Advocacy & Safety - Right-Hook-Who's at fault?

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_152855.asp

Quote:
"....Both the driver of the vehicle and the bicyclist said they had green lights to proceed. Because there was no outside witness to refute either claim or evidence to negate their statements, the accident was ruled dual fault.

The driver of the vehicle was cited, however, for driving without a license."

The last line of the story is what gets me.

Couple of things --

The article describes a left hook, not a right hook. (Car was traveling south, turned east across the path of a northbound cyclist.) The whole question of who had the green light wouldn't apply to a right-hook collision.

It's also unclear whether the driver was cited because they weren't carrying a license, or because they're not actually licensed to drive. If it's the second case, then I agree, the cop shouldn't give much weight to the driver's claim to have had a green turn arrow.

Shouldn't it be pretty easy to figure out if there was a green arrow? if 1) The traffic light does indeed have advance greens, and 2) The car came to a stop at a red light for more than a few seconds, I'd think the car would have right of way.

Couple of things --

The article describes a left hook, not a right hook. (Car was traveling south, turned east across the path of a northbound cyclist.) The whole question of who had the green light wouldn't apply to a right-hook collision.

Bingo. And 100% driver's fault if that's actually what happened.

Either the newspaper or the police got this one horribly wrong.

It seems the question is whether the driver had a green arrow or the rider had a green light, implying that the other party had a red. That's the only thing keeping them from determining who is at fault.

This is a common accident at intersections with left turning lanes. If both directions have a green light, (but no green arrow for turn lane), the party turning will often turn thinking they have a right-a-way.

I've noticed locally, traffic engineers have changed the lighting at intersections with left turn lanes. The turn lane will now have a flashing yellow arrow if the oncoming traffic has a green light.

I the case of the OP, I would assume the vehicle is at fault.

When I learned to drive in Michigan, this would be easy. The driver would be at fault. If they didn't have a license, then they wouldn't have been on the road and there wouldn't have been an accident. We've made things more complicated now.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2000+Market+St,+chattanooga,+TN+37408&sll=35.032808,-85.308752&sspn=0.008486,0.013411&ie=UTF8&ll=35.037059,-85.304675&spn=0,359.978435&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=35.031387,-85.308775&panoid=zqZDOQlxfn3J8_lqhgpAmA&cbp=12,359.33,,0,5

I have a feeling the motorist raced to make a green arrow that just happened to be red by the time the motorist got there.

The only way it could have been the cyclist fault, is if the cyclist ran a red.

I have no faith in a motorist statement, when said motorist is driving without a license.

Now the insurance Co. will try an screw the cyclist, assuming the motorist was even insured.

Women cyclists, as a group, rarely violate red lights. It's much more of a guy thing, making it even more implausible that the cyclist is at fault.

I would be interested to know how the driver of the automobile left the scene. I sure hope the police didn't let him drive away, but it has happened before.

I've noticed locally, traffic engineers have changed the lighting at intersections with left turn lanes. The turn lane will now have a flashing yellow arrow if the oncoming traffic has a green light.

They have that in 3 or 4 intersections where I live, and it only serves to confuse people. I have seen way too many people hesitate and then blow through because they figure it's saying they can turn. I'm always extra cautious in those intersections because I've seen too many close calls. This is probably because that type of signal is rare around here, though.

I've been cut-off in that situation many times where a driver will turn left in front of me when I had the right of way. At first I resorted to a small boat air-horn taped to my steering tube. it worked for those who started inching to cut me off. The solution appears to be a very bright flashing headlight aimed to insure it gets into the driver's vision at the correct distance.

I turn it on only in urban/suburban areas and leave it off on rural roads. Now they wait. Sometimes, they wait even though there was plenty of time for them to turn: some wait so long it's almost embarrassing.

Al

green arrow turning traffic still required to yield to oncoming traffic.

alcanoe describes the effect of bright LED headlamps set to safety flash day or night. I experience similar effects on motorists when i ride with my Niterider Minewt X2 LED but do not count on it.

The solution appears to be a very bright flashing headlight aimed to insure it gets into the driver's vision at the correct distance. ... I turn it on only in urban/suburban areas and leave it off on rural roads. Now they wait. Sometimes, they wait even though there was plenty of time for them to turn: some wait so long it's almost embarrassing.


I've noticed the same effect with both pulsating and steady headlamps. I suspect this effect motivated the law to require motorcyclists to run headlamps in daytime, since left-cross collisions are the most common crash type for them.

Other things a cyclist can do at intersections to increase conspicuity (with or without a headlamp) is merge farther into the lane and pedal continously, even downshifting if necessary to keep the rpms a little high. This indicates that you really intend to go, not yield. But I put my fingers over both brake levers at the same time just in case.

I've noticed locally, traffic engineers have changed the lighting at intersections with left turn lanes. The turn lane will now have a flashing yellow arrow if the oncoming traffic has a green light.

Isn't flashing yellow universally accepted as "other traffic has flashing red" ? Flashing green would make more sense for that purpose, but they can't use it because it's used as a straight+left turn arrow in some locales. On second thought, i'm not quite sure why they can't use solid green.

Around here, they have a load of "left turn yield on green" signs.


green arrow turning traffic still required to yield to oncoming traffic.

I must be guilty of at least a million counts of violating that rule.

green arrow turning traffic still required to yield to oncoming traffic.

That is incorrect. ANY green means FULL right of way. If you can prove otherwise, I will stand corrected.


Isn't flashing yellow universally accepted as "other traffic has flashing red" ?.

Not always.....Any flashing yellow does universally mean to YIELD (but not necessarily stop), check for traffic and proceed with caution.

Flashing reds universally means STOP, check for traffic, then proceed with caution.

In the case of flashing yellow arrows, it means oncoming traffic has a green.

Side note: One of my pet peeves is people who think yield "signs" mean nothing. They must be there for decoration only. :mad:

I believe it is still common for left turns lanes to have arrows when they have full right of way, and full green when the oncoming traffic has a green light. I hate traffic lights where the left turn is only allowed during a left turn cycle, but this sort of accident shows that some people can't handle any tasks that require judgment.

my bad! a 'protected left' green arrow indicates full right of way assured by traffic signal, versus flashing yellow arrow which means yield before turning.

I learned to drive before 'special' lefts were commonplace and learned lefts always yield to oncoming thru traffic, as is the case with ANY standard traffic signal and likely the case in the OP.

green arrow turning traffic still required to yield to oncoming traffic.

No, MUTCD requires that red lights (and steady DONT WALK lights, if installed) be shown to any movements that would conflict with a green turn arrow. The green arrow implies that the driver need only yield to those road users who had previously entered the intersection legally and are just clearing the intersection after their signal turned red.

I suspect the motorist did not have an arrow light. I find it harder to believe that a female cyclist ran a red light with a left turning driver approaching than a turning driver misjudged an oncoming cyclist. But that's my bias. Lacking witnesses, an investigation of the light timing cycle based on the vehicles present would be required to determine for sure.

I'm sorry, duh, I thought it was right hook, but it was a left.

What concerns me is the driver had no license.

One more note about green turn arrows. Some intersections are phased to display simultaneous right and left turn arrows, first for one side of the road, then for the other. This is called "split phase timing." These are really bad for pedestrians, because the pedestrian never gets a green condition where drivers are expected (or expecting) to yield to them. MUTCD requires pedestrian detectors and signals to be installed at such locations, in order to allow pedestrians to trigger a different phasing that gives them a safer trip. However, I've found some intersections that violate this requirement, and I've had only partial success getting the DOT to correct them. I got the intersection of Tryon Road and Kildaire Farm here in Cary fixed, but not an intersection near the Cary Town Center mall.

Green or red turn arrow phasing can also be frustrating for cyclists if the signal does not detect the bike, and the type of signal the cyclist needs (straight or turning) is not provided during the cycle.

I cannot think of any instance where a vehicle that strikes the passenger door of another vehicle is not at fault. (assuming full right of way for both parties) In order to be struck on the passenger door, the struck vehicle has to have been far enough through the intersection to have established right-of-way. Persons in (or on, as the case may be) oncoming vehicles must have control of their vehicle and be traveling at a speed which allows them to avoid such a situation.

While I feel sorry for the woman who was hit, it seems that she was either (a) not paying attention or (b) assumed that oncoming traffic would automatically yield the right-of-way.

The fact that the motorist was unlicensed is a separate issue as it's not a contributing factor to the accident at hand or the topic of this thread. (i.e. who's at fault)

I don't know the local laws in Chattanooga so I don't know if cyclists operate under different guidelines with regard to intersections and rights-of-way, so my opinion and views here are based solely on what I believe to be common rules of the road and my own assumptions given the limited info in the linked article .

Not always.....Any flashing yellow does universally mean to YIELD (but not necessarily stop), check for traffic and proceed with caution.


A flashing yellow light means caution. Slow down, look and proceed carefully.Eh, perhaps. But personally, I have yet to see a flashing yellow light where opposing traffic DOESN'T have a flashing red, and i'm assuming the majority of drivers fit that same category.

Eh, perhaps. But personally, I have yet to see a flashing yellow light where opposing traffic DOESN'T have a flashing red, and i'm assuming the majority of drivers fit that same category.

Yeah, after posting what I did I realized I might have worded it wrong. But you are correct if we are talking about "round" yellow lights. I had "arrow" lights on the brain also when I posted.

I cannot think of any instance where a vehicle that strikes the passenger door of another vehicle is not at fault. (assuming full right of way for both parties) In order to be struck on the passenger door, the struck vehicle has to have been far enough through the intersection to have established right-of-way. Persons in (or on, as the case may be) oncoming vehicles must have control of their vehicle and be traveling at a speed which allows them to avoid such a situation.

I strongly disagree; both bicyclists and motorists can travel at legal speeds that require more time to stop than a left-turning driver takes to initiate the turn and move the driver side door in front of them. It only takes a second or two from the time a left-turning vehicle starts moving until it occupies the next lane. Stopping time, including reaction time, is significantly longer even for a bicyclist traveling 15 mph. There's little the cyclist can do if the driver starts the turn at the worst possible time. I've had a close call or two myself this way.

At very slow speeds, drivers can have very short stopping distances and effectively negotiate junctions where there is no clear right of way at a high degree of safety. There is a growing school of thought about how to exploit this at some urban traffic locations. However, this approach is unlikely to be accepted at arterial locations whose design places a priority on reducing travel time.

the cop shouldn't give much weight to the driver's claim to have had a green turn arrow.
There's no indication (in the article) that there was a "green turn arrow".


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2000+Market+St,+chattanooga,+TN+37408&sll=35.032808,-85.308752&sspn=0.008486,0.013411&ie=UTF8&ll=35.037059,-85.304675&spn=0,359.978435&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=35.031387,-85.308775&panoid=zqZDOQlxfn3J8_lqhgpAmA&cbp=12,359.33,,0,5
There was a left turn lane for the driver and it appears that there was an advanced green for him (ie, the green is delayed for the direction the cyclist was travelling.

Keep in mind that both parties said they had a green light. The problem is that there is no third party witness to what the case was in reality. Put another way, since it would be completely expected that either parties could be lying, there needs to be some extra evidence to determine the truth.

The article said "the bicycle ran into the passenger side door". I'm taking this to mean the right-front door. If it was a collision between two cars (in NJ), where the car was hit is used to determine fault. For this kind of accident, a hit in the front part of the car is taken to mean that the hit car should yielded to the other car. With a hit to the rear part of the car, the other car should have seen the other car and had enough time to stop (and so, the other car should have yielded to the other car).

If we assume what the two parties said was, in fact, true, the car would be (in NJ) at fault.

===============


Shouldn't it be pretty easy to figure out if there was a green arrow? if 1) The traffic light does indeed have advance greens, and 2) The car came to a stop at a red light for more than a few seconds, I'd think the car would have right of way.

Either the car had a green arrow or a green light (he's allowed to turn in both cases). How can you determine which one was lit when the turn was made?

===============


That is incorrect. ANY green means FULL right of way. If you can prove otherwise, I will stand corrected.
Green arrow means opposing traffic is stopped (has a red) and you have right of way to turn. Green light means you have right of way for straight travel only (it does not mean you have the right of way to turn).

===============


Eh, perhaps. But personally, I have yet to see a flashing yellow light where opposing traffic DOESN'T have a flashing red, and i'm assuming the majority of drivers fit that same category.

In NJ (at least), there are intersections where one direction has flashing red and the cross direction has flashing yellow. The flashing yellow indicates that you have the right of way but that the intersection is "tricky" (ie, dangerous).

===============


I strongly disagree; both bicyclists and motorists can travel at legal speeds that require more time to stop than a left-turning driver takes to initiate the turn and move the driver side door in front of them. It only takes a second or two from the time a left-turning vehicle starts moving until it occupies the next lane. Stopping time, including reaction time, is significantly longer even for a bicyclist traveling 15 mph. There's little the cyclist can do if the driver starts the turn at the worst possible time. I've had a close call or two myself this way.

At very slow speeds, drivers can have very short stopping distances and effectively negotiate junctions where there is no clear right of way at a high degree of safety. There is a growing school of thought about how to exploit this at some urban traffic locations. However, this approach is unlikely to be accepted at arterial locations whose design places a priority on reducing travel time.

You are required to drive with the understanding of the limitations of your vehicle.

Assuming a normal green light, turning traffic has to yield to on-coming traffic (on-coming traffic has the right of way).

Keep in mind that having the "right of way" does not mean you are allowed to run into other vehicles. You are always obligated to try to avoid collisions regardless of who has the right of way. It's this principle that is behind using the location of the collision to determine fault.

Of course, this may not work perfectly but it reduces the frequency of people arguing in court. The point of the "no fault" stuff is to reduce the costs of court cases (and the related cost of insurance). Think of what is going on as a form of automatic arbitration. You "accept" this automatic arbitration to get lower insurance rates.

This is a common accident at intersections with left turning lanes. If both directions have a green light, (but no green arrow for turn lane), the party turning will often turn thinking they have a right-a-way.

I've noticed locally, traffic engineers have changed the lighting at intersections with left turn lanes. The turn lane will now have a flashing yellow arrow if the oncoming traffic has a green light.

I the case of the OP, I would assume the vehicle is at fault.

Yep, a couple of times as I'm leaving the library I have had motorists make left turns cutting me off. And there are no arrows or left turn lanes at this intersection. Just your standard two lanes (one for each direction of travel) and standard traffic light.

They've looked at me like I'm the one doing something "wrong" or throw some choice words and gestures my way. :-(

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_152855.asp

Quote:
"....Both the driver of the vehicle and the bicyclist said they had green lights to proceed. Because there was no outside witness to refute either claim or evidence to negate their statements, the accident was ruled dual fault.

The driver of the vehicle was cited, however, for driving without a license."

The last line of the story is what gets me.

According to the article there were witnesses who witnessed the crash itself, so why didn't they witness what had happened leading up to the crash???

quote:

According to witnesses, the vehicle was traveling south on Market Street while the bicyclist was traveling north on Market.