Looking at who the City Council puts on the Public Works Commission; Chapin will be allowed to do whatever he wants. Want change, vote for a different City Council and Mayor.

This project is a 2 week pop up spearheaded by parents at Edmunds Middle School. More info here:
http://ems.bsdvt.org/2018/09/30/pilot-project-to-improve-bike-bus-safety-at-school-drop-off/

When has a pilot program under Chapin's DPW been a "pilot" program?

Pop ups are not pilots. They have a set timeline (2 weeks in this case) and are approved through a new process by the DPW commission.
If you're interested, the full policy guide can be found here:
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/CommunityLedDemonstrationProjectPolicyGuide2018.pdf

As I stated before, this project is being run by parents from Edmunds, after pushing for over 2 years to make it happen. This is not a DPW project. This pop-up is about safety for all the kids getting to/from school - in particular, the buses need space to load and unload in front of the school. So please keep all those users in mind, as many don't have access to a car, and/or arrive at school early for a morning meal. This is an equity and access issue. If you can't deal with trying something for 2 weeks, maybe just take an alternate route to avoid it?

So I have to drive onto Main St and get stuck in traffic now? I am no longer allowed to stay on South Union, drop off my child, and continue north.

Am I correct to assume that DPW is encouraging vehicular traffic on Main St.

"I understand having lanes but why must they all be protected."

Because otherwise a non-trivial amount of drivers don't respect them and dangerously encroach on the space.

"I don’t see this much when I visit Boston or NYC"

Funny, NYC has since 2014 added 65 miles of protected bike lanes, and 330 miles overall.

https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling-growth-nyc-1.17556903

Re: parking, the city has ample parking in its garages.

"The tally, conducted in February, March and April, found that Marketplace, College Street and Lakeview garages had a combined minimum vacancy rate of 25 percent."

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2018/04/25/plenty-parking-downtown-burlington-study-asserts/550542002/

But at any rate, this demonstration project does not impact parking capacity so not really germane in this case.

Any time there are traffic changes some people get their knickers in a bunch. That's human nature. But guess what? Things settle into a new equilibrium. This demonstration is only up for a couple weeks, so let's just be patient and see how it goes :)

There is free 15 minute parking in front of the school on Main St, and a designated drop off loop also on Main. There is also parking on Willard, Maple & Union. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to navigate.

The same could be said for the bicyclists that needed green lanes painted throughout the ONE

"So I have to drive onto Main St and get stuck in traffic now? I am no longer allowed to stay on South Union, drop off my child, and continue north."

From what I can tell, you were never allowed to drop off your kid on Union Street. No Parking Any Time signs are posted there. It doesn't appear that they were ever enforced.

Did you happen to see the map that shows that you can park at the church on College Street and walk your child to school? Then you can continue North.

Toiletmanners, how often is anything in Burlington ever 100% enforced. This City is a shinning example of selective enforcement.

Agree Laxer, The green lanes throughout the ONE are ridiculous, have found them confusing, and a waste of money. Don't get me started on the wrong way cyclists. These green lanes will need to be repainted every year and for what gain, other than Local Motion and Chapin's ego?

The green lines aren't really for bicyclists, they are for drivers to know that they are crossing a straight lane to turn. Considering that drivers turning into people on bikes because they didn't check their mirrors is one of the most common traffic collisions between these two vehicles, I wouldn't call that a waste of money at all.

Selective enforcement is a non issue if the city builds infrastructure to prevent you from breaking the law in the first place. Hence a protected bike lane next to the school.

Not the green lines in front of stop lines. Im talking about the green LANES that are being painted going straight down the road.

One risk factor for cyclists is passing a vehicle on the right when that vehicle has its turn signals on. Cyclists should not assume they always have the right of way and should follow the rules of the road. A problematic area is turning right onto Mansfield from Colchester Ave.

@burlingtonian - if a vehicle is turning right on a green light, it needs to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk and to through traffic in the adjacent bike lane. Even if the vehicle has turn signals on, that does not mean it has the right of way. A driver in this scenario needs to make sure the crosswalk and the bike lane are both clear before initiating a turn. This is exactly why the city has been painting those green conflict areas at intersections all around the city.

"Cyclists should not assume they always have the right of way..."

Neither should drivers, especially when they don't. The green lanes are supposed to remind drivers of that. Not sure what's confusing about their purpose.

Running the entire length of Loomis, Peru, and Sherman St. Its creating more work for an already depleted work force.

That Guy. Incorrect. That is why the cyclist hit in front of DPW on Pine St was cited for failing to yield and passing on the right.

Pedestrians and cyclists do not have the same rights. You had issues when you learned cyclists had to stop at all bike path stop signs.

Laxer, Exactly my point. Its almost more confusing with the green lanes

"That Guy. Incorrect. That is why the cyclist hit in front of DPW on Pine St was cited for failing to yield and passing on the right."

That's true, but there was an official complaint about that citation. Right of Way is given to vehicles (including bikes) going straight, and turning vehicles yield. When you're making a left turn while driving, you don't pull out in front of vehicles going straight. Also, passing on the right isn't inherently illegal. See link below:

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/013/01034

"Pedestrians and cyclists do not have the same rights."

Yes. Bicycles are considered vehicles in Vermont law. That means when an automobile is turning across a bike lane, the driver needs to check for people using the lane going straight.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/013/01136

@burlingtonian, in the incident you speak of, the cyclist was not in a bike lane & was illegally passing on the right at a driveway. The legality/liability totally changes at an intersection with marked bike lanes where it is the driver’s responsibility to yield to both pedestrians in the crosswalk & cyclists in the bike lane, assuming both have a green light.

I'm sorry toiletmanners, but pulling out in front of someone taking a left heading towards you is VERY different than taking a right with a cyclist trying to pass on the right from behind you.

Looked at the link. It does not mention the scenario we are speaking about.

What youre saying is it is my responsibility to yield to a cyclist trying to pass on the right at 20 mph, in my blind spot, while I have my turn signal on? Or the cyclist could be more responsible and aware if their surroundings.

You guys make it sound like cyclists are lemmings not paying attention. Its about personal responsibility.

Next time I take a right at an intersection, Ill just take over the bike lane, impeding their travel, forcing the cyclist to stop and yield to me.

Please quote the statute stating that cyclists have the right of way to go straight in a bike lane, pass a car on the right, while the vehicle is trying to take a right.

"pulling out in front of someone taking a left heading towards you is VERY different than taking a right with a cyclist trying to pass on the right from behind you."

Not really. The turning vehicle is supposed to yield to vehicles going straight. Different scenario, same rules apply.

"What youre saying is it is my responsibility to yield to a cyclist trying to pass on the right at 20 mph, in my blind spot, while I have my turn signal on? Or the cyclist could be more responsible and aware if their surroundings."

Yes, it is your responsibility to pilot your vehicle without hitting anyone or anything. When you are crossing the path of a bike lane, you should check your mirror to see if anyone has Right of Way over you. It's funny you mention personal responsibility, because I'm absolutely watching if you're going to turn into me or my path, but it's still your sole responsibility to drive safely, not mine. (And thanks for using your turn signal. A lot of drivers do not.)

"You guys make it sound like cyclists are lemmings not paying attention. Its about personal responsibility."

Then we have a miscommunication, because I'm trying to make it sound like drivers aren't paying attention and have a high potential to damage people and things because they don't want to take responsibility for driving safely.

"Next time I take a right at an intersection, Ill just take over the bike lane, impeding their travel, forcing the cyclist to stop and yield to me."

Do you think that's going to help, or perpetuate the issue? First off, if you did this to me, I would pass you on your left. If I felt that you really endangered me, I would stop you and tell you, impeding you. If this became a thing that happened everyday, then I would give up on the bike lane altogether and take the travel lane, and we're back to where we started: drivers frustrated because they can't just speed down the road. Your behavior would only demonstrate the need for protected bike lanes, because you clearly can't share the road. If a cop actually saw you do this, you would probably get a ticket for obstructing traffic.

And to answer your question about bikes having Right of Way while passing on the right:

The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only as follows:

(1) when the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;

(2) upon a street or highway of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in one or more directions and with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles; or

(3) upon a one-way street, or upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/013/01034

Specifically #2 and #3 state that if there's room on the road for two vehicles (a bicycle and a car?) to pass on the right, then it's okay.

"The turning vehicle is supposed to yield to vehicles going straight. Different scenario, same rules apply."

Different scenarios, different rules. The biggest variables being the direction of travel, direction of the turn, and visibility. Which is why there are rules against passing on the right. Why? It's dangerous. Look at the statute you cited. It specifically states you may pass on the right if the vehicle is taking a left.

"Then we have a miscommunication, because I'm trying to make it sound like drivers aren't paying attention and have a high potential to damage people and things because they don't want to take responsibility for driving safely."

Then we do have a miscommunication. I pay attention while driving and have issues with cyclists not obeying the rules of the road. Based on your comments I now have concerns over cyclists who are interpreting state statutes incorrectly to further perpetuate the entitlement attitude. You are interpreting the statue incorrectly. Which increases my curiosity as to why would you as a cyclist want to pass a car on the right when a vehicle is turning right. Why would any cyclist want to argue for this rule of the road when it is directly placing that cyclist in danger and not cited in the statute.

"Specifically #2 and #3 state that if there's room on the road for two vehicles (a bicycle and a car?) to pass on the right, then it's okay."

The important points of information you are neglecting:
1. Overtaken vehicle is taking a left (note that the statute specifically cites the direction of the turn)
2. Mentions lines of moving vehicles, nothing about a vehicle turning right
3. Once again cites lines of moving vehicles, not vehicles turning right.

With all that said, yes Id feel safer blocking the bike lane to reduce the risk of a cyclist approaching from the rear with an entitled attitude that they own the road from misinterpreting state statues.

"It's funny you mention personal responsibility, because I'm absolutely watching if you're going to turn into me or my path, but it's still your sole responsibility to drive safely, not mine. (And thanks for using your turn signal. A lot of drivers do not"

It is not your responsibility to drive/cycle safely? That's entitlement.

"Do you think that's going to help, or perpetuate the issue? First off, if you did this to me, I would pass you on your left. If I felt that you really endangered me, I would stop you and tell you, impeding you. If this became a thing that happened everyday, then I would give up on the bike lane altogether and take the travel lane, and we're back to where we started: drivers frustrated because they can't just speed down the road. Your behavior would only demonstrate the need for protected bike lanes, because you clearly can't share the road. If a cop actually saw you do this, you would probably get a ticket for obstructing traffic."

I'm not endangering you, I want you to see me, slow down, and obey the rules of the road. It is your job to cycle safely and respectfully of others on the road. If your going to interpret the statue incorrectly I'm going to see you as a risk and a potential danger to others around you and I want to see me.

Why would I be speeding down the road if Im going to turn right? Not quite sure you can obstruct traffic that does not have the right of way and if an officer saw this, I know one thing for sure, a cyclist would never be cited in Burlington.

"I pay attention while driving and have issues with cyclists not obeying the rules of the road."

I'm glad to hear that. I agree with you. Do you have issues with drivers not obeying the rules of the road as well? Perhaps we can also agree that scofflaw drivers can and do cause levels of magnitude more damage than the scofflaw bicyclist?

"Based on your comments I now have concerns over cyclists who are interpreting state statutes incorrectly to further perpetuate the entitlement attitude. You are interpreting the statue incorrectly. "

I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. In reference to entitlement, yes; I feel entitled to travel straight through an intersection in a straight lane. Just like when I'm driving. I'm not sure why you feel entitled to cross a straight lane, signaling or not, without looking in the passenger mirror.

"Which increases my curiosity as to why would you as a cyclist want to pass a car on the right when a vehicle is turning right."

If that car isn't signaling and turns right anyway, running me down, who's fault is it? Of course I don't want to pass a car when it's turning right. I want the driver to look before maneuvering.

"The important points of information you are neglecting:
1. Overtaken vehicle is taking a left (note that the statute specifically cites the direction of the turn)
2. Mentions lines of moving vehicles, nothing about a vehicle turning right
3. Once again cites lines of moving vehicles, not vehicles turning right."

I'm interpreting this as 3 different scenarios: when a vehicle is making a left turn, or when a street is wide enough for two vehicles, or when a one-way street (or obstructed street) is wide enough for two vehicles. If all three scenarios had to be true to enable passing on the right, why would it call out streets and then one-way streets? And keep in mind, it doesn't mention bike lanes at all.

"It is not your responsibility to drive/cycle safely? That's entitlement."

Not at all what I said. When you are driving a car, I'm not responsible for your ability to drive safely. When I'm piloting a bicycle, I'm responsible for following the rules of the road and not hit anyone/anything. Entitlement is when you think you can turn into another vehicles path, cause a collision, and not feel responsible for it.

'I'm not endangering you, I want you to see me, slow down, and obey the rules of the road. It is your job to cycle safely and respectfully of others on the road. If your going to interpret the statue incorrectly I'm going to see you as a risk and a potential danger to others around you and I want to see me."

We are so close to agreement here. I don't think you want to intentionally endanger me (although in my experience, there have been drivers who have). I want you to see me, go the speed limit, and obey the rules of the road. I agree with your statement verbatim: it is my responsibility to cycle safely and respectfully, and when I'm driving it's my responsibility to drive safely and respectfully. Where we disagree is I think it's your role as a driver to check your mirror before turning, which you seem to be saying is unreasonable.

'Why would I be speeding down the road if Im going to turn right? Not quite sure you can obstruct traffic that does not have the right of way and if an officer saw this, I know one thing for sure, a cyclist would never be cited in Burlington."

The majority of my right hook experiences were the driver passing me first, then turning right. They had to have seen me, but turned anyway. That is not safe or responsible driving. In this thread you have already mentioned one cyclist (incorrectly) cited. So people on bikes do (rarely) get cited in Burlington.

If you are driving a car, waiting at a light to turn right in the bike lane, you are A: not where you're supposed to be, B: not sharing the road, C: not being respectful, and D: blocking legitimate vehicles from using the lane dedicated to them. If the bicyclist ends up waiting behind you, you are blocking their visibility to other vehicles potentially turning left in front of them. On top of that, other drivers may pass you on the left to turn right.

@burlingtonian, in the attached image, if a car in the left lane turned right at the light and hit a car in the right lane, who would be at fault?

"Perhaps we can also agree that scofflaw drivers can and do cause levels of magnitude more damage than the scofflaw bicyclist?"

But we aren't talking about scofflaw drivers, and I do call the cops on them. We are talking about cyclists not obeying the rules of the road, when they think they are. By misinterpreting the statute, you are stating that the scofflaw cyclist is following the rules of the road, which they aren't. And you are now saying that the law abiding driver, who had a cyclist hit them, is at fault. That is wrong.

"I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. In reference to entitlement, yes; I feel entitled to travel straight through an intersection in a straight lane. Just like when I'm driving. I'm not sure why you feel entitled to cross a straight lane, signaling or not, without looking in the passenger mirror."

Except the statute explicitly states that you can only pass on the right in 3 scenarios, none of the scenarios include vehicles turning right. If you were allowed to pass a right turning car on the right, the law makers would of written it into law. Your choice to put yourself in danger knowing the path a law abiding vehicle is going to take. I can look in my mirror all day long, but cant control your actions.

"If that car isn't signaling and turns right anyway, running me down, who's fault is it? Of course I don't want to pass a car when it's turning right. I want the driver to look before maneuvering."

That is a very different scenario. We are talking about cyclists thinking they can pass on the right when they legally cant. I do look in my mirror and use my signal, and it is your responsibility to slow down or stop. You do not have the right of way.

"Entitlement is when you think you can turn into another vehicles path, cause a collision, and not feel responsible for it."
That's a driver cutting someone off, very different. We are talking about the legality of a cyclist passing a right turning vehicle on the right.

"Where we disagree is I think it's your role as a driver to check your mirror before turning, which you seem to be saying is unreasonable."
I check my mirror cause I don't want to be in an accident. But cyclists need to know that you do not have the right of way. You are not entitled to pass me on the right when I'm turning right. It is your role to follow the rules of the road.

"In this thread you have already mentioned one cyclist (incorrectly) cited. So people on bikes do (rarely) get cited in Burlington."
That's because they caused an accident, someone had to be cited. How often does BPD pull over cyclists? BPD wont to anything about cyclists when you call.

"If you are driving a car, waiting at a light to turn right in the bike lane, you are A: not where you're supposed to be, B: not sharing the road, C: not being respectful, and D: blocking legitimate vehicles from using the lane dedicated to them. If the bicyclist ends up waiting behind you, you are blocking their visibility to other vehicles potentially turning left in front of them. On top of that, other drivers may pass you on the left to turn right."

I have never blocked the bike lane and bikes should not pass on the right. However if cyclists in Burlington are going to interpret laws incorrectly and hold others to different standards, drivers may need to protect themselves from damage or being wrongfully blamed. Which brings me back to my original point, why pass on the right if it is dangerous and why continue to validate your argument that you can pass a right turning car on the right when its against state statutes.

I really appreciate the civil nature this discussion has been. I want to commend everyone who has expressed their opinion.

I’m still waiting for a response from a city official though

That Guy,
Apples and oranges.
A car can not take a right when in the left lane. That said, that same car can not be in the bike lane to take a right. So caution must be taken. All parties involved. With that said, a cyclist does not have the right of way, even if in a bike lane, to pass a car on the right taking a right.

Knowing the risks involved is important, but to state that it is your legal right is wrong.

"Your choice to put yourself in danger knowing the path a law abiding vehicle is going to take. I can look in my mirror all day long, but cant control your actions."

You are making the assumption that the driver is signaling the turn. In practice, when I'm at a stop light in a bike lane adjacent to a car with a right turn signal, I play it by ear whether they have seen me or not. If they haven't or it's expedient, I will sometimes even let them turn ahead of me (giving up my Right of Way) going straight to prevent conflict.

When you look in your mirror before turning right, and you see a person on a bicycle overtaking you, you don't have Right of Way.

"But we aren't talking about scofflaw drivers, and I do call the cops on them. We are talking about cyclists not obeying the rules of the road, when they think they are. "

Driving a car into a bike lane to impede traffic is scoffing the law. While I know you don't agree, turning right in front of a person on a bicycle traveling straight is scoffing the law.

"That's a driver cutting someone off, very different. We are talking about the legality of a cyclist passing a right turning vehicle on the right."

Yes! When a car, signaling or not, turns across a straight moving bike lane in front of a straight traveling bicyclist, the driver is cutting the bicyclist off.

"I check my mirror cause I don't want to be in an accident. But cyclists need to know that you do not have the right of way. You are not entitled to pass me on the right when I'm turning right. It is your role to follow the rules of the road."

How many drivers do you suspect do not or will not check their mirrors when turning (or at all)? And while we certainly have been discussing it, we haven't established that people on bicycles do not have the Right of Way in the scenario. Indeed, the presence of the green bike lanes in the intersection would imply that they do.

"That's because they caused an accident, someone had to be cited. How often does BPD pull over cyclists? BPD wont to anything about cyclists when you call."

It's not really on topic, but the DPW truck did pass the bicyclist before running him over. The Police interviewed the cyclist while he was incapacitated by pain medication. It became the cyclists word against the driver.

This intersection got an overhaul, where DPW brought the bike lane through the intersection. If this collision happened again in the same place, there would be no question that the driver was at fault, as he turned over another vehicle that was going straight.

"However if cyclists in Burlington are going to interpret laws incorrectly and hold others to different standards..."

Yes, you are being held to a different standard. The law states that bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities as vehicles (not automobiles) unless the laws cannot apply to them. That is a (vague) rule of exception for bicycles. Second, there is no need to register and insure bicycles (due to their lack of danger to others and nonexistent impact on road surface). Another different standard.

"Which brings me back to my original point, why pass on the right if it is dangerous and why continue to validate your argument that you can pass a right turning car on the right when its against state statutes."

Passing on the right is only dangerous if the driver isn't paying attention. As a rule, automobiles cause the most damage and injury on the road. Our laws reflect this fact, asking for due care before turning, for example.

Some further context: The Burlington Municipal Ordinance has a pretty clear law in the books.

20-38 Manner of turning, starting or stopping.
The driver or person operating any vehicle, before turning the corner of any street, or turning out, or starting from, or stopping at the curbline of any street, shall first see that there is sufficient space free from other vehicles so that each turn, stop or start may be safely made, and shall then give such signal as is required by the regulations of the state motor vehicle department.

https://www.codepublishing.com/VT/Burlington/?Burlington20/Burlington20.html&?f

@burlingtonian, it isn't apples and oranges though. In a case like Colchester/Mansfield like you mention, the car is in the left lane (car lane) and the bike is in the right lane (bike lane). They're legally two separate areas.

From state statutes:
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only as follows:

(2) upon a street or highway of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in one or more directions and with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles

Bicycles are legally defined as vehicles. On Colchester Ave at Mansfield there are clearly two lanes, same with North Ave at 127, N. Winooski at North St... etc.

BTW, I would never recommend anybody on a bicycle actually pass a car with indicators flashing on the right when approaching an intersection, but it is 100% legal to do so and if a driver does turn right across the bike lane (or a crosswalk) they would be held liable in case of a collision.

That Guy. Correct. But your previous example used two car lanes. No one in their right mind would agree with either vehicle. The vehicle in the left lane turning right or the vehicle in the right lane overtaking the other vehicle. In the case of a bicycle lane, a car can not be in the bike lane, so it can not be compared.

I disagree, it is against state law for the cyclist to knowingly try to pass a car on the right taking a right. Cyclists only have right of way in cross walks if the bike is being walked, if the bike is being riden, it is another vehicle and does not have the same rights as a pedestrian.

In the case of a bicycle lane, a car can not be in the bike lane, so it can not be compared.

Yes, but no. A car cannot be in the bike lane, but a person on a bicycle still has Right of Way just as a driver would in a travel lane. Bicycles are vehicles.

If these were bus lanes, and someone cut off and collided with a bus, the turning driver would be at fault.

Please cite an ordinance or statute that the green lanes are indicative of additional rules of the road or rights. I believe they are simply visual cues.

Passing on the right is not only dangerous because of a car not paying attention and there is nothing wrong with asking for due care. But it is also dangerous for a cyclist to assume he has a right of way to not follow state law. I would say that if a vehicle is obeying the law it is the cyclists choice to ride into a car they know is turning. Its called defensive driving.

"Please cite an ordinance or statute that the green lanes are indicative of additional rules of the road or rights. I believe they are simply visual cues."

Yes, they are visual cues to remind drivers that they don't have Right of Way to turn when there are straight moving vehicles in the bike lane. Here, again:

20-38 Manner of turning, starting or stopping.
The driver or person operating any vehicle, before turning the corner of any street, or turning out, or starting from, or stopping at the curbline of any street, shall first see that there is sufficient space free from other vehicles so that each turn, stop or start may be safely made, and shall then give such signal as is required by the regulations of the state motor vehicle department.

https://www.codepublishing.com/VT/Burlington/?Burlington20/Burlington20.html&?f

"I would say that if a vehicle is obeying the law it is the cyclists choice to ride into a car they know is turning. Its called defensive driving."

Not if the person riding the bike isn't given time to react. If I were magically given the choice to give up my Right of Way or be run over, I'll give up my Right of Way. But that's a form of bullying, and will let you know about it.

The ordinance you cite does not mention anything about the green coloring giving cyclists the right to pass a right turning car on the right. I would like to know if, when painted green, do the bike lanes change state law?

We are not talking about aggressive drivers who are not courteous to others. We are talking about the fact that different cyclists on this forum are misinterpreting the law to give themselves rules of the road that do not apply to others and will then want to blame a law abiding driver when an accident occurs.

"The ordinance you cite does not mention anything about the green coloring giving cyclists the right to pass a right turning car on the right. I would like to know if, when painted green, do the bike lanes change state law?"

The ordinance clearly puts the responsibility on the turning vehicle to watch for other vehicles. The green stripes are letting drivers know that people on bicycles could be going straight through the intersection. As far as I know, this paint isn't changing any laws, just complementing them.

"We are not talking about aggressive drivers who are not courteous to others."

Drivers aren't necessarily being aggressive when pulling the right hook on bicyclists, but they are being negligent. Especially when they pass the bicyclist to make the turn.

"cyclists on this forum are misinterpreting the law to give themselves rules of the road that do not apply to others and will then want to blame a law abiding driver when an accident occurs."

You keep saying that we are misinterpreting the law, but you aren't really providing proof of that. While I fully admit that the law is vague, it's pretty clear that in all situations a turning vehicle yields to a straight moving one. I welcome you to call the Police and ask them how they would respond to the scenarios we have been discussing.

The law is very clear that most traffic laws apply to the bicycle, but it isn't so clear on which ones aren't applicable. There are even conflicting laws specifically for the bicycle that don't apply to vehicles in general. So yes, there are laws that apply to bicycles that don't apply to other vehicles.

I ride as safely and as visibly as possible, and generally that means I am strictly following the laws. If I were to be hit, it would very likely not be my fault.

"Right of Way is given to vehicles (including bikes) going straight, and turning vehicles yield. When you're making a left turn while driving, you don't pull out in front of vehicles going straight"

"I play it by ear whether they have seen me or not. If they haven't or it's expedient, I will sometimes even let them turn ahead of me (giving up my Right of Way) going straight to prevent conflict."

You mean follow state statute and not pass on the right. Ok good. And if you decided to not let them turn ahead of you and try to pass them on the right, then you are in violation of the state law.

"I would never recommend anybody on a bicycle actually pass a car with indicators flashing on the right when approaching an intersection, but it is 100% legal to do so"

No its not.

"You keep saying that we are misinterpreting the law, but you aren't really providing proof of that. While I fully admit that the law is vague, it's pretty clear that in all situations a turning vehicle yields to a straight moving one."

The proof is the statute. The law states that you can pass on the right for a left turning vehicle.
The law is not vague, its clear and well written:

"The Vermont Statutes Online

Title 23 : Motor Vehicles

Chapter 013 : Operation Of Vehicles

Subchapter 003 : Use Of Roadway
(Cite as: 23 V.S.A. § 1034)

§ 1034. Passing on the right

(a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only as follows:

(1) when the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;

(2) upon a street or highway of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in one or more directions and with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles; or

(3) upon a one-way street, or upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles.

(b) In no event may a vehicle be passed by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway."

"I welcome you to call the Police and ask them how they would respond to the scenarios we have been discussing."

I could call BPD, however I have observed multiple times that BPD doesn't know the laws they are enforcing. Recently called regarding a 49cc moped using the vehicle lane and bike lane, passing cars on the right, not to have it enforced but curious about the legality. BPD had no idea what the statue was or how to handle it. I've also heard officers misquote the texting law stating phones can be used at traffic lights. Frustrating that the local police don't know the laws they are enforcing.

"The proof is the statute. The law states that you can pass on the right for a left turning vehicle.
The law is not vague, its clear and well written:"

The State Law says three things:

You can pass on the right when the other vehicle is making a left turn, or...

You can pass on the right when there's enough room on the street to pass, or...

You can pass on the right when there's enough room to pass on a one way street.

Obviously, the second and third statements don't carry the caveat that the vehicle being passed needs to be making a left turn. While it's certainly not ideal to pass on the right when the passed vehicle is turning right, the law doesn't make a distinction. This is because the turning vehicle is supposed to yield. And often, the turning vehicle is passing the bicycle to make the right turn, not the other way around. This maneuver creates a untenable situation for the bicycle operator.

Of course, Burlington's ordinance is very clear about the responsibility of turning vehicles.

Here's a link to a video from DC explaining clearly what I've been explaining to you. Visuals may help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJuiGOu-dkU

Here is a link to the MUTCD memo approving the use of green painted lanes to mark a roadway for the exclusive or preferential use by bicycles, and that the green paint is to be considered a traffic control device: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia14/index.htm

"I could call BPD, however I have observed multiple times that BPD doesn't know the laws they are enforcing. "

I guess I don't really know what to tell you about this. Ultimately, in the scenario we are discussing, the Police are going to show up and hopefully make the right decision. In the case of the moped, a machine that enjoys a legal loophole with special registration rules and lack of inspection, there was no collision and therefore no pressure for the Police to make a judgement. I find that frustrating as well.

'While it's certainly not ideal to pass on the right when the passed vehicle is turning right, the law doesn't make a distinction"

Yes it does. The state took the time to specifically mention the legality of passing a left turn.
Regarding #2 and 3, I would interpret "lines of moving vehicles" as vehicle traveling in straight lines, not turning right or left.

Referring to Burlingtons ordinance:
20-38 Manner of turning, starting or stopping.
The driver or person operating any vehicle, before turning the corner of any street, or turning out, or starting from, or stopping at the curbline of any street, shall first see that there is sufficient space free from other vehicles so that each turn, stop or start may be safely made, and shall then give such signal as is required by the regulations of the state motor vehicle department.

Yes drive your vehicle responsibly and look for others making sure there is enough room. Its about all parties being responsible. No where in this ordinance does it state that it supersedes state statutes or other rules of the road. I'm wondering about a potential supremacy clause, where state law supersedes a municipal ordinance. Very similar to how Soon Kwon won in superior court vs the City of Burlington. In addition, this ordinance also applies to cyclists.

So the green is a visual cue, it does not given the right to pass on the right though.

"Yes it does. The state took the time to specifically mention the legality of passing a left turn."

Certainly, but it doesn't really apply to what we are discussing.

"Regarding #2 and 3, I would interpret "lines of moving vehicles" as vehicle traveling in straight lines, not turning right or left."

A vehicle is going straight until it makes the turn. You are basically trying to legitimize the act of one vehicle overtaking another and then turning into it's path. I don't disagree that the law doesn't explicitly mention vehicles turning right, but it does clearly state that if there's enough room on the roadway, one vehicle can pass another on the right. That wouldn't change if the overtaken vehicle is turning, unless it's explicitly stated somewhere else.

"No where in this ordinance does it state that it supersedes state statutes or other rules of the road. I'm wondering about a potential supremacy clause, where state law supersedes a municipal ordinance."

That's a great point. I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but the state generally allows municipalities to manage and pay for state highways within the city borders. This includes re-configuring the highway. A good example of this is Route 7/Willard Street.

There is also this statute in Vermont State Law that allows municipalities to create regulations for roads, including, "and may, by ordinance or regulation, regulate the direction of travel and the turning of vehicles proceeding in those lanes and the passing of vehicles in one lane by overtaking vehicles in another lane, may cause markers, buttons, or signs to be placed within or adjacent to intersections and thereby direct the course traveled by vehicles turning at an intersection, and when markers, buttons, or signs are so placed no driver may turn a vehicle at an intersection other than as directed by the markers, buttons, or signs."

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/013/01008

And yes, this does apply to bicycles as well.

"So the green is a visual cue, it does not given the right to pass on the right though."

They actually call it a traffic control device, which would put it at the same legal standing as lane lines and red lights.

Looking through the statutes about traffic control signals, I found this line: "Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right of way to other vehicles or to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or on an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited."

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/013/01022

Since this now seems to be a discussion about the legality/liability of right turns across bike lanes... How about this scenario:
If the bus in this image turns right across the shared bike lane / right turn lane, who would be at fault? Note that the bus came up from behind, and had a clear unobstructed view of the bike lane at the time.

If the truck is in front of the cyclist and has its turn signal on, the bike should slow down and/or stop til it is safe. The bike does not have the ROW and should not attempt to pass the truck if they are wanting to take a right. Its about the state law, common sense, and physics.

@burlingtonian you're 100% wrong. The signage is pretty clear in this case, right turn lane yields to bikes. The bus should not have attempted to pass me and then turn right, they should have slowed down, merged into the lane behind me and then turned right. The whole video of this incident is now part of the GMT driver training, so they know what not to do in the future.

FYI, I was watching the bus from the moment they passed me (about 100' further back). They did not have their indicator on at all until they got to the actual intersection and then cut right at the last possible moment. I anticipated this might happen and slammed my brakes on, because the rear wheels of the bus could have dragged me under. If that had happened they would have been 100% at fault. GMT admitted to this, reprimanded the driver and as mentioned they added the video to their training program.

So in this particular location the sign indicates that vehicles must yield. Contradicts state law. In this case a municipal sign is taking precedence. Probably because its near the high school. Im happy you exercised common sense. Too bad you didn't when you @#$% off every driver on the avenue with your sign on the back of your bicycle.

But hey, when I used to ride my bike (I never will in Burlington) I rode like everyone was trying to kill me. But go ahead and good luck. Have you thought: What if they cant see you? What if your passing slowed traffic and your traveling too fast, what if its raining. What if the cyclists isn't utilizing a light at night? Why take the chance to prove your opinion. Instead do what you did, exercise caution.

As far as GMT, Ive called a few times for them running red lights.

"So in this particular location the sign indicates that vehicles must yield. Contradicts state law. In this case a municipal sign is taking precedence."

Yes, you're getting it! Municipalities are authorized to change road configurations and add ordinances according to state law. Burlington clearly has a law on the books putting responsibility on the turning vehicle to watch for other vehicles.

"But hey, when I used to ride my bike (I never will in Burlington) I rode like everyone was trying to kill me."

Funny you should say that. I was almost right hooked yesterday by a driver with no signal crossing the protected bike lane at Union and Main Street. I didn't overtake this driver because I suspected they would cut me off. Clearly they didn't bother to look, signal, or understand that they don't have Right of Way when crossing bike lanes. Absolutely would have been their fault if I didn't see it coming ahead of time.

"What if they cant see you? What if your passing slowed traffic and your traveling too fast, what if its raining. What if the cyclists isn't utilizing a light at night?"

Why aren't they looking? I don't travel too fast for conditions, including passing other vehicles and whether I'm driving or biking. Does weather change whether I have the Right of Way or not? Nope. I'm always using lights, especially as sunset creeps closer. I can generally see other bikes who aren't as courteous because I'm looking for them.

"A vehicle is going straight until it makes the turn. You are basically trying to legitimize the act of one vehicle overtaking another and then turning into it's path"

No. You cant over take a vehicle on the left and take a left into its path if the overtaken vehicle is on the right. That's why it is legal to pass a left turning car on the right.

"Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right of way to other vehicles or to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or on an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited."

If you are passing, then you are not with in the intersection yet, and the statute doesn't apply to you.

Edited:

"A vehicle is going straight until it makes the turn. You are basically trying to legitimize the act of one vehicle overtaking another and then turning into it's path"

No. You cant overtake a vehicle and turn into its path if the left turning vehicle is in the left lane and the overtaken vehicle is in the right.

"Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right of way to other vehicles or to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or on an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited."

If you are passing, then you are not with in the intersection yet, and the statute doesn't apply to you.

"No. You cant overtake a vehicle and turn into its path if the left turning vehicle is in the left lane and the overtaken vehicle is in the right."

For some reason, my comment was flagged, but I explained where I was almost right hooked yesterday at Main Street and Union. I was in the bike lane. The light was green. A driver on my left made a right turn without signaling. The only reason I wasn't hit by them was that I matched my speed with theirs. If they had hit me, it would have been 100% their fault for not signaling or looking as they crossed a protected bike lane to turn.

"If you are passing, then you are not with in the intersection yet, and the statute doesn't apply to you."

If a car passes me, then they turn into my path, do they still get to say they didn't see me? The statute would absolutely apply if I got into the intersection going straight and was hit by a driver that was turning.

I would say its up to the discression of the officer responding to the accident and the Judge if it went to court. Which is why I have recommended exercising caution. Did the accident on Pine ever go to court?

In your situation its no different than a driver changing lanes without a signal. Drivers fault. Ive been sideswiped the same way, other driver was cited. Glad you are safe though.

If you are going to take a right across a bike lane you need to look and give adequate space. However If the car was 30 ft in front and had to slow down prior to turning, you should slow down too. Cyclist doesnt have the right to cont. Speed and distance between vehicles are huge variables.

"Did the accident on Pine ever go to court?"

I don't think it did. There was a Free Press article about the incident where the bicyclist was disputing the police report. It's overall a different incident than what we've been discussing, since there was no bike lane there at the time (but it was certainly the catalyst for the existence of a bike lane there now).

"In your situation its no different than a driver changing lanes without a signal. Drivers fault. Ive been sideswiped the same way, other driver was cited. Glad you are safe though."

Thanks. I brought it up because it was an example of exercising caution and riding as if every driver is not watching.

"If you are going to take a right across a bike lane you need to look and give adequate space. However If the car was 30 ft in front and had to slow down prior to turning, you should slow down too."

I sort of agree with you. Obviously, a driver should be watching for potential conflicts and avoiding collisions. If a driver can pass me and make a turn in front of me without me having to hit my brakes, clearly there isn't really a problem. But what often happens is a driver passes, misjudges my speed, and turns in front of me, creating a dangerous situation.

Thank you all for your collective interest in safer transportation in Burlington. This is a very active and engaged conversation!

To answer the initial question:
The South Union Street protected bike lane was the city's first project permitted under our new Community Demonstration Program. Safer routes to school and protected lanes on Union Street have been a long-standing request from parents of Edmunds' students, so they led this project from start to finish. We are still compiling all feedback on their demonstration and you can send your feedback to us at dpwplanning@burlingtonvt.gov.

Why protected bike lanes? We can relieve congestion and create more livable communities with a completely connected, comfortable system of protected bikeways. They don't leave bike riders, motorists, or pedestrians to navigate incomplete connections that force everyone into confusing and unsafe situations. We are still building our network so complete connectivity will take some time, but with careful planning and smart construction we can continue our work to improve everyone's traffic needs.

You’re adding to the congestion. You bottle neck vehicular traffic and also add to the workload and more man hours needed to maintain the roads around these bike lanes and bumpouts to an already depleted workforce

Exactly Laxer. Next they will be asking us to take out another capital gains plan and raise our taxes, again.