Are Cars Supposed to Look Out for Bicyclists

[joef]

Rule #1: Never pass vehicles on the right while approaching an intersection. But doesn't the law require that we do?

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.

The report concludes that the truck was straddling #2 and the right turn lane based on statements and evidence. Your assumption with no evidence goes against the reports conclusion and is baseless speculation to support your straw man argument. Also, in this case, the last page assigning a cause faults the cyclist for violating the law by not turning right from a right turn only lane. Even if that lane is clear, it is illegal to use it except to turn right. If you argue that your only safe option is to use that lane, you have clearly been careless to put yourself in a position where your best option is to break the law.

If you are unsure in any respect what the truck will do, legally and rationally, you need to slow and prepare to stop before reaching the truck.

[cdwjava]

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?)

Lanes are numbered from leftmost to right (and I can't access my own link from here at work to see if it was indeed the #2 lane - network issues with cookies), but what I think you are asking is if it is legal to make a right hand turn from a lane OTHER than the righthand most part of the right lane (when not otherwise indicated). The answer is, no. However, if the driver and the facts indicate that he was straddling both the right hand turn lane and the next lane, then, given the fact that the truck would not be able to make such a turn from the righthand most portion of the lane would make it permissible. If we assume that the turn was being made from a lane other than the righthand most lane, even if it might have been in technical violation of the statute, this - by itself - would not place liability upon the turning vehicle. That act would have to be coupled with other factors to make it into an unsafe turning movement and, thus, the PCF.

However, the investigation should have been able to bear this info out with some ease based upon the position of the truck, the scuff marks, and the impact on the trailer.

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?

Passing on the right is both unsafe and usually unlawful (with a few exceptions). A cyclist must still adhere to the rules of the road governing safe speeds for conditions, and the safe speed for approaching a turning vehicle would be zero. A cyclist not in a bicycle lane with a solid line would not be able to legally pass a vehicle on the right unless said vehicle were clearly proceeding straight. Truthfully, I have not researched bicycle laws with regard to bike lanes and passing in quite some time, so I am operating off of memory.

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.

I strongly suspect that what happened was the cyclist was headed down hill at a high rate of speed from around a bend that contributed to an inability to adequately observe and react to what he observed in front of him. Either he failed to heed a right hand turn signal from the truck, or, he was unable to change direction in time to avoid the turning truck, and he struck the trailer. Perhaps a combination of both.

If the driver was turning from the #1 or #2 lane (assuming that #2 was not the right hand turn lane ... again, apologies, my work network won't accept the cookies necessary to review the report again) and not the right hand turn lane, then things turn suspiciously towards the truck driver. But, after examining the assorted facts (measurements, vehicle impact, scuff marks, etc.) a clearer picture should be had. And there would also be the issue of whether or not the driver was signaling his turn. Witnesses could help with all of this. However, depending on the distances, even had he failed to signal it is quite possible that the fault would still have lied with the cyclist, though the failure to signal could be an associated factor that contributed to any delay in reacting.

I'm really shooting blind without the factual diagram or witness statements, so I am still just speculating here.

[Brian57]

Lanes are numbered from leftmost to right (and I can't access my own link from here at work to see if it was indeed the #2 lane - network issues with cookies), but what I think you are asking is if it is legal to make a right hand turn from a lane OTHER than the righthand most part of the right lane (when not otherwise indicated). The answer is, no. However, if the driver and the facts indicate that he was straddling both the right hand turn lane and the next lane, then, given the fact that the truck would not be able to make such a turn from the righthand most portion of the lane would make it permissible. If we assume that the turn was being made from a lane other than the righthand most lane, even if it might have been in technical violation of the statute, this - by itself - would not place liability upon the turning vehicle. That act would have to be coupled with other factors to make it into an unsafe turning movement and, thus, the PCF.

However, the investigation should have been able to bear this info out with some ease based upon the position of the truck, the scuff marks, and the impact on the trailer.


Passing on the right is both unsafe and usually unlawful (with a few exceptions). A cyclist must still adhere to the rules of the road governing safe speeds for conditions, and the safe speed for approaching a turning vehicle would be zero. A cyclist not in a bicycle lane with a solid line would not be able to legally pass a vehicle on the right unless said vehicle were clearly proceeding straight. Truthfully, I have not researched bicycle laws with regard to bike lanes and passing in quite some time, so I am operating off of memory.


I strongly suspect that what happened was the cyclist was headed down hill at a high rate of speed from around a bend that contributed to an inability to adequately observe and react to what he observed in front of him. Either he failed to heed a right hand turn signal from the truck, or, he was unable to change direction in time to avoid the turning truck, and he struck the trailer. Perhaps a combination of both.

If the driver was turning from the #1 or #2 lane (assuming that #2 was not the right hand turn lane ... again, apologies, my work network won't accept the cookies necessary to review the report again) and not the right hand turn lane, then things turn suspiciously towards the truck driver. But, after examining the assorted facts (measurements, vehicle impact, scuff marks, etc.) a clearer picture should be had. And there would also be the issue of whether or not the driver was signaling his turn. Witnesses could help with all of this. However, depending on the distances, even had he failed to signal it is quite possible that the fault would still have lied with the cyclist, though the failure to signal could be an associated factor that contributed to any delay in reacting.

I'm really shooting blind without the factual diagram or witness statements, so I am still just speculating here.

When you get a chance look at the intersection again from the direction of travel. It looks like if the truck had its right front wheel even half way into the right turn lane, the radius would be too tight to make the turn. What looks like what happened is that the truck drove into the intersection in the #1 or #2 lane and squared off the turn as much as possible. The cyclist thought the truck was going straight because it was in the #1 or #2 lane. I can tell you that going that speed, you are not looking for turn signals. You are assessing vehicle positioning only.

[sniper]

Three feet is not that far at all. It's difficult for officers to judge when a car is 3 feet away or 2.5 feet away.

Also, this cyclist was in the right turn lane, which has a posted black and white sign requiring "right lane must turn right". This is where the PCF of 22101(d) VC comes from. Had the cyclist obeyed the sign, and turned right into Vallon it is likely the collision would not have happened.

We all have had our fair share of driving and life experience on this forum. Enough to know that when a large semi-truck and trailer combination has it's right turn blinker on and is stradelling lanes that we cal all guess what the next movement will be of the semi. A right turn. Its unfortunate that Mr. Tansavatdi couldn't stop in time. I assume he could have stopped in time if the light was red. Not sure why he couldn't stop for the turning truck.

[Brian57]

Three feet is not that far at all. It's difficult for officers to judge when a car is 3 feet away or 2.5 feet away.

Also, this cyclist was in the right turn lane, which has a posted black and white sign requiring "right lane must turn right". This is where the PCF of 22101(d) VC comes from. Had the cyclist obeyed the sign, and turned right into Vallon it is likely the collision would not have happened.

We all have had our fair share of driving and life experience on this forum. Enough to know that when a large semi-truck and trailer combination has it's right turn blinker on and is stradelling lanes that we cal all guess what the next movement will be of the semi. A right turn. Its unfortunate that Mr. Tansavatdi couldn't stop in time. I assume he could have stopped in time if the light was red. Not sure why he couldn't stop for the turning truck.

I would like to see the choices the cyclist made and when he made them. If he had a half a brain, he would not have chosen the right side of the truck to pass on if the truck was actually straddling the right turn lane. It would be suicide. I presume the truck was not straddling the lane, but was completely in the #2 lane to allow for a wider turn. Look at the intersection and tell me if that truck could make that turn from starting in the right turn lane? I say no.

A cyclist is only able to stop for that light if the light is red when you first round the turn and start applying the brakes immediately. If it turns yellow after that, you can make it through on yellow. So in conclusion: Either the cyclist had a clear path up the right side and the truck did not check his mirrors prior to his turn, or, the cyclist was completely oblivious and had a death wish. Is there another possible scenario?

As said before, enough forensic evidence was left at the scene to recreate the actual turn the truck made. I hope the report was not totally relying on witness testimony. I'd prefer science. If the truck's front wheels were scientifically proven to enter the intersection solely in the #2 lane, he is totally at fault. And yes, it can be proven where his front wheels were.

Three feet is not that far at all. It's difficult for officers to judge when a car is 3 feet away or 2.5 feet away.

Also, this cyclist was in the right turn lane, which has a posted black and white sign requiring "right lane must turn right". This is where the PCF of 22101(d) VC comes from. Had the cyclist obeyed the sign, and turned right into Vallon it is likely the collision would not have happened.

We all have had our fair share of driving and life experience on this forum. Enough to know that when a large semi-truck and trailer combination has it's right turn blinker on and is stradelling lanes that we cal all guess what the next movement will be of the semi. A right turn. Its unfortunate that Mr. Tansavatdi couldn't stop in time. I assume he could have stopped in time if the light was red. Not sure why he couldn't stop for the turning truck.

In the state of CA, a motorist or bicycle can legally break any traffic law to avoid an accident.

After reviewing the required turning radius for a truck that size, the truck was not straddling the two righthand lanes. It would not have made the turn with the right, front tire that close to the curb. The accident happened because the truck likely initiated its turn from the #1 lane and did not check his mirrors beforehand. The front left truck tire had to be approx 40' from the curb to make that turn.

The purposed path the truck took was geometrically possible. I only hope a scientific team was employed to disprove their off-the-cuff story.

Correction: 'geometrically impossible'

[MattLaw]

Yes, you have to look, not just for the traffic on the road, but traffic on the sidewalk as well. Usually, in most rear end accidents, the person in the rear is at fault. However, there is no rule that you are automatically liable if you hit a bicycle while driving a car.