Advocacy & Safety - Involved in crash, police report blames me

I was involved in a collsion where I was traveling in the bike lane of a 2 way road that has 2-3 lanes in each direction. I had a green light that had been green for awhile - a number of cars had proceeded through before I did. At the time that I went through the intersection, however, there were no cars on my side of the road. As I went through the intersection, I was hit straight on by a woman making a left turn. It was a pretty low speed collision so I (extremely thankfully) was okay; I ended up with just a couple of sore spots. At the time, my leg was bothering me quite a bit so both the police and an ambulance were called; I was taken to the ER to get checked out.

I got the police report yesterday and it blames ME for the accident. The driver claims that she had a green left turn arrow (which means that I should have had a red light). What bothers me, and what I think may affect my ability to dispute this, is that the people in the car behind her also say that she the left turn arrow was green whereas there were no witnesses on my side of the street. This can't be true because I went back to the intersection to see how it works and there's no way the arrow was green - this only happens while the light on my side of the road is red. However, since as I mentioned a number of cars had gone through before me, it's pretty much impossible for there to have been a green left turn arrow; it would have been long gone.

Essentially, they're saying that I came up to an intersection with a red light, saw cars turning left from the opposite direction, and decided to go through anyway :wtf:. My thoughts are that the driver probably thought it was safe to make a turn because there were no cars at the time and, once she decided it was safe to go, stopped paying attention. I feel that I should be compensated for my medical bills and to fix my bike, but I'm worried that the police report has completely screwed me over (and, how can the police assign blame if they did not witness the accident?) So...do I have any recourse?

The jury just came in.....you ran the red light.

How far behind in seconds did you proceed through the intersection after the last car traveling in your direction? Could it have turned red? Does the road have traffic sensors? They won't pick up bikes and can let the light change when no traffic is detected.

Is it possible that she had a green turn light (yield to opposing traffic) instead of a green turn arrow (right of way)? Unless you can prove (not likely) you had a green light her witnesses will win the case for her. Good luck!

Since you probably were the last thru the green light, it may very well have turned red by the time you were in the intersection. The woman may also have gotten a green arrow, but she DIDNT see that traffic was clear. She just did a knee jerk response to the green arrow and took off without checking. Hard to tell how a court case would come out. I certainly would check the timing of the lights. Does the straight ahead lane go from green to red or is there a yellow warning light before the red? How soon does the left turn arrow come on after the yellow warning or the red come on for straight traffic. Those timings would make a huge difference when presented in a court case. I certainly would take someone with me and check out all of this.

What they said -- her witness will trump your certainty. Even if the witness is actually wrong. The only way you'd win at this point would be if you could provide more witnesses or video.

If you didn't get a ticket, consider yourself lucky.

Yeah, I realize that this is probably an uphill battle that may not be worth it...it's just extremely frustrating because I am positive that I had a green light. As someone who considers herself a novice bicyclist whose only cycling activity is a 1.5 mi (each way) commute on a cruiser bike, I always slow down when the light is yellow, let alone red (yeah, I know that doesn't mean anything just because I say so; it's just that I consider myself a very cautious cyclist). I have this internal narrative in my head anytime I reach an intersection and I remember that one quite clearly - "light is green, cars have gone through, ok, someone is in the left turn lane but he/she should be looking, why is this car turning, why is this car turning, omg it's going to hit me..." I guess the problem is that I assumed that the people turning left would see me (it was 2 pm on a sunny day).

As far as the lights go - based on the fact that my light was green and at I was at the end of the light, it is even LESS likely that she had an arrow. Say I had (anti)perfect timing and the light turned yellow/red as I was going through. The next event would be for the perpendicular traffic light to turn green and for her light to be red as well, not for her left turn arrow to be green. And, on her side, there is absolutely a sign that says "yield to opposing traffic on green."

The police didn't even know that a cyclist counts as a motor vehicle - at the time, they were asking me whether I had seen the "hand up." I was like, "hand?" and the officer said, "yeah, you know, the walk signal? it should have had a hand." And the police report categorizes me as a pedestrian. Anyway, I'm just ranting because I know I did nothing wrong. My guess is that the police asked a suggestive question like "did you have the light or did you have the arrow?" Regardless of what was said, I was already in the ambulance so I wasn't able to stick up for myself/try to find witnesses who could have backed me up (in my naievete, I didn't think there would be a problem).

Sorry for your accident. Witnesses and police are not always truthfull.
Reds Lights do not stop a driver from coming through an intersection.

A friend of mine had almost exactly the same experience. He was riding east on an arterial road and the light changed from green to yellow just as he entered the intersection. A car going west made a left turn directly in front of him and he crashed into the windshield of the car.

After being taken to the emergency room he was visited by the police officer who had already started to fill out his report based on the statement of the car driver. The officer's first greeting was to the effect that if my friend weren't in the hospital he'd be writing a ticket for running a red light. He then went through what he had written in the report which was that the driver had been waiting to turn left, had gotten a green arrow, and proceeded with her turn. Fortunately my friend had the presence of mind to ask whether the driver got this green arrow before or after through traffic had had a green. According to the driver's statement, she had waited while through traffic had a green and then got the green arrow when the through light changed to yellow. But, as my friend knew, at that intersection the arrow appears at the start of the green cycle, not at the end. So he asked the officer to check on the operation of that traffic signal and verify that it couldn't have happened in the order described by the driver. In the end the report got changed, fault was assigned to the driver and her insurance paid for my friend's injuries and damages. But it took quite a bit of discussion to get the officer to finally change his mind about what had happened.

We suspect that the driver wasn't deliberately lying, but that immediately after the crash she looked up at the light and saw a green arrow - but at that point she was looking at the light for southbound traffic on the cross street. In the confusion and emotions related to a crash it's easy to make mistakes and eye witness accounts are frequently subject to error. Both your case and my friend's show the problem that occurs when police initially get their information from the driver and feel they already know what happened before they ever get to hear the cyclist's version of the story since he's been taken away by the EMTs.

Hope you're able to get this straightened out and get your damages covered.

What's with this thread? Why are we assuming the woman didn't just run the red? Because a driver would never do such a thing?

Give the guy a break, sounds like he's just another victim of motorized assault to me.

I guess the problem is that I assumed that the people turning left would see me (it was 2 pm on a sunny day).

As far as the lights go - based on the fact that my light was green and at I was at the end of the light, it is even LESS likely that she had an arrow. Say I had (anti)perfect timing and the light turned yellow/red as I was going through. The next event would be for the perpendicular traffic light to turn green and for her light to be red as well, not for her left turn arrow to be green.

From your observations of the signal phase sequence I suspect you are correct - you had a stale green or yellow light, maybe even turning red while you were in the intersection, and the left turning drivers had a circular green (or circular yellow/red), not a green left turn arrow.

I think it's likely that the left turning driver hit the gas when she saw what looked like a gap in traffic. The driver didn't notice you because you were in the bike lane way over at the far right edge of the road, where the cars just ahead of you screened you from view:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/leftcross.png

Many cyclists suggest that a more leftward position improves visibility in these situations, discouraging left cross collisions as well as discouraging right hooks.

Check out this article by Keri Caffery on Commute Orlando, "Preventing the Left Cross:"
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/06/13/animation-preventing-the-left-cross/

Note that the driver was absolutely at fault if you entered the intersection before the signal turned red, but the information above might help you feel more empowered to reduce the chances of this happening in the future. I recommend that you do what Prathmann's friend did as described in his post, verifying the signal phase sequence and the fact that traffic had just been moving in your direction.

What's with this thread? Why are we assuming the woman didn't just run the red? Because a driver would never do such a thing?

Give the guy a break, sounds like he's just another victim of motorized assault to me.

The degree of detail and care in observation that olazola put into her descriptions lead me to give her the benefit of the doubt that she entered the intersection on green and that the oncoming motorist did not have a green arrow. However, experience suggests that this type of collision doesn't require the motorist to have run a red light. Motorists are notoriously lousy at permissive left turns, often mistaking circular greens for protected green turn arrows, and they often fail to see oncoming traffic near the curb when focused on the travel lanes.

I was involved in a collsion where I was traveling in the bike lane of a 2 way road that has 2-3 lanes in each direction. I had a green light that had been green for awhile - a number of cars had proceeded through before I did. At the time that I went through the intersection, however, there were no cars on my side of the road. As I went through the intersection, I was hit straight on by a woman making a left turn. It was a pretty low speed collision so I (extremely thankfully) was okay; I ended up with just a couple of sore spots. At the time, my leg was bothering me quite a bit so both the police and an ambulance were called; I was taken to the ER to get checked out.

I got the police report yesterday and it blames ME for the accident. The driver claims that she had a green left turn arrow (which means that I should have had a red light). What bothers me, and what I think may affect my ability to dispute this, is that the people in the car behind her also say that she the left turn arrow was green whereas there were no witnesses on my side of the street. This can't be true because I went back to the intersection to see how it works and there's no way the arrow was green - this only happens while the light on my side of the road is red. However, since as I mentioned a number of cars had gone through before me, it's pretty much impossible for there to have been a green left turn arrow; it would have been long gone.

Essentially, they're saying that I came up to an intersection with a red light, saw cars turning left from the opposite direction, and decided to go through anyway :wtf:. My thoughts are that the driver probably thought it was safe to make a turn because there were no cars at the time and, once she decided it was safe to go, stopped paying attention. I feel that I should be compensated for my medical bills and to fix my bike, but I'm worried that the police report has completely screwed me over (and, how can the police assign blame if they did not witness the accident?) So...do I have any recourse?

Welcome to the wonderful world of cycling where the motorist is presumed innocent and the cyclist is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

I'm glad that you're relatively okay.

Yeah, I realize that this is probably an uphill battle that may not be worth it...it's just extremely frustrating because I am positive that I had a green light. As someone who considers herself a novice bicyclist whose only cycling activity is a 1.5 mi (each way) commute on a cruiser bike, I always slow down when the light is yellow, let alone red (yeah, I know that doesn't mean anything just because I say so; it's just that I consider myself a very cautious cyclist). I have this internal narrative in my head anytime I reach an intersection and I remember that one quite clearly - "light is green, cars have gone through, ok, someone is in the left turn lane but he/she should be looking, why is this car turning, why is this car turning, omg it's going to hit me..." I guess the problem is that I assumed that the people turning left would see me (it was 2 pm on a sunny day).

As far as the lights go - based on the fact that my light was green and at I was at the end of the light, it is even LESS likely that she had an arrow. Say I had (anti)perfect timing and the light turned yellow/red as I was going through. The next event would be for the perpendicular traffic light to turn green and for her light to be red as well, not for her left turn arrow to be green. And, on her side, there is absolutely a sign that says "yield to opposing traffic on green."

The police didn't even know that a cyclist counts as a motor vehicle - at the time, they were asking me whether I had seen the "hand up." I was like, "hand?" and the officer said, "yeah, you know, the walk signal? it should have had a hand." And the police report categorizes me as a pedestrian. Anyway, I'm just ranting because I know I did nothing wrong. My guess is that the police asked a suggestive question like "did you have the light or did you have the arrow?" Regardless of what was said, I was already in the ambulance so I wasn't able to stick up for myself/try to find witnesses who could have backed me up (in my naivete, I didn't think there would be a problem).

Again, I'm sorry about your accident. Sadly, you are probably are going to have a very uphill battle in winning in court. What city and state did this occur in? Were you ticketed? How much damage did your bike receive?

What I would suggest is to get together with some friends go to that intersection at the time that the crash occurred and video tape the natural lighting conditions, as well as the light change sequence.

I'd recommend that you go out and get a video of the intersection, from both directions, and as safely as you can recreate the accident.

No matter what, if you get cited, fight it. All to often witnesses will fail to appear, and that could be used to strengthen your position.

I also recommend you go back to the intersection and shoot video on how the lights change.

Thanks for the advice so far. I'm absolutely okay and am only expecting the ambulance bill and the ER bill, nothing more.


What city and state did this occur in? Were you ticketed? How much damage did your bike receive?

I was riding in Philadelphia (my first problem, maybe). I wasn't ticketed. The bike damage isn't too bad, as far as I can tell (I'm told that I can probably bend the fork/handlebars back into position myself). I'm a student, though, so to pay for the ambulance ride/ER visit and the bike repair that was caused by something that wasn't even my fault is a hard pill to swallow.
http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/8452/p1010246.png
The rear wheel is out of true or bent, I think.

My main concern is not the bike but is that my health insurance could try to subrogate (get their money back) if they see that my bills are due to injuries caused by a third party. I want to make a claim against her insurance but, if they find me at fault, I'm guessing that I'll get nothing. However, I do think that her insurance should pay the cost of fixing my bike and, even if she has no fault insurance (which would cover my medical bills, I believe), it will not cover property damage. I'm definitely going to videotape the intersection and talk to the police officer, but if I can't get him to amend his report am I SOL? I don't think the dollar amounts will be worth going to court over.

Thanks for the advice so far. I'm absolutely okay and am only expecting the ambulance bill and the ER bill, nothing more.

Those two alone can be a "hard pill" to swallow.


I was riding in Philadelphia (my first problem, maybe). I wasn't ticketed. The bike damage isn't too bad, as far as I can tell (I'm told that I can probably bend the fork/handlebars back into position myself). I'm a student, though, so to pay for the ambulance ride/ER visit and the bike repair that was caused by something that wasn't even my fault is a hard pill to swallow.
http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/8452/p1010246.png
The rear wheel is out of true or bent, I think.

Take your bike to your LBS (local bike shop) and have them do an estimate on what it will take to bring it back to new condition. Your front wheel should probably be replaced.


My main concern is not the bike but is that my health insurance could try to subrogate (get their money back) if they see that my bills are due to injuries caused by a third party. I want to make a claim against her insurance but, if they find me at fault, I'm guessing that I'll get nothing. However, I do think that her insurance should pay the cost of fixing my bike and, even if she has no fault insurance (which would cover my medical bills, I believe), it will not cover property damage. I'm definitely going to videotape the intersection and talk to the police officer, but if I can't get him to amend his report am I SOL? I don't think the dollar amounts will be worth going to court over.

Sadly, that's about all you can do, and as was noted hope that the drivers witnesses do a no show on the court date. Also if you can get the same officer to meet you at the intersection to watch how the light cycles that should help get him to change his report and see that the driver and not you was at fault.

I was riding in Philadelphia (my first problem, maybe).

What intersection in Philly? There are intersections in Philly where the green left turn arrow happens at the end of the cycle. Well, there's at least one: S. 34th Street and Grays Ferry Ave. It's common for drivers to get confused and try to turn or go straight on a red due to the uncommon signal phase.

Riding in Philly is only a problem if you actually try to use the bike "lanes" :)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=philadelphia&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.751524,113.818359&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Philadelphia,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.939817,-75.199184&spn=0,0.055575&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.939825,-75.199303&panoid=PI53CYDCQyGbeZn7U5ZZpA&cbp=12,110.57,,0,20.36

OP, check the intersection for Red Light Cameras.

The degree of detail and care in observation that olazola put into her descriptions lead me to give her the benefit of the doubt that she entered the intersection on green and that the oncoming motorist did not have a green arrow. However, experience suggests that this type of collision doesn't require the motorist to have run a red light. Motorists are notoriously lousy at permissive left turns, often mistaking circular greens for protected green turn arrows, and they often fail to see oncoming traffic near the curb when focused on the travel lanes.

They often fail to see oncoming traffic in the middle of the travel lanes when they are focused on the travel lanes. Bicyclists must be prepared to be overlooked no matter where they are in the street.

In addition to the red light camera, if there's a chance that the light malfunctioned, go to the city clerk's office and make a public records request for all work orders, inspection reports and any other documentation related to the signal lights at that intersection.

What's with this thread? Why are we assuming the woman didn't just run the red? Because a driver would never do such a thing?

Give the guy a break, sounds like he's just another victim of motorized assault to me.

Thank you for saying it. I was about to say the same thing.

After perusing the posts in this thread, it reminded me of two situations I was in. Just the other day, I went into an intersection on a green light, and noticed before I was even under the traffic light, it went yellow. I started to wonder, since my bike is obviously not the weight of a car, I presume the light will cycle through faster.

I also had a situation recently. I was going through an intersection continuing straight, when a vehicle sped up to and through the left turn arrow in order to beat it. I saw them as they were pulling this moronic move. As they were speeding through it, I was halfway through the intersection. I had traffic behind me. But I hit the brakes anyway. While shaking my head, I stared at the motorist as he came closer to me. I caught the motorist's attention when he was about five feet from me. I continued to shake my head.

Then I continued on towards my house.

Very similar thing happened to me last year (I was in my car though). I realised there was no way I could prove I was not at fault so just put it behind me. I am still thinking seriously about a helmet camera for my bicycle.

Pennsylvania is a somewhat choice no-fault insurance state, under which your ambulance ride and full medical cost are likely paid by the motorist insurance as either a cyclist or pedestrian.
http://www.eqgroup.com/no-fault_explained.htm

Even if the cop refuses to fix his report based on his/motorist incorrect claims of light sequencing, you still have a chance of getting your bike paid for as well.
Points in your favor:
you are certain of the green light as you entered the intersection,
witness, motorist and police report cannot be correct based on video, or city information of how those intersection lights sequence,
police officer who wrote the report is ignorant of the law as cyclist are vehicle operators and not pedestrians. How can the cop perform a proper investigation and report if he does not even know the key laws to the investigation?
Cops assumption it was cyclist fault prior to interviewing cyclist.

Since the motorist insurance is likely on the hook for the medical payment, if you convince them you are willing to take the driver to small claims court, they may just pay up (cost for them paying less than the court hassle for their paying customer). But if there was damage to the car, this could backfire with a counter suit against cyclist to pay for damages to the car.

Since you probably were the last thru the green light, it may very well have turned red by the time you were in the intersection. The woman may also have gotten a green arrow, but she DIDNT see that traffic was clear.

Note that, with a grren arrow, the opposing traffic will have a red light.

I'm not sure but I don't think have a protected left green after a normal green (think about why that makes sense). That is, I suspect the standard is left green, then solid green (not the reverse order).

Note that, with a grren arrow, the opposing traffic will have a red light.

I'm not sure but I don't think have a protected left green after a normal green (think about why that makes sense). That is, I suspect the standard is left green, then solid green (not the reverse order).

That is usually the case, but there are sensor driven demand systems that do reverse the order. I have seen them around here. But I would definitely go out and video tape those lights under a wide range of conditions.

...What bothers me, and what I think may affect my ability to dispute this, is that the people in the car behind her also say that she the left turn arrow was green whereas there were no witnesses on my side of the street
It's the fact that there are are only witnesses for her side that "make" her case. Otherwise, it would be a "he said/she said" situation.


....but I'm worried that the police report has completely screwed me over (and, how can the police assign blame if they did not witness the accident?)
It's pretty unusual for the police to observe accidents and crimes directly. It's typical to rely on witnesses and evidence to determine the "guilty" party.


So...do I have any recourse?
You have to have to create a convincing case. Without evidence or witnesses to support your side, that might not be possible to do.

What intersection in Philly? There are intersections in Philly where the green left turn arrow happens at the end of the cycle. Well, there's at least one: S. 34th Street and Grays Ferry Ave. It's common for drivers to get confused and try to turn or go straight on a red due to the uncommon signal phase.

Riding in Philly is only a problem if you actually try to use the bike "lanes" :)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=philadelphia&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.751524,113.818359&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Philadelphia,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.939817,-75.199184&spn=0,0.055575&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.939825,-75.199303&panoid=PI53CYDCQyGbeZn7U5ZZpA&cbp=12,110.57,,0,20.36

Interesting. Seems like a bad design.

What intersection in Philly? There are intersections in Philly where the green left turn arrow happens at the end of the cycle.


Note that, with a grren arrow, the opposing traffic will have a red light.

I'm not sure but I don't think have a protected left green after a normal green (think about why that makes sense). That is, I suspect the standard is left green, then solid green (not the reverse order).

That is usually the case, but there are sensor driven demand systems that do reverse the order.

If this intersection has such a system (I need to go back and check on a weekday), then there is another somewhat plausible situation, although I think that it's pretty unlikely. What I described earlier would be a "normal" cycle where there are cars on the road throughout the green light. However, in my case the cars that had gone through the intersection on my side went well before I did. If the light cycle is accelerated in these situations (because, like Chris516 said, I wouldn't have triggered the sensor), then, even though I had a green light I would have caught the tail end of it and by the time I was in the intersection they would have had a green arrow. Then, it's really just a poorly chosen traffic light cycle design for a road with bike lanes, no? Whose fault is it then (other than the city planners...)? I doubt that the cycle would be that fast, though.

If the light cycle is accelerated in these situations (because, like Chris516 said, I wouldn't have triggered the sensor), then, even though I had a green light I would have caught the tail end of it and by the time I was in the intersection they would have had a green arrow. Then, it's really just a poorly chosen traffic light cycle design for a road with bike lanes, no? Whose fault is it then (other than the city planners...)? I doubt that the cycle would be that fast, though.
It does sometimes happen that one person enters an intersection legally (i.e. before the light turns red) but is still in the intersection by the time opposing traffic gets a green signal. In that case the opposing traffic is required to wait and allow the other traffic to clear the intersection. So in the case you cite I'd place the fault on the person making the left turn since you were already in the intersection when they made their turn. Unfortunately it may be hard to provide evidence that this was the situation when your crash occurred.

If it were just your word against the driver's you might have a chance. But considering you have two witnesses willing to attest to the fact that they had an arrow and not just a green light you probably don't have much of a chance.

It does sometimes happen that one person enters an intersection legally (i.e. before the light turns red) but is still in the intersection by the time opposing traffic gets a green signal. In that case the opposing traffic is required to wait and allow the other traffic to clear the intersection. So in the case you cite I'd place the fault on the person making the left turn since you were already in the intersection when they made their turn. Unfortunately it may be hard to provide evidence that this was the situation when your crash occurred.

It's not always legal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. This is a common misconception. I think what you are referring to is entering the intersection at a speed that is too great to safely stop when the light turns yellow. In other words, if the light turns yellow 300ft before you get to it and you are traveling 40mph, it's ok to enter the intersection even though the light will turn red while you are in it.

AFAIK this doesn't apply to someone STOPPED in the intersection waiting to turn. At least in Tampa, you would get a ticket if you parked in the middle of the intersection to wait for traffic to clear. There are some intersections where even though your light has turned red the light in the opposing lane is still green.

It's not always legal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. This is a common misconception. I think what you are referring to is entering the intersection at a speed that is too great to safely stop when the light turns yellow.

The legality of being in the intersection when the signal turns red depends on the state. I believe most states have adopted a version of the law promoted by the Uniform Vehicle Code that prohibits entering the intersection (passing the stop line) on a red signal. This allows a driver who entered the intersection on yellow to lawfully clear the intersection after the all-red clearance phase has begun. This version of the law is friendlier to drivers because (1) they can still see when the signal turns red or not before they enter the intersection, and (2) they are not encouraged to speed out of the intersection or to violate the right of way of pedestrians in crosswalks when turning just to clear the intersection.

The trouble for cyclists is that on wide, high speed intersections the all-red clearance interval is often too short for bicyclists to clear the intersection if bicyclists enter just before red. Cyclists are afforded adequate yellow time on such signals to stop before entering the intersection if they wouldn't make it through by the end of the clearance interval. But if they do exercise their legal right to enter just before red they can find themselves facing conflicting traffic movements.

If it's anything like L.A.,I would go to the intersection and video tape all of the people running the left turn light while the light is green for you.

For future instances, I would point out that there are a bunch of eBay vendors that have the #3 keychain video camera back in stock. I just ordered 2 of them $25 shipped.

Note that, with a grren arrow, the opposing traffic will have a red light.

I'm not sure but I don't think have a protected left green after a normal green (think about why that makes sense). That is, I suspect the standard is left green, then solid green (not the reverse order).

Nope. And even time of day can make a difference. Topanga Canyon Drive (San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles) at Oxnard changes. Sometimes there are green arrows both North and South. Other times the Green Arrow North is after it has been solid green North and South.

Someone has already referenced a friend that beat something like this because the dirver claimed a sequence that does not hapen. If the OP is thniking of persuing thsi they cshould check the light sequence at the same time of day and compare to the report.

Perhaps I missed it. But I did not see anything about jsut what impacted what. California (like most states) is a last clear chance state. That puts fault on hte last person who could have reasonably avoided the accident. Car hits bike fromthe side, car is at fault. bike hits side of car, bike is at fault. Both these assuming there was some chance to stop.

Witnesses and police are not always truthfull.
Reds Lights do not stop a driver from coming through an intersection.


Very true! Could not have said it better myself!


how to cure diarrhea (http://bloating.besthelptips.com)
back ache (http://back-ache.besthelptips.com/)
how to get rid of bronchitis (http://bronchitis.besthelptips.com/)
do it yourself carpet cleaning (http://carpet-cleaning.besthelptips.com/)

If the OP is thniking of persuing thsi they cshould check the light sequence at the same time of day and compare to the report.

Unfortunately, the report says nothing but (paraphrased) "Driver and two witnesses state they had the right of way (green turn arrow). Pedestrian :mad: says she thought she had the right of way." (which is untrue - I said that I had a green light but, clearly, he did not use my words in the report) I called the police officer to ask about the light sequence (i.e., what happened before the green arrow) and he was wholly unhelpful. He couldn't understand what I meant and kept saying that "They said that they had the green arrow and I watched the traffic signal and it was working properly." I told him that I wasn't arguing that the signal was malfunctioning, just that I wanted to know what color the light was directly preceding the green arrow. He said "well, it should have been red" then he reminded me that he had asked me whether I had seen the "red hand" and whether I was in the road or in the sidewalk. I tried again to explain to him what I wanted to know and he hung up on me. Didn't actually answer the question and didn't understand that I was supposed to be in the road (I was in the bike lane!).


Perhaps I missed it. But I did not see anything about jsut what impacted what. California (like most states) is a last clear chance state. That puts fault on hte last person who could have reasonably avoided the accident. Car hits bike fromthe side, car is at fault. bike hits side of car, bike is at fault. Both these assuming there was some chance to stop.

I believe that the official term for what happened to me would be "a t-boning." She hit me dead center. In fact, I realized soon after how lucky I was that the driver stopped because I would have been directly run over. I'm guessing this fact would help if I end up in court, but as long as her insurance covers my med bills I can deal with fixing my bike. I haven't taken it to a bike shop yet, but I think that the only thing I'll really need is a new front wheel.

Does anybody know anything more about choice no-fault states? From what I gather it's possible that she may not have pure no-fault insurance, but I don't really understand what this means for me. I've read quite a bit but most resources refer to accidents where both parties have auto insurance (I do not).

Unfortunately, the report says nothing but (paraphrased) "Driver and two witnesses state they had the right of way (green turn arrow). Pedestrian :mad: says she thought she had the right of way." (which is untrue - I said that I had a green light but, clearly, he did not use my words in the report) I called the police officer to ask about the light sequence (i.e., what happened before the green arrow) and he was wholly unhelpful. He couldn't understand what I meant and kept saying that "They said that they had the green arrow and I watched the traffic signal and it was working properly." I told him that I wasn't arguing that the signal was malfunctioning, just that I wanted to know what color the light was directly preceding the green arrow. He said "well, it should have been red" then he reminded me that he had asked me whether I had seen the "red hand" and whether I was in the road or in the sidewalk. I tried again to explain to him what I wanted to know and he hung up on me. Didn't actually answer the question and didn't understand that I was supposed to be in the road (I was in the bike lane!).



I believe that the official term for what happened to me would be "a t-boning." She hit me dead center. In fact, I realized soon after how lucky I was that the driver stopped because I would have been directly run over. I'm guessing this fact would help if I end up in court, but as long as her insurance covers my med bills I can deal with fixing my bike. I haven't taken it to a bike shop yet, but I think that the only thing I'll really need is a new front wheel.

Does anybody know anything more about choice no-fault states? From what I gather it's possible that she may not have pure no-fault insurance, but I don't really understand what this means for me. I've read quite a bit but most resources refer to accidents where both parties have auto insurance (I do not).

If you haven't gone to the intersection at the time that the crash occurred and video taped it from all directions to show the light sequence I would still do that. I would also suggest that when you go and tape the intersection that if there are any pedestrians in the area that you consider interviewing them on camera as witnesses to the lights sequences.

Being as it appears that the officer who was on the scene has his mind made up as to what "really" happened that day. You may have to go to his supervisor to get anything done. I would however still invite him to the intersection at the time of day that the crash occurred, so that he can see for himself what the light sequence is.

Sadly, as you'll learn too many people still see cyclists as "pedestrians" as well as "nuisances" on the road.

Being as it appears that the officer who was on the scene has his mind made up as to what "really" happened that day. You may have to go to his supervisor to get anything done. I would however still invite him to the intersection at the time of day that the crash occurred, so that he can see for himself what the light sequence is.


The issue isn't really about the light sequence, though. We both agree that the light is functioning properly. The way he sees it, three people said that there was a green left turn arrow so there is no way that I could have had a green light. That is the only information in the statement. I wish that there was a way for me prove that the fact that I had followed cars traveling in my direction means that they could not have had the left turn arrow but I have no way of doing so.

The issue isn't really about the light sequence, though. We both agree that the light is functioning properly. The way he sees it, three people said that there was a green left turn arrow so there is no way that I could have had a green light. That is the only information in the statement. I wish that there was a way for me prove that the fact that I had followed cars traveling in my direction means that they could not have had the left turn arrow but I have no way of doing so.

That's why the suggestion of having the officer out there observing the light sequence at the time that the crash occurred. He might be able to see that you did in fact have the green light and that the motorist had jumped the gun and that that is what cause the crashed.

Sadly, as we said (and it was meant as joke but sadly it's also a true statement) when we welcomed you to the wonderful world of cycling that motorists/LEOs tend to "band" together. IF for no other reason then for the fact that LEOs also drive and can see themselves in the motorists shoes. And sadly, it takes something like that "good" doctor out in LA or the motorist who attacked an off duty LEO to get any real action.

It shouldn't be that way, as, as I've said before the last time I checked LEOs are suppose to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. And they cannot do that if one member of the crash is in the hospital and is unable to give their side of the story.

The LEOs need to take ALL factors into consideration when conducting their investigation and not jump to the defense of the motorist.

By being T-boned I'm guessing that you were not blocked from the motorist who hit you, view wasn't blocked by another motorist. When you first entered the intersection were you blocked from view by another car or were you the last vehicle to enter the intersection?

I wouldn't have triggered the sensor), then, even though I had a green light I would have caught the tail end of it and by the time I was in the intersection they would have had a green arrow. Then, it's really just a poorly chosen traffic light cycle design for a road with bike lanes, no? Whose fault is it then (other than the city planners...)? I doubt that the cycle would be that fast, though.
There would also be a yellow light in between the green and red lights.

That's why the suggestion of having the officer out there observing the light sequence at the time that the crash occurred. He might be able to see that you did in fact have the green light and that the motorist had jumped the gun and that that is what cause the crashed.

Ah, I see. I will try my best! Based on his tone with me on the phone, though, he thinks I'm an idiot for trying to say that three other people are wrong. I would never have made this post if I had even a shred of doubt that I had a green light, though, and I really wish I had been around to hear all of them describe having the arrow. None of them said anything about the arrow during the 10 minutes waiting for the EMTs/police. The only thing that the driver said was "I didn't see her!" over and over again. The witnesses (they came out to help) said "I guess you thought you could go." Anyway, thanks for all of the advice :)


By being T-boned I'm guessing that you were not blocked from the motorist who hit you, view wasn't blocked by another motorist. When you first entered the intersection were you blocked from view by another car?

No, there was a considerable amount of time between the last car traveling in my direction and me entering the intersection. There is nothing that should have prevented her from seeing me.

There would also be a yellow light in between the green and red lights.

Exactly. I've since decided that the untriggered sensor scenario is implausible.

Ah, I see. I will try my best! Based on his tone with me on the phone, though, he thinks I'm an idiot for trying to say that three other people are wrong. I would never have made this post if I had even a shred of doubt that I had a green light, though, and I really wish I had been around to hear all of them describe having the arrow. None of them said anything about the arrow during the 10 minutes waiting for the EMTs/police. The only thing that the driver said was "I didn't see her!" over and over again. The witnesses (they came out to help) said "I guess you thought you could go." Anyway, thanks for all of the advice :)

If he continues to resist, contact his supervisor and see if s/he will meet you at the intersection. Or if they would be willing to send a "stand in" officer to observe the light sequence. I hope that this hasn't soured you on cycling for transportation. As if you continue to do so this will just be one of many cases in which you will have an uphill battle in trying to convince the LEOs that you were in the right and that the motorist was wrong.


No, there was a considerable amount of time between the last car traveling in my direction and me entering the intersection. There is nothing that should have prevented her from seeing me.

How far to the right side of the road were you? Were you in the gutter pan, or hugging the curb? Or were you in the travel lane? The further we are in the travel lane the easier that we are to see. The further from the travel lane that we are the more likely the motorists brain is to filter us out as being a "non-threat." And than when a motorist makes either a left or right turn best case scenario they just cut us off. Worst case scenario as happened with you we get hit.

One of the things that probably saved you from more serious injuries was that the driver had been stopped at the light before turning.

How far to the right side of the road were you? Were you in the gutter pan, or hugging the curb? Or were you in the travel lane?

The bike lane is on the right side - I guess that's like being in the gutter pan? I certainly wasn't in the car lane. I understand that motorists aren't really looking out for cyclists and that the main problem is that I probably wasn't obvious enough and that motorists aren't trained that there are other kinds of traffic besides cars and trucks and that bikes just don't seem like threats and so on and so forth. It sucks. But, legally speaking, she should be at fault.

Today, I noticed that there are cameras at the intersection that look like this:
http://blog.trapster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/traffic-camera-on-Flickr-Photo-Sharing-4.jpg

Is this just a sensor and not a camera? Is there any chance that this could have recorded the accident?

The bike lane is on the right side - I guess that's like being in the gutter pan? I certainly wasn't in the car lane. I understand that motorists aren't really looking out for cyclists and that the main problem is that I probably wasn't obvious enough and that motorists aren't trained that there are other kinds of traffic besides cars and trucks and that bikes just don't seem like threats and so on and so forth. It sucks. But, legally speaking, she should be at fault.

Today, I noticed that there are cameras at the intersection that look like this:
http://blog.trapster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/traffic-camera-on-Flickr-Photo-Sharing-4.jpg

Is this just a sensor and not a camera? Is there any chance that this could have recorded the accident?

Looks like a camera, but likely attached to a sensor to record cars running a red light. It might have the incident, or it might not. Acting quickly may be important as they do not keep tapes very long.

Looks like a camera, but likely attached to a sensor to record cars running a red light. It might have the incident, or it might not. Acting quickly may be important as they do not keep tapes very long.

Agreed, and agreed. Question, would those sensors be sensitive enough to activate the camera if a bicycle ran a red light?