car pulled out infront of me
 

i was returning home from work today and a car pulled out in front of me at a stop sign. i saw him stopped at a stop sign then he jerked foward a little and saw me coming but it was too late. i hit his fender and was leaned over the hood. i damaged his car and was not hurt in anyway. i was afraid he try and make me pay for the damage, but he didnt. i was just wondering if a similar situation ever occur (hopefully never) what should i do? like if i got hurt or my bike got trashed. do i call there insurance for the damages and hospital bills??

Of course he didn't make you pay! He was at fault! As a motorist in most jurisdictions you must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and bicyclists. If he hit you (and you were following the rules of the road, of course) he would be cited. As a cyclist it is essential to practice the bicycle equivalent of defensive driving at all times. If the unthinkable does happen and the motorist is cited then you would file a claim against their insurance. Plain and simple no different if you had been driving in a car..

I'm pretty sure that's untrue, at least as a broad assertion. Generally, bicyclists are considered as vehicles and must obey traffic rules. If OP had no red light or stop sign and the driver proceed through the stopsign (whether after stopping or not) when it was not safe to do so, then the driver is at fault. If, OTOH, it was a situation like a four-way stop, and the driver had come to the intersection first, had stopped, and was now proceeding...and OP just blew through his stop sign...then OP is at fault.

i didnt have any stop signs, i had right of way. alright, so as long as im following the rules of the road, i should be ok. i dont blow by red lights or stop signs, i slow down and look down the road, then i proceed. nyc is crazy enough, blowing by red lights here is just asking for it. thx for the helps guys. much appreciated.

I said assuming the OP was following the rules of the road.:(

If you were following the rules of the road, and had obeyed any and all stop signs etc, and the motorist pulled out from a stop sign and you hit him... the motorist was likely at fault for failing to yield right of way at a stop. Clearly his fault and you should actually be compensated for damages to you and your bike.

I had a similar thing happen back in the mid 80's... I was moving down an arterial road and a car came to a stop and then went on... moving into my path. I hit his fender and landed on top of the hood... knocked out by the impact. Police came and ticketed the driver for failing to yield at a stop. I was taken to a hospital. I recovered full damages for my totaled bike and doctor visits. The driver got nothing for the dent in their left front fender.

You need to realize that all cars are looking for ways to kill you and get away with it. They'll try stuff like your accident when ever they have a good enough excuse. It's pure malice on their part, and it only comes out looking like an "accident" because they wait until it will look like an accident before they try to kill you. "Obeying the rules of the road" works great when the police show up, and it works fine in court, but you need to realize that wont matter a lick if you're dead or unable to walk.

It's not exactly as bad as I paint it, but following this belief is a whole lot safer than relying on drivers to respect your rights. In approaching an intersection, you should never allow a car that MIGHT turn right to have the chance to cut you off like you describe. Enter the lane behind the car rather than stay in the bike lane. At every intersection, you should never never never be in the bike lane.

I call that "Running a stop sign Assassin Style". They stop, look you right in the eye, then gas it at the point of no return.

The only prevention for this problem is to stay as far away from the right curb as possible when crossing the intersection if there is no vehicular traffic next to you or closely behind you. That way, if the car inches out a few feet you don't get clobbered immediately. Better if you NEVER ride far right out of habit - only necessity. Yes, I know what the law states.

This might help:

The Red Light Running Tutorial video of mine.

Forget the red light running part and just pay attention to my lane positioning. Lesson #1 in the video shows me moving over THREE lanes to help prevent being hit at a blind intersection. Almost every scenario in the vid also explains lane positioning to avoid being hit by crossing traffic. It works exactly the same for law abiding cyclists.

The fast lane to Hell is far right in the right lane.

You should be; OTOH, the situation of a car stopping at a red light and then proceeding even though a cyclist is coming is so common that I looked at your thread title and said, "Dog bites man, this is news?" In other words, yes, it's a bad thing; yes, it shouldn't happen; but it's such a common behavior that as a cyclist, you just have to deal with it (or you can be stubborn and dead). My feeling is that 99% it's not malicious, but rather a combination of blindness (people overlook what they're not conditioned to see, and a driver pulling out is used to looking for other motor vehicles, not bicycles) and ignorance (many drivers have no skill at estimating the speed of a bicycle, whereas they can do a decent job of estimating the speed of a motor vehicle). So, that stop-see you-jerk forward-maybe stop again-then maybe keep going craziness is just a fact of life.

No, you shouldn't worry about paying damages for his car. He failed to yield right of way and is thus at fault. He should, in fact, have to pay any damages to you or your bike.

JMRobertson is a little over the top:rolleyes: but you should ride as if you are invisible. That's not to say you should be invisible but you should assume that every driver on the road can't see you and plan accordingly.

In any collision with a car, you should contact the authorities so that you have a record of the accident at the very least. Even if you don't think you are injured, you should probably have a doctor check you out as soon as possible...from the scene if you can. Injuries may manifest themselves later and, since most states have minimum claim levels before 'pain and suffering' can be claimed, it's best to have a record (and get close to that level).

Did I read this wrong? I noticed a couple of posters were responding based on the car making a right turn after stopping at a red light, and another poster responded based on a right hook situation. I don't believe this was either situation... nor were bike lanes involved.

I thought I read in the OP that the car stopped at a stop sign and then proceeded but stopped. Now I wasn't sure where the OP was... parallel to the car or perpendicular... but based on the "i didnt have any stop signs, i had right of way" comment, I surmised that the OP was on a cross street.

If this was the case, then like my situation, the motorist was fully at fault and as Joey pointed out if this happened at a point of no return... the cyclist really has little chance of defense.

To the OP, the motorist may be liable for any damages to you and your bike. (Not sure of the NYC laws)

For RigHty, as you can see, there are several interpretations to your original post (OP). Consider taking more time to type out a complete, detailed story before posting.

+1. Many drivers simply don't look far enough down the street. Even when I'm driving, at some intersections I need to be forward fairly far just to see around the cars -- often SUVs -- parked by the curb. On my bike, my "default" lane positioning is toward the left, where I can better see and be seen.

Another question for the OP -- were you running a headlight at the time?

I think you read it wrong. I didn't see any comments that referred to a right turn/right hook scenario. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Yeah, that's how I read it. Now, the car could have been making a right turn...or a left turn, or going straight, doesn't really matter -- it entered OP's travel lane. And yeah, it did sound like it was a stop-start-stop situation. You know the move, sometimes it's a samba rhythm, sometimes more ragtime :D

See post 7. I quote: "you should never allow a car that MIGHT turn right to have the chance to cut you off like you describe."

What ever the beat... it appears that the motorist was at fault.

i was traveling perpendicular to the vehicle that pulled out. he stop go stop go like mentioned above. thx for the red light running vid. helped alot. i go really slow when its red, like walking speeds. all this info helped me learn to ride safer. my 14 mile round trip commute begins tomorrow. hopefully i am prepared for this fun little journey. thx all for the info. i have learned alot.

In the future, get a police report, regardless of who thinks whom is at fault. This is to prevent the other side from making up make-believe stuff later on.

This isn't really necessary when there's no injury and little if any property damage. In fact, the police won't even respond to a "no harm" collision, in most cases.

Cyclist killed in Seattle while riding to the left of traffic.
 

Joeybike, I know this is a different traffic situation that you described, but seems like a similar strategy was being used by a cyclist in Seattle when he was run over by a van. See this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=508404

I'm wondering what your take is on what that cyclist might have been doing "wrong". What would you have done differently in that scenario? Seems like riding as far from the right is not always the best way to approach intersections.

One caveat; I've seen at least one instance reported here where the cyclist wasn't actually at fault but was cited for not attempting to avoid the accident. IOW, yeah, the other guy violated your right-of-way, but you still have a responsibility to try to brake or swerve to avoid the accident.

It doesn't seem in this case to apply, but just something to keep in mind. I have no idea in what jurisdictions (if any) this is actually applicable.

I'll disagree with the first half of this statement. One of the principles of safe riding is to make yourself as visible as possible to drivers and other travelers. Where you position yourself on the roadway -- being where other drivers are expecting traffic to be, avoiding blind spots, and staying out of the gutter and off the sidewalk. Bright colored clothing helps you stand out from the background and makes you more visible, at night lights and reflective material greatly increase your survivability. If drivers see you and recognize you, all but the murderous psychopaths will avoid you.

As for the psychopaths, you need to be alert to all that's going on around you so that when you need to, you can take evasive action to get out of their way and avoid a collision.

You failed to understand the point. Yes, you should ride so as to make yourself as visible as possible to any other road user. However, always assume that they can't see you and be ready to react appropriately. Ride visible but don't assume you are visible.

I would've asked him to share with his friends, relatives, co-workers the mistake he made by not being attentive. And remind others to pay more attention to the road they share with cyclists. In other words, use his willingness to "do something" to make the roads safer for all of us.

You've got to keep this in mind that even if a driver is at fault for hitting/running over you, they may try to raise the cyclist's contributory negligence as a potential defense (e.g., "If he wasn't on the road, I wouldn't have hit him.") Most states use comparative negligence, where a jury can reduce an award by the extent of the plaintiff's comparative negligence (From Wikipedia). That means, that if a driver hits you, is found at fault, and they award you $10,000 for damages, they can determine that you were 10% at fault, and reduce the award by that percentage. (This is why you absolutely need a lawyer when you get hit and injured).

In my state (Virginia) and several others, including Maryland, Alabama, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia, a defendant can claim contributory negligence as a complete defense to negligence.

That means that if a jury finds that you were even 1% at fault, the driver can get off scot-free for damage/injury/death of the cyclist. In some cases, the pedestrian or cyclist has been assigned some level of fault just for legally being on the road or in the crosswalk.......In my situation, I was legally in a crosswalk, and traffic had stopped in both directions....and the guy passed the stopped traffic on the right and hit me. One attorney told me that they will likely try to use contributory negligence as a defense......that even though he broke the law by passing on the right, failing to yield ROW and pled guilty in court, if I didn't try to cross the street in a legal crosswalk with stopped traffic in both directions, he wouldn't have hit me, and that I should be assigned some level of fault. It's BS, but you can bet that a defense attorney WILL try to blame you for getting hit.