Mixing
Right hook accident scenario: who is at fault?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I just got into a collision with a biker while driving my car. I have read a lot about these types of accidents, but none quite cover the circumstances that were present in my case and I’m wondering who is at fault.
I was stopped at a red light in a line of cars. I wasn’t probably the 5th car in a line of 8. The intersection was at the bottom of a hill on a one lane road with a bike lane on the right side. I had my turn signal on at the red light and when it turned green and I got to the intersection I turned right. As I began my turn I collided with a biker who was going much faster than me but approaching from behind who was trying to go straight through the intersection.
The short version is that I was trying to turn right in a line of cars when I biker who was behind me struck the side of my car as I was beginning my turn.
Luckily the biker wasn’t hurt because I wasn’t moving very fast and he just clipped the edge of my car instead of actually hitting the side. He just had a few scrapes, thank God.
I don’t know what to think in this situation because I was in the rightmost lane with my turn signal on, in front of the biker but, on the other hand, it makes sense that he wouldn’t be able to see my blinker very well because of the line of cars and I could have seen him if I looked in my side mirror.
accidents
asked 4 hours ago
Alakazooom
111
New contributor
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I just got into a collision with a biker while driving my car. I have read a lot about these types of accidents, but none quite cover the circumstances that were present in my case and I’m wondering who is at fault.
I was stopped at a red light in a line of cars. I wasn’t probably the 5th car in a line of 8. The intersection was at the bottom of a hill on a one lane road with a bike lane on the right side. I had my turn signal on at the red light and when it turned green and I got to the intersection I turned right. As I began my turn I collided with a biker who was going much faster than me but approaching from behind who was trying to go straight through the intersection.
The short version is that I was trying to turn right in a line of cars when I biker who was behind me struck the side of my car as I was beginning my turn.
Luckily the biker wasn’t hurt because I wasn’t moving very fast and he just clipped the edge of my car instead of actually hitting the side. He just had a few scrapes, thank God.
I don’t know what to think in this situation because I was in the rightmost lane with my turn signal on, in front of the biker but, on the other hand, it makes sense that he wouldn’t be able to see my blinker very well because of the line of cars and I could have seen him if I looked in my side mirror.
accidents
asked 4 hours ago
Alakazooom
111
New contributor
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I just got into a collision with a biker while driving my car. I have read a lot about these types of accidents, but none quite cover the circumstances that were present in my case and I’m wondering who is at fault.
I was stopped at a red light in a line of cars. I wasn’t probably the 5th car in a line of 8. The intersection was at the bottom of a hill on a one lane road with a bike lane on the right side. I had my turn signal on at the red light and when it turned green and I got to the intersection I turned right. As I began my turn I collided with a biker who was going much faster than me but approaching from behind who was trying to go straight through the intersection.
The short version is that I was trying to turn right in a line of cars when I biker who was behind me struck the side of my car as I was beginning my turn.
Luckily the biker wasn’t hurt because I wasn’t moving very fast and he just clipped the edge of my car instead of actually hitting the side. He just had a few scrapes, thank God.
I don’t know what to think in this situation because I was in the rightmost lane with my turn signal on, in front of the biker but, on the other hand, it makes sense that he wouldn’t be able to see my blinker very well because of the line of cars and I could have seen him if I looked in my side mirror.
accidents
asked 4 hours ago
Alakazooom
111
New contributor
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I just got into a collision with a biker while driving my car. I have read a lot about these types of accidents, but none quite cover the circumstances that were present in my case and I’m wondering who is at fault.
I was stopped at a red light in a line of cars. I wasn’t probably the 5th car in a line of 8. The intersection was at the bottom of a hill on a one lane road with a bike lane on the right side. I had my turn signal on at the red light and when it turned green and I got to the intersection I turned right. As I began my turn I collided with a biker who was going much faster than me but approaching from behind who was trying to go straight through the intersection.
The short version is that I was trying to turn right in a line of cars when I biker who was behind me struck the side of my car as I was beginning my turn.
Luckily the biker wasn’t hurt because I wasn’t moving very fast and he just clipped the edge of my car instead of actually hitting the side. He just had a few scrapes, thank God.
I don’t know what to think in this situation because I was in the rightmost lane with my turn signal on, in front of the biker but, on the other hand, it makes sense that he wouldn’t be able to see my blinker very well because of the line of cars and I could have seen him if I looked in my side mirror.
accidents
accidents
asked 4 hours ago
Alakazooom
111
New contributor
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Alakazooom
111
New contributor
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Alakazooom
111
New contributor
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Alakazooom
111
asked 4 hours ago
Alakazooom
111
111
New contributor
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Alakazooom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
You will likely be found at fault. Bicycle lanes are considered a lane of traffic that supports only one type of traffic for extended periods of time (i.e., bicycles). As such, by your description you signalled your intent, then turned right across another lane of traffic and collided with another vehicle already occupying that lane. It is your job to ensure a lane of traffic is clear before entering it.
If you were talking about two car lanes I think there would little if any questions regarding fault, but because we are talking about cycling may motorists assume it is the job of the cyclist to get out of the way because they are more vulnerable. While true from a practical perspective, this perspective is not supported legally.
Further confusing matters most drivers are afraid of entering a bike lane and some cyclists complain when motorists correctly enter a bike lane. All in all more public education is needed.
So what should you have done?
Generally in most jurisdictions if the bicycle lane is clear you should first merged over into that lane before making a right turn (see diagram below). This merge area is often indicated with dashed lines separating the car and bicycle lanes. If you safely merge over, then you have physical position over the cyclist and they should wait until you complete your turn before passing if they wish to remain in the bicycle lane, otherwise they will need to change lane into the main traffic lane to the left to pass (assuming of course a jurisdiction that drives on the right).
While you had your signal on you were still in the lane to the left of the cycling lane (i.e., left of another vehicle lane) and as such you had only signalled your intent. Until you safely enter the cycling lane, to complete your right turn, it is expectant upon you to check for traffic before moving to the right.
From San Fransisco Bicycle Coalition
answered 3 hours ago
Rider_X
22.1k14284
This is local ordnance. The majority of places I have ridden have a solid white line delineating the bike lane. Solid white = don't cross.
– JohnP
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Local laws come into play here, so you would need to study them hard to know where things sit in law.
I suspect you are in the wrong. With a bicycle lane, its normal for the cyclist to have right of way over cars.
However, that does not make the cyclist legally in the right. In most jurisdictions you could both be held accountable under the law. The normal test here is was the riding/driving unsafe./careless/dangerous. Given a predictable accident happened passing on the right of a car indicating a right turn at high speed is dangerous.
Where I live, the situation you describe would be called a "Contributing accident" by the insurance companies. If the police were involved, both the driver and the rider would likely be charged. The rider should have seen what you sere doing (indicators) and ignored them - along with the speed makes it reckless or dangerous driving, the driver charged with a lesser charge of careless driving (Unless you saw the rider, then its dangerous, or even criminal).
Personally (and I know this will get me down votes) I do not think you should feel too bad about what happened. They way the cyclist was riding it was inevitable it would happen to him eventually. You just happened to be the poor sod in the wrong place at the wrong time when his number came up.
answered 3 hours ago
mattnz
22.9k13170
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle, IMO. I see and am involved in this situation a lot - in bike lane on right side of road (US traffic) flying, and someone in front of me decides to take a right. Normally, they will wait for you if they are paying attention. Other times they just turn and pay no mind to the rider (sounds like this is what happened).
So, as a driver, don't do that. Just wait until they pass you unless they are obviously slowing and waiting for you to turn. If you pinch them taking a right, you are at fault because you just hit a person with a vehicle. Whether you are in legal trouble is another question that depends on a bunch of things that a legal professional would know better.
As a rider, when I'm in this situation and going fast as you described, I usually pull into traffic behind and to the left of the car that's turning right and just pass them in their own lane as they peel off. This helps the driver see me as I am now directly behind them. If they decide to turn early or I can tell they aren't paying attention, I pass.
answered 4 hours ago
ebrohman
3,16922142
-1, no comment why should be needed.
– mattnz
3 hours ago
If the motorist has appropriately merged into the cycling lane to complete their right hand turn (i.e., in the dashed line section when the lane was clear) then they have priority in that lane, and it is expectant on you to wait or pass to the left in another lane. Otherwise, yes you have priority in the bicycle lane and they will need to wait until it is clear.
– Rider_X
2 hours ago
1
-1 "You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle" would mean that cyclists can do whatever they like, including running red lights, and not be at fault. That is plainly incorrect.
– Argenti Apparatus
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
You will likely be found at fault. Bicycle lanes are considered a lane of traffic that supports only one type of traffic for extended periods of time (i.e., bicycles). As such, by your description you signalled your intent, then turned right across another lane of traffic and collided with another vehicle already occupying that lane. It is your job to ensure a lane of traffic is clear before entering it.
If you were talking about two car lanes I think there would little if any questions regarding fault, but because we are talking about cycling may motorists assume it is the job of the cyclist to get out of the way because they are more vulnerable. While true from a practical perspective, this perspective is not supported legally.
Further confusing matters most drivers are afraid of entering a bike lane and some cyclists complain when motorists correctly enter a bike lane. All in all more public education is needed.
So what should you have done?
Generally in most jurisdictions if the bicycle lane is clear you should first merged over into that lane before making a right turn (see diagram below). This merge area is often indicated with dashed lines separating the car and bicycle lanes. If you safely merge over, then you have physical position over the cyclist and they should wait until you complete your turn before passing if they wish to remain in the bicycle lane, otherwise they will need to change lane into the main traffic lane to the left to pass (assuming of course a jurisdiction that drives on the right).
While you had your signal on you were still in the lane to the left of the cycling lane (i.e., left of another vehicle lane) and as such you had only signalled your intent. Until you safely enter the cycling lane, to complete your right turn, it is expectant upon you to check for traffic before moving to the right.
From San Fransisco Bicycle Coalition
answered 3 hours ago
Rider_X
22.1k14284
This is local ordnance. The majority of places I have ridden have a solid white line delineating the bike lane. Solid white = don't cross.
– JohnP
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
You will likely be found at fault. Bicycle lanes are considered a lane of traffic that supports only one type of traffic for extended periods of time (i.e., bicycles). As such, by your description you signalled your intent, then turned right across another lane of traffic and collided with another vehicle already occupying that lane. It is your job to ensure a lane of traffic is clear before entering it.
If you were talking about two car lanes I think there would little if any questions regarding fault, but because we are talking about cycling may motorists assume it is the job of the cyclist to get out of the way because they are more vulnerable. While true from a practical perspective, this perspective is not supported legally.
Further confusing matters most drivers are afraid of entering a bike lane and some cyclists complain when motorists correctly enter a bike lane. All in all more public education is needed.
So what should you have done?
Generally in most jurisdictions if the bicycle lane is clear you should first merged over into that lane before making a right turn (see diagram below). This merge area is often indicated with dashed lines separating the car and bicycle lanes. If you safely merge over, then you have physical position over the cyclist and they should wait until you complete your turn before passing if they wish to remain in the bicycle lane, otherwise they will need to change lane into the main traffic lane to the left to pass (assuming of course a jurisdiction that drives on the right).
While you had your signal on you were still in the lane to the left of the cycling lane (i.e., left of another vehicle lane) and as such you had only signalled your intent. Until you safely enter the cycling lane, to complete your right turn, it is expectant upon you to check for traffic before moving to the right.
From San Fransisco Bicycle Coalition
answered 3 hours ago
Rider_X
22.1k14284
This is local ordnance. The majority of places I have ridden have a solid white line delineating the bike lane. Solid white = don't cross.
– JohnP
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
You will likely be found at fault. Bicycle lanes are considered a lane of traffic that supports only one type of traffic for extended periods of time (i.e., bicycles). As such, by your description you signalled your intent, then turned right across another lane of traffic and collided with another vehicle already occupying that lane. It is your job to ensure a lane of traffic is clear before entering it.
If you were talking about two car lanes I think there would little if any questions regarding fault, but because we are talking about cycling may motorists assume it is the job of the cyclist to get out of the way because they are more vulnerable. While true from a practical perspective, this perspective is not supported legally.
Further confusing matters most drivers are afraid of entering a bike lane and some cyclists complain when motorists correctly enter a bike lane. All in all more public education is needed.
So what should you have done?
Generally in most jurisdictions if the bicycle lane is clear you should first merged over into that lane before making a right turn (see diagram below). This merge area is often indicated with dashed lines separating the car and bicycle lanes. If you safely merge over, then you have physical position over the cyclist and they should wait until you complete your turn before passing if they wish to remain in the bicycle lane, otherwise they will need to change lane into the main traffic lane to the left to pass (assuming of course a jurisdiction that drives on the right).
While you had your signal on you were still in the lane to the left of the cycling lane (i.e., left of another vehicle lane) and as such you had only signalled your intent. Until you safely enter the cycling lane, to complete your right turn, it is expectant upon you to check for traffic before moving to the right.
From San Fransisco Bicycle Coalition
answered 3 hours ago
Rider_X
22.1k14284
You will likely be found at fault. Bicycle lanes are considered a lane of traffic that supports only one type of traffic for extended periods of time (i.e., bicycles). As such, by your description you signalled your intent, then turned right across another lane of traffic and collided with another vehicle already occupying that lane. It is your job to ensure a lane of traffic is clear before entering it.
If you were talking about two car lanes I think there would little if any questions regarding fault, but because we are talking about cycling may motorists assume it is the job of the cyclist to get out of the way because they are more vulnerable. While true from a practical perspective, this perspective is not supported legally.
Further confusing matters most drivers are afraid of entering a bike lane and some cyclists complain when motorists correctly enter a bike lane. All in all more public education is needed.
So what should you have done?
Generally in most jurisdictions if the bicycle lane is clear you should first merged over into that lane before making a right turn (see diagram below). This merge area is often indicated with dashed lines separating the car and bicycle lanes. If you safely merge over, then you have physical position over the cyclist and they should wait until you complete your turn before passing if they wish to remain in the bicycle lane, otherwise they will need to change lane into the main traffic lane to the left to pass (assuming of course a jurisdiction that drives on the right).
While you had your signal on you were still in the lane to the left of the cycling lane (i.e., left of another vehicle lane) and as such you had only signalled your intent. Until you safely enter the cycling lane, to complete your right turn, it is expectant upon you to check for traffic before moving to the right.
From San Fransisco Bicycle Coalition
answered 3 hours ago
Rider_X
22.1k14284
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Rider_X
22.1k14284
answered 3 hours ago
Rider_X
22.1k14284
answered 3 hours ago
Rider_X
22.1k14284
22.1k14284
This is local ordnance. The majority of places I have ridden have a solid white line delineating the bike lane. Solid white = don't cross.
– JohnP
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
This is local ordnance. The majority of places I have ridden have a solid white line delineating the bike lane. Solid white = don't cross.
– JohnP
10 mins ago
This is local ordnance. The majority of places I have ridden have a solid white line delineating the bike lane. Solid white = don't cross.
– JohnP
10 mins ago
This is local ordnance. The majority of places I have ridden have a solid white line delineating the bike lane. Solid white = don't cross.
– JohnP
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Local laws come into play here, so you would need to study them hard to know where things sit in law.
I suspect you are in the wrong. With a bicycle lane, its normal for the cyclist to have right of way over cars.
However, that does not make the cyclist legally in the right. In most jurisdictions you could both be held accountable under the law. The normal test here is was the riding/driving unsafe./careless/dangerous. Given a predictable accident happened passing on the right of a car indicating a right turn at high speed is dangerous.
Where I live, the situation you describe would be called a "Contributing accident" by the insurance companies. If the police were involved, both the driver and the rider would likely be charged. The rider should have seen what you sere doing (indicators) and ignored them - along with the speed makes it reckless or dangerous driving, the driver charged with a lesser charge of careless driving (Unless you saw the rider, then its dangerous, or even criminal).
Personally (and I know this will get me down votes) I do not think you should feel too bad about what happened. They way the cyclist was riding it was inevitable it would happen to him eventually. You just happened to be the poor sod in the wrong place at the wrong time when his number came up.
answered 3 hours ago
mattnz
22.9k13170
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Local laws come into play here, so you would need to study them hard to know where things sit in law.
I suspect you are in the wrong. With a bicycle lane, its normal for the cyclist to have right of way over cars.
However, that does not make the cyclist legally in the right. In most jurisdictions you could both be held accountable under the law. The normal test here is was the riding/driving unsafe./careless/dangerous. Given a predictable accident happened passing on the right of a car indicating a right turn at high speed is dangerous.
Where I live, the situation you describe would be called a "Contributing accident" by the insurance companies. If the police were involved, both the driver and the rider would likely be charged. The rider should have seen what you sere doing (indicators) and ignored them - along with the speed makes it reckless or dangerous driving, the driver charged with a lesser charge of careless driving (Unless you saw the rider, then its dangerous, or even criminal).
Personally (and I know this will get me down votes) I do not think you should feel too bad about what happened. They way the cyclist was riding it was inevitable it would happen to him eventually. You just happened to be the poor sod in the wrong place at the wrong time when his number came up.
answered 3 hours ago
mattnz
22.9k13170
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Local laws come into play here, so you would need to study them hard to know where things sit in law.
I suspect you are in the wrong. With a bicycle lane, its normal for the cyclist to have right of way over cars.
However, that does not make the cyclist legally in the right. In most jurisdictions you could both be held accountable under the law. The normal test here is was the riding/driving unsafe./careless/dangerous. Given a predictable accident happened passing on the right of a car indicating a right turn at high speed is dangerous.
Where I live, the situation you describe would be called a "Contributing accident" by the insurance companies. If the police were involved, both the driver and the rider would likely be charged. The rider should have seen what you sere doing (indicators) and ignored them - along with the speed makes it reckless or dangerous driving, the driver charged with a lesser charge of careless driving (Unless you saw the rider, then its dangerous, or even criminal).
Personally (and I know this will get me down votes) I do not think you should feel too bad about what happened. They way the cyclist was riding it was inevitable it would happen to him eventually. You just happened to be the poor sod in the wrong place at the wrong time when his number came up.
answered 3 hours ago
mattnz
22.9k13170
Local laws come into play here, so you would need to study them hard to know where things sit in law.
I suspect you are in the wrong. With a bicycle lane, its normal for the cyclist to have right of way over cars.
However, that does not make the cyclist legally in the right. In most jurisdictions you could both be held accountable under the law. The normal test here is was the riding/driving unsafe./careless/dangerous. Given a predictable accident happened passing on the right of a car indicating a right turn at high speed is dangerous.
Where I live, the situation you describe would be called a "Contributing accident" by the insurance companies. If the police were involved, both the driver and the rider would likely be charged. The rider should have seen what you sere doing (indicators) and ignored them - along with the speed makes it reckless or dangerous driving, the driver charged with a lesser charge of careless driving (Unless you saw the rider, then its dangerous, or even criminal).
Personally (and I know this will get me down votes) I do not think you should feel too bad about what happened. They way the cyclist was riding it was inevitable it would happen to him eventually. You just happened to be the poor sod in the wrong place at the wrong time when his number came up.
answered 3 hours ago
mattnz
22.9k13170
answered 3 hours ago
mattnz
22.9k13170
answered 3 hours ago
mattnz
22.9k13170
answered 3 hours ago
mattnz
22.9k13170
22.9k13170
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle, IMO. I see and am involved in this situation a lot - in bike lane on right side of road (US traffic) flying, and someone in front of me decides to take a right. Normally, they will wait for you if they are paying attention. Other times they just turn and pay no mind to the rider (sounds like this is what happened).
So, as a driver, don't do that. Just wait until they pass you unless they are obviously slowing and waiting for you to turn. If you pinch them taking a right, you are at fault because you just hit a person with a vehicle. Whether you are in legal trouble is another question that depends on a bunch of things that a legal professional would know better.
As a rider, when I'm in this situation and going fast as you described, I usually pull into traffic behind and to the left of the car that's turning right and just pass them in their own lane as they peel off. This helps the driver see me as I am now directly behind them. If they decide to turn early or I can tell they aren't paying attention, I pass.
answered 4 hours ago
ebrohman
3,16922142
-1, no comment why should be needed.
– mattnz
3 hours ago
If the motorist has appropriately merged into the cycling lane to complete their right hand turn (i.e., in the dashed line section when the lane was clear) then they have priority in that lane, and it is expectant on you to wait or pass to the left in another lane. Otherwise, yes you have priority in the bicycle lane and they will need to wait until it is clear.
– Rider_X
2 hours ago
1
-1 "You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle" would mean that cyclists can do whatever they like, including running red lights, and not be at fault. That is plainly incorrect.
– Argenti Apparatus
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle, IMO. I see and am involved in this situation a lot - in bike lane on right side of road (US traffic) flying, and someone in front of me decides to take a right. Normally, they will wait for you if they are paying attention. Other times they just turn and pay no mind to the rider (sounds like this is what happened).
So, as a driver, don't do that. Just wait until they pass you unless they are obviously slowing and waiting for you to turn. If you pinch them taking a right, you are at fault because you just hit a person with a vehicle. Whether you are in legal trouble is another question that depends on a bunch of things that a legal professional would know better.
As a rider, when I'm in this situation and going fast as you described, I usually pull into traffic behind and to the left of the car that's turning right and just pass them in their own lane as they peel off. This helps the driver see me as I am now directly behind them. If they decide to turn early or I can tell they aren't paying attention, I pass.
answered 4 hours ago
ebrohman
3,16922142
-1, no comment why should be needed.
– mattnz
3 hours ago
If the motorist has appropriately merged into the cycling lane to complete their right hand turn (i.e., in the dashed line section when the lane was clear) then they have priority in that lane, and it is expectant on you to wait or pass to the left in another lane. Otherwise, yes you have priority in the bicycle lane and they will need to wait until it is clear.
– Rider_X
2 hours ago
1
-1 "You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle" would mean that cyclists can do whatever they like, including running red lights, and not be at fault. That is plainly incorrect.
– Argenti Apparatus
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
up vote
-3
down vote
You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle, IMO. I see and am involved in this situation a lot - in bike lane on right side of road (US traffic) flying, and someone in front of me decides to take a right. Normally, they will wait for you if they are paying attention. Other times they just turn and pay no mind to the rider (sounds like this is what happened).
So, as a driver, don't do that. Just wait until they pass you unless they are obviously slowing and waiting for you to turn. If you pinch them taking a right, you are at fault because you just hit a person with a vehicle. Whether you are in legal trouble is another question that depends on a bunch of things that a legal professional would know better.
As a rider, when I'm in this situation and going fast as you described, I usually pull into traffic behind and to the left of the car that's turning right and just pass them in their own lane as they peel off. This helps the driver see me as I am now directly behind them. If they decide to turn early or I can tell they aren't paying attention, I pass.
answered 4 hours ago
ebrohman
3,16922142
You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle, IMO. I see and am involved in this situation a lot - in bike lane on right side of road (US traffic) flying, and someone in front of me decides to take a right. Normally, they will wait for you if they are paying attention. Other times they just turn and pay no mind to the rider (sounds like this is what happened).
So, as a driver, don't do that. Just wait until they pass you unless they are obviously slowing and waiting for you to turn. If you pinch them taking a right, you are at fault because you just hit a person with a vehicle. Whether you are in legal trouble is another question that depends on a bunch of things that a legal professional would know better.
As a rider, when I'm in this situation and going fast as you described, I usually pull into traffic behind and to the left of the car that's turning right and just pass them in their own lane as they peel off. This helps the driver see me as I am now directly behind them. If they decide to turn early or I can tell they aren't paying attention, I pass.
answered 4 hours ago
ebrohman
3,16922142
answered 4 hours ago
ebrohman
3,16922142
answered 4 hours ago
ebrohman
3,16922142
answered 4 hours ago
ebrohman
3,16922142
3,16922142
-1, no comment why should be needed.
– mattnz
3 hours ago
If the motorist has appropriately merged into the cycling lane to complete their right hand turn (i.e., in the dashed line section when the lane was clear) then they have priority in that lane, and it is expectant on you to wait or pass to the left in another lane. Otherwise, yes you have priority in the bicycle lane and they will need to wait until it is clear.
– Rider_X
2 hours ago
1
-1 "You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle" would mean that cyclists can do whatever they like, including running red lights, and not be at fault. That is plainly incorrect.
– Argenti Apparatus
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
-1, no comment why should be needed.
– mattnz
3 hours ago
If the motorist has appropriately merged into the cycling lane to complete their right hand turn (i.e., in the dashed line section when the lane was clear) then they have priority in that lane, and it is expectant on you to wait or pass to the left in another lane. Otherwise, yes you have priority in the bicycle lane and they will need to wait until it is clear.
– Rider_X
2 hours ago
1
-1 "You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle" would mean that cyclists can do whatever they like, including running red lights, and not be at fault. That is plainly incorrect.
– Argenti Apparatus
2 hours ago
-1, no comment why should be needed.
– mattnz
3 hours ago
-1, no comment why should be needed.
– mattnz
3 hours ago
If the motorist has appropriately merged into the cycling lane to complete their right hand turn (i.e., in the dashed line section when the lane was clear) then they have priority in that lane, and it is expectant on you to wait or pass to the left in another lane. Otherwise, yes you have priority in the bicycle lane and they will need to wait until it is clear.
– Rider_X
2 hours ago
If the motorist has appropriately merged into the cycling lane to complete their right hand turn (i.e., in the dashed line section when the lane was clear) then they have priority in that lane, and it is expectant on you to wait or pass to the left in another lane. Otherwise, yes you have priority in the bicycle lane and they will need to wait until it is clear.
– Rider_X
2 hours ago
1
1
-1 "You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle" would mean that cyclists can do whatever they like, including running red lights, and not be at fault. That is plainly incorrect.
– Argenti Apparatus
2 hours ago
-1 "You are always at fault if you hit a someone riding a bicycle" would mean that cyclists can do whatever they like, including running red lights, and not be at fault. That is plainly incorrect.
– Argenti Apparatus
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Alakazooom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Alakazooom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Alakazooom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Alakazooom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbicycles.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57312%2fright-hook-accident-scenario-who-is-at-fault%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password