incident with bicyclist today

[jondoe113@gmail.com]

This is in California. I was going on a 1-lane downhill road with a
bike lane. Before coming to a stop sign, the bike lane ended, and the
road became a two lane road.

In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
(which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
possible right turns).

When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I stopped
behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a bicyclist hit my
car, unable to pass between me and the curb.

We stopped after making the turn and had a chat. At first, the
bicyclist seemed intent to just ride away after telling me to "be more
careful next time". I examined the car for damage (there didn't seem
to be any other than a bit of clear sticky substance on the vent,
where the collision might have happened) and explained my point of
view briefly, to which she replied "**** you buddy, I broke my hand"
and rode away with her riding partner.

I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
insurance info.

Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no point
in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?

Should I have acted differently? Am I allowed to insist that the other
party wait for police and medical help?

Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
don't.

[Reality_Check©]

wrote:
> This is in California. I was going on a 1-lane downhill road with a
> bike lane. Before coming to a stop sign, the bike lane ended, and the
> road became a two lane road.
>
> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
> possible right turns).
>
> When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I stopped
> behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a bicyclist hit my
> car, unable to pass between me and the curb.
>
> We stopped after making the turn and had a chat. At first, the
> bicyclist seemed intent to just ride away after telling me to "be more
> careful next time". I examined the car for damage (there didn't seem
> to be any other than a bit of clear sticky substance on the vent,
> where the collision might have happened) and explained my point of
> view briefly, to which she replied "**** you buddy, I broke my hand"
> and rode away with her riding partner.
>
> I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
> wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
> insurance info.
>
> Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no point
> in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?

Failure to report an accident where there is injury to persons is
an offense/crime.

> Should I have acted differently?

Never "act" ... just "be"...

>Am I allowed to insist that the other
> party wait for police and medical help?

You can "insist" all you want, the other party is free to ignore you.

>
> Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
> immediately after any accident?

Better yet, install front/rear cameras in the car to film BEFORE and
INCLUDING the accident(s).

> - She could claim the accident took
> place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
> don't.

Your "after the fact" camera wouldn't help much, if both of them were to
claim otherwise.

[David L. Johnson]

wrote:

> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
> possible right turns).

Nonsense. If it is a bike lane, cars are supposed to avoid it. If it
ends at each intersection, then you have to be prepared for there to be
bikes to your right, since where the heck else can they ride? In that
case you do have to watch out for traffic, in this case bike traffic,
before turning.
>
> When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I stopped
> behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a bicyclist hit my
> car, unable to pass between me and the curb.

Why should she be passing between you and the curb?
>
> We stopped after making the turn and had a chat. At first, the
> bicyclist seemed intent to just ride away after telling me to "be more
> careful next time". I examined the car for damage (there didn't seem
> to be any other than a bit of clear sticky substance on the vent,
> where the collision might have happened) and explained my point of
> view briefly, to which she replied "**** you buddy, I broke my hand"
> and rode away with her riding partner.

Wait a minute. You were stopped? She hit you? Why should _you_ be
more careful?
>
> I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
> wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
> insurance info.
>
> Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no point
> in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?

If she hit you and rode away without giving you her identification, it
probably counts as a hit-and-run.

But I don't get your prelude about the bike lane, unless you were
actually stopped in the actual bike line, and not in some no-mans land
where the bike lane has ended.
>
> Should I have acted differently? Am I allowed to insist that the other
> party wait for police and medical help?
>
> Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
> immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
> place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
> don't.

So, it was after the end of the bike lane, you were stopped, and she hit
you from behind? If all that is true, I would probably call the cops
and explain your story, just in case she files suit. Of course, if that
isn't really how it was, you may have more of a problem. if you were
physically stopped in the bike lane, you can be cited for blocking
traffic, but still the rider is not supposed to ram into you. If you
were not actually stopped and hit her instead of her hitting you, then
you probably are liable.


--

David L. Johnson

Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.

[Brent P]

On 2008-08-27, David L. Johnson > wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
>> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
>> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
>> possible right turns).
>
> Nonsense. If it is a bike lane, cars are supposed to avoid it. If it
> ends at each intersection, then you have to be prepared for there to be
> bikes to your right, since where the heck else can they ride? In that
> case you do have to watch out for traffic, in this case bike traffic,
> before turning.

That said why complicate the roadway with bike lanes in the first place?

Wide curb lanes have all the benefits of bicycle lanes plus less debris
plus a lack of these intersection conflicts plus less misunderstanding
of who should be where and how turns are supposed to be handled.

> Wait a minute. You were stopped? She hit you? Why should _you_ be
> more careful?

If I am reading between the lines correctly he probably didn't pass the
bicycle riders until fairly close to the intersection. It is a rather
common occurance in my riding that drivers speed up, pass, move back in
front of me and then nail the brakes for the stop. They souldn't have
passed in the first place. Because of this I prepare to take evasive
action when approaching intersections.

[Reality_Check©]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
>> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
>> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
>> possible right turns).
>
> Nonsense. If it is a bike lane, cars are supposed to avoid it.

BULL****!

> If it
> ends at each intersection, then you have to be prepared for there to
> be bikes to your right, since where the heck else can they ride? In
> that case you do have to watch out for traffic, in this case bike
> traffic, before turning.

He did, moron. The BIKE hit HIM from BEHIND!

>>
>> When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I
>> stopped behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a
>> bicyclist hit my car, unable to pass between me and the curb.
>
> Why should she be passing between you and the curb?

Exactly, moron!



>>
>> We stopped after making the turn and had a chat. At first, the
>> bicyclist seemed intent to just ride away after telling me to "be
>> more careful next time". I examined the car for damage (there didn't
>> seem to be any other than a bit of clear sticky substance on the
>> vent, where the collision might have happened) and explained my
>> point of view briefly, to which she replied "**** you buddy, I broke
>> my hand" and rode away with her riding partner.
>
> Wait a minute. You were stopped? She hit you? Why should _you_ be
> more careful?

Now you're catching a clue, jackass.

>>
>> I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
>> wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
>> insurance info.
>>
>> Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no
>> point in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?
>
> If she hit you and rode away without giving you her identification, it
> probably counts as a hit-and-run.

Wrong again, moron.

If the only damage was "property damage", then it depends on the $$ limits.

If there was any injury to persons, then yes, a police report is mandatory.



>
> But I don't get your prelude about the bike lane, unless you were
> actually stopped in the actual bike line, and not in some no-mans land
> where the bike lane has ended.

That's obviously not the only thing you don't get, moron.

>>
>> Should I have acted differently? Am I allowed to insist that the
>> other party wait for police and medical help?
>>
>> Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
>> immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
>> place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
>> don't.
>
> So, it was after the end of the bike lane, you were stopped, and she
> hit you from behind?

That's what was stated. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

> If all that is true, I would probably call the
> cops and explain your story, just in case she files suit.

Now a moron like you is giving legal advice, eh jackass?

> Of course, if that isn't really how it was, you may have more of a
> problem.

If pigs could fly ...

<snip rest of bull**** speculation>

[jondoe113@gmail.com]

On Aug 26, 8:43*pm, "David L. Johnson" >
wrote:

> Nonsense. *If it is a bike lane, cars are supposed to avoid it. *

Quoting http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/turns.htm :

"Right turns. To make a right turn, drive close to the right edge of
the road. If there is a bike lane, drive into the bike lane no more
than 200 feet before the turn....".

Where I live, most people don't follow this rule, but I tend to.
Bicyclists usually don't like slowing down for stop signs, let alone
cars waiting there.

> Why should she be passing between you and the curb?

She may have thought there would be enough space for her there, so she
didn't slow down (I'm guessing). When I stopped she was behind me.

> Wait a minute. *You were stopped? *She hit you? *Why should _you_ be
> more careful?

Exactly.

> If she hit you and rode away without giving you her identification, it
> probably counts as a hit-and-run.

Does hit-and-run apply to bicyclists?

> But I don't get your prelude about the bike lane,

The prelude about the bike lane is probably not entirely relevant,
because where I stopped, the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-
lane road.

However, she claimed at first that the accident took place because I
was in the "bike lane". Had this been true, I still would have had to
occupy the bike lane, according to the Driver Handbook.

Btw, there is now what looks like dried up glue for bike tires on my
right vent. How could she have managed to apply that and why?

> If all that is true, I would probably call the cops
> and explain your story, just in case she files suit.

Your story is just your words - would it really count as additional
evidence in court?

[Reality_Check©]

wrote:
> On Aug 26, 8:43 pm, "David L. Johnson" >
> wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. If it is a bike lane, cars are supposed to avoid it.
>
> Quoting http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/turns.htm :
>
> "Right turns. To make a right turn, drive close to the right edge of
> the road. If there is a bike lane, drive into the bike lane no more
> than 200 feet before the turn....".

David Johnson is an idiot, ignore him and seek legal
advice from a licensed attorney in your State.



>
> Where I live, most people don't follow this rule, but I tend to.
> Bicyclists usually don't like slowing down for stop signs, let alone
> cars waiting there.
>
>> Why should she be passing between you and the curb?
>
> She may have thought there would be enough space for her there, so she
> didn't slow down (I'm guessing). When I stopped she was behind me.
>
>> Wait a minute. You were stopped? She hit you? Why should _you_ be
>> more careful?
>
> Exactly.
>
>> If she hit you and rode away without giving you her identification,
>> it probably counts as a hit-and-run.
>
> Does hit-and-run apply to bicyclists?
>
>> But I don't get your prelude about the bike lane,
>
> The prelude about the bike lane is probably not entirely relevant,
> because where I stopped, the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-
> lane road.
>
> However, she claimed at first that the accident took place because I
> was in the "bike lane". Had this been true, I still would have had to
> occupy the bike lane, according to the Driver Handbook.
>
> Btw, there is now what looks like dried up glue for bike tires on my
> right vent. How could she have managed to apply that and why?
>
>> If all that is true, I would probably call the cops
>> and explain your story, just in case she files suit.
>
> Your story is just your words - would it really count as additional
> evidence in court?

[David L. Johnson]

Brent P wrote:

> That said why complicate the roadway with bike lanes in the first place?
>
Not the issue of the moment, but I agree.

>> Wait a minute. You were stopped? She hit you? Why should _you_ be
>> more careful?
>
> If I am reading between the lines correctly he probably didn't pass the
> bicycle riders until fairly close to the intersection. It is a rather
> common occurance in my riding that drivers speed up, pass, move back in
> front of me and then nail the brakes for the stop.

Possibly.

--

David L. Johnson

You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but what
canst thou say?
-- George Fox.

[jondoe113@gmail.com]

On Aug 26, 8:50*pm, Brent P >
wrote:

> If I am reading between the lines correctly he probably didn't pass the
> bicycle riders until fairly close to the intersection.

I passed them at some point and I was way ahead of them coming to the
stop sign, but it may have been her expectation that I'd leave enough
space for them to pass between me and the curb, so she didn't slow
down when approaching the stop sign (as I mentioned this was a steep
downhill road).

[Roy[_2_]]

"If you are involved in a vehicle accident that occurred in California,
you must report it to DMV if:

* There was property damage of more than $750 ($500 for accidents
prior to January 1, 2003) or
* Anyone was injured (no matter how minor) or
* Anyone was killed."

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/sr/sr1.htm

You need to immediately fill out the form and submit it. Also notify
your insurance company.

If you were stopped and gave the bicyclist enough room when you pulled
in front then they hits a stopped vehicle they could have avoided. You
are allowed in the bike lane to make a right turn.



wrote:
> This is in California. I was going on a 1-lane downhill road with a
> bike lane. Before coming to a stop sign, the bike lane ended, and the
> road became a two lane road.
>
> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
> possible right turns).
>
> When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I stopped
> behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a bicyclist hit my
> car, unable to pass between me and the curb.
>
> We stopped after making the turn and had a chat. At first, the
> bicyclist seemed intent to just ride away after telling me to "be more
> careful next time". I examined the car for damage (there didn't seem
> to be any other than a bit of clear sticky substance on the vent,
> where the collision might have happened) and explained my point of
> view briefly, to which she replied "**** you buddy, I broke my hand"
> and rode away with her riding partner.
>
> I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
> wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
> insurance info.
>
> Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no point
> in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?
>
> Should I have acted differently? Am I allowed to insist that the other
> party wait for police and medical help?
>
> Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
> immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
> place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
> don't.

[richard[_3_]]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:09:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>This is in California. I was going on a 1-lane downhill road with a
>bike lane. Before coming to a stop sign, the bike lane ended, and the
>road became a two lane road.
>
>In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
>that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
>(which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
>possible right turns).
>
>When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I stopped
>behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a bicyclist hit my
>car, unable to pass between me and the curb.
>
>We stopped after making the turn and had a chat. At first, the
>bicyclist seemed intent to just ride away after telling me to "be more
>careful next time". I examined the car for damage (there didn't seem
>to be any other than a bit of clear sticky substance on the vent,
>where the collision might have happened) and explained my point of
>view briefly, to which she replied "**** you buddy, I broke my hand"
>and rode away with her riding partner.
>
>I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
>wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
>insurance info.
>
>Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no point
>in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?
>
>Should I have acted differently? Am I allowed to insist that the other
>party wait for police and medical help?
>
>Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
>immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
>place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
>don't.


You are not to blame. The biker is. She could not have seen your
vehicle blocking her path and blindly rode into it? Dumbass.

On the Judge Wapner version of "People's court" he had a similar case.
Seems some idiot slammed himself into the right passenger car door as
it opened.
He was suing for damages. He even pointed the law in which it clearly
states, "Bicyclists will ride on the right hand side of the road".
Judge Wapner comes back with, "Yes sir it does. It also says, Except
when there is something blocking the biker's path the biker shall take
all care to avoid that blockage."

Like the guy figured the judge is stoopid?
Wapner ruled against the idiot.

Just like when you're driving a car, when your lane ends, what do you
do? Continue on as if nothing happened? Oh sure and run over that
cliff in the process. Or into a brick wall.

[Brent P]

On 2008-08-27, > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 8:50*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>
>> If I am reading between the lines correctly he probably didn't pass the
>> bicycle riders until fairly close to the intersection.
>
> I passed them at some point and I was way ahead of them coming to the
> stop sign, but it may have been her expectation that I'd leave enough
> space for them to pass between me and the curb, so she didn't slow
> down when approaching the stop sign (as I mentioned this was a steep
> downhill road).

Define 'way ahead'. Some drivers I've encountered, 'way ahead' was only
a couple car lengths or less.

[Naughtius]

On Aug 26, 10:17*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 26, 8:43*pm, "David L. Johnson" >
> wrote:

[Snip]

>
> Btw, there is now what looks like dried up glue for bike tires on my
> right vent. How could she have managed to apply that and why?

A Reddish... RUST Colored "Glue"?

IF So, that's "Sew-Up" Glue...

IF it's GLUE, At All...

Up UNTIL Your Recitation Above, It Appeared To Me that this was a
CLEAR CASE of Complete Bicyclist Fault...

Buuuuut... Frankly, Your Presumption that *she* "managed to apply
that and why", RATHER THAN it Being "applied" as a Direct Result of
your Mutual Collision, OR Some Other UNstated Phenomena, Raises some
Serious Doubts - In My Mind - AS TO *YOUR* Credibilty... AS TO *YOUR*
[Even More So BIASED] Representation of The Alleged "Facts", In
Toto...

*YOU* might just have a PROBLEM here...

Oh... and uh... NEVER Pay Any Attention to _ANYTHING_ rich "I'm NOT
A REAL Lawyer, BUT I PLAY One On NNTP" ard says...

[Snip]

Naughtius "The REST Of... ... ... The Story..." Maximus

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Aug 27, 12:17*am, wrote:
> Btw, there is now what looks like dried up glue for bike tires on my
> right vent. How could she have managed to apply that and why?

I'd just be greatful it wasn't a cleat mark (usually a dent and
scratch, according to SWIM) and count my blessings

[Rex Kerr]

wrote:
> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
> possible right turns).

It'd be interesting to see a picture of the intersection, but based on
my understanding of your description then you were right to merge into
the bike lane, but.... (see my next paragraph)

> When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I stopped
> behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a bicyclist hit my
> car, unable to pass between me and the curb.

I'm assuming that you were fully in the bike lane for some time before
the bicyclist hit you. Regardless, being as this was a downhill
section, you may have misjudged the speed of the cyclist and their need
for stopping distance. I can often ride over 30 MPH on a downhill
section and car drivers are often act in ways that indicate that they're
surprised at how quickly I show up. You might have merged into the lane
in front of them and not left them enough time to stop. They might not
have been trying to squeeze in between you and and curb, but rather
trying to swerve to avoid a collision.

Here's an example in just pure motor-vehicle terms... you're supposed
to merge into the right lane before turning right, but you wouldn't
change from the left lane into the right lane and then slow down 50 feet
in front of a semi-truck, would you?

> I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
> wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
> insurance info.

Often after hitting a car the rider is very stressed and dazed and is
just happy to be able to ride away. I hit a car once that pulled out in
front of me (again, she misjudged how fast I was going) and at first I
thought that I was OK, but later realized that my bike had been
seriously damaged (I had to replace it) and I had some pain in my knee
from hitting the thumb shifters as I went over the handlebars. I must
say that it went by in a haze, I wasn't thinking straight.

> Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no point
> in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?

YES! The law requires you to report it. If they report it later with
your license plate number then you could be in trouble for not reporting it.

> Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
> immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
> place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
> don't.

Not sure how that would help. It wouldn't show the accident happening.

-Rex

--
Work and recreation are not often effected at the same time.
One using a bicycle in business makes an exception to the rule.
- Dr. Edgar H. Earl, Rochester. (~1892)

[Ad absurdum per aspera]

On Aug 26, 8:09*pm, wrote:
> This is in California. I was going on a 1-lane downhill road with a
> bike lane. Before coming to a stop sign, the bike lane ended, and the
> road became a two lane road.
>
> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
> possible right turns).
> When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I stopped
> behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a bicyclist hit my
> car, unable to pass between me and the curb.

Though you should keep in mind that it is interpretation rather than
actual statute, the driver's handbook *is* the state's official
position on how to drive, and should carry some weight. The bit about
bike lanes is about halfway down http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traffic_lanes.htm

"When you are making a right turn and are within 200 feet of the
corner or other driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for
the turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time."

Note the word "must". I wonder why they chose that word. My guess is
that they thought it's better to safely enter the bike lane (at the
cost of possibly obstructing it) than to stay in the driving lane
longer and then risk putting a "right hook" on a bicyclist.


Now, if she and her riding partner claim that you cut them off or
sideswiped them, it comes down to a judgement call with a large order
of who believes whom.



> to which she replied "[Army Word] you buddy, I broke my hand"
> and rode away with her riding partner.
> I don't believe that she did hurt herself

If she did that with a broken hand she's one tough cookie.

> Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no point
> in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?

Call the Highway Patrol. If the other party has reported it, that'll
give you a chance to get your side on the record, and they'll tell you
how. They may figure it blew over (more on this below). Note the
name of the person you talked to, and the time.

> Should I have acted differently? Am I allowed to insist that the other
> party wait for police and medical help?

If they try to leave (with or without any more "[Army Word] you,
buddy") I don't think you can take any action to *make* them wait,
unless you think it justifies citizens arrest, which I'm told is more
complicated and fraught with legal (as well as physical) peril in
reality than on TV. I think stopping, offering your information,
and seeing if it is appropriate to render aid is exactly what is
required of you, and if the other party chooses to blow out of there,
about all you are entitled to do is note a description of them and the
vehicle.

(And if they don't proffer information, and then leave, it looks like
a hit and run on *their* part if they try to come back at you later.
My educated gas is that that's what happened here -- when you
presented your side, perhaps she decided that distance and continued
anonymity were in her favor. You did offer aid, and your license and
insurance card, right? If so, and she were both hurt and convinced it
was your fault, why would she ride off instead of accepting
this?)

> Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
> immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
> place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
> don't.

Not sure what good having a video camera in the car would do unless it
were running and pointed the right way in the run-up to and during the
accident.

Disclaimer: I am neither policeman nor attorney, so the above is
worth about what you paid. Talk to the real deal if you think this
could come back to haunt you.

Drive and ride safely,
--Joe

[Agent_C]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:09:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>Should I have acted differently?

Yes, next time get out and beat the **** out of the little hippie
*******!

A_C

[gpsman]

On Aug 27, 2:06 pm, Rex Kerr > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Should I report this to DMV though?
>
> YES! The law requires you to report it.

State laws may differ regarding what constitutes a collision that must
be reported, or "hit and run".
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd10c1.htm

> > Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
> > immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
> > place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
> > don't.
>
> Not sure how that would help. It wouldn't show the accident happening.

Most commercial drivers are required by their company and/or insurer
to carry a disposable camera as part of an "Accident Kit", and there's
one in each of my vehicles.

Much may be deduced from photos of the immediate aftermath of a
collision, and I'd prefer those to nothing.
-----

- gpsman

[Rex Kerr]

gpsman wrote:

> State laws may differ regarding what constitutes a collision that must
> be reported, or "hit and run".
> http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd10c1.htm

Yes, that's true... but the OP said CA -- and the link that you provided
is to CA law and says:

20008. (a) The driver of a vehicle, other than a common carrier
vehicle, involved in any accident resulting in injuries to or death of
any person shall within 24 hours after the accident make or cause to be
made a written report of the accident to the Department of the
California Highway Patrol or, if the accident occurred within a city, to
either the Department of the California Highway Patrol or the police
department of the city in which the accident occurred.

The cyclist claimed to have a broken wrist, that's an injury. It may
have been a lie, but it's safest to report it just in case.

--
Work and recreation are not often effected at the same time.
One using a bicycle in business makes an exception to the rule.
- Dr. Edgar H. Earl, Rochester. (~1892)

[Timothy J. Lee]

In article >,
David L. Johnson > wrote:
wrote:
>
>> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
>> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
>> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
>> possible right turns).
>
>Nonsense. If it is a bike lane, cars are supposed to avoid it. If it
>ends at each intersection, then you have to be prepared for there to be
>bikes to your right, since where the heck else can they ride? In that
>case you do have to watch out for traffic, in this case bike traffic,
>before turning.

California Vehicle Code is at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html .
Here are some relevant sections with respect to right turns. 22100
applies to right turns in general; 21209 applies when there is a
bike lane.

22100. Except as provided in Section 22100.5 or 22101, the driver
of any vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as
follows:
(a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a
right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except:
[ exceptions that do not apply here ]

21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane
established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:

(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the
intersection.

If a right turning motorist has properly merged into the bike lane
(properly yielding to any bicyclists who are already there), then
a bicyclist who later comes from behind should pass the right turning
motorist on the left if s/he is not turning right, or wait behind the
right turning motorist if s/he is turning right.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

[Timothy J. Lee]

In article >,
> wrote:
>On Aug 26, 8:50*pm, Brent P >
>wrote:
>
>> If I am reading between the lines correctly he probably didn't pass the
>> bicycle riders until fairly close to the intersection.
>
>I passed them at some point and I was way ahead of them coming to the
>stop sign, but it may have been her expectation that I'd leave enough
>space for them to pass between me and the curb, so she didn't slow
>down when approaching the stop sign (as I mentioned this was a steep
>downhill road).

How far was "way ahead"? Many car drivers underestimate the speed of
a bicyclist (especially on a "steep downhill road"), so a car driver
who thinks that s/he is safely past a bicyclist may not really be safely
past the bicyclist.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

[DennisTheBald]

On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-08-27, David L. Johnson > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
> >> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
> >> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
> >> possible right turns).
>
> > Nonsense. If it is a bike lane, cars are supposed to avoid it. If it
> > ends at each intersection, then you have to be prepared for there to be
> > bikes to your right, since where the heck else can they ride? In that
> > case you do have to watch out for traffic, in this case bike traffic,
> > before turning.
>
> That said why complicate the roadway with bike lanes in the first place?
>
> Wide curb lanes have all the benefits of bicycle lanes plus less debris
> plus a lack of these intersection conflicts plus less misunderstanding
> of who should be where and how turns are supposed to be handled.
>
> > Wait a minute. You were stopped? She hit you? Why should _you_ be
> > more careful?
>
> If I am reading between the lines correctly he probably didn't pass the
> bicycle riders until fairly close to the intersection. It is a rather
> common occurance in my riding that drivers speed up, pass, move back in
> front of me and then nail the brakes for the stop. They souldn't have
> passed in the first place. Because of this I prepare to take evasive
> action when approaching intersections.

yeah, for some reason motorist tend to believe that they go faster
than bikes, even when they are stopped.

[Bob]

On Aug 26, 10:09*pm, wrote:
> This is in California. I was going on a 1-lane downhill road with a
> bike lane. Before coming to a stop sign, the bike lane ended, and the
> road became a two lane road.
>
> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
> possible right turns).
>
> When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I stopped
> behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a bicyclist hit my
> car, unable to pass between me and the curb.
>
> We stopped after making the turn and had a chat. At first, the
> bicyclist seemed intent to just ride away after telling me to "be more
> careful next time". I examined the car for damage (there didn't seem
> to be any other than a bit of clear sticky substance on the vent,
> where the collision might have happened) and explained my point of
> view briefly, to which she replied "**** you buddy, I broke my hand"
> and rode away with her riding partner.
>
> I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
> wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
> insurance info.
>
> Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no point
> in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?
>
> Should I have acted differently? Am I allowed to insist that the other
> party wait for police and medical help?
>
> Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
> immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
> place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
> don't.

Without more information, particularly the cyclist's version of
events, where that clear sticky substance was on your car, if either
your car or the bike was damaged (*damaged* is not just being marked
with a foreign substance), and whether or not the cyclist appeared to
be injured, no one can give you a definitive answer *but*...
If there was no damage to your vehicle, no damage to the bike, and the
cyclist rode away I wouldn't give it another thought. I certainly
wouldn't bother to try to make a police report or call my insurance
company. Since there was no exchange of information at the scene,
either would be futile at best or counterproductive at worst.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[DennisTheBald]

On Aug 26, 11:17 pm, wrote:
> On Aug 26, 8:43 pm, "David L. Johnson" >
> wrote:
>
> Btw, there is now what looks like dried up glue for bike tires on my
> right vent. How could she have managed to apply that and why?

It is probably dried spit.

If you are close enough that I can hit you with a loogey, you are too
close. But I rarely hock one at a stopped car. Where on the car is
this vent?

[whitevamp]

On Aug 26, 10:54*pm, "Reality_Check©" > wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >> In California, at least, I remember reading in the drivers' manual
> >> that one is supposed to occupy the bike lane before turning right
> >> (which is usually no longer marked with a solid white line before
> >> possible right turns).
>
> > Nonsense. *If it is a bike lane, cars are supposed to avoid it.
>
> BULL****!
>
> > If it
> > ends at each intersection, then you have to be prepared for there to
> > be bikes to your right, since where the heck else can they ride? *In
> > that case you do have to watch out for traffic, in this case bike
> > traffic, before turning.
>
> He did, moron. The BIKE hit HIM from BEHIND!
>
>
>
> >> When the bike lane ended, and the road became a 2-lane road, I
> >> stopped behind a some cars waiting at the stop sign. Then a
> >> bicyclist hit my car, unable to pass between me and the curb.
>
> > Why should she be passing between you and the curb?
>
> Exactly, moron!
>
>
>
> >> We stopped after making the turn and had a chat. At first, the
> >> bicyclist seemed intent to just ride away after telling me to "be
> >> more careful next time". I examined the car for damage (there didn't
> >> seem to be any other than a bit of clear sticky substance on the
> >> vent, where the collision might have happened) and explained my
> >> point of view briefly, to which she replied "**** you buddy, I broke
> >> my hand" and rode away with her riding partner.
>
> > Wait a minute. *You were stopped? *She hit you? *Why should _you_ be
> > more careful?
>
> Now you're catching a clue, jackass.
>
>
>
> >> I don't believe that she did hurt herself, because otherwise she
> >> wouldn't be so eager to just leave the area without getting my
> >> insurance info.
>
> >> Anyway, since they left without giving me any info, there was no
> >> point in my hanging around. Should I report this to DMV though?
>
> > If she hit you and rode away without giving you her identification, it
> > probably counts as a hit-and-run.
>
> Wrong again, moron.
>
> If the only damage was "property damage", then it depends on the $$ limits.
>
> If there was any injury to persons, then yes, a police report is mandatory.
>
>
>
> > But I don't get your prelude about the bike lane, unless you were
> > actually stopped in the actual bike line, and not in some no-mans land
> > where the bike lane has ended.
>
> That's obviously not the only thing you don't get, moron.
>
>
>
> >> Should I have acted differently? Am I allowed to insist that the
> >> other party wait for police and medical help?
>
> >> Should I always carry a video camera while driving and start filming
> >> immediately after any accident? - She could claim the accident took
> >> place on the bike lane, not after it ended, and she had a witness, I
> >> don't.
>
> > So, it was after the end of the bike lane, you were stopped, and she
> > hit you from behind?
>
> That's what was stated. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> > *If all that is true, I would probably call the
> > cops and explain your story, just in case she files suit.
>
> Now a moron like you is giving legal advice, eh jackass?
>
> > *Of course, if that isn't really how it was, you may have more of a
> > problem.
>
> If pigs could fly ...
>
> <snip rest of bull**** speculation>


May I introduce you folks to this guy, Prof_Jonez also uses the nym
reality_check but his real name is Eric Ross. He popped into your
newsgroup because he likes to abuse people on usenet. If you have
Google, check out his posting history as " Prof_Jonez". The level of
activity, mostly abusive, is astounding. He has over the years used
many nyms, inclusing ultraman, vox ultra and others.

This guy is a racist and a sexist and threatened to kill the " mixed
blood" children of a white man and a Latino woman. he also has an
obsession about fecal eating and his level of cussing or vulgarity is
pathetic for a guy in his fourties. Rumor has it he ran off to Canada
to avoid charges of child sexual abuse.


Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Ad absurdum per aspera aka Joe Chew wrote:
> ...
> My educated gas...

So that is how it knows to follow PV=nRT! ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Jym Dyer]

=v= Proper execution of a car making a right turn on a street
with a bike lane:

(1) Turn on the right turn signal 100' before turning into
the bike lane.
(2) Only turn in to the bike lane when it's safe to.
(3) Turn on the right turn signal again, 100' before the
intersection. (A quirk of this is that you can travel
a theoretical maximum of 100' before that *in* the
bike lane without a turn signal.)
(4) Make the right turn at the intersection as usual,
again, only when it's safe to.

I have never seen the above actually happen.

=v= Personally I think the bicyclist should have passed you
on the left instead of attempting to squeeze to the right.

=v= The law directs slower traffic to get to the right, and
encourages (but does not require) faster traffic to pass on
the left. Cars that are going slower than bicycles in certain
conditions very rarely keep to the right -- so unfortunately
bicyclists are unaccustomed to passing on the left. California
also directs bicycles to keep to the right, regardless of speed,
but with a list of exceptions (which few motorists are aware of)
which include passing -- again discouraging bicyclists from
passing on the left.
<_Jym_>

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

On Aug 28, 4:36*am, Jym Dyer > wrote:
> =v= Proper execution of a car making a right turn on a street
> with a bike lane:
>
> * (1) Turn on the right turn signal 100' before turning into
> * * * the bike lane.
> * (2) Only turn in to the bike lane when it's safe to.
> * (3) Turn on the right turn signal again, 100' before the
> * * * intersection. *(A quirk of this is that you can travel
> * * * a theoretical maximum of 100' before that *in* the
> * * * bike lane without a turn signal.)
> * (4) Make the right turn at the intersection as usual,
> * * * again, only when it's safe to.
>
> I have never seen the above actually happen.
>
> =v= Personally I think the bicyclist should have passed you
> on the left instead of attempting to squeeze to the right.
>
> =v= The law directs slower traffic to get to the right, and
> encourages (but does not require) faster traffic to pass on
> the left. *

> Where are you referring to? I'm not aware of anywhere the law "encourages" things - laws tend to require something or not. In most areas I'm familiar with, the law _requires_ faster traffic to pass on the left, by way of making passing on the right illegal except for in special circumstances.


> Cars that are going slower than bicycles in certain
> conditions very rarely keep to the right -- so unfortunately
> bicyclists are unaccustomed to passing on the left. *California
> also directs bicycles to keep to the right, regardless of speed,
> but with a list of exceptions (which few motorists are aware of)
> which include passing -- again discouraging bicyclists from
> passing on the left.

Come again? One of the exceptions to the "bicycles keep right" law is
passing, in which case they may overtake on the left, and this somehow
discourages bicyclists from passing on the left?

[Brent P]

On 2008-08-28, > wrote:

> Come again? One of the exceptions to the "bicycles keep right" law is
> passing, in which case they may overtake on the left, and this somehow
> discourages bicyclists from passing on the left?

He's speaking of the difference between the actual rules of the road and
what people think are the rules. A recent for instance was the
?off-duty? cop in a private auto that I encountered. I was biking 25 in
a 25 (I was also turning left within 100 feet) and was just slightly
right of center, but more or less had taken the lane. He screamed and
yelled at me that I wasn't permitted out of the gutter.

[Jym Dyer]

> = DanKMTB
> Come again? One of the exceptions to the "bicycles keep
> right" law is passing, in which case they may overtake on
> the left, and this somehow discourages bicyclists from
> passing on the left?

=v= Sorry for my clumsy wording. California law really does
complicate things by imposing a separate "keep to the right"
law on bicyclists with a list of exceptions that most road
users don't seem to know. Most motorists are unaware of the
many conditions where we *don't* have to keep to the right,
and the same holds for a number of police officers. It is
this situation that is discouraging.
<_Jym_>

P.S.: We have a columnist in these parts who covers driving
news, and every few years he does a column on bicyclists and
somehow always finds a way to flub this list of exceptions
(a new screwup every time!).

[Cabot]

> wrote in message
...


>Btw, there is now what looks like dried up glue for bike tires on my
>right vent. How could she have managed to apply that and why?

It is probably dried poop. You scared the **** out of her.

[Reality_Check©]

Cabot wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> Btw, there is now what looks like dried up glue for bike tires on my
>> right vent. How could she have managed to apply that and why?
>
> It is probably dried poop. You scared the **** out of her.

Or Ebola pathogens ...

[peter]

On Aug 27, 2:06*pm, (Timothy J. Lee) wrote:
> In article >,
>
> > wrote:
> >On Aug 26, 8:50*pm, Brent P >
> >wrote:
>
> >> If I am reading between the lines correctly he probably didn't pass the
> >> bicycle riders until fairly close to the intersection.
>
> >I passed them at some point and I was way ahead of them coming to the
> >stop sign, but it may have been her expectation that I'd leave enough
> >space for them to pass between me and the curb, so she didn't slow
> >down when approaching the stop sign (as I mentioned this was a steep
> >downhill road).
>
> How far was "way ahead"? *Many car drivers underestimate the speed of
> a bicyclist (especially on a "steep downhill road"), so a car driver
> who thinks that s/he is safely past a bicyclist may not really be safely
> past the bicyclist.

Agreed. I wonder if the original poster actually observed the cyclist
to be far behind in their rearview mirror or is just assuming that
that's where she was. Frequently I've had cars pull up alongside me
to pass but then slow down a bit in preparation for a turn or stop and
start moving to the right while I'm still next to their fender. I'm
sure they also think that I must be somewhere far behind. Especially
on a 'steep downhill road' cyclists might be moving much faster than
drivers expect. That would make the cyclist's comment about being
careful more understandable.