Cross posting this on the Northeast and the advocacy/safety boards as well.
I'm from DC and was riding home on Connecticut Ave last Tuesday and was hit by a car and fractured my clavicle in 2 places. Accident happened just north of the Van Ness metro station at about 8:00 pm. I had my front light blazing and was riding on the right side of the right lane (Conn. Ave is 2 lanes north, 2 lanes south for those unfamiliar). Car was parked on the right side and swerved into the right lane, I swerved into the left lane to avoid, but he kept turning, as to do a U-turn across 4 lanes to head south. As he was coming perpendicular to the northbound lanes, I braked but had no time to stop, so I crashed into his driver front wheel and was jettisoned over the hood onto the road, landing squarely on my right shoulder, causing a "high velocity" break of the collarbone. Only other option was to swerve into oncoming lanes.
Driver stayed at the scene and provided the police with insurance and other info as the EMTs attended to me. Driver admitted that he was making an improper turn, and two witnesses agreed that he left me no choice but to crash into him. Police cited driver and I have the police report.Plan to approach the driver's insurance co for damages. LBS is to inspect the bike tomorrow, so not sure if that's an issue, but the EMTs had to cut off my bib shorts and jerseys and I have some other costs.
My point - everyone please be careful. I think I was doing everything I could have done to not get hit, but was hit anyway by a driver who decided not to look before pulling out or signal his intentions.
Also, if anyone has a better commuting route from Chevy Chase DC to downtown, please pass it on. I usually leave before 8:00am and return after 8:00 pm and prefer to ride on the roads, as most of the trails are not lit up at night.
Safe riding.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
A coworker was hit by a left hook last fall and in addition to injuries his custom Look was totaled. In spite of the driver being cited, his (drivers) Insurance Co has not come up with a dime. They are delaying at all points.
Keep every scrap of paper, don't sign anything and seriously plan on what you will do if you need to hire a lawyer.
AlmostTrick
I'm sorry to hear of your misfortune, but glad it wasn't worse. Here's to a quick and complete healing.
rwp
All things considered, you are lucky to be relatively ok. Since the driver stopped, provided insurance and apparently is not trying to avoid responsibility, you should get your medical and other expenses covered.
Please don't try to 'pad' the claim. This will only raise the alarm at the insurance company and prolong the process. Repairs to your bike and replacement of the jersey and bib shorts shouldn't be a problem though.
Since there will be medical bills, the claim process will take longer. Neither you nor the insurance company will know the final total for some time. It's also possible that the driver had very little coverage, in which case the insurance company might make you an offer for the total coverage that he had and that might not cover all your costs. In that case you have to make the decision on whether to sue the driver personally for the remainder. Unless it's for a huge amount of money (not likely), I wouldn't bother. It could take years, cost a lot for lawyers and you might not win. Even if you do, you might not be able to collect.
I've broken bones in collisions twice and in each case the insurance company made a fair offer relatively early in the game. I accepted and don't regret doing so.
And get a file folder to keep all the related paperwork. You don't want to lose anything. Also try to remember and write down everything you said to the police at the scene. You'll probably have to make a statement to the insurance company about what happened and you don't want to contradict yourself.
Oh, and get well soon.
invisiblehand
Cross posting this on the Northeast and the advocacy/safety boards as well.
I'm from DC and was riding home on Connecticut Ave last Tuesday and was hit by a car and fractured my clavicle in 2 places. Accident happened just north of the Van Ness metro station at about 8:00 pm. I had my front light blazing and was riding on the right side of the right lane (Conn. Ave is 2 lanes north, 2 lanes south for those unfamiliar). Car was parked on the right side and swerved into the right lane, I swerved into the left lane to avoid, but he kept turning, as to do a U-turn across 4 lanes to head south. As he was coming perpendicular to the northbound lanes, I braked but had no time to stop, so I crashed into his driver front wheel and was jettisoned over the hood onto the road, landing squarely on my right shoulder, causing a "high velocity" break of the collarbone. Only other option was to swerve into oncoming lanes.
Driver stayed at the scene and provided the police with insurance and other info as the EMTs attended to me. Driver admitted that he was making an improper turn, and two witnesses agreed that he left me no choice but to crash into him. Police cited driver and I have the police report.Plan to approach the driver's insurance co for damages. LBS is to inspect the bike tomorrow, so not sure if that's an issue, but the EMTs had to cut off my bib shorts and jerseys and I have some other costs.
My point - everyone please be careful. I think I was doing everything I could have done to not get hit, but was hit anyway by a driver who decided not to look before pulling out or signal his intentions.
Also, if anyone has a better commuting route from Chevy Chase DC to downtown, please pass it on. I usually leave before 8:00am and return after 8:00 pm and prefer to ride on the roads, as most of the trails are not lit up at night.
Safe riding.
There is a local effort interested in cycling/auto accidents. Perhaps you have the time to take a look at this link ...
I guess the Capital Crescent Trail is out of your way.
I'm not particularly fond of riding Conn Ave.
Is Wisconsin Ave any better at rush hour?
How are Reno Road and 34th St at rush hour? I've only taken them on weekends.
Looking at the DC bike map. There is a bike route down Nevada Ave, Linnean Terr, 36th St. Woodley, 29th St, Calvert and 19th St.
http://www.ddot.dc.gov/ddot/cwp/view,a,1245,q,629849,ddotNav,%7C32399%7C.asp
Helmet Head
...
I had my front light blazing and was riding on the right side of the right lane ...
...
My point - everyone please be careful. I think I was doing everything I could have done to not get hit, but was hit anyway by a driver who decided not to look before pulling out or signal his intentions.
I'm glad you're well enough to post this and hope you heal quickly!
Apologies in advance for this unsolicited advice, but I have to disagree with your assertion that you were doing everything you could have done to not get hit, and would like to explain why I think this.
I would also not be so quick to conclude that the driver pulled out without looking. It's certainly possible that he would have pulled out even if there had been a motorcyclist or even a bus passing you at the time, and thus crashed with him too, but what seems to me much more likely is that he did look, but only enough to make sure the lane was clear, and did not pay attention to the "right side of the right lane", because he probably did not expect to find traffic there. Sure, in retrospect, duh, that's where most bicyclists ride, but bicycling is relatively rare, and if he was in a hurry, he could have easily just quickly checked the traffic lane, noticed that it was clear, and gone for it.
Regardless of whether that's what happened, it's possible. So, to reduce the possibility of being overlooked, some people, including John Franklin (author of Cyclecraft), recommend that cyclists do not normally ride "on the side of the right lane", particularly when faster same-direction traffic is not present. I go so far as to say it's a bad habit to habitually ride "on the side of the right lane", and, yes, I realize that this is what the vast majority of cyclists do, and what the law seems to require. But that does not help your broken clavicle, does it?
And the "cyclists must keep right" laws usually do not apply when faster same direction traffic is not present. For example, note the language in California's CVC 21202 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm):
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway...
The "keep right" law clearly does not apply when the cyclist is moving as fast as (or faster than) "the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time", and so cannot apply when there is no other "traffic moving in the same direction at that time".
I'm all for consciously and purposefully moving temporarily to the right side of the lane in order to let faster traffic pass when they are there and it's safe and reasonable to do so. But when they're not there, I prefer to be much further left, often closer to the left tire track than the right tire track. I also find that just being "out there" helps me stay more alert, and helps keep my mind from wandering.
Of course, adopting the practice of using more conspicuous lane positioning whenever safe and reasonable does not guarantee you will never be overlooked, but I am certain it significantly improves the odds that you will be noticed, and it gives you more room to maneuver in case you are overlooked. Perhaps most importantly, it improves your sight lines to potential hazards in front of you. In this case had you been further left and still overlooked, you might have noticed what he was up to sooner, and could have started slowing sooner, and you would have had a head start laterally (being further away from him), and maybe could have avoided him.
This practice of defaulting to a centerish/conspicuous position and moving aside only when necessary, safe and reasonable, is significantly easier and more practical to implement with a mirror that you can use to periodically quickly glance back into to establish and maintain rearward situational awareness, so that you know when faster traffic is approaching from behind, and can plan accordingly.
rwp
And the "cyclists must keep right" laws usually do not apply when faster same direction traffic is not present. For example, note the language in California's CVC 21202 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm):
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway...
The "keep right" law clearly does not apply when the cyclist is moving as fast as (or faster than) "the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time", and so cannot apply when there is no other "traffic moving in the same direction at that time".
Can you cite any case where a judge interpeted the law in this way?
What happens when your cyclist in the middle of the lane gets run down by someone overtaking him at 100mph? Since there was only one car on the road, travelling 100mph, do we conclude that the normal speed of traffic at that time is 100mph?
Cyclaholic
.....
Less than 10 posts in and the 'it's your fault' VC zealots swoop like vultures.
Helmet Head
Can you cite any case where a judge interpeted the law in this way?
As far as I know, no cyclist has ever been ticketed for violating 21202 when there was no other same-direction traffic on the road, so it probably has never been challenged. But, believe me, I savor the day... But I can't get a cop to cite for this no matter how much I do it.
What happens when your cyclist in the middle of the lane gets run down by someone overtaking him at 100mph? Since there was only one car on the road, travelling 100mph, do we conclude that the normal speed of traffic at that time is 100mph?
Well, all laws are meant to be interpreted from the perspective of a reasonable person.
One of the reasons we have speed limit laws is so that the situation does not change so quickly that reasonable lawful road users don't have enough time to react.
In my opinion anyone speeding that blatantly would not constitute "normal speed of traffic at that time".
Having said that, if the cyclist is going 15 mph, the closing speed is 85 mph, or 125'/second.
If someone is going 100 mph, it's reasonable to assume the sight lines are pretty good.
But even if the cyclist does not see the motorist coming until he's only a 1/4 mile back (1320'), that's over 10 seconds before he will reach him, plenty of time to notice and move out of the way, not to mention plenty of time for the speeding motorist to notice the cyclist and slow down or move laterally to overtake.
CB HI
A coworker was hit by a left hook last fall and in addition to injuries his custom Look was totaled. In spite of the driver being cited, his (drivers) Insurance Co has not come up with a dime. They are delaying at all points.
Keep every scrap of paper, don't sign anything and seriously plan on what you will do if you need to hire a lawyer.The trick is to not repair the bike until the insurance has paid up, rent a bike (or include bus/train fair) in the claim. Make sure that the insurance adjuster understands that the bike rental portion of the claim keeps going up each week until the claim is paid.
The longer they delay, the more it cost them. With a bike rental cost of $200-300 per week, they consider settling quickly.
randya
don't go up against a motorist's insurance company alone, even if their driver is at fault; their adjusters will likely stall by continuing to deny claims until you go away. Get your own insurance company involved on your side (if you've got insurance on a car or truck, the PIP coverage applies to you on your bike as well) or hire an attorney on a contingency basis.
unkchunk
Less than 10 posts in and the 'it's your fault' VC zealots swoop like vultures.
Less than 10 posts in and the "oh not again "it's your fault" VC zealots" anti zealots swoop in like fully laden grackles.
mponchione
Thanks all for the well wishes.
Another cyclist actually stopped at the scene of the accident and asked the police to be sure to take my bike to the station for safekeeping. Thanks to whomever you are.
Thanks for the suggestions on alternate routes - I'll most likely stick to side streets for the commute once I can get back on the bike. As for the CC trail - I don't believe it is lighted at night, and I am concerned to take it home as I usually don't leave work until after 8:00pm.
Thanks for all of the advice re insurance/claims/damages. I'm a lawyer, and have a lawyer for this matter, so I think I have that angle covered. Not trying to get anything that I don't reasonably deserve.
Helmet Head - the driver admitted at the scene that he did not look before he pulled out, hence my statement. I take your point about being in the middle of the lane to the extent no other traffic is overtaking me. That said, there's no way to know whether different positioning would have led to a different result.
Helmet Head
Helmet Head - the driver admitted at the scene that he did not look before he pulled out, hence my statement.
Well, what else is he supposed to say? He looked, saw you, and went anyway? He looked, but didn't see you even though you were obviously there? The thing is, so much of driving is subconscious, he was probably not aware of whether he looked first or not. Given the outcome, it's normal for him to assume he didn't look, and say so.
Much of our behavior is unconscious and habitual, and of course we're unaware of it, by definition. Our habits are formed by experience. When we pull out of parking spots thousands of times, it's natural to develop the habit to look, quickly, for traffic in the traffic lane, and go. It would be unusual to be aware of this happening. Who hasn't arrived at a destination unable to recall any of the details of the trip getting there?
The whole point of riding in a conspicuous lane position is to spend more time where motorists are paying most of their attention.
That said, there's no way to know whether different positioning would have led to a different result.
Absolutely, in this instance. I'm talking about improving our odds in general.
genec
don't go up against a motorist's insurance company alone, even if their driver is at fault; their adjusters will likely stall by continuing to deny claims until you go away. Get your own insurance company involved on your side (if you've got insurance on a car or truck, the PIP coverage applies to you on your bike as well) or hire an attorney on a contingency basis.
As much as a PITA as this seems, I tend to agree.
John E
don't go up against a motorist's insurance company alone, even if their driver is at fault; their adjusters will likely stall by continuing to deny claims until you go away. Get your own insurance company involved on your side (if you've got insurance on a car or truck, the PIP coverage applies to you on your bike as well) or hire an attorney on a contingency basis.
Why not first "go it alone," with the option of bringing in extra ammunition if and only if needed? A contingency fee attorney will take 40% of your final settlement -- find out what you can get on your own, so that you have some way to gauge the attorney's effectiveness. mponchione has already obtained an admission against interest from the motorist, which should help immensely.
As for HH's post, everyone needs to interpret his message in a positive sense. His comments regarding strategic high-visibility lane positioning are not an attempt to blame the victim, but rather an earnest exploration of my greatest single concern -- "How can I reduce my chances of being struck by a motor vehicle, irrespective of who is actually at fault?"
dobber
for this unsolicited advice
Has it been otherwise?
The guy didn't look. He said so. The OP could have been firing flares and cycling in a clown costume and it still would not have mattered.
The driver also admitted fault and has obviously been a stand up guy so far. Insurance exists for just these reasons. Work with them and obtain what you think is a fair and reasonable settlement. Consult your insurance agent for advice.
veggie_lover
The capital crescent trail is not lightted but you should be quite safe after 8 PM . Get a Fenix L2D Premium light for $65 and any assailant will think you are the police if they see you coming ! I would never drive on Connecticut, much less bike. That street has a different rule for every block, it has got to be one of the world's most confusing streets..
Helmet Head
The guy didn't look. He said so. The OP could have been firing flares and cycling in a clown costume and it still would not have mattered.
It's highly unlikely that he was not in the habit of looking for traffic in the lane before pulling out into it. If he didn't have that habit, then he would be in crashes all the time. But being in that habit means he would likely not be aware of looking. So, again, given the outcome, it's not surprising for him to assume he didn't look at all, and say so. So the fact that he said he didn't look does not mean he didn't look.
dobber
So the fact that he said he didn't look does not mean he didn't look.
And the fact that he said he didn't look may have meant he didn't. Just cause Helmet Head has an opinion doesn't make it so.
Helmet Head
And the fact that he said he didn't look may have meant he didn't. Just cause Helmet Head has an opinion doesn't make it so.
I agree.
I never said that he definitely did not look. I said it was unlikely that he didn't look, despite the fact that he says he didn't.
You guys are the ones making absolute statements based on the assumption that you're sure he didn't look at all: "I was doing everything I could have done to not get hit" (mponchione (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=67001) the OP) and "The guy didn't look. He said so. The OP could have been firing flares and cycling in a clown costume and it still would not have mattered." (dobber).
And again, even in the unlikely event that the driver really didn't look at all, or did look but in a way that he would have still overlooked a cyclist even if he was riding where he was looking (near the center of the lane), being further left would have given mponchione (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=67001) a bigger safety buffer on his right, a longer sight line to the guy, and more time to possibly avoid the crash.
John E
And again, even in the unlikely event that the driver really didn't look at all, or did look but in a way that he would have still overlooked a cyclist even if he was riding where he was looking (near the center of the lane), being further left would have given mponchione (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=67001) a bigger safety buffer on his right, a longer sight line to the guy, and more time to possibly avoid the crash. I think that's the bottom line and one of the reasons that we are required to ride as far to the right as practicable, which is quite different from as far to the right as possible.
Helmet Head
I think that's the bottom line and one of the reasons that we are required to ride as far to the right as practicable, which is quite different from as far to the right as possible.
Indeed. And, more importantly I think, why we're not required to even ride as close as practicable to the right when faster same direction traffic is absent (as was apparently the case for the OP), which is one of the points I made in my first post to this thread:
And the "cyclists must keep right" laws usually do not apply when faster same direction traffic is not present. For example, note the language in California's CVC 21202 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm):
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway...
The "keep right" law clearly does not apply when the cyclist is moving as fast as (or faster than) "the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time", and so cannot apply when there is no other "traffic moving in the same direction at that time".
That's why I ride just out of the door zone when faster same-direction traffic is present and overtaking me, and much further left when it is not.
mponchione
Damn everyone, I didn't mean to let Beetlejuice out.
Helmet Head - I never said I was doing everything I could have done to not get hit, I said I thought I was doing everything I could have done to not get hit. The safety suggestions made by you and everyone else are much appreciated and likely will help me to avoid future collisions.
As for whether the driver actually looked, the one and only document that currently exists that recorded the incident says that the driver said he didn't look, and there were at least 2 witnesses to the driver's statement that he didn't look. That is very important and would seem to make irrelevant, for my purposes anyway, whether the driver actually looked.
Helmet Head
Damn everyone, I didn't mean to let Beetlejuice out.
Helmet Head - I never said I was doing everything I could have done to not get hit, I said I thought I was doing everything I could have done to not get hit. The safety suggestions made by you and everyone else are much appreciated and likely will help me to avoid future collisions.
Fair enough. I did not mean to misrepresent what you said. And I don't mean to pick on you - what you did and thought reflects how the vast majority of bicyclists act and think. That's what I'm trying to change - so that cyclists are safer and have more control out there. The maddening bassackwards idea that as long as we're as far right as we can be in the lane we must have been doing everything right has got to be challenged any time it is uttered.
As for whether the driver actually looked, the one and only document that currently exists that recorded the incident says that the driver said he didn't look, and there were at least 2 witnesses to the driver's statement that he didn't look. That is very important and would seem to make irrelevant, for my purposes anyway, whether the driver actually looked.
Irrelevant to what? The legal question of who is at fault? Yes, it's irrelevant.
The safety question with respect to whether it's true that you were doing everything you could to avoid that crash? No. It is relevant to that.
The more important general issue here is not how to win cases after a crash occurred, but how to avoid crashes in the first place. The fact that the driver said he didn't look is not relevant to that at all.
stevesurf
Sorry to hear about this; best wishes for a speedy recovery. +1 on the conspicuous light recommendation, whatever brand you use (I use Dinotte).
I'm from DC and was riding home on Connecticut Ave last Tuesday and was hit by a car and fractured my clavicle in 2 places.
This is an interesting idea; do you know of any insurance company that has directly paid for a bike rental? If they were going to pay for a rental, this may be an admission that he is well enough for them to discontinue medical expense coverage (other than therapies).
The trick is to not repair the bike until the insurance has paid up, rent a bike (or include bus/train fair) in the claim. Make sure that the insurance adjuster understands that the bike rental portion of the claim keeps going up each week until the claim is paid.
The longer they delay, the more it cost them. With a bike rental cost of $200-300 per week, they consider settling quickly.
It's time DC look at the little project NYC is doing to separate cyclists from traffic. Maybe they'll actually implement it far faster.
Again best wishes for fast healing!
Helmet Head
It's time DC look at the little project NYC is doing to separate cyclists from traffic. Maybe they'll actually implement it far faster.
A little project cannot separate cyclists from traffic, and arguably makes cycling less safe overall.
The size of the project that would truly separate cyclists from traffic in DC or NYC is almost impossible to imagine, and at least decades away, probably centuries, and very possibly will never happen. In the mean time, we need to learn how to ride safely in traffic without being separated. These little projects divert attention and resources from where it should be placed in terms of effective and realistic measures to make cycling safer: changing cyclist thinking, attitudes and, most importantly, behavior.
RTC_Kartik
Here's a letter-to-the-editor I wrote in the Post. More local than Helmet Head's California 'ride-to-the-right' law reference, there are a few DC laws quoted in here on where to ride on DC streets:
--
Pledge to Burn Calories, Not Carbon! www.railstotrails.org/pledge (http://www.railstotrails.org/pledge)
invisiblehand
Absolutely, in this instance. I'm talking about improving our odds in general.
What do you think the change in odds would have been in this case?
Helmet Head
What do you think the change in odds would have been in this case?
Whenever you toss a coin, the odds are 50% that you'll get heads. This does not change in a case where you tossed the coin and it came up heads. Before you tossed the coin, the odds that you would get heads was still 50%.
Along the same lines, whatever the change in odds in this case by being further left, they would be no different that the change in odds in any other case.
My estimate is that, in general, on a road without any other faster same direction traffic at that time, a cyclist riding on the right side of the right lane is several times more likely to be in a crash than is a cyclist riding between the center and the left side of the lane (for reasons that I've explained earlier), and I wouldn't be surprised if the likelihood is different by a full order of magnitude (10 times), or more.
So if the odds of a crash for a cyclist riding on the right side of the right lane are .001, then the odds of that same cyclist being in a crash, but riding much further left, would be about .0001, or less.
If I didn't believe the difference in odds was that dramatic, I wouldn't push this stuff so much.
genec
Whenever you toss a coin, the odds are 50% that you'll get heads. This does not change in a case where you tossed the coin and it came up heads. Before you tossed the coin, the odds that you would get heads was still 50%.
Along the same lines, whatever the change in odds in this case by being further left, they would be no different that the change in odds in any other case.
My estimate is that, in general, on a road without any other faster same direction traffic at that time, a cyclist riding on the right side of the right lane is several times more likely to be in a crash than is a cyclist riding between the center and the left side of the lane (for reasons that I've explained earlier), and I wouldn't be surprised if the likelihood is different by a full order of magnitude (10 times), or more.
So if the odds of a crash for a cyclist riding on the right side of the right lane are .001, then the odds of that same cyclist being in a crash, but riding much further left, would be about .0001, or less.
If I didn't believe the difference in odds was that dramatic, I wouldn't push this stuff so much.
But don't the odds for a cyclist to be rear ended increase as you move further to the left? (recall that "rear enders" are the most frequent form of auto collision, and is generally based on motorist inattention). While moving left does increase your visibility to cross traffic, what is the potential increase to rear end collisions? (and please don't cite those tired old bike statistics that are actually based on most cyclists riding on the right).
If there is no other traffic around, granted there is no increased risk to riding more to the left, and the benefits of riding left are greatly increased. But if there is other traffic around, those benefits of moving left are "tempered" by the potential of being struck from behind.
Helmet Head
... on a road without any other faster same direction traffic at that time, a cyclist riding ...
But don't the odds for a cyclist to be rear ended increase as you move further to the left?
Not on a road without any other faster same direction traffic at that time.
(recall that "rear enders" are the most frequent form of auto collision, and is generally based on motorist inattention). While moving left does increase your visibility to cross traffic, what is the potential increase to rear end collisions? (and please don't cite those tired old bike statistics that are actually based on most cyclists riding on the right).
No one is suggesting riding in a lane-controlling position in a lane wide enough to be safely shared while faster same direction traffic is present or approaching.
And when the lane is too narrow to be shared, your susceptibility to being rear-ended is either the same, or even better when you're further left (and more conspicuous and thus less likely to be overlooked and rear-ended).
If there is no other traffic around, granted there is no increased risk to riding more to the left, and the benefits of riding left are greatly increased. But if there is other traffic around, those benefits of moving left are "tempered" by the potential of being struck from behind.
Why would you be further left in a wide lane with other traffic around? I wouldn't be, unless I had a good reason to be there regardless of my preference to be further left (like planning to turn left, or moving the same speed as the other traffic, etc.).
EDIT: Per the reasoning above, I think a cyclist who defaults to the primary riding position (per John Franklin's book, Cyclecraft), near the center of the lane, is at least somewhat, perhaps significantly, less likely to be rear-ended than is a cyclist who defaults to the right side of the right lane. Surely I don't need to remind you of all the cyclist who have been rear ended while riding in bike lanes and shoulders by inattentive drivers who I believe are much more prone to overlook an "apparently out of the way" cyclist than one obviously right in their path up ahead. I will also note that motorcycle safety classes do not teach motorcyclists to keep to the right side of the right lane in order to avoid being rear-ended.
DogBoy
A coworker was hit by a left hook last fall and in addition to injuries his custom Look was totaled. In spite of the driver being cited, his (drivers) Insurance Co has not come up with a dime. They are delaying at all points.
Keep every scrap of paper, don't sign anything and seriously plan on what you will do if you need to hire a lawyer.
Tell your friend to file a complaint here (http://www.ct.gov/cid/cwp/view.asp?q=254352).
genec
Why would you be further left in a wide lane with other traffic around? I wouldn't be, unless I had a good reason to be there regardless of my preference to be further left (like planning to turn left, or moving the same speed as the other traffic, etc.).
To be more visible upon approaching an intersection where a motorist in the cross street might otherwise see a gap between approaching cars and assume they can fit in (not seeing me as filling that gap if I were too far right).... And in the case where there is no other place to be, such as on certain boulevards where parked cars line the right hand edges. (oh and not everywhere has wide lanes... )
EDIT: Per the reasoning above, I think a cyclist who defaults to the primary riding position (per John Franklin's book, Cyclecraft), near the center of the lane, is at least somewhat, perhaps significantly, less likely to be rear-ended than is a cyclist who defaults to the right side of the right lane. Surely I don't need to remind you of all the cyclist who have been rear ended while riding in bike lanes and shoulders by inattentive drivers who I believe are much more prone to overlook an "apparently out of the way" cyclist than one obviously right in their path up ahead. I will also note that motorcycle safety classes do not teach motorcyclists to keep to the right side of the right lane in order to avoid being rear-ended.
Bear in mind that stuff is not taught to motorcyclists who have no problem keeping up with the speed of other traffic, and therefore do not find themselves "battling" for a lateral position with faster traffic in an effort to be more visible. (not to mention that a motorcycle is nosier, has brighter lights, and even turn signals) As a CHP trained motorcycle rider, I can tell you that keeping to the right was never a suggestion.
Of course each situation is unique... so you may be envisioning enough traffic such that no crossing motorist will even attempt to pull out, (thus there is no need to move left), where I am envisioning a RTOR situation where someone is impatiently looking for even the smallest gap... and I want to ensure that I am not perceived as "that" gap.