Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was the cyclist turning right as well? I believe in that lane you have three choices: left, straight (into a parking lot?) and right.
The bicyclist is allowed to pass you on the right, but has to "exercise due care," which it doesn't appear that he/she did.
I sold my bike and stopped riding around here because it is just too dangerous. I dearly miss being able to get around safely on a bike, especially in the spring and fall.
Well I think he was going left but its that McDaniel/Augusta intersection where the right lane is also a left turn lane as well. He wasn't turning right, this much I know.
So, in this case, the cyclist technically could pass me on the right even without a dedicated bike lane? See thats the issue, "exercise due care" is too subjective because if a cyclist can in fact pass me on the right, technically that's what he did and with there being no bike lane and knowing that cyclists in the absence of a bike lane must follow the same rules as a car, was not look for a cyclist to come flying by me on the right as I shouldn't be and had I hit him, more than likely it would have been ruled my fault.
Well I think he was going left but its that McDaniel/Augusta intersection where the right lane is also a left turn lane as well. He wasn't turning right, this much I know.
So, in this case, the cyclist technically could pass me on the right even without a dedicated bike lane? See thats the issue, "exercise due care" is too subjective because if a cyclist can in fact pass me on the right, technically that's what he did and with there being no bike lane and knowing that cyclists in the absence of a bike lane must follow the same rules as a car, was not look for a cyclist to come flying by me on the right as I shouldn't be and had I hit him, more than likely it would have been ruled my fault.
No, he couldn't pass you on the right in the intersection. I seriously doubt it could have been ruled your fault.
He should have been in the other left turn lane, or waited his turn in the 3-way turn lane you were in.
Whether a bicyclist is "right" or "wrong" is trumped by the fact that a car-bicyclist wreck rarely turns out well for the bicyclist, nor tragic for the car driver's family.
Bikes can pass on the right when car traffic has stopped (or if it's going slower than the bike) with the "due care" stipulation.
I don't think whether or not there's a bike lane makes much difference in the law, except to say that bikes stay in the bike lane, cars out of the bike lane. The law is virtually the same whether the white lane is painted there or not.
No, he couldn't pass you on the right in the intersection. I seriously doubt it could have been ruled your fault.
He should have been in the other left turn lane, or waited his turn in the 3-way turn lane you were in.
Whether a bicyclist is "right" or "wrong" is trumped by the fact that a car-bicyclist wreck rarely turns out well for the bicyclist, nor tragic for the car driver's family.
Bikes can pass on the right when car traffic has stopped (or if it's going slower than the bike) with the "due care" stipulation.
I don't think whether or not there's a bike lane makes much difference in the law, except to say that bikes stay in the bike lane, cars out of the bike lane. The law is virtually the same whether the white lane is painted there or not.
I agree that in that case, I would physically be fine and have no damage to my car but would have a tough time knowing that someone is injured or God forbid worse even if I was in the right and especially like you are talking about without a bike lane.
So I just drove down E. McBee for lunch and where it meets E. Washington near the Poinsett Club going out of downtown, there is a "bike lane" but cars, even a little Prius in front of me, filled up the whole lane because its so narrow and a cyclist would have almost no room to safely come up on the right, even though technically they could and then when traffic starts moving, there really is not enough room for both the car and a bike to be side by side there safely.
To me, in situations like that, I feel like the law ought to be that cyclists should stop with motorists because on that road there, even with a "bike lane" there its impossible for a bike to pass a car or a car to pass a bike safely.
One of the issues I have seen in Greenville is that they have basically just taken old roads not designed to have bike lanes and tried to shove a small little narrow one in or just combine it with a car lane. Because there are different rules for bike lanes and car lanes, its easy to see how unsafe that can turn out so I say either put in a legit bike lane or on those roads, cyclists must follow the same rules as cars, meaning no going between stopped traffic or passing on the right or left. Otherwise unfortunately, we will see more accidents and not just from cyclists, but also car v car when they are trying to avoid cyclists.
Sad story from Asheville but really demonstrates the issue with cycling and drivers. There is no excuse for a driver to intentionally create a hazardous condition nor an excuse for a driver to be carelessly driving and create a hazordous condition but at the same token, the whole article plainly demonstrates the idea that share the road in many cyclists mind is "drivers need to change their ways." In some cases, they are right, but its a two way street and both sides need to be more vigilant, including cyclists and just like some folks brought up, I have no clue why a cyclist should not have a licence to ride it on the road and a permit for the bicycle. Doesn't even need to cost anything, totally free, but cyclists need to be accountable just like cars.
Sad story from Asheville but really demonstrates the issue with cycling and drivers. There is no excuse for a driver to intentionally create a hazardous condition nor an excuse for a driver to be carelessly driving and create a hazordous condition but at the same token, the whole article plainly demonstrates the idea that share the road in many cyclists mind is "drivers need to change their ways." In some cases, they are right, but its a two way street and both sides need to be more vigilant, including cyclists and just like some folks brought up, I have no clue why a cyclist should not have a licence to ride it on the road and a permit for the bicycle. Doesn't even need to cost anything, totally free, but cyclists need to be accountable just like cars.
Licensing and permitting bicyclists would cost somebody a fortune, and what a huge waste of time and taxpayer money that would be, not to mention the hassle for everybody.
Has it been done successfully anywhere?
Should the 10 year old next door get a license to ride his bike down the street to his friends?
"Sorry, Johnny, you can't ride that Schwinn this Christmas morning. It's not registered, and you don't have your license."
And IF you create a law like that, you have to have enforcement. So... bikes will have to display their permit somehow, a bike license plate? Waste police time and on enforcing this stuff?
What threat do cyclists pose to others, really... (We license car drivers because if you screw up driving a car, someone else could very well end up dead. Not so with bicycles)
You don't even need a license to drive a moped in SC. Good luck requiring cyclists to get one.
It's not the best idea. In fact, it's a bad idea. Sounds like something they would do in France, or Oregon, at a whole lot of taxpayer expense with little to no results - not Greenville, SC where barely anyone rides a bike.
So I just drove down E. McBee for lunch and where it meets E. Washington near the Poinsett Club going out of downtown, there is a "bike lane" but cars, even a little Prius in front of me, filled up the whole lane because its so narrow and a cyclist would have almost no room to safely come up on the right, even though technically they could and then when traffic starts moving, there really is not enough room for both the car and a bike to be side by side there safely.
This is why I gave up on riding a bike around here. The whole Greenville is Bike-Friendly is BS. They painted some lines on some roads, and stenciled pictures of bikes on others so that they could put these roads on a map and say, "Look! See! We are bike-friendly, move here."
Just read the laws- I had recently had a heated argument with my husband about this- I see that a cyclist is supposed to stay in the right lane, but he/she needs to be in the left if turning left, I would think. Is that correct?
Licensing and permitting bicyclists would cost somebody a fortune, and what a huge waste of time and taxpayer money that would be, not to mention the hassle for everybody.
Has it been done successfully anywhere?
Should the 10 year old next door get a license to ride his bike down the street to his friends?
"Sorry, Johnny, you can't ride that Schwinn this Christmas morning. It's not registered, and you don't have your license."
And IF you create a law like that, you have to have enforcement. So... bikes will have to display their permit somehow, a bike license plate? Waste police time and on enforcing this stuff?
What threat do cyclists pose to others, really... (We license car drivers because if you screw up driving a car, someone else could very well end up dead. Not so with bicycles)
You don't even need a license to drive a moped in SC. Good luck requiring cyclists to get one.
It's not the best idea. In fact, it's a bad idea. Sounds like something they would do in France, or Oregon, at a whole lot of taxpayer expense with little to no results - not Greenville, SC where barely anyone rides a bike.
Well I completely agree that mo-peds should be licensed, those guys are ridiculous, but I also think cyclists should be as well over a certain age and only on certain roads therefore little Johnny can ride is bike perfectly fine.
It would not cost any additional money in enforcement because police already need to enforce bike laws with cyclists. Whether or not a cyclist can cause as much damage as a car is irrelevant and in many cases, not always true. Say I have to swerve to avoid a cyclist who decided to blow a stop sign and hit a car head on to avoid the illegal move by a cyclist...or even worse, say I didn't swerve because there was an oncoming car and hit the cyclist...yeah he may be injured or even worse and it may not have been my fault but I still have to live with that and potentially could still be charged.
Look, I completely realize that some drivers are complete jerks to cyclists and that's not right at all and those people should be arrested, but if cyclists use the road, they should be subject to the same exact laws rather than think they have the right to break them. Most do not, but many other do. Those cyclists should be ticketed just like a vehicle and have points taken off their bike license. A car can't lane split, a cyclist shouldn't either. A motorist can't pass on the right, a cyclist shouldn't either (unless there is a dedicated bike lane with plenty of room). If there are 4 cars stopped at a light and no bike lane, the cyclist needs to stop behind the 4th.
Cyclists should not be above the rules of the road and should have to follow the same set as drivers. It makes it safer for all.
Just read the laws- I had recently had a heated argument with my husband about this- I see that a cyclist is supposed to stay in the right lane, but he/she needs to be in the left if turning left, I would think. Is that correct?
The way I understand it, a cyclist may be in the left lane if and only if he is making a left turn and the only other scenario they should be anywhere other than as far right as possible is when passing another biker, and obstruction, or in the scenario of a right turn only lane where the cyclist is proceeding straight.
Thats at least how I understood it, but then again apparently you can pass on the right even w/o a bike lane so I could be wrong.
What threat do cyclists pose to others, really... (We license car drivers because if you screw up driving a car, someone else could very well end up dead. Not so with bicycles)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
