Cut off in traffic; bad precedent being set
 

So, a couple of months ago I was cut off in traffic, resulting in some slight injury and damage to my bike... Insurance company now says it is MY FAULT and will not cover damage to the bike (about $500)! They did cover lost wages and medical bills, so money is not the big deal here... what scares me is the precedent that is being set.

According to all state laws with regards bicycling in my state I was doing nothing wrong and was acting within my rights on the road.

The car did not signal and turned in front of me, causing the accident. The adjuster says "You were travelling behind our insured and had the duty to ensure of her actions before proceeding."

How is this possible when their insured does not signal?

According to this judgement and the precedent that it sets, it is unsafe to travel on a roadway with cars because they 'might' turn at ANY TIME!

According to MA State law it is 100% my right to pass on the right while going with the flow of traffic. I am being told that I cannot for if I do, and I am hit by a car that did not signal or whose driver did not avail themselves of something called a mirror... IT IS MY FAULT.

This is a DANGEROUS precedent and a dark day for cycling.

Are there any cyclist advocacy groups whom I can contact about this matter? Thank you.

Was the car already in hte same lane as you in front of you when this happened? If so this precident is already set in stone, it was your fault.

If not and you said what you have said here to the insurance adjuster you did a very poor job of communicating. Leave room for interperation in how you describe an accident and the other parties involved will interpert it as best helps their case.

Yeah I cant tell either what he meant... This description definitely leaves room to interpret it as if he was in the same lane as the car and wasnt keeping a safe following distance, or tried to pass him on the right in the same lane, in which case I could see why the claim was denied.


I am guessing however, that he meant that he was traveling in a lane to the right of the cars, a lane most likely used for bikes only, and he passed a car who turned right who crossed through the bikers lane unsafely? But, not enough info to really get a feel for what happened.

Forgive my hasty post as I am a bit enraged at this whole thing.

I was to the right of traffic, on a wide shoulder. The vehicle in question crossed in front of my lane of travel without checking mirrors or signaling.

MA Law dictates that I am allowed to travel and pass to the right of motorized vehicle traffic.
http://massbike.org/bikelaw/

By riding on the shoulder technically were not on the road... (in the traveled way) nor in a designated lane.

If you were actually behind someone then indeed, in spite of your view of precedent, you are responsible for avoiding those in front of you. But in this case, by your declaration, you were on the shoulder... how would someone know what to expect of you and why should your "off road" use effect them?

Does MASS law assume that the shoulder is a "traveled way" and/or the proper place for a cyclist? Is the area designated as such?

don't you love those 'grey areas'?? I think the fact that I don't have an insurance co. persuing this claim for me is a factor, as well.


my area is littered with these signs but people don't seem to notice or care.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...luc/Photo1.jpg

It was/is part of the paved roadway, and not 'off-road'. By 'shoulder' I simply mean on the right-hand side of the white line. If I have an amout of pavement to ride safely and not be hugging the passenger side of the cars in the lane, I will take it.

Did you hit the car or the car hit you? I would think that if any of the car was next to you it would be considered an illegal turn? If the car fully turned and you t-boned the car, that's tough luck and it sucks but happens a lot.

I hit the back passenger side corner... the first part of the car to cross in front of me.

The problem is that right hand side of the white line is NOT considered part of the road traveled way... that is why the white line exists in this case.

You may prefer to ride in this area, but you are technically "off road."

Welcome to the real world.

You'd be surprised at how many motorists think those signs mean that cyclists should move over and "share" the road.

Sigh.

could we compare this to baseball or tennis? is the line considered fair or foul ground? I was right near (on or around at any givin time) the line. For all I know in the haze of recollection I was on the line.

All I clearly recall during the accident was staring directly at a passenger-side rear brakelight assembly (where my face was headed) and seeing neither brakelights or directionals.

While you have some good points, there should be an expectation of the driver to make sure they're clear to make the turn. The argument could be made either way as to the cyclist using the broad shoulder (and that's where I ride when they're available). Instead of cyclist, what if there had been a pedestrian. What if a sidewalk bordered the roadway?

A pedestrian moves at far less of a speed than a cyclist. Most likely, this motorist would have noticed a pedestrian right near the intersection when making their turn. A cyclist, on the other hand, could have been many feet away from the intersection when the motorist started turning. With the normal and reasonable expectation that traffic is not passing on the right through an intersection, the motorist did not notice the cyclist.

I've almost been caught in the same trap but luckily braked in time and avoided a collision. Now, I ride centered in the right lane like I'm allowed to and force motorists to pass in the left lane. Everyone gets along fine except for a few crybabies now and again.

just an FYI... this was not an intersection with any traffic control; it was 1 main roadway with a side street.

dry as a bone and sunny blue without a cloud in the sky. (and yeah... slicks and painted lines are not friends in the wet!)

Ok, but that doesn't make it any different than if there was a traffic control. If there's a spot where someone could turn right, expect them to and don't be off to the side.

I would contact your local bike advocacy organization and ask for a recommendation for someone to work with you, maybe a lawyer or an LCI with experience in the legal and/or insurance realms. It's all well and good to ask about it here, but we aren't there to go over the incident on site with you, and we have varying levels of knowledge of your local traffic law and insurance policy. I would think a professional advocate in your region would be in a better position to give you good advice.

Always get a lawyer. always.

insurance companies are not your friends and will not help you beyond the minimum requierments, and even then will try to weasel out of that. most lawyers that take your case will get their pay form the insurance, therefore not costing you anything out of your pocket. and they will get your bike fixed or a new one. its probably been to long for you, but for someone else dont wait do it RIGHT away.

I'll Quote myself from my first post

""According to this judgement and the precedent that it sets, it is unsafe to travel on a roadway with cars because they 'might' turn at ANY TIME!""

I think that pretty much sums it up.

As a result, pass with care.

certainly; as everyone should do (cars and cyclists) and as I've always attempted to do... hence my frustration at this judgement.

The insurance company most likely would give you the same line, whether you were on the shoulder, in a bike lane, or in the right lane of a four lane road.

I'd agree that a motorist in the right most lane on a roadway could decide to move right at any time, and could also decide to turn right at any intersection, signalized or not. As such, you should ride accordingly. Don't pass moving traffic on the right in the shoulder or a bike lane where motorists generally do not expect traffic. The only way to be 100% sure that someone won't turn right from the right most lane and cut you off is to position yourself in the righthand lane. Now, this still leaves any lanes to the left as possibilities but I think we can all agree that close to all right turns are made from the right hand lane or further right (from the shoulder for instance). So now you've whittled down your chances of being cut off by a right turner to that small percentage of folks who may be too impatient to wait behind you to make their turn from the right lane and instead, race past you and then try to turn from the left lane. While this isn't that uncommon, most drivers won't go through all this effort and when they do, it's very obvious what they are doing. And most importantly, they have seen you, unlike when you were on the shoulder. Now that you've got those people under control, you are left with the tiny fraction of people who might decide without looking or without any signal at all that they are going to turn right from the left lane. Defensive driving practices say to never drive side by side with another vehicle and that along with paying attention should be enough to keep you from getting caught off guard by the rare completely mindless driver. At least that's my take on it.

Seems a toss up to me. Driver failing to keep a lookout. Cyclist traveling outside the traffic lane in driver's blind spot.

Insurance company will generally deny a questionable claim. Make your claim almost unquestionable and very clear. You'll do better. I get $$$ fast every time through very crisp and clear demand letters laying out the facts, the law, and the damages in very precise and well documented terms. Of course, I only do that when I'm right.

I agree much more clear if you ridng on the raod, not to the right of the white line. Why would you ever ride to the right of the white line?

Maybe if this gets repeated enough times, it will get noticed. TALK TO A LAWYER! Find one that knows the state vehicle laws. The odds are good that a lawyer will be able to find the right words/laws, to show the insurance company the error of their ways.