MyBikeLane

I thnk the volvo had to move into the bike lane in order to avoid the bicyclist who is not in the the bike lane. Somebody should start taking pics of all the bicyclists who ride outside of the land and disobey the other rules of the road.

Bicyclists are not required to ride in bike lanes for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, the motor vehicle in this case is prohibited from driving in the bike lane, since it is endangering the bicyclist in the bike lane.

parade = I think the law states that when a cyclist is required to use a provided bike lane unless he or she deems it unsafe. In this situation, I don't blame him.

The bike on the right was in the traffic lane prior to the volvo having to move into the bike lane in order to avoid a collision with the reckless bicyclist. After the volvo moved to the left to avoid bicycle #1, bicycle #2 entered the scenario and now was faced with an unsafe situation because his fellow bicycle enthusiast wasn't concerned about the safety of other bikers.

paraderest, give it a rest, because it's obvious that you do not have a good grasp of the NYC Traffic Rules.

Again, the law states that bicyclists can ride in "regular" traffic lanes.

Furthermore, by law, the Volvo driver was required to look in his left rear-view mirror for any bicyclists coming up in the bike lane. Since there obviously was one coming up, he was required to stay put, behind the bicyclist in the regular traffic lane.

I will dig up the law for your edification.

The bicycle can ride in regular traffic given that the bike lane is unsafe/unusable. The bike lane was perfectly safe and useable for bike #1. Bike #1 caused traffic to spill into the bike lane.

(1) Bicycle riders to use bicycle lanes. Whenever a usable path or lane for
bicycles has been provided, bicycle riders shall use such path or lane only except
under any of the following situations:
(i) When preparing for a turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.
(ii) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
pushcarts, animals, surface hazards) that make it unsafe to continue
within such bicycle path or lane.

Paraderest,

Exactly. Perfectly safe and usable according to you who were not there. You also do not know if this bicyclist is preparing for a turn, of if he is planning to dismount on the the right side of the street. Please also note this part of the law:

"including but not limited to..."

Lawandorder, where you there? If not, I don't see why you get to comment but I don't. We're all entitled to our opinion and I choose to express mine as the devil's advocate.

Also, again please note that the law doesn't limit the reason for not riding in bike lanes. Despite the purpose of this site, many bicyclists consider the standard width bike lanes to be *inherently* too dangerous (due to car drivers using them, being in the door zone, etc), so they consider that alone a reason for not using them, which might justify the bicyclist on the right from not using the bike lane.

But I wasn't there, Steve was.

Regardless of the motivations of the bicyclist on the right, the driver was still in the wrong.

No, actually the driver is not wrong...From NYC Traffic Rules...Check out (vi)...
(2) Driving on or across bicycle lanes prohibited. No person shall drive a
vehicle on or across a designated bicycle lane, except when it is reasonable and
necessary:
(i) to enter or leave a driveway; or
(ii) to enter or leave a legal curbside parking space; or
Section 4-12
54
(iii) to cross an intersection; or
(iv) to make a turn within an intersection; or
(v) to comply with the direction of any law enforcement officer or other
person authorized to enforce this rule; or
(vi) to avoid an obstacle which leaves fewer than ten feet available for
the free movement of vehicular traffic.

parade,

Since there was a bicyclist already in the bike lane on the left (vi) does not apply.

I was there and I have a picture that shows the car was already in the position you see here, when the bicyclist on the right was abreast of us. The car did not enter the bike lane to avoid the bicyclist on the right, he entered the bike lane in order to see what was blocking him up ahead, and then came to a stop, and THEN both we and the guy on the right bicycled into the picture. The guy on the right was perfectly within his rights to pass on the right, because the bike lane was obstructed--by the volvo, me and my son.

I'll upload the picture I'm talking about when I get a chance.

Once Steve shows us the rest of the pics I'll change sides. I was only trying to give a reason why the volvo may have been in the bike lane as we didn't know who was there first, the bike on the right or the volvo.

Thanks Steve.

Have emailed site admin to address technical problem with uploading I've had for several days.

I've had the same problem; manually enter nyc.mybikelane.com/post/add and it will bring up the form.
BTW I've been in exactly this situation many times. Each time I think we ought to rethink the concept of bike lanes on single lane streets, something like this happens and I get mad and go back to supporting bike lanes anywhere.

Seems to be a session issue. Logging out and logging in again worked for me.

I added the other picture I was thinking of, but on closer inspection it does not demonstrate what happened--it was taken another 20 or so yards up the same block, later in time. However I stand by my original statement that the guy in the post did not move into the bike lane to avoid the other bicyclist, because he was already stopped in traffic when both we and the other bicyclist in the picture came abreast of him.

People, the inability to add posts is indeed a session issue. If you log out and then log back in again, it should all be resolved.