Fwd: "Bikes" Yield to Vehicles Signage

[F Lehnerz]

Interesting justification for non MUTCD-complaint signage in Ft. Collins, CO.

Responses from city official in green. 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: James Reed <jr...@fcgov.com>
Date: November 25, 2025 at 12:15:58 GMT-3
To: flehne...@gmail.com
Cc: Rich Brewbaker <rbrew...@fcgov.com>, Cortney Geary <cge...@fcgov.com>, Aaron Iverson <aive...@fcgov.com>, Mallory Gallegos <mgal...@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE:  "Bikes" Yield to Vehicles Signage



Dear, Frank –

 

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to Traffic Operations and share your detailed observations and concerns regarding the signing and bicycle movements at Lemay and Horsetooth. We sincerely appreciate your views of this unique intersection. Below, we have provided responses and additional context to the questions and concerns raised.

 

As of last week, I noticed a new sign below the R3-8 that reads:

 

We will be removing the R3-3 sign, as it is not warranted at this location and our Traffic Engineer has determined it is not necessary. The “Bikes Yield to Vehicles” sign will remain in place.

 

<image001.jpg>

 

This new white regulatory sign, along with the surrounding intersection geometry, raises significant concerns: (1) its apparent conflict with state law and MUTCD guidance, and (2) the poorly supported and potentially dangerous path it creates for bicyclists turning left onto westbound Horsetooth.

 

The R3-8 sign both in this photograph and installed on the traffic signal structure also do not show this bike lane.

 

This sign appears to instruct bicyclists proceeding straight in a designated bicycle lane to yield to drivers of motor vehicles entering a right-turn-only lane that crosses the bike lane just before the intersection. This runs counter to the signage that is typically installed at these locations that require the right-turning motorists to yield to bicyclists (R4-4).

This raises some questions:

·  What statutory or regulatory framework supports the idea that a bicyclist, proceeding lawfully straight in a marked bicycle lane, is required to yield to a driver of a motor vehicle who is turning right across that lane? This contradicts "motorists yield to bikes" signage that's installed in other areas of the city.

·  Does this not contradict C.R.S. § 42-4-1008, which obligates the merging or turning driver (in this case, the driver of the motor vehicle) to yield before crossing into another lane?

·  Has this sign been reviewed for MUTCD compliance? I’ve not found any reference to it in MUTCD or CDOT documentation, whereas a standard sign — R4-4 (“Begin Right Turn Lane, Yield to Bikes”) — seems specifically designed for this scenario.

·  Was crash data or an observed behavior pattern the basis for this intervention, and were alternative, compliant measures considered (e.g., dashed bike lane markings, green paint, or the aforementioned R4-4 sign)? Bicycle crashes almost always make the front page of the newspaper here and I don’t recall hearing of any collisions at this intersection involving a bicyclist.

The “Bikes Yield to Vehicles” sign was installed to clearly communicate that bicyclists must yield to right-turning motorists at this location. The right lane functions as a trap lane, requiring motorists to turn right with no alternative movement available. Although this sign is not included in the MUTCD, its use was reviewed and approved by our Traffic Engineer in response to similar operational concerns at other locations with trap lanes. Additionally, the sign’s application has been coordinated with and supported by the Police Department.

 

Below is the information from CDOT:

 

<image002.png>

This is also the reason we do not extend the lane striping through the bike lane or install an R4-4 sign.

 

There are also two separate issues at this intersection that may present an even more serious hazard — one not addressed by signage but created by the current bike lane alignment and permitted lane movements.

 

As a recap for Lemay in the southbound.

Lane 1 is a left-turn-only lane.

Lane 2 is a dual-destination lane: through and left-turn.

Lane 3 is a bicycle lane per striping on the road, but missing from the R3-8 signage.

Lane 4 is a right-turn-only lane.

 

A bicyclist, positioned in the bike lane and intending to turn left onto westbound Horsetooth, may do so by proceeding straight into the intersection and then making a single-stage left turn. In doing so, however, they may intersect the path of a motor vehicle proceeding straight in lane 2, creating a “left hook” conflict — a reversal of the more commonly discussed right-hook scenario.

 

This leads me to several further questions:

·  Does Fort Collins expect bicycle drivers to leave the bike lane before the intersection and merge into the dual destination thru/left-turn lane to complete a left turn onto Eastbound Horsetooth?

·  If so, why is there no pavement guidance or signage suggesting that behavior — particularly when C.R.S. § 42-4-604 might be interpreted to require a driver to stay within their marked lane?

 

If the expectation is instead to perform a left turn from the bike lane, how does this comply with Colorado law and basic principles of intersection safety?

To my knowledge, neither the MUTCD nor state law provides clear authority for a left turn from a right-side bike lane into a cross street, especially in the presence of a dual-destination through lane.

 

How would fault in a traffic court or civil case be determined in the event of a crash between a left-turning bicycle driver and a through-traveling driver of a motor vehicle in lane 2?

 

This intersection operates similarly to most locations where the bike lane is positioned to the left of the right-turn lane. A bicyclist traveling within the bike lane should not attempt a left turn from that position, as they would be overtaken by through-moving traffic. The primary difference at this location is the presence of a legal left-turn movement in addition to the through movement. If a bicyclist intends to turn left, they should transition into the general-purpose lane (“take the lane”) prior to the intersection. Alternatively, they may continue straight into the eastbound bike lane and wait for the next signal cycle to complete a two-stage turn. Generally, the City prioritizes installing two-stage turn boxes at intersections with separated bike lanes as we expect separated bike lanes to attract more cyclists who are not comfortable mixing with traffic.

 

The second intersection issue is the “left hook” potential with a motorist proceeding North out of Warren park to Northbound Lemay. A left-turning bicyclist turning from the bike lane is screened by the two lanes of motor traffic.

 

Because this intersection operates under split phasing, the only circumstance in which this conflict should occur is if a northbound or southbound motorist fails to comply with the red signal.

 

I recognize that no design is perfect and tradeoffs must be made. That said, the current configuration encourages a maneuver that is ambiguous, unsupported by law, and potentially dangerous maneuvers.

 

I would respectfully suggest that the City consider one of the following:

 

Install a two-stage turn queue box at the far side of the intersection, giving bicyclists a legally and visually supported space to wait before turning left on the next signal cycle.

 

Generally, the City prioritizes installing two-stage turn boxes at intersections with separated bike lanes as we expect separated bike lanes to attract more cyclists who are not comfortable mixing with traffic.

 

Eliminate the bike lane at intersection (it cannot legally be used to make a right turn anyways), and instead mark shared-lane bicycle symbols (sharrows) in the through/left lane to clarify that bicyclists must merge into the lane that serves their destination and turn like other vehicle operators. Bicyclists who feel uncomfortable with this maneuver can dismount and use the crosswalk. From my limited observations, many bicyclists are already using the sidewalk anyways perhaps due to Lemay’s poorly built non-standard bike lane which includes the gutter and a hazardous lip.

 

Cyclists who want to continue straight through the intersection into the parking lot for Warren Park can use the southbound bike lane on South Lemay Avenue.

 

Ultimately, the City’s Active Modes Plan recommends side paths, or shared-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians, on both sides of this section of South Lemay Avenue and Horsetooth Road. The City has not yet identified funding for these improvements. You can view the full Active Modes Plan at https://www.fcgov.com/fcmoves/active-modes-plan.

 

Again, I offer these thoughts in the spirit of safety, consistency, and respect for the rights of all road users. I appreciate any insight you can provide into how these treatments were selected and how Fort Collins intends for bicyclists to navigate this intersection safely and legally.

 

Thank you for reaching out to us regarding this matter. I hope this information helps address your questions.

 

Best regards,

 

James Reed
he/him/his
Interim City Traffic Director

Traffic Operations

City of Fort Collins
626 Linden St
970-221-6887 office

jr...@fcgov.com

 

<image003.png>

 

 

 

From: Frank J. Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2025 9:31 AM
To: Traffic Operations <traffico...@fcgov.com>; BicycleDriving <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] "Bikes" Yield to Vehicles Signage

 

Dear Fort Collins Traffic Operations Team,

 

I’m writing with some questions about recent signage and bicycle design at the intersection of South Lemay and Horsetooth, which I hope you’ll consider both from a traffic engineering and legal compliance perspective.

 

As of last week, I noticed a new sign below the R3-8 that reads:

 

<image004.jpg>

 

This new white regulatory sign, along with the surrounding intersection geometry, raises significant concerns: (1) its apparent conflict with state law and MUTCD guidance, and (2) the poorly supported and potentially dangerous path it creates for bicyclists turning left onto westbound Horsetooth.

 

The R3-8 sign both in this photograph and installed on the traffic signal structure also do not show this bike lane.

 

This sign appears to instruct bicyclists proceeding straight in a designated bicycle lane to yield to drivers of motor vehicles entering a right-turn-only lane that crosses the bike lane just before the intersection. This runs counter to the signage that is typically installed at these locations that require the right-turning motorists to yield to bicyclists (R4-4).

 

This raises some questions:

·  What statutory or regulatory framework supports the idea that a bicyclist, proceeding lawfully straight in a marked bicycle lane, is required to yield to a driver of a motor vehicle who is turning right across that lane? This contradicts "motorists yield to bikes" signage that's installed in other areas of the city.

·  Does this not contradict C.R.S. § 42-4-1008, which obligates the merging or turning driver (in this case, the driver of the motor vehicle) to yield before crossing into another lane?

·  Has this sign been reviewed for MUTCD compliance? I’ve not found any reference to it in MUTCD or CDOT documentation, whereas a standard sign — R4-4 (“Begin Right Turn Lane, Yield to Bikes”) — seems specifically designed for this scenario.

·  Was crash data or an observed behavior pattern the basis for this intervention, and were alternative, compliant measures considered (e.g., dashed bike lane markings, green paint, or the aforementioned R4-4 sign)? Bicycle crashes almost always make the front page of the newspaper here and I don’t recall hearing of any collisions at this intersection involving a bicyclist.

 

There are also two separate issues at this intersection that may present an even more serious hazard — one not addressed by signage but created by the current bike lane alignment and permitted lane movements.

 

As a recap for Lemay in the southbound.

Lane 1 is a left-turn-only lane.

Lane 2 is a dual-destination lane: through and left-turn.

Lane 3 is a bicycle lane per striping on the road, but missing from the R3-8 signage.

Lane 4 is a right-turn-only lane.

 

A bicyclist, positioned in the bike lane and intending to turn left onto westbound Horsetooth, may do so by proceeding straight into the intersection and then making a single-stage left turn. In doing so, however, they may intersect the path of a motor vehicle proceeding straight in lane 2, creating a “left hook” conflict — a reversal of the more commonly discussed right-hook scenario.

 

This leads me to several further questions:

·  Does Fort Collins expect bicycle drivers to leave the bike lane before the intersection and merge into the dual destination thru/left-turn lane to complete a left turn onto Eastbound Horsetooth?

·  If so, why is there no pavement guidance or signage suggesting that behavior — particularly when C.R.S. § 42-4-604 might be interpreted to require a driver to stay within their marked lane?

 

If the expectation is instead to perform a left turn from the bike lane, how does this comply with Colorado law and basic principles of intersection safety?

 

To my knowledge, neither the MUTCD nor state law provides clear authority for a left turn from a right-side bike lane into a cross street, especially in the presence of a dual-destination through lane.

 

How would fault in a traffic court or civil case be determined in the event of a crash between a left-turning bicycle driver and a through-traveling driver of a motor vehicle in lane 2?

 

The second intersection issue is the “left hook” potential with a motorist proceeding North out of Warren park to Northbound Lemay. A left-turning bicyclist turning from the bike lane is screened by the two lanes of motor traffic.

 

I recognize that no design is perfect and tradeoffs must be made. That said, the current configuration encourages a maneuver that is ambiguous, unsupported by law, and potentially dangerous maneuvers.

 

I would respectfully suggest that the City consider one of the following:

 

Install a two-stage turn queue box at the far side of the intersection, giving bicyclists a legally and visually supported space to wait before turning left on the next signal cycle.

 

Eliminate the bike lane at intersection (it cannot legally be used to make a right turn anyways), and instead mark shared-lane bicycle symbols (sharrows) in the through/left lane to clarify that bicyclists must merge into the lane that serves their destination and turn like other vehicle operators. Bicyclists who feel uncomfortable with this maneuver can dismount and use the crosswalk. From my limited observations, many bicyclists are already using the sidewalk anyways perhaps due to Lemay’s poorly built non-standard bike lane which includes the gutter and a hazardous lip.

 

Again, I offer these thoughts in the spirit of safety, consistency, and respect for the rights of all road users. I appreciate any insight you can provide into how these treatments were selected and how Fort Collins intends for bicyclists to navigate this intersection safely and legally.

 

Sincerely,

Frank Lehnerz

[Robert Cooper]

I suggest printing this thread, perhaps as a multi-page booklet, with illustrations, and providing copies to a city representative, who would stand at the intersection and hand the booklet to drivers, motorized and non-motorized, who approach.

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/A6265E2C-C1C2-463E-841A-ABF235F6AEE6%40gmail.com.

[Scott Slingerland]

Frank,

Do you have any photos of the sign in question and the intersection (photos or accurate google maps link)?

Thanks, Scott

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/CAH1O9GnV-qO7MZ%3DjjSof6_gXx%2B4GwczXxDbY9AnjQJg-xzPmqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Issakov]

"the intersection of South Lemay and Horsetooth" in "fcgov.com", which is Fort Collins.

The latest street view from Nov 2024 does not show the "bikes yield to vehicles" sign which was not yet installed then.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/TzJYC5ohWvMvHoDb8

But Frank shared the image below of it with me last month.

Serge

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/CAHA0NLig9e%3DVk9NDSr9geRf1bX%2BXs_E5kY-8b3%2BooocwNpBmWg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Slingerland]

Hi all,

My initial instinct is that in this case, the biggest challenge is at the point where the bike lane "ends" and the right turn lane begins. I could see conflicts arising for a cyclist moving left to the bike lane or left turn lane and the motorist turning right. In any other situation there would be puppy tracks painted to guide drivers to the appropriate lanes, but in this case, the puppy tracks would make an "X". I agree with Frank that for consistency, the right turning driver should yield.. and not just with a sign but with a better lane layout. This view is where I see conflict point: https://maps.app.goo.gl/KdppQkJpiAae4x8P6

I'm not that familiar with Colorado law, but it seems that law requires right turning drivers to yield to cyclists in bike lane. How would this apply to this weird "X" merge since it's not at an intersection? As a cyclist, it would feel crazy to stop and yield in the skinny bike lane while cars whiz by at 40-45mph.

The intersection turning movements don't seem that bad if they are simply a product of everyone being in the appropriate lane for their destination, i.e. left turning cyclist would be in one of the double left turn lanes. The intersection itself doesn't seem to me a problem unless someone's in the wrong lane.

The whole challenge here reminds me of bike lanes on an arterial highway where an off-ramp presents itself. Despite the intersection, this could be an option if they had room for a right turn lane pocket: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/new-sidewalks-bike-lanes-west-village-campus-corridor 

-Scott

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

HI Scott, 

You’re onto something here. Due to the change in the width of the ROW at this instruction, there isn’t enough space for the bike lane to continue straight and for the right lane to begin. I’m guessing this is why they’re referring to this as a « trap lane » although the city official simply posted a screenshot of the CDOT document and no link to confirm. The issue I see here is that the bike lane is what started and continued, and it’s the right turn lane that begins, therefore it’s the legal duty of the right turning drivers to yield to traffic in the bike lane before entering that new lane. Apparently the City doesn’t see it this way (and naturally he failed to answer my question on where such an obligation in state law requires this) but that’s no surprise because this city has been parasitized by those who don’t recognize bicyclists as (vehicle) drivers. 

There’s at least one more of these intersections with the city I’ve seen with this new sign- all the others have the default Right Turns Yield to Bikes signage. Off the top of my head, I don’t recall where it’s at (I’m out of town traveling for the rest of the month otherwise I’d retrace my steps and go find it).  

This particler arterial for what it’s worth doesn’t have motorists whizzing by that fast. This is essentially a T intersection for the vast majority of the traffic and occurs right after a school zone so few motorists end up going even close to the speed limit because they already have to slow down to turn either left or right anyway. Fort Collins also has speed cameras around the city so motorists are generally pretty good about not speeding these days. Few motorists proceed straight, at least in the hours I use the road (bike and car during peak commuting hours) given that it’s just the parking lot for a park but it’s the rare thru motorist conflicting with the not-so-rare left turning cyclist that concerns me. The city official claims there is split phasing here. He’s wrong and next time I drive that route I’ll capture the phasing on my car’s dash cam. And while he insists that left turning bicyclists should just take the (general purpose) lane to make the turn, I’ve seen hundreds of bicyclists at this intersection over the past two years and not a single one did that.  Bicyclists here are very adamant about using bike lanes - even when they’re in the door zone or hallway in the gutter -  and there is little lane control during times when it is well justified for safety. They instead take the left turn from the bike lane - hence my suggestion for a turn box here. 

To add to the confusion, a few years ago, Bicycle Colorado, the leading « protected » bike lane activists in the state managed to get a law passed that says bike lanes continue through intersections. I don’t know how this law applies here, but then again I’m guessing neither do the activists behind that bill. 

Frank 

On Nov 26, 2025, at 14:07, Scott Slingerland <scott.sl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

My initial instinct is that in this case, the biggest challenge is at the point where the bike lane "ends" and the right turn lane begins. I could see conflicts arising for a cyclist moving left to the bike lane or left turn lane and the motorist turning right. In any other situation there would be puppy tracks painted to guide drivers to the appropriate lanes, but in this case, the puppy tracks would make an "X". I agree with Frank that for consistency, the right turning driver should yield.. and not just with a sign but with a better lane layout. This view is where I see conflict point: https://maps.app.goo.gl/KdppQkJpiAae4x8P6

I'm not that familiar with Colorado law, but it seems that law requires right turning drivers to yield to cyclists in bike lane. How would this apply to this weird "X" merge since it's not at an intersection? As a cyclist, it would feel crazy to stop and yield in the skinny bike lane while cars whiz by at 40-45mph.

The intersection turning movements don't seem that bad if they are simply a product of everyone being in the appropriate lane for their destination, i.e. left turning cyclist would be in one of the double left turn lanes. The intersection itself doesn't seem to me a problem unless someone's in the wrong lane.

The whole challenge here reminds me of bike lanes on an arterial highway where an off-ramp presents itself. Despite the intersection, this could be an option if they had room for a right turn lane pocket: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/new-sidewalks-bike-lanes-west-village-campus-corridor 

-Scott

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 3:04 PM Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

"the intersection of South Lemay and Horsetooth" in "fcgov.com", which is Fort Collins.

The latest street view from Nov 2024 does not show the "bikes yield to vehicles" sign which was not yet installed then.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/TzJYC5ohWvMvHoDb8

But Frank shared the image below of it with me last month.

Serge