There's a reason newly painted bike lanes become dashed when leading up to stop signs where right turns are allowed -- and it's exactly what you described here.

As I mentioned above, there was no stop sign or stop light on the streets where I was right hooked and the bike lanes do not become dashed. The first was in Champaign-Urbana way back when I was a student, and the driver said she didn't even see or expect a cyclist to be there. The second was going down hill on Chicon from 11th to Rosewood when a car turned onto Cornell which is a gradual right turn, but still a right turn. I do try to assume that drivers are going to break the law almost all of the time, and therefore ride very defensively, but you still can't protect yourself from everything.

Donald Lewis, I did take the lane...the bike lane. Both times I was hooked were on streets with bike lanes, and the person who hit me passed me (in their lane) then turned in front of me without signaling. I haven't taken the Traffic 101 course, so did I still do something wrong? Should I take the lane at every intersection even if there is a bike lane and no stop sign or light? That seems more dangerous since you would be weaving in and out of the bike lane at every intersection.

I didn't realize there was a bike lane.  I would say you did everything right.  About all a person can do is treat every car in the vicinity as if it is liable to do something as asinine as you described.

Don

Donald Lewis, I did take the lane...the bike lane. Both times I was hooked were on streets with bike lanes, and the person who hit me passed me (in their lane) then turned in front of me without signaling. I haven't taken the Traffic 101 course, so did I still do something wrong? Should I take the lane at every intersection even if there is a bike lane and no stop sign or light? That seems more dangerous since you would be weaving in and out of the bike lane at every intersection.

There's a reason newly painted bike lanes become dashed when leading up to stop signs where right turns are allowed -- and it's exactly what you described here.

Taking the lane before any intersection in which the lane to your left is allowed to turn right is IIRC among the best practices taught in TS101. Lane changes do of course need some care to execute safely... but then, that's why you've got a rear-view mirror (and practice maintaining control while looking over your shoulder and signaling), right?

Indeed -- and I'm personally guilty here myself: When driving a motor vehicle, I almost never merge into the bike lane before a right turn, even though that's technically the correct and legal action to take. I almost suspect that were I to change that behaviour to be more correct, more people would be annoyed than pleased.

Dougmc, it is based on the idea that A LOT of laws are seen by drivers as unnecessary for them to follow all the time. Your example of speeding is one, no right turns on red signs is another, rolling through stop signs is another. We all break laws, like I said, we are all just people. But it is more socially acceptable to break some laws than others, so we almost don't even view them as breaking the law.

.  So on a busy street with a speed limit of 35 or MPH the cyclist is encouraged to slow down all the  traffic behind them?  That lacks all common sense.

I'm a bike commuter (~60 miles/week over the last 5 years in Austin) very interested in self-preservation. I avoid busy 35mph streets (Guadalupe, Lamar, Burnet) as much as possible. It is not too hard to find side streets that are safer for travel. There are times, however, when you have to go a short distance with cars, and it is much better to take the lane than to be passed at speed with obstacles or debris potentially in your way.

I think you've made an unjustified logical leap in concluding that anyone is encouraging bikes to slow down all the traffic behind them.

I don't think anyone is advocating a traffic-snarling mozy along Austin's major arterials (well, maybe the Critical Mass folks do, but that's a much-debated and certainly not universally condoned practice). The point is to avoid a dangerous pass. Believe me, I am intensely aware of cars behind me when I have taken the lane, and I try to find a way to let them safely pass as soon as possible. My main priority, however, is to arrive alive and undamaged.

And remember while you are driving around in your car, you are less likely to get a ticket for breaking a traffic law (I mean come on, who doesn't break the law while driving) than a cyclist

What is this based on?

At best, I'd say the cops are equally likely to ticket each group for the same infraction when seen, though people on bicycles don't exceed the speed limit as often as car drivers, and they're more likely to go straight through a red light after making sure it's safe.

Wait, they tell cyclists to "take the lane" -- that's... ugh, that's beyond selfish.

Do you support the rights of turning motorists to take the lane even if they slow the traffic behind them that is not turning?  In answer to your question, yes all road users (horse riders, rickshaw pullers, whatever) have the right to take the proper lane esp. when their safety depends on it.

JusticeGoesBothWays, welcome to Austin! We are so glad that you moved here! Its a great city with a lot of open minded people who understand that not everyone fits into the same mold. While my hobby of riding my bike to work and the grocery store might not be as popular as your hobby of driving your car to work or the grocery store, I think we can both agree that cyclist AND motor vehicle drivers break the law...after all we are all just people. I've been right hooked twice by cars

Yep....You should have taken the lane!  They wouldn't have been able to go around you and cut you off.  Oh wait...avoiding broken bones would be selfish.   

Donald Lewis

Wait, they tell cyclists to "take the lane" -- that's... ugh, that's beyond selfish.  So on a busy street with a speed limit of 35 or MPH the cyclist is encouraged to slow down all the  traffic behind them?  That lacks all common sense.  Does this apply to horses, rickshaws, rollerbladers, unicyclists, etc... as well?  Because I'm just at a loss for how someone on a bike could think that they were so special that they were entitled to take up this much public space.

   I've been a motor vehicle driver for 32 years, and a cyclist for 16 years.  While driving, I have never been obstructed by a cyclist in all that time for more than about 10 seconds.  It is a very rare occasion that while cycling I cause any motor vehicles any inconvenience, but even then it is usually only for a few seconds.  Yes, I take the lane while cycling, when it is appropriate (i.e. narrow lane, obstructions in bike lane or shoulder, setting up for a left turn, etc.).  It has absolutely nothing to do with a sense of entitlement; it has to do with a sense of safety.  I don't quite understand why you think bikes take up more than their fair share of public space.  In my experience, there is negligible impact overall to bikes being on the road.  The guy who ran into you was a total jerk, but that doesn't mean all or even most cyclists are.  If a guy in a Chevy truck hit you instead, would you be going to a Chevy internet forum talking about how special and entitled they thought they were?

Wait, they tell cyclists to "take the lane" -- that's... ugh, that's beyond selfish.  So on a busy street with a speed limit of 35 or MPH the cyclist is encouraged to slow down all the  traffic behind them?  That lacks all common sense.

A busy street with a speed limit of 35MPH should have at least two lanes in each direction. If one of those is a well-maintained bike lane (swept clean and outside of the "door zone" in which cyclists can be knocked into other traffic lanes by parked cars' doors opening), fine and well. The larger, point, however -- if traffic of varying speeds can't be accommodated, the city did a poor job of engineering that street. More recently adopted standards (see the "complete streets initiative") should prevent that from happening in the future.

Riding in the gutter on a 35MPH street is a good way to get hit -- you're not very visible there, and can be easily right-hooked by vehicles pulling in and out of driveways (closely related to the primary sources of risk when riding on the sidewalk -- sidewalk use being one of the three primary risk factors for cyclist-at-fault accidents, the other two being riding at night without lights and running on the wrong side of the road).

Cyclists are able to legally operate as road vehicles, obligated to follow the same rules as everyone else when doing so (with a few extra privileges -- access to "preferential lanes" where available, ability to ride on sidewalks and improved shoulders where not prohibited, and the like). Granted, not everyone takes the associated responsibilities seriously, but we're working to change that (in part by encouraging local courts to send cyclists ticketed for traffic violations to TS101 and similar classes). That said, to answer at least part of your question directly -- people on horseback, skaters, road workers, motorcyclists and the like are, like cyclists, "vulnerable road users", entitled to 3 feet of space (or 6 for large trucks) when passing in the same lane within Austin city limits.

We're not going for "special" -- wider public recognition for the legal status quo of "same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle" would be great. (There are even extreme branches of the vehicular cyclist community who lobby against bike lanes and other separate facilities on the theory that they reduce cyclists' ability to interact with other vehicles as equals).

I wish you (and your insurance company) luck tracking down the guilty party and getting them to take responsibility.

Wait, they tell cyclists to "take the lane" -- that's... ugh, that's beyond selfish.  So on a busy street with a speed limit of 35 or MPH the cyclist is encouraged to slow down all the  traffic behind them?  That lacks all common sense.  Does this apply to horses, rickshaws, rollerbladers, unicyclists, etc... as well?  Because I'm just at a loss for how someone on a bike could think that they were so special that they were entitled to take up this much public space.

If you can't deal with there being a variety of speeds on public streets, perhaps you should stay off them.  The reason behind taking a lane -- where there is not wide shoulder or bike lane -- is NOT to slow down traffic but to minimize the risk of being killed.  This is universally known by those who study cycling safety.    Again, I drive all over the Austin area and have NEVER been seriously inconvenienced by having to wait a little while to pass a cyclist.  Why are YOU so special that you can't wait a block or two to pass someone safely?  In many ways a cyclist takes up LESS space than a motorist such as parking.  A cyclist imposes far less wear on the road surface and does not deplete finite energy resources or create pollution like a motorist.  That public streets (as opposed to interstate highways) are primarily financed by property taxes is just one reason they belong to cyclists every bit as much as motorists.   

I am not faulting you for stopping.  You were maintaining an adequate distance and paying adequate attention so as not to hit the car in front of you, the cyclist should have been doing the same.

I don't think anybody on this forum would disagree that the damage and fit of rage was totally uncalled far.

Don Lewis

There are many reasons why it's often safer for cyclists to take the lane, and DonaldLewis mentioned some, and one of those is so important I'll repeat it:  On roads with narrow outside lanes, when a cyclist rides far to the right, drivers will often try to dangerously squeeze by in the same lane.  In less backwards jurisdictions, that's actually illegal, but here in Texas our governor vetoed a bill which would have required drivers to pass cyclists and other vulnerable road users no closer than three feet.  Me, I've often ridden far to the right, only to have drivers scream past me within a few inches with no regard for my life, and after enough of that I'll say, "Screw it, if they're going to treat my life so cavalierly, I'm going to take the lane so they can't do that."

By the way, do you think those drivers who put my life at risk in order to save a few seconds of time were also selfish?  Or is it only cyclists who are selfish when they try to not get killed?

The best thing you could do to understand how this works is to actually ride a bike in the city.  If you had any appreciable experience with this, you wouldn't be questioning why cyclists sometimes take the lane -- much less calling them selfish for doing so.

It's typically the safest place for the cyclist to ride if there's no bike lane, and it's often safer than the bike lane itself.  So is taking steps to be safer selfish, or is it merely being on the road that's selfish?

A bike takes up less space than a car, yet both typically carry one person.  So what's this about "this much public space" ?  If it's really public space you're worried about, keep this poster in mind.

And really, the typical response to encountering a cyclist on the road going slower than you is to pass when it's safe to do so.  It's not like you're forced to stay behind slower traffic.

As for the guy who ran into you, the odds are pretty good that he takes that route often.   Get a camera, go and drive around the area or just camp out at that intersection.  It may take some time, but the odds are good that you'll eventually see the guy again.  Take a picture of him, take it to the police.  With $3200 damage documented (and charges that likely include leaving the scene of an accident, following too closely and something akin to vandalism), they might be somewhat interested in tracking him down.

Response to the guy who said drivers are eager to run lights... there was a car in front of me, so I had to stop.  He slammed on his brakes as the light turned yellow, I was a little shocked.  I did have to stop very abruptly.

Just got the estimate to fix my car back... $3200... there are dents and or scraps on like every back panel of my car, as well as the dents on the trunk.  I am just shocked it could cost this much, but that's what my insurance company is willing to pay to get it fixed.