Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

[joef]

Brian, as an occasional motorcyclist I sympathize with you. Looking at the video from jk’s link that is an attractive ride for experienced cyclists. But it also shows how cyclists and cars can be in conflict. In a motorcycle safety course we were taught to treat cars like they don’t see you, really you need to ride like they are actively out to get you. Regardless of who is at fault, the truth is that in any two wheeler-four wheeler accident, the rider loses even if they did everything right. I hope things get better for the cyclists out there before any more die.

[Brian57]

I managed to track down the collision report on-line minus the supplements containing witness statements.

The last 7 pages contain the report, absent any witness statements. I suspect the missing witness statements may well clarify things as to why they reached the conclusions they did so quickly. As I have said, most collisions are not rocket science to figure out, and ALL fatals are tragic (and can have a lasting impact on the surviving parties) regardless of assigned fault.

http://documents.rpvca.gov/WebLink/D...84&page=1&cr=1

From what I have read elsewhere, the lawsuit was still in its initial phases as of October 2017 and the estate of the deceased is suing everyone from the state of California on down. Ultimately, I suspect a settlement from Mayflower may be forthcoming somewhere down the line.

I also found a couple of videos indicating that this route is a heck of an attractive ride for cyclists which could make for some unsafe situations if due care is not taken by the cyclists exceeding the speed limit, and drivers having to watch out for them.

With a lawsuit of that amount, I am sure they hired an accident reconstruction company to analyze the path the truck took. I'd like to read that lawsuit.

Many raods in PV are just as dangerous as that descent. The lawsuit against the City is a generic one. However, the lawsuit claims the cyclist was in the right turn lane and struck the truck in the crosswalk. Funny, the Commander said the big rig was also in the right turn lane. Hmmm, could the Commander be wrong and the truck initiated its turn from the #2 or #1 lane?

If the truck had a GPS for tracking, safety, speed and theft, it would show the exact amount of time it remained stopped and the exact turn radius. Could be very damning.

I get the point of the uphill. After all that’s part of the workout but the guys in the video were running it downhill and obviously for the thrill of the speed. Have you never heard of an adrenaline rush?

Again you are one sided in your statements. After all, what goes up must come down and there are no Penrose stairs in real life.

Regarding your 3’ bike law;

it would be great if the bikers also stayed 3’ away from all cars as well but they don’t. You can’t expect drivers to comply with the law if bikers (you know, the guys the law way made to protect) don’t live by the law themselves. The will zoom right past a car often times so close its luck they don’t hit the mirror.

Whats that you say? Bicycles aren’t required to stay 3 feet away from a car when they pass the car. It’s kind of hard to convince a car driver to stay 3’ away from a bike right after the biker darn near took his mirror off moments before.

On a side note;

What I see as ironic is you have this 3’ law which seems so contradictory given the acceptance of lane splitting for motorcycles. Makes no sense to me.

A wide, smooth 8-10% downhill is rare anywhere in Los Angeles or Orange County. PV has three of them. It may seem thrilling to watch but a crash at that speed would be horrid. I once descended Hawthorne at the same spot and came around that bend. I was pushed from an onshore wind from the right side of the road across two lanes to the center median. It was terrifying because I was near cars and out of control.

The 3' Law is silly and probably written by lawyers to increase the pot. But it does send a message for motorists to stay away from bikes. We swerve a lot to avoid road debris.

Brian, as an occasional motorcyclist I sympathize with you. Looking at the video from jk’s link that is an attractive ride for experienced cyclists. But it also shows how cyclists and cars can be in conflict. In a motorcycle safety course we were taught to treat cars like they don’t see you, really you need to ride like they are actively out to get you. Regardless of who is at fault, the truth is that in any two wheeler-four wheeler accident, the rider loses even if they did everything right. I hope things get better for the cyclists out there before any more die.

Thanks for the kind words. We like to say "ride like you are invisible."

[cdwjava]

I would like to see photos, the factual diagram, and those missing witness statements. I can hypothesize all over the place as to who did what, when and where, but it would all be speculation.

As I have said, collision investigations are not rocket science. Very often it is clear from the initial inspection what happened and how. Whether an expensive reconstruction will divert blame from the cyclist or not is impossible to tell. Though, experience tells me that none of this will go to court Mayflower will likely settle out of court, but probably only after most of the other defendants are dropped from the suit. The matter likely has another year or two in the court before it will be resolved through such a settlement, and without anyone admitting or accepting fault.

[Brian57]

I would like to see photos, the factual diagram, and those missing witness statements. I can hypothesize all over the place as to who did what, when and where, but it would all be speculation.

As I have said, collision investigations are not rocket science. Very often it is clear from the initial inspection what happened and how. Whether an expensive reconstruction will divert blame from the cyclist or not is impossible to tell. Though, experience tells me that none of this will go to court Mayflower will likely settle out of court, but probably only after most of the other defendants are dropped from the suit. The matter likely has another year or two in the court before it will be resolved through such a settlement, and without anyone admitting or accepting fault.

Just a couple questions:

1) Did you hear the Commander say the truck was to the far right, stopped, before initiating a turn from the right turn lane?

2) Judging from your experience and an arial view, do you think that huge rig could make that sharp turn from the right turn lane?

I ask this because any cyclist that saw that rig in the right turn lane would simply pass it on the left. The accident makes no sense as described by the Commander.

[joef]

Read the last three pages, the driver said he was straddling right turn lane and lane 2 and was stopped for a red light with turn signal on and then started the wide turn. There are three witnesses per the report. If there were significantly discrepancies in the accounts, I expect they would be noted.
How long do you think it takes from a dead stop for the truck cab to go far enough forward to start a wide turn and then make the turn and clear the intersection with the trailer behind him in the intersection? They sure do not make them quickly. The cyclist video indicates there is about 5 seconds from first seeing the intersection to reaching it at 45 mph. The truck likely had the turn started when the rider first saw it.

In cases like this, it is SOP to sue everyone conceivable in the hopes of settlements even if you don’t have a case. Sue for 8 figures, settle for mid 6 figures against several defendants, you do OK. The thrust of this lawsuit is that the city did not design, build, install appropriate signage and maintain the intersection properly, nothing about the truck driver’s actions. You can be sure the driver, moving company and the state are also being sued.

[cdwjava]

Yes, I heard the commander say the driver was stopped and that he began his right turn. And, yes, based upon the statement of the driver indicating he was straddling both the right hand lanes in order to make that right hand turn, I find it credible to believe that the driver was initiating a long, slow, wide right hand turn when the light changed.

Given that, it is also possible that the cyclist was proceeding at a high rate of speed around the bend in the roadway along the right hand curbline when he observed the truck before him. Depending on these distances and reaction times, it is also possible that the cyclist had no capacity to veer sharp enough left to avoid the truck and then struck it.

Again, we lack any info on where the cyclist struck the vehicle, where on the roadway this occurred, and any meaningful measurements (that would be present in the factual diagram). As such, I could not possibly venture an independent guess as to the cause of the collision. However, assuming that the officers investigating the collision were trained AT LEAST as well as I was (and probably better as they may well have had the recon class which I have not yet had), I can only presume that their conclusions were sound based upon the evidence.

And, yeah, the suit listed numerous parties including Does 1-50 ... it's a standard shotgun approach for such things. Sue the world and hope for a big settlement from the deeper pockets in about three years.

[jk]

Has that roadway and intersection been totally reconstructed between the time of the accident and the time of the video I posted? Based on the claims of the complaint against the city the road and intesection were falling apart with road markings nearly non existent.



The measuremts given to the point of impact (where the impact between the bike and truck) place it clearly in the right lane, to the outside side of it in fact.

it’s claimed the rider was moving approximately 133% of posted speed. Do ya think that was a contributing factor? I do.

So brian57. Point of actual contact between the truck and cyclist is very near the curb. That would mean the direction of travel of the trailer would be perpendicular or very nearly perpendicular to the cycles direction of travel. . That also means, regardless of where the truck started, it had almost completed the turn and nearly exited the intersection.

Im having more and more trouble assigning fault to anybody but the cyclist.

Can you you create a scenario where the cyclist was in the straight through lane, was far enough away the truck it had nearly completed the turn before the impact, and the cyclist turned to the right even knowing the trailer would have cleared the straight through lane by the time the cyclist reached the intersection?

I can come close but an experienced rider with all the skills you claim to possess would never react as such.

Btw; the claimed position of the truck was straddling the turn lane straight lane dividing line when initiating the turn.

where on the roadway this occurred, and any meaningful measurements (that would be present in the factual diagram). rs.

Those are both present in the link you provided both in a diagram and written detail

[cdwjava]

Those are both present in the link you provided both in a diagram and written detail

There was no factual diagram. There was what we call a "sketch" on page 1, this merely illustrates how they believe the collision occurred. The factual diagram is a detailed diagram of the measurements of the scene (including road widths and distances, and physical evidence) as it was found by the investigators.

The AOI gives us a great clue as to what happened, but you have to combine it with the other measurements and indicia (evidence) to render a good conclusion.

So far I see nothing that might indicate that any fault lies with the truck driver. A civil court (if it gets that far, which I doubt) might conclude otherwise and apportion fault, but I am not entirely confident of that unless there is something more damning in the witness statements or any reconstruction.

[jk]

There was no factual diagram. There was what we call a "sketch" on page 1, this merely illustrates how they believe the collision occurred. The factual diagram is a detailed diagram of the measurements of the scene (including road widths and distances, and physical evidence) as it was found by the investigators.

The AOI gives us a great clue as to what happened, but you have to combine it with the other measurements and indicia (evidence) to render a good conclusion.

So far I see nothing that might indicate that any fault lies with the truck driver. A civil court (if it gets that far, which I doubt) might conclude otherwise and apportion fault, but I am not entirely confident of that unless there is something more damning in the witness statements or any reconstruction.

ah, I saw th sketch with the poi and travel paths indicated. I figured that along with the measurements located somewhere else in the pile of papers was the ticket.

[Brian57]

Yes, I heard the commander say the driver was stopped and that he began his right turn. And, yes, based upon the statement of the driver indicating he was straddling both the right hand lanes in order to make that right hand turn, I find it credible to believe that the driver was initiating a long, slow, wide right hand turn when the light changed.

Legally, are there exceptions for a long truck to make a right turn from the #2 lane? It is illegal and unsafe for cars to do that. (I realize it is necessary, but is it legal?)

Given that, it is also possible that the cyclist was proceeding at a high rate of speed around the bend in the roadway along the right hand curbline when he observed the truck before him. Depending on these distances and reaction times, it is also possible that the cyclist had no capacity to veer sharp enough left to avoid the truck and then struck it.

If the truck was in the #2 lane going straight or turning right, the cyclist had no business passing it on the right. At least I wouldn't do that. I'd pass it in the #1 lane. You are traveling the speed of traffic, take whichever lane is safest. Rule #1: Never pass vehicles on the right while approaching an intersection. But doesn't the law require that we do?

Again, we lack any info on where the cyclist struck the vehicle, where on the roadway this occurred, and any meaningful measurements (that would be present in the factual diagram). As such, I could not possibly venture an independent guess as to the cause of the collision. However, assuming that the officers investigating the collision were trained AT LEAST as well as I was (and probably better as they may well have had the recon class which I have not yet had), I can only presume that their conclusions were sound based upon the evidence.

And, yeah, the suit listed numerous parties including Does 1-50 ... it's a standard shotgun approach for such things. Sue the world and hope for a big settlement from the deeper pockets in about three years.

I am having a change of opinion on this accident. If the rider chose passing that truck on the right and he hit the rear of the truck as it nearly completed its turn, then the cyclist was at fault (to me). BUT, if the truck started it turn from the #1 lane, or was straddling the #1 and #2 lanes, it may not have been apparent what the truck was doing and the cyclist had no other option but to pass on the right. And after he committed to pass on the right, the truck started its righthand turn. That is how the truck could have killed me.