Cut off in traffic; bad precedent being set
#26
Senior Member
The insurance company most likely would give you the same line, whether you were on the shoulder, in a bike lane, or in the right lane of a four lane road.
#27
Senior Member
I'd agree that a motorist in the right most lane on a roadway could decide to move right at any time, and could also decide to turn right at any intersection, signalized or not. As such, you should ride accordingly. Don't pass moving traffic on the right in the shoulder or a bike lane where motorists generally do not expect traffic. The only way to be 100% sure that someone won't turn right from the right most lane and cut you off is to position yourself in the righthand lane. Now, this still leaves any lanes to the left as possibilities but I think we can all agree that close to all right turns are made from the right hand lane or further right (from the shoulder for instance). So now you've whittled down your chances of being cut off by a right turner to that small percentage of folks who may be too impatient to wait behind you to make their turn from the right lane and instead, race past you and then try to turn from the left lane. While this isn't that uncommon, most drivers won't go through all this effort and when they do, it's very obvious what they are doing. And most importantly, they have seen you, unlike when you were on the shoulder. Now that you've got those people under control, you are left with the tiny fraction of people who might decide without looking or without any signal at all that they are going to turn right from the left lane. Defensive driving practices say to never drive side by side with another vehicle and that along with paying attention should be enough to keep you from getting caught off guard by the rare completely mindless driver. At least that's my take on it.
#28
Violin guitar mandolin
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Friendsville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,171
Bikes: Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Seems a toss up to me. Driver failing to keep a lookout. Cyclist traveling outside the traffic lane in driver's blind spot.
Insurance company will generally deny a questionable claim. Make your claim almost unquestionable and very clear. You'll do better. I get $$$ fast every time through very crisp and clear demand letters laying out the facts, the law, and the damages in very precise and well documented terms. Of course, I only do that when I'm right.
Insurance company will generally deny a questionable claim. Make your claim almost unquestionable and very clear. You'll do better. I get $$$ fast every time through very crisp and clear demand letters laying out the facts, the law, and the damages in very precise and well documented terms. Of course, I only do that when I'm right.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Posts: 3,944
Bikes: KHS steel SS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I agree much more clear if you ridng on the raod, not to the right of the white line. Why would you ever ride to the right of the white line?
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Always get a lawyer. always.
insurance companies are not your friends and will not help you beyond the minimum requierments, and even then will try to weasel out of that. most lawyers that take your case will get their pay form the insurance, therefore not costing you anything out of your pocket. and they will get your bike fixed or a new one. its probably been to long for you, but for someone else dont wait do it RIGHT away.
insurance companies are not your friends and will not help you beyond the minimum requierments, and even then will try to weasel out of that. most lawyers that take your case will get their pay form the insurance, therefore not costing you anything out of your pocket. and they will get your bike fixed or a new one. its probably been to long for you, but for someone else dont wait do it RIGHT away.
#31
Commuter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 2,568
Bikes: 2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think it would hinge on how recently he had passed you when he turned right. If he had just passed, and you had no time to react, that should work in your favor, especially since he didn't use his turn signal. It's the law in most places that you cannot move laterally, such as turning right, without ensuring that you are not infringing on someone else's forward right-of-way. Again, that will depend on the distance he was in front of you at the time.
OTOH, if he slowed down gradually and you clearly had time to react by either stopping behind him or passing on his left, but you chose to go ahead and pass on the right anyway, that is poor judgment on your part and could go against your case, even with the fact that he didn't signal. Passing on the right is not a generally accepted vehicular behavior.
As I said before, this is all just conjecture and you ought to seek expert advice locally. You ought to be able to find advocacy groups to contact in your area with a Google search, using your city and/or state and terms such as bicycle, advocacy, safety, coalition, etc. Good luck! And oh yeah, I'm glad you're okay!
OTOH, if he slowed down gradually and you clearly had time to react by either stopping behind him or passing on his left, but you chose to go ahead and pass on the right anyway, that is poor judgment on your part and could go against your case, even with the fact that he didn't signal. Passing on the right is not a generally accepted vehicular behavior.
As I said before, this is all just conjecture and you ought to seek expert advice locally. You ought to be able to find advocacy groups to contact in your area with a Google search, using your city and/or state and terms such as bicycle, advocacy, safety, coalition, etc. Good luck! And oh yeah, I'm glad you're okay!
#32
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England (the HUB)
Posts: 121
Bikes: 05 Cannondale R700, 82 Univega CustomMaxima SS conversion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think it would hinge on how recently he had passed you when he turned right. If he had just passed, and you had no time to react, that should work in your favor, especially since he didn't use his turn signal. It's the law in most places that you cannot move laterally, such as turning right, without ensuring that you are not infringing on someone else's forward right-of-way. Again, that will depend on the distance he was in front of you at the time.
OTOH, if he slowed down gradually and you clearly had time to react by either stopping behind him or passing on his left, but you chose to go ahead and pass on the right anyway, that is poor judgment on your part and could go against your case, even with the fact that he didn't signal. Passing on the right is not a generally accepted vehicular behavior.
As I said before, this is all just conjecture and you ought to seek expert advice locally. You ought to be able to find advocacy groups to contact in your area with a Google search, using your city and/or state and terms such as bicycle, advocacy, safety, coalition, etc. Good luck! And oh yeah, I'm glad you're okay!
OTOH, if he slowed down gradually and you clearly had time to react by either stopping behind him or passing on his left, but you chose to go ahead and pass on the right anyway, that is poor judgment on your part and could go against your case, even with the fact that he didn't signal. Passing on the right is not a generally accepted vehicular behavior.
As I said before, this is all just conjecture and you ought to seek expert advice locally. You ought to be able to find advocacy groups to contact in your area with a Google search, using your city and/or state and terms such as bicycle, advocacy, safety, coalition, etc. Good luck! And oh yeah, I'm glad you're okay!
the vehicle turned suddenly and without warning; I simply had no time to react. I always yield right of way when I see a signal or see a car actually in front of me... I'll always lose vs. a car, that's how I view it.
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 2,369
Bikes: 2003 Giant OCR2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I would not ride to the right of a vehicle when approaching an intersection. If there's no marked bike lane, I think it's pretty reasonable for a car to assume that, when they're in the right most lane, they don't need to check their right blind spot for offroad traffic. Heck, even bike lanes almost always end before turn lanes. That's why - through traffic should not be traveling to the right of traffic that's turning!
For what it's worth, though passing on the right may be legal where you are, it doesn't imply that it can be done anywhere. For instance, doing it at an intersection is a really bad idea.
If the car *passed* you immediately prior to turning (ie, right hook), that would be quite different. Wasn't sure what happened from the description, but it didn't sound like it.
But if you were just chilling out on the shoulder in the car's blind spot, and the car turned right from the right lane, and you hit it...I have to agree with the insurance comany. Your fault.
That's why it's a good idea to take the lane in that situation. I'm not a VC advocate, but at intersections, you either need to be a part of traffic or act like a pedestrian. Riding in the shoulder, where cars do not expect you to be, is a bad idea if you're riding at traffic speeds - specifically becuase it makes scenarios like yours extremely likely.
For what it's worth, though passing on the right may be legal where you are, it doesn't imply that it can be done anywhere. For instance, doing it at an intersection is a really bad idea.
If the car *passed* you immediately prior to turning (ie, right hook), that would be quite different. Wasn't sure what happened from the description, but it didn't sound like it.
But if you were just chilling out on the shoulder in the car's blind spot, and the car turned right from the right lane, and you hit it...I have to agree with the insurance comany. Your fault.
That's why it's a good idea to take the lane in that situation. I'm not a VC advocate, but at intersections, you either need to be a part of traffic or act like a pedestrian. Riding in the shoulder, where cars do not expect you to be, is a bad idea if you're riding at traffic speeds - specifically becuase it makes scenarios like yours extremely likely.
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 714
Bikes: Jamis Nova
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Forgive my hasty post as I am a bit enraged at this whole thing.
I was to the right of traffic, on a wide shoulder. The vehicle in question crossed in front of my lane of travel without checking mirrors or signaling.
MA Law dictates that I am allowed to travel and pass to the right of motorized vehicle traffic.
https://massbike.org/bikelaw/
I was to the right of traffic, on a wide shoulder. The vehicle in question crossed in front of my lane of travel without checking mirrors or signaling.
MA Law dictates that I am allowed to travel and pass to the right of motorized vehicle traffic.
https://massbike.org/bikelaw/
ah cool, thanks for clarifying, I understand now.
Hopefully you can keep fighting it.
Yeah, I agree.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 714
Bikes: Jamis Nova
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's why it's a good idea to take the lane in that situation. I'm not a VC advocate, but at intersections, you either need to be a part of traffic or act like a pedestrian. Riding in the shoulder, where cars do not expect you to be, is a bad idea if you're riding at traffic speeds - specifically becuase it makes scenarios like yours extremely likely.
Yeah I do agree with this intellectually and in theory, BUT it turns out I violate this ideal every single day. Just practically I guess I risk a right hook rather than add an hour or more to my commute, especially since passing backed up traffic on the right in the bike lane is legal here.
merging with traffic before the intersections would be almost completely impossible here during the rush hour, it means going back a mile and getting at the end of the traffic jam. or forcing your away between almost stopped cars inches apart, while dozens of bicyclists pass going on their way.
It sounds like the OP was in a similar situation here as I got the impression he was traveling faster than traffic, but maybe not, its hard to tell without being there.
Hmm, at the very least we agree to take care in these situations, especially at intersections since you are risking the right hook, but the OP is more concerned with the legal ramifications I think.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 2,369
Bikes: 2003 Giant OCR2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yeah I do agree with this intellectually and in theory, BUT it turns out I violate this ideal every single day. Just practically I guess I risk a right hook rather than add an hour or more to my commute, especially since passing backed up traffic on the right in the bike lane is legal here.
merging with traffic before the intersections would be almost completely impossible here during the rush hour, it means going back a mile and getting at the end of the traffic jam. or forcing your away between almost stopped cars inches apart, while dozens of bicyclists pass going on their way.
It sounds like the OP was in a similar situation here as I got the impression he was traveling faster than traffic, but maybe not, its hard to tell without being there.
Hmm, at the very least we agree to take care in these situations, especially at intersections since you are risking the right hook, but the OP is more concerned with the legal ramifications I think.
merging with traffic before the intersections would be almost completely impossible here during the rush hour, it means going back a mile and getting at the end of the traffic jam. or forcing your away between almost stopped cars inches apart, while dozens of bicyclists pass going on their way.
It sounds like the OP was in a similar situation here as I got the impression he was traveling faster than traffic, but maybe not, its hard to tell without being there.
Hmm, at the very least we agree to take care in these situations, especially at intersections since you are risking the right hook, but the OP is more concerned with the legal ramifications I think.
What I wouldn't do is sit in a car's blind spot, when he might make a quite legal turn that would cause me to slam into him - that's what's at issue here.
I agree the OP is far more interested in being 'right' and arguing semantics than staying alive. I'd be interested in taking a poll, even around here, of how many drivers check their right blind spot when turning right from the rightmost lane, in an area that has no bike lane, sidewalk, or turn lane.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
talk to an atty
there are several that specialize in catering to cyclists. they advertise in cycling magazine and the League of American Bicyclists has a list as well. That's your only hope.
there are several that specialize in catering to cyclists. they advertise in cycling magazine and the League of American Bicyclists has a list as well. That's your only hope.
#38
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England (the HUB)
Posts: 121
Bikes: 05 Cannondale R700, 82 Univega CustomMaxima SS conversion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I would not ride to the right of a vehicle when approaching an intersection. If there's no marked bike lane, I think it's pretty reasonable for a car to assume that, when they're in the right most lane, they don't need to check their right blind spot for offroad traffic. Heck, even bike lanes almost always end before turn lanes. That's why - through traffic should not be traveling to the right of traffic that's turning!
For what it's worth, though passing on the right may be legal where you are, it doesn't imply that it can be done anywhere. For instance, doing it at an intersection is a really bad idea.
For what it's worth, though passing on the right may be legal where you are, it doesn't imply that it can be done anywhere. For instance, doing it at an intersection is a really bad idea.
as I stated before and will reiterate, this was not an 'intersection'. It was a tertiary road that the person was turning on to off of a primary roadway. The main roadway we were travelling on had no traffic control with regard to the tertiary road.
I am a very consciencious rider and have avoided many an accident (prior to this incident; thankfully) due to my awareness of my surroundings. I use hand signals, I yield right of way, I ride on the proper side, I call out to other cyclists or pedestrians I am overtaking, I check traffic before crossing, I even stop at red-lights! I also am sure to dress brightly as to stay visible.
I was very shaken up by the accident and strongly feel that my right has been quashed because of insurance beaurocracy.
Last edited by Astroluc; 08-02-07 at 09:39 AM.
#39
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England (the HUB)
Posts: 121
Bikes: 05 Cannondale R700, 82 Univega CustomMaxima SS conversion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you get an attorney, it will end up costing you much more than the price of a bike. However, if you really are doing this for the principal rather than the money, then by all means go that route. If coming up with lawyer money is a problem, try small claims court.
IANAL but it seems clear to me that you did everything right and were not at fault.
IANAL but it seems clear to me that you did everything right and were not at fault.
#41
Genetics have failed me
In Germany the driver would be at full fault. Unless the bicyclist crashes into the car because of an extremely unlawful move like running a red light for example, it's always the cars operator fault.
__________________
Gelato aficionado.
Gelato aficionado.
Last edited by Scummer; 08-02-07 at 10:50 AM.
#42
Prefers Cicero
So legally, the situation is ambiguous at best.
And legally right or not, as far as sensible cycling practises go the OP was riding dangerously, not anticipating that motorists are unpredictable, and making allowances for that such as riding more cautiously, and avoiding passing on the right at an intersection.
Last edited by cooker; 08-02-07 at 11:50 AM.
#43
Prefers Cicero
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I did a bit of digging. Here's a page from a MA law office that has lawyers who specialize in bike accidents: https://www.bwglaw.com/Boston_Massach..._attorney.html .
Their take on car-bike accidents is: "More often than not, a collision with a motor vehicle is caused by the negligence of the operator of the car or truck, who failed to keep a proper look-out, who misjudged the bicycle’s speed, who turned improperly, who failed to yield the right-of-way, or who failed to leave the proper amount of room for the cyclist."
Of particular interest is the following: "When a motorist collides with a bicycle, Massachusetts law provides that there shall be up to $8,000 in personal injury protection benefits (“no-fault” benefits) which can help pay for medical bills and lost wages. These benefits are available even if the driver was not negligent." So, the insurance company covered these because they had no choice.
When it came to the things they could choose, damage to the bike, they are trying to weasel out of them. It's at this point that an attorney is needed to help you make the right argument that the car driver was indeed at fault. The funny thing about all this is one of the big advantages cited for no fault insurance is that it is supposed to eliminate the need for legal involvement, which tends to add to the cost of the settlements. Give the insurance companies any opening and they'll remind us why an expert, Lawyer who specializes in traffic law, is needed if you want to pry any money out of their greedy little hands.
A bit further down, the firm offers a free legal consultation. I found several others who also offer free consultation...
Their take on car-bike accidents is: "More often than not, a collision with a motor vehicle is caused by the negligence of the operator of the car or truck, who failed to keep a proper look-out, who misjudged the bicycle’s speed, who turned improperly, who failed to yield the right-of-way, or who failed to leave the proper amount of room for the cyclist."
Of particular interest is the following: "When a motorist collides with a bicycle, Massachusetts law provides that there shall be up to $8,000 in personal injury protection benefits (“no-fault” benefits) which can help pay for medical bills and lost wages. These benefits are available even if the driver was not negligent." So, the insurance company covered these because they had no choice.
When it came to the things they could choose, damage to the bike, they are trying to weasel out of them. It's at this point that an attorney is needed to help you make the right argument that the car driver was indeed at fault. The funny thing about all this is one of the big advantages cited for no fault insurance is that it is supposed to eliminate the need for legal involvement, which tends to add to the cost of the settlements. Give the insurance companies any opening and they'll remind us why an expert, Lawyer who specializes in traffic law, is needed if you want to pry any money out of their greedy little hands.
A bit further down, the firm offers a free legal consultation. I found several others who also offer free consultation...
Last edited by piper_chuck; 08-02-07 at 12:36 PM.
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 2,369
Bikes: 2003 Giant OCR2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
undestandable and I agree. I always use caution while riding because (as previously mentioned) Car vs. Bike the car always 'wins'. I always yield at intersections, weather they are larger, controlled, or when I have a green, and I see a car turning or signaling.
as I stated before and will reiterate, this was not an 'intersection'. It was a tertiary road that the person was turning on to off of a primary roadway. The main roadway we were travelling on had no traffic control with regard to the tertiary road.
as I stated before and will reiterate, this was not an 'intersection'. It was a tertiary road that the person was turning on to off of a primary roadway. The main roadway we were travelling on had no traffic control with regard to the tertiary road.
Traffic was moving at an inconsistant speed moving towards a major intersection @ 1/4 mile ahead. I was not in any way 'sitting' in someones blind spot. At times during this stretch I was overtaking, at others I was at speed w/ traffic, and still at others I was being passed. Traffic was not stopped.
Not to mention which - if you're traveling at about the speed of traffic, just ride *in* the road. There's no reason not to. It's *far* safer than doing what you did.
I am a very consciencious rider and have avoided many an accident (prior to this incident; thankfully) due to my awareness of my surroundings. I use hand signals, I yield right of way, I ride on the proper side, I call out to other cyclists or pedestrians I am overtaking, I check traffic before crossing, I even stop at red-lights! I also am sure to dress brightly as to stay visible.
Going forward, you can look at it this way - legal right doesn't mean squat when you're the one on the ground - as I suspect you recently found out! There are some specific things you can do to ensure your safety. It seems like you practice many of them - obeying traffic signals, wearing reflective clothing, etc. Learn from this situation, and do what you need to do to minimize your chance of being hit by a turning vehicle. The first thing to do is assume that any car in the right lane could turn right at any intersection at any time. You also need to realize that few people actually use turn signals, so don't rely on them. So if you're approaching a crossroad, even if it's sparsely traveled - you have to realize that the car whose blind spot you're currently occupying might turn. Make sure that if he does so, he doesn't flatten you in the process. Make no mistake - if he didn't just pass you, he doesn't know you're there. And even if he does know, he might not care.
The general reflex of insurance companies is not to pay, naturally. But in this case, I think the majority of people (think 'jury pool') are unlikely to side with you. Think of it this way - you came to a *cycling* forum, and the reaction is mixed at best.
In any event, good luck, and hope your recovery goes well.
#46
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England (the HUB)
Posts: 121
Bikes: 05 Cannondale R700, 82 Univega CustomMaxima SS conversion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
herein is my problem
Again I will defend my safe riding stance and take a bit of offence at the first part of that... a cyclist riding on the road simply cannot predict everyones movements or assume that every car might turn at any time. YES; one can take steps to reduce risk and chance, but to act in such a manner as you describe would be to not ride on the road at all!
I will say this one last time... it was NOT at an intersection.
The tertiary road does not cross the main roadway. there is no crossing/cross traffic.
As a matter of fact the impact occured several feet before the turn-off for the tertiary road. My guess is that the driver was trying to dodge the slow moving traffic and was trying to bolt down that road as many people are liable to do.
I will say this one last time... it was NOT at an intersection.
The tertiary road does not cross the main roadway. there is no crossing/cross traffic.
As a matter of fact the impact occured several feet before the turn-off for the tertiary road. My guess is that the driver was trying to dodge the slow moving traffic and was trying to bolt down that road as many people are liable to do.
Last edited by Astroluc; 08-02-07 at 01:32 PM.
#47
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England (the HUB)
Posts: 121
Bikes: 05 Cannondale R700, 82 Univega CustomMaxima SS conversion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I noticed that the reception is a bit mixed... and I'll be honest I am a bit suprised. I do appreciate all of your thoughts and opinions on this matter; and regardless of the final outcome I will (if nothing else) learn from this experience.
I feel it should be as it is with pedestrians; the car weighs 2 tons, I and my bike weigh maybe 200lbs combined. Cars have a responsability to be more aware. Around where I live it is a Summer resort community and there are 1000s of bicycles around. Already there have been several incidents and at least one fatality... I still feel wholly in the right and it scares me a bit that I am being told I might not be.
ahh well... perhaps since when I drive I actually use my mirrors and turn-signals I expect others to do so, as well. They should, but they don't and it is frustrating both as a cyclist and as a driver. My whole thought about both driving and cycling is to be predictable; hence my signalling, yielding, etc... both driving and cycling and it is also my thought that others (both cyclists and drivers) should be predictable, too. That is WHY we have directionals on cars and hand-signs for cyclists.
At any point I could have been on either side of the white line, I cannot say for certain where I EXACTLY was since that few seconds were a bit of a blur of panic; all I definitively know is one second the way was clear, the next was bumper... with no directional or brake-light showing.
One of my big problems is that the reporting officer did not take any witness statements and there were about 5 witnesses.
I feel it should be as it is with pedestrians; the car weighs 2 tons, I and my bike weigh maybe 200lbs combined. Cars have a responsability to be more aware. Around where I live it is a Summer resort community and there are 1000s of bicycles around. Already there have been several incidents and at least one fatality... I still feel wholly in the right and it scares me a bit that I am being told I might not be.
ahh well... perhaps since when I drive I actually use my mirrors and turn-signals I expect others to do so, as well. They should, but they don't and it is frustrating both as a cyclist and as a driver. My whole thought about both driving and cycling is to be predictable; hence my signalling, yielding, etc... both driving and cycling and it is also my thought that others (both cyclists and drivers) should be predictable, too. That is WHY we have directionals on cars and hand-signs for cyclists.
At any point I could have been on either side of the white line, I cannot say for certain where I EXACTLY was since that few seconds were a bit of a blur of panic; all I definitively know is one second the way was clear, the next was bumper... with no directional or brake-light showing.
One of my big problems is that the reporting officer did not take any witness statements and there were about 5 witnesses.
#48
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England (the HUB)
Posts: 121
Bikes: 05 Cannondale R700, 82 Univega CustomMaxima SS conversion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
all in all it is simply a case of legallity.
I was riding properly as the law allows in my state.
Driver turned improperly (ie no signal, did not check mirrors) resulting in a collision.
That's all and that's it.
It has become a case of word against word since the driver claims they DID signal and I have no supporting (or refuting) witnesses.
just lame... I'm glad I wasn't hurt worse, but my butt is still sore (really).
I was riding properly as the law allows in my state.
Driver turned improperly (ie no signal, did not check mirrors) resulting in a collision.
That's all and that's it.
It has become a case of word against word since the driver claims they DID signal and I have no supporting (or refuting) witnesses.
just lame... I'm glad I wasn't hurt worse, but my butt is still sore (really).
#49
Prefers Cicero
So basically the car driver was doing the same as you...trying to use the shoulder as a travel lane.
Let's talk legally and then practically.
Legally, it's common knowledge that cars aren't supposed to use the paved shoulder as a travel lane. The Massachusetts law allows cylists to pass on the right but otherwise expects them to drive like cars, so it naturally follows that bikes are not legally allowed to ride on the shoulder. Of course we all would do it, and likely the police would tolerate it and most motorists would appreciate it and we would all be happy, but it's still not legal. So the insurance company has found a very good loophole to avoid paying for your bike. This doesn't mean the driver was in the right...she may have broken the law too, which doesn't help your case.
Practically, it's always risky to pass cars on the right. At any point they might decide to turn into a driveway, pull over to let off a passenger, or even have the passenger open the door and exit without pulling over if traffic is at a stop. It's especially risky at an intersection. Even if you hadn't quite reached the intersection, you were near enough that the lady saw a chance to squeeze by the people ahead of her, in order to turn. In future, you'll be better prepared to avoid this kind of accident.
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 2,369
Bikes: 2003 Giant OCR2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I feel it should be as it is with pedestrians; the car weighs 2 tons, I and my bike weigh maybe 200lbs combined. Cars have a responsability to be more aware. Around where I live it is a Summer resort community and there are 1000s of bicycles around. Already there have been several incidents and at least one fatality... I still feel wholly in the right and it scares me a bit that I am being told I might not be.
ahh well... perhaps since when I drive I actually use my mirrors and turn-signals I expect others to do so, as well. They should, but they don't and it is frustrating both as a cyclist and as a driver. My whole thought about both driving and cycling is to be predictable; hence my signalling, yielding, etc... both driving and cycling and it is also my thought that others (both cyclists and drivers) should be predictable, too. That is WHY we have directionals on cars and hand-signs for cyclists.
The most important point: it doesn't matter a bit if you're in the right, if you're the one dead.
Cars should be more aware...but I think what a few of us are saying is, so should you. You need to hone your instincts such that you know when these things are likely and stay out of harm's way. And as I've mentioned, if you're moving as fast as the traffic, get in the road, you'll be safer. I personally would never pass a moving car when I'm in a non-travel lane. I'd filter past stopped traffic - though even then, you have to watch for someone pulling out of the line. But I would not pass on the right, because what happened to you is simply too predictable.
As far as the legalities, certainly talk to a lawyer who's represented bikers before, draw exactly what happened, and see if you have a case.
Last edited by Mr. Underbridge; 08-02-07 at 02:07 PM.