Advocacy & Safety - So who got hit?

http://www.the370z.com/exterior-interior/61053-ahh-what-has-two-wheels-sharp-pedals.html

sounds like he hit a sidewalk biker or a salmon, hard to tell. Also sounds like it was a right turn on red, so he hit the cyclist. "Crosswalk changed to the red hand before i made the turn"

http://www.the370z.com/exterior-interior/61053-ahh-what-has-two-wheels-sharp-pedals.html

It looks like the cyclist got hit, but not enough to knock the cyclist over. What is debatable is, who was the bonehead. Because, It was said at the link, that the cyclist just kept on going, not stopping to see if the driver was okay. At the same time, one response at the link of, turning around and running down the cyclist was typical for that website. Since it focuses on an expensive sports car.

Cyclist should have stopped and exchanged info. Regardless of fault, the cyclist is now guilty of a hit-and-run.

If you are in a position to yield to traffic (as the poster described) your responsibility is to yield to all traffic (including pedestrians and salmons) regardless of the direction from which they come. I have no sympathy for the driver and my sympathy for a salmon extends only to their lack of brainpower.

I'm thinking though that the cyclist may have been crossing using the cross walk, perhaps stretching the light a bit. Most drivers making rights on red are looking left and not right so it's a good chance that he would have clipped a pedestrian too.

-G

Most drivers making rights on red are looking left and not right so it's a good chance that he would have clipped a pedestrian tooYes, but most pedestrians don't have sharp pedals so the car would have been fine. And a pedestrian would have also had a harder time getting away and skipping out on any responsibility to the car and its driver.

Don't get off topic -- this is a travesty committed against a sports car, not a cyclist or pedestrian!

If you are in a position to yield to traffic (as the poster described) your responsibility is to yield to all traffic (including pedestrians and salmons) regardless of the direction from which they come. I have no sympathy for the driver and my sympathy for a salmon extends only to their lack of brainpower.

I'm thinking though that the cyclist may have been crossing using the cross walk, perhaps stretching the light a bit. Most drivers making rights on red are looking left and not right so it's a good chance that he would have clipped a pedestrian too.

-G

I can't quote the vehicle code, but I think the responsibility to avoid collisions with the wrong-way drivers rests primarily with the wrong-way driver.

I base this on my personal experience of having hit a pedestrian with my car. I pulled into a crosswalk and got T-boned by a rollerblader coming off the sidewalk from my right. We got into a verbal altercation, she called the cops, they showed up. They finally told her to shut up and move on or she was going to jail. No ticket for me.

Total damage to my car was lipstick on the window.

I can't quote the vehicle code, but I think the responsibility to avoid collisions with the wrong-way drivers rests primarily with the wrong-way driver.

I base this on my personal experience of having hit a pedestrian with my car. I pulled into a crosswalk and got T-boned by a rollerblader coming off the sidewalk from my right. We got into a verbal altercation, she called the cops, they showed up. They finally told her to shut up and move on or she was going to jail. No ticket for me.

Total damage to my car was lipstick on the window.You failed to properly yield and you want to blame the collision on a 'wrong way rollerblader'. Please do show the law the rollerblader violated by your CLAIM of wrong way blading.

You failed to properly yield and you want to blame the collision on a 'wrong way rollerblader'. Please do show the law the rollerblader violated by your CLAIM of wrong way blading.

Request denied

Don't get off topic -- this is a travesty committed against a sports car, not a cyclist or pedestrian!
Oops, sorry. I forgot that motorheads are just as passionate as cyclists.


I can't quote the vehicle code, but I think the responsibility to avoid collisions with the wrong-way drivers rests primarily with the wrong-way driver.


Whether the cyclist was on the road going the wrong way or on the sidewalk attempting to cross at the crosswalk is immaterial. The driver had a red light and can turn right only when safe to do so. Yes, he may not have expected the cyclist to come from his right but nevertheless he has to yield.

-G

Whether the cyclist was on the road going the wrong way or on the sidewalk attempting to cross at the crosswalk is immaterial. The driver had a red light and can turn right only when safe to do so. Yes, he may not have expected the cyclist to come from his right but nevertheless he has to yield.

-G

Reading the OP, I don't see where the he had a red light or was turning right -- he just said he was pulling into oncoming traffic. But based on the scratches and description, turning right into a salmon rider travelling from his right to left seems reasonable.

Here's my question: let's assume a cyclist was turning right into oncoming traffic and a motorist driving the wrong way down the street hit him. Would it then be correct to say "the cyclist had a red light and can turn right only when safe to do so. Yes, he may not have expected the motorist to come from his right but nevertheless he has to yield"?

I'm thinking the cyclist either passed the car on the right just as he started to move, or was on the sidewalk and went after the walk signal without stopping or slowing down. A right turn on red driver might not catch the cyclist coming up behind him and disobeying a traffic signal in time to avoid it.

Request deniedCan't admit you were wrong? Just keep twisting things to try and make it the bladers fault.

Reading the OP, I don't see where the he had a red light or was turning right -- he just said he was pulling into oncoming traffic. But based on the scratches and description, turning right into a salmon rider travelling from his right to left seems reasonable.
On the second page of the thread (yes, I clicked it... no idea why this is so fascinating to me) he says

Making a right hand turn at an intersection. Biker was coming from the right. Traffic was coming from the left. Crosswalk changed to the red hand before i made the turn-

Pulled out to make the right turn and the biker apparently kept coming."

Something doesn't quite add up... sounds like it has to be a salmon, the way the driver describes it. But in that case, the crosswalk hand is insignificant. That makes me think it was "cyclist passing on the right" rather than cyclist coming from the right... though crosswalk hand still shouldn't matter.

On the second page of the thread (yes, I clicked it... no idea why this is so fascinating to me) he says ...


Something doesn't quite add up... sounds like it has to be a salmon, the way the driver describes it. But in that case, the crosswalk hand is insignificant. That makes me think it was "cyclist passing on the right" rather than cyclist coming from the right... though crosswalk hand still shouldn't matter.

D'oh! I missed the second page. It sounds like the cyclist may have come off the sidewalk into the crosswalk since the driver had mentioned the crosswalk signal.

Driver's account sounds fishy to me -- he said the crosswalk signal had turned red -- I don't think most drivers watch crosswalk signals. However, my impression is that riding the "wrong way" on a sidewalk and entering a crosswalk without stopping is a high risk sidewalk riding practice, with a high accident rate <link to sidewalk riding thread>

Can't admit you were wrong? Just keep twisting things to try and make it the bladers fault.

You again??

Here, go argue with this:

275441

However, my impression is that riding the "wrong way" on a sidewalk and entering a crosswalk without stopping is a high risk sidewalk riding practice, with a high accident rate <link to sidewalk riding thread>It probably is.

That said ...

1) it's not clear that this is illegal, and failing to yield to people on the sidewalk generally is, so it sounds likely that the driver was legally at fault in his collision, and
2) there's a whole lot of conjecture here -- we don't really have enough information to reliably come to that conclusion (all we have is what the driver said -- and he didn't say much), and
3) no matter who was at fault, both parties were supposed to stop and communicate. It sounds like neither did (though the driver's account suggests that it was the cyclist that left first rather than him, but seen #2.)

It probably is.

That said ...

1) it's not clear that this is illegal, and failing to yield to people on the sidewalk generally is, so it sounds likely that the driver was legally at fault in his collision, and
2) there's a whole lot of conjecture here -- we don't really have enough information to reliably come to that conclusion (all we have is what the driver said -- and he didn't say much), and
3) no matter who was at fault, both parties were supposed to stop and communicate. It sounds like neither did (though the driver's account suggests that it was the cyclist that left first rather than him, but seen #2.)

Entering the crosswalk after the signal changes to a solid hand can get you a ticket in California.

Entering the crosswalk after the signal changes to a solid hand can get you a ticket in California.Which is something for the police to handle and not for the driver to decide he is free to make a right on red without yielding.

You again??

Here, go argue with this:

275441If you are not willing to debate your claims, why do you even post? That is generally the action of a troll.

Cyclist should have stopped and exchanged info. Regardless of fault, the cyclist is now guilty of a hit-and-run.
He just didn't see him, that's all. He thought he hit a deer. And so on...