"Bikes" Yield to Vehicles Signage

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

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:

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 

[Serge Issakov]

All,

For context, here’s how the area with the sign appeared on Google Maps Street View a year ago. No “bikes yield to vehicles” sign. 

https://maps.app.goo.gl/16UaaZCu1B2gTsdz7

See image below. 

The area between the end of the edge bike lane and the start of the bike lane segment  left of the RTOL (Right Turn Only Lane) is a text book “mixing zone”.  These mixing zones are typically marked with shared lane markings or green paint, but basic right of way rules are that whoever is ahead has right of way, independent of vehicle class.

Also, the sign is literally absurd since “bicycles” are defined as vehicles in CO law. 

42-1-101. 

..

(10) A “bicycle” means a vehicle  propelled by human power…

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-42.pdf

So a sign saying “bikes yield to vehicles” makes as much sense, legally, as “sedans yield to vehicles”. None  

More reasonable and legally compliant treatment here would include:

1) a diagonal bike lane circumscribed with dashed stripes and painted solid green connecting the edge bike lane and the offset bike lane segment.

2) shared lane markings in the RTOL (for cyclists turning right).

3) replace the “bikes yield to vehicles” sign with the MUTCD and CO law compliant R4-4:

Serge

--
--
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/CAA58Szc%2B_8NAW18ay_F1bf4rfpa4AyF5_g0ajkeWnGKhbgUc0g%40mail.gmail.com.