On May 23, 7:04 am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 23, 5:36 am, Duane wrote:



On 05/22/2012 04:22 PM, Wayne wrote:

A cyclist should avoid trucks' blind spots like the plague. That said
it seems obvious to me that ANY vehicle turning from the wrong lane
and /or not looking before doing so to insure it is not going to crush
a vehicle or pedestrian lawfully on the road is at fault. Period.

There is no "need" to blindly turn a truck where the driver can not
see. If the truck is unable to be driven on the road without doing so
then we should consider the possibility that the truck is not road
worthy in the city environment and smaller more expensive vehicles
should be used.

Do we really want trucks, cars, or bikes driven blindly?

Of course not. We, as cyclists should be lobbying to prevent these
accidents. In Montreal there are problems with snow ploughs and trucks
killing people when they fall under the truck. Due in part to the
cycling lobby, they are putting "fenders" on the side of them to prevent
this, installing different mirrors and starting an education program.

Same thing with buses. A cyclist was killed by a bus last year. It was
mostly the rider's fault for trying to pass a bus on the right but the
drivers went to classes to teach them to be alert to cyclists on the
road. Now the bus drivers are the ones that are stopping to wave us
through.

Unfortunately, some people would prefer to use this sort of news as
anti-infrastructure arguments. Posting subjects like this implying that
the cycling infrastructure was somehow at fault. I don't think that the
bike lane had anything to do with this.

I'm not against infrastructure. My point is that infrastructure is
not a guaranty of safety, as it is sometimes sold here in Portland. In
fact, infrastructure engineering and bicycle laws in Portland may
invite right hook accidents.http://www.commuteorlando.com/onther...tions/bikebox/


People just shouldn't make more of anything than what it is. My
irreverence may be disdained by more orderly citizens, but I see paint
for what it is.

The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
threat of a right hook accident.


Right hooks are a stressful bugaboo; but anybody should know that cars
and trucks are apt to make turns, that drivers aren't necessarily
going to notice bicyclists, and may disregard them (or worse) when
they do.

You can estimate some probability of any vehicle making a turn at any
given intersection - especially if you know the area (that FedEx truck
is almost certainly going to turn down there toward the nearby
distribution center, the '86 Buick with the gray hair sticking just
above the dash is pretty apt to turn into Walgreens, *lots* of folks
be turning into McDonalds at lunch time, watch out for that truck
swinging *away*), and there are lots of clues that let give you some
idea how aware and cooperative and predictable any given driver is
going to be, but you have to assume that anybody *might* go anywhere
they possibly can.

Situational awareness includes *everything* that could possibly
happen. (Of course anything is possible, but on a continuum that
extends to infinite improbability :-) Understand the risk, and don't
commit yourself to a rock and hard place unless you accept it
yourself. Physics trumps.

The first rule of wildland firefighting is know your escape route.
Keep your options open.

I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.


That's one option - with another whole set of dynamics.