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/

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.

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.

-- Jay Beattie.