I feel a little different about this situation. If I come upon a line of cars at a stop light/stop sign that is more than even 1 car long, I gauge how many cars I can pass before they will be able to turn right or drift over. If they are all stopped, it is easy. If they are moving, I find a car I can comfortably get ahead of and make sure I’m just off the rear bumper of the car ahead of them. If the car I’m trailing turns, I slow, let them turn, and proceed. If the car I’m trailing goes straight, I stay just off that bumper so the car behind them won’t clip me if they are turning. I assume any car ahead of me is going to cut me off with a right turn.
I saw someone do that the other day, there was a cyclist who was at risk of getting hit.
So the driver stopped… and the vehicle behind ran up the back.
The cyclist was a crazy boy who was breaking all the road rules and didn’t stop to explain himself or to thank the drivers for crashing their vehicles instead of crashing him.
Well anyone back to the original topic… One design of the lanes at the intersection is to force the turning vehicles to the edge, which of course forces the bikes into the path of the faster vehicles… but the bikes giveway, they are crossing the lane marker.
Is that what you want on your tombstone: “I had the right of way”?
A blind spot is a blind spot. If you’re a cyclist in a car’s blind spot then the driver can’t see you. If the driver can’t see you then they can’t react to your presence. I can’t really say it any clearer.
I was on a bike.
I understand what you’re saying and I agree. However, does no one shoulder check any more? I mean, I KNOW I have a blind spot, and I shoulder check before I make a move. Is this not common any more where you live?
I’m assuming the cars had all stopped at a red light.
Cars are allowed to enter or cross the bike lane in order to turn so long as bikes aren’t using it, just as if it was a car turn lane: if somebody’s already in the car turn lane, and you’re in the through lane, you don’t just get to drift over and run the legally-turning car off the road. Lead car partially blocked the bicycle lane. This also implies the driver didn’t adequately check for bicycle traffic before merging into the bike lane.
This is an oddly specific circumstance… I’d kind of expect the statement to be “the bike ran into the side of the car, including the side view mirror…”
Not for straying into the lane of traffic; the cyclist was cited for what amounts to running into a car parked in the bike lane. If this is, in fact, a moving violation, then he should be cited for what he did. Similarly, the driver of the car should be cited for blocking the bike lane and possibly for not checking to see if it was clear before he blocked it.
Agreed. First and second fouls here were on the part of the driver: not checking, and then blocking, the bike lane.
Lights & sirens on? Bicyclist is at fault. Lights & sirens off? Car driver is at fault.
I checked the statement based on your comment and what is says is, “injured after he collided with the side-view mirror.”
I did make a pretty big misstatement in OP. The cyclist was not cited but was listed as being at fault.
I guess this amounts to a “no harm, no foul” type of situation which I’m mostly okay with. If the cyclist wasn’t seriously hurt (it sounds like he wasn’t) and if there are no ramifications on him, this seems like as good a solution as any to make this go away, assuming that is what both parties are agreeable to.
The report didn’t say.
If I’m slightly behind you in the next lane, whether in a car or a bike I can see you. if you can’t see me, you have a blind spot & haven’t set your mirrors correctly &/or aren’t paying attention. How am I to know that you are incompetent? If you change lanes & cause an accident because you didn’t see a vehicle in your blind spot, you are at fault.
Anyone in any vehicle should drive defensively. However, OR law (like most states) doesn’t distinguish between a car & a bike; I don’t see why you’re trying to make that distinction. The police car made a right turn from the not-most-right lane.
Well God I hope most people make the effort.
Let me tell yah a story. One day I was driving along a road that ended into another road. I was watching both directions for on-coming traffic with all the effort one could give. I looked Left, right, left, right. When I came to a stop I was more concerned with possible traffic from the left because it was more of a blind spot because the road was twisty while the road to the right was straight with an unobstructed view. I started to pull out convinced the road was deserted and just happened to give the right side another glance. Damn if there wasn’t a car bearing down on me. It was like space aliens beamed the car down at the last second. I was stunned.
It turns out as I drove toward the intersecting point the car on my right kept the exact pace so that it remained hidden in the wide part of the lower right windshield pillar. I was driving up a hill and it perfectly hid in this space. It was a 50 mph zone so the car moved fast enough that it was on top of me the next time I looked to the right. But I was absolutely sure the road was empty. Shear habit from riding a bike made me look again.
It would be great if everybody followed the laws of the road perfectly and there were no blind spots. But in reality everybody makes mistakes, roads can be confusing, blind spots exist, and that’s on top of people who are incapacitated or flat out run red lights on purpose.
Whenever I teach someone safety my biggest rule is never take your eye off a piece of machinery that will kill you. Cars, fork lifts, tugs, aircraft propellers, escaped circus elephants named Stampy…
Do you think even a fraction of the cars on the road have their mirrors set perfectly or that even if they are there isn’t a blind spot? When you talk about seeing the other driver does that mean you’ve made eye contact? Because anytime I’m around a large piece of machinery I make sure the operator is looking at me. Otherwise I’m invisible.
Anyone in any vehicle should drive defensively. However, OR law (like most states) doesn’t distinguish between a car & a bike; I don’t see why you’re trying to make that distinction. The police car made a right turn from the not-most-right lane.
[/QUOTE]
Laws that don’t distinguish between a 2 ton steel cage capable of 120 mph and a 20 lb bike holding up a squishy homo-sapien are full of good intentions. If you don’t make the distinction between car and bike then your relatives can spend the money from the civil suit and you can rest in peace knowing you had the right of way.
What is your problem, dude? You say you ride a bike but you are so blatently anti-cyclist it’s disgusting! Despite what, based on your postings you obviously want, bicycles are legally allowed on the road in most places. Get over it!
FWIW, based on the info given in the OP, not only would I not ride that way, but I think the cyclist was not riding defensively (& therefore as safely as possible). I’ll give you he wasn’t real smart about it; however, I do believe he was riding legally & should not have been cited (which a later post corrects)
So, based on the info in the OP (& not the subsequent correction) & having been given a link to the applicable OR laws, I’m challenging you to explain your position in post #21 where you state, " I would expect the driver to have the right away and the cyclist to give way". So far all I’ve seen you say(twice) is “That’ll make a good epitaph”
read through the thread and tell me I where I said anything anti-cyclist. I commented on the situation stated by the op. Usually the person striking a vehicle is at fault but you really couldn’t tell in this situation without seeing it. After that I pointed out that having the right away doesn’t mean much when it involves a car and a bike. Let me quote another poster who also suggested defensive riding:
Because the driver entered into the intersection first. It would be the same as a person turning left from the opposite direction. Once the turn was entered it’s up to the other driver to give way. But again, I’d have to see the incident to judge the distance between vehicles.
Let’s see:
As previously pointed out, the bike is a vehicle in a lane of traffic, the law doesn’t make a distinction as to the type of vehicle. Let me ask you a corollary, what’s the difference between a bike, a scooter, & a motorcycle? They’re all two wheeled vehicles where the driver is riding on the vehicle w/o a protective steel cage around them. Where does the law give a distinction for engine size. (& no, I’m not talking about which may be allowed on an expressway as that’s not at all applicable here.)
Correction: Cars being driven by people with your attitude do.
& those are just from this thread.
The driver turning left into the path of the other vehicle would be wrong & should be cited. A car turning into a bike is pretty much the same as a truck turning into a car. Show me where the law say “might makes right”. It doesn’t!
I’ll ask you once again to explain your comments in Post #21 since you conveniently sidestepped my question in your response.
My attitude is that cars have blind spots where a cyclist does not and any collision between the two is always going to be detrimental to the cyclist. That you don’t grasp the difference between reality and right-of-way is a fatal argument you only get to make once. I ride a bike with the expectation that cars are the overwhelming vehicles on the road and act in a predictable manner. There are intersections where I come almost to a complete stop even though I have the right away because cars routinely miss the stop sign or blow through a red light. It’s not an attitude, it’s an acknowledgement of the world around us. I was almost T-boned by a policeman in front of my own house because of this. Had I not stopped he would have hit me. I’m not really interested in spending weeks in the hospital explaining how right I was.
I drive 20 mph through residential streets looking under cars to see if there are little kids in front of them who might run out in front of me. Your comment on my attitude about bikes is noted and filed.
A car turning right ahead of a bike would have the right of way just as a car turning left ahead of another car would have the right of way. The distance between the vehicles is the deciding factor.
What you’re failing to grasp is that by stopping where you aren’t expected to is not riding in a predictable manner. Being vigilant, having your hands on the brakes & watching the other vehicle with the thought that you may need to stop, absolutely. Proactively stopping; no way. Further, by proactively stopping, you are actually making it more dangerous for other cyclists because you’re now making cyclists (as a group) unpredictable.
I’m not sure if this is snark or you really did learn something from my comments.
Cite?
As I understand it, if you start to turn left & then need to stop, say for a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you are the one who is going to be cited when the oncoming car plows into you because you couldn’t complete your turn & clear their travel lane, the same as if you started your turn 10’ in front of them.
:rolleyes: I learned to stop at blind intersections where accidents occur because people routinely run the stop sign. That’s how I DIDN’T get T-boned. Obviously you know better.
:rolleyes: Yes, I’ve based 40 years of driving skills on your comments.
& I should take dancing lessons from you, because, once again, you’ve sidestepped the direct question that you’ve been asked. So let me ask it again; just where does “a car turning left ahead of another car would have the right of way”?
I’ll make you a deal, I’ll stop calling you on your bull if you can produce even one law cite to backup you opinions in this thread.
This isn’t “lets make a deal”. It’s not even in a debate forum. It’s an opinion thread so you might want to dial it back a bit.
You’re asking an open question without an answer. What comes into play with a collision is the distance between vehicles during the event. This is why the op’s question cannot be answered without seeing the event or being able to recreate it. the closer the bike is to the front of the car the more it appears to be the driver’s fault. The closer the impact to the back of the car the more it appears to be the cyclist’s fault. That doesn’t take into consideration the distance between the 2 vehicles which would require an eye witness or traffic cam.
Hoping your dance lessons go well.
Look at the banner at the top of this page, the one about “Fighting ignorance…”.
It’s also quite common on this board that when someone offers up an off-the-wall piece of information that they’re asked for a cite to back that info up. I’ve never heard of what your saying & it appears to be the opposite of the law of the state where the incident in the OP took place. If it’s true, help me to fight ignorance & point out the state or town where this is true. A simple request that you’ve sidestepped a number of times.
Where does distance between a striking & struck vehicle matter, & what is that distance? Also, wouldn’t the angle of the vehicle changing lanes matter because there’s a difference when you gradually merge into my lane on a straight road vs. you making a 90° turn at an intersection as I’d have far less time to avoid your front quarter panel in the second example?
It’s the distance needed to stop. If someone in the opposing lane turns left in front of you and there is a reasonable distance with which to stop then it becomes your fault if you hit them.
If you’re turning left in front of me & I need to stop, then you are creating an immediate hazzard. In Ohio:
& in Oregon (location of OP incident):