Car avoiding cyclist problem

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 20, 2012 at 10:15am

+1

Unsolved Mysteries R Us

dan brown said:

i am still trying to figure out why 'bent tires' (from the OP) are a problem ?

 

I assume she meant rims ?

 

either way - we need a lot more info here but I'm sure this will be an unsolved mystery forever on the CL.

 

DB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dragonborn on August 20, 2012 at 11:04am

Wasn't declaring anything, just giving some perspective.

h' said:

I'm sorry, we don't even have a complete account from this woman, or an account that makes reasonable sense:

I saw him coming but my turning into my spot was a real quick problem, HELP!!!!

And we're declaring fault, or lack thereof? Wtf?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on August 20, 2012 at 11:53am

If the car is backing up into a spot than the driver "may not...• Back up on other roadways unless it is done safely and does not interfere with other vehicles" 

If he was waiting in front of an open space until traffic was clear and than suddenly maneuvered backwards and into the traffic flow, he would be interfering with another vehicle.  The point is that its totally unclear exactly what happened in this situation, what the actual damages are, and whether or not its enough to involve authorities.  

James BlackHeron said:

I'm pretty sure that a vehicle that is attempting to parallel park is entitled to the full traffic lane adjacent to parking spot and from whence he is starting the maneuver.   An over-taking vehicle must yield the right of way to a vehicle in front of them as that other vehicle was there first and has the right of way.  The passing vehicle has the responsibility to make a safe pass with enough clearance and not simply buzz the slower (or stopped/backing) vehicle within that same lane.    This is true in a "sharrow" as well as a non-sharrow situation.

If the parallel-parker has to maneuver across a marked bike lane to get to a parking spot I'm not sure how that works exactly.   That gets complicated and I'd love for one of the cycling lawyers on here to comment on that.

If a vehicle is already parked and is pulling OUT of a parking spot into the traffic lane adjacent to his spot then they do NOT have the right of way and must yield to traffic in that lane, however if they are still maneuvering as part of parking then over-taking traffic must yield to the parallel-parker until they have vacated the traffic lane fully and no longer are using it to maneuver into the parking spot.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 20, 2012 at 2:18pm

I totally agree that we do not at know what happened in this particular circumstance.  The only thing we could do is to speculate.  

But I think that a discussion as to the rules of who has the right of way and who must yield to whom in these types of parallel-parking situations with over-taking traffic is appropriate in a general sense as it pertains to the unknowns of this incident.

If the car is backing up into a spot than the driver "may not...• Back up on other roadways unless it is done safely and does not interfere with other vehicles" 

I think the key word here is OTHER roadways.    If the vehicle remains in the lane it already had occupied and/or the empty parking spot  then it has the right of way in that situation.  It was there first and and has the right to a full vehicle lane.  If a bicyclist enters that lane and attempts to pass a vehicle within that same lane it is taking its own chances doing so, IMHO, with how that car moves within that lane short of a door being opened up into traffic -which is a separate statute regarding that very thing.

The key word OTHER roadways may very well pertain to my hypothetical situation above where the driver must back up over and across a marked bike lane to get to a spot.  In such a case the car would not have the right of way over vehicles/bicycles in any other lanes than the one he/she is already occupying.   

If the driver hits a bicycle in separate (other) lane then then the driver would be at fault.  If the driver hits a bicyclist in the parking spot that was already there when he/she started the parking maneuver then the auto driver would be at fault.   If a bicyclist were to swerve into the parking spot or occupy the lane that the parking driver had already had the right of way to then I think the over-taking bicyclist would be at fault.

What really happened to the OP is hard to say.  They could be totally at fault, partially at fault, or even not at fault at all -depending on what happened.  The fact that they were not able to fully articulate to us what happened, and that they do not have a police report at this time, doesn't bode well for them.  At this point they have already (maybe) admitted at least partial fault (in a public forum) depending on how one reads their post although that is something that insurance companies and lawyers would have to fight over out of court, or in court if it gets to that point. 

Liz said:

If the car is backing up into a spot than the driver "may not...• Back up on other roadways unless it is done safely and does not interfere with other vehicles" 

If he was waiting in front of an open space until traffic was clear and than suddenly maneuvered backwards and into the traffic flow, he would be interfering with another vehicle.  The point is that its totally unclear exactly what happened in this situation, what the actual damages are, and whether or not its enough to involve authorities.  

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page