Advocacy & Safety - Cut off in traffic; bad precedent being set

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)! They did cover lost wages and medical bills, so money is not the big deal here... what scares me is the precedent that is being set.

According to all state laws with regards bicycling in my state I was doing nothing wrong and was acting within my rights on the road.

The car did not signal and turned in front of me, causing the accident. The adjuster says "You were travelling behind our insured and had the duty to ensure of her actions before proceeding."

How is this possible when their insured does not signal?

According to this judgement and the precedent that it sets, it is unsafe to travel on a roadway with cars because they 'might' turn at ANY TIME!

According to MA State law it is 100% my right to pass on the right while going with the flow of traffic. I am being told that I cannot for if I do, and I am hit by a car that did not signal or whose driver did not avail themselves of something called a mirror... IT IS MY FAULT.

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.

Was the car already in hte same lane as you in front of you when this happened? If so this precident is already set in stone, it was your fault.

If not and you said what you have said here to the insurance adjuster you did a very poor job of communicating. Leave room for interperation in how you describe an accident and the other parties involved will interpert it as best helps their case.

Was the car already in hte same lane as you in front of you when this happened? If so this precident is already set in stone, it was your fault.

If not and you said what you have said here to the insurance adjuster you did a very poor job of communicating. Leave room for interperation in how you describe an accident and the other parties involved will interpert it as best helps their case.


Yeah I cant tell either what he meant... This description definitely leaves room to interpret it as if he was in the same lane as the car and wasnt keeping a safe following distance, or tried to pass him on the right in the same lane, in which case I could see why the claim was denied.


I am guessing however, that he meant that he was traveling in a lane to the right of the cars, a lane most likely used for bikes only, and he passed a car who turned right who crossed through the bikers lane unsafely? But, not enough info to really get a feel for what happened.

...


...

Forgive my hasty post as I am a bit enraged at this whole thing.

I was to the right of traffic, on a wide shoulder. The vehicle in question crossed in front of my lane of travel without checking mirrors or signaling.

MA Law dictates that I am allowed to travel and pass to the right of motorized vehicle traffic.
http://massbike.org/bikelaw/

Forgive my hasty post as I am a bit enraged at this whole thing.

I was to the right of traffic, on a wide shoulder. The vehicle in question crossed in front of my lane of travel without checking mirrors or signaling.


There's your problem. You weren't in a lane of traffic at all. Had you been in the lane things may have been different, but considering the fact that the shoulder isn't considered a lane of traffic you managed to stick yourself in a legal grey area. Insurance companies LOVE those

Forgive my hasty post as I am a bit enraged at this whole thing.

I was to the right of traffic, on a wide shoulder. The vehicle in question crossed in front of my lane of travel without checking mirrors or signaling.

MA Law dictates that I am allowed to travel and pass to the right of motorized vehicle traffic.
http://massbike.org/bikelaw/

By riding on the shoulder technically were not on the road... (in the traveled way) nor in a designated lane.

If you were actually behind someone then indeed, in spite of your view of precedent, you are responsible for avoiding those in front of you. But in this case, by your declaration, you were on the shoulder... how would someone know what to expect of you and why should your "off road" use effect them?

Does MASS law assume that the shoulder is a "traveled way" and/or the proper place for a cyclist? Is the area designated as such?

There's your problem. You weren't in a lane of traffic at all. Had you been in the lane things may have been different, but considering the fact that the shoulder isn't considered a lane of traffic you managed to stick yourself in a legal grey area. Insurance companies LOVE those

don't you love those 'grey areas'?? I think the fact that I don't have an insurance co. persuing this claim for me is a factor, as well.


my area is littered with these signs but people don't seem to notice or care.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/astroluc/Photo1.jpg

Does MASS law assume that the shoulder is a "traveled way" and/or the proper place for a cyclist? Is the area designated as such?

It was/is part of the paved roadway, and not 'off-road'. By 'shoulder' I simply mean on the right-hand side of the white line. If I have an amout of pavement to ride safely and not be hugging the passenger side of the cars in the lane, I will take it.

Did you hit the car or the car hit you? I would think that if any of the car was next to you it would be considered an illegal turn? If the car fully turned and you t-boned the car, that's tough luck and it sucks but happens a lot.

It was/is part of the paved roadway, and not 'off-road'. By 'shoulder' I simply mean on the right-hand side of the white line. If I have an amout of pavement to ride safely and not be hugging the passenger side of the cars in the lane, I will take it.

The roadway is defined as what's between the lines, not what's outside of them. Paved or not the shoulder is not part of the "roadway". I wasn't able to find the particular section in Ma. law, but here in FL cars are required to give you 3 feet of clearance when you're traveling in a roadway. If they don't, it's a nice lil' ticket and an asschewing.

Did you hit the car or the car hit you? I would think that if any of the car was next to you it would be considered an illegal turn? If the car fully turned and you t-boned the car, that's tough luck and it sucks but happens a lot.

I hit the back passenger side corner... the first part of the car to cross in front of me.

It was/is part of the paved roadway, and not 'off-road'. By 'shoulder' I simply mean on the right-hand side of the white line. If I have an amout of pavement to ride safely and not be hugging the passenger side of the cars in the lane, I will take it.

The problem is that right hand side of the white line is NOT considered part of the road traveled way... that is why the white line exists in this case.

You may prefer to ride in this area, but you are technically "off road."

don't you love those 'grey areas'?? I think the fact that I don't have an insurance co. persuing this claim for me is a factor, as well.


my area is littered with these signs but people don't seem to notice or care.


Welcome to the real world.

You'd be surprised at how many motorists think those signs mean that cyclists should move over and "share" the road.

Sigh.

The problem is that right hand side of the white line is NOT considered part of the road traveled way... that is why the white line exists in this case.

You may prefer to ride in this area, but you are technically "off road."

could we compare this to baseball or tennis? is the line considered fair or foul ground? I was right near (on or around at any givin time) the line. For all I know in the haze of recollection I was on the line.

All I clearly recall during the accident was staring directly at a passenger-side rear brakelight assembly (where my face was headed) and seeing neither brakelights or directionals.

By riding on the shoulder technically were not on the road... (in the traveled way) nor in a designated lane.

If you were actually behind someone then indeed, in spite of your view of precedent, you are responsible for avoiding those in front of you. But in this case, by your declaration, you were on the shoulder... how would someone know what to expect of you and why should your "off road" use effect them?

Does MASS law assume that the shoulder is a "traveled way" and/or the proper place for a cyclist? Is the area designated as such?

While you have some good points, there should be an expectation of the driver to make sure they're clear to make the turn. The argument could be made either way as to the cyclist using the broad shoulder (and that's where I ride when they're available). Instead of cyclist, what if there had been a pedestrian. What if a sidewalk bordered the roadway?

While you have some good points, there should be an expectation of the driver to make sure they're clear to make the turn. The argument could be made either way as to the cyclist using the broad shoulder (and that's where I ride when they're available). Instead of cyclist, what if there had been a pedestrian. What if a sidewalk bordered the roadway?

A pedestrian moves at far less of a speed than a cyclist. Most likely, this motorist would have noticed a pedestrian right near the intersection when making their turn. A cyclist, on the other hand, could have been many feet away from the intersection when the motorist started turning. With the normal and reasonable expectation that traffic is not passing on the right through an intersection, the motorist did not notice the cyclist.

I've almost been caught in the same trap but luckily braked in time and avoided a collision. Now, I ride centered in the right lane like I'm allowed to and force motorists to pass in the left lane. Everyone gets along fine except for a few crybabies now and again.

could we compare this to baseball or tennis? is the line considered fair or foul ground? I was right near (on or around at any givin time) the line. For all I know in the haze of recollection I was on the line.


For all legal practical purposes it's considered "foul". The painted line is the LAST place you want to ride especially when weather conditions go bad. Those things get s l i c k

near the intersection when making their turn.

just an FYI... this was not an intersection with any traffic control; it was 1 main roadway with a side street.

For all legal practical purposes it's considered "foul". The painted line is the LAST place you want to ride especially when weather conditions go bad. Those things get s l i c k

dry as a bone and sunny blue without a cloud in the sky. (and yeah... slicks and painted lines are not friends in the wet!)

just an FYI... this was not an intersection with any traffic control; it was 1 main roadway with a side street.

Ok, but that doesn't make it any different than if there was a traffic control. If there's a spot where someone could turn right, expect them to and don't be off to the side.

I would contact your local bike advocacy organization and ask for a recommendation for someone to work with you, maybe a lawyer or an LCI with experience in the legal and/or insurance realms. It's all well and good to ask about it here, but we aren't there to go over the incident on site with you, and we have varying levels of knowledge of your local traffic law and insurance policy. I would think a professional advocate in your region would be in a better position to give you good advice.

Always get a lawyer. always.

insurance companies are not your friends and will not help you beyond the minimum requierments, and even then will try to weasel out of that. most lawyers that take your case will get their pay form the insurance, therefore not costing you anything out of your pocket. and they will get your bike fixed or a new one. its probably been to long for you, but for someone else dont wait do it RIGHT away.

Ok, but that doesn't make it any different than if there was a traffic control. If there's a spot where someone could turn right, expect them to and don't be off to the side.

I'll Quote myself from my first post

""According to this judgement and the precedent that it sets, it is unsafe to travel on a roadway with cars because they 'might' turn at ANY TIME!""

I think that pretty much sums it up.

As a result, pass with care.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

As a result, pass with care.

certainly; as everyone should do (cars and cyclists) and as I've always attempted to do... hence my frustration at this judgement.

The insurance company most likely would give you the same line, whether you were on the shoulder, in a bike lane, or in the right lane of a four lane road.

I'll Quote myself from my first post

""According to this judgement and the precedent that it sets, it is unsafe to travel on a roadway with cars because they 'might' turn at ANY TIME!""

I'd agree that a motorist in the right most lane on a roadway could decide to move right at any time, and could also decide to turn right at any intersection, signalized or not. As such, you should ride accordingly. Don't pass moving traffic on the right in the shoulder or a bike lane where motorists generally do not expect traffic. The only way to be 100% sure that someone won't turn right from the right most lane and cut you off is to position yourself in the righthand lane. Now, this still leaves any lanes to the left as possibilities but I think we can all agree that close to all right turns are made from the right hand lane or further right (from the shoulder for instance). So now you've whittled down your chances of being cut off by a right turner to that small percentage of folks who may be too impatient to wait behind you to make their turn from the right lane and instead, race past you and then try to turn from the left lane. While this isn't that uncommon, most drivers won't go through all this effort and when they do, it's very obvious what they are doing. And most importantly, they have seen you, unlike when you were on the shoulder. Now that you've got those people under control, you are left with the tiny fraction of people who might decide without looking or without any signal at all that they are going to turn right from the left lane. Defensive driving practices say to never drive side by side with another vehicle and that along with paying attention should be enough to keep you from getting caught off guard by the rare completely mindless driver. At least that's my take on it.

Seems a toss up to me. Driver failing to keep a lookout. Cyclist traveling outside the traffic lane in driver's blind spot.

Insurance company will generally deny a questionable claim. Make your claim almost unquestionable and very clear. You'll do better. I get $$$ fast every time through very crisp and clear demand letters laying out the facts, the law, and the damages in very precise and well documented terms. Of course, I only do that when I'm right.

I agree much more clear if you ridng on the raod, not to the right of the white line. Why would you ever ride to the right of the white line?

Always get a lawyer. always.

insurance companies are not your friends and will not help you beyond the minimum requierments, and even then will try to weasel out of that. most lawyers that take your case will get their pay form the insurance, therefore not costing you anything out of your pocket. and they will get your bike fixed or a new one. its probably been to long for you, but for someone else dont wait do it RIGHT away.
Maybe if this gets repeated enough times, it will get noticed. TALK TO A LAWYER! Find one that knows the state vehicle laws. The odds are good that a lawyer will be able to find the right words/laws, to show the insurance company the error of their ways.

I think it would hinge on how recently he had passed you when he turned right. If he had just passed, and you had no time to react, that should work in your favor, especially since he didn't use his turn signal. It's the law in most places that you cannot move laterally, such as turning right, without ensuring that you are not infringing on someone else's forward right-of-way. Again, that will depend on the distance he was in front of you at the time.

OTOH, if he slowed down gradually and you clearly had time to react by either stopping behind him or passing on his left, but you chose to go ahead and pass on the right anyway, that is poor judgment on your part and could go against your case, even with the fact that he didn't signal. Passing on the right is not a generally accepted vehicular behavior.

As I said before, this is all just conjecture and you ought to seek expert advice locally. You ought to be able to find advocacy groups to contact in your area with a Google search, using your city and/or state and terms such as bicycle, advocacy, safety, coalition, etc. Good luck! And oh yeah, I'm glad you're okay! :)

Don't pass moving traffic on the right in the shoulder or a bike lane where motorists generally do not expect traffic.

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)


I agree much more clear if you ridng on the raod, not to the right of the white line. Why would you ever ride to the right of the white line?

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.


I think it would hinge on how recently he had passed you when he turned right. If he had just passed, and you had no time to react, that should work in your favor, especially since he didn't use his turn signal. It's the law in most places that you cannot move laterally, such as turning right, without ensuring that you are not infringing on someone else's forward right-of-way. Again, that will depend on the distance he was in front of you at the time.

OTOH, if he slowed down gradually and you clearly had time to react by either stopping behind him or passing on his left, but you chose to go ahead and pass on the right anyway, that is poor judgment on your part and could go against your case, even with the fact that he didn't signal. Passing on the right is not a generally accepted vehicular behavior.

As I said before, this is all just conjecture and you ought to seek expert advice locally. You ought to be able to find advocacy groups to contact in your area with a Google search, using your city and/or state and terms such as bicycle, advocacy, safety, coalition, etc. Good luck! And oh yeah, I'm glad you're okay! :)


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.

I would not ride to the right of a vehicle when approaching an intersection. If there's no marked bike lane, I think it's pretty reasonable for a car to assume that, when they're in the right most lane, they don't need to check their right blind spot for offroad traffic. Heck, even bike lanes almost always end before turn lanes. That's why - through traffic should not be traveling to the right of traffic that's turning!

For what it's worth, though passing on the right may be legal where you are, it doesn't imply that it can be done anywhere. For instance, doing it at an intersection is a really bad idea.

If the car *passed* you immediately prior to turning (ie, right hook), that would be quite different. Wasn't sure what happened from the description, but it didn't sound like it.

But if you were just chilling out on the shoulder in the car's blind spot, and the car turned right from the right lane, and you hit it...I have to agree with the insurance comany. Your fault.

That's why it's a good idea to take the lane in that situation. I'm not a VC advocate, but at intersections, you either need to be a part of traffic or act like a pedestrian. Riding in the shoulder, where cars do not expect you to be, is a bad idea if you're riding at traffic speeds - specifically becuase it makes scenarios like yours extremely likely.

Forgive my hasty post as I am a bit enraged at this whole thing.

I was to the right of traffic, on a wide shoulder. The vehicle in question crossed in front of my lane of travel without checking mirrors or signaling.

MA Law dictates that I am allowed to travel and pass to the right of motorized vehicle traffic.
http://massbike.org/bikelaw/


ah cool, thanks for clarifying, I understand now.

Hopefully you can keep fighting it.



The insurance company most likely would give you the same line, whether you were on the shoulder, in a bike lane, or in the right lane of a four lane road.

Yeah, I agree.

That's why it's a good idea to take the lane in that situation. I'm not a VC advocate, but at intersections, you either need to be a part of traffic or act like a pedestrian. Riding in the shoulder, where cars do not expect you to be, is a bad idea if you're riding at traffic speeds - specifically becuase it makes scenarios like yours extremely likely.


Yeah I do agree with this intellectually and in theory, BUT it turns out I violate this ideal every single day. Just practically I guess I risk a right hook rather than add an hour or more to my commute, especially since passing backed up traffic on the right in the bike lane is legal here.

merging with traffic before the intersections would be almost completely impossible here during the rush hour, it means going back a mile and getting at the end of the traffic jam. or forcing your away between almost stopped cars inches apart, while dozens of bicyclists pass going on their way.

It sounds like the OP was in a similar situation here as I got the impression he was traveling faster than traffic, but maybe not, its hard to tell without being there.

Hmm, at the very least we agree to take care in these situations, especially at intersections since you are risking the right hook, but the OP is more concerned with the legal ramifications I think.

Yeah I do agree with this intellectually and in theory, BUT it turns out I violate this ideal every single day. Just practically I guess I risk a right hook rather than add an hour or more to my commute, especially since passing backed up traffic on the right in the bike lane is legal here.

merging with traffic before the intersections would be almost completely impossible here during the rush hour, it means going back a mile and getting at the end of the traffic jam. or forcing your away between almost stopped cars inches apart, while dozens of bicyclists pass going on their way.

It sounds like the OP was in a similar situation here as I got the impression he was traveling faster than traffic, but maybe not, its hard to tell without being there.

Hmm, at the very least we agree to take care in these situations, especially at intersections since you are risking the right hook, but the OP is more concerned with the legal ramifications I think.

It's a little different with a line stopped traffic, you play it different. I don't have to deal with that on my commute, but I would filter and either force my way in at intersections, OR become a pedestrian at them, OR make positive eye contact with the driver to whose right you're sitting on. I'm guessing you know the risk you're taking, and do things to prevent it.

What I wouldn't do is sit in a car's blind spot, when he might make a quite legal turn that would cause me to slam into him - that's what's at issue here.

I agree the OP is far more interested in being 'right' and arguing semantics than staying alive. I'd be interested in taking a poll, even around here, of how many drivers check their right blind spot when turning right from the rightmost lane, in an area that has no bike lane, sidewalk, or turn lane.

talk to an atty
there are several that specialize in catering to cyclists. they advertise in cycling magazine and the League of American Bicyclists has a list as well. That's your only hope.

I would not ride to the right of a vehicle when approaching an intersection. If there's no marked bike lane, I think it's pretty reasonable for a car to assume that, when they're in the right most lane, they don't need to check their right blind spot for offroad traffic. Heck, even bike lanes almost always end before turn lanes. That's why - through traffic should not be traveling to the right of traffic that's turning!

For what it's worth, though passing on the right may be legal where you are, it doesn't imply that it can be done anywhere. For instance, doing it at an intersection is a really bad idea.

undestandable and I agree. I always use caution while riding because (as previously mentioned) Car vs. Bike the car always 'wins'. I always yield at intersections, weather they are larger, controlled, or when I have a green, and I see a car turning or signaling.

as I stated before and will reiterate, this was not an 'intersection'. It was a tertiary road that the person was turning on to off of a primary roadway. The main roadway we were travelling on had no traffic control with regard to the tertiary road.



What I wouldn't do is sit in a car's blind spot, when he might make a quite legal turn that would cause me to slam into him - that's what's at issue here.


Traffic was moving at an inconsistant speed moving towards a major intersection @ 1/4 mile ahead. I was not in any way 'sitting' in someones blind spot. At times during this stretch I was overtaking, at others I was at speed w/ traffic, and still at others I was being passed. Traffic was not stopped.



I agree the OP is far more interested in being 'right' and arguing semantics than staying alive.

I hardly think that that is a fair statement.

I am a very consciencious rider and have avoided many an accident (prior to this incident; thankfully) due to my awareness of my surroundings. I use hand signals, I yield right of way, I ride on the proper side, I call out to other cyclists or pedestrians I am overtaking, I check traffic before crossing, I even stop at red-lights! I also am sure to dress brightly as to stay visible.

I was very shaken up by the accident and strongly feel that my right has been quashed because of insurance beaurocracy.

talk to an atty
there are several that specialize in catering to cyclists. they advertise in cycling magazine and the League of American Bicyclists has a list as well. That's your only hope.

Thank you for this link; it was helpful!

If you get an attorney, it will end up costing you much more than the price of a bike. However, if you really are doing this for the principal rather than the money, then by all means go that route. If coming up with lawyer money is a problem, try small claims court.

IANAL but it seems clear to me that you did everything right and were not at fault.

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.

IANAL but it seems clear to me that you did everything right and were not at fault.
NAI, but it's not at all clear. I searched the Massachusetts law (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm)and it says bikes can keep right when passing a motor vehicle moving in the travel lane. It doesn't specifically say bikes can use the shoulder as a lane. It also says The operator shall give an audible warning whenever necessary to insure safe operation of the bicycle. So the OP was riding silently up the shoulder in the blind spot of a car whose driver thought she was in the rightmost lane and therefore clear to turn right.

So legally, the situation is ambiguous at best.

And legally right or not, as far as sensible cycling practises go the OP was riding dangerously, not anticipating that motorists are unpredictable, and making allowances for that such as riding more cautiously, and avoiding passing on the right at an intersection.

If I have an amout of pavement to ride safely and not be hugging the passenger side of the cars in the lane, I will take it.
Turns out it wasn't as safe as you thought. Legally right or not, you put yourself at risk by overtaking cars on the right at speed.

I did a bit of digging. Here's a page from a MA law office that has lawyers who specialize in bike accidents: http://www.bwglaw.com/Boston_Massachusetts_bicycle_accident_lawyer_attorney.html .

Their take on car-bike accidents is: "More often than not, a collision with a motor vehicle is caused by the negligence of the operator of the car or truck, who failed to keep a proper look-out, who misjudged the bicycle’s speed, who turned improperly, who failed to yield the right-of-way, or who failed to leave the proper amount of room for the cyclist."

Of particular interest is the following: "When a motorist collides with a bicycle, Massachusetts law provides that there shall be up to $8,000 in personal injury protection benefits (“no-fault” benefits) which can help pay for medical bills and lost wages. These benefits are available even if the driver was not negligent." So, the insurance company covered these because they had no choice.

When it came to the things they could choose, damage to the bike, they are trying to weasel out of them. It's at this point that an attorney is needed to help you make the right argument that the car driver was indeed at fault. The funny thing about all this is one of the big advantages cited for no fault insurance is that it is supposed to eliminate the need for legal involvement, which tends to add to the cost of the settlements. Give the insurance companies any opening and they'll remind us why an expert, Lawyer who specializes in traffic law, is needed if you want to pry any money out of their greedy little hands.

A bit further down, the firm offers a free legal consultation. I found several others who also offer free consultation...

undestandable and I agree. I always use caution while riding because (as previously mentioned) Car vs. Bike the car always 'wins'. I always yield at intersections, weather they are larger, controlled, or when I have a green, and I see a car turning or signaling.

as I stated before and will reiterate, this was not an 'intersection'. It was a tertiary road that the person was turning on to off of a primary roadway. The main roadway we were travelling on had no traffic control with regard to the tertiary road.

The place where two roads cross is an intersection. As such, cars will often travel from one to the other. The fact that it doesn't have traffic control is immaterial. And I still maintain that the driver probably had no reason to assume someone was creeping up his side from off the road.



Traffic was moving at an inconsistant speed moving towards a major intersection @ 1/4 mile ahead. I was not in any way 'sitting' in someones blind spot. At times during this stretch I was overtaking, at others I was at speed w/ traffic, and still at others I was being passed. Traffic was not stopped.


To me, that's a very dangerous situation. When riding to the right of faster, flowing traffic, each car (presumably) sees you as it passes you. When you are riding as fast or faster than they are, they don't see you, and since you're not in a lane, they don't know you're there. So things happen like what happened to you.

Not to mention which - if you're traveling at about the speed of traffic, just ride *in* the road. There's no reason not to. It's *far* safer than doing what you did.



I am a very consciencious rider and have avoided many an accident (prior to this incident; thankfully) due to my awareness of my surroundings. I use hand signals, I yield right of way, I ride on the proper side, I call out to other cyclists or pedestrians I am overtaking, I check traffic before crossing, I even stop at red-lights! I also am sure to dress brightly as to stay visible.


Another important part of visibility is being where cars expect you to be. This has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, but it's the reason that experienced cyclists usually don't like those 'side-of-the-road' mini-MUPs, or riding in the sidewalk, at intersections - cars simply don't expect 20mph traffic coming from their right-rear, and they don't check behind and to the right when turning right. They're checking traffic coming from their left, as well as oncoming traffic turning left.



I was very shaken up by the accident and strongly feel that my right has been quashed because of insurance beaurocracy.

I can imagine! I haven't been in a wreck (yet) and hope I'm not due. I do feel bad for you; nobody deserves to be hit by a car. But at the same time...I have to say, I think you did some things wrong here. Additionally, if I were on the jury, I don't think I could find in your favor.

Going forward, you can look at it this way - legal right doesn't mean squat when you're the one on the ground - as I suspect you recently found out! There are some specific things you can do to ensure your safety. It seems like you practice many of them - obeying traffic signals, wearing reflective clothing, etc. Learn from this situation, and do what you need to do to minimize your chance of being hit by a turning vehicle. The first thing to do is assume that any car in the right lane could turn right at any intersection at any time. You also need to realize that few people actually use turn signals, so don't rely on them. So if you're approaching a crossroad, even if it's sparsely traveled - you have to realize that the car whose blind spot you're currently occupying might turn. Make sure that if he does so, he doesn't flatten you in the process. Make no mistake - if he didn't just pass you, he doesn't know you're there. And even if he does know, he might not care.

The general reflex of insurance companies is not to pay, naturally. But in this case, I think the majority of people (think 'jury pool') are unlikely to side with you. Think of it this way - you came to a *cycling* forum, and the reaction is mixed at best.

In any event, good luck, and hope your recovery goes well.

So legally, the situation is ambiguous at best.


herein is my problem



And legally right or not, as far as sensible cycling practises go the OP was riding dangerously, not anticipating that motorists are unpredictable, and making allowances for that such as riding more cautiously, and avoiding passing on the right at an intersection.

Again I will defend my safe riding stance and take a bit of offence at the first part of that... a cyclist riding on the road simply cannot predict everyones movements or assume that every car might turn at any time. YES; one can take steps to reduce risk and chance, but to act in such a manner as you describe would be to not ride on the road at all!

I will say this one last time... it was NOT at an intersection.
The tertiary road does not cross the main roadway. there is no crossing/cross traffic.

As a matter of fact the impact occured several feet before the turn-off for the tertiary road. My guess is that the driver was trying to dodge the slow moving traffic and was trying to bolt down that road as many people are liable to do.

...
I noticed that the reception is a bit mixed... and I'll be honest I am a bit suprised. I do appreciate all of your thoughts and opinions on this matter; and regardless of the final outcome I will (if nothing else) learn from this experience.

I feel it should be as it is with pedestrians; the car weighs 2 tons, I and my bike weigh maybe 200lbs combined. Cars have a responsability to be more aware. Around where I live it is a Summer resort community and there are 1000s of bicycles around. Already there have been several incidents and at least one fatality... I still feel wholly in the right and it scares me a bit that I am being told I might not be.

ahh well... perhaps since when I drive I actually use my mirrors and turn-signals I expect others to do so, as well. They should, but they don't and it is frustrating both as a cyclist and as a driver. My whole thought about both driving and cycling is to be predictable; hence my signalling, yielding, etc... both driving and cycling and it is also my thought that others (both cyclists and drivers) should be predictable, too. That is WHY we have directionals on cars and hand-signs for cyclists.

At any point I could have been on either side of the white line, I cannot say for certain where I EXACTLY was since that few seconds were a bit of a blur of panic; all I definitively know is one second the way was clear, the next was bumper... with no directional or brake-light showing.

One of my big problems is that the reporting officer did not take any witness statements and there were about 5 witnesses.

all in all it is simply a case of legallity.

I was riding properly as the law allows in my state.

Driver turned improperly (ie no signal, did not check mirrors) resulting in a collision.

That's all and that's it.

It has become a case of word against word since the driver claims they DID signal and I have no supporting (or refuting) witnesses.

just lame... I'm glad I wasn't hurt worse, but my butt is still sore (really).

ONE LARGE POINT: I will say this one last time... it was NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
As a matter of fact the impact occured several feet before the turn-off for the tertiary road.

You've been a bit unclear about that. Earlier you said "just an FYI... this was not an intersection with any traffic control; it was 1 main roadway with a side street." I took that to mean that there was no stop sign or traffic light, not that it wasn't an intersection at all. I think now what you're saying is it was quite close to an intersection but the car pulled onto the shoulder before actually reaching the intersection. And a "T" intersection is still an intersection.

So basically the car driver was doing the same as you...trying to use the shoulder as a travel lane.

Let's talk legally and then practically.

Legally, it's common knowledge that cars aren't supposed to use the paved shoulder as a travel lane. The Massachusetts law allows cylists to pass on the right but otherwise expects them to drive like cars, so it naturally follows that bikes are not legally allowed to ride on the shoulder. Of course we all would do it, and likely the police would tolerate it and most motorists would appreciate it and we would all be happy, but it's still not legal. So the insurance company has found a very good loophole to avoid paying for your bike. This doesn't mean the driver was in the right...she may have broken the law too, which doesn't help your case.

Practically, it's always risky to pass cars on the right. At any point they might decide to turn into a driveway, pull over to let off a passenger, or even have the passenger open the door and exit without pulling over if traffic is at a stop. It's especially risky at an intersection. Even if you hadn't quite reached the intersection, you were near enough that the lady saw a chance to squeeze by the people ahead of her, in order to turn. In future, you'll be better prepared to avoid this kind of accident.

I feel it should be as it is with pedestrians; the car weighs 2 tons, I and my bike weigh maybe 200lbs combined. Cars have a responsability to be more aware. Around where I live it is a Summer resort community and there are 1000s of bicycles around. Already there have been several incidents and at least one fatality... I still feel wholly in the right and it scares me a bit that I am being told I might not be.

ahh well... perhaps since when I drive I actually use my mirrors and turn-signals I expect others to do so, as well. They should, but they don't and it is frustrating both as a cyclist and as a driver. My whole thought about both driving and cycling is to be predictable; hence my signalling, yielding, etc... both driving and cycling and it is also my thought that others (both cyclists and drivers) should be predictable, too. That is WHY we have directionals on cars and hand-signs for cyclists.


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.

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

Cars should be more aware...but I think what a few of us are saying is, so should you. You need to hone your instincts such that you know when these things are likely and stay out of harm's way. And as I've mentioned, if you're moving as fast as the traffic, get in the road, you'll be safer. I personally would never pass a moving car when I'm in a non-travel lane. I'd filter past stopped traffic - though even then, you have to watch for someone pulling out of the line. But I would not pass on the right, because what happened to you is simply too predictable.

As far as the legalities, certainly talk to a lawyer who's represented bikers before, draw exactly what happened, and see if you have a case.