MWPdx

If I 'cause' an accident.

I mean if I'm on a bike and somebody "swerves to avoid me" or something... and they get into an accident, am I legally required to stop if I didn't have any physical contact w/ the other vehicle? Are there situations where I'd be legally responsible for the accident even if I didn't touch the car?

Chris516

Yes, Until the officer says you can leave.

kjmillig

Short answer, yes you need to stop. In many states and/or locales you could be charged with leaving the scene of an accident, even if you didn't cause it. Wait for the police, and give them your story.

CB HI

Based on what?

CB HI

Got some good examples of MANY laws that support that position?

JonnyHK 

In the OP situation, where I presume they mean us to think that they are directly involved in the incident, then the common sense answer is YES, you stop. You are a party to an accident in some form - be that cause, witness, victim, simply within a X metre radius etc.

In a situation where there are additional steps between the bike/car interation (ie not the original 'swerve', but further down the road in distance or time) then things might become more grey, but your judgement might still err to the side of stopping, even if the cop sends you on your way.

My dad was once contacted by an insurance company about some car accident he had caused (they had his car reg). He wasn't aware of having been in an accident - no one had hit him and he hadn't hit anyone else. So, WTF? Eventually dad and the guy worked it out...dad's old car had broken down in the inside lane of a busy road near home. Traffic was held up, so about 200m behind dad some guy tried to pull out of the stationary lane of traffic and was hit by a car in the next lane. Yes, the 'cause' was my dad in one way of thinking, but the responsibility was really down to the driver and his poor lane change a few hundred metres back up the road.

Back to the OP...if some idiot driver went past me, swerved and lost control and crashed, I would be involved in this accident. I did not cause it, but I am a direct factor in it and need to wait about as a witness.

chs4

If while riding along a vehicle impeded you or in some way forced you to take evasive action which then resulted in you crashing, would you expect that the vehicle should stop and/or that they were somehow "involved" in your crash even though they didn't hit you?

Besides, stopping allows you to relate your side of the story to authorities should that be necessary to avoid being accused by the motorist of actually causing the accident.

bakerjw

The good Samaritan thing to do is to stop. Also if the police do arrive and the driver gives their side of the story where the cyclist is the direct cause and they track you down then leaving the scene of an accident could come into play. Always good to be able to give your side right up front.

I witnessed an accident a couple of years ago and was contacted by an insurance company the next day. Earlier this year I was subpoenaed to give testimony on what I had observed in the accident. For my efforts at being the first responder on the accident to immediately call 911, make sure that the drivers were ok, and that no fuel was leaking from the vehicles, I was able to drive 45 miles round trip, lose 2 hours of wages, and be treated like a complete incompetent moron by a defense attorney. That reminds me, I still need to send him a dead rat.

MWPdx

Well I know the common sense/right thing to do answer is stop, and I usually stop even if I'm only a witness. I'm just wondering if there's a written law about this and what exactly the wording is.

dougmc

At least in Texas, I've heard that you won't (can't?) be charged for leaving the scene of an accident if you didn't actually collide with any other vehicles.

The actual law says this --

550.023. DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION AND RENDER AID.
The operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the injury or death of a person or damage to a vehicle that is driven or attended by a person shall:
(1) give the operator's name and address, the registration number of the vehicle the operator was driving, and the name of the operator's motor vehicle liability insurer to any person injured or the operator or occupant of or person attending a vehicle involved in the collision;
(2) if requested and available, show the operator's driver's license to a person described by ubdivision (1); and
(3) provide any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including transporting or making arrangements for transporting the person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if the injured person requests the transportation.

... and the actual law says `involved', which isn't really defined. So I guess that the police's unwillingness to charge somebody who was `involved' but didn't actually collide with anybody would be a practical matter more than anything else.

noisebeam

Stop for this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgYB6ECW3XQ

Well no, I was in no way involved and there were many witnesses who were closer.

ItsJustMe

If I witnessed an accident, I stop and see if they need witnesses, even if I was completely uninvolved.

gcottay

Yes, you must stop as a matter of personal responsibility. It does not matter what the legal requirements may happen to be in a particular locale, you must stop.

Yes, you might be found legally responsible for an incident in which you did not touch anyone or anything.

San Rensho 

If you are the "cause" of the accident, in that you did something negligent which directly leads to a crash, then yes you have to stop even if there was no contact. A couple of examples.

1. You run a red light, car that has the green has to swerve to avoid you and hits a car head on. You were negligent, stop.

2. You are driving down the road taking the lane, impatient car in back of you makes an unsafe pass, goes into oncoming traffic and hits a car head on, no negligence on your part, don't stop. But I would anyway to make sure the idiot gets a ticket and sued by the person he hit.

noisebeam

Yesterday's commute home on 7 lane arterial (three lanes in direction I was traveling) centerish in outside lane at red light. On green started up. On clearing intersection vehicle behind me swerved suddenly to adjacent lane to pass me, nearly clipping motorcyclists who was there (I was side by side with lead vehicle in adjacent lane, motorcyclist right behind them). The motorcyclists was rightfully upset and 'shared the lane' with me and came up beside driver who cut them off and expressed themselves with lots of arms gestures and head turned probably saying something 'nice' too. Then they moved in front of driver who cut them off and slowed down.

filtersweep

I recommend being highly cautious when you stop, as all sorts of bull**** fall-out can entail. I had to sort out a legal issue where my car was listed as illegally parked, when in fact it was not, when it was hit. Because of this, I was listed as partially responsible, and it took months to sort out. Another issue involved a cop who added my plates to an accident scene, and through a mixup I was seen as responsible for destruction to city property. Again, it took months to sort out. There is so much incompetence in the system that you are better off staying off the grid.

Nothing worse than being a good samaritan and ending up with a lien on your property.

Kurt Erlenbach

The legal answer depends on the law of your state. Most states, I think, have laws similar that that quoted by dougmc in Texas stating that you must stop if you are "involved" in an accident. It is quite clear that you do not have to have contact to be involved in an accident. If you "caused" it, you're "involved" in it. Under Florida law, you clearly would have to stop.

Morally, you must stop. If you are a witness to an accident you have a moral obligation to make sure that justice is done and that the person legally responsible is held responsible, even if it's you. It would be a tough case to make to argue that if a driver "swerves to avoid" you, that you "caused" the accident. In a worst case scenario, you might get a ticket and a small fine (which could be a lot bigger if you left).

CB HI

Mind showing us the definition of "involved" in a collision for these so called many laws?

I think you are way out on a limb on this one.

chs4

I think "involved" was in quotes because it is inherently vague. What constitutes "involved" may be up to the responding authority or ultimately the courts. If you leave the scene because you don't feel you were "involved", but someone reports you leaving and it is decided (right or wrong) that you were "involved" you're liable to be in more trouble than if you had stuck around in the first place.

Short answer..."involved" is discretionary, and that discretion usually lies with someone with authority at the scene.

CB HI

Our criminal system works on a basis of beyond reasonable doubt. If the laws do not properly define "involved", then it becomes very hard or to convict an individual the was not actually PART of the actual collision. You and Kerlenbach both are overstepping the meaning of involved, unless you can come of with a legal definition supporting your extrapolations.

Now for suing someone or demanding money for damage, you do not even need to define involved, just go ahead and sue (as noted in the post about the broke down on the highway). You may or may not win a civil case, regardless of if the party stopped or not.

chs4

You are right of course. My only contention is you could end up spending a lot of needless time and money clearing up your "involvement" in court vs. clearing it up at the scene. That's all I was getting it.

DX-MAN

From a CYA standpoint, it's better to stop, simply because if you do, it'll be his word vs. yours, not enough to hang a charge on; if you're not there, it's his word, period.

Now, 'involved', by definition, means more than mere presence, unlike some assertions here. If an inattentive driver drifts to the shoulder of the road while I'm STANDING there as a pedestrian, he suddenly looks up, sees me, and swerves into traffic, I'm not involved. I'll likely stay there as a witness for the other guy, but that's about it.

THAT'S where your obligation as a cyclist comes in. It's not a matter of legality, but of morality. Do the right thing -- even though Spike Lee was being a bit facetious in choosing that as his movie title, it's the core definition of being an adult.

Snowsurfer

That is because you are smart, or kind...or both.

mandovoodoo

Back to the original question, where a cyclist is proceeding lawfully and an unlawful or negligent act of another in response to the cyclist results in an accident, I can come up with nothing legally requiring the cyclist to stop. From a self-defense point of view, keeping going seems most effective. Rendering assistance and notifying the authorities seems more appropriate.

This is something I wonder about often. I get passed on blind corners and hills regularly, sometimes seeing near misses as a result. Eventually I anticipate I'll be faced with this decision. I anticipate calling the authorities and rendering aid.