Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist hit by car turning right

I know someone recently hit by a car while on his bike, that was turning right and the police decided that it was the cyclist's fault.

This is what happened: He was riding down a street, next to a vehicle, on the right, approaching a green light. The car slows down, and he looks over to see if the car is going to turn or not, and he's not signaling. The car turns right, into the cyclist and he flies about 15 feet into the middle of the intersection. The policeman said it was the cyclists fault, that he ran into the car, because of tire marks on the vehicle, also evident of what he said was him (the cyclist) trying to illegally pass the vehicle. Also, he said that people on the street claimed the he was speeding, even though he was traveling the same speed as the vehicle.

Can he fight this? It just doesn't seem right to me. Any advice will help. My friend needs medical bills to pay.

You need to tell us city and state. Is it a no-fault state? If your friend has auto insurance, the best move may be to file a claim with them and let his insurance company go after the driver.

Unless I'm missing something, cyclist is totally at fault. This is one of the most basic bits of knowledge that a road cyclist with any experience at all knows. You never pass on the right if the driver has the option of turing right from that lane. It happened to me when I didn't know any better, but when it happened, I immediately knew I had made a bad mistake and apologised profuesly to the driver who was also scared and upset. Luckily in my case, no damage to body, bike or car. If the cyclist had hit my car in this situation and damaged it, I'd expect him to pay.

As for the turn signal thing - none of us has any idea if the signal was used or not, but it doesn't matter. cyclist caused the accident by passing the car on the right when the car had the option of a legal right hand turn.

Very stupid move, sorry to be blunt.

Camilo, if the cyclist tried to pass at an intersection, your statements are true enough; but just because the cop claims that is what happened, does not make it so.

Most often it is the motorist that starts to pass, forgets the cyclist is there and then turns, cutting the cyclist off. In that case, it is the motorist fault, but cyclist can prevent that by taking the full lane before intersections.

If the collision occurred in Oregon and the cyclist was passing while in a bike lane, then under Oregon law, it should be considered the motorist fault. Thus we need to know more details and the location.

6. Motorist Improper Right Turn
In the second most common type of motorist-caused car-bike collision, the motorist turns
right improperly. As already mentioned, the traffic law requires that the approach to a right
turn be made from the far right portion of the road. A motorist right turn collision occurs
when a right-turning motorist collides with a cyclist to his or her right. It can occur when the
motorist tries to make a right turn from too far to the left, but it can also be caused by a
bicyclist who passes on the right, in the motorist’s blind spot. This type accounted for 6%
of adult collisions but only 1% of child car-bike collisions.
http://www.massbike.org/police/ReferenceGuide.pdf

Also, he said that people on the street claimed the he was speeding, even though he was traveling the same speed as the vehicle.


Cyclist speeding? What was the speed limit? 10mph?

The cyclist should get a lawyer. The judge will probably withhold adjudication anyway (if no one was hurt). The lawyer should also file a claim against the insurance company, in a not-so-clear-cut case, the insurance company will probably prefer to settle than to take the claim to court.

Cyclists are generally supposed to follow the rules of the road, and in pretty much any state, passing on the right is a no-no. There are exceptions, such as bike lanes, and certain roadways. Anyone who rides regularly or commutes should make themselves familiar with their local laws and regulations.

Here in Japan the motorist is automatically considered at fault in vehicle vs pedestrian or bicycle crashes. Accidents in Japan are a criminal offense, and even if the accident was the result of someone riding their bike blindly into traffic through a red light at night while wearing black clothing after having drank a case of beer, the motorist who hits him will be considered at least partially responsible.

Cyclist is at fault, at least to the extent of being enough of a dumbass to try passing someone on the right in the right-hand lane. Don't put yourself in those sorts of situations; it's asking to get "right-hooked" and hit.

If you do find yourself in that situation, the way to get out of it is a quick turn to the right, inside the turning radius of the car. This takes a little practice and preparation before the fact, but it can be done instintively when you need to.

when a bike is traveling next to a car, in the same lane then the cager must take caution when making a right turn.

I blame the car driver.

If the cyclist has the right to be in the lane, then the car cut him off and made an unsafe turn.

I'm sorry to hear that your friend was hurt.

Vehicular cycling proponents like myself argue that when approaching an intersection, cyclists should merge away from the curb and into the middle of the lane, and should not ride to the right of cars in the right lane, in order to protect themselves from this type of right hook collision. We argue that motorists will never be reliable at spotting cyclists in their blind spot when they prepare to turn right, even though some motorists should certainly be more careful. This includes cyclists simply matching speed with motor traffic and not passing.

Despite this basic problem curbside intersection approaches, some governments have developed cycling programs and laws that encourage cyclists to ride to the right of motor traffic at intersections; many of these goverments attempt to place the onus on the motorist to yield before turning right across the cyclist's path. If the state or municipality your friend was in has a statute or ordinance that encourages or requires cyclists to ride to the right or there was a striped bike lane in that location, the motorist may have acted illegally or the city may be liable for creating an unsafe roadway. Such a collision could also be used as grounds to challenge the stay-right law.

It might also be argued that the driver did not approach the right curb as close as practicable before turning right, which is also the law in most states. This would require he merge with bicycle traffic before the turn.

If your friend was actually passing on the right and not in a separate lane, he may have no legal leg to stand on.

Legalities, blame, and bike lanes aside, if you're gonna swim with the big fish, please please please learn to position yourself at intersections according to your destination or prepare to die.

Cyclist is at fault, at least to the extent of being enough of a dumbass to try passing someone on the right in the right-hand lane. Don't put yourself in those sorts of situations; it's asking to get "right-hooked" and hit.

If you do find yourself in that situation, the way to get out of it is a quick turn to the right, inside the turning radius of the car. This takes a little practice and preparation before the fact, but it can be done instintively when you need to.

Like CBHI... I tend to agree that if the cyclist is trying to pass on the right, he is at fault, but on the other hand, it is quite common for a motorist to either race to a corner or attempt to pass a cyclist with the notion that they, the car driver, should not have to wait for a person on a bike.

I have been nearly right hooked by motorists making right turns from left lanes... there is no justification for that, yet it happens. And yeah, the quick turn works.

But motorists do pass cyclists and then try to turn... that is NOT the cyclists fault.

There's no reason both the motor vehicle operator and the cyclist couldn't be at fault - one failing to signal and the other riding in the car's blind spot.

Am I wrong?

Kevin

classic right hook.

bikes and cars generally allowed to share lanes wide enough for bike and car.

motorist needs to exercise due care and failed to do so, slowing and turning into vehicle traffic (bike) on the right.

motorist at fault, cyclist stupid to be next to slowing car without evasive braking/lateral.

There's no reason both the motor vehicle operator and the cyclist couldn't be at fault - one failing to signal and the other riding in the car's blind spot.

Am I wrong?

Kevin

Nope, you are right. It all comes down to who passed whom and when.

If the cyclist is passing, they are responsible. If the motorist did the passing... they are responsible.

But either way, the cyclist loses. :(

This is why when it comes to intersections, it is best to NOT share... one should simply move to the center of the lane on approach to intersections. Of course if you have a JAM that intends on turning no matter what, and does so from a left lane... the cyclist still loses.

Frankly I always make it a point to move out of the BL and take the lane when approaching potential turns. (especially shopping centers, and starbucks, in the mornings)

I don't always follow all of the tenets of VC, with one exception: I always take the lane - the whole lane - at an intersection.

As a practical matter here, though, it seems that your friend is out of luck. If the police testimony - based on skid patterns - is not in his favor, and the witnesses also think its his fault, he doesn't really have a very strong case. Barring additional facts not in evidence.

ironic that so many people riding bikes are afraid of getting out into traffic because they're afraid of getting hit by a car, yet, sticking to the side of the road is more likely going to result in getting hit by a car

ironic that so many people riding bikes are afraid of getting out into traffic because they're afraid of getting hit by a car, yet, sticking to the side of the road is more likely going to result in getting hit by a car

Ya it's almost counter-intuitive isn't it?

If the motorist slowed down then that would make it seem as if the cyclist was trying to pass on the right.

some of this discussion is very confusing.
without knowing speed limit, number of lanes, bike lane availablity, road signs, street paint markings and traffic conditions most of it is meaningless.

... If the police testimony - based on skid patterns ...I think the police were looking at tire marks on the side of the car, not skid marks. Sounded like stupid cops who do not know how to do a proper accident investigation.:twitchy:

"Well Mr. Cyclist, your tire hit the side of the car, so it must be your fault; regardless if the car cut you off.":notamused:

ironic that so many people riding bikes are afraid of getting out into traffic because they're afraid of getting hit by a car, yet, sticking to the side of the road is more likely going to result in getting hit by a car
I got right hooked recently because I was riding on the shoulder. It really will piss off a lot of drivers on that road if I ride on the roadway, but I easily could have ended up as roadkill if I hadn't correctly deduced that the car that had just started passing me was going to drive right through me. Generally if there is a nice shoulder I prefer to ride on it. Now that I've had this experience, I feel compelled to ride in the roadway if I feel that is safe and there is the likelihood of a right hook.

Our bike lanes generally don't go all the way to the intersection here. I always thought there was something wrong with that, but now I see it's the only way to do it. OTOH, it simply points out the fallacy of the bike lane if they disappear at every intersection.

I got right hooked recently because I was riding on the shoulder. It really will piss off a lot of drivers on that road if I ride on the roadway, but I easily could have ended up as roadkill if I hadn't correctly deduced that the car that had just started passing me was going to drive right through me. Generally if there is a nice shoulder I prefer to ride on it. Now that I've had this experience, I feel compelled to ride in the roadway if I feel that is safe and there is the likelihood of a right hook.

Our bike lanes generally don't go all the way to the intersection here. I always thought there was something wrong with that, but now I see it's the only way to do it. OTOH, it simply points out the fallacy of the bike lane if they disappear at every intersection.

Bike lanes really only have two purposes... to keep cyclists out of the way of cars, and to announce to motorists that bikes belong on the road.

ironic that so many people riding bikes are afraid of getting out into traffic because they're afraid of getting hit by a car, yet, sticking to the side of the road is more likely going to result in getting hit by a car

Any reference for how this probability of what is "more likely" was calculated? Or is that "fact" something you read on the Internet somewhere, made by somebody, based on who knows what?

Strange idea, I know, but why doesn't the person seek legal advice instead of relying on advice on an Internet forum?

I assume that he didn't receive medical treatment by posting questions on the Internet.

Strange idea, I know, but why doesn't the person seek legal advice instead of relying on advice on an Internet forum?

That's easy - because Internet advice is free. :)