Advocacy & Safety - Should I have confronted her?

The last time I rode home from work I had an encounter with a co-worker while she was driving.

This was on a 2 lane residential roadway.

This happened at an intersection that we both go through on our way home from work. I know what her car looks like & have seen her pass through this intersection before. I always go straight & she turns left. In the past if I arrive at the intersection before her & she either stops behind me or I am able to cross through ahead of her. Or she arrives before me & I wait until she makes her turn before I cross.

This had always happened a good distance from the intersection. Until this day.

The last time I rode home from work I was approaching the intersection & was about 30 feet away from it, I signalled my intentions by pointing to the middle of the lane & starting to move to the center of the lane, as I always do, part of defensive riding techniques, when a car crowded me to pass ahead so it could beat me to the intersection first. Had I not reacted & swerved back to the right we would have collided. As it was the car passed way to close. It was then I recognized who it was. By this time the light had turned red & I re-signalled my intentions & pulled up behind her so I could straight through after she made her left turn. I did not know who it was until I saw the back of her car & she did gun the engine to get around me.

Now I do not know if she knows it was me riding. But that should make no differance, I had or any other cyclists would have had the right of way in that situation, especially that close to the intersection & considering I signalled my intentions.

It is too late now to confront her about it. But the chances of it happening again are greater then not because we both use this route on our way home.

Should I have confronted her about it? If it happens again should I confront her about it? Should I hand her materials on how a motorist is to safely behave when they encounter a motorist on the roadways?

If it happens again I will use respect & tact if I confront her the same will also apply if I hand her the materials I have for motorists to read when encountering a cyclist.

What do you all think? Feedback please.

Yes, if you don't she won't learn. Just say that she might not know it, but the things that seem safe inside her car are dangerous and explain to her how she should handle herself around cyclists.

I was driving with two friends (both non-cyclists). I was a passenger. We were on a road that I used to frequent on my commute; it's not ideal for cyclists just because it's a major car thoroughfare and two lanes and wiggly, but it's a popular cut through for bikes. My friend passed a cyclist a bit too close and before I could even chime in, the girl with us goes, "You passed him WAY too close-- leave more space."

I was taken aback by her noticing this, but then said "Yeah, you need to leave more space; don't try and squeeze by" and explained a bit more on passing. He didn't react angrily he just said, "yeah ok, I will be more careful around you guys.''

Just unaccusingly ask her why she pased too close and cut you off at the intersection Whatever Rd. and Whose It St.

Not to defend her, but maybe she had a lapse in judgement. Everybody does from time to time.

Then explain why you handle that intersection the way you do, as a safe road user. I doubt she did it maliciously, since you have both used that intersection at the same time before and this is the first problem.

I agree with the others. In a friendly, nonconfrontational manner remind her of the situation and explain why it was so dangerous. If it was a lapse in judegement on her part, it could have had very serious consequences that neither of you would have wanted to live with.

I recall last year hailing a cab to go home after a few beers at the pub when the driver cut-off a cyclist just to veer to over to the curb. I told the guy I needed the cab but seeing the way he drives and endangers cyclists he could forget my patronage. Then, of course, I did manage to get a cab and he cut-off a cyclist twice swerving around left-turning cars. I warned him after the first occassion that a cyclist with lights had been right there and he barely missed him. The cabbie ignored me and kept talking on his cell-phone. When he did it the second time I ordered him to stop, refused to pay and took down his license info before offering to phone the cops on my cell-phone, since he was far too busy yapping into his phone. He muttered some obscenities and roared off while i went home and reported him to the licensing commission and the cab company the next day. Sometimes we have to take the initiative, you know.

...I signalled my intentions by pointing to the middle of the lane & starting to move to the center of the lane, as I always do, part of defensive riding techniques, when a car crowded me to pass ahead so it could beat me to the intersection first. Had I not reacted & swerved back to the right we would have collided.
Give her another chance. Work with her, she might learn. If she is not learning to cooperate, but learning to be aggressive, then might be the time to confront her. If you must confront her, try friendliness, since many people behave differently when not behind the wheel.

Friendly and non-confrontational like the good advice above. If she says she did it and tells you it was your fault, tell her that the next time she threatens you with her car you will defend yourself video game style;).

Keep in mind that most drivers do not, in the words of my father (who always did know, within a fraction of an inch), "know exactly where the four corners of the car are."

Paul

Just unaccusingly ask her why she pased too close and cut you off at the intersection Whatever Rd. and Whose It St.

Not to defend her, but maybe she had a lapse in judgement. Everybody does from time to time.

Then explain why you handle that intersection the way you do, as a safe road user. I doubt she did it maliciously, since you have both used that intersection at the same time before and this is the first problem.

I think this is right and I agree with the other posters who say you should talk to her in a non-confrontational manner. I'd avoid phrasing as "why did you...., etc." because that sounds confrontational. Just assume it was a momentary lapse of judgment, and let her know what happened. If it doesn't sound like you're being accusatory, she shouldn't take it that way.

get her boss involved (and another female co-worker as a 3rd party whitness) , don't go to her alone... some people can get ugly when presented with their own stupidity no matter how non-accusatory you are.....

take it from me... get her boss and a FEMALE 3rd party whitness BEFORE you talk to her.

good luck !

yes, I agree with fordfasterr. Take someone else along as well, I might stray away from the boss, maybe try taking another female co-worker with you first and see how that goes. Some people don't take too kindly to being told off for something outside the workplace with the boss standing right there.

The last time I rode home from work I was approaching the intersection & was about 30 feet away from it, I signalled my intentions by pointing to the middle of the lane & starting to move to the center of the lane, as I always do, part of defensive riding techniques, when a car crowded me to pass ahead so it could beat me to the intersection first. Had I not reacted & swerved back to the right we would have collided. As it was the car passed way to close.

Based on your past posts and what you say in the quoted text above, are you sure you are not partially at fault here? You signalled, but do not say that you looked behind you before merging. 30 feet is also kinda last second. She may have been following too close and passed too close, but from what you write it looks to me like you basically caught her by surprise as she was trying to pass you. There's two sides to every story and it seems to me that we only have part of the picture here, from a source who has proved to be a bit..errr..out there.

If she is a co-worker, I would be really careful about confronting her. You don't want to have a co-worker mad at you (that can turn into half of the office after a little while if she is a gossip hound). I'd say just be careful, polite, and non-accustatory.

On second thought, I might consider not saying anything. She's done that once compared to how many times safely, so I wouldn't necessarily jump on her about it (could make her mad, it may have been just a lapse in judgement). If it happens again, definately say something. That being said, it is your safety we are talking about so use your best judgement on whether to confront and what to say.

I should not have said confront. I should have said discussed it with her & I would/will not do so in a confrontational manner. More as a friendly discussion, simply asking her questions & politley advising her on how to react to cyclists. I doubt she did this on purpose & do think it was a lapse in judgment on her part & was an honest mistake.

I knew a car was coming by looking in my helmet mirror, it was far enough back for me to move to the middle of the lane so I signalled my intentions. When I took my eyes off of the mirror she must have sped up because all of a sudden she was almost next to me & then decided to squeeze by me at the last minute just as we were approaching the intersection.

It is also possible she did not see or recognize my hand signal. See my thread titled Hand Signals about drivers knowing what they are, etc.

I am giving her the benefit of the doubt here. If it happens again I will kindly talk with her about it.

I will not be able to get a supervisor involved though. It is off company time & property, so something we have to deal with on our own. I would have to speak with her about it during lunches & breaks.

Pursuant to Iowa driving code 321.317. You were at fault, period. You signaled way to late. The law states 100 feet. As a Ride right cordinator you need to know the laws better. I would suggest you use your internet skills to do research on safety and laws before you confront her. One other thing I would suggest. Vehicals out weigh us by a 1000 to 1. We must drive defensively. If you would have signaled and switch to the left tire track of the lane early. Assuming you have and use a mirror. It would have forced her to slow down and yeild to you aprouching the intersection. Dont assume drivers know your intention and dont give them the opertunity to crowd you. Cyclist have the full use of the lane at intersections just like a car. The only provisions is that when traffic is present bicyclist in groups ride single file to the right. Here are some of the pertenate codes. I would suggest less time typing on the forums for awhile and do some reading. The 100 foot law is highlighted in red.

321.234 Bicycles , animals, or animal-drawn vehicles.
1. A person riding an animal or driving an animal drawing a vehicle upon a roadway is subject to the provisions of this chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.
2. A person, including a peace officer, riding a bicycle on the highway is subject to the provisions of this chapter and has all the rights and duties under this chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application or those provisions for which specific exceptions have been set forth regarding police bicycles .
3. A person propelling a bicycle on the highway shall not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached to the bicycle .
4. A person shall not use a bicycle on the highway to carry more persons at one time than the number of persons for which the bicycle is designed and equipped.
5. This section does not apply to the use of a bicycle in a parade authorized by proper permit from local authorities.


321.317 Signals by hand and arm or signal device.
1. The signals required under the provisions of this chapter may be given either by means of the hand and arm as provided in section 321.318 , or by a mechanical or electrical directional signal device or light conforming to the provisions of this chapter.
2. Directional signal devices shall be designed with a white, yellow or amber lamp or lamps to be displayed on the front of vehicles and with a lamp or lamps of red, yellow or amber to be displayed on the rear of vehicles. Such devices shall be capable of clearly indicating any intention to turn either to the right or to the left and shall be visible and understandable during both daylight and darkness from a distance of at least one hundred feet from the front and rear of a vehicle equipped therewith.
3. It is unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale or operate on the highways of the state any vehicle subject to registration under the provisions of this chapter which has never been registered in this or any other state prior to January 1, 1954, unless the vehicle is equipped with a directional signal device of a type in compliance with the provisions of subsection 2. Motorcycles, motorized bicycles, and semitrailers and trailers less than forty inches in width are exempt from the provisions of this section.
4. When a vehicle is equipped with a directional signal device, such device shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No directional signal device shall project a glaring or dazzling light. All directional signal devices shall be self-illuminated when in use while other lamps on the vehicle are lighted.
5. Whenever any vehicle or combination of vehicles is disabled or for other reason may present a vehicular traffic hazard requiring unusual care in approaching, overtaking or passing, the operator then may display on the vehicle or combination of vehicles four directional signals of a type complying with the provisions of this section relating to directional signal devices in simultaneous operation.

321.318 Method of giving hand and arm signals.
All signals herein required which may be given by hand and arm shall when so given be given from the left side of the vehicle and the following manner and interpretation thereof is suggested:
1. Left turn - Hand and arm extended horizontally.
2. Right turn - Hand and arm extended upward.

321.311 Turning at intersections.
1. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as follows:
a. Both the approach for a right turn and right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
b. Approach for a left turn shall be made in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof and after entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to depart from the intersection to the right of the center line of the roadway being entered.
c. Approach for a left turn from a two-way street into a one-way street shall be made in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof and by passing to the right of such center line where it enters the intersection. A left turn from a one-way street into two-way street shall be made by passing to the right of the center line of the street being entered upon leaving the intersection.
2. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may cause markers, buttons, or signs to be placed within or adjacent to intersections and thereby require and direct that a different course from that specified in this section be traveled by vehicles turning at an intersection, and when markers, buttons, or signs are so placed no driver of a vehicle shall turn a vehicle at an intersection other than as directed and required by such markers, buttons, or signs.

I should not have said confront. I should have said discussed it with her & I would/will not do so in a confrontational manner. More as a friendly discussion, simply asking her questions & politley advising her on how to react to cyclists. I doubt she did this on purpose & do think it was a lapse in judgment on her part & was an honest mistake.

I knew a car was coming by looking in my helmet mirror, it was far enough back for me to move to the middle of the lane so I signalled my intentions. When I took my eyes off of the mirror she must have sped up because all of a sudden she was almost next to me & then decided to squeeze by me at the last minute just as we were approaching the intersection.

It is also possible she did not see or recognize my hand signal. See my thread titled Hand Signals about drivers knowing what they are, etc.

I am giving her the benefit of the doubt here. If it happens again I will kindly talk with her about it.

I will not be able to get a supervisor involved though. It is off company time & property, so something we have to deal with on our own. I would have to speak with her about it during lunches & breaks.

I'd have a friendly chat with her about it then. Something like 'whew, I thought you were gonna make me your hood ornament the other day', with a grin on your face and play it by ear based on her response.

bluyak: Read that again. 2. controls the color and visibility of turn signals and requires that a turn signal has to be visible from 100 feet. It doesn't say anything about when or where the signal has to be given.

Pursuant to Iowa driving code 321.317. You were at fault, period. You signaled way to late. The law states 100 feet.

321.317 Signals by hand and arm or signal device.
...
2. Motorcycles, motorized bicycles, and semitrailers and trailers less than forty inches in width are exempt from the provisions of this section.

See above.

Granted in the eyes of the law I was in the wrong. How ever in terms or personal safety I think we are talking semantics here. And let me ask you bluyak, do you use your hand signals at least 100 feet from the intersection? If you don't isn't like the pot calling the kettle black? Or remove the plank from your eye before you offer to remove it from mine?

Plus if I read the law correctly the signal that is supposed to be given within 100' if the intersection is ONLY if you're going to turn. I was NOT making a turn, but making a "lane change" from the far right to closer to the middle.

I only do this when I approach an interserction I predict or know I will have to stop at. I do it to prevent motor vehicle traffic from pulling up on my left side so they can make a right turn when I want to go straight. thus preventing what is called the right hook. I have almost been hit because of this, so now I move to the center of the lane for my own personal protection & safety.

On second though I was NOT in the wrong. Forget what I said in the first sentance of this response, I was NOT in the wrong. If you can find what the law says about lane changes & having to be within so many feet, then maybe I will agree with you. In fact as far as I know the only requirment for a lane change is to signal the intentions & look to see if it is clear & safe to do so. I did both & it was safe when I looked, so I proceeded to move to the middle of the lane.

Nice try but you if you're going to quote the law to me find the right one.

blow it off dude...it is not worth making job site tension

don't even try IMHO

find a new way to watch for yourself at that intersection

ymmv

that is what I'd do. ignore the tools in the cages. less
stress all around.

Why do you move in front of traffic in an intersection that's going to make a left turn when you are going straight? Seems to me you're creating needless conflict. The slight risk someone is going to inappropriately turn right into would seem to be greatly outweighed by the conflict you'll have everytime you move in front of cars coming up to the intersection. I think you can watch out for improper right turns, without putting yourself in harms way at every intersection.

Why do you move in front of traffic in an intersection that's going to make a left turn when you are going straight? Seems to me you're creating needless conflict. The slight risk someone is going to inappropriately turn right into would seem to be greatly outweighed by the conflict you'll have everytime you move in front of cars coming up to the intersection. I think you can watch out for improper right turns, without putting yourself in harms way at every intersection.

At this intersection there is not a left turn lane. This roadway goes north/south. The direction we were going is north, she always turns to go west, I continue north through the intersection. So there is only one lane from which to turn either left or right or go straight. There no room for error in this case. Only one vehicle at a time to do either of those 3. But if I stay to the right motorists who are making a right turn seem to think they can do so before I continue straight. This is not just at this intersection. As a rule I do this at all intersections. At some of them there are right turn lanes at others there are left turn lanes & there are even a few that have both.

Signalling does not give you the right to move over. It only signals your desire to move over, kind of like asking for permission. You are still responsible to check again, and move cautiously and safely.

However, if you had been taking the lane to start with, it is much less likely that she would have tried to pass you within the lane. I move over to the center of the lane well in advance (> 100 feet) of an intersection, even if I intend to go straight through. I go to the left part of the lane if I'm turning left, and I go to the right part if I'm turning right.

You're right, OP, that hand signals can be misunderstood by drivers. I think the clearest "signal" of your intentions at an intersection is your position in the lane. Combine directional lane positioning with your hand signals, and I bet you will have fewer problems with confused cagers.

You can search on this forum for "directional positioning" for more information, or look at the books by Forester or Hurst.

Any mention of the incident with the motorist will be a confrontation. There's nothing to gain from it, especially as it appears that there may be some question of right of way in this situation. At best, you will embarrass the woman, at worst, you will get into an argument with her.

Unless you feel that the woman was attempting to harass you (unlikely), then you should simply assume that either she did not see you signal, dod not interpret it correctly, or that you might have misjudged the situation and cut her off by moving into the lane. In any event, nobody got hurt. No harm, no foul. Leave it go.

I just read this entire thread, and your posts twice, N_C. First, I think the idea of moving away from the outside edge to prevent right hooks is the right thing to do. But I agree with Chipcom and Roody that you probably did it too late. I also think you violated her right of way in the process of moving left.

These are your words from the OP:



I signalled my intentions by pointing to the middle of the lane & starting to move to the center of the lane, as I always do, part of defensive riding techniques, when a car crowded me to pass ahead...
Note that there is no mention of you looking back over your shoulder. Also, the fact that you know this woman's car, but did not realize it was her until after she passed you, indicates that you did not look back before merging in front of her. Finally, the way this is written, it sounds like you where still moving left, or had just moved left, when the crowding happened, as opposed to moving left, and then, some significant time later, the crowding happened. Later, you clarify what happened:



I knew a car was coming by looking in my helmet mirror, it was far enough back for me to move to the middle of the lane so I signalled my intentions. When I took my eyes off of the mirror she must have sped up because all of a sudden she was almost next to me & then decided to squeeze by me at the last minute just as we were approaching the intersection.
So, from your mirror you knew a car was approaching from behind. You say, "it was far enough back", but, frankly, I doubt it. Again, there is no indication that you actually looked back over your shoulder, so it seems much more likely that you misjudged how far back she was. She was closer than you realized because you relied on your mirror alone, which you should never do. Never, ever move laterally on the roadway more than a few inches without first looking back over your shoulder to make sure it's clear. Use the mirror only to verify whether it's even worth looking back.

As Roody pointed out, signaling does not give you the right to move left. You have to verify that doing so will not interfere with anyone else's right of way, and if it might, you have to get their permission to move left before you do so.

If anything, any conversation with her should probably be in the form of an apology, for swerving out into her path and perhaps scaring the bejeezus out of her.

N.C. I ride over 3000 miles a year on open county, state, and federal routes. I always use hand signals. For the others you havent read the whole code 321. Hand signals are treated like lamp signals in Iowa and the same distance pertain to both lane changes and turns. Iowa also has a safety manual for cyclist. But for the most part. Cyclist are treated as a motor vehicals in Iowa. We have the same rights and must obay the same laws. There are a few special rules like groups riding single file. I ride in very heavy traffic HY67 along the Mississippi. I have no problems with semi's or cars. I ride right, use my mirror constantly so I know whats coming up behind me. I use lights and reflectors. If they see you they will yeild. We have a very large cycling community here so the drivers are somewhat conditioned. I atrubite this to the Quad Cities Cycling Clubs radio promotion of Share the Road. It is working. N.C. I would suggest you put you efforts in informing the public in your area. You might have less problems. With all your posts you seem to have allot.

Ok, bluyak I have another question for you. If the code says a vehicle of the road user is to signal his or her intentions at least 100' for a turn or a lane change, when it comes to a lane change, 100' from what? What reference point is a road user supposed to use at a distance of 100' for a lane change? Especially when a road user is on a 4 lane roadway travelling at speed with no intention to turn, just changing lanes is all they are doing. As I was not turning what was my reference point supposed to be? Better yet lets say this was not happening at an approach to an intersection & I was changing lanes. What is my reference point supposed to be? 100' away from what? Even if a road user is not turning & just changing lanes & they have to use a reference point before changing lanes how in the hell are other road users supposed to know what the reference point is? Especially if there are multiple options at differant distances.

I ride a recumbent, very difficult to look over shoulder, impossible to look under arm to see what is behind. Mirrors are my only option. I have a helmet mirror & 2 handle bar mirrors, one on each side. In this case I used all 3.

I did not swerve in front of her. As I was merging to the center of the lane she then decided to pass me. When I realized what she was doing I waited until she passed before I could take the middle of the lane.

[...] What is my reference point supposed to be? 100' away from what? Even if a road user is not turning & just changing lanes & they have to use a reference point before changing lanes how in the hell are other road users supposed to know what the reference point is? Especially if there are multiple options at differant distances.
Signal 100 feet before making the turn or the lane change.

Ok so a road user making a lane change is supposed to signal travel another 100' then change lanes? A lot can happen in 100'. I was always under the impression a road user is to signal their intentions, check to see if it is safe to make the lane change, the proceed when it is safe to do so, regardless of how much distance it takes.

I ride a recumbent, very difficult to look over shoulder, impossible to look under arm to see what is behind. Mirrors are my only option. I have a helmet mirror & 2 handle bar mirrors, one on each side. In this case I used all 3.
The inability to look back would make a riding in the streets not an option for me. Obviously, your three mirrors are a poor substitute to a look back. Not only is a look back over the shoulder a much more accurate reliable technique to assess the traffic situation behind you than is looking in a mirror, it's also a highly effective method of communicating your desire to move laterally to those behind you.



I did not swerve in front of her. As I was merging to the center of the lane she then decided to pass me. When I realized what she was doing I waited until she passed before I could take the middle of the lane.
How long does it take you to move from the outside of the roadway to the middle of the lane? One thousand and one, one thousand and two. Two seconds should be plenty. Say it takes you four seconds. If you noticed her passing before you got to the middle of the lane, that means she was less than four seconds behind you. If you moved in front of her when she was less than ten seconds behind you, then you swerved in front of her, by definition.

By the way, I'm with Roody. You should be in the center of the lane before you get within 100' of the intersection where you are going straight. The only exception might be if there is a long stream of faster traffic, in which case you still should start negotiating for someone to slow down to let you in at around 100' prior to the intersection.

Again, the inability to look back in order to negotiate for right of way further to the left would make riding in the streets not an option for me.

Ok so a road user making a lane change is supposed to signal travel another 100' then change lanes? A lot can happen in 100'. I was always under the impression a road user is to signal their intentions, check to see if it is safe to make the lane change, the proceed when it is safe to do so, regardless of how much distance it takes.
100 feet is not very far. In a car, by the time you check the mirror and do a head check of your blind spot, you have traveled 100 feet. On a bike, you need the extra space/time because you often have to get a cager to let you in.

Ex-lax in her coffee.

Friendly and non-confrontational like the good advice above. . . .
I agree with one caveat. Do not, under any citcumstances, give her an organ donor card.;)

I'd just start a conversation up-- "man, you almost hit me yesterday on the way home." Not confrontational, just two co-workers having a friendly conversation.

N.C. Bicyclist/Cyclist have to share the road. Dont demand cars to comply and please dont teach the kids this aditude. If you see a car coming up behind you. Signal you intentions. Just dont wait until the last momment. 100 feet is only 3-4 car lengths. Thats not a whole lot of time or distance. If I cant do it safely I wait for the car/s to pass before turning or changing lanes. A few minutes of my time is just not worth it when I'm out riding 5 to 10 hours. You can vent all you want here. But it isnt going to change a thing. Teach your public Share the Road. Teach the kids and the student drivers Share the Road and Ride Right. Soon you will see less problems in your area. As it has in our area. I would suggest starting with your coworkers by posting Ride Right and Share the Road info in your break room. Coworkers have family and are concerned about there well being. By having them teach there kids the rules you will inturn teach them. I think you have good intentions. You just have a lousey delievery. Confrontation is forcing an idea. It rarely works. Try educating first.

Ok so a road user making a lane change is supposed to signal travel another 100' then change lanes? A lot can happen in 100'. I was always under the impression a road user is to signal their intentions, check to see if it is safe to make the lane change, the proceed when it is safe to do so, regardless of how much distance it takes.

100 feet is not very far. In a car, by the time you check the mirror and do a head check of your blind spot, you have traveled 100 feet. On a bike, you need the extra space/time because you often have to get a cager to let you in.

N_C, the point is that you signal 100 feet before you NEED to move over. Now, if you have established (and I mean really established) that it is safe to move over before then, by all means, do. No one is saying signal, then wait 100 feet, then move over.

Let us know how your apology to your co-worker goes.

2. Directional signal devices shall be designed with a white, yellow or amber lamp or lamps to be displayed on the front of vehicles and with a lamp or lamps of red, yellow or amber to be displayed on the rear of vehicles. Such devices shall be capable of clearly indicating any intention to turn either to the right or to the left and shall be visible and understandable during both daylight and darkness from a distance of at least one hundred feet from the front and rear of a vehicle equipped therewith.


The truly humourous thing about this thread is the 100 feet thing. Read it again. The signal has to be VISIBLE from 100 feet back of the car or whatever. No where does it state that you have to start signaling 100 feet from a corner or desired lane change.

That said, it is truly hard to say if NC goofed or if she did. It sounds like a combination of both of them, but since none of us where there except NC and we do not have first hand testimony from the woman involved, I would argue the whole thing is moot and move on.

The original question was should he confront her. I would say no. I wouldnt, but I would take from this event what could be learned and move on. Perhaps NC did pull out too soon. If he misjudged his mirrors, test them by having someone stand behind and NC holler out how far back he thinks they are. It can be deceptive, and may be worth doing. Anyhow, lets find another dead horse to flog.

That said, it is truly hard to say if NC goofed ...
Please explain to me, in whatever hypothetical (but realistic) scenario you could conjure, how one might be surprised by someone suddenly passing them while they are moving from the outside edge to the middle of the lane on a 2 lane road, if they didn't "goof"?

Consider N_C's words: "As I was merging to the center of the lane she then decided to pass me. When I realized what she was doing I waited until she passed before I could take the middle of the lane."

If she was able to pass him before he could even complete his lateral move of approximately only 5 feet, then he swerved right in front of her. There is no way around that. How is it "hard to say" if N_C goofed?

Please explain to me, in whatever hypothetical (but realistic) scenario you could conjure, how one might be surprised by someone suddenly passing them while they are moving from the outside edge to the middle of the lane on a 2 lane road, if they didn't "goof"?

Consider N_C's words: "As I was merging to the center of the lane she then decided to pass me. When I realized what she was doing I waited until she passed before I could take the middle of the lane."

If she was able to pass him before he could even complete his lateral move of approximately only 5 feet, then he swerved right in front of her. There is no way around that. How is it "hard to say" if N_C goofed?


Sighhhhhh...

If you are going to quote me, at least go all out: "It sounds like a combination of both of them" I did not say he did not goof. What I was intending is this very simple observation: we do not know all the facts, we were not there, and because of this, it is hard to say what really happened and where blame should be placed. In almost EVERY traffic incident, fault (not legal fault) can be found in both participants. Odds are very good that this is the case. It is predictable that a bike might move to the left. Because this is predictable, steps can be taken to counteract that. This driver did nto do that, therefore, she goofed.

I only posted a couple of the 500 paragraphes under code 321. So....read it all if you like. I was trying to make a point to N_C he was partially or possiably fully at fault. By not signalling soon enough when he knew the vehical was aprouching. Again hand signals are treated the same as electric ones. 100' is implied here. This is not humorious. Its deadly. We as cyclist must obey the rules to show good exsamples to our children and other drivers. We need to be a part of the fix not a part of the problem.

Here is the pertinant bit from the Highway Traffic Act on turn signals. This is Ontario Law. I looked it up out of curiosity for myself...

Signalling turns and stops

Signal for left or right turn

142. (1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1).

Signals need to be plainly visible, that is all (at least here). Btw, Ontario has a similar law about how far back signals need to be seen. For us, it is 30m. But nowhere could I find reference to how far away to signal. It is left up to common sense. (shudder)

Otherwise, I agree with ya.

Sighhhhhh...

If you are going to quote me, at least go all out: "It sounds like a combination of both of them" I did not say he did not goof. What I was intending is this very simple observation: we do not know all the facts, we were not there, and because of this, it is hard to say what really happened and where blame should be placed. In almost EVERY traffic incident, fault (not legal fault) can be found in both participants. Odds are very good that this is the case. It is predictable that a bike might move to the left. Because this is predictable, steps can be taken to counteract that. This driver did nto do that, therefore, she goofed.

Welcome to the wonderful world of debating HH and beating dead horses into glue. :D

N_C you seem to be getting some good advice here both in terms of how to position yourself when making a left turn. And in how to approach your co-worker.

Given that at the very least you might have made your intentions to move left earlier, clearer and established whether your co-worker had seen them and was heeding them you might approach her by saying something like, "Wow, we almost had a collision the other night. Was there something I could have done differently so that you would have known what I was doing?"

That way you won't put her on the defensive and if you keep an open mind you both have an opportunity to learn something that could save a life. She may be your best resource as to how to avoid a situation like this in the future than any of the advice any of us (not having been there) could give.

But be prepared for a comment like, "yeah, ride that thing on the sidewalk."

I am not going to mention it to her. To much time has passed since it happened, she may not remember. I will only do something if anything similar happens again.

If you are going to quote me, at least go all out: "It sounds like a combination of both of them" I did not say he did not goof.
Okay, let's back up. First you wrote this:



That said, it is truly hard to say if NC goofed or if she did. It sounds like a combination of both of them, but since none of us where there...
Pardon me if I misunderstood, but it seems pretty clear to me that you're saying it's pretty hard to say whether either one goofed. I agree that it's hard to say whether the driver goofed, but I don't understand how you it could be hard to say that N_C goofed. Hence, I quoted the relevant part of what you wrote, and asked as follows:






That said, it is truly hard to say if NC goofed ...

Please explain to me, in whatever hypothetical (but realistic) scenario you could conjure, how one might be surprised by someone suddenly passing them while they are moving from the outside edge to the middle of the lane on a 2 lane road, if they didn't "goof"?

So, is it hard to say whether N_C goofed, or not? If you still believe it is hard to say that N_C goofed, please describe a scenario in which his descriptions are true and he did not goof. Or, if you agree with me that it's quite clear that he did goof, then go ahead and say it. It's not that hard.

N_C you seem to be getting some good advice here both in terms of how to position yourself when making a left turn.

There is no advice in this thread about how to position yourself when making a left turn.

I am not going to mention it to her. To much time has passed since it happened, she may not remember. I will only do something if anything similar happens again.
Sigh. And would that "something" be manifested as an apology to whoever you swerve in front of as you did in this case?

good grief. mr. HEAD wants the bicyclist to apologize to the cager. What a gashuffer.

Cars swoop and pass cyclists too closely all the time, and drivers do it regardless of the bicyclists' actions, notions, or lane position.

I am not going to mention it to her. To much time has passed since it happened, she may not remember. I will only do something if anything similar happens again.

What happened to your cam? you mention on the other thread that you were trying it out. I've been thinking about getting a cheap cam myself just to record the obnoxious drivers in my area without bikelanes.

good grief. mr. HEAD wants the bicyclist to apologize to the cager. What a gashuffer.

Cars swoop and pass cyclists too closely all the time, and drivers do it regardless of the bicyclists' actions, notions, or lane position.
Oh, I see, because "cars" swoop and pass cyclists too closely all the time, when a cyclist gets passed too closely because he moved into the motorist's path, the cyclist gets a pass?

Yes, I think N_C owes an apology to the motorist, because he obviously (based on his descriptions above, despite his denials) cut in front of her, but of course it's up to him.