You may be correct, but if I’m not fully convinced there are proper bike lanes both ways in OOP’s post.
If the cyclist provision is a “sharrow” then the bike should be in the centre of the lane. If the cyclist is turning left without proper turning infrastructure they can be in the centre of the lane. If it’s a divided lane then they should be on the side.
Really depends on conditions. Many “bike lanes” have unsafe road hazards, glass, are immediately in the door zone of parked cars, etc. Getting doored is one of the most common causes of cyclists being sent to the hospital with major injuries.
A well laid out, well maintained bike lane is a better alternative to taking the lane. However, in the cases where the bike lane is hazardous it’s always better to take the lane than to risk getting injured in an unsafe bike lane.
Taking the lane shouldn’t be necessary if there are actual bike lanes and you don’t need to turn. This sounds like deliberately blocking traffic.
You may be correct, but if I’m not fully convinced there are proper bike lanes both ways in OOP’s post.
If the cyclist provision is a “sharrow” then the bike should be in the centre of the lane. If the cyclist is turning left without proper turning infrastructure they can be in the centre of the lane. If it’s a divided lane then they should be on the side.
Really depends on conditions. Many “bike lanes” have unsafe road hazards, glass, are immediately in the door zone of parked cars, etc. Getting doored is one of the most common causes of cyclists being sent to the hospital with major injuries.
A well laid out, well maintained bike lane is a better alternative to taking the lane. However, in the cases where the bike lane is hazardous it’s always better to take the lane than to risk getting injured in an unsafe bike lane.
Agreed, but “I wouldn’t let him past” sounds a lot like deliberate blocking.