The car turn-lane is to the right of it, so at least it's maintained as part of the road. Bike lanes that are truly a shoulder with bike symbols painted on are often unmaintained, and full of pot-holes, debris, and such.

This is both terrifying and normal. The bike lanes in my area are frequently used as turn lanes... by vehicles that don't fit in them - despite being clearly marked as bike lanes.

Human drivers are terrible.

Where I am in California, some bike lanes are required to also be used as right turn lanes by motor vehicles.

In fact, it's all bike lanes in California, unless they are marked otherwise. Drivers are required to move into the rightmost lane in the last 200 feet before turning right, including merging into a bike lane.

There are exceptions, but only if there is signage or road markings. For example, if there are two or more lanes marked for right turns, then obviously you can turn from any such lane.

(A little-known fact about that: most California drivers are aware that you're allowed to turn right on a red light after making a full stop, unless there's a "no right turn on red" sign - but few seem to know that this rule applies to all the lanes marked for right turns, not just the rightmost lane.)

Most bike lane markings change from a solid white line to a dotted line about 200 feet from a corner, to give drivers a hint to merge into the bike lane before turning. But even if the line doesn't turn dotted, drivers are still required to merge into the bike lane unless there is a specific indication otherwise.

However, the majority of drivers seem to be unaware of this rule and turn right from the auto traffic lane, creating the risk of a "right hook" collision, which the law is intended to avoid. I've actually had other drivers honk at me when they were waiting in a line of cars to make an illegal right turn from the auto lane while I made a legal and proper turn from the bike lane.

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has an excellent info page about this:

http://www.sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/

Laws on this do vary in other states. But at least in California, if you see a driver merging into the bike lane before turning right, it's not because they are a terrible driver, it's because they are following the law and (hopefully) increasing safety for bicyclists.

I realize now that the article I had read was for Oregon, and apparently this is very different depending on the state.

What's more concerning is that my state (Texas) seems to have a lot of vagueness around the laws.

Well, that's confusing to say the least.

That actually makes sense since it encourages all vehicles to use the right most lane to turn right, rather than crossing in front of a straight through lane when making a right turn.

That's everywhere. Without a bridge or tunnel, it's topologically impossible to turn without crossing the bike lane.

I think you've missed the point. I'm talking about merging into the bike line prior to the turn.

If you still don't see the difference, here's one way you can tell. If you are stopped, waiting at the intersection, if you've merged, then you'll be occupying the bike line while you're waiting.

Where I live the law explicitly requires cars to take the bike lane before turning in this situation. It's probably better to separate the blind spot for bicycles check from the look for pedestrians and turn check.

I've actually never seen a bike lane that looks different than that...

Google image search "protected bike lanes".

I mean, I've seen the pictures... Just not in the wild. One of those things that seems like a nice idea, but good luck ever getting anyone to pay for such en mass. Have you seen any of these around Tampa Bay? I've never seen anything except the unprotected margins, excepting trails which are not sharing infrastructure with roads.

I have not, but supposedly Tampa is the pilot for FDOTs first protected bike lanes in the state (4 foot island of concrete protecting the bike lane).

Please support the cause as a local citizen!

http://amp.abcactionnews.com/2064993596/tampa-will-be-home-t...

http://www.bikewalktampabay.org/featured/new-protected-cycle...

When someone actually takes the little money to build one, there is an army of people essentially saying they'd rather have 5 more parking spots than safe infrastructure. Then when somebody is hit, like here, the same people argue you can't blame the driver because look how bad the infrastructure is. You can see it in this very thread with people arguing bikes should fuck off to the sidewalk.

Come to New York City, we've got lots of protected bike lanes. More info, and lots of photos, here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-protected-bike...

Yeah, they do the similar stupid "bike lane" crap here in Indiana as well.

Yeah, like a line is going to protect me from run amok car drivers who are too buy on their cell phones. Or it's going to stop the bus drivers from using them as pickup/dropoff areas, cutting bicyclists off.

Long story short, I bike on the sidewalks. I can be a responsible biker on sidewalks while heeding to pedestrians. My life is more important than to be biking on a vehicle road.

How about a "sharrow", where cyclists drive right-of-center, in hopes of avoiding the "parked car door lane", and encouraging drivers to cross the double-yellow to overtake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking