Who would be at fault (kind of long)?

[greg72982]

I know I used to be an officer and everything but I had a situation today I was unsure of, and luckily it turned out for the best.

I was going to Walmart and I was in the turning lane of Main St. facing northbound waiting to make a left turn into the parking lot. Main Street is three lanes, two driving lanes and one turning lane the whole way. Due to a red light back behind me for southbound traffic, the traffic was at a standstill and I was sitting there thinking "This ought to be awhile before I can turn."

The light turned green and a few cars inched up and opened a decent sized gap and a nice gentleman in a Chevy Avalanche stayed stopped and waved for me to go ahead and turn into Walmart parking lot. As I proceeded to make the turn and was already crossing the southbound lane, some idiot on a bicycle comes flying (may sound funny but this guy was hauling) up the right side of the road on the passenger side of the Avalanche between it and the curb and I didn't even see him. In a split second decision I chose to punch it instead of hitting the brakes figuring he could cut left around me (which he he did) but I did see him nail his brakes so hard his handle bars were wobbling.

After this happened I thought to myself had I hit the bicyclist or he hit me, would he be at fault or me? I mean technically the southbound traffic had the right of way, the guy in the Avalanche was just being nice letting me go. But shouldn't the guy on the bike have been stopped like all the other traffic behind the Avalanche? Isn't it common sense that you should not be cruising passed the opening to a busy parking lot anyway due to the fact cars > bicycles?

Was I in the wrong or was he??

[retdetsgt]

I hated working traffic, but I think you were wrong. An automobile crossing lines of traffic has to yield. Just because the old guy (yeah, we're nicer) was kind enough to let you go, he had no obligation. The bike didn't either. The guy on the bike was an idiot, no doubt, but in case of a crash and injury, I suspect you would have gotten the ticket.

[greg72982]

Just because the old guy (yeah, we're nicer) was kind enough to let you go, he had no obligation. The bike didn't either. The guy on the bike was an idiot, no doubt, but in case of a crash and injury, I suspect you would have gotten the ticket.

See I figured the biker was in violation because technically he was not in a travel lane at all. the only reason he could do what he did was because he was on a bike. There was no shoulder just the remainder of the travel lane and a raised curb he squeezed through...

[mcsap]

I try to take an accident scene down to it's simplest form. Who had the RIGHT OF WAY and who didn't ? Not common sense, not who was polite and not who should have known better but who had the legal right to occupy a certain portion of the roadway at a specific time ?

And the answer is the guy on the bike. He had the right to be there and you didn't. Being waived on through does not give you any license or privilege to assume that the coast is clear. The guy on the bike has the rights and respsonsibilities as a vehicle on the roadway and he has no legal obilgation to slow down due to a gap in traffic etc.

[greg72982]

I still stick by that the biker was an *******

[greg72982]

He had the right to be there and you didn't. Being waived on through does not give you any license or privilege to assume that the coast is clear. The guy on the bike has the rights and respsonsibilities as a vehicle on the roadway and he has no legal obilgation to slow down due to a gap in traffic etc.

And him having the right of way doesn't give him any right or privilege to assume he can do 25 mph through the entrance to a busy parking lot oblivious to a potential hazard.

FWIW I didn't think I had a right to do anything I just think the biker was being very careless. Things happen on the roadway all the time that are unexpected and you can't assume just because you legally have the right of way you can be sloppy. Just like when I get a green light I ALWAYS look both ways to ensure traffic has stopped in all directions and there is not an approaching emergency vehicle or something. And had I not been alert I would have just turned mindlessly and probably wouldnt have even thought to look twice for a hazard and there would have been a crash.

And hey if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm man enough to admit it, I respect everyone on the road including motorcyclists and bicyclists. Maybe where I'm really wrong is expecting them to return the favor.

[retdetsgt]

I still stick by that the biker was an *******

No argument, but it looks like the law was still on his side. Unfortunately, courtesy is not a requirement in most situations. The basic problem I see is that he was going straight ahead in a through area of the street and you crossed it. If I were investigating the crash, I'd have to ticket you for fail to yield right of way. The fact he was going 25 mph past the entrance to a parking is immaterial if that's the speed limit. There is no law I know of requiring anyone to slow down as they pass parking lot entrances.

[Ispbear]

My take on it is that the guy on the bike would be at fault. A bicycle has to follow all of the same rules of the road that a car does. If the bicyclist was passing cars on the right where it is not laned to do so he was in violation.

[retdetsgt]

My take on it is that the guy on the bike would be at fault. A bicycle has to follow all of the same rules of the road that a car does. If the bicyclist was passing cars on the right where it is not laned to do so he was in violation.

Probably depends on the state. Here, the area between the traffic lane and the curb is considered the bike lane. That keeps them from slowing down motorized vehicles. So the bike would have where he should have been.

We have crashes all the time like that though. Bikes aren't seen by motorists. Sometimes because they are hidden, but frankly a lot of people just don't notice them. Greg may have not seen him because he was hidden by other traffic, but in Oregon I believe the bike would be in the right.

[greg72982]

We have crashes all the time like that though. Bikes aren't seen by motorists. Sometimes because they are hidden, but frankly a lot of people just don't notice them. Greg may have not seen him because he was hidden by other traffic, but in Oregon I believe the bike would be in the right.

I'm in NC...to my knowledge that is not considered a bike lane here but I haven't even lived here a year.

The reason I didn't see him was because the Avalanche was rather high (possibly had a lift kit I just remember seeing "Avalanche SS" on the windshield) and the windows I think were tinted so I couldn't see through them. I didn't notice him until he was at the right front fender but he was moving so quickly I had little time to react...

[greg72982]

My take on it is that the guy on the bike would be at fault. A bicycle has to follow all of the same rules of the road that a car does. If the bicyclist was passing cars on the right where it is not laned to do so he was in violation.

This was pretty much my take on it and had a car done the same thing it would have been in violation not to mention driving through Walmart's grass area lol

[cruzmisl]

Where I work you would have gotten a ticket. Sad but true. I never go when nice people wave me on for that very reason . Anything happens and your SOL.

[DeltaV]

Yes, the bicyclist had the right-of-way. I'm not aware of any state that does not require bicyclists to ride as far to the right as possible, meaning that they do not get to take up a full lane of travel. Taking up a full lane is normally reserved for MOTOR vehicles. As to the speed that the bicyclist was going, as long as he was not exceeding the posted limit then it is immaterial.

[Norm357]

I woulda just ran over the idiot on the bike. ;)

[greg72982]

I woulda just ran over the idiot on the bike. ;)

well I didn't want to dent my car...