Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

What state are you in? It MIGHT make a difference as bicycle laws can be slightly different by state.

Did you signal for your right turn? How far did you travel straight before you turned across the path of the bicyclist?

Here's the problem ... you completed your U-Turn and then traveled straight for a distance - even a short distance. Even if the cyclist had run the red light, he was now within the lane, presumably to your right, when you made a right turn in front of him. Depending upon the distances involved, you could very well be found at fault.

At this point, about all you can do is submit the info you have to your insurance company and let them handle it.

---

Is every car that pulls into a driveway or parking space required to look far back up the right side of the road to check for fast approaching bicycles that are swiftly passing on the right?

As an avid cyclist, a rule to stay alive is to never pass cars on the right side that are going less than 20mph because at that slow speed they can dive into a driveway or parking space.

If the cyclist is at fault file a claim with his auto insurance first. If they will not cover it file a claim with his homeowner's policy. Because the bike is stored in the home, it is part of the home and covered for liability.

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

Even if the bike ran the right that wasn't the cause of the accident. The OP making the turn in front of the cyclist is the more direct cause of the accident. Sure, one could argue that if the bike didn't run the red light he shouldn't have been there but, he was there. You still have to ensure it is safe to turn your vehicle from its lane.

The fact he ran the light (if he actually did) would be more important in civil litigation if this ever gets to that point).

---

Are you saying that when car runs a red light he is only at fault if the collision takes place within the intersection? Can't a motorist assume that cars and bikes are not blowing red lights behind them?

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

Is every car that pulls into a driveway or parking space required to look far back up the right side of the road to check for fast approaching bicycles that are swiftly passing on the right?

---

yes they are, at least far enough back to ensure they are not cutting across the pathway of such traffic

Quote:

---

If the cyclist is at fault file a claim with his auto insurance first. If they will not cover it file a claim with his homeowner's policy. Because the bike is stored in the home, it is part of the home and covered for liability.

---

since the op has no knowledge of either the cyclists auto insurance or homeowners insurance, unless the cyclist chooses to provide such information, filing a claim with either insurance provider is problematic.

Quote:

---

Are you saying that when car runs a red light he is only at fault if the collision takes place within the intersection?

---

since a traffic light controls only the intersection, the inclusion of the color of the light would not be relevant outside of the intersection. While a person running a red light could still be at fault for an accident and that accident wouldn’t have happened had he not run a red light, it isn’t the matter he ran the light that was the cause of the accident but generally a failure to yield right of way to another vehicle that legally held the right of way. The fact he ran a red light is coincidental but doesn’t affect the causation of the accident.

Quote:

---

Can't a motorist assume that cars and bikes are not blowing red lights behind them?

---

they can cautiously assume that but what does that have to do with an accident that took place outside of the intersection? Without knowing where this is it’s impossible to work with precise numbers but any municipalty I am familiar with doesn’t allow a private drive so close to an intersection that an accident as described here would be within the area affected so directly by the traffic signal that it would be considered a defense to argue the cyclist ran a red light.

A Mayflower moving line, near my house, recently made a wide right turn onto a residential street on a green light. It was a steep downhill and a cyclist was approaching from behind up the right side at about 45mph. The truck did not see him approaching, continued with his right turn, and they collided killing the cyclist. The Sheriff looked in the news camera at the scene and said the moving truck was not at fault.

Make any sense to you guys? Not me.

If it was a semi-type truck, they normally have signs that say they make wide right turns. It is also common knowledge that large trucks have significant blind spots. If the bicyclist tried to pass a large truck on the right, their injury or death is on them. The odds are good the truck driver was not even aware they were there and it should have been quite obvious if the cyclist was paying attention that the truck was executing a turn.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

Contrary to the claim that the motorist was at fault: A Mayflower moving line, near my house, recently made a wide right turn onto a residential street on a green light. It was a steep downhill and a cyclist was approaching from behind up the right side at about 45mph. The truck did not see him approaching, continued with his right turn, and they collided killing the cyclist. The Sheriff looked in the news camera at the scene and said the moving truck was not at fault.

Make any sense to you guys? Not me.

---

We dont know the motorist is at fault but I think everybody here has considered the possibilities and is having trouble not finding him at fault, or at least the majority of fault. We also don’t have the state which can play into fault. We also don’t have knowledge of the specific roadway which could make a difference.


In your situation it was within the intersection. Depending on where any part of the truck was I could see it going either way. You haven’t provided enough details to make the call.


The sheriff shouldn’t have said what he did. He doesn’t have the authority to determine fault and he shouldn’t be making such concrete statements with the limited information available to him at the time.


He could have improperly influenced a possible jury pool with such a statement should the prosecutor see things differently and file any sort of charges.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

Is every car that pulls into a driveway or parking space required to look far back up the right side of the road to check for fast approaching bicycles that are swiftly passing on the right?

---

Pedestrians, skateboarders, cyclists... yes.

At least under CA state law, one cannot make a turn or divert from traveling straight ahead without first affirming that they can make the movement in safety.

Quote:

---

As an avid cyclist, a rule to stay alive is to never pass cars on the right side that are going less than 20mph because at that slow speed they can dive into a driveway or parking space.

---

A prudent rule.

All because the driver might be at fault for a sudden or unsignaled turn, doesn't mean it will be of any great comfort to you while you are in traction.

Quote:

---

Are you saying that when car runs a red light he is only at fault if the collision takes place within the intersection? Can't a motorist assume that cars and bikes are not blowing red lights behind them?

---

Fault as assigned by law enforcement in CA (where Sniper works) can be different than the fault assigned by an insurance company or a court. Law enforcement cannot divide fault amongst the parties whereas a court or insurance company can apportion fault between the parties. For our purposes, the key is most often where the vehicles were at the time of the collision - hence the reason I asked about the position of the turn relative to the intersection in the original post. Unless this driveway was just past the intersection, the driver of the vehicle is generally going to be at fault for failing to make certain that it was safe to make the turn.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

A Mayflower moving line, near my house, recently made a wide right turn onto a residential street on a green light. It was a steep downhill and a cyclist was approaching from behind up the right side at about 45mph. The truck did not see him approaching, continued with his right turn, and they collided killing the cyclist. The Sheriff looked in the news camera at the scene and said the moving truck was not at fault.

Make any sense to you guys? Not me.

---

If the moving truck was signaling and began the turn onto the intersecting street in the proper lane, then the cyclist should have yielded until the truck had completed the turn. The cyclist's failure to control his speed was not a defense. He has a legal obligation to drive at a safe and prudent speed for the road and conditions (VC 22350 still applies even to cyclists).

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

We dont know the motorist is at fault but I think everybody here has considered the possibilities and is having trouble not finding him at fault, or at least the majority of fault. We also don’t have the state which can play into fault. We also don’t have knowledge of the specific roadway which could make a difference.


In your situation it was within the intersection. Depending on where any part of the truck was I could see it going either way. You haven’t provided enough details to make the call.


The sheriff shouldn’t have said what he did. He doesn’t have the authority to determine fault and he shouldn’t be making such concrete statements with the limited information available to him at the time.


He could have improperly influenced a possible jury pool with such a statement should the prosecutor see things differently and file any sort of charges.

---

Brian57 is in CA, so I am assuming this is a CA incident.

As for the authority to determine fault, well ... if the collision occurred in a contract city where the Sheriff's Department provides contracted law enforcement services, yep, he has the authority to determine fault (at least, his office does - and he has the final say). While it may have been premature, his statement may also have been based upon the conclusions of his investigators at the scene.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Pedestrians, skateboarders, cyclists... yes.

At least under CA state law, one cannot make a turn or divert from traveling straight ahead without first affirming that they can make the movement in safety.


A prudent rule.

All because the driver might be at fault for a sudden or unsignaled turn, doesn't mean it will be of any great comfort to you while you are in traction.


Fault as assigned by law enforcement in CA (where Sniper works) can be different than the fault assigned by an insurance company or a court. Law enforcement cannot divide fault amongst the parties whereas a court or insurance company can apportion fault between the parties. For our purposes, the key is most often where the vehicles were at the time of the collision - hence the reason I asked about the position of the turn relative to the intersection in the original post. Unless this driveway was just past the intersection, the driver of the vehicle is generally going to be at fault for failing to make certain that it was safe to make the turn.



If the moving truck was signaling and began the turn onto the intersecting street in the proper lane, then the cyclist should have yielded until the truck had completed the turn. The cyclist's failure to control his speed was not a defense. He has a legal obligation to drive at a safe and prudent speed for the road and conditions (VC 22350 still applies even to cyclists).



Brian57 is in CA, so I am assuming this is a CA incident.

As for the authority to determine fault, well ... if the collision occurred in a contract city where the Sheriff's Department provides contracted law enforcement services, yep, he has the authority to determine fault (at least, his office does - and he has the final say). While it may have been premature, his statement may also have been based upon the conclusions of his investigators at the scene.

---

he has the right to determine fault for what purposes? Unless his statement supercedes a court’s, the determination is meaningless as I see it.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

he has the right to determine fault for what purposes? Unless his statement supercedes a court’s, the determination is meaningless as I see it.

---

Pursuant to the CVC and SWITRS (the state's collision reporting system that is also used to determine whether a point is issued to one's license) law enforcement DOES assign fault (the PCF) in reported collisions. In fact, the assignation of fault in a collision is mandatory if it can be determined.

While reports are generally unnecessary for law enforcement purposes and are largely for statistical data and insurance companies, they do still have a role in the Vehicle Code.

Unless your state is extremely different than mine, the pcf carries no weight in the courts. It is an initial determination based on the limited facts the responding officer is aware of. I see the finding of fault can be as little as a knee jerk reaction by the cop. (not suggesting a cop taking his job very seriously won’t come up with the actual fault but I’m not seeing the finding of fault by the cop as having any true legal status or any real purpose other than as input for a statistical compilation by the state) As such, I still believe the statement made was improper and could lead to the tainting of a jury pool.

I also argue that the assignment of fault does not equal the legal determination of fault. I said the cop cannot determine fault (that is a legal conclusion and is relegated to the courts) . Being able to assign fault is not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Unless your state is extremely different than mine, the pcf carries no weight in the courts.

---

Legally, no. Though for most collisions they rely entirely upon the police collision report for the details upon which they make their evaluations.

Quote:

---

It is an initial determination based on the limited facts the responding officer is aware of. I see the finding of fault can be as little as a knee jerk reaction by the cop. (not suggesting a cop taking his job very seriously won’t come up with the actual fault but I’m not seeing the finding of fault by the cop as having any true legal status or any real purpose other than as input for a statistical compilation by the state) As such, I still believe the statement made was improper and could lead to the tainting of a jury pool.

---

What jury pool? It's not criminal, and unlikely to go to a civil court, either. Almost every collision is settled by the insurance companies and not in court. Of the roughly 700 collisions I have investigated, I have been subpoenaed twice to civil court and never called as a witness, and both settled prior to going to the jury.

And, since collision reports are public record, the assigned PCF (fault) is hardly a secret.

The Sheriff was likely making the simple statement of fact that their investigation concluded that the truck was not the primary party at fault. Keep in mind that most collision investigations are not rocket science. The vast majority of them are obvious to the investigator and do not require a lengthy follow-up. But, if further investigation uncovers other evidence that could change the PCF, then that can be addressed through the appropriate supplement. And, in the case of serious injury or fatal collisions, the report could take days, weeks, or even months to be finalized and for fault to be determined.

Law enforcement is being increasingly asked to render decisions, release data, and provide information on incidents almost instantly. We cannot have it both ways. Law enforcement has lost the argument regarding the integrity of the investigation, tainting jury pools, and protecting the rights of parties involved and even officers ... the public and the politicians have prevailed, and the marching orders have been modified to encourage - even demand - conclusions or opinions in short order.

Quote:

---

I also argue that the assignment of fault does not equal the legal determination of fault. I said the cop cannot determine fault (that is a legal conclusion and is relegated to the courts) . Being able to assign fault is not the same thing.

---

I don't think anyone has ever said that the law enforcement assignation of fault is the end of the matter. The collision report in CA is binding only upon the agency and the DMV, and the drive rcan always try and appeal that point to the DMV (good luck with that). It can also be used to support any criminal charges or citation issued as a result of the investigation. An insurance company or a civil court can do as they wish. As I previously mentioned, state law in CA only permits us to assign fault to ONE party. We cannot apportion fault, and that may be appropriate in a civil case. But, for our purposes, only one party is at fault ... or, if it cannot be determined at all, then none.

What jury pool? The cyclist died. While the cop on the scene said it wasn’t the truckers fault, a prosecutor may feel very differently. (The issue with the cop assigning fault was from brian57’s situation where a cyclist died)

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

What jury pool? The cyclist died. While the cop on the scene said it wasn’t the truckers fault, a prosecutor may feel very differently. (The issue with the cop assigning fault was from brian57’s situation where a cyclist died)

---

Clearly, I missed the part that it was a fatal. Re-reading it, I can see it now ... not sure how I missed that.

And, I am still under the impression that when he said "the Sheriff" he manes THE elected Sheriff, and not a deputy at the scene. An officer at the scene should never make such an announcement absent approval from a supervisor (and usually that would come from way upon high).

But, none of that changes the fact that the Sheriff had the lawful right to make this proclamation of fault, even if it might not have been wise - especially if this "Sheriff" was a deputy and not the PIO or other person granted permission by the Sheriff to make such announcements. It might have been premature, and maybe even insensitive if done at the scene of the incident, but it's very likely that fault (for law enforcement purposes) had already been determined by that point. Such an incident would not be too difficult to investigate.

As for a jury, the odds of this going to a jury trial is nearly nil. Even in the case of a fatal collision, a settlement will most often be made out of court (the last number I heard was something akin to 95%+).

Again, the quest for immediate answers to sometimes complex questions is leading to a great many premature and even unwise responses.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

Is every car that pulls into a driveway or parking space required to look far back up the right side of the road to check for fast approaching bicycles that are swiftly passing on the right?

---

Of course they are. You're surely not trying to say otherwise, are you? That the driver of a car pulling in or out of ANYTHING is not supposed to check for fast approaching vehicles of any description?

When I got in my recent bike accident I tried to contact the Officer to amend the police report. A lot of information was missing in his determination that I was at sole fault of the collision. However, when I told my attorney that I tried to contact the officer he said, "the officer is out of the picture and his opinion does not matter anymore." Now he is the guy who knows very well what factors determine fault in accidents. I believe police are poorly trained in that department.

To the comment that police officers do not share fault on accident reports, A California Highway Patrolman just told me that they do...and would have in my situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If the moving truck was signaling and began the turn onto the intersecting street in the proper lane, then the cyclist should have yielded until the truck had completed the turn. The cyclist's failure to control his speed was not a defense. He has a legal obligation to drive at a safe and prudent speed for the road and conditions (VC 22350 still applies even to cyclists).

---

There is no way the truck could make that right turn without starting from the #1 or left turn lane. He swung wide crossing over the #1, #2 and right turn lane. The truck likely looked back before starting his turn because that was the only position his rear view mirror would allow him to see directly back down the road. Once he started his turn his rear view mirror would be useless. I wonder if he told the officer that his rear view mirrors don't work when his truck is at an angle?

An interesting question: All cars have different stoping distances, bicycles and semis are likely the worst, yet a speed limit applies to all. If a bozo like that moving van driver crosses over three lanes in front of fast downhill traffic, and they cannot stop in time, is the moving van at fault or the bicycle at fault for not being able to stop? Not all cars can stop on a dime and it was just after a 10% downhill grade.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Of course they are. You're surely not trying to say otherwise, are you? That the driver of a car pulling in or out of ANYTHING is not supposed to check for fast approaching vehicles of any description?

---

But is the 3' of space between moving traffic and parked cars a bike lane that must be checked the same as changing lanes on the road? If you haven't seen a bike all day and you pull into a parking space, are you required to look far back up the right side between your lane the parking spaces?

The correct answer might be 'yes', they are required to, but I don't expect them to.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

When I got in my recent bike accident I tried to contact the Officer to amend the police report. A lot of information was missing in his determination that I was at sole fault of the collision. However, when I told my attorney that I tried to contact the officer he said, "the officer is out of the picture and his opinion does not matter anymore." Now he is the guy who knows very well what factors determine fault in accidents. I believe police are poorly trained in that department.

---

The level of training varies. Some officers possess only what the academy and experience teaches them. Others have obtained basic, intermediate, or advance collision investigation training, and even reconstruction. For a basic collision, the determination of fault is not rocket science. Is the determination absolute? Of course not. Any investigation that relies on expert testimony involves opinion, and opinions can vary. But, so far as the DMV and the police are concerned the assignation of fault is as determined by the collision investigation.

Quote:

---

To the comment that police officers do not share fault on accident reports, A California Highway Patrolman just told me that they do...and would have in my situation.

---

Not true, or at least not as it might apply to apportioning fault by percentages. What he probably said is that they can assign what is referred to as an "Associated Factor," which is not the same as apportioning fault. What that says is there is another factor (bad driving, circumstance, malfunction, etc.) that contributed in some way to the collision. But, only ONE party can be assigned the PCF (Primary Collision Factor) and in most circumstances a PCF MUST be assigned.

Quote:

---

There is no way the truck could make that right turn without starting from the #1 or left turn lane. He swung wide crossing over the #1, #2 and right turn lane. The truck likely looked back before starting his turn because that was the only position his rear view mirror would allow him to see directly back down the road. Once he started his turn his rear view mirror would be useless. I wonder if he told the officer that his rear view mirrors don't work when his truck is at an angle?

---

Unless it was a pickup truck or a flatbed, the rearview mirror would have been useless anyway. Not to mention that a rearview mirror is not specifically required by the CVC.

If he began a turn from an improper position that could change the entire picture. However, I wasn't there to conduct the investigation, and I suspect you were not, either. Ultimately, the investigation will gather what facts they can and assign fault, insurance companies will assign fault and make an offer as they see fit, and the matter will almost certainly go to court and result in a settlement of some kind no matter the responsibility.

Quote:

---

An interesting question: All cars have different stoping distances, bicycles and semis are likely the worst, yet a speed limit applies to all. If a bozo like that moving van driver crosses over three lanes in front of fast downhill traffic, and they cannot stop in time, is the moving van at fault or the bicycle at fault for not being able to stop? Not all cars can stop on a dime and it was just after a 10% downhill grade.

---

VC 22350 still applies. One must travel with due regard for traffic and road conditions. What factors may or may not have been a factor in your bicycle collision, I cannot say.

Quote:

---

But is the 3' of space between moving traffic and parked cars a bike lane that must be checked the same as changing lanes on the road? If you haven't seen a bike all day and you pull into a parking space, are you required to look far back up the right side between your lane the parking spaces?

The correct answer might be 'yes', they are required to, but I don't expect them to.

---

The CVC covers such turning movements and requires they be done only when safe to do so. So, technically, there is such a requirement.

Such things are referred to as "accidents" because they are unintended collisions. They don't mean that someone was driving or acting in an inherently reckless or dangerous manner, only that the act unintentionally resulted in an impact of some sort. Some are trivial, others are sadly tragic.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If he began a turn from an improper position that could change the entire picture.

---

Regarding the bicycle accident I just mentioned, I'd like you or anyone else who wants to partake to do a little mock investigation on your own.

The intersection of the accident was Vallon Lane and Hawthorne Blvd in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Zoom in on it on Google Earth. The Mayflower truck was heading south on Hawthorne and turning right/west onto Vallon Lane. A moving truck of that size could not make that turn from the right turn lane. No way!

Listen to the news reporter later that day. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...371463891.html They seem to imply that the moving truck was in the right turn lane, making an impossible turn, while a highly skilled cyclist, a racer, rode up the right side of the truck, squeezed against the curb, at 45 mph, which is suicide. If the truck was in the right turn lane, the cyclist could have easily passed him in #1 or #2 lane which the cyclist was undoubtedly riding in anyway. Hint: At those speeds, we take a lane and never ride to the right side of the road.

I have descended that road dozens of times at 45+mph. The scenario I see is much different than what the Sheriffs claim happened.

Talk about horrible police work at the scene of a fatal (multi-million dollar) accident. A starting point: If the truck driver said he initiated his right turn from the right turn lane, he would be obviously lying...yet the Sheriffs accepted it.

Oh, and the cyclist's body was dragged under the truck hundreds of feet up Vallon Lane before the residents yelled at him to stop.

What say you after your mini investigation?

It looks like the speed limit there is 35, why would a bicyclist go 45 in a 35 approaching a traffic light on a steep downhill? Sounds suicidal. A truck driver could be in the right turn lane and make that turn, likely with the rear wheels up on the sidewalk, possibly swinging the cab partly into the adjacent lane at the start of the turn. They do not show skid marks at the intersection but they show the truck swung wide into the oncoming lane on Vallon. Maybe the cyclist could not move over due to other traffic. Whatever, the law says you need to control your vehicle, even a bicycle, to avoid hitting something in front of you. Once he came around the curve he could/should see the truck in his way but did/could not stop. The tv report does not indicate where the cyclist struck the truck, a key factor. With it being fatal and a major investigative team present, it is likely they got it right. Plus, the investigators have lots more detailed information that we lack. If he was doing 45 at impact, it is more likely he was bent over, following the curb and not looking where he was going. Although there is a bike lane after Vallon, there is none before it.

Hard to say ... and I am confident that the investigation relied SOLELY on what the Mayflower driver said. It's also likely that the driver was in the right turn lane - or partially so - and was perhaps cheating left before making a wide right turn onto Vallon. If that was the case, and assuming the driver was signaling, the fault would clearly lay with the cyclist.

What is not clear from the news piece is whether there were witnesses to the crash, what WAS said by the driver, and what physical evidence might exist at the scene. I guarantee you that there was a clear mark at the point of impact in the road, and that location coupled with associated damage or marks on the truck would tell them a lot about what happened.

You are making assumptions of a shoddy investigation without even knowing anything about it. It may well have been a poor investigation, though I doubt it. I strongly suspect that because it was a fatal, they had their reconstruction team respond, and those are the guys that enter their second careers after retirement getting paid $200+/hr. by attorneys and insurance companies to analyze these things. It would be telling to find out any follow-up news stories about the incident and any pending legal action and/or settlement.

The reporter stated the truck had stopped at the light and when it turned green he started his turn. What cyclist in his right mind is going to be heading 45 mph this close to an intersection facing a red light (in a 35 mph zone mind you)


i have to agree with brian57 that the truck wasn’t in the right turn lane, or at least completely. It looks like it’s probably a 53’ van (the longest you can get) with a very long wheelbase tractor and the rear axles on the trailer are as far back as you can get (makes for a very wide turning radius). That guy was set up for long haul driving Most city trucks use a shorter van and/or kick their rear axles as far forward as their load alllows for. He may have run his wheels on the sidewalk even if he started in the first straight lane. That’s a very long wheelbase and it takes a lot of area to make turns.

For it to be the truckers fault he would have had to completely relinquish the right lane so it would appear the truck was going straight. If traffic was extremely light that is a possibility. If there is much of any traffic there at that time of day it’s less likely the truck totally gave up the right lane. They typically waggle the truck to use it as a barricade to retain possession of the turn lane even while swinging left into the straight through lanes.


There isnt enough info available to even guess as to fault. It could go either way based on the limited info we have.

I can't edit my previous post, but, I meant to write, " I am confident that the investigation DID NOT RELY SOLELY on what the Mayflower driver said."

And, yeah, WE don't have enough info to determine fault. But, I'm guessing that the guys that did the investigation DID have the necessary info.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The reporter stated the truck had stopped at the light and when it turned green he started his turn. What cyclist in his right mind is going to be heading 45 mph this close to an intersection facing a red light (in a 35 mph zone mind you)


i have to agree with brian57 that the truck wasn’t in the right turn lane, or at least completely. It looks like it’s probably a 53’ van (the longest you can get) with a very long wheelbase tractor and the rear axles on the trailer are as far back as you can get (makes for a very wide turning radius). That guy was set up for long haul driving Most city trucks use a shorter van and/or kick their rear axles as far forward as their load alllows for. He may have run his wheels on the sidewalk even if he started in the first straight lane. That’s a very long wheelbase and it takes a lot of area to make turns.

For it to be the truckers fault he would have had to completely relinquish the right lane so it would appear the truck was going straight. If traffic was extremely light that is a possibility. If there is much of any traffic there at that time of day it’s less likely the truck totally gave up the right lane. They typically waggle the truck to use it as a barricade to retain possession of the turn lane even while swinging left into the straight through lanes.


There isnt enough info available to even guess as to fault. It could go either way based on the limited info we have.

---

It sounds like you may have trucking experience, or at least are good at geometry. In my observation of trucking radius', that truck would take down the traffic light if it started its turn from against the curb.

You guys say there is not enough information. Well, there is a lot of information already. The only things missing is where did he start his turn from and where on the truck did the cyclist strike. If he hit the tractor and not the trailer, what does that tell you about possible fault?

If he hit the trailer, what does that tell you about possible fault? Answer each scenario please.

As a cyclist I have a very good idea how this could have happened... to even me.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I can't edit my previous post, but, I meant to write, " I am confident that the investigation DID NOT RELY SOLELY on what the Mayflower driver said."

And, yeah, WE don't have enough info to determine fault. But, I'm guessing that the guys that did the investigation DID have the necessary info.

---

So you are saying that the skilled cyclist chose to ride up the right side of the truck while it was up against the curb, with turn signals on, when he had two lanes to the left to just pass it?

To the cyclist's experience; He rode with a club called Big Orange. It is a club of mostly fast, experienced racers. They ride about 200mi a week in curvy, hilly Palos Verdes.

No, there isn't enough information. We don't know what the trucker said/did. We don't know if the trucks turn signal was on. We don't know if the cyclist was travelling head down like an idiot and not paying attention to traffic. We don't know if the cyclist made any sort of maneuvers to avoid the collision. We don't know where the cyclist struck the truck.

All of those can play a part in determining the exact course of events and help law enforcement determine which person was responsible for the accident.

Generally speaking, if he had hit the tractor that might indicate that the turn may have been sudden and he didn't have any warning it was going to happen. He still shouldn't have been passing on the right well over the speed limit. If he hit the tractor, that would a good indication that the truck had already begun the turn and the cyclist should have known and acted appropriately. Just because he hit the tractor doesn't not automatically mean he didn't do anything wrong. The cyclist was speeding and not paying attention to traffic so the accident is going to be his responsibility almost completely, if not completely, under most circumstances.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

To the cyclist's experience; He rode with a club called Big Orange. It is a club of mostly fast, experienced racers. They ride about 200mi a week in curvy, hilly Palos Verdes.

---

Experience does not mean there aren't bouts of stupidity. In fact, experience can lead to them.

The extensive riding can lead to complacency or foolish risks thinking they have it under control.


As to trucking experience. Used to be licensed to run semi’s. Didn’t use it much. Brother ran the road for 15-20 years. Many friends drove truck. Additonally I pay attention to the trucks on the road. Given the familiarity with trucking I try to give truckers a wide berth to do their thing. I know how difficult it can be, especially when being rushed or crowded.


There still isn’t enough info to make a call. The precise plascement of the truck and where the contact was is critical in my mind. I don’t have either. In the video I saw scrub marks from a tire. Seeing the entirety of those marks and knowing which wheel they came from is important.

Nust way too much missing to call it.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The extensive riding can lead to complacency or foolish risks thinking they have it under control.


As to trucking experience. Used to be licensed to run semi’s. Didn’t use it much. Brother ran the road for 15-20 years. Many friends drove truck. Additonally I pay attention to the trucks on the road. Given the familiarity with trucking I try to give truckers a wide berth to do their thing. I know how difficult it can be, especially when being rushed or crowded.


There still isn’t enough info to make a call. The precise plascement of the truck and where the contact was is critical in my mind. I don’t have either. In the video I saw scrub marks from a tire. Seeing the entirety of those marks and knowing which wheel they came from is important.

Nust way too much missing to call it.

---

But there is!

A question to those that feel qualified to analyze a fatal accident: What forensic evidence is at that accident scene that would be a major determiner of fault. It also, not being analyzed by a professional accident reconstructionist, made the Sheriff Deputy's comments very premature?

BTW - I am holding back how I, or other skilled cyclists, could be killed by that truck. And yes, it would be the truck's fault. But first, maybe somebody else could tell how they feel that truck could kill a cyclist and it be the truck's fault? Any takers? Be specific please.

Per this article,
https://www.dailybreeze.com/2016/03/...es-identified/
The cyclist hit the trailer and the rear wheels. Even if the truck started wide that would put the cab through the intersection. So, assume the truck was blocking the entire road during a turn he started before the cyclist arrived, the cyclist is required to stop.
Brian, you have decided the truck is at fault without the data from the accident investigation. You are not happy we don’t agree. Going down that hill over the speed limit makes the cyclist partially or totally responsible.

Quote:

---

Quoting joef

---

Per this article,
https://www.dailybreeze.com/2016/03/...es-identified/
The cyclist hit the trailer and the rear wheels. Even if the truck started wide that would put the cab through the intersection. So, assume the truck was blocking the entire road during a turn he started before the cyclist arrived, the cyclist is required to stop.
Brian, you have decided the truck is at fault without the data from the accident investigation. You are not happy we don’t agree. Going down that hill over the speed limit makes the cyclist partially or totally responsible.

---

I have not even commented on how I think it happened yet.

It is you that seems to have no problem with the Deputy making those comments.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

But there is!

A question to those that feel qualified to analyze a fatal accident: What forensic evidence is at that accident scene that would be a major determiner of fault. It also, not being analyzed by a professional accident reconstructionist, made the Sheriff Deputy's comments very premature?

BTW - I am holding back how I, or other skilled cyclists, could be killed by that truck. And yes, it would be the truck's fault. But first, maybe somebody else could tell how they feel that truck could kill a cyclist and it be the truck's fault? Any takers? Be specific please.

---

No there isn’t. All we have here is a sum total of;

its stated truck was at a red light

it was stated the cycle was possibly going as fast as 45 mph

there was a tire scrub mark. We can’t see where it started nor from which wheel it came from.

the bicycle impacted the truck somewhere along the side of the truck

the truck was at some undefined point in his turn when the impact occurred.

The cyclist was caught up somewhere under the truck.


So, do you have more than that? That isn’t enough to make the call.


Given joef’s addition that the impact occurred near the rear wheels, it tends to push fault on the cyclist but still nothing close to definative. We don’t have the angle of impact (may be determinable from the impact marks and could add to data that could make the issue clearer)

I, for one, truly despise the "what if ..." game. Why? Because the questioner can change and mold "facts" at every turn to twist and mold the direction of the hypothetical.

In the news article, there is simply NOT sufficient information to make a determination of fault. Scuff marks aside, there is no information on the vehicle, the AOI, damage to the truck/trailer, presence of other physical evidence, presence of witnesses, etc. As such, I am not going to engage in a series of "if this, then that ..." replies. They grow tedious.

The Sheriff's Commander stated that the cyclist was at fault. Okay, he made that statement. Whether he was correct or not, we do not know because we have zero information upon which to investigate further. No names, case numbers, nothing. Since collision reports are generally public information, it should be available for review if someone knew what to ask for. Only then will we know what the investigation concluded. Until then, we can speculate until the cows come home and never know if we're widely off the mark or not.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

BTW - I am holding back how I, or other skilled cyclists, could be killed by that truck. And yes, it would be the truck's fault.

---

Why have us speculate when you have an idea that places blame on the trucker, please enlighten us. Absent a civil trial for wrongful death, I expect we will not have access to the official accident report. The LA Sherriff’s Department has taken the position that the trucker is not criminally liable. Without those report details and based on very limited public information, most of us speculate that that the major blame goes to the cyclist. Please explain why we are wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I, for one, truly despise the "what if ..." game. Why? Because the questioner can change and mold "facts" at every turn to twist and mold the direction of the hypothetical.

In the news article, there is simply NOT sufficient information to make a determination of fault. Scuff marks aside, there is no information on the vehicle, the AOI, damage to the truck/trailer, presence of other physical evidence, presence of witnesses, etc. As such, I am not going to engage in a series of "if this, then that ..." replies. They grow tedious.

The Sheriff's Commander stated that the cyclist was at fault. Okay, he made that statement. Whether he was correct or not, we do not know because we have zero information upon which to investigate further. No names, case numbers, nothing. Since collision reports are generally public information, it should be available for review if someone knew what to ask for. Only then will we know what the investigation concluded. Until then, we can speculate until the cows come home and never know if we're widely off the mark or not.

---

The "what if" game is what the Sheriff Commander is playing when he said the cyclist was at fault because where did the basis of that information come from? The truck driver?

If you assume it is true, how did the truck make that turn from the right turn lane? It is impossible. The radius is too tight. If anyone should know that, you should and so should the Commander. So what was the position of the truck prior to making the turn? Do you really think the Commander knows at that point in time. Heck no! Yet he talks into the camera as though the does. And you should agree that missing information is huge in determining fault.

The statement of the truck driver can be proven or disproven through an accident reconstruction using computer simulation. If you know how accident recon experts works, they can take the skid marks, the arch of the skid marks, the length of the truck, the wheel base of the truck and trailer axles and make a pinpoint recreation of the turn. Their computer can easily extend the arch of the skid marks into the street and redraw the angle of the truck as it entered Vallon. They know exactly where the cyclist struck the truck because his body was stuck in the truck. They know the tire that locked up or made the skid mark. Also, with the computer simulation, they could figure where in the street that impact took place. All that information is available to the Sheriff Dept, yet the Commander neglected to research it in advance of placing blame on the cyclist. Why?

With that computer information available, why would the Commander assume the truck driver is telling the truth. Why not tell the public it is under investigation?

Let me ask you this: Do you think it matters where, how and when the truck initiated its turn when placing fault? I do.

I recently asked if a car abruptly turned in front of a cyclist and hit him while pulling into a driveway or parking space, would the car be at fault. It was said that the car would be responsible because he was changing lanes and he should have looked back to make sure his lane change was safe to make. Well, that same rule applies to the truck driver.

I think we can make a better assumption of what took place. The Commander's assumption of the truck being against the curb and the skilled cyclist riding up the 24" gap between the truck and the curb at 45mph is absurd. All while not passing in the two open lanes to the left of the truck. Yes, the Commander's scenario is just stupid.

What likely happened is that the truck was in the #1 or #2 lane prior to the turn. When the cyclist rounded the turn he saw the truck stationary. As he approached the truck it veered left to make a larger radius right turn onto Vallon. The cyclist saw the truck veer to the left so he chose the right side to make the pass. Or, the truck was in the #1 lane which forced the cyclist to pass on the right. Suddenly, after the cyclist was committed to the pass on the right, the truck swerved to the right. After that the door was closed on the cyclist and his fate was sealed.

The conclusion: My scenario is possible, likely and provable. The Commander's is extremely unlikely, impossible and disprovable. Remember, downhill traffic has the right of way over traffic pulling in front of them. One must consider the speed, momentum and inertia of downhill traffic and their lack of stopping ability. Thus the law.

No matter how you dice it, the truck driver did not use his mirrors prudently.

Oh, and at 50mph, a bike can stop for that intersection because I have done it many times. Therefore, the truck was initially in a position to give the cyclist a green light on passing it, but instead the truck made an abrupt redirecting move after the bike was in his rear view mirror.

This is accident recon 101.

And, still as much a guess as anyone without any of the facts could possibly make. Because your scenario is plausible does not make the Commander or the investigators (who, as it happens, would be the only people WITH all the facts, AND who have probably taken many more courses than your tongue-in-cheek Recon 101) were wrong. I suspect you conclude they are wrong because ... well, because they're cops.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

The "what if" game is what the Sheriff Commander is playing when he said the cyclist was at fault because where did the basis of that information come from? The truck driver?

If you assume it is true, how did the truck make that turn from the right turn lane? It is impossible. The radius is too tight. If anyone should know that, you should and so should the Commander. So what was the position of the truck prior to making the turn? Do you really think the Commander knows at that point in time. Heck no! Yet he talks into the camera as though the does. And you should agree that missing information is huge in determining fault.

The statement of the truck driver can be proven or disproven through an accident reconstruction using computer simulation. If you know how accident recon experts works, they can take the skid marks, the arch of the skid marks, the length of the truck, the wheel base of the truck and trailer axles and make a pinpoint recreation of the turn. Their computer can easily extend the arch of the skid marks into the street and redraw the angle of the truck as it entered Vallon. They know exactly where the cyclist struck the truck because his body was stuck in the truck. They know the tire that locked up or made the skid mark. Also, with the computer simulation, they could figure where in the street that impact took place. All that information is available to the Sheriff Dept, yet the Commander neglected to research it in advance of placing blame on the cyclist. Why?

With that computer information available, why would the Commander assume the truck driver is telling the truth. Why not tell the public it is under investigation?

Let me ask you this: Do you think it matters where, how and when the truck initiated its turn when placing fault? I do.

I recently asked if a car abruptly turned in front of a cyclist and hit him while pulling into a driveway or parking space, would the car be at fault. It was said that the car would be responsible because he was changing lanes and he should have looked back to make sure his lane change was safe to make. Well, that same rule applies to the truck driver.

I think we can make a better assumption of what took place. The Commander's assumption of the truck being against the curb and the skilled cyclist riding up the 24" gap between the truck and the curb at 45mph is absurd. All while not passing in the two open lanes to the left of the truck. Yes, the Commander's scenario is just stupid.

What likely happened is that the truck was in the #1 or #2 lane prior to the turn. When the cyclist rounded the turn he saw the truck stationary. As he approached the truck it veered left to make a larger radius right turn onto Vallon. The cyclist saw the truck veer to the left so he chose the right side to make the pass. Or, the truck was in the #1 lane which forced the cyclist to pass on the right. Suddenly, after the cyclist was committed to the pass on the right, the truck swerved to the right. After that the door was closed on the cyclist and his fate was sealed.

The conclusion: My scenario is possible, likely and provable. The Commander's is extremely unlikely, impossible and disprovable. Remember, downhill traffic has the right of way over traffic pulling in front of them. One must consider the speed, momentum and inertia of downhill traffic and their lack of stopjping ability. Thus the law.

No matter how you dice it, the truck driver did not use his mirrors prudently.

Oh, and at 50mph, a bike can stop for that intersection because I have done it many times. Therefore, the truck was initially in a position to give the cyclist a green light on passing it, but instead the truck made an abrupt redirecting move after the bike was in his rear view mirror.

This is accident recon 101.

---

Trucks turning right on a tight corner don’t make an abrupt anything, especially to the point the cyclist would hit the truck near the end of the trailer. It takes time to get that big thing around a turn. If the cyclist hit the side of the trailer fairly squarely (again, info we don’t have) it would have taken several seconds, at minimum, for the trailer to have reached that position. That would mean the cyclist was far enough back (at 45 mph you travel 66 fps so that would put the cyclist around 100 yards or so up the road when the truck started the turn) to have stopped or avoided the collision if he was paying attention. It also means the truck was well into its turn by the time the cyclist hit the truck.

So a major fact not available in my scenario is angle of impact and that is a crucial piece of info to make or refute my scenario.

We could play this game until the cows come home (that’s usually around dinner time. They are creatures of habit) but until there is a lot more info, it’s an exercise in futility.

Quote:

---

Remember, downhill traffic has the right of way over traffic pulling in front of them. One must consider the speed, momentum and inertia of downhill traffic and their lack of stopjping ability. Thus the law.

---

um, no. Once the truck possesses the lanes the following traffic is obligated to yield to the truck. Only if the trucks actions were so fast it would be considered cutting off a following driver, the truck gained right of way when he went into any given lane. The following traffic is then required to yield to him. Given the cyclist hit near the end of the trailer, unless it was a glancing impact, it would appear the truck had clearly taken control of the lanes involved and the cyclist was simply driving to fast to be able to stop within an assured clear distance.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Trucks turning right on a tight corner don’t make an abrupt anything, especially to the point the cyclist would hit the truck near the end of the trailer. It takes time to get that big thing around a turn. If the cyclist hit the side of the trailer fairly squarely (again, info we don’t have) it would have taken several seconds, at minimum, for the trailer to have reached that position. That would mean the cyclist was far enough back (at 45 mph you travel 66 fps so that would put the cyclist around 100 yards or so up the road when the truck started the turn) to have stopped or avoided the collision if he was paying attention. It also means the truck was well into its turn by the time the cyclist hit the truck.

So a major fact not available in my scenario is angle of impact and that is a crucial piece of info to make or refute my scenario.

We could play this game until the cows come home (that’s usually around dinner time. They are creatures of habit) but until there is a lot more info, it’s an exercise in futility.




um, no. Once the truck possesses the lanes the following traffic is obligated to yield to the truck. Only if the trucks actions were so fast it would be considered cutting off a following driver, the truck gained right of way when he went into any given lane. The following traffic is then required to yield to him. Given the cyclist hit near the end of the trailer, unless it was a glancing impact, it would appear the truck had clearly taken control of the lanes involved and the cyclist was simply driving to fast to be able to stop within an assured clear distance.

---

When the cyclist came around his bend he saw the moving truck in a position that caused him to not brake, but to pass on the right. Then the truck changed directions or started his right turn. That is likely the scenario. He definitely did not to pass the way the Commander said he did, by shooting up against the curb at 45mph when he had two clear lanes to the left of the truck to safely pass.

The cyclist first went right. Then he saw the truck turn right so he tried to hook hard left to make it around the left rear of the truck. After the truck cab reached the curb of Vallon, the cyclist's door was closed and he tried to brake and turn hard left to make it around the rear of the truck. At that speed, with brakes applied, he couldn't make it.

A driver cannot make any unsafe move in front of another vehicle and the car behind be expected to avoid a collision. As someone here just said, a car cannot dive into a parking space or driveway in front of a cyclist on their right. Or am I incorrect, that a car can do whatever move it wants in front of a cyclist and the cyclist should have good enough reaction time to apply brakes or swerve?

You guys are being inconsistent. Bottom line, the truck driver did not check his mirrors before executing a blockage of multiple lanes on a steep downhill.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And, still as much a guess as anyone without any of the facts could possibly make. Because your scenario is plausible does not make the Commander or the investigators (who, as it happens, would be the only people WITH all the facts, AND who have probably taken many more courses than your tongue-in-cheek Recon 101) were wrong. I suspect you conclude they are wrong because ... well, because they're cops.

---

I have nothing against that Commander (or police in general) until he made those premature, presumptive statements into the camera.

Of anyone, he should know what an accident recon team can determine with the forensics at the scene. There were tons of facts right there to be analyzed.

The Commander also believed and repeated what the driver claimed. Again, a careless thing to do before an investigation. He didn't even preface by saying "the truck driver was allegedly not at fault."

I may be hard on the Commander, but you should be able to be more critical of a high ranking Sheriff. His description of the accident was not believable and painted the cyclist as being on a suicide mission.

Quote:

---

When the cyclist came around his bend he saw the moving truck in a position that caused him to not brake, but to pass on the right. Then the truck changed directions or star

---

.


Here’s a scenario that does put the cyclist along the curb (and remember the cops on scene have evidence, like where the bike was when the collision occurred so if they say the bike was near the curb, it likely was).

Cyclist comes around the curve. Biker remains near the curb as the turn lane is created since what the heck, he has plenty of time to move to the next over lane before the intersection.

Truck is not in turn lane all. Light turns green. Trucker actually sees cyclist near the curb, which is the right turn lane. Trucker presumed bike is also turning right so truck turns. Since not all bikers signal and even when they do the time displayed is limited so it’s easily disregarded that the trucker did not see a signal to turn right. Biker realizes he is being hemmed in but it’s too late and there is no safe exit.

Again, and for my last time, there is not enough info to make the call from here. The cops on the scene had much more info than is available here. I have nothing that allows me to dispute their call.

Quote:

---

He didn't even preface by saying "the truck driver was

---

Quote:

---

allegedly not at fault."

---

using the alleged disclaimer really only makes a difference when you are accusing one of wrong doing. Otherwise it is irrlevent. You don’t need to use the alleged disclaimer when saying something good about somebody.

Well, I am still here walking this earth because I have correctly assessed situations just like this thousands of times. How many times have you approached a deadly decision on a bike and correctly read the minds and movements of traffic ahead of you? Never?

As to me linking spam, I said they are old friends, not current friends. Besides they work in the area. How many folks reading this would hire an out of state company with advice from somebody they do not know. Ridiculous! Besides, they use science and computer simulations. Something any computer recon scientist can do. THAT is my point. The two owners of that company once told me that all accident recon specialists agree with each other because they use science.

If there were two clear lanes to the left of the moving van, a skilled cyclist would have taken that path. Believe me, I ride with enough of them.

Quote:

---

If there were two clear lanes to the left of the moving van, a skilled cyclist would have taken that path. Believe me, I ride with enough of them.[

---

believe whatever you want. It’s immaterial and doesn’t change a thing


btw; motorcycles move so much faster than a bicycle. If you think bicycles are the only 2 wheelers that have to make quick decisions, you would be wrong. Bicycles are typically 10-20 mph. Motorcycles cruise at the speed limit, whatever it is. Try making a quick decision at 70 mph. It’s so much more exciting than at 20.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

believe whatever you want. It’s immaterial and doesn’t change a thing

---

Change it from what? What the Commander blurted out after failing to do a scientific investigation?

Quote:

---

btw; motorcycles move so much faster than a bicycle. If you think bicycles are the only 2 wheelers that have to make quick decisions, you would be wrong. Bicycles are typically 10-20 mph. Motorcycles cruise at the speed limit, whatever it is. Try making a quick decision at 70 mph. It’s so much more exciting than at 20.

---

I ride a motorcycle too, but in the dirt and desert where the skill level, awareness, response time and coordination far exceed street riding.

HA!

Quote:

---

Quoting Brian57

---

I ride a motorcycle too, but in the dirt and desert where the skill level, awareness, response time and coordination far exceed street riding.

---

oh you are so full of crap dude. Try riding street bikes at night in the rain in 70 mph tight traffic (like rush hour type traffic). You better damn well be alert and able to react very quickly, but not in a manner you’re going to go down because of it. Skill doesn’t live only in the dirt.


But it’s become obvious nobody knows more than you or has done anything close to what you have done in life so I’ll just mosey on out the door.