This is the second time my husband has been hit by a car while riding his bike. Exact same incident as before, someone took a right into him as he was going straight. He believes it was partially his fault by not being more aware of what the car was going to do. If he had slowed down just a little and been slightly behind the car instead of right next to the car, he wouldn't have been hit (hopefully). He was lucky this time, he walked away with lots of abrasions and a broken arm, could have been much worse. The woman said she saw him, but she didn't take a second look to see where he was before she went to make the right hand turn. Last time there was no police report, and he wasn't hurt as bad, just abrasions and bruised ribs. The insurance company (the other guys), said it was a 50/50 fault. Don't know how it will turn out this time, maybe with a police report this time it will be different. We were at the emergency room until 11:00 last night and he insisted on going to work (driving himself) today. Until he calls me this morning to let me know that he arrived safe at work, I will really be worried. Hopefully this is a lesson learned and it will stick this time and he will slow down a little more in areas where there are more cars.:(

Hope he's ok. Sounds like he's not to bad off. Make sure they cast his arm in a "rideable" position.
Would slowing down really help this, or would going slower open him up to more right turners? I read about the type accidents and I don't understand them. This has never happened to me, or even come close. I'd like to keep it that way. Where on the road does he ride? How fast was the speed limit, how fast was he going? How fast was the car going?

Hopefully this is a lesson learned and it will stick this time and he will slow down a little more in areas where there are more cars.:(

I think it's more an issue of lane position than speed. Avoid being on the right side of cars, especially near intersections.

Not sure how fast the car was going or how fast he was going, but it couldn't have been to fast, I will have to ask him tonight. He made it to work okay (thank goodness), but I think I got a few more gray hairs from this. He was out in Alpine near an Indian caino and was just heading back, going across a bridge over Hwy 8. She was making the turn onto Hwy 8. It will be interesting to see what the insurance companies have to say about. There is no bike lane on that stretch of road and he was as close to the right as possible, but I don't think he should have ridden right next to the car, knowing that cars do make that right to get onto the freeway. I think he should have acted more like a vehicle and stayed back more towards the rear of her car. There can be a lot of traffic in that area and it's just hard to judge what people are going to do there, go straight to the frontage road or take a right.

Not sure how fast the car was going or how fast he was going, but it couldn't have been to fast, I will have to ask him tonight. He made it to work okay (thank goodness), but I think I got a few more gray hairs from this. He was out in Alpine near an Indian caino and was just heading back, going across a bridge over Hwy 8. She was making the turn onto Hwy 8. It will be interesting to see what the insurance companies have to say about. There is no bike lane on that stretch of road and he was as close to the right as possible, but I don't think he should have ridden right next to the car, knowing that cars do make that right to get onto the freeway. I think he should have acted more like a vehicle and stayed back more towards the rear of her car. There can be a lot of traffic in that area and it's just hard to judge what people are going to do there, go straight to the frontage road or take a right.

I think you have hit the nail on the head...

Not sure how fast the car was going or how fast he was going, but it couldn't have been to fast, I will have to ask him tonight. He made it to work okay (thank goodness), but I think I got a few more gray hairs from this. He was out in Alpine near an Indian caino and was just heading back, going across a bridge over Hwy 8. She was making the turn onto Hwy 8. It will be interesting to see what the insurance companies have to say about. There is no bike lane on that stretch of road and he was as close to the right as possible, but I don't think he should have ridden right next to the car, knowing that cars do make that right to get onto the freeway. I think he should have acted more like a vehicle and stayed back more towards the rear of her car. There can be a lot of traffic in that area and it's just hard to judge what people are going to do there, go straight to the frontage road or take a right.

If you search for a thread started by me about this type of action by motorists (How to read right turners), you'll see some good advice about how to not get yourself into a situation where this is likely to occur. Keep in mind that I was asking for advice on how to deal with a certain type of road with high speeds, multiple lanes, a useable shoulder and many minor intersections. Even in that situation, it is often prudent to use the full right hand traffic lane whenever there is a high occurence of right turning traffic (where the occurence is very low is where it gets less straightforward). In a situation where the lane is narrow and/or there is a high occurence of right turning traffic, your best bet is to use the full lane (something that is allowable by the vehicle code in California even if there is a bike lane on the road). Trying to stay as far right as possible in a narrow lane invites ill-advised passing and when those passers are turning soon, it gets very dangerous for the cyclist as motorists can brake and change direction very quickly.

One thing that could help your husband out a lot is a rear view which he can use to monitor the action of same direction traffic. A mirror can give invaluable information as to what the motorist is going to do next and can also help him feel more comfortable about using the full lane when necessary.

Not sure how fast the car was going or how fast he was going, but it couldn't have been to fast, I will have to ask him tonight. He made it to work okay (thank goodness), but I think I got a few more gray hairs from this. He was out in Alpine near an Indian caino and was just heading back, going across a bridge over Hwy 8. She was making the turn onto Hwy 8. It will be interesting to see what the insurance companies have to say about. There is no bike lane on that stretch of road and he was as close to the right as possible, but I don't think he should have ridden right next to the car, knowing that cars do make that right to get onto the freeway. I think he should have acted more like a vehicle and stayed back more towards the rear of her car. There can be a lot of traffic in that area and it's just hard to judge what people are going to do there, go straight to the frontage road or take a right.

As you have surmised, your husband was riding too far to the right...by doing that, he was "inviting" a right hook. It's one of the most common accident scenarios for cyclists, and can generally be avoided by riding more assertively and "taking the lane".

A good mirror can also help, by allowing you to assess the intentions of overtaking traffic without having to turn around. If your husband does not wear a mirror, get him one today. The best one is the Take a Look (http://www.coloradocyclist.com/common/products/productdisplay2_v2.cfm?PRRFNBR=16494&CGRFNBR=641&CRPCGNBR=641&CI=1,226,641&TextMode=0).

For more info, check out this web page: http://bicyclesafe.com/

My husband wears a mirror all the time, but he refuses to "take the lane" except when he is going straight through an intersection at a stop light so that people can still make a right hand turn. I have pretty much given up on trying to tell him it's okay and sometimes very necessary to "take the lane", especially in a case like this where there is only one lane of traffic in both directions and he can easily keep up with the cars. I will suggest it to him "nicely" again and see what he says. Men are from Mars and I have finally learned to speak only when I am spoken to.:D

As you have surmised, your husband was riding too far to the right...by doing that, he was "inviting" a right hook.

Maybe this is why I've never seen one of these type accidents, I ride quite aggressively, most of the time just barely to the right of the center line, taking up as much space as possible. I ride in the city, and in fairly heavy traffic at nearly all times.

Maybe this is why I've never seen one of these type accidents, I ride quite aggressively, most of the time just barely to the right of the center line, taking up as much space as possible. I ride in the city, and in fairly heavy traffic at nearly all times.
Thats really the only way to eliminate that vast majority of right hooks. All thats left that can right hook you are drivers that use the adjacent lane to go around and hook.

I wouldn't call this centerish position aggressive, not at all. It is assertive.

Al

This happened to me several times in the 1970s. I must have learnt how to mix with the motor traffic. There are 3 possible ways to deal with passing cars. 1 - move out into the lane so they stay behind you till they have made the right turn. 2 - get behind them and pass them on the left as they turn. 3 - Continue riding to their right but be prepared to make an emergency countersteering turn in the event that they turn. Riding with a glasses mounted mirror also helps.

Rule I use, if the car next to you is anywhere in the range of your bike let them have the right of way regardless of who is in the right. If I can see a headlight even with my back tire I slow.

Too many crappy drivers out there. Not bad people just crappy driving people.


IMO if he was overtaking the turning car it's a shared mistake, if she was overtaking him it's HERS and only HERS and you have a case against the Insurance Company. Don't baulk and get an Attorney if you have to. The comp will try this tactic to try and reduce their claim amount. Don't fall for it as he may have injuries that show up later.

I fell for this insurance tactic and now have acl surgery coming up that's my out of pocket now.

Hi Mary,

Glad to hear he's okay. He's on the right track here, I think: "He believes it was partially his fault by not being more aware of what the car was going to do.".

But I think that realization is only a start. It's one thing to recognize you need to be "more aware", it's quite another to actually remember to do it. How do you do that? I think the answer is habit. You force yourself to recognize all junctions as something exceptional that requires change in behavior as well as attention. At a bare minimum I believe approaching any junction should always trigger a "situation assessment", which includes a physical head turn and look back (even if you're wearing a mirror). If you force yourself to do this enough times, it quickly becomes a habit such that you cannot approach an intersection without finding yourself automatically doing a head turn rear scan.

That's the critical first important step. Once you have established that habit, then you are always in a position to "be aware" of the situation and act accordingly (move left, slow down, signal, whatever).

Might as well not tell him anything. He'll get it eventually after the third of fourth right hook...

One more thing. A really good habit to have is: Never pass on the right.
This is particularly important at any place where the car can and might turn right, but, in order to make it instinctive I think it's better to follow the simple version of that rule, and almost never do it.

The typical situation is that you're near the right side approaching an intersection where cars are passing you on the left who are going straight, when, suddenly, one of them slows a bit (in order to turn right), and before you even realize what's happening, you're catching up and passing them.

So the goal is to develop an instinctive repulsion to passing on the right such that you find yourself slowing down, looking back and probably even merging left before you realize what's happening. If you don't develop such an instinctive repulsion to passing on the right, then you will inevitably find yourself passing someone on the right before you realize what's happening, which sounds like what happened to your husband.

Make sure they cast his arm in a "rideable" position.


Now that's hardcore... ;)

One more thing. A really good habit to have is: Never pass on the right.
This is particularly important at any place where the car can and might turn right, but, in order to make it instinctive I think it's better to follow the simple version of that rule, and almost never do it.

The typical situation is that you're near the right side approaching an intersection where cars are passing you on the left who are going straight, when, suddenly, one of them slows a bit (in order to turn right), and before you even realize what's happening, you're catching up and passing them.

So the goal is to develop an instinctive repulsion to passing on the right such that you find yourself slowing down, looking back and probably even merging left before you realize what's happening. If you don't develop such an instinctive repulsion to passing on the right, then you will inevitably find yourself passing someone on the right before you realize what's happening, which sounds like what happened to your husband. That's it right there. Lots of cars going 'straight' end up turning. Blinkers are optional to most motorist, as are lanes.

Agreed on bike position! My partner and I disagree on "taking the lane", but I am a firm believer in it as the few times I have backed off taking the lane (where necessary) I have been cut off by drivers suddenly realizing they could not overtake me to pass or turn right where they wanted to.

Now my personal policy is to take the lane for my own safety! As "the lead vehicle I am able to see obstacles I must avoid, traffic conditions the overtaking vehicle can not see as I obscure them, and I am where all other traffic can see me. It also leaves me with greater escape room to my right (assuming some nimrod cyclist does not try to pass on the right).

As a caveat this does not work for redneck drivers as they tend to do whatever they please (a rear view will alert you to their stupidity in time to get out of the way). While the city I ride in is cycle friendly, this morning we encountered a couple of these, the worst just about took me out with his pickup truck's mirror. My partner caught up with him in the parking lot of his work. There I failed to remain calm while explaining the stupidity of his actions. Trying to pass (on a corner) a cyclist in a series of S turns, where cars were intermittently parked along the street. :eek:

As you have surmised, your husband was riding too far to the right...by doing that, he was "inviting" a right hook. It's one of the most common accident scenarios for cyclists, and can generally be avoided by riding more assertively and "taking the lane".

A good mirror can also help, by allowing you to assess the intentions of overtaking traffic without having to turn around. If your husband does not wear a mirror, get him one today. The best one is the Take a Look (http://www.coloradocyclist.com/common/products/productdisplay2_v2.cfm?PRRFNBR=16494&CGRFNBR=641&CRPCGNBR=641&CI=1,226,641&TextMode=0).

For more info, check out this web page: http://bicyclesafe.com/

Being hit or run off the road by a car turning right is dangerous, but what is even more dangerous is being next to a large truck or bus turning right, because their side wall will push you into a post, and/or their back wheels will sweep right over you as they turn. Your husband has got to learn to anticipate right turning vehicles and stay out of that death zone. There are different techniques: hang back going through an intersection, or possibly merge with the through lane, and he can judge that based on the situation and his preference. Any of the major cycling texts will give him tips on dealing with this and while they may approach it from a different theory (eg. "Vehicular Cycling" , situational awareness, or whatever) the message is ultimately the same. Don't be there!

The insurance company (the other guys), said it was a 50/50 fault. Don't know how it will turn out this time, maybe with a police report this time it will be different.Insurance companies will always say that. They're not in the business of handing money out, they're in the business of making profits for their shareholders. And they do that by not paying out. That means blaming your husband for his injuries.

You need a lawyer to deal with them the minute they start apportioning any blame onto your husbnad.

Glad he's OK, though.

My husband wears a mirror all the time, but he refuses to "take the lane" except when he is going straight through an intersection at a stop light so that people can still make a right hand turn. I have pretty much given up on trying to tell him it's okay and sometimes very necessary to "take the lane", especially in a case like this where there is only one lane of traffic in both directions and he can easily keep up with the cars. I will suggest it to him "nicely" again and see what he says. Men are from Mars and I have finally learned to speak only when I am spoken to.:DIn your original post, you said he was riding "as close to the right as possible."

That's not what the law requires. Generally, the law requires cycliststo ride as close to the right as practicable. In a situation where cars can make right hooks, it's not "practicable to ride far to the right. It's much more practicable to ride either closer to the car, so you can antricipate the right hook sooner, or to take the lane.

Secondly, it's not a good riding practice to ride next to cars as you're approaching an intersection, because drivers do knuckleheaded things like turning directly in front of the cyclist that is right next to them.

This is the second time my husband has been hit by a car while riding his bike. Exact same incident as before, someone took a right into him as he was going straight....:(

Sorry to hear about this.

Why don't more people reconsider the advisability of riding with a lot of traffic?

One option is to seek out other routes that have better, safer conditions for cyclists. Even if they are longer, it is sometimes worth it -- less stress, more safety, more pleasant ride, etc. -- and the extra miles can sometimes mean greater levels of fitness. There are usually many ways of making up the time elsewhere in one's life.

Another option, for some, is to leave earlier, when the traffic is light. There are often ways to make good use of the extra time when one arrives at the destination early.

There are other ways too.

One doesn't necessarily have to continue riding in the same conditions.

My husband wears a mirror all the time, but he refuses to "take the lane" except when he is going straight through an intersection at a stop light so that people can still make a right hand turn. I have pretty much given up on trying to tell him it's okay and sometimes very necessary to "take the lane", especially in a case like this where there is only one lane of traffic in both directions and he can easily keep up with the cars. I will suggest it to him "nicely" again and see what he says. Men are from Mars and I have finally learned to speak only when I am spoken to.:D

well, I don't mean to sound mean spirited or anything but unless he wants to get used to broken arms or worse. He will have to learn when to take the lane and why, because motorists don't always use a turn signal. so even a mirror might not have helped avoid that hook... now the mirror would have been great to determine when to take the lane and would have been able to avoid that accident... it also works better for the motorist because he is where they would expect a vehicle to be...

Maybe point your husband to this thread. IF he hasn't learned his lesson yet through his own mistakes, maybe the fine peeps here can atleast show him that pretty much everyone agrees to take the lane or hang back when approaching an intersection where a right hook is possible and even probable (expecially to another highway).

What's more important to him, giving drivers all the room possible, or ending up in the hospital or worse?

Keep in mind, your husband didn't break any laws-- the motorist did. What people are offering here is safety advice. Your husband isn't required (by law) to take the lane or to hang back when approaching an intersection, and he can't be held liable for failing to take the lane or failing to hang back. It's just good safety advice to either take the lane or hang back.

http://www.bikemetro.com/content/article.asp?txtArticleID=2&txtPageClass=7

Why don't more people reconsider the advisability of riding with a lot of traffic?


that situation can occur with light traffic as well... should we just give up cycling?

Keep in mind, your husband didn't break any laws-- the motorist did. What people are offering here is safety advice. Your husband isn't required (by law) to take the lane or to hang back when approaching an intersection, and he can't be held liable for failing to take the lane or failing to hang back. It's just good safety advice to either take the lane or hang back.

I wonder if he was riding in a bike lane or just a shoulder? if it was a bike lane, did that encourage him to ride the way that he did? this might be a point for the "vc" approach...?

I wonder if he was riding in a bike lane or just a shoulder? if it was a bike lane, did that encourage him to ride the way that he did? this might be a point for the "vc" approach...?
I don't think and certainly hope they don't paint bike lanes on freeway overpasses.

Now that's hardcore... ;)
Hey I talk from experience, I had my wrist cast to the shape of the hood for my brake lever.

I don't think and certainly hope they don't paint bike lanes on freeway overpasses.

They do, but it's to the right of the onramp. They are next to the curb on the overpass on cloverleafs.

Keep in mind, your husband didn't break any laws-- the motorist did. What people are offering here is safety advice. Your husband isn't required (by law) to take the lane or to hang back when approaching an intersection, and he can't be held liable for failing to take the lane or failing to hang back. It's just good safety advice to either take the lane or hang back.

Exactly. There are certain measures that can be taken to HELP prevent this kind of thing, but in the end, your husband didn't run himself off the road, he had a motorist to help. Some people just shouldn't be driving.

Might as well not tell him anything. He'll get it eventually after the third of fourth right hook...


Yea position your self better.

Why don't more people reconsider the advisability of riding with a lot of traffic?



I don't think anyone goes around saying "hey, you should really try riding on streets that have more cars!" I live in a fairly isolated business park with a large industrial area on two sides, an airport on another and a lake on the last side. There is no way to get there without riding on major roads, some of them heavily trafficed by semi trailers. Near my house, there are no "through streets" that aren't major aerials. Sure, I could leave early and stay at work late to avoid rush hour, but I already spend 2+ hours every day getting to work and back, I'm not about to extend my workday on top of that.

The bottom line is that sometimes you have to ride in traffic and you better learn to do it safely. It sounds like the rider in question could have done more to that end but to act as if this was some how the cyclists fault for riding in traffic smacks of cager talk.

Keep in mind, your husband didn't break any laws-- the motorist did. What people are offering here is safety advice. Your husband isn't required (by law) to take the lane or to hang back when approaching an intersection, and he can't be held liable for failing to take the lane or failing to hang back. It's just good safety advice to either take the lane or hang back.
+100

I'm curious what fault of the 50/50 they are accusing cyclists with? If damages are significant consider talking to a lawyer.

Something else to consider. I'm not a lawyer, but IIRC depending on the state, if you are 50% at fault (or was it >50% at fault??), you get to collect NOTHING. Depending on what happens with the other party, whether they're stalling, seeking to litigate, cooperative, or trying to work out a deal, you probably want to consult an attorney who works for you. Most importantly, do not sign any papers until you (1) are satisfied with the settlement, and (2) KNOW that there aren't hidden injuries and such that were not overlooked.

I've reread the first few posts and am still unclear on the situation. Specifically, did the car pass the bike and then immediately slow down and turn in front of the bike, or was the cyclist approaching the car from behind and attempt to pass on the right? If he had enough time to consider slowing down and staying behind the car, it sounds like he sort of decided to pass on the right anyway, which would be a bad decision. On the other hand, seeing a car pass and immediately slow down should set off all sorts of red flags. Think emergency manuveur (sp?) or hard braking. Practice those if necessary.

If he had enough time, I agree with passing on the left, as is the standard practice for other vehicles. After a check back to make sure there's not another car immediately on your left preparing to do the same.

I also agree that it sounds like he could have been riding further left. I think all car drivers, including us when we drive a car, are used to thinking that once we pass something, we are done dealing with it. Without the cyclist far out enough to force the motorist to think, this tendency might account for why this happens. That and underestimating cyclist speed.

I don't think it was your husband's fault at all. If I am not mistaken, it is the obligation of the overtaking driver (at least in CA) to ensure that they have completely passed a slower moving vehicle before making a right-hand turn. The driver was at fault for making an unsafe right-hand turn.

I got more info from my husband as to the actual situation. He said that the road curves at the top of a slight incline. At the top of the incline he was beside the car and was still in the same position when the car took a right into him (she was turning right to get onto the freeway entrance). He ask the woman "didn't you see me". She said she had seen him at the curve, but apparently never looked again to see where he was when she made the right hand turn. She told the police she was going 5 mph (highly unlikely) since my husband is saying he was traveling faster then that. I don't think a LOT of people in cars realize how fast a bicycle can actually travel. My husband that he thinks it was 50% his fault for staying beside the car, knowing the road and knowing there was a possibility that she could turn right. Since he was right beside her the whole time, he doesn't know if she had her turn signal on. He said he looked over at her (just before he got hit) and she looked like she was going straight. Obviously you can't take anything for granted. He knows he should have slowed down and gotten further behind the car, probably around her rear bumper, or taken the lane (which he doesn't like to do) but then he says that may have put him in about the same position if there was another car behind her. Sometimes it's just safer to stop, let cars go by and then continue. I think you have to assess each situation as they come along and make the judgment you feel is the safest.

I got more info from my husband as to the actual situation. He said that the road curves at the top of a slight incline. At the top of the incline he was beside the car and was still in the same position when the car took a right into him (she was turning right to get onto the freeway entrance). He ask the woman "didn't you see me". She said she had seen him at the curve, but apparently never looked again to see where he was when she made the right hand turn. She told the police she was going 5 mph (highly unlikely) since my husband is saying he was traveling faster then that. I don't think a LOT of people in cars realize how fast a bicycle can actually travel. My husband that he thinks it was 50% his fault for staying beside the car, knowing the road and knowing there was a possibility that she could turn right. I'd give 25% of the fault to him at most, since he was doing nothing legally wrong, and she was in blatant violation of at least 22100:

Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm

Obviously, she was not "as close as practicable to the right" since your husband was even closer. I wonder if they cited her for that? And him being there is no excuse. As she approaches the turn it's her responsibility to safely pass him and move right, or, if she can't, to slow down and drop in behind him. Even if this happened on a road with a bike lane, she would have been required to merge into the bike lane before turning right, per 21717 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21717.htm).

But, 25% is still plenty enough for him to have been able to avoid getting hit. After all, few motorists even know about 22100, much less turn accordingly. We certainly can't expect them to, practically speaking.

Since he was right beside her the whole time, he doesn't know if she had her turn signal on. He said he looked over at her (just before he got hit) and she looked like she was going straight. Obviously you can't take anything for granted. He knows he should have slowed down and gotten further behind the car, probably around her rear bumper, or taken the lane (which he doesn't like to do) but then he says that may have put him in about the same position if there was another car behind her. Sometimes it's just safer to stop, let cars go by and then continue. I think you have to assess each situation as they come along and make the judgment you feel is the safest. You definitely have to assess each situation, but often you don't really have time to "assess" in real-time, and have to go with your instincts. But for your instincts to not lead you astray, as they arguably did for him in this case, you have to work on "best practices" until they are ingrained. What that means is, for example, purposefully avoiding riding alongside cars like this, even when there is no "might turn right" situation, until it becomes instinctive to avoid doing it.

The "may have put him in about the same position if there was another car behind her" comment is typical of someone who looks at traffic as a system that he has to work around, rather than a system that he is part of and can mold to his needs.

In this case the integrated cyclist experienced with "molding traffic" (some people call it "herding cars") would know that he could look back and signal left in order to create a gap (by coaxing the next driver to agree to let him in, something that is much easier to accomplish than most cyclists who never try to do it realize) behind the car into which he could safely move.

What time of day was it? Was he wearing or utilizing any high-viz gear?

Was he in a bike lane, or just riding to the right?

Not sure how fast the car was going or how fast he was going, but it couldn't have been to fast, I will have to ask him tonight. He made it to work okay (thank goodness), but I think I got a few more gray hairs from this. He was out in Alpine near an Indian caino and was just heading back, going across a bridge over Hwy 8. She was making the turn onto Hwy 8. It will be interesting to see what the insurance companies have to say about. There is no bike lane on that stretch of road and he was as close to the right as possible, but I don't think he should have ridden right next to the car, knowing that cars do make that right to get onto the freeway. I think he should have acted more like a vehicle and stayed back more towards the rear of her car. There can be a lot of traffic in that area and it's just hard to judge what people are going to do there, go straight to the frontage road or take a right.
There's the root of the problem right there. Riding further to the left won't eliminate right hooks, but it will certainly help mitigate them. Even 2 feet further to the left will help, 3 would be better. Let him get a few more crashes under his belt, he'll figure it out.

The driver's insurance company is going to try to rip you off, that's what insurance companies do. Get an attorney, keep the bike, clothes and anything else that was damaged in the same condition it was in after the crash, take pictures of your husbands injuries, get copies of police and medical reports, prepare to sue. Don't sign anything until you (or in this case, your husband) is happy with the settlement.

I'd give 25% of the fault to him at most, since he was doing nothing legally wrong, and she was in blatant violation of at least 22100:.So how do you come up with 25% fault for him (which means he was legally liable for 25% of the collision), if he was doing nothing wrong legally, and she was the one in blatant violation of the law?

Logic? VC? Hocus Pocus?

My experience with seeing people do this is more with pedestrians and joggers than cyclists, but probably 90% of the people I ever see cross a parking lot entrance, driveway, or street don't look behind them to see if someone's about to turn right, there. It amazes me that so many people have that kind of trust in the drivers, that they'll SEE them crossing and stop for them.

I've always taught my daughter to look to the left and right, AND behind and forward, to look for cars before crossing (regardless of whether we're walking or riding). I just don't expect them to see us, you know? We can have the right of way all day long and it won't matter if we get hit.

So how do you come up with 25% fault for him (which means he was legally liable for 25% of the collision), if he was doing nothing wrong legally, and she was the one in blatant violation of the law?

Logic? VC? Hocus Pocus?

Helmet Head likes to assign blame to cyclists "who should know better" rather than to motorists who should also know better and are in violation of the laws which they don't know... rather confusing situation eh?

Essentially he feels cyclists should take responsiblity for the things motorists don't know. :rolleyes:

I'd give 25% of the fault to him at most, since he was doing nothing legally wrong, and she was in blatant violation of at least 22100:.
So how do you come up with 25% fault for him (which means he was legally liable for 25% of the collision), if he was doing nothing wrong legally, and she was the one in blatant violation of the law?

Logic? VC? Hocus Pocus? First, I was responding to a comment that he should get 50%.
Second, I said 25% at most, an assessment which does not preclude assigning to him as little as 0% of the fault.

In a purely legal context, it would be 0%.
In a more practical context where we might fault drivers/cyclists for not being as "defensive" as they could be, I might assign some of the fault to him, for riding alongside a car that could and might turn right, but no more than 25%.

Helmet Head likes to assign blame to cyclists "who should know better" rather than to motorists who should also know better and are in violation of the laws which they don't know... rather confusing situation eh?

Essentially he feels cyclists should take responsiblity for the things motorists don't know. :rolleyes:
No, I think cyclists should take full responsibility for their own safety rather than rely on total strangers to be responsible for them.