thebarerider

Like many here, I'm often disgusted with the lack of consequences for reckless, aggressive or careless drivers in the US. From some posts here (i.e., not from personal experience) I've gathered that there is a different attitude across the pond. I have a hard time accepting that cars should ALWAYS be at fault, which I think is the case in some European countries, when hitting a ped or cyclist. Because it is sometimes impossible for police to determine who was at fault, I think that those countries have the right attitude, even if it is hard for me to swallow. I think it was Peter Parker's uncle who said, 'with great power comes great responsibility'

With that quote in mind, I think car drivers (and I am a driver as well, and would be willing to accept this) should bear the brunt of responsibility in almost every accident with a ped or cyclist. Since I'm not crafting any real policy here, I don't want to list exceptions; and, in fact, I believe exceptions would screw the whole thing up. So, in EVERY accident with peds/cyclists, the car driver should be responsible.

Car drivers get away with far too much, as I'm sure most of us would agree. I believe the only way to reverse this trend is to go to the complete opposite: let them get away with nothing. This isn't meant to discourage driving or to demonize drivers, but to force those of us who drive into paying absolute attention and to remind the public of the sheer power of the automobile.

San Rensho 

There are two systems in the US that deal with a cycling accident, the criminal (traffic) and the civil system. So it depends on which system we are talking about when car driver liability is assessed.

In the criminal system it tends to be pretty cut and dried, based exclusively on right of way. If the car has the right of way and hits a bicycle, he is absolved of criminal/traffic liability. Even if he could have avoided the collission, he is absolved. And even if the driver violated the right of way, he is usually only responsible for a minor traffic violation unless there is an aggravating circumstance like alcohol, gross negligence, road rage, deliberate indifference etc, before any criminal penalties are actually assesed. This is because in the criminal/trafic system, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the culpability of the defendant.

A civil suit is completely different because the plaintiff just has to prove his/her case by a preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard. So in the same collission where the driver did not get convicted of violating the right of way in the criminal case, a jury can come back and say he was negligent and award damages to the cyclist, even though he was acquitted in the crimal case.

The classic example illustrating the difference between civil and criminal/traffic courts are the OJ Simpson trials. A criminal jury found that he didn't committ the murders (actually that the state didn't prove its case) while a civil jury found that he did committ the killings.

I think in general the system is pretty fair. In egregious cases, the driver goes to jail and then its guaranteed a money damages judgement is entered against him.

In not so egregious cases, the driver doesn't go to jail, but then gets nailed with a big judgement against him.

maddyfish

Since the ped/biker is much more vulnerable in accident, it would be a reasonable protection to assign fault to the operator of a car. But, also in the case of a bike/ped accident, the fault should then be assigned to a the bike.

Febs

Last night at approximately 11:30 PM, as I was driving down a poorly lit residential street, two cyclists darted out from between two parked cars and rode directly in front of me. Neither cyclist had a light, or a helmet. I did not hit them because I was traveling slowly and saw them in time to brake. But let's suppose, purely as a hypothetical, that one of those cyclists had been hit as he rode in front of me, and the other ran into the side of my car, was catapulted across my hood, and suffered a serious head injury when he landed on the other side. Why, in this hypothetical example, should the injuries to either cyclist automatically be my responsibility? Why should all motorists have to subsidize, through increased insurance premiums, the cost of injuries that are the direct result of grossly negligent cyclists?

mandovoodoo

Perhaps an incentive that's less one-sided would be to simply shift the burdens of production and proof to the motorist always. In your example, you would be liable unless you could show you weren't at fault. A subtle but important viewpoint.

thebarerider

Simply because the car holds more power. I know you can throw countless hypos out to say the driver shouldn't be punished for this, this, and this; but by punishing the driver in every case, you foster the belief that the community is more important than the individual (an ideal that many Americans shudder at). Of course this type of law would not be accepted and will probably never be in place; but how do you propose we deal with this situation of motorists getting away with hitting law-abiding cyclists or peds, and then saying 'I didn't see him!' This is a problem. Browse through the forums or the newspapers and you will see that, although that is anecdotal evidence.

Those who have more power should bear more responsibility. Do you agree with this in theory, applied to the hierarchy of cars / bikes / peds?

And yes, I agree that if a bike and ped are involved, the bike would be responsible under this system.

chipcom 

"Fault" is not a function of the type of vehicle, power of the vehicle or the damage it can do...fault is a function of the ACTIONS and/or intent of the operator, whether they be operating a car, bike or themselves. Assigning fault to the automobile by default is about the goofiest thing I have ever heard.

mconlonx

"Like many here, I'm often disgusted with the lack of consequences for reckless, aggressive or careless drivers in the US...."

Find some similar law that's been proposed here in the US--I think I read somewhere around here that a "Vulnerable Road Users" bill had been introduced in Ohio?--and get in touch with your own state rep about bringing the same kind of law up for vote next legislative session. If not your own rep, any cycling/pedestrian/motorcycling-ally in the State Capital will do. Bills are introduced in the early winter, so you have about 3 months to get your act together, or wait until next year. A winning strategy would also be to find a young person who died riding and see if the parents are willing to have a bill named after their lost offspring.

thebarerider

In my OP I was a little braindead, I think, because all along I was missing my own point. I was daydreaming about Europe and missing a key point: burden of proof, which was brought up here.

I don't think assigning the burden of proof to the driver is goofy, and you might agree with that statement. However, the goofiest thing I have ever heard is a driver getting off the hook for injuries or manslaughter because they didn't see a ped or cyclist (or another car).

adriel

I think before we start proposing a bunch of new laws, the biggest problem is a lack of awareness in juries and officers.

Right now it seems to start from "the cyclist should not have been in the road, and if he chose to engage in this risky behavior we should not penalize the motorist too badly", and deteriorates from there.

If we could educate the public through ad campaigns, billboards, and just plain word of mouth, that "bikes belong in the middle of the lane quite often" I think the enforcement (And the entire bicycling experience) would change for the better.

waldowales

Always blame the driver? What kind of nonsense is that? Where is the common sense in that? One of the most hare-brained ideas I've ever seen on this forum.

kellyjdrummer

You DO know that cell phones disable windows, mirrors and turn signals, right?

makeinu

I think accelerating several tons of metal to tens of miles per hour qualifies as an action...and a very dangerous one at that, especially when done in mass (as is evidenced by the fact that it is one of the top causes of death in America today).

Why not? If drunk drivers always get blamed then why should road users engaging in other behavior which greatly increases the risk of harm to others get off the hook? Surely vehicle momentum is far more correlated to road deaths than BAC.

Febs

So, in any accident involving a truck and a car, would you automatically hold the truck driver responsible, regardless of fault?

What about accidents involving trucks and trains? Would you automatically hold the train operator responsible, regardless of fault?

makeinu

Well, in an "accident" between a drunk and sober driver would you automatically absolve the drunkard of responsibility if he just so happened to be operating in an otherwise legal manner at the moment of collision or would you hold him responsible for the inherent danger he created when he got behind the wheel?

CommuterRun

If every road user obeyed every regulation to the letter of the law, then I could maybe see having motorists bear the brunt of responsibility in the event of a collision. As things stand with all road users following or breaking the law as is convenient for the individual, then no, there is no viable reason to hold one group any more responsible than another.

If a cyclist decides to run a red light and a collision results, there is no way a the motorist should share any fault at all, unless they did something equal.

What I can get behind is more stringent enforcement and penalties for all road users across the board, and making fines a percentage of a person's net annual household income. Regardless of a person's chosen vehicle type.

på beløb

In Denmark you have to try pretty hard to hit a cyclist in a car and not be at fault. Cyclists have their own paths, and on the roads some parts are painted blue to give the car drivers more assistance in recognising a cyclist could be there.

Yet, cars still hit cyclists. I've actually yet to see an accident where the car driver didn't know a cyclist was there. Often car drivers drive into cyclists because it's a power thing. They're in a bigger vehicle, so it won't hurt them, so they think the cyclist will stop for them, or they push the cyclist from the road, often just for the fun of it, reckoning no one will come forward with a complaint.

Febs

This is a red herring. "Absolving the drunkard of responsibility" and "determining the drunk driver to be at fault" are two separate issues. If the intoxicated driver could show that he was not at fault, then he should not be responsible for the accident. He is still "responsible" for driving while intoxicated, however, which is a criminal offense and he should be prosecuted for that offense.

For example, suppose an intoxicated driver were sitting a red light when he was rear-ended by a sober driver. Five independent witnesses confirm that the intoxicated driver was not at fault. In that situation, I would determine that the sober driver who caused the accident was at fault and responsible for the damages arising from the accident. However, that would not "absolve the drunkard of responsibility" for his criminal act of driving while intoxicated. He should still be prosecuted for that offense, lose his license, pay substantial fines and perhaps do jail time.

Now, could you answer my question?

Widsith

+1

adriel

I would just be happy if they would enforce the existing laws.

This guy should not still have a drivers license:

https://austincyclingnews.com/?p=148

atbman

The one about the driver being held responsible in a criminal sense is certainly part of French law. In France, you are required, by law, to give a cyclist 2 metres room when overtaking. If you hit one, you are therefore breaking the law unless you can show that the cyclist was behaving in an utterly erratic manner, since even one swerving to avoid an obstacle would be unlikely, in the extreme, to swerve as much as 2m.

A bit similar to being found in someone else's house where door has been forced and you have a bag full of the owner's property. There is still the presumption of innocence, in that the DA would have to prove intent, but, in reality, the burglar would have to provide an extraordinarily good reason for his actions.

genec

Unfortunately, they did just that.

The laws are extremely weak in that regard... only if there is a DUI is there generally a prosecution in such a case.

xenologer

1
Yes, SUVs too,
people driving ridiculously oversized vehicles ought to pay a special road/green tax as well...

2
don't be silly, trains run on rails, and trucks run on roads, these are two separate worlds
..next you'll ask about what happens when an oil tanker hits a truck

BarracksSi

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?

In his hypothetical example, the two cyclists were NOT law-abiding. Unlit, no helmets, "jaybiking" into the street from between parked cars, riding recklessly -- that's a disaster waiting to happen, and without ANY help needed from the driver to make it worse.

Punishing the driver in every case only gives a false sense of invulnerability to peds & cyclists. That's what DC is stuck with, and I hate it.

Texas Doc

Second that. Unfortunately, in most cases the Law seem not to apply to accidents with bicycles involved. Some examples? If you run a red light or a stop sign and hit a car you get a citation. If you hit the cyclist, many times all that is done is make sure that there are no major injuries and the parties involved are recommended to just solve the matter in private with their insurance companies. THis sort of gives the idea that hitting a cyclist is someway less punishable than hitting another car. It does NOT make sense, but from what I see around here it happens every day. People hit cyclists and they are not even cited, they just refund some damages and that's it.
It is, most of all, lack of education. Most drivers do not know that a bicycle is supposed to behave like a car and to follow the same rules. Many times I hear people reporting that drivers yelled at them to 'get out of the road and ride on the walkway'. That is against the Law, but many do not know. And may times, when the car has a stop sign or a yield sign and a bicycle is on the road with the right of way, the driver assumes that it is allowed to ignore right of way only because the car is faster than the bicycle - so in other words they assume that the more powerful vehicle gives them the right to disobey traffic Laws.
It is a deeply rooted misconception that is very hard to overcome in most places. In many cities, even the Police Officers do not know all the laws pertaining to bicycles - so we go back to lack of education.
Maybe we should start teaching kids when they are young and step on the first bike - hopefully they'll remember when they get a driving license years later!