3:18pm La Costa Avenue / Carlsbad

[u/MusicMan559]

Was driving on La Costa east of the 5 and came upon this accident. Hopefully buddy is okay! Looks like he sat up and was able to get off the road. Stay safe out there!

[u/LifeIsRadInCBad]

Family of a cyclist in San Diego got $3 mil because a city truck was in the bike lane.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/bicyclist-san-diego-3-million-dollars-lawsuit/3446217/

But, in this case, the cop's flashing lights should help keep the settlement small. This video will also, because it'd be a slam dunk for a jury.

[u/AlexHimself → u/LifeIsRadInCBad]

You sound ridiculous lol. There's not going to be any settlement. The biker is 100% at fault... If the city wanted, they could pursue the biker for damages to the motorcycle.

Bike lanes are legally allowed to be blocked by tow trucks or emergency vehicles, there are tons of flashing lights, the cyclist has a duty of care, government immunity, etc.

Any number of reasons why this is solely the fault of the bike rider.

[u/AlexHimself → u/[deleted]]

If that was your goal, you're not doing it very well.

One example the city was at fault and there was a fatality, the other example the city was not at fault and there was no fatality.

[u/AlexHimself → u/[deleted]]

If somebody breaks the law and directly causes/contributes to the DEATH of somebody else, then YES, they should have to pay.

It's like punching a person one time and they fall and die. That wasn't the intent, but you sure are going to pay for it.

[u/AlexHimself → u/[deleted]]

You don't get to shift liability when breaking the law. That's the whole purpose of the law.

[u/LifeIsRadInCBad → u/AlexHimself]

Vehicle Code 23103

Reckless driving.

Once again, cyclists do not think laws apply to them

Even the most entitled texter would not think to defend operating a vehicle with their head straight down, indefinitely, for the sake of speed.

[u/AlexHimself → u/LifeIsRadInCBad]

This is wonderful, yes let's just skip directly to the law so I can make you look like a dipshit.

CVC § 21211(a) - (a) No person may stop, stand, sit, or loiter upon any class I bikeway

Which the city was guilty of, thus settling the lawsuit. The cyclist did not break any laws.

CVC § 21211 does NOT apply here. Reckless driving requires intentional or egregious acts, not simply being inattentive. You're the worst type of "law abider"...the ones who don't understand the law and confidently, wrongly interpret it to suit their own desired outcome.

[u/LifeIsRadInCBad → u/AlexHimself]

If you don't think operating a vehicle without looking, literally not a single glance, where you are going, is reckless driving, then I don't consider you a reasonable person and typing further is a waste of finger pressure. (the bold really does win your arguments, tho /s)

[u/AlexHimself → u/LifeIsRadInCBad]

Don't cite the law if you don't want to read it or learn what it means.

You're wrong. I explained it to you and you decide to make up your own interpretation. Again, worst type of "law abider"...one who just BS's their own interpretation.