chennai

The idea that drivers should be penalized more severely when they hit cyclists than when they hit other cars came up on another thread. I am glad to see that Germany is more enlightened than some bikeforum posters.

TRaffic Jammer

Brilliant, the way it should be. Just like us riders should be more aware and forgiving of the peds as we can crush and kill them as well. It's a wonderful trickle down effect I think.

bbunk

So if you are riding the wrong way into traffic it is someone eles fault? I don't think that is enlightened at all. If the cyclist is obeying the laws I think it has merit but if you are breaking the law, traffic or otherwise, it is your fault.

TRaffic Jammer

That's not the point.... the point being the car can and should stop because it's not going to be a fender bender, it's going to be a mangled person.

Dchiefransom

So, if a car is driving 40 mph down a main road, and a cyclist blows through a stop sign into traffic, it's the car driver's fault????

TRaffic Jammer

Not at all if the guys right in front of you , but if he's half a block away and all he has to do is slow down to avoid a colision, yes to a certain degree. As a driver who practices defensive driving I am just a responsible in avoiding a collision as anyone else on the the road, no matter what I need to do to avoid it.

If a ped steps into the street and you can reasonably avoid him, should you? OR should you plow him over because he's doing wrong and you have ROW? See the difference?

Dchiefransom

I agree. From other threads about laws in other countries, it has seemed that many want the motor vehicle driver held "at fault" no matter what.
The scary part is that I have actually listened to other drivers that sounded like they shouldn't be held at fault even if they had plenty of time to stop.

bbunk

If the driver of the car can avoid him he should but if the cyclist is breaking the law it is still the cyclist fault.

TRaffic Jammer

Yes exactly...see the driver in the case was responsible for the damages (new bike-his own car repairs). So it would seem the courts came to the conclusion that he could have avoided the whole thing, say by braking. I can't imagine this gets the cyclist off scott-free though. That would be a stretch.

Mos6502

I like the idea, but I think the example they gave was more of an example of how such a law could be abused. If the cyclist is running the wrong way - why should the car be at fault?

Also we all know that a bicycle is more maneuverable than an automobile, so how anybody can think that the car should be more responsible for avoiding the accident is beyond me.

TRaffic Jammer

The cars not actually at fault I don't think. He did contribute to the collision because he sees the biker coming.... doesn't stop, when he can, and hits the biker. If he'd hit the brakes let the biker by then all would have been fine no? I know it's a stretch to our mind set here but it really does make everyone in the food chain responsible. If I wade into a play ground of little kids should the parents get theirs kids out of my way or should I just step on them until I get to my child? No I gingerly step around the little ones. Group responsibility, shared safety, collective sense of duty towards caring for other people. Whatever could be wrong with that?

genec

How about at least equally responsible... right now there doesn't even seem to be equality.

But frankly I can also go along with motorist, driving a heavier vehicle, having more responsibility for their actions. Chose your ride, and the responsibilites therein.

As far as a wrong way cyclist... at that moment, they are in violation, therefore at risk.

But why should any rightway cyclist not have at least equality with a motorist. By law they do, but by assumption (of many motorists in the US) they do not. We also have precident in this country for motorists having greater responsiblity... as in the case of pedestrians...

Mos6502

I'm just saying, if somebody rides head on into a train...
There's not a lot of info given here other than the cyclist was going the wrong way - at least in the quote.
The article states that the car was coming from a driveway, my guess is that neither car nor cyclist saw eachother until they were on top of eachother. If that is the case, then I assume it would make sense for them to favour the bicycle over the car. However the driver may have been expecting a bicycle to come from the other (proper) direction and not expected one to be travelling the wrong way - in which case the cyclist I feel would be more responsible for the accident than the car driver.

TRaffic Jammer

^^^^^always look both ways^^^^^
Simple drivers responsble, he was not on the roadway if he was in a driveway.
Even if the biker was going the wrong way in the bike lane.

I've never seen a ped manage to destroy a car on impact and kill the driver. Thus the idea that MAYBE the driver should be a little more aware and careful of what's going on around him. I agree it's a great idea, but man it would sooo hard to apply that here in NA, where it's Mc'Ds fault you burned your lap with hot coffee because it didn't have a warning label.

bbunk

+1

TRaffic Jammer

The cars are always driving up my one way street the wrong way, if I look only one way before stepping and all I had to do was look the other way to not get into it at all, shouldn't I? Or it's ok for me to step off having only looked in the direction the cars "by law" are supposed to come? Having read that it sounds completely stupid doesn't it? I haven't show due diligence, or any form of intelligence in that regard. I think the judgement is to show the need for reason and levelheadedness all around. To hit someone entering the road, means you didn't look, and it honestly shouldn't matter which direction the bike came from. Did the biker get off completly? I do think he should get a fine/ticket. I think the judgments are trying to get people to think about something beyond their fingertips and letting the populace get on with being a society as opposed to a bunch of people running around in their own wheels. We are more than autonomous individuals.

Mos6502

The article doesn't say whether or not cyclist was held responsible in any way. Just that the car driver had to pay her for damages. I'm just assuming she got off scott-free.

As for the accident, say the driver had looked both ways, and the accident had been completely avoided - the cyclist would still have been going the wrong way. Regardless of what had happened, they're still the one making the biggest mistake in this situation.

wagathon

Sort of like a hate crime? Seems like negligent homicide, for instance, already must have severe penalties.

TRaffic Jammer

^^to MOS6502's post)^^
Absolutely.... no question and if the police had seen him he'd have been fined for it no doubt (I hope he was fined large anyway). As well he's risking being killed. (not an excuse) Doesn't give the driver the right to not be-careful, ever. I've stopped right in the middle of the road for drunkin' peds before, waited and then continued on. I have a ton and a half of responsibility at my fingertips everytime I get behind the wheel.

bbunk

The article doesn't say if the driver looked both ways, if the was an obstruction preventing him from seeing the cyclist or anything else. I think you are assumeing alot to defend your position. Bottom line for me, if the cyclist doens't care enough about their own safety to ride with traffic and be safe it is their fault if they get in an accident, not the other persons fault they didn't see the doing something stupid.

randya

Regardless of fault, cyclists are 400 to 500 times more likely to be injured in a car - bicycle crash than a motorist. The German model makes total sense to me, and I wish it were the law of the land in the USA.

TRaffic Jammer

It simply doesn't matter what the biker was doing, when entering a roadway you HAVE to look in all directions to make sure your entry to traffic is a safe one. I think this is the jist of the judgement. This takes no responsibility off the biker, and I hope being hit by a car was a bit of a wake up. A ton of car vs. a few pounds of bike. I'm trying not to make crazy assumptions, but I drive as well and I've entered roadways with all manner of obstacles. There is no excuse period....if you're driving carefully all be be well. Coming out of a driveway and you nail someone? Not safe driving at all. One of the assumptions I do make when I drive however is that anything can happen from any direction and I'd better be ready, but that's just me and I've been trained as a defensive driver.

Az B

I drove a truck for 7years and I always took the resposibility that many tons generally crushes 1 or 2 tons into tiny lumps of unrecognizable metal. Even when the fragile little cars were exhibiting ******** behaviour, which was frequently.

It's interesting to note that many smaller vehicle drivers would think aggresive truckers are bullies and laws need to be passed, etc while never seeing themselves in that role while they're dealing with peds and cyclists.

Az

chennai

That sums it up for me. Thanks.

Roughstuff

On investigation in many accidents there is not always 100% fault to one party and 0% to the other. It can be apportioned between the parties, even if not in a strict mathematical sense. As a juror in a civil suit, and a cyclist, I would certainly take it into consideration if the cyclist was riding the wrong way.

And there is a sniff of hypocrisy here, too. Aren't bikes supposed to be vehicles? Yet who is the first one to claim that they are 'small and vulnerable and so people should look out for us?'

roughstuff