MKirk wrote:
as I mentioned originally, I don't know the law of the state the accident happened in, but from my state and auto claims background (no longer in that position) - the rider is at fault and is the primary cause of the accident and had the due care to avoid. If I'm the insurance company for the truck, I'm not paying a dime for the bike and injuries of the rider.
jpb wrote:
There's a difference between "could have avoided" and "at fault." The cyclist absolutely should have been more prudent and avoided the accident, but was NOT at fault. The rider followed the rules of the road--the car did not. Therefore the car is at fault.
Ordinarilly, I would agree with you. If this was just some cyclist going down the road, clearly this could have been avoided as he was overtaking the car from a long distance back and it was clear the car was slowing down and wasn't going to check for a cyclist.
With that being said, this was a race. IF there are cars allowed on the course it is incumbant on them to avoid ALL contact with any of the cyclists on the road and excercise extra care. Yes this means check, double check and triple check before making a right hand turn. If anyone disagrees with this then I'll start taking offers to go out with a big truck and block up your competitors for you on your next Tri.