Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 66
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    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)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    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?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    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
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    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?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    193

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

    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.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Resignation: Job Isn't What It Was Supposed Be
    By AdeDriscoll in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-14-2013, 07:56 AM
  2. Other Violations: Can Bicyclists Be in Legal Trouble if They Knock Over Pedestrians
    By Kg1982 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-13-2012, 04:56 PM
  3. I Don't Like Bicyclists on the Road
    By ip90ip in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-29-2010, 02:38 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: CVC 22350 - 50 in a Supposed 35
    By Tessio in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-05-2009, 04:00 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Is a Ticket is Supposed to Be Sent to You
    By cozy in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 06:02 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources