Conflict Over Right of Way

Interesting, 20 years of cycle commuting and this is the FIRST time he’s had anything like this happen.  I’d say he should count his lucky stars.  

I was taught (motorcycle) to assume they ALL don’t see you!  I would think cyclists should have the same mentality.  That’s not to say the driver isn’t culpable, I believe she is, 100%. She’s the one creating the “conflict” and fails to take that extra care and attention required if weather (sun) or visibility should make that “conflict” any more difficult to succeed.  That’s the first words out of ALL their mouths when they harm or kill someone..... I didn’t see them!  Not a good enough reason.  

I also think it’s confusing to most drivers to understand the concept of “giving” right of way vs “taking” it.  It’s not a gift, nor do I view it as a sense of entitlement.  It’s not owned by the “giver” for the “taker” to accept.  I think of it as rules of the road, the order of which actions are taken in order to keep the “order.”  Pedestrians go first, horses go first, the guy on the right goes first (stop sign arrival simultaneously) unless signs or lights dictate the “order” otherwise.  Follow the rules of order and it’s amazing how they function very well.  Like the zipper-effect for merging..... works perfectly when drivers follow the rules. 

I’m a huge advocate for ownership of responsibility.  IMHO, it was the responsibility of the driver to execute her left turn without harm or death to another.  She failed.  Miserably.  Now she can take responsibility for her negligence and be accountable.  

As neither party has presented any evidence I will have to proceed to render a verdict based on my own biases.

First the operator of the bicycle although required by law to observe the rules of the road and when it comes to night operation has to have a fully functional lighting system. No evidence has been presented contradicting my assumption that this requirement was not met. I am going to conclude that he did not have an operation DRL. DRL's are required on all 4 wheel motor vehicles sold in Canada since model year 1990 and two wheeled vehicles since 1981. Failure to have proper lightning on his bicycle, even though daytime lights are not specifically mentioned in the MVA regarding bicycles, full time front mounted lighting on 2 wheeled vehicles is.

Secondly the operator of the car has proceeded into the lane reserved for bicycles. It appears that the traffic in the motorized vehicle lane is stopping which would suggest that the drivers in that lane are going to allow the driver entering SW Marine access. The bicyclist is not acknowledging this. Therefore, not exercising due diligence. Both parties in this case are partially to blame.

Section 186 of the MVA states that a driver must stop before entering the intersection. In this case the driver has proceeded into the intersection probably to get a better view of approaching traffic due to the slight corner. Regardless of this she has restricted the bicycle lane.

In conclusion the operator of the bicycle has no operational lighting nor did he exercise due diligence towards a vehicle entering the highway. The car driver on the other hand was too far into the intersection when stopped. I am going to assess the bicyclist 85% at fault and the motorist 15%. All damages and injuries are to be paid at the same assessment rate. If the bicycle operator does not have insurance he will be required to post a cash bond to cover his share of the costs.

I am also going to bring this accident to the attention of the AG's office with recommendations that all bicycles have to be equipped with a daytime headlight equivalent to that of low beams and operating as a strobe during daylight hours. That bicycle lanes be removed from main thoroughfares and be relocated to quieter streets for safety of both motorist and bicycle operators. That bicycle operators be required to come to a full stop at all intersections that are not controlled by a traffic light. That operators of bicycles on any public road within the province of B.C be required to have a numbered plate which will be renewed yearly in conjunction with PLPD insurance. That all operators of bicycles be required to obtain an operators permit and write the same test as vehicle operators. That the MVA be updated to reflect the changing traffic conditions of our roadways specifically in regards to two wheel human propulsion vehicles.

The above decision has been reached with no bias towards either operator:)

I drive around Langley a lot, and there are rarely bike lanes.

Most cars can stop faster than bikes, and yet bikes frequently drive so fast that they physically cannot stop in time to avoid a collision.

In this video, the cyclist may have had the right to proceed, however if the driver had fully stopped, then at the time he moves in to the intersection, he takes precendence.

Next, the cyclist is very, very vulnerable, and a sensible cyclist would recognize that the car poses an immediate hazard.
The bike rider can easily avoid the hazard with no inconvenience (or danger) to himself by slowing slightly, and going behind the car.

As a pedestrian, I NEVER walk in front of a car at a stop sign -- even if I know that they stopped for me.

As for the driver, I don't think that they can use the sun as an excuse.  If they really and truly could not see, then they have no business pulling forward.

Great website and newletter, keep it up!

--BM

As a long time (assertive) cyclist I tend to agree with the split of liability.

In my opinion he had ample opportunity to avoid the car - it was obvious the car was trying to pull out. A cyclist is always going to lose when colliding with a car, or most things really, so I have always taken the view that it is better to brake and avoid (in this case aim to pass behind the car) than to assume that they are going to see me (or take the view that I have the right of way and I am going to take it); it has served me well over the last 45 years and I have not had any collisions with people or cars. A dog, yes, but there was little I could do when a dog suddenly ran in front of me, except take up flying.

You may have noticed the assertive in brackets above. Why? Well before you think I am a cyclist who always panders to cars, I grew up where we shared the road with cars, no cycle lanes, you rode on the same space they drove on, so if you needed to turn and get out to the centre of the road to make that turn, you had to make a very clear arm signal and make it very clear you were going to move over, which meant being assertive. Not stupid mind. If you could see that a driver had no intention of letting you complete that manaeuver, then safety first, you waited for a safe gap otherwise you would be the one likely on the way to hospital. At the age of 12 I used to cycle 160km a week to school and back cycling the same roads as cars, trucks and buses daily.

As a cyclist,I can’t live without my daily ride  

I have a few peeves about other cyclists. I have lights front and back day and night. I know that cars and predestrians see me better than with out.I wished other cyclists would use lights.Can’t count the number of times we near hit each other. Because of my bright light they were able to avoid me but I near ran into them for not fallowing the rules.I wished other cyclists would stay to the right on trails and paths. Many of the areas we cycle through are semi dark to near impossible to be seen by motorists in the light of day. Scence using the lights,cars seem to share the road more often than not.I can’t be given the right away if I can’t be seen. 

Let’s play safe,have fun  

Tom Brenner