It's possible but not very likely that the cyclist did absolutely
nothing wrong and the motorcyclist simply hit him from
behind. I suppose it's also possible and arguably slightly
more likely that the motoryclist was passing him too closely, this
startled the cyclist, who looked back over his left shoulder and
simultaneously "veered" left into the path of the motorcyclist.<br><br>Much
more likely is that the cyclist did not notice the motorcyclist
(perhaps, ironically, because he was looking for a car) and veered in
front of him.<br><br>In any case, the method of turning left from the
bike lane at the right side of the road is all too familar to
me. I see it executed on many mornings along <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=regents+road+at+eastgate+mall,+san+diego,+ca&sll=32.841796,-117.269474&sspn=0.006761,0.010117&ie=UTF8&ll=32.875897,-117.2177&spn=0.003379,0.005059&z=18&om=1&layer=t">
n/b Regents Rd at the diverge-intersection with Eastgate Mall</a>. <br><br>Cyclists
are glued to the bike lane on Regents and veer across the right traffic
lane that becomes the right arm of the "Y" headed for Eastgate, to get
into the left arm to continue on Regents. They rarely merge
left "vehicularly", which requires starting to merge pretty early, soon
after crossing Executive if not sooner.<br>
<br>
Serge<br><br><br><br>On 6/6/07, Jack Bochsler <<a href="mailto:jbochsler@yahoo.com">jbochsler@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>> I thought about this - not to be pedantic, but veering means<br>> to turn sharply. But what would be categorized as a sharp
<br>> turn at 50mph is quite doable and natural at 20mph, and easy<br>> at 12mph. So what would appear to be abrupt actions from the<br>> perspective of a motorized vehicle may well be natural behavior<br>> from a bicycle.
<br>> <br>> So when crossing a lane to avoid a freeway on-ramp, what appears<br>> as a natural, smooth lane crossing to me appears as veering across<br>> the lane to the motorist behind me. So both parties can be equally
<br>> 'right' and 'wrong' in the same situation.<br>> <br>> Although it would be nice if motorists could account for cyclist<br>> specific behavior, history shows otherwise. And thinking about
<br>> bicycle peleton behavior, collisions I have seen are a result of<br>> cyclists moving quicker than the rider behind can react.<br>> So the onus is clearly on a cyclist to move thru traffic as a<br>> vehicle would, not as a bicycle can.
<br>> <br>> jack<br>> <br>> --- Jim Baross <<a href="mailto:JimBaross@cox.net">JimBaross@cox.net</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>> > At the risk of appearing to be too quick to jump to the defense of<br>> > the bicyclist... something I/we may be accused/guilty of in this case
<br>> ><br>> > where we don't know what really happened.... We do know that people<br>> > on bikes and in vehicles do make mistakes.<br>> ><br>> > That said, bicyclists veer. It is the nature of a two-wheeled device
<br>> > to need to be steered/veered/moved from side to side to keep upright.<br>> ><br>> > People overtaking such a device should account for that veering to<br>> > some degree by using safe passing behaviors - slowing until it is
<br>> > safe to move over to provide safe passing distance. It is not<br>> > generally sufficient to continue the same roadway position when<br>> > overtaking someone traveling slower.<br>> ><br>> > But, maybe the motorcyclist did try to pass safely....
<br>> ><br>> > At 09:44 AM 6/6/2007, Jack Bochsler wrote:<br>> > >My interpretation of the "bicyclist veered" statements<br>> > >is that the bicyclist did not do what the motorist had
<br>> > >wanted/hoped/desired.<br>> > ><br>> > >jack<br>> > ><br>> > >--- Tom Jenney <<a href="mailto:Thomas.Jenney@Sun.COM">Thomas.Jenney@Sun.COM</a>> wrote:<br>> > >
<br>> > > > They had this story on NBC7/39 TV News this afternoon. The<br>> > reporter<br>> > > > said the cyclist just suddenly veered in front of the<br>> > motorcyclist, who<br>> > > > was unable to stop in time. Maybe that is what really happened
<br>> > > in this case, but<br>> > > > it just seems a little dubious when this is the standard<br>> > explanation<br>> > > > reported by the media. It perpetuates the notion that bicyclists
<br>> ><br>> > > as a whole<br>> > > > don't know what they are doing on the road and probably should<br>> > > not be there since<br>> > > > they end up getting killed due to their erratic riding behavior.
<br>> > > ><br><br>