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.


:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

100% sure eh.

I was cut off yesterday while in a right only turn lane, while using the center of the lane, while making a legal right turn...

Some hot headed woman in a Toyota cut me off by turning right from the center NO TURN LANE. :eek:

This is not the first time this has happened, and not the only location.

She went wide around me, so I wasn't in any real danger... but it just goes to show... There is no 100% sure method of anything when dealing with motorists who chose to do things their way, instead of in accordance of the rules of the road.

(This BTW is why I tend to laugh at John Foresters' insistance that all things are right and good as every one follows the rules... ) Riiiiiighhhht!! :rolleyes:

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.

I would love to see similar laws here. They put the burden back onto those with the greatest potential for damage.

The most important point: it doesn't matter a bit if you're in the right, if you're the one dead.


while I see your point it is not germane to this situation since (thankfully!) I am alive and am trying to resolve a dispute with an insurance company whos best interest is profit and not me.

Future possibilities aside, I am merely speaking about this one event. I am speaking purely and absolutely about this one situation; and I wish to avoid semantic debates and the good ol' 'coulda, woulda, shoulda'.

I am alive (again, thankfully!) and I was not 'more than 50% at fault', as the adjuster said.

See, there's the issue - you're focused on what 'should' be, not what is. The fact is, lots of cars don't pay sufficient attention. That's just something you have to come to terms with. People don't signal much. That's just the way it is.


I hardly see why this makes me 'wrong'. You are asking me to accept that everyone is wrong and I can't change it so I just have to live with it... I think that is pretty sad. People get cited and fined for improper lane chage, improper stop, and/or lack of signal (among many others) all the time. Why should now be any different?


Cars should be more aware...but I think what a few of us are saying is, so should you.

I cannot see how you can say this considering how attentive I have been over the years and my overall LACK of 'incidents' such as the one we are discussing.

according to you reasoning thus far, I can only deduce the following:

Ride IN traffic = people pass dangerously close... SO...
Ride on SHOULDER = not on roadway, so if you get hit it's your fault
Car jets out infront of you = you should'nt have been there
No Signal? = No sympathy
to ride a bike on the road requires ESP
No ESP? don't ride because you'll never anticipate everything everyone is going to do.


This is all a bit screwy.

I was riding along a road and a car turned without any indication. BUT I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT?? Just because it's a fact of life that people are ass-holes does not mean I should just 'accept it'.

<saracam> Everyone might as well hang up their shoes and not ride anymore because cars don't give a f*ck. </sarcasm>

I totally disagree with your position.

all in all it is simply a case of legallity.

I was riding properly as the law allows in my state.Again, no you weren't
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.
You said yourself that you were to the right of the white line and therefore out of the legal roadway.

Driver turned improperly (ie no signal, did not check mirrors) resulting in a collision.
Damn hard to prove the "did not check the mirrors" bit even with witnesses

It has become a case of word against word since the driver claims they DID signal and I have no supporting (or refuting) witnesses.
It's unfortunate that the cop didn't take statements from witnesses. We're not against you here, but your own actions led to the loopholes that screwed you.

Again, no you weren't
You said yourself that you were to the right of the white line and therefore out of the legal roadway.
Damn hard to prove the "did not check the mirrors" bit even with witnesses
It's unfortunate that the cop didn't take statements from witnesses. We're not against you here, but your own actions led to the loopholes that screwed you.
in order:

According to my local laws, YES I WAS.

I was on the 'roadway' as vehilcles allowed due to congestion... sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left of the line; whatever safety allowed. I did not overtake any cars who were displaying any sort of indicator (directionals, brake lights, etc...) I still do not see how I was being unsafe.

I was wearing screaming yellow in broad day-light... my 'guess' that the driver did not check mirrors is an educated, logical, and reasonable one.

No kidding about the cop/witness thing. After researching through bike advocacy groups I find that it is not uncommon for officers to be less-than interested in cases such as this where injuries are not 'life-threatening'. Even my fiance' (who spoke to the officer while I was in the ER) said he was rushed and dis-interested.

I know you're not 'against' me, but I do think it is a mass (guilt? defence? compensation??) thing since a lot of riders out there are guilty of riding 'improperly' at any givin time. Thankfully accidents are the variable and not the norm; and I admit to the occasional infraction due to impatience, though I strive to be cautious and consciencious, but impatience is simply not the case here. I WAS CUT OFF (sorry for the all caps) and the simple fact is turing without signalling is wrong even without a cyclist/pedestrian/car/etc... who is affected.

Are you merely condemning me because you, yourself are guilty?
My years and miles of safety in an otherwise difficult area (prior to this incident) speak for themselves.

Thank you again for your thoughts.

Honestly talk to a lawyer...see if you can sue the driver for inadequate insurance coverage as required by law, since his insurance was unable to pay for your vehicle.

I did this when some jerk tailended my mustang, and his insurance stonewalled me (they said my estimate was by an "untrustworthy" shop (it was the fracking dealer for chrissakes)....so I sued, he flipped out and sued his insurer...a week later I got a settlement check from the driver. Apparently he got a large settlement from his insurer as well.

Insurance companies are scum (no offense to those who work for them)....they WILL find a way to weasel out of paying for anything, so I will not hesitate to make life as uncomforatable for them as they make mine.

Mr. Underbridge is providing wise counsel that you would do well to heed. Irrespective of the law, it is incumbent upon the bicyclist to recognize the inherent danger in his chosen activity. One of those dangers is the very cause of your accident. You said the road the driver was turning right onto was a secondary road. It could have been a driveway and that should have been enough to have sent up a red flag. PEOPLE AREN'T EXPECTING BICYCLES TO BE ON THEIR RIGHT. They just aren't. I'm a bicyclist and I don't check my rearview mirrors for passing bicyclists before I turn right.

What was the car's position in relation to you for the 60/30/15/10/5 seconds before the collision?

Please don't think I am beating up on you. I have had a few accidents on both two and four wheels in my days. After each, I always reflect on what I could have done differently. The situation you described...running at times the same speed as traffic, at times slowly passing to the right and at others slowly being passed, is a dangerous situation. I know you are looking at the matter from a legal standpoint, but from a practical standpoint, Mr. Underbridge is trying to help keep you from having to exercise your legal rights in what is obviously a legal gray area.

I hope you heal well. My bruises are finally fading from a motorcycle accident I had when an oncoming car turned left into my path.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

100% sure eh.

I was cut off yesterday while in a right only turn lane, while using the center of the lane, while making a legal right turn...

Some hot headed woman in a Toyota cut me off by turning right from the center NO TURN LANE. :eek:

This is not the first time this has happened, and not the only location.

She went wide around me, so I wasn't in any real danger... but it just goes to show... There is no 100% sure method of anything when dealing with motorists who chose to do things their way, instead of in accordance of the rules of the road.

(This BTW is why I tend to laugh at John Foresters' insistance that all things are right and good as every one follows the rules... ) Riiiiiighhhht!! :rolleyes:

Did you even read what I wrote? Your situation is entirely different than what I described.

BTW, how does someone cut you off but go "wide around" you? Sounds like you are exagerrating again.

again, according to MA State law bicycles have the right to pass on the right; and I yield right of way when I see a turn signal (and often I slow up if I see a brake light near a turn just to be extra cautious)

Please cite the MA law that allows you to pass on the right in the shoulder through an intersection. I can't find anything of the sort.

there was about 3' of smooth un-interupted pavement to the right while the roadway was clogged with slow moving cars (several on or slightly over the white line) due to traffic congestion.

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.

Perhaps you should learn to not just look for a signal, especially when passing on the right in the shoulder through an intersection. If you really understand that you will always lose that battle, there's no reason to take that chance.

I suspect bikes are legally allowed to ride on the shoulder in Mass. and there are no shoulders IN intersections, joe. You've actually been searching Mass traffic law to try and blame the bicyclist???? lame-o.

armchair bicycling. give it a rest, boys.

Do I understand this situation correctly?:

Uncontrolled intersection; No "right turn lane" - in other words, normal right (and left) turns would take place from the lane itself, not after moving into a right turn lane.

OP was passing car(s) on the right as he approached this intersection

Car in question turned right as OP was passing traffic on the right and thus a collision happened (bike hitting front passenger side of car).

OP claims that no right turn signal was used - but I don't know if that's a fact.

OP is dead wrong. This is a classic example of exactly what you're NOT supposed to do on a bike - pass people on the right in an intersection in which right turns are made from the normal traffic lane. You can ONLY pass cars on the right if they are going straight, not in a situation where turns are possible.

IF the car wasn't signaling, the driver would be partially responsible, but cyclist is mostly responsible for passing cars on the right. How would it be if the car had run into another car that was passing on the right going through the intersection?

This is the only situation where I've hit a car. It was clearly my fault and I'm just glad I didn't damage myself or the car. (I was at least going slow and was able to stop and swerve and kind of latch on to the car rather than crashing totally).

OP probably should have gotten a ticket.

Do I understand this situation correctly?:

Uncontrolled intersection; No "right turn lane" - in other words, normal right (and left) turns would take place from the lane itself, not after moving into a right turn lane.

OP was passing car(s) on the right as he approached this intersection

Car in question turned right as OP was passing traffic on the right and thus a collision happened (bike hitting front passenger side of car).

OP claims that no right turn signal was used - but I don't know if that's a fact.

no right (or left) turn lane
no traffic control related to secondary roadway
I was NOT passing anyone "at the time" (traffic was accelerating)
No signal or brake-lights were present



OP is dead wrong.

IF there was a signal; which there was not. I have been in a few situaitions (non bike related) where I was at-fault, and plainly admit it.


OP probably should have gotten a ticket.

This is your opinion... but it is only an opinion; and in this thread it is needlessly incindiary, so I will ignore it outside of this statement.


According to your reasoning I should never pass (or even travel) on the right, ever, if there is so much as a parking lot, driveway, road, path, ally, etc... because any car can suddenly turn with or without signaling? Why is that acceptable? Considering the amount of bicycle traffic I see in urban or urbanized areas that flout this, I hardly see how it is practical. And even if we disregard practicality, it's still LEGAL if the car displays no indicator. Whis is the case in my situation.

Plainly speaking; I am LEGALY in the right.

and just for the record: I do NOT disregard cars just because I 'feel' I am right. I do understand that I am in more danger of harm than anyone in a car regardless of 'right' or 'wrong'. I am a cautious cyclist and not an aggressive rider... that is a very large reason why I am having trouble with this issue.

Please cite the MA law that allows you to pass on the right in the shoulder through an intersection. I can't find anything of the sort.


before I argue about the definition of 'intersection' again perhaps we should find out how MA state law defines 'intersection'... since we (and others here) obviously disagree about it's meaning. Until we can figure that out, I'll leave this alone.

<cough>notanintersection</cough>

I would love to see similar laws here. They put the burden back onto those with the greatest potential for damage.

I totally agree... but I also agree with others here that cyclists should be accountable if they act in a hazardous manner.

I suspect bikes are legally allowed to ride on the shoulder in Mass. and there are no shoulders IN intersections, joe. You've actually been searching Mass traffic law to try and blame the bicyclist???? lame-o.

armchair bicycling. give it a rest, boys.


very good point and thank you.

It's standard practice for insurance companies to deny payout on claims. They're trying to save money. Sometimes the only way to get them to pay is to challenge them in court. Problem is, if it's a low payout (usually the result of no bodily injuries) most people won't find a lawyer who'll work for nothing or if it goes to small claims where you don't need a lawyer, the insurance company will send someone as a rep that's more than qualified to out maneuver you.

If the sum total of your loss in the collision is $500 or less, take it as a learning experience and be glad you weren't seriously hurt. Figure out why something went wrong on the road and avoid it in the future.

BTW, you mentioned lost wages and medical bills were covered. What's the story there? Missed the morning at work to be checked out at a hospital or clinic? I'd be curious what they paid for that.

before I argue about the definition of 'intersection' again perhaps we should find out how MA state law defines 'intersection'... since we (and others here) obviously disagree about it's meaning. Until we can figure that out, I'll leave this alone.

<cough>notanintersection</cough>

“Intersecting way”, any way which joins another at an angle, whether or not it crosses the other.

From: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-1.htm

I found this in the laws pertaining to cyclists:

"Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way <snip>" (link: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm)

That seems to give you permission to pass a vehicle going straight on the right in the shoulder as a "way" is defined as "any public highway, private way laid out under authority of statute, way dedicated to public use, or way under the control of park commissioners or body having like powers."

But in your case, the vehicle was turning right and as such, not in the "travel lane of the way." There are no laws that I can find requiring a signal to turn right (I can't find any signal laws actually) nor are there any laws requiring the turning driver to move onto the shoulder to make a right turn (I haven't seen that in any state's laws actually).

In conclusion :), my point isn't to say "you're wrong." My point is that you'll have tough time convincing any judge in his right mind that you were legally in the right passing a turning vehicle on the right in the shoulder and, way more importantly, for your own safety this is something that you should avoid doing, whether the "intersecting way" is a major road, a minor road, a driveway, or a parking lot entrance. You don't know when someone is going to turn right and you cannot count on everyone to signal their turns, especially when they are in the far right lane.

So, a couple of months ago I was cut off in traffic, resulting in some slight injury and damage to my bike... Insurance company now says it is MY FAULT and will not cover damage to the bike (about $500)!...This is a DANGEROUS precedent and a dark day for cycling.

Are there any cyclist advocacy groups whom I can contact about this matter? Thank you.It's not a precedent-- they're just doing what insurance companies always do-- denying a claim. Despite insurance industry protestations to the contrary, they're not in the business of paying claims, they're in the business of making profits for their shareholders. The way they make profits is by collecting premiums, and limiting payouts. Now that they've told you they are not paying your claim, the only way to get them to pay up is to hire a lawyer-- and they know you won't do that for a lousy $500, so they're stiffing you and pocketing your $500 as profit.

no right (or left) turn lane
According to your reasoning I should never pass (or even travel) on the right, ever, if there is so much as a parking lot, driveway, road, path, ally, etc... because any car can suddenly turn with or without signaling? Why is that acceptable? Considering the amount of bicycle traffic I see in urban or urbanized areas that flout this, I hardly see how it is practical. And even if we disregard practicality, it's still LEGAL if the car displays no indicator. Whis is the case in my situation.


To me, the amazing thing is that you made it this long without realizing a simple fact of traffic:

90% of the morons out there don't use their turn signals. Because of this, YOU'RE RIGHT - *NEVER* ride to the right of a line of traffic that isn't moving a lot faster than you, because you won't be able to tell who's going to turn. I've said this ad nauseum, but if they didn't just pass you, they won't remember you're there.

If you are going approximately the same speed as the traffic, then just GET IN IT. It's much safer.


Plainly speaking; I am LEGALY in the right.


Plainly speaking, you are PRACTICALLY the one who got hit. If being legally right is comforting when you're the one injured, I can't help you.


I am a cautious cyclist and not an aggressive rider... that is a very large reason why I am having trouble with this issue.

Cautious riders don't ride to the right of a column of traffic and put themselves in the situation where they can get hit. You need to realize that, whether you consider it from a legal or realistic perspective, you contributed to your crash. You could have done things to prevent it. So when these situations arise again, it will be you - again - who will decide whether you want to do the safe thing, or the unsafe thing.

And if you truly don't see why what you did was a really bad idea - regardless of legality - read this: http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/

Oh, man, this thread is classic. I just read the whole thing. Astroluc is the quintessential typical cyclist. Fairly experienced. Think he knows how to ride a bike. Thinks he knows how the rules of the road apply to bikes. Think he knows how he should behave. Thinks he did nothing wrong. Resistant to all the good advice other clearly more experienced and knowledgable cyclists are giving him. And yet he was almost hit in one of the most common ways cyclists are hit. Clueless.

For all the hand-wringing about how motorists need to be educated, when the vast majority of cyclists out there are thinking and riding like Astroluc, can motorist education really make much of a difference?

in order:

According to my local laws, YES I WAS.Not by what I've read from the links you've provided. The shoulder is NOT a travel lane and NOT part of the "roadway"

I was on the 'roadway' as vehicles allowed due to congestion... sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left of the line; whatever safety allowed. I did not overtake any cars who were displaying any sort of indicator (directionals, brake lights, etc...) I still do not see how I was being unsafe.
You didn't take the lane. Your own wishy washy riding style (sometimes in, sometimes out) is a main contributer to the problem.

I was wearing screaming yellow in broad day-light... my 'guess' that the driver did not check mirrors is an educated, logical, and reasonable one.
It was still a guess, regardless of how you dress it up

No kidding about the cop/witness thing. After researching through bike advocacy groups I find that it is not uncommon for officers to be less-than interested in cases such as this where injuries are not 'life-threatening'. Even my fiance' (who spoke to the officer while I was in the ER) said he was rushed and dis-interested.
Unfortunately this is symptomatic of societal attitudes towards cyclists


I know you're not 'against' me, but I do think it is a mass (guilt? defence? compensation??) thing since a lot of riders out there are guilty of riding 'improperly' at any givin time.Not at all, but most riders will admit when they've done something wrong, or are at least partially at fault
Thankfully accidents are the variable and not the norm; and I admit to the occasional infraction due to impatience, though I strive to be cautious and conscientious, but impatience is simply not the case here. I WAS CUT OFF (sorry for the all caps) and the simple fact is turning without signaling is wrong even without a cyclist/pedestrian/car/etc... who is affected.I'm not denying that, however, the fact that you weren't in the roadway, but instead on the shoulder, damages your case.

Are you merely condemning me because you, yourself are guilty?
Not hardly. If I make a mistake, I own up to it. Of course I also don't pass stopped cars on the right or "filter" up at lights.

My years and miles of safety in an otherwise difficult area (prior to this incident) speak for themselves.Even a blind squirrel gets a few nuts. You need to work on asserting yourself and claiming your place on the roadway rather than sending the mixed message you've been broadcasting for "years and miles"


Thank you again for your thoughts.

Raiyn is being a little harsh, but absolutely right.

Forester's rule of thumb is something like, "never pass on the right when they can or might turn right".

My basic general rule is to never let my front wheel pass the back bumper when I'm on the right. But that's general, there are exceptions. The point is, I know it's an exception when I do it. Before I do it, I always evaluate the situation (which takes probably less than a second in real time). The first thing I do is consider alternatives. Can I pass on the left? Any reason to not slow down and just get behind this guy in the lane? Passing on the left, even if it means lane-splitting, is always preferable and usually works.

Only when I have good reasons to not utilize these other options will I even consider proceeding on the right. And then the first thing I do is look ahead for "a place where a right turn can be made". That can be anything from a major intersection to an alley or driveway. If such a place exists, then I back off. Once I'm sure the driver is not turning right, then I'm likely to proceed (after reconsidering the preferable alternatives again, of course).
If the driver slows down, then I too will slow down, often also merging left and passing on the left (what might not have been an option a few seconds ago might be now that the driver has slowed and started turning right).

Bottom line: if I ever get right hooked I will consider that to be my fault and nobody elses, that's for sure.

In response to the previous post, I was sent the following by PM:

you stated Bottom line: if I ever get right hooked I will consider that to be my fault and nobody elses, that's for sure.

I only take "offense" at that, as motorists can and will right hook you from a center or leftish lane... from which you may not have even considered them as being in part of your immediate "defense zone."

Word to the wise.
Allow me to clarify.

If I ever get right hooked, even if it's by someone in the adjacent lane to my left while I am in the center of the outside lane, I will consider that to be my fault and nobody elses, that's for sure.

In response to the previous post, I was sent the following by PM:


Allow me to clarify.

If I ever get right hooked, even if it's by someone in the adjacent lane to my left while I am in the center of the outside lane, I will consider that to be my fault and nobody elses, that's for sure.

That is a bit unrealistic. Honestly. Sure, a high speed turn may be your defense, but if a motorist suddenly decides to turn while you are paralleling them in a regular lane... not even sharing a lane or riding in a BL, you would have to be a mind reader to foresee that. :rolleyes:

Raiyn is being a little harsh, but absolutely right.


I'm not "harsh".

I'm direct and blunt

I'm not "harsh".

I'm direct and blunt
That's harsh. ;-)


Main Entry: harsh
...
3: unduly exacting
m-w.com

That is a bit unrealistic. Honestly. Sure, a high speed turn may be your defense, but if a motorist suddenly decides to turn while you are paralleling them in a regular lane... not even sharing a lane or riding in a BL, you would have to be a mind reader to foresee that. :rolleyes:
No need for mind reading. This is a predictable and therefore avoidable situation.

As I've posted before, even when driving my car but especially when riding my bike, I am hypersensitive to situations of "paralleling them in a regular lane": I avoid it like the plague, especially at an intersection approach.

Again, I won't let my front wheel pass the rear bumper of someone to my left, and if they are passing me, then I make sure the amount of time they are next to me is minimal. Even if they're moving only 5 mph faster than me, they are gaining about 7' per second on me, so a 14' long car will be next to me for only about 2.5 seconds (from the moment the front bumper reaches the back of the bike, the rear bumper needs to travel the length of the car plus the length of the bike in order to completely pass me, or about 14 + 6 = 20'). If the differential is more than 10 mph, which is much more common, the amount of "paralleling me" time is close to if not less than one second. If the speed differential is so low that the paralleling situation is too long, then I hit the brakes to increase the speed differential until my front wheel is behind their rear bumper.

Plus, it's not like they appear out of nowhere. As you know I use a mirror and regularly monitor to the rear. So I can and do adjust my speed accordingly if someone is approaching from behind in the adjacent lane, to minimize the "paralleling time", and to completely avoid being in the paralleling situation at the point where they might turn right. Again, I avoid the paralleling situation like the plague. And if I ever get right hooked I will consider it to be my fault and no one else's.

As I've posted before, even when driving my car but especially when riding my bike, I am hypersensitive to situations of "paralleling them in a regular lane": I avoid it like the plague, especially at an intersection approach.

Again, I won't let my front wheel pass the rear bumper of someone to my left, and if they are passing me, then I make sure the amount of time they are next to me is minimal. Even if they're moving only 5 mph faster than me, they are gaining about 7' per second on me, so a 14' long car will be next to me for only about 2.5 seconds (from the moment the front bumper reaches the back of the bike, the rear bumper needs to travel the length of the car plus the length of the bike in order to completely pass me, or about 14 + 6 = 20'). If the differential is more than 10 mph, which is much more common, the amount of "paralleling me" time is close to if not less than one second. If the speed differential is so low that the paralleling situation is too long, then I hit the brakes to increase the speed differential until my front wheel is behind their rear bumper.

Plus, it's not like they appear out of nowhere. As you know I use a mirror and regularly monitor to the rear. So I can and do adjust my speed accordingly if someone is approaching from behind in the adjacent lane, to minimize the "paralleling time", and to completely avoid being in the paralleling situation at the point where they might turn right. Again, I avoid the paralleling situation like the plague. And if I ever get right hooked I will consider it to be my fault and no one else's.

Hmmmm interesting. I have used paralleling vehicles as a shield to prevent left hooks... certainly this is "right through an intersection."

That's harsh. ;-)


Main Entry: harsh
...
3: unduly exacting
m-w.com
Nothing undue about it

Nothing undue about it
touché.

Hmmmm interesting. I have used paralleling vehicles as a shield to prevent left hooks... certainly this is "right through an intersection."
I've used a stream of vehicles who are passing me with a relatively high speed differential as such a shield. Even then I adjust my speed and use look backs/signalling/negotiation to avoid being in the parallel position at the point where they might turn right.

But I wouldn't get beside someone traveling at about the same speed as me at an intersection approach! :eek:

:roflmao: at helemt head's 'superior' traffic skills! :roflmao:

you NEVER pass cars riding in the right lane on a multi lane arterial? NEVER let your wheel pass the bumper of a car? NEVER ride thru intersections in a pack of traffic? AND you slow down when cars are passing you? must be slow going for you on your bike. I can see why you prefer to drive.....

your little math exercise explaining how long it takes a car to pass you is frightening in its speculation and conjecture.

head, once again, it's as if you hardly ride a bike in traffic, dude.

:roflmao: at helemt head's 'superior' traffic skills! :roflmao:

you NEVER pass cars? NEVER let your wheel pass the bumper of a car? AND you slow down when cars are passing you? must be slow going for you on your bike. I can see why you prefer to drive.....

and your little math conjecture as to how long it takes a car to pass you is frightening in its' conjecture.

head, its, once again, as if you hardly ride a bike in traffic, dude.
You'd have much more to offer on this forum, Bek, if you'd learn to read.

I regularly pass cars. In fact, I filtered past about a hundred stop/go cars back up in two lanes on my ride home today by riding down the middle of the two lanes (eschewing the bike lane to the right of the right lane due to parked cars and frequent obscured driveways into condos/apartments).

welcome back, serge. and don't insult me, i can read. i also post many worthwhile threads that garner a lot of discussion on this forum, unlike yours which get treated with overwhelming amounts of derision

I won't let my front wheel pass the rear bumper of someone to my left..... so you don't ever pass on the right....
.... I can and do adjust my speed accordingly if someone is approaching from behind in the adjacent lane, to minimize the "paralleling time"

traffic must slow you down an awful lot with that amount of paranoid analysis going on, head.

I hardly see why this makes me 'wrong'. You are asking me to accept that everyone is wrong and I can't change it so I just have to live with it... I think that is pretty sad. People get cited and fined for improper lane chage, improper stop, and/or lack of signal (among many others) all the time. Why should now be any different?
I cannot see how you can say this considering how attentive I have been over the years and my overall LACK of 'incidents' such as the one we are discussing.

according to you reasoning thus far, I can only deduce the following:

Ride IN traffic = people pass dangerously close... SO...
Ride on SHOULDER = not on roadway, so if you get hit it's your fault
Car jets out infront of you = you should'nt have been there
No Signal? = No sympathy
to ride a bike on the road requires ESP
No ESP? don't ride because you'll never anticipate everything everyone is going to do.


This is all a bit screwy.

I was riding along a road and a car turned without any indication. BUT I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT?? Just because it's a fact of life that people are ass-holes does not mean I should just 'accept it'.

<saracam> Everyone might as well hang up their shoes and not ride anymore because cars don't give a f*ck. </sarcasm>

I totally disagree with your position.

Here you go again with complaning about the fact that people are a**holes and you shouldn't have to modify your behavior to accept it. This is about as stupid as saying I shouldn't put a lock on my front door, because theft is illegal and people shouldn't be doing it. Guess what: life's not fair! Get over yourself and learn to deal with it.

I mean, do you think you're going to *teach* people to use turn signals? Just get off your moral high horse and live in the real world. React to dangers that are, not dangers that should be.

It's your choice, honestly I don't care. Everyone in this thread is telling you that you got hit because you refused to acknowledge that people unpredictably turn from the right lane, and as a result it's a bad idea to ride to the right of traffic when you're going about the same speed. You can listen, or not. Up to you. I'll tell you this, though - all of us have figured out that it's much more fun to be safe than right.

The simple rule of the road is this: don't come near a car that doesn't see you. Period. You did, and you paid for it.

In the end, I bid you adieu Don Quixote, enjoy tilting at your right-turn windmill.

I've used a stream of vehicles who are passing me with a relatively high speed differential as such a shield. Even then I adjust my speed and use look backs/signalling/negotiation to avoid being in the parallel position at the point where they might turn right.

But I wouldn't get beside someone traveling at about the same speed as me at an intersection approach! :eek:

On the approach I agree. I do this usually as a light turns green or where it is clear that I can ride with a a vehicle. I avoid large trucks, buses and vans though as I am invisible to a left turner to might try to "gun it" as they think they see a gap behind the truck.

So bottom line is that you avoid being in the right hook position as you approach an intersection.