Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

[Brian57]

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.

[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.

[jk]

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.

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.

[Brian57]

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.

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.

[jk]

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.

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

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.

[Brian57]

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.

[jk]

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.

[Brian57]

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?

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.

[PayrolGuy]

HA!

[jk]

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.