With the flow or ???
 

In the past cyclists were to ride against the flow of traffic, is this still the case or are we to ride with the flow of traffic? I ask the question because I have seen a few incidents where riders have hit cars turning right after a full stop....what's the safest way?
Best, Ben

You should go *with* the flow of traffic.

I thought that was the best solution to the problem......so would the cyclist be at fault if they hit a car making a right after a stop, do we always have the right of way ?
Best, Ben

With the flow, same side of the road is the law in NY State.

If a bike is stopped at a light or stop sign and first in line and a car right hook them, the car is at fault. All bets off if a cyclist is riding on the shoulder and passes on the right a car subsequently making a right turn. If a car overtakes a cyclist proceeding into an intersection and then right hooks them, that's a failure to yield right of way scenario, though a cop rarely, if ever will cite a motorist for that, even though it's the obvious scenario.

"Should" is not quite sufficiently strong here. Cyclists are required by law to ride "with the flow" of traffic, or in other words, on the same side of the road as motor vehicles are required to use, and in the same direction.

No, cyclists do not always have the right of way. No one -- not even pedestrians -- always has the right of way.

With respect to establishing fault in the scenario that you vaguely described, no one can say, because you did not provide anything close to sufficient detail.

I thought that it was clear, but after rereading the scenario let me clarify.
The auto was at a full stop in the right turn lane, when proceeding to turn right, they were hit by a cyclist going against the flow of traffic.
Best, Ben

There are still a few different scenarios which fit that vague description -- the cyclist could be approaching from the driver's right, or straight ahead. Was the right-turn legal ( ie, no signage prohibiting right-on-red, if this is a light-controlled intersection )? The cyclist could be on a crosswalk. Barring the latter, the cyclist is most-likely at fault, since you cannot legally ride on the road against traffic.

From how you are describing it, cyclist going the wrong way in traffic is at fault. Theres no getting around that.

If you want to have the privilege of riding on the roads as a legal road user on a bike, then you must ride with all the other traffic, as you are part of traffic.


And yes, it is safer when done properly



:bike2:

Thanks for the response.....not having the time to list all of the different scenarios, I think you described most of them, but did not mention the weather/time of day etc etc.
What I have seen is outlined in the scenario you describe, to paraphrase: a legal right turn after stop, hit by cyclist approaching the drivers right, cyclist riding against flow of traffic
BTW, would it make a difference if it was light controlled and driver was making a legal right turn and hit by the cyclist riding against traffic?
Best, Ben

Sounds like one of those non-cyclists on a bike:eek:



:D

;)

For 61 years, I've always been told that a bicycle is just another vehicle and subject to pretty much the same rules of the road that a car is. So of course a person on a bicycle is expected to go the same direction as would a car. Perhaps California doesn't consider a bicycle a vehicle. Or is your City of Angels somewhere else? Most states do. At least the ones I've lived in and those that I've checked on.

You need to get a attorney. Or at least the cyclist does. However it doesn't sound too good for their chances. Perhaps it can be said the motorist turned without checking that the road was clear. In some states, vehicle operators are required to check such things that will or can be construed include looking for another vehicle or person going the wrong way. And operate in a manner that they can avoid collisions.

But you won't know till the court decides where the fault is to be assigned.

You realize that if this was something that involves you, a friend or acquaintance. Then discussing it here on a public forum, the other side will use any and all information they find here that favors their side. They do search for stuff on social platforms. Which this is.

Was it an electric bike?

I've seen those things seemingly come out of no where. I saw one guy riding about 20mph on the sidewalk, occasionally going in the road (against traffic), which was a busy 4-way road with a speed limit of 40-mph and he did zip thru an intersection.






.





.

You always ride with traffic it is super dangerous for everyone to ride against traffic and I will charge at that person and not move. Unless it is some weird emergency situation where you need to be on the wrong side because your life is at risk or something you should always follow traffic laws and follow the flow otherwise you just make things difficult for everyone.

Electric bikes can go up to 28mph and have to be pedaled to get to that speed (unless going downhill with momentum but that is any bike) in the end if the bike is going faster or without pedaling it is probably either a motorcycle or if it has pedals it is a moped and should be properly referred to as such to avoid confusion.

Maybe -- depends on the laws of the municipalities in-question. For example, in Illinois, the law says:

It pointedly does not require the driver to yield only to vehicles traveling in their correct lane. It probably should say that, but it doesn't. So this probably falls into the realm of shared fault, in at least some municipalities.

Also, some states -- again, Illinois as an example -- have laws like this one, which arguably put the fault on the driver almost any time they collide with a pedestrian or cyclist.


Of course, it goes without saying that you will never find a cop or a prosecutor who is aware of the legal responsibility that drivers own, with regard to avoiding collisions with pedestrians and cyclists.

Roads are made for vehicles, with special controls (crosswalks, walk signals) for pedestrians. Pedestrians are suggested to use the opposite side for safety but are not required to. In motion on a street, a bicycle is usually legally just a vehicle. There may be some specific rules like bike lanes or kinds of lights required or keep as far right as possible. But no one reasonably expects a rider to follow every law all the time, because everyone understands a lot of times it works better to play a pedestrian. The penalties for bending the rules on a bicycle are nonexistent unless you have some other thing that triggers a cop and they'll use it for an excuse. But blowing a stop sign going the wrong way to hit a car doing a legal turn - well jeez, the penalties are pretty self-evident

The A&S crowd seems to have settled down here or moved on, as it's not that active any more. But this was quite a familiar topic for them, to the degree they actually spun it off into a sub-sub-forum Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Forums. Fair warning: apostasy and heresy were regular talking points.

Would it not be relevant to find out if there was a collision, or any damage or legal problem at all before advising that the OP or cyclist "needs" to get an attorney?

Maybe I missed it, but it sounds like the OP is the cyclist that hit a car in this situation and is trying to get some sense of their legal position. If so, best to talk to a lawyer.

The riding with traffic or against applies to being in the roadway. It's possible the cyclist could be using the crosswalk in a direction that would normally be against the flow. But if in the crosswalk, the cyclist has the right of way, assuming they have a green light (if a signal controlled intersection).

The cyclists would have to be riding pretty fast and likely not using appropriate caution to then hit a car turning right. Then again, a lot of drivers don't signal and can make abrupt turns. So, I suppose even a cyclist riding at a moderate speed could hit the car. And obviously if the cyclist had been just a bit quicker, the car would have hit them.

Bottom line, no matter who has the right of way, everyone, drivers, cyclist, pedestrians has a responsibility to take appropriate measures to avoid hitting each other. To what degree that responsibility becomes legal liability is another issue.

Nice conjecture, but no I was not one of the many cyclists that I have seen this happen to.....both electric and non-E. When I ride, I ride with the flow of traffic, not against it.
In L.A. there is a lot of traffic and most seem to be in a hurry, folks turning right may give a glance to the right, but most seem to concentrate on the left lane (on coming) traffic. The speed/time is magnified when both are moving towards one another.
On my way to campus, I see things like this happen on a daily basis, often cyclists going against traffic when lights are green both traveling at a good clip...It would be much safer is "Go with the flow were followed"
JM2Cs, Ben

Is this riding against the flow of traffic a US thing then? I’ve never seen any cyclist ride this way where I live in the UK. It would amount to a death wish on our roads!

Lots of people just don't know.

Sad to say that it has got much worse with the introduction of e-bikes and scooters........

Seen what happen? What happened?

Not really. This is just general conversation. Doesn't really matter if I misconstrued, misunderstood, or just simply was mistaken in everything I assumed. There is plenty of time for the OP... the one I was talking to, to correct me.