Advocacy & Safety - Hit twice in the same week..

So,

This past week I've managed to get hit twice. Nothing major of course, or else I wouldn't be typing this.
Anyways,

The first incident was my cruising (In the bike lane) down a hill, approaching a gas station. A lady (Apparently didn't see me) and pulled a right, right into the bike lane to get into the gas station. Unfortunately, she didn't see me in the bike lane and I hit her passenger side door (going about 8mph).

I said, to make sure to be more careful and to look next time. She broke down and started crying in front of me. And the gas station attendent lecturing her so I figured that she probably learned her lesson.

The second incident was today, the basic same thing happened. But the person just sped off. (Hit and Run)

My question is, if this happens again. (Like the first incident), and one part of my bike ends up broken, then do I just have them pay me on the spot? Or do I have them give me their insurance/ call the police?

I've never even been in a car accident before So I have no clue.

Thanks Guys

I'd get the information and hopefully they'll have insurance. You never know there could be more damaage then seen.

As far as being hit, I don't see how the lady didn't see you if she was turning right. She would have had to drive right past you before she pulled in. Thank god she didn't hit you head on. I do agree however she learned her lesson. I'm always telling my son not to expect everybody else to grant you the right away.

Never! NEVER!! NEVER!!! take payment on the spot... Get their information, call the cops, and insist on getting the motorist a citation issued for the failure to yield to a bicyclist in a bike lane.

Too many times, people have dismissed the "accident" as minor, then find out that they were hurt (took my EX-doctor only 3 weeks to figure out that I had two broken bones and a torn ligament in a left cross collision (I was X-Rayed the same night of the crash)). Had I taken the payment up front, I'd have been out about $17,000 in medical bills, legal expenses, lost wages, as well as pain and suffering.

Since then, I've been hit again (right hook, similar to the OP's situation), and I'm glad that I insisted on the driver being cited. He was found guilty, and it's one less thing that I'll have to argue with the insurance company when it comes time to go to court or settle.

My method for avoiding right hooks now? I'm using a NR MiNewt 600 Cordless in its flash mode during my daylight rides. I can't be sure it'll work, but it's one more thing that I can use in my defense if I'm hit again.

You DID report the hit and run didn't you?

Get as much information as possible, license plate, year, make, model and color of the car, witness statements, drivers name, age, address, driver's insurance information. If the police are called to the scene get a copy of their report. Have your bike inspected by a LBS (or two or more if you have multiple shops in the area). If paramedics are dispatched to scene (and they might be as a matter of SOP) and they advise you to go to the hospital to be checked out take their advise.

List everything that was damaged:

any and all components on your bike
helmet (even if it isn't scratched but your head hit the ground replace it)
clothes
gloves
water bottles/hydration pack
backpack
pannier bag(s)
messenger bag(s)
top bag
saddle bag

DO NOT post details about the crash to this or any other forum, insurance companies DO have lawyers/investigators/interns who's job it is to surf The Net looking for any and all information to get their clients off. If the driver was clearly in the wrong do not accept the police's assertion that you were to blame.

So,

This past week I've managed to get hit twice. Nothing major of course, or else I wouldn't be typing this.
Anyways,

The first incident was my cruising (In the bike lane) down a hill, approaching a gas station. A lady (Apparently didn't see me) and pulled a right, right into the bike lane to get into the gas station. Unfortunately, she didn't see me in the bike lane and I hit her passenger side door (going about 8mph).

I said, to make sure to be more careful and to look next time. She broke down and started crying in front of me. And the gas station attendent lecturing her so I figured that she probably learned her lesson.

The second incident was today, the basic same thing happened. But the person just sped off. (Hit and Run)

My question is, if this happens again. (Like the first incident), and one part of my bike ends up broken, then do I just have them pay me on the spot? Or do I have them give me their insurance/ call the police?

I've never even been in a car accident before So I have no clue.

Thanks Guys

Always exchange info. Not doing that, could come back to bite you.

http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/rapha-ride-victim-identified-his-brother-writes-to-comfort-cycling-community/

The moderator can put this where they want

Sounds like you need to move into the travel lane as you approach the entrance to the gas station, so folks in front of you can slow down and turn right without hitting you.

While you can argue that they should yield to you as you pass on the right in the bike lane, your safety may dictate a revised approach to this area.

Sounds like you need to move into the travel lane as you approach the entrance to the gas station, so folks in front of you can slow down and turn right without hitting you.

While you can argue that they should yield to you as you pass on the right in the bike lane, your safety may dictate a revised approach to this area.

+1000. Not sure where you are, but in CA and many other states, the laws specify that cyclists can leave bike lanes (and the right side of the road) where "right turns may occur," therefore you not only can do this, but it is a good idea too.

Here is CA law as an example:

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 except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

+1000. Not sure where you are, but in CA and many other states, the laws specify that cyclists can leave bike lanes (and the right side of the road) where "right turns may occur," therefore you not only can do this, but it is a good idea too.

Here is CA law as an example:
+1, a new trend in my area of Ca is to actually veer the bike lane at intersections, so the right turn guys are actually on your right.

Things happen in 3s, so be careful!

+1, a new trend in my area of Ca is to actually veer the bike lane at intersections, so the right turn guys are actually on your right.

The biggest issue is not to overly "trust" bike lanes... as far far too many motorists do not know how to act around cyclists, whether in BL or otherwise, and those motorists make the assumptions that cyclists MUST stay in BL, which is not the case.

Sounds like your biological proximity warning system needs a tune up.

I said, to make sure to be more careful and to look next time. She broke down and started crying in front of me. And the gas station attendent lecturing her so I figured that she probably learned her lesson.

You got played. Crying is the first thing many women do when trying to get out of trouble. Don't let the alligator tears get to you, get the correct information.

http://gwadzilla.blogspot.com/2011/11/saw-posting-of-this-toy-on-facebook.html

I would like to add my voice to the chorus of people recommmending that you get the other person's information no matter what. I've been in a crash before and some of my medical expenses didn't pop up until nearly a year after the initial crash.

Fuji

Reading these statements in your original post makes it look like it isn't you who was hit twice this week. It was you hitting others twice. In just about every way that makes all the difference.

"...and I hit her passenger side door (going about 8mph)."
"...today, the basic same thing happened"

Never! NEVER!! NEVER!!! take payment on the spot... Get their information, call the cops, and insist on getting the motorist a citation issued for the failure to yield to a bicyclist in a bike lane.

Too many times, people have dismissed the "accident" as minor, then find out that they were hurt (took my EX-doctor only 3 weeks to figure out that I had two broken bones and a torn ligament in a left cross collision (I was X-Rayed the same night of the crash)). Had I taken the payment up front, I'd have been out about $17,000 in medical bills, legal expenses, lost wages, as well as pain and suffering.

Since then, I've been hit again (right hook, similar to the OP's situation), and I'm glad that I insisted on the driver being cited. He was found guilty, and it's one less thing that I'll have to argue with the insurance company when it comes time to go to court or settle.

My method for avoiding right hooks now? I'm using a NR MiNewt 600 Cordless in its flash mode during my daylight rides. I can't be sure it'll work, but it's one more thing that I can use in my defense if I'm hit again.

You DID report the hit and run didn't you?Fer Chrissakes, he was going 8 mph. Let's not make this into something it wasn't.

Fer Chrissakes, he was going 8 mph. Let's not make this into something it wasn't.

So was the guy who right hooked me, but I was moving at 20-25mph in a 35mph zone, and the damage to the car alone was according to the driver at the hearing $11K, this doesn't take my injuries into account, or my bike.

A right hook, hit and run should never be let off lightly.

DO NOT post details about the crash to this or any other forum, insurance companies DO have lawyers/investigators/interns who's job it is to surf The Net looking for any and all information to get their clients off. If the driver was clearly in the wrong do not accept the police's assertion that you were to blame.

+1000!!!!!

DO NOT post details about the crash to this or any other forum, insurance companies DO have lawyers/investigators/interns who's job it is to surf The Net looking for any and all information to get their clients off. If the driver was clearly in the wrong do not accept the police's assertion that you were to blame.
i would say: don't post identifying details of the incident until it's all sorted. not that i always follow that rule, but if it's going to be a big case (anything more than "just" a traffic citation, eg injuries, assault, etc), then i'd seriously consider it.


So was the guy who right hooked me, but I was moving at 20-25mph in a 35mph zone, and the damage to the car alone was according to the driver at the hearing $11K, this doesn't take my injuries into account, or my bike.

A right hook, hit and run should never be let off lightly.
+1

any time there's contact between two or more vehicles, there's legitimate reason to get the police involved. in most (all?) US states they won't investigate anything on private property unless there are injuries (because traffic laws don't apply on private property), but on public roads... yeah... ANY contact is seriously bad and one should not hesitate to get the police involved. unless of course it's your own damn fault, and you just want to get on with your day ;)

FWIW, my recent crash is on video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-4UGUlbL1s

the old guy seems to have tried passing me without any room to pass, without any room to get in front of me, traveling towards a red light, using a turn-only lane, going over the crest of a hill, over the center line and against oncoming traffic. then when he sees that it won't work out, he swerves into me and doesn't even slow down until i blast my air-horn. all on video. so far, it seems like the police are only issuing a formal warning for "careless driving", but that'll be all i need to make sure i get reimbursed for the wheels... i should know soon if i'll get reimbursed sooner or later. as a civil matter, a formal warning against him should be sufficient to "prove" that he's responsible for the damage caused to my wheels - technically, that means the police DID take action against him. still, i'd like to see him charged with "dangerous driving" and lose his license for six months.

i asked the investigating officer, twice, if she could explain to me what criteria wasn't met that she was not able to file charges. i haven't heard back.

this video shows a MV overtaking two cyclists while crossing the center line against oncoming traffic, forcing the oncoming car to swerve - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcFcKxSa91s

if that one gets a ticket (i'd like to think he will, even in NZ), then i'll be asking the investigating officer's supervisor what criteria wasn't met in the prior case that charges weren't filed.

I'm kind of surprised that after twice in the same week you aren't going the extra effort to take the ball out of these types of motorists hands on this one. The first two, very fortunate that damages are minimal to you (most importantly) and to your bicycle. If this is the same location, scene of the collisions, the traffic at that location is a problem, not for everyone but the two you encountered. Why didn't she see you, is that a driver training issue where she needs to look for any pedestrians or cyclists because she's so self absorbed in her commute ? Or is it an issue that is a sunrise or sunset time of collision where the light blinded her ? Or even a situation that you disappeared into a blind spot of their vehicles ? Either way I'd be looking for ways to modify my riding habits to at least reduce the same thing happening a 3rd time. I'll make this perfectly clear right now, I don't blame the cyclist, but since you've been the one that has run up against an object that is significantly bigger than you and are taking the beatings on these interactions, it wouldn't take me a 3rd time to realize that a gut feeling and instinct, coupled with slowing down at that location might be in order for self preservation.

Your plan of action would be to get the police involved on each and every encounter. That way they get the information for you. For a hit & run, unless others get that information or you are able to, you're simply going to have to rely on good samaritans and witnesses helping you out. Just me, but the best way to avoid it is to take the situation in your own hands and just realize this area is dangerous and hazardous to your health. Whatever it takes to negotiate and navigate that area incident free is the due diligence that you need to take as minimum corrective action, regardless of who is right or wrong. There are no guarantees, but by the same token if you can reduce the likelihood, that's better than doing nothing and becoming the victim a 3rd time.

+1, a new trend in my area of Ca is to actually veer the bike lane at intersections, so the right turn guys are actually on your right.

I make it a point to do this whenever possible. This way, I'm a) at less risk of getting nailed by a right-turning cager, b) not interfering with the cagers wanting to make right turns. It benefits both cyclist and cager.

i would say: don't post identifying details of the incident until it's all sorted. not that i always follow that rule, but if it's going to be a big case (anything more than "just" a traffic citation, eg injuries, assault, etc), then i'd seriously consider it.

To borrow an old saying, "The devil is in the details." What "we" may think of as not being an "identifying" detail can still lead a lawyer to information that can be used to get their client off or an insurance company to deny a claim. So it's best not to post details about a crash until after it has been settled in court.


+1

any time there's contact between two or more vehicles, there's legitimate reason to get the police involved. in most (all?) US states they won't investigate anything on private property unless there are injuries (because traffic laws don't apply on private property), but on public roads... yeah... ANY contact is seriously bad and one should not hesitate to get the police involved. unless of course it's your own damn fault, and you just want to get on with your day ;)

FWIW, my recent crash is on video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-4UGUlbL1s

the old guy seems to have tried passing me without any room to pass, without any room to get in front of me, traveling towards a red light, using a turn-only lane, going over the crest of a hill, over the center line and against oncoming traffic. then when he sees that it won't work out, he swerves into me and doesn't even slow down until i blast my air-horn. all on video. so far, it seems like the police are only issuing a formal warning for "careless driving", but that'll be all i need to make sure i get reimbursed for the wheels... i should know soon if i'll get reimbursed sooner or later. as a civil matter, a formal warning against him should be sufficient to "prove" that he's responsible for the damage caused to my wheels - technically, that means the police DID take action against him. still, i'd like to see him charged with "dangerous driving" and lose his license for six months.

i asked the investigating officer, twice, if she could explain to me what criteria wasn't met that she was not able to file charges. i haven't heard back.

this video shows a MV overtaking two cyclists while crossing the center line against oncoming traffic, forcing the oncoming car to swerve - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcFcKxSa91s

if that one gets a ticket (i'd like to think he will, even in NZ), then i'll be asking the investigating officer's supervisor what criteria wasn't met in the prior case that charges weren't filed.

To borrow an old saying, "The devil is in the details." What "we" may think of as not being an "identifying" detail can still lead a lawyer to information that can be used to get their client off or an insurance company to deny a claim. So it's best not to post details about a crash until after it has been settled in court.

True,especially in this case where the OP posted, if true, that on both occasions the bike hit the car. Supposedly the car was making a turn in front of the bike. Still, an argument could be made, probably successfully, that the bike rider was not exercising due caution and was the one who, by not operating in a manner that was safe for conditions, caused the collisions and any damage to the motor vehicle.

Sure would take the wind out of any claims against the other operator or their insurance company.

If it happens again, fall down and play dead until the paramedics arrive and "revive" you.

The offending driver might then take it seriously.

My first reaction is that if you've been right hooked twice that you should be leaving the bike lane before you get to these spots. AASHTO recommends that the bike lane be dashed or stop before intersections so that motorists will merge to the right and novice bicyclists will move to the left. If the bike lane isn't safe (i.e. you've been right hooked twice) DON'T stay in the bike lane.

DE and PA have a number of new and existing bike lanes to the right of right turn arrows, encouraging these types of collisions. While engineers in DE agreed to stripe the lane when I wrote about AASHTO standards and because it used to be a RTOL lane (now right and straight), when actually installed the bike lane is still solid with a bike symbol and a straight arrow. Some of these installations in DE have signs telling motorists to yield to bicyclists, but a large portion do not. (No signs in PA; I've been told the right of way is unclear). Visibility for the some of the lanes in DE is very bad - cars leaving one of the shopping centers can't see bicyclists in the bike lane if there are cars parked at the edge of the lot, or if snow is piled up in the winter.

Since these bike lanes easily lead to the collisions you've already experienced twice, I have two additional recommendations

Write to the DOT and ask that the bike lane be replaced by sharrows or at least dotted, mentioning your collisions. My experience leads me to be pessimistic (won't install sharrows because the standard is a door zone bike lane, planners don't know bicyclists are legally allowed to left turn lanes and worse), you may be lucky, or your area may actually try to follow standards (as weak as they are).

Second, I would also recommend you get the drivers information, and from any witnesses if available and willing. It's fairly common for people in collisions (motorists as well as bicyclists) not to notice injuries at the time, but for problems to become apparent in the following days or week.

True,especially in this case where the OP posted, if true, that on both occasions the bike hit the car. Supposedly the car was making a turn in front of the bike. Still, an argument could be made, probably successfully, that the bike rider was not exercising due caution and was the one who, by not operating in a manner that was safe for conditions, caused the collisions and any damage to the motor vehicle.

Sure would take the wind out of any claims against the other operator or their insurance company.

I very much doubt this would happen. In fact, in many states, in a civil lawsuit, cyclists are considered the same as if it was a car/pedestrian collision (in our favor, this time) and the driver has a far heavier burden to prove it was the other that caused it. While criminal law hasn't caught up, civil law is actually usually pretty fair to cyclists... the man with the more dangerous vehicle is found to have more responsibility.

And I don't think any court, anywhere, will find 8mph too fast for conditions. The driver clearly has the responsibility to yield to traffic in the bike lane, at least according to every state law I know of. Almost by definition, if a cyclist hit her, she didn't yield. A driver would have to prove that, even with her not yielding, the cyclist had a "last clear chance" to avoid the collision, and that's a heavy burden to prove (and even then may only see a partial judgment).

True,especially in this case where the OP posted, if true, that on both occasions the bike hit the car. Supposedly the car was making a turn in front of the bike. Still, an argument could be made, probably successfully, that the bike rider was not exercising due caution and was the one who, by not operating in a manner that was safe for conditions, caused the collisions and any damage to the motor vehicle.

Sure would take the wind out of any claims against the other operator or their insurance company.

Yep, the doctrine of last clear chance comes into play. Even though the motorist commuted an illegal by possibly not signalling prior to the turn or by turning directly in front of the cyclist. If the cyclist had an opportunity to avoid the collision and didn't they can still be held accountable.

I very much doubt this would happen. In fact, in many states, in a civil lawsuit, cyclists are considered the same as if it was a car/pedestrian collision (in our favor, this time) and the driver has a far heavier burden to prove it was the other that caused it. While criminal law hasn't caught up, civil law is actually usually pretty fair to cyclists... the man with the more dangerous vehicle is found to have more responsibility.

And I don't think any court, anywhere, will find 8mph too fast for conditions. The driver clearly has the responsibility to yield to traffic in the bike lane, at least according to every state law I know of. Almost by definition, if a cyclist hit her, she didn't yield. A driver would have to prove that, even with her not yielding, the cyclist had a "last clear chance" to avoid the collision, and that's a heavy burden to prove (and even then may only see a partial judgment).

Actually, too fast for conditions is seldom defined by a number. A person can be traveling at 1mph and still be considered to fast for conditions. If a person is traveling on a sidewalk bet the base reference speed is that of a pedestrian, about 3mph.


What state are you in where the relative dangerousness of a vehicle is a factor in determining responsibility for a collision?

It might make a lo of sense to have a little pre-made form you could keep in a plastic bag with a pen and small camera, along with your bike tools.. We carry a camera with us at all times in our car..

Get as much information as possible, license plate, year, make, model and color of the car, witness statements, drivers name, age, address, driver's insurance information. If the police are called to the scene get a copy of their report. Have your bike inspected by a LBS (or two or more if you have multiple shops in the area). If paramedics are dispatched to scene (and they might be as a matter of SOP) and they advise you to go to the hospital to be checked out take their advise.

List everything that was damaged:

any and all components on your bike
helmet (even if it isn't scratched but your head hit the ground replace it)
clothes
gloves
water bottles/hydration pack
backpack
pannier bag(s)
messenger bag(s)
top bag
saddle bag

DO NOT post details about the crash to this or any other forum, insurance companies DO have lawyers/investigators/interns who's job it is to surf The Net looking for any and all information to get their clients off. If the driver was clearly in the wrong do not accept the police's assertion that you were to blame.

The biggest issue is not to overly "trust" bike lanes... as far far too many motorists do not know how to act around cyclists, whether in BL or otherwise, and those motorists make the assumptions that cyclists MUST stay in BL, which is not the case.

+1!!!!!!

Not only do not take money, but if you feel any pain at all go to the hospital. This past summer a man in Chicago got hit, he said he felt fine and refused a ride to the hospital, he died a few hours later. You don't know how badly you are injured.

http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2011/07/after-bike-crash-go-to-damn-hospital.html

Actually, too fast for conditions is seldom defined by a number. A person can be traveling at 1mph and still be considered to fast for conditions.

Well, yes, I just don't think 8mph is going to be to be the number that ends up defining it, even considering sidewalks. :p


What state are you in where the relative dangerousness of a vehicle is a factor in determining responsibility for a collision?

Keep in mind, I said civil only. Civil cases, especially with cyclists and pedestrians, tend to favor the more vulnerable road user.

It might make a lot of sense to have a little pre-made form you could keep in a plastic bag with a pen and small camera, along with your bike tools.. We carry a camera with us at all times in our car..

I've heard that advice in several commercials on TV from lawyers. And it makes a lot of sense. Both from a motorist and cyclist perspective. If you can find one cheap enough a small digital recorder might not be a bad idea either.

Every vehicle near with is a right hook.

Every vehicle oncoming is a left hook.