head street. Not saying this would stop some drivers from the steam build up they might experience when being blocked by a lowly bicycle (despite the fact that another car would block them in the same position), but it may be the start of a trend towards making what cyclists are supposed to do at intersections like that a little clearer.

[Josh.E]

I agree. She was exactly where she should be. Showing you where you should be positioned in the lane is exactly the point of those marks on the road.
As a cyclist in traffic, you are a considered a vehicle under the law, and need to ride in that way. That means taking your lane and not being ambiguous, so drivers know what to expect from you. They wouldn't (shouldn't) try to squeeze around another car, or a motorcyle in the same situation, and they shouldn't be doing it with a cyclist.

Whenever you approach an intersection with a right/though lane and no bike lane, you should take the lane. And it goes both ways. Cars shouldn't overtake you approaching the intersection, and you also shouldn't squeeze up the right of stopped cars. If there is no bike lane on the right, you are supposed to wait in the line of traffic.

[katew]

I understand your points but will disagree about the markings on the pavement. They are there to show you where you need to be in order to trip the lights.

They are a purely mechanical symbol, although I'll grant that they are helpful in the sense that they do give a cyclist validation and permission to be sitting in the lane and not at the curb, helplessly waiting for the light to change.

But I'll continue to make it easy for a car bottled up behind me to turn right.

[Josh.E]

I understand wanting to be considerate to drivers, but I disagree with the practice of encouraging people to squeeze by you and turn right at intersections. The 'right hook', (car turning right in front of a moving bike at an intersection) is the leading cause of bike accidents and cyclist deaths on the road.

You need to consider yourself an 'equal' user of the road in this situation. If a car or motorcycle happened to be lined up in the lane to go straight, a car wanting to turn right behind them would have to wait until the light changed. As a cyclist, you are seen exactly the same as a vehicle under the law, and it is not at all unreasonable for a car to have to wait behind you to turn right. You don't need to feel as though you are 'holding up' a driver. You have a right to be there. It is also much safer for everyone if drivers come to expect this practice from cyclists.

The markings are there to mechanically show where the bike sensors are, but the position of the sensor (and the marking) in the lane is chosen to indicate a "sharrow", and show the cyclist where they should line up to wait in the intersection. Otherwise they would be placed 30cm from the curb.

[stevierooks]

Gotta agree with taking and keeping the lane position in this road use scenario.

First of all it doesn't do us any service to exaggerate the length of wait time that we are talking about here (even tongue in cheek:) Road users already have a bizzar concept of how much time can be saved by speeding and rushing towards the next red light. We are talking about seconds.

Also, it would be good for all cyclists to be consistent in these grey-area scenarios and that can be best achieved by referring to the laws and rules that are already in place. Nothing in the Motor Vehicle Act tells me that I have to drag my bike out of the way of a right turning motorist while waiting for a red light.

This is a grey area. Its like that because most experienced drivers have not had any recent formal education on how to deal with cyclist besides the opinions that they have heard over the water cooler.

Rooks