Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
...but what? Looking back is a standard technique used before merging into another lane.
It is not standard technique to look back for a period of time without verifying that is safe to stop paying attention to what is in front of you for that period of time. It is not a standard technique to look back while you're entering an intersection where there is a potential conflict that you have not ruled out.
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.
Not an issue? Regardless of what the laws or what the legal burdens are, the
practical facts of the matter are that drivers pay most attention to where conflicts are most likely: the vehicular traffic lanes (and that does not include shoulders, gores, bike lanes or any space demarcated such that vehicular travel is inhibited in that space). Cyclists can choose to ignore that fact, or take it into account when they're riding. It's up to them. I recommend they keep it in mind, and ride accordingly.
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.
The idea that "legal designation" is some kind of significant factor in determining how likely drivers are to look somewhere is what does not make sense. Not practical sense anyway.
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 agree the driver was legally, morally and civilly at fault.
That doesn't mean the cyclist did not have the practical means to avoid it, or, more importantly, that we should not take from this example lessons in good and not so good practices. Note that John himself believes there are preventative lessons to be learned here: use a mirror, avoid this kind of street.
Somehow, I can't help notice the similarity between getting hit by a car on a bicycle and being *****. When it happens, there's this strange tendency for some to think the victim must have done something to deserve it.
It's not about deserving it, it's about developing skills, habits and practices to reduce the likelihood of it happening in the first place.
Looking at a crash and saying this might have been prevented if the cyclist had done X, and concluding that doing X in similar situations is a good practice for all cyclists to adopt, is similar to looking at a **** and saying this might have been prevented had the victim had a good working knowledge of self-defense techniques, and concluding that developing a good working knowledge of self-defense techniques is a good practice for all potential **** victims.