sounds like he hit a sidewalk biker or a salmon, hard to tell. Also sounds like it was a right turn on red, so he hit the cyclist. "Crosswalk changed to the red hand before i made the turn"
Cyclist should have stopped and exchanged info. Regardless of fault, the cyclist is now guilty of a hit-and-run.
If you are in a position to yield to traffic (as the poster described) your responsibility is to yield to all traffic (including pedestrians and salmons) regardless of the direction from which they come. I have no sympathy for the driver and my sympathy for a salmon extends only to their lack of brainpower.
I'm thinking though that the cyclist may have been crossing using the cross walk, perhaps stretching the light a bit. Most drivers making rights on red are looking left and not right so it's a good chance that he would have clipped a pedestrian too.
Don't get off topic -- this is a travesty committed against a sports car, not a cyclist or pedestrian!
I base this on my personal experience of having hit a pedestrian with my car. I pulled into a crosswalk and got T-boned by a rollerblader coming off the sidewalk from my right. We got into a verbal altercation, she called the cops, they showed up. They finally told her to shut up and move on or she was going to jail. No ticket for me.
Total damage to my car was lipstick on the window.
Here's my question: let's assume a cyclist was turning right into oncoming traffic and a motorist driving the wrong way down the street hit him. Would it then be correct to say "the cyclist had a red light and can turn right only when safe to do so. Yes, he may not have expected the motorist to come from his right but nevertheless he has to yield"?
I'm thinking the cyclist either passed the car on the right just as he started to move, or was on the sidewalk and went after the walk signal without stopping or slowing down. A right turn on red driver might not catch the cyclist coming up behind him and disobeying a traffic signal in time to avoid it.
Silver Eagle Pilot
Making a right hand turn at an intersection. Biker was coming from the right. Traffic was coming from the left. Crosswalk changed to the red hand before i made the turn-
Pulled out to make the right turn and the biker apparently kept coming."
Something doesn't quite add up... sounds like it has to be a salmon, the way the driver describes it. But in that case, the crosswalk hand is insignificant. That makes me think it was "cyclist passing on the right" rather than cyclist coming from the right... though crosswalk hand still shouldn't matter.
Driver's account sounds fishy to me -- he said the crosswalk signal had turned red -- I don't think most drivers watch crosswalk signals. However, my impression is that riding the "wrong way" on a sidewalk and entering a crosswalk without stopping is a high risk sidewalk riding practice, with a high accident rate <link to sidewalk riding thread>
That said ...
1) it's not clear that this is illegal, and failing to yield to people on the sidewalk generally is, so it sounds likely that the driver was legally at fault in his collision, and
2) there's a whole lot of conjecture here -- we don't really have enough information to reliably come to that conclusion (all we have is what the driver said -- and he didn't say much), and
3) no matter who was at fault, both parties were supposed to stop and communicate. It sounds like neither did (though the driver's account suggests that it was the cyclist that left first rather than him, but seen #2.)
"The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."
- William Saroyan