Originally Posted by
timdow
Interesting.... I did not know that bikes are required to yield to a turning driver.
I had always assumed that I had the "right of way" when riding in the bike lane (still going to do everything I can including yielding "right of way" to not get hit, however).
I did find this when doing a Google Search:
"A motorist also has to yield to a cyclist riding in a bike lane. This means that before a motorist can cross or enter a bike lane, they have to yield to the right-of-way of a cyclist if riding in the bike lane."
This is not vehicle code, but from a CA lawyer's website.
If what you say is the case, I would really like to know. Do you have vehicle code or other source to substantiate your statement?
Originally Posted by
Steve B. View Post
Unless she had a stop sign, there is no requirement for a cyclist to yield to a turning vehicle.
Taking out of context. Again. If a vehicle is already initiating a turn, has already started around the corner and a bicycle enters the swing//strike zone after and gets hit, it's the bicyclist's fault.
When you change lanes in your car, you turn on your blinker, check twice and change lanes. If someone pulls behind you at a high rate (supra legal) of speed and you hit them because you reasonably could not have predicted that their speed was that much higher than yours. Would that be your fault?
So if someone is turning and some bicyclist effectively rides into the side of them, how's that their fault?
You cannot require right of way to be by predicting that a bicycle may come along right now in a moment. I can't see one but hey I'll just wait here.
The bicyclist, seeing that a vehicle is turning in it's path has to allow for it to maneuver.
Just because you are on a bicycle you do not have any rights above a car's. You can get away with more and it seems that's what you want codified.
BTW, there is a lawyer made every second, they all want your money. They'll say whatever they have to, to get it.