Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Fault for an Accident Between a Bicycle and a Stopped Vehicle

    I am discussing a traffic accident in the state of: CA

    I am an avid cyclist and was traveling north on Pacific Coast Hwy in Huntington Beach just south of Warner. It is a barren stretch of road with a 5' bikelane and four lanes of 60mph traffic. The two mile section is also marked 'no stopping any time.'

    I was in an aero position to break the wind with another rider on my back wheel. I suddenly noticed an 8' wide flatbed traffic control company truck ahead of me blocking the whole bikelane. Traveling 25mph, a rider on my back wheel and potentially 60mph traffic to my immediate left, I had to make a snap decision. After a slight hesitation to consider my options I cut to the left to get around the truck. Suffice to say I/we did not make it. We struck the left rear corner at full speed and flew out into the #2 lane. We both broke bones and received lacerations.

    The Officer inferred that it was 100% my fault because "the truck was an emergency vehicle with its emergency lights on" (arrow-board). At the time and up to two weeks later I agreed. However after further research, I now do not agree. It was not an emergency vehicle. It was a work vehicle performing a planned lane closure. It was not using "emergency lights". It was using only lights to merge 10-20mph bike traffic into 60mph traffic with no cones, signs, flagmen or ample room to pass. They were breaking Caltrans, OSHA and DOT standards clearly outlined in the Manual of Traffic Control Devices Chapter 6.

    I spoke with a policeman, a Sergeant behind the front counter, a CHP Officer and the City's Traffic Engineer and none of them could tell me who polices roadside workers or who even knows their job. My question: What does CVC 21350 and 21351 mean?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,871

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    It sounds like very much your fault. You're required to maintaina safe speed. Finding stationary emergency/consturction equipment blocking your lane is one of the things you are required to plan for.
    MUTCD means little. It's only a recommendation.

    These sections allow the local government agencies to erect their own traffic control devices (signs, etc...) as opposed to it being the exclusive purview of the state.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    It sounds like very much your fault. You're required to maintaina safe speed. Finding stationary emergency/consturction equipment blocking your lane is one of the things you are required to plan for.
    MUTCD means little. It's only a recommendation.

    These sections allow the local government agencies to erect their own traffic control devices (signs, etc...) as opposed to it being the exclusive purview of the state.
    In your opinion a work crew can set up a work zone (cones etc) any way they want and disregard the MUTCD if they wish? And when there is an accident with injuries it is typically the motorist's fault?

    If you have found this to be the outcome of court cases, could you refer me to some? I do not know where to go to find such precedents.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Paso Robles, California
    Posts
    541

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    The first question that comes to mind is why is it that an 8' wide truck with "lights to merge" was in your lane and you didn't see it in time to either stop or at least slow down and go around cautiously but had to "cut to the left to get around the truck". With the fact pattern you provide here, you are 100% at fault.
    *****
    I may not always be right, but I am never wrong.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,871

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    Yes, that's my opinion.

    The state (and the jurisdictions) pretty much have design immunity. The number of California cases on this is voluminous. You probably can't sue the government over this.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    18,250

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    I suddenly noticed an 8' wide flatbed traffic control company truck ahead of me blocking the whole bikelane.
    The word "suddenly" implies that your attention was elsewhere instead of straight ahead. Had you been looking straight ahead you would have easily seen the truck at the side of the road with enough time to slow down and avoid the accident.

    I agree that you are at fault.

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    with another rider on my back wheel
    If that means what I think it means then he is at fault for his own injuries for following you too closely.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    Yes, that's my opinion.

    The state (and the jurisdictions) pretty much have design immunity. The number of California cases on this is voluminous. You can't sue them over this. In fact, if you get that far in a trial, the judge will be obliged to point out that immunity to the jurors before .
    The truck was a private traffic control company. They are required to be professionals in routing and redirecting traffic in a safe manner. Merging 10mph bikes into 60mph traffic without cones or signs to warn the 60mph traffic that 10mph bikes are entering their lane seems unsafe and negligent to me. Note, they had time to think out what they were doing and the dynamic of the traffic they were affecting in advance of closing my lane.

    I was told by several road workers during my research that "if we stop for only 5-10 minutes, we do not set out cones." That is a ludicrous statement and policy to me.

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post
    The word "suddenly" implies that your attention was elsewhere instead of straight ahead. Had you been looking straight ahead you would have easily seen the truck at the side of the road with enough time to slow down and avoid the accident.

    I agree that you are at fault.
    You are apparently looking for my contribution to this accident, which may seem apparent. However, are you also looking for any obligation for the truck operators to conduct safe merging practices?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Paso Robles, California
    Posts
    541

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    The truck was a private traffic control company. They are required to be professionals in routing and redirecting traffic in a safe manner.
    That may be true, but you claim to be an "avid cyclist" so I would think that you would know to watch where you are going and what's in front of you. You still haven't explained why it is that you didn't see this "8' wide" truck in front of you until the last second.

    Have you discussed this with an attorney? If not, why not? If you did what did they say about your claim?
    *****
    I may not always be right, but I am never wrong.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    326

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    You are 100% at fault, and now you want to sue someone you effectively rear-ended. Get over it. Hopefully the broken bones have made you realize that "sharing the road" is a two-way street, so to speak, and you will be more careful in the future. It could have been worse.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    18,250

    Default Re: Comparabile Negligence

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    The truck was a private traffic control company. They are required to be professionals in routing and redirecting traffic in a safe manner. Merging 10mph bikes into 60mph traffic without cones or signs to warn the 60mph traffic that 10mph bikes are entering their lane seems unsafe and negligent to me. Note, they had time to think out what they were doing and the dynamic of the traffic they were affecting in advance of closing my lane.
    You are welcome to consult a personal injury attorney and review your options.

    You hit a large stationary vehicle that had a flashing arrow board easily seen from a distance.

    Something like this?

    And you're barreling down the road like this?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Determination of Fault: How to Determine Fault for a Four Vehicle Accident
    By causality in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-20-2017, 01:53 PM
  2. Determination of Fault: Single Vehicle Accident While Speeding After Swerving to Avoid a Bicycle
    By alphahoudini in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-20-2012, 10:07 PM
  3. Traffic Accidents: Company Vehicle Accident, Not At Fault
    By mjmalik in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 02:06 PM
  4. Traffic Lane Violations: ar Accident While Passing A Stopped Vehicle, in California
    By vicster in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 09:46 PM
  5. Determination of Fault: Determining Fault For A Three Vehicle Accident
    By coleman in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-25-2007, 07:37 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources