Well, if the lane was clear and he had his signal on ...
Again, if the lane was clear when he put his signal on, the fact that he signaled a turn should have warned anyone from trying to sneak by on the inside.

No, that would be the education system. That would be public works. The Legal system is supposed to administer justice when stuff goes wrong.

If it “Should be,” well ... start lobbying. However the laws that need to be administered are the laws on the books, not the laws in our dreams.

Very Wrong.

The Law needs to protect Everyone Equally. Vehicle law needs to protect All vehicle operators.

if the cyclist was “not protected” by the law ... which law? The cyclist rode at speed into the path of a vehicle which was making a turn which the operator had signaled.

The law in this case failed to protect the Driver from the horror of killing a cyclist. But ... is it the law, or the people supposedly operating under that law?

I understand that the driver did not use the "recommended" technique, but is his maneuver Illegal? Apparently not.

I hear people saying he was moving too fast ... but I assume, considering that there is at least on video, that the speed could be determined, and the driver was not ticketed.

I say again ... If I was driving a car which was passed by a truck, the truck put on its signal, and I tried to pass the truck as it was making the turn it had signaled ... I would be liable. The truck signaled a right turn, I knew it was turning, I decided to race it to the corner, I lost. If I floored it and ended up in a place I shouldn’t have been, given that he signaled .....

It seemed clear to me from the first time I saw the video that the cyclist was not paying attention to the truck. If the cyclist thought the truck was turning, the cyclist would not (I hope) have tried to pass it.

It sounds harsh, and it is barely sufficient, but ... the trucker signaled his turn, the cyclist missed it, for whatever reason. if the trucker signaled ... what else could he do? If any vehicle on the road ignored or overlooked a sign or signal and then as a result got into an accident .....

Bottom line for me is, since the truck had an empty lane and used his signal, it would be irresponsible for a car to try to speed past the truck and race it through the intersection. If this were two cars, or a car and a truck, it would be a done deal. The truck signaled a turn and made a turn. The other operator ignored or overlooked the signal.

If anyone can prove that the truck broke the speed limit, or if the law says drivers must use the recommended method, or if anyone can Prove that the driver behaved negligently ...

This is akin to the tragic situation when a child darts out from between two parked cars into the path of a moving car, and the driver, operating legally, doesn’t have time to stop. The cyclist should not have been there. Sadly she was.

Finally ...

Have you thought at all or was this whole post just emotion?

What sort of system exactly would prevent a cyclist or pedestrian from going under a truck which would also not impede the function of the truck and would also not endanger or injure the cyclist or pedestrian just as much? Show me your design.

Even if the trailer had plates extending from the frame to six inches above the ground, the cyclist in this case would have crashed into them fallen and still potentially gotten run over.

What, exactly, are you demanding that be made federal law? Post your “fool-proof” design that won’t render the truck useless and will prevent all the possible accidents.

Then price it out—cost per vehicle, cost per mile, cost per life saved.

Here’s something to consider—laws don’t stop things from happening and more than stop signs stop vehicles. If people screw up badly enough, Nothing can keep them safe.

You come up with a practical life-saving barrier of the sort you are describing ... and Great. if it is really that good, I am sure it will be adopted. But really ... what kind of barrier would have helped here?

I can tell you from experience, a semi-trailer can roll over about Anything. Unless the barrier were actually pressing on the road—in which case it would stop the truck from moving—then stuff could get underneath it, and whatever gets underneath it will get crushed.

Face facts here ... this is a case of operator error. There is no way to make the world fool-proof and perfectly safe. And if, sadly, the cyclist had simply paid attention to the truck ... we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Nobody wants to “blame the victim” but it’s not about blame or victims. The cyclist ignored a traffic signal and paid the price. If we refuse to identify the issue we cannot really address it.

We all make mistakes while riding. Almost always the result is nothing but a close call and a spike of adrenaline. Sometimes it is a fatal accident.

You want to Learn from this? You like to solve problems with laws? (Laws have done such awesome stuff to prevent murder, sex crimes, burglary, auto theft, racism, and other forms of discrimination ... )

Lessons I learned: trucks could have more obvious turn indicators mounted more visibly somewhere besides the back of the cab and the back of the trailer.

That’s it.

A few simple flashing lights.

The cyclist would have Not missed the fact that the truck was turning ... or if she did, it would have been more obvious that she simply wasn’t paying attention.

A couple posts (at least one, but I am not going back) mentioned this ... . most were eager to blame someone—and it is the only Positive outcome anyone has bothered to derive.

Preventing a repetition of this event in the simplest possible way matter to anyone? Every tuck owner can afford a few feet of wire, a few bolt-on light fixtures, a few relays and junctures. Turn signals at two places along each side of the trailer frame, and turn signals extending out from the back of the cab high enough not to clip pedestrians ... this accident would likely never have happened.

If we do not learn from history, we repeat it.