He was not "making a lane change"... He was simply turning the ONLY way that he can... It is a well known fact that a longer vehicle has a long(er) turn radius so his presence in the turning lane farthest to the left as well as his encroaching on the #2 turning lane(your lane) were both equally legal and wholly justified. And by virtue of the fact that when a vehicle is turning, the rear wheels will follow a path that is closer to the inside of that turn, you should have stayed back until he completed his turn.
Further proving that you should not have continued forward movement considering the fact that he was in the process of turning as you approached.
I disagree.. more so regarding the 22107 (did he not signal???). As for the 21658(a), again, there is no way that a truck can turn (under these circumstances) without encroaching on the lane to their right.
Precisely!
That's not going to get you anywhere. Instead, you can argue that he should have kept his eye on the path his rear wheels were following but even then, you have to keep 2 things in mind:
- Your presence there (and your continued forward movement while he was in the process of making the turn) was the primary cause for the collision. And...
- He has to also watch his forward movement to ensure that he stays away from other vehicle in his path. So he looks forward, back, forward, back... And my guess is he took his eyes off of his back wheels to check front (for a second or two), in the meantime, you snuck in between the curb and his path at which point, you had nowhere else to go.
Sorry, that's how I see it... Your judge might see it another way, and you're free to try and fight it if you so choose.
Good luck.

