natelutkjohn

My thoughts exactly

Helmet Head

The day you realize the connection will be the day you finally understand what I've been talking about all these years. Until you make that realization about the connection, probably not. For a hint, reread the last few posts in the exchange Gene and I are having.

Yes, quite probably the bike lane was an influencing factor. After all, being outside of the bike lane you were likely to be doing something wrong in the eyes of truck driver, so he may have felt justified in teaching you a lesson.

MarkS

Are you saying that a driver has the right to cross a bike lane any time he or she wants, without regards to the occupant of that lane? Its a SOLID line. This is the part that I don't get. And why would the cyclist be at fault if a vehicle plunged ahead across a solid line?

My understanding is that the driver of a vehicle must check for the occupants of a lane before crossing a lane marker -- not just diving in when it feels good.

genec

Pure Hoppiness... Alpine Beer Company. Good stuff. Hard to find. O'Briens has it on tap.

Even the wife likes it... enough to pick up a bottle or 6 whenever she has to go out to the east county.

More on O'Briens. Apparently their web site is down... but the link here will give you plenty of info.

genec

That may be your understanding... and the way it is written into law... but most motorists don't know that, and few ever check for occupants of a bike lane. Don't assume you have been seen.

This is the basis for what HH and others are saying... that essentially the cyclist feels safe in the BL, but there is no "protection" per se. Motorists don't care about you as a cyclist, unless you are in their way. (simplistic, but fairly true)

sbhikes

If the car slowed down, why would the cyclist need to react? Wouldn't that seem like the car was slowing for him? If the car driver then did cut off the cyclist, then he probably should have reacted, if he was able, but how was this the fault of the bike lane and not either of the two parties involved?

As for the CM issue, I'm saying that possibly the cop gave the cyclist the citation rather than the driver perhaps because of residual effects from all the CM nastiness up there, not that the driver or cyclist did anything in particular because of CM. But that's just speculation.

This is a classic right hook that could happen to any slower, small vehicle on any street regardless of bike lanes or not. As long as the motorists figure they've gotten ahead they just do whatever they heck they want. And if they haven't yet gotten ahead, they seem to figure out a way to get ahead whatever it takes to do so, no matter if it makes any sense or not.

Helmet Head

You're confusing a bike "lane" with a lane, which is a lane in name only (it is not recognized to be a lane by law or by most drivers).

A driver in the rightmost traffic lane should not be expected to remember to check for traffic to his right before merging right out of the road. If a cyclist rides with that expectation, he does at his own peril. The fact that a bike lane encourages a cyclist to ride with that hazardous expectation (usually subconscious), as exemplified by BikeinBlue as well as you now, and this is the connection that Diane cannot see, is my point.

Helmet Head

Because it's hazardous to pass a vehicle on the right that is in the rightmost lane. I wouldn't pass a cyclist on the right, let alone a car. He should react in order to avoid passing on the right (unless he's sure it's safe, and, even then, with the understanding that he's doing it at his own risk).

Maybe, maybe not. I, for one, would not risk life and limb on it. That's why I always slow down, merge left, and pass on the left in these situations. It's ingrained instinct now.

See MarkS's post above. The bike lane makes the cyclist feel he's safe to pass on the right, that he has the ROW, when he doesn't. The bike lane creates a false sense of security.

Anything is possible, but it is much less likely, probably by at least an order of magnitude, for a driver in an inside lane to suddenly swerve/turn/merge right without first checking for traffic in the adjacent traffic lane to his right than for a driver in the rightmost lane to suddenly swerve/turn/merge right without first checking for traffic in the adjacent space to his right (whether it happens to be demarcated as a bike "lane" or not).

e0richt

I dont agree with that one... a bike lane does encourage someone to pass on the right thinking its legal... heck I had a question about filtering using a bike lane and was told yes because its a "bike" lane... interestingly enough even though there are signs that the bike lanes are for bikes only, cars use them to get to lights to make right turns and to pass cars that are making left turns. I was bothered by this at first but then I realised that because the cars use it as a lane, they are more likely to look for other traffic before jumping into it...

zeytoun

See MarS's post above. He appears to be asking you about whether you are saying a car has a legal "right" to cross the bike lane at any time without risking being "at fault".

This is not the same as assuming that vehicle drivers will follow the law. Make no such assumption, and ride accordingly.

If drivers followed the law, this would prevent many right hooks. Drivers are to signal, merge into the bike lane, and turn right. A motorist who turns across the bike lane, without merging, is in violation of California law. As a merger, the motorist would be required to yield right-of-way to any present users of the lane.

That being said, make no such assumption about drivers following the law (most don't even know what the law says about right turns and bike lanes), and ride accordingly.

randya

Law enforcement officers are generally undertrained in bicyclist issues and have a pro-motorist, anti-cyclist bias. I wouldn't believe any statistics CHP or any other law enforcement agency provided vis-a-vis cyclist vs. motorist responsibility for crashes without undertaking an independent review of the data.

I won't vote in this poll because this is not a black and white issue and none of the selections allow for 'other'.

natelutkjohn

haha, only 3 votes so far, you definitly aren't alone in that.

joejack951

I must have been distracted when I typed that as that's really unclear. What I meant was that riding further left encourages faster traffic that plans to turn right to merge right behind the cyclist, assuming the cyclist had always been further left before the faster traffic caught up with him, instead of trying to pass first then turn right. Most motorists are not willing spend the extra effort to change lanes and pass a cyclist when they could just as easily wait a bit for the cyclist to clear the intersection then turn. I've found this to be true for me in both narrow and wide lanes.

I-Like-To-Bike

The angel dancing triplets are awaiting their partner. How 'bout it Gene?

MarkS

Yes, you've summed it all up. The question is, then, how was it that the cyclist in the OP got hit while lawfully riding in the bike lane and yet was held legally responsible for the accident? Is this something that he should have/could have fought?

Certainly you can't depend on drivers doing the right thing, but in the event that someone does pull in front of you when you're making way at 20 MPH it would be nice to know that at least the law is on your side.

John Forester

I have remarked before this, Diane, that your statements demonstrate that you are dangerous on the road. Why would the cyclist assume that a car on his left front slowing down was slowing down for the cyclist? That is the first strong danger signal telling the cyclist to stay clear of that motorist. Yes, I know that sometimes, but rarely, this turns into mutual slowing with the motorist expecting the cyclist to overtake on the right. However, this is sufficiently infrequent, and the cyclist so vulnerable, that the cyclist must never count on this being the situation. Stay behind that motorist, or, if possible, overtake on his left.

zeytoun

One of the complaints of the bicycling advocates is pointed out by the article referenced in the OP. It points to a recent study that shows that SFO police officers frequently refuse to fill out a police report when requests are made by an injured cyclist. Another complaint is that the police officers do not adequately understand the ROW laws when it comes to accidents, and make a bad assignment of fault. If this is the case with the OP, he should fight it.

The bigger picture issue in this thread that HH started, is that he cherry-picks his information to fit his argument. The commentor was clearly speaking about legal/financial liability. HH has repeatedly insisted his idea of responsibility is not about legal/financial liability, but that it is an attitude that one takes in order to avoid future accidents. And yet when someone is clearly speaking about legal/financial responsibility, he jumps on their statement as if it were proof of cyclists lacking his attitude of "total responsibility".

This is an irresponsible assumption. Whether or not a cyclist could have ridden more defensively to prevent an accident, they should not be criticized when, after the accident, they complain about legal liability not being properly upheld.

This assumption does not foster understanding. If one expects others to understand the difference between legal responsibility, and an attitude of responsibility, criticizing someone who is speaking about legal responsibility for their "lack" of an attitude of responsibility is confusing to normal people.

Let's all ride with an attitude of responsibility for our own safety. But when a cyclist is hit, let's encourage assigning legal/financial faut in accordance with the law. And let's not confuse the two.

Helmet Head

You have some good and fair points, Zey. I agree in this case the legal liability probably should have fallen on the motorist. But with respect to what is more relevant to cyclists in general, I think, is that the best way to avoid the 10k in bills is to avoid the crash in the first place, and so I tend to focus on the attitude and best practices that are likely to do that: the attitude and practices of vehicular cycling. In particular, it's about being able to not only answer this question while sitting at a desk:

"If the car slowed down, why would the cyclist need to react? " - sbhikes

It's about knowing the answer instinctively and acting according to it, in real time.

"Stay behind that motorist, or, if possible, overtake on his left." - John Forester

Edit: I believe bike lanes hinder cyclists from understanding this and learning it instinctively.

zeytoun

For him, once the accident has happened, legal liability is more relevant.

For us as cyclists, learning a lesson from his mishap is quite relevant.

For traffic in general, reinforcing the law is imperative.

Here's what someone brilliantly wrote in the "Stop Sign" thread.

If we ignore the issue of personal responsibility when cycling (mistakenly pursuing "liability" to its exclusion, for example), we put ourselves in danger.

If we ignore the issue of enforcing the law equitably (mistakenly pursuing "responsibility" to its exclusion, for example), we encourage illegal behavior.

These are not mutually exclusive goals, these are both vital for us as cyclists, and users of the road.

Helmet Head

Absolutely. But my audience is not him. In the offchance that he stumbles onto this forum and thread, he's still only one of many, of which only one is him. To all the rest of us, the legal liability is not relevant.

Right. Hence my focus here.

Perhaps. In any case, it's out of scope for this forum.

I agree, and this is John Ratliff's argument. I just think that on this forum of cyclists the first topic -- personal responsibility of the cyclist -- is much more relevant.

What is there to say about legal liability on this forum? We all agree about most of it, I'm sure. What is there to talk about? And what can we do about it? It's personal responsibility of the cyclist where we have the most control and disagreement, so, naturally, that is where most of the discussion and focus is here.

genec

Hey Forester and I had the same exact answer...

BTW I would avoid overtaking on the left unless you were very sure the motorist was well into a right turn... anyone that is flaky enough to pass a cyclist, not be destination positioned, and suddenly make a right turn, is flaky enough to bail on that turn in mid stream and suddenly pull a left back into traffic... Stay behind that motorist.

Helmet Head

"Pull a left back into traffic?" What are you picturing? I do this all the time, and in every case, the car I'm passing is in the rightmost traffic lane, and I pass on the left with a wide margin.

zeytoun

How so? This is the Advocacy and Safety forum. Advocacy is about arguing on behalf of someone else to ensure justice/change/etc. Safety is about preventing damage, injury, and death.

Promoting enforcement of bicycle/car traffic laws is an Advocacy topic. How is that out of scope for the Advocacy and Safety forum?

Should we perhaps change this to the Safety forum?

Helmet Head

What I meant by "For traffic in general, reinforcing the law is imperative" is out of scope for this forum is that debating about whether "reinforcing the law" is "imperative" is out of scope. Imperative to what?

Okay, maybe it is relevant to cycling advocacy, and arguably maybe even to cycling safety, so "out of scope" is probably not correct. Fine. I'll take it back, if I may. But I still think there is little to talk about beyond encouraging each other to support cyclists who are treated poorly by the legal system in your area. Forester has a chapter in his book on how yet another manifestation of cyclist inferiority thinking is unfair treatment of cyclists in situations like this. I think we can whine and complain about it, but, at least for now, I really don't think there is much we can actually accomplish in this area. In the mean time, there is a lot we can do in the area of personal responsibility of the cyclist, and the role that plays in reducing the likelihood of crashes.

Edit: Growing acceptance of vehicular cycling, starting with growing acceptance of vehicular cycling in the cycling community, including on forums like this, is probably the best thing we can do to address unfair treatment of cyclists by the legal system.

zeytoun

Quote:

I'll take it back, if I may.

Of course.

I think there is much that needs to be accomplished, whether we "can" or not.

Did you get why I reposted the joke? The rules of the road are only something you can depend on if they are followed.

You've applied a label to a situation that oversimplifies it, and reduces critical thinking.

You agree that legal liability probably should have fallen on the motorist (if it was a right hook like we think, of course).

And yet people who think that it is "unfair" for a LEO to assess the cyclist as being at-fault, exhibit cyclist inferiority?

I think that saying that car drivers are going to do what they want, so let's accomodate them for our own safety's sake, and not "whine" when we get hit, is an example of Bicycle-Motorist Codependence. Take charge of your own safety, but don't use the "there is nothing we can do" excuse to stifle criticism of illegal motorist behavior.