Well, given the increasing amount of exposure by commuting to/from work every day and the countless close calls, it was bound to happen - I was hit by a car on my ride home yesterday evening!

This is a first for me; I had never experienced vehicular impact. I was a victim of the infamous, "right hook." I was in the bike lane when I noticed a pickup truck suddenly activate their signal to turn. I'm not sure I'd call it a premonition, but I just KNEW it was going to pull in front of me. I hit the brakes. Sure enough, the truck started turning into the entrance of a business parking lot. I was not slowing enough to stop, so I swerved right along with them. But I was still going too fast - my bike went out in front of them and they hit the rear of my bike.

This is where the scenario becomes surreal to me. I felt the bike swing around beneath me. I felt as if I had been launched from it. I let go of the bars (I thought so anyway) and seemed to fly. I suddenly found my feet beneath me and felt the pavement. I skipped several steps and stopped. I was standing. . . and the bike was still in my left hand, flipped sideways to the left of me.

I was enraged. Likely due to the fact that I wasn't writhing on the ground in pain. But I was furious; I was certain they had wrecked my bike. I turned to find the party responsible. The truck had come to a stop just inside the lot entrance and the passenger was walking toward me.

He asked if I was hurt. I said, "I'm not sure. I don't think so."

He must have noticed that I was just staring at my bike, because he then asked if my bike was OK. I, again, said, "I'm not sure."

I scanned the bike, spun the rear wheel and all seemed OK. I told him I would like to ride it home, check it out, ride again tomorrow and call him. He agreed and we exchanged information.

He evidently used to ride quite a bit and often had to slap fenders and windows to get the attention of inattentive drivers, so he understood my situation as a cyclist. He and his wife (the driver) were quite apologetic and were also aware that the bike lane poses an additional concern for drivers where they need to check for oncoming cycles before turning.

They asked again if I was OK, and I reiterated that I neither hit the ground, nor their vehicle and I was fine. I just mentioned again to watch the right turns next time.

They called me later in the evening to check on things, but I hadn't a chance yet to fully inspect my bike. I'll call them today.

I'm fairly certain that the guy has spoken to his wife about watching for cyclists. My later conversation with him gave me the impression that he has been in my spot as a cyclist.

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that the vehicle struck my pannier, which kicked the bike about, but left it unscathed. I also figured that holding the bar kept it from scraping the ground, but was the wrong thing to do - I really thought I had let go, but my instinct to somehow try to preserve it must have been too great. Hopefully, I won't make this mistake in the future. But, as it was, I found no damage whatsoever and it rides like it always has; smooth as silk - it is a Lemond after all.

So that's my story. Bike lanes are indeed evil incarnate, but I'd rather slide by the traffic than remain mired in it.

Glad you're OK. If I understand right, you were going against traffic? Those two-way bike lanes are evil.

scary situation, glad to hear you're ok.

Against traffic??? Goodness, no! They turned right across in front of me - travelling in the same direction.

Its funny, either you remember nothing (usually when you get creamed), or everything is slow motion.

Glad you are okay, I worry about this every time I commute.

In this case, your accident could've happenned even if there were no bike lane.

Certainly. I guess my purpose was to further dispel the myth that bike lanes provide safety. They don't entirely, and I think often times they are a catalyst for dangerous encounters. I try not to become complacent in the bike lane, and I want others to remain vigilant also. Although I wasn't able to avoid the confrontation completely, I was prepared for them to turn into my path and took action before they did.

Just remain aware. . . and agile - like a cat!

Jeffrey, a.k.a. "El Gato", a.k.a. "Jackie Chan - Ninja Super Hero"

Bike lanes only provide a comfort zone (more room) to ride but that's about it. You still have to worry about turning cars. The evil lanes, in my view, are those where the bike traffic has to go in both directions on a single side if the street. This means part of the bike traffic goes against the car traffic. This is baaaaaad!

Glad you're ok. Sounds like you protected yourself well by anticipating what the driver was about to do. You must have incredible balance to land on your feet after a truck knocks the rear of your bike out from under you.

Glad your outcome was mostly postive, Chez. You weren't hurt, your bike's OK, and the offender is sympathetic and acting responsibly. The last time I got right-hooked the driver sped off leaving me on the ground.

Yes, bike lanes are evil, and there's probably nothing you could have done to avoid the accident; had you been less alert, it probably would have been worse.

Without the bike lane, she would have had to deal with your presence as part of the traffic flow, even if only as a bike in the right side of her lane that had to be passed. Bile lanes make it too easy for drivers to tune us out.

These sorts of close encounters make subsequent ones easier. You get over it, and your situational awareness ramps up another notch.

RichC

Agreed. I tend to avoid those at virtually all costs - even if it means taking a completely different route. However, I'm also beginning th question the wisdom of bike lanes generally. Sure, there are times when they are useful, but this incident shows that often they are just as much of a hindrance as a help.

Having said that, I'm not sure there was much that could have been done to prevent this accident with or without a bike lane. It seems to me that there are just two possible options here (and I'm not totally sure that either would have worked here):

1. Ride wider of the kerb, even if it means riding outside the bike lane to do so.

2. (my preferred option of the two). Spin a higher cadence with a lower gear. One of the most common causes for the right or left hook is that the motorist often underestimates the speed the cyclist is travelling. If you're spinning the cranks faster, they might see this and assume you're going faster than they would otherwise.

This works very well...I have noticed that since I started doing this a year or so ago, drivers and pedestrians are much more hesitant to turn or walk in front of me.There are still the morons that do it anyway and I always ride with the assumption now that drivers and pedestrians are going to do stupid things that could end up causing me alot of pain or injury.

Justen

Agreed. I do this too. It's easier to react to stupidity of you're anticipating it.

I think you should still report him to the police. He could have killed you. Even though he seems like a nice guy, I think he should have a "reckless driving" charge on his record. Did you smell anything on his breath?

Paul

I do this also - and it is usually helpful when a driver is turning across traffic into your path, exiting an adjacent drive, or turning from a side street. The problem in my earlier situation was that she never really looked behind before turning.

If a driver passes you, then wants to turn, they will sometimes remember (I've encountered many that didn't) passing a cyclist, and will look to see your progress before executing the turn. In my case, I was moving slightly faster than traffic due to congestion. They never passed me, I was overtaking them.

And that seems to pose the problem. I think most drivers view the bike lane as merely a widening device that serves no real purpose other than to provide more space for autos (SUVs ). If a driver wants to turn across the lane, they do so without regard. Especially if there is no prior indication of a bicycle. If they don't immediately see a cyclist, they don't give any thought to just turning across the lane because that extra road space is not registered with any meaning in their mind.

Anyway, I attribute my acrobats to the many action films I've watched (OK, it was really just weird luck) And I will add that I have had similar scares along this stretch of road because of the rush hour congestion and my ability to proceed at a faster pace. Much of it is downhill, so I usually have to ride the brakes. Although I could go much faster, I try to minimize the speed difference between myself and traffic. But, as I found, I am still going a bit too fast to completely avoid a sudden danger. I refuse to slow to a crawl though - I just keep my spider senses reeling and watch lots of Jackie Chan while waiting for the chance to spring into action!

Never coast in traffic, unless you are slowing to a stop. Using low gears and spinning the cranks increases your visibility, since peripheral vision responds primarily to motion. Also, the faster you spin the cranks, the faster a motorist will assume you are traveling.

I had a similar driveway right-hook problem on a 45mph 4-lane road with bike lanes. The higher the speed limit, the more I like having either a wide curb lane or a marked bike lane, but side-by-side sharing of the road does indeed increase the chances of being hooked. I was using a slow-pulse blinkie on a pre-dawn work commute and have always wondered whether motorists might subconsciously assume that a correlation between blink rate and cyclist travel rate.

A bike lane should be treated by motorists the same as any other lane. You don't cut across another lane to turn, do you? No, you merge into the lane closest to your turn before executing it. I would say a driver should merge into the bike lane, only after yielding right-of-way to all traffic in that lane, before turning.

From the cyclist's perspective, when approaching an intersection, it's helpful to move out of the bike lane and into the main flow of traffic. That way, its harder for drivers to pass you and hook you.

This is good sense, and should be taught as the correct way to deal with bike lanes. However, I've never heard any mention of this technique in any driver's manual. I'd like to see this promoted into common practice.

https://www.dol.wa.gov/ds/guide/guide4.htm#Bicyclists

I've read the text, but no one treats it as a "lane." They indicate that drivers must yield to a bicycle, but most often, drivers cut across it when turning. They don't merge, so to speak. . . well, except for the occasional driver in a compact vehicle that uses it to skip by some congestion - for several blocks.

I agree with what you're saying. I was just pointing out that it is mentioned in driver's handbooks. It's just that like many other things mentioned in the driver's handbooks, it is often ignored/forgotten/overlooked by the general driving public.

Unfortunately most bike lanes are simply not wide enough for drivers to merge into successfully. Remember that a bike isn't nearly as wide as a car. So while this is a great idea in theory, I don't think it's ever going to happen. However, cars are supposed to have these spanky things called mirrors. If drivers occasionally used them, the chances of a cyclist being hooked would rapidly decrease.

This is why I treat bike lanes the same as I do any other shoulder on the road. In practical terms, that's all they are.

Near my work, we have bike lanes on both sides of the road, and they are very wide. At one particular stop light, the cars get backed up for about 1/2 mile, and everyone who makes a turn, cuts by all this traffic in the bike lane. There are plenty of signs that read: "Bike Lane Only", yet they ignore it. I don't bike to work, but I'm considering bringing my bike in, and riding down that path at a leasurely rate, hopefully having a line of cars get stuck behind me

MSD