Why Was The Cyclist At Fault In This Accident?

[Peter P.]

In this morning's local newspaper (http://www.myrecordjournal.com/meriden/article_d01fc65c-947a-11e1-9826-001a4bcf887a.html) there was an article about an accident involving a car and a cyclist.

I understand the events leading up to the accident but find it odd the cyclist was assigned fault-unless it was because he passed the stopped vehicle on the right. I'm torn in supporting the cyclist because I think there was a certain amount of responsibility on the cyclist to be extra aware in this situation, particularly because of the stopped vehicle.

The cyclist was traveling straight and the car he hit was making a left turn, across the cyclist's path, so you would think the driver would have to yield to traffic going straight (even though they likely didn't see the cyclist because he was obscured by the stopped vehicle).

I travel this road a lot and while it's not particularly dangerous, I can see how an accident like this could happen but not due to road design or traffic patterns, but driver and cyclist behavior.

Opinions?

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . we have a media story where the cyclist's version of events is not available.

But trying to extrapolate from the one account available and put myself in the position of the cyclist, I would have been riding along and seen the van come to a stop with no turn signal displayed. I would probably have not been able to see the other car about to turn in front of me because it's obscured by the van.

If Connecticut law is like most other states and assigns bicycles the same rights--and responsibilities--as other vehicles, then the bike had a duty to stop when the van did, regardless of reason the van stopped--same as a car behind the van. I'd guess he was warned for passing on the right.

If I was in this situation and saw this van pass me and suddenly just come to a stop in front of me with no signal, I'd be on guard immediately. Why is he stopping? Is he about to right hook me? I would have stopped also or gotten on the brakes ready to stop for that reason alone. I've had enough other drivers do it to me.

Best guess . . .

BBD

[Hartlin]

I don't know what the laws are in the States. But ASAIK in my Province, in Canada, it's actually illegal to stop the flow of traffic to allow a car to turn left.

I would have also been extra cautious after seeing the van stop, with no blinker, and would have immediately slowed before passing the van.

Coming from a motorcycle background, I'm always on the look out for things like this, and I always ride as I call it "aggressively-defensive". 9/10 times if you think the motorist is going to do something stupid, they usually do.

[tuxbailey]

I have to agree that the cyclist is at fault. All vehicles should be aware of unexpected road situations. If the van stopped, the cyclist should be alerted and paid attention.

It happened to me while driving when the car on my left stopped to let jaywalkers cross the street and my view was blocked. I came close couple times and I would imagine that I would be accountable should I have hit the jaywalker, even if the jaywalker was the one breaking the law.

[Grant McLean]

The cyclist was traveling straight and the car he hit was making a left turn, across the cyclist's path, so you would think the driver would have to yield to traffic going straight (even though they likely didn't see the cyclist because he was obscured by the stopped vehicle).

Opinions?

I think the issue is that the cyclist shouldn't have proceeded because their
view was obscured. It's certainly an important instinct to have - don't keep
moving if you can't see what's ahead. But it's also natural to want to keep
rolling, so the rider has to be vigilant, thinking about where potential danger is.

This type of collision is easily avoidable from a cyclist's perspective - be prepared
to stop when approaching a situation such as this example. Control your speed
when you can't see far enough ahead, or more variables come into play.

-g

[Bob Loblaw]

The CT vehicle code is below.

Actually, I think that accident is attributable to the van driver. He should not have yielded the right of way, and the fact that he did prevented the car and cyclist from seeing one another.

That said, I am with those who say the cyclist has to own this one. Riding a bike in traffic is like tap dancing with elephants. You have to know what's going on all around you at all times, or you will get smooshed.

BL

(e) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or within the area formed by the extension of the lateral lines of the private alley, road or driveway across the full width of the public highway with which it intersects, or so close to such intersection of public highways or to the area formed by the extension of the lateral lines of said private alley, road or driveway across the full width of the public highway as to constitute an immediate hazard.

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

Yep. It's called "failure to yield". I know because I've been in that situation, twice, while driving. Made a left at a light, car ran the red light (unable to prove), and hit me as I was turning. Insurance co. said I was 80-90% at fault.

[torquer]

From the news photo caption:
"Police directed traffic around the incident in just the east bound lanes of West Main Street."
So if there is more than one lane available, and the stopping van was in the left lane and cyclist in the right, why wouldn't the cyclist have the right of way? The oncoming car was crossing traffic (to enter a driveway), but just because one driver let him go, there is no assurance of no oncoming traffic in the other lane, especially when the view is blocked by a larger vehicle.

I agree the cyclist could have used more caution, given the van's stopping, but if he had a lane the police's verbal warning was wrong, and the oncoming driver was the one to blame.

[slowgoing]

The oncoming car should have been cited. Just because a van gives you the right of way doesn't mean you are clear with everyone else going in that direction and can proceed without checking to make sure the rest of the lane or other lanes are clear. He certainly had more awareness of the special circumstances here than the bike because he caused them. What's the oncoming car's excuse for not passing completely through the lane before the bike came by? It's a classic failure to yield.

[wfournier]

I think one of the questions that needs to be looked at as well is what the law says about a bike passing on the right. I believe in PA where I live it is legal "if safe to do so." In this case I would think that it could be determined that it was not safe to do so.

That being said it frustrates me when people don't just follow the rules of the road. Which is IMO the real reason this happened.

[cloudguy]

I was in this exact same type of accident. I was passing stopped traffic on the right with a green light visible at an oncoming intersection. But a stopped car at this intersection with the green decided to waive an oncoming car thru, as she was turning left onto a side street. As I enter the intersection thinking I've got the green, suddenly there is this car turning left into my path and I have to lay the bike down, almost getting run over and doing about 3K of damages to the bike. When the old lady finally stopped (she didn't even know what happened), I asked her to stay and call the authorities, cause I thought for sure she would be cited, but to my surprise I was ruled to be at fault for illegal passing on the right, with a verbal warning. Luckily my home owner's insurance covered the damages, no questions asked.

[DonH]

I thought the driver would have to yield to the cyclist in this situation, but maybe not.
Hopefully the police officer has the correct interpretation of the law as it applies here.

[jpw]

. . . we have a media story where the cyclist's version of events is not available.



BBD

...because the media is the mouthpiece of the auto industry. It doesn't receive sufficient ad spend from the bicycle industry to tell that story.

[sevencyclist]

Seems like the van stopped to yield, and the cyclist went through on the right of the van and ended up hitting or being hit by the turning car. What if that van was stopped because a dog or a child had ran across the street and ended up being hit by the cyclist passing on the right of the van?

[slowgoing]

Seems like the van stopped to yield, and the cyclist went through on the right of the van and ended up hitting or being hit by the turning car. What if that van was stopped because a dog or a child had ran across the street and ended up being hit by the cyclist passing on the right of the van?

Dogs and kids don't have an obligation to yield to oncoming traffic.

[Rueda Tropical]

A van coming to a stop and obstructing your view of why it stopped should set off alarms in any cyclists head who is paying attention. Odds are, whatever caused the van to stop is about to cross your path.]

Both the turning car and the cyclist may have been liable to be cited for a violation.

[torquer]

For arguement's sake, let's take the bike component out of the equation:
You're driving along in the right lane, when a truck in the left lane stops (without signalling a left turn). Are you, the driver, obligated to slow down or stop? I think you'd get a quick horn blast from any following driver. If you're an experienced and awake driver, maybe you anticipate someone crossing in front of the truck, but if you were to hit the turning, oncoming vehicle, I think its pretty clearly that driver's fault.

[sevencyclist]

Dogs and kids don't have an obligation to yield to oncoming traffic.

Exactly why the cyclist should have stopped, since the cyclist could not see why the stoppage had occurred. So perhaps that is why the cyclist was warned because the cyclist should have been able to stop in case it was a dog or a child. I doubt the cyclist thought "good, it is a car, I am right so I will just ride into the car because it is not a child or a dog."

[slowgoing]

Exactly why the cyclist should have stopped, since the cyclist could not see why the stoppage had occurred. So perhaps that is why the cyclist was warned because the cyclist should have been able to stop in case it was a dog or a child. I doubt the cyclist thought "good, it is a car, I am right so I will just ride into the car because it is not a child or a dog."

I doubt the cyclist thought he had any obligation to stop. Doesn't change the fact that the oncoming had an obligation to yield to ALL oncoming traffic. What do you think happened to that obligation? Did it disappear once he received permission from just the van? Does the oncoming car get away scott free with no blame? The oncoming car created the danger by failing to completely yield and could have avoided the entire situation by waiting for a break in traffic.

Also, the article doesn't say the cyclist didn't see the oncoming car, as you suggest. Maybe the cyclist did see the car before it crossed in front of him, and just assumed that the car was yielding to him, as required, but the car suddenly jolted in front of him right before he got there, making a collision unavoidable.

[Kontact]

From the news photo caption:
"Police directed traffic around the incident in just the east bound lanes of West Main Street."
So if there is more than one lane available, and the stopping van was in the left lane and cyclist in the right, why wouldn't the cyclist have the right of way? The oncoming car was crossing traffic (to enter a driveway), but just because one driver let him go, there is no assurance of no oncoming traffic in the other lane, especially when the view is blocked by a larger vehicle.

I agree the cyclist could have used more caution, given the van's stopping, but if he had a lane the police's verbal warning was wrong, and the oncoming driver was the one to blame.

This sort of situation happens all the time around here with bike trails - two lanes in each direction, but some driver stops in one of the lanes and waves the bike path people across the road - even though the other traffic lanes aren't obligated to stop. People are trying to be nice, but they are essentially waving the adults and kids on the path into uncontrolled traffic, and would fall on the bikes and joggers if they were struck.

The traffic rules are set up the way they are for a reason, and being "helpful" really isn't.

[sevencyclist]

I doubt the cyclist thought he had any obligation to stop. Doesn't change the fact that the oncoming had an obligation to yield to ALL oncoming traffic. What do you think happened to that obligation? Did it disappear once he received permission from just the van? Does the oncoming car get away scott free with no blame? The oncoming car created the danger by failing to completely yield and could have avoided the entire situation by waiting for a break in traffic.

Also, the article doesn't say the cyclist didn't see the oncoming car, as you suggest. Maybe the cyclist did see the car before it crossed in front of him, and just assumed that the car was yielding to him, as required, but the car suddenly jolted in front of him right before he got there, making a collision unavoidable.

I think you are right in that cyclist did not have obligation to stop for the turning traffic. However, the cyclist might have the obligation to not pass on the right of a stopped van if it was only a one lane road. I am not clear on that part from the news report except hints from the word eastbound lanes.

I do think that it is better to be safe than sorry since we are the ones suffering from greater damage in case of collision.

Be safe. Cheers!

[Peter P.]

To clarify the original post: It is only one lane in each direction where the accident occurred. The speed in the area is 30mph. It's urban, in a town of roughly 50k people, with a mix of residences and small business. Since it's called West Main St. you can safely conclude it's a main thoroughfare through town with heavier traffic around commute times.

I'm personally undecided whether the cyclist was at fault but I'm inclined to think the accident was avoidable by the cyclist had he interpreted correctly what the stopped van was doing as well as the fact he couldn't see beyond the stopped van, and should have had heightened awareness of the possibility of the presence of a car in the opposite lane, if he didn't have visual confirmation.

My guess is the cyclist just plain didn't have the experience to anticipate such scenarios.

[slowgoing]

I think you are right in that cyclist did not have obligation to stop for the turning traffic. However, the cyclist might have the obligation to not pass on the right of a stopped van if it was only a one lane road. I am not clear on that part from the news report except hints from the word eastbound lanes.

I do think that it is better to be safe than sorry since we are the ones suffering from greater damage in case of collision.

Be safe. Cheers!

I agree. This incident is a good lesson and reminder to yield when a car in front of you or to the left of you stops for any reason.