Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
...but what? Looking back is a standard technique used before merging into another lane. Also, your contention that Mr. Ratliff was "off to the side from where drivers are more likely to look for traffic" is problematic, since Mr. Ratliff was using the legally designated bike lane, where drivers are held responsible to look for bicycle traffic. The idea that "drivers are more likely to look for [bicycle] traffic" outside the bike lane is not an issue, since the burden of safe entry or crossing of lanes is upon the vehicle operator with entering the street from the driveway. Since a bike lane is a legally designated lane for cyclists, arguing that drivers are more likely to look elsewhere for cyclists does not make sense.
But cycling defensively is always a good idea, and leaving a bike lane that poses any hazard to a cyclist should always be an option.
No, the driver was at fault. Every crash is not the cyclist's fault.
I think HH's point is that he feels JCR is not taking any responsibility for the fact that he got into this collision. It's true that it was the fault of the motorist for pulling across the bikelane (something I see motorists often do even if they know they can't pull out completely into the lane just to get better sightlines or because they just aren't paying attention to where they stopped). But, JCR was riding in the margins of the road approaching an intersection and not paying adequate attention to what was happening in front of him. Just because he was trying to change lanes does not relinquish him from any responsibility for what is going on in front of him.
To address the bolded section of your post, it is my opinion that motorists in general are not looking
anywhere for cyclists. They are looking for traffic in the traffic lanes though, which means that as a cyclist, if you want to be noticed even though motorists aren't trying to spot your presence, a good start is to be where they are looking for other types of traffic.