Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

These days I try to avoid heated exchanges with other road users, but judging by an incident I witnessed last night, some riders are always up for it. Even when they're completely in the wrong.

I was riding in the bike lane, approaching red traffic lights. There were a couple of cars stopped at the lights, with the one in the adjacent lane indicating for a left turn. There was another rider a few lengths ahead of me.

As the other rider was almost level with the car indicating a turn, the lights changed to green and the car started to move to make it's turn. The bike rider, clearly intending to go straight ahead, continued his pace unchanged--swerving with the car as it cornered, shouting at the driver and bashing repeatedly on the car.

Q. Was he justified in his rage and aggression?

Let's go to the road rules, specifically Rule 141:

So far, so good: cyclists are allowed to pass on the inside. However:

A. No.

So the rider couldn't have been more wrong and his ignorance of the road rules makes his self-righteous pounding on the innocent driver's car somewhat pathetic.

I was well aware of the rule that prohibits overtaking to the left of another vehicle turning left, but I'll admit that I had to come away and check that there were no subtleties in the rules that give priority to traffic in a bike lane. And under rules 153 and 158 the existence of a bike lane bestows no special rights in this situation.

Regardless of the legalities, I'd have thought the rational action would be to avoid trouble to begin with. Indeed, driving/riding in a way that avoids collisions is a key concept underlying the road rules. But this rider totally ignored that, preferring to ride in a manner that guaranteed a collision.

Let me be clear here, this was not an emergency situation: the driver hadn't suddenly and unexpectedly turned in front of the bike. On the contrary, the car was stationary and indicating a turn well before we arrived. There was time and space for the rider to slow or stop to avoid the car but he chose to continue, seemingly with the intent of escalating a confrontation. (Come to think of it, did he actually speed-up? Hmm, not sure about that...)

Anyway, it looked a lot like the action of someone who deliberately wanted to engage in a bit of argy-bargy. And it left me wondering, why?

Re: Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

Except where there is no broken line, in which case the bike lane is deemed to end at the start of the intersection (paraphrasing ARR 153(4)(b)).

It's not and shouldn't be. But this wasn't a lane merge, it was a turn and rule 141(2) is clear: you can't ride past on the left of another vehicle that's indicating a left turn. (Despite the fact that this appears to make speed-up-to-turn-left-in-front-of-the-cyclist move "legal"--although I'm sure I've seen something that prohibits that somewhere.)

Agreed, but let's not get started on lawyers! They love it when we talk about them...

Yes, I know the feeling. And I've certainly let fly the odd adrenaline-charged spray when I've felt unduly threatened.

You're dead right, but in this case the rider had a lot of control over the level of risk. It may have got lost a bit in the telling but I did say:

And that's basically the crux of my pondering: given the choice to back off or escalate a potentially risky encounter (that could've included things like bouncing off and sustaining a head injury), why would any rational person choose the latter? This guy increased the risk, apparently so that he could act the aggrieved victim--not a particularly pleasant way to carry on.

I could easily keep up with him, so he wasn't exactly flogging it. :-)

It was fully dark but raining, so I'll grant that there might have been some visibility issues. But we were approaching straight from behind with the cars stationary at the lights through to the end of a red light cycle, so I really can't imagine that he didn't see the indicators.

The rain was a detail I didn't mention, but it adds texture to the story. And another question: why would you go thundering in when your ability to stop and/or manoeuvre is compromised by the wet conditions?

Apposite. One to you, sir.

Hoo, philosophy! And I was only looking for pragmatism. I think that's taking it out into deep water...

Re: Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

No, I still reckon the cyclist was wrong, and the status of the bike lane is not relevant here. (Stick with me, I'll get there in the end...)

Road rule 153(4) says:

And elsewhere in the rules, a "marked lane" is defined as

So Theo's right: a bicycle lane is indeed a traffic lane.

But rule 153(4) goes on to say that one of the things that terminates a bike lane is

And neither of these exceptions applied in this case, so the bike lane ended at the stop line and the driver was not crossing or merging into the bike lane--he was simply turning left at an intersection. And in this case, rule 141(2) definitely applies: the cyclist must not pass on the left of the left turning vehicle.

Therefore, the cyclist was wrong for attempting such a pass. (Phew, made it!)

This is, of course, a fundamental problem with bike lanes: conflict (or collision!) is likely wherever a bike lane meets turning traffic. I guess that's why we're starting to see those weird arrangements where the turning lane and the bike lane swap places. I don't know if that's better, but at least it doesn't imply that either lane has priority.

But let me return to another important point: a principle underlying the road rules is that everyone drive/ride in a manner that avoids collisions. So even if the driver were in the wrong, the cyclist was also in the wrong because he didn't act to avoid a collision despite having enough time and space to do so. (And "in the wrong" is not a good position from which to deliver a self-righteous pounding...)

Re: Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

I agree that a late or completely absent signal would be angst-raising (it would certainly get me riled). But that's not what happened in this case: the car was signalling a turn well before we arrived--there was nothing unexpected about what the driver intended.

This gets back to what puzzles me: the other rider's aggro was just so unjustified.

Certainly can't argue with that!

Re: Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

Good point. Having established that the bike lane is a "marked lane" and that cars may enter the lane for up to 50m before turning, it would seem that cars should be moving into the bike lane to make left turns, including at traffic lights.

Hands up who wants that to happen all the time? (Personally, I'd prefer a clear run through to the bike box, if there is one.)

I'll put him down as a "No" then...

Nah, he's just roll through. He obviously wouldn't let anything so trivial slow him down.

Re: Do some cyclists seek confrontation?

No, but maybe I should clarify: I'd prefer a clear run to the bike box while the traffic is stationary.