In the paper
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,665
Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In the paper
Boy injured in bike crash,identity sought. A teenage boy suffered major head injuries when he was struck by a car. The teen was riding a BMX style bicycle when he was hit from behind by a motorist. A preliminary investigation indicated the motorist was not at fault.
#2
Ride On!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Temple City, CA
Posts: 467
Bikes: 2004 OCR3, 1989 Nishiki Sport, 2003 Kona Blast, 2007 Fuji Track
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
how can he not be at fault. that sucks.. what the heck..
#4
Bent_Rider
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SF Bay area
Posts: 1,248
Bikes: Bacchetta Aero, BikeE, Bruce Gordon Rock n Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ehenz
Perhaps the cyclist was not following the rules of the road?
So what, does that make him fair game?
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
The overtaking vehicle has the duty to pass safely. The rider was struck from behind. Unless he was riding his bike backwards, I'm pretty dubious about this "preliminary investigation."
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If this were two cars there'd be no question that the motorist here would be at fault as he struck the cyclist from behind. Not positive, but I think if you get rearended by another car, there are no circs. under which it can be considered your fault, not even a dramatically short stop, etc.
IOW, when driving, aren't you always at fault if you hit the guy in front of you?
IOW, when driving, aren't you always at fault if you hit the guy in front of you?
#7
more ape than man
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nyc
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by shokhead
...he was hit from behind by a motorist....the motorist was not at fault.
#8
more ape than man
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nyc
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Laika
IOW, when driving, aren't you always at fault if you hit the guy in front of you?
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 673
Bikes: 2005 Trek 1200 T (Mostly stock), 2005 Raleigh C30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you're driving your car and you hit someone from behind, you're at fault.
If you hit a bicyclist from behind, you don't even get a ticket.
If you hit a bicyclist from behind, you don't even get a ticket.
#10
Huachuca Rider
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 4,275
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Pretty skimpy information on which to base a conclusion of fault whether for the driver or the cyclist.
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
Just Peddlin' Around
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 673
Bikes: 2005 Trek 1200 T (Mostly stock), 2005 Raleigh C30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In New York State, and of course I can only base what I read based on what I know from where I live, if you hit someone from behind, it's your fault.
Period.
Don't need a whole lot of information on that one.
I imagine it's pretty similar in California. I found this on the web:
Period.
Don't need a whole lot of information on that one.
I imagine it's pretty similar in California. I found this on the web:
Rear-End Collisions
If someone hits you from behind, it is virtually never your fault, regardless of why you stopped. A basic rule of the road requires a vehicle to be able to stop safely if traffic is stopped ahead of it. If it cannot stop safely, the driver is not driving as safely as the person in front.
The other sure-fire part of the rear-end accident claim is that the damage proves how it happened: If one car's front end is damaged and the other's rear end is, there can't be much argument about who struck whom. Of course, the driver of the car that hit you may have a claim against someone who caused you to stop suddenly, or against a third car that pushed his car into yours. But that doesn't change his or her responsibility for injuries to you and damage to your car.
Keep in mind, however, that even if you have been rear-ended, in a few circumstances your own carelessness may reduce your compensation under the rule of "comparative negligence." A common example is when one or both of your brake or tail lights were out, especially if the accident happened at night. Another example is when a car had mechanical problems but the driver failed to do all she could to move it off the road.
If someone hits you from behind, it is virtually never your fault, regardless of why you stopped. A basic rule of the road requires a vehicle to be able to stop safely if traffic is stopped ahead of it. If it cannot stop safely, the driver is not driving as safely as the person in front.
The other sure-fire part of the rear-end accident claim is that the damage proves how it happened: If one car's front end is damaged and the other's rear end is, there can't be much argument about who struck whom. Of course, the driver of the car that hit you may have a claim against someone who caused you to stop suddenly, or against a third car that pushed his car into yours. But that doesn't change his or her responsibility for injuries to you and damage to your car.
Keep in mind, however, that even if you have been rear-ended, in a few circumstances your own carelessness may reduce your compensation under the rule of "comparative negligence." A common example is when one or both of your brake or tail lights were out, especially if the accident happened at night. Another example is when a car had mechanical problems but the driver failed to do all she could to move it off the road.
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,665
Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
They said he came into traffic but he is in a coma and thats what the driver said,no body else came forward with info,only the driver.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ohio's Cycling Capital, America's North Coast.
Posts: 4,617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by scarry
So what, does that make him fair game?
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ohio's Cycling Capital, America's North Coast.
Posts: 4,617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
OW, when driving, aren't you always at fault if you hit the guy in front of you?
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ehenz
No, not if they pull out in front of you, merge incorrectly, or any other number of reasons. I take it many of you don't have a drivers license?
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ohio's Cycling Capital, America's North Coast.
Posts: 4,617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Laika
Yeah, but once he's there, it's on you.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 673
Bikes: 2005 Trek 1200 T (Mostly stock), 2005 Raleigh C30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I do have a driver's license, and you're dead wrong. And whatever the facts are, if you nail someone from behind you're guilty, regardless of what they did to get in front of you. Once someone is there in front of you, it's your responsibility not to hit them, not theirs not to get hit.
#19
No pain, no gain.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: California's Gold That's Amazing!
Posts: 513
Bikes: Trek 7100, Windsor Fens
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In Georgia, you are at fault even if the manual shift car ahead of you rolls backwards into you while trying to get started up a grade (following too close).
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: anywhere between DC and charlottesville VA
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"if you nail someone from behind you're guilty, regardless of what they did to get in front of you. Once someone is there in front of you, it's your responsibility not to hit them, not theirs not to get hit."
jeez, i started biking more often to avoid the stress of traffic but i might just avoid being near roads altogether... are you serious? are you suggesting that a car can pull out of an intersection at any time he or she pleases and never assume liability for an accident? as i understood driver's education, i was told to follow cars by a 1 second margin for each 10 mph of speed. nobody follows this "rule," but it was taught to everyone who received a license in virginia at least. which is why when people get rear-ended, its the rear-endER, not the rear-endEE, who is liable, because if this rule had been followed, 9 out of 10 times, there would have been enough space to stop, in all circumstances except inclement weather. check your driving on a busy highway next time... if you're going 70, and a car in front of you passes a lamp post, does it take you 7 seconds to reach the lamp post? i doubt it. a whole different set of rules apply if someone pulls out of an intersection/driveway or cuts me off though. who knows, the kid may have been riding erratically, perhaps without reflectors or lights... he was riding a bmx bike after all. so we dont know. it seems like most are glad to jump to the conclusion that motorists are a hazard to cyclists and never the other way around. we can be guilty of improper "driving" too. cycling is not my main mode of transport, but when i drive, i try to be extra considerate of cycling commuters, but at the same time there are a hefty number of cyclists i see and say to myself, "i wouldnt be surprised if he/she got hit in the next 10 seconds..." around campus, i would say that at least half of people riding bikes do so in what would be generally considered an "unsafe" manner, e.g. hopping to and fro between sidewalk and road etc.
jeez, i started biking more often to avoid the stress of traffic but i might just avoid being near roads altogether... are you serious? are you suggesting that a car can pull out of an intersection at any time he or she pleases and never assume liability for an accident? as i understood driver's education, i was told to follow cars by a 1 second margin for each 10 mph of speed. nobody follows this "rule," but it was taught to everyone who received a license in virginia at least. which is why when people get rear-ended, its the rear-endER, not the rear-endEE, who is liable, because if this rule had been followed, 9 out of 10 times, there would have been enough space to stop, in all circumstances except inclement weather. check your driving on a busy highway next time... if you're going 70, and a car in front of you passes a lamp post, does it take you 7 seconds to reach the lamp post? i doubt it. a whole different set of rules apply if someone pulls out of an intersection/driveway or cuts me off though. who knows, the kid may have been riding erratically, perhaps without reflectors or lights... he was riding a bmx bike after all. so we dont know. it seems like most are glad to jump to the conclusion that motorists are a hazard to cyclists and never the other way around. we can be guilty of improper "driving" too. cycling is not my main mode of transport, but when i drive, i try to be extra considerate of cycling commuters, but at the same time there are a hefty number of cyclists i see and say to myself, "i wouldnt be surprised if he/she got hit in the next 10 seconds..." around campus, i would say that at least half of people riding bikes do so in what would be generally considered an "unsafe" manner, e.g. hopping to and fro between sidewalk and road etc.
#21
No pain, no gain.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: California's Gold That's Amazing!
Posts: 513
Bikes: Trek 7100, Windsor Fens
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pilar
are you suggesting that a car can pull out of an intersection at any time he or she pleases and never assume liability for an accident?
T-boning somebody who's running a red light is another matter.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: anywhere between DC and charlottesville VA
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
i dont wanna debate who is liable when, where, and under what circumstances because that's up to the police officer and insurance company. all i'm trying to say is that we can't assume that because this kid was hit from behind that the motorist was at fault, because my girlfriend sitting next to me who works for state farm can think up a hundred different reasons why a bicycle or a car would be hit from behind and have the posterior vehicle not be at fault. lets cut these motorists some slack, they're not all out to run us off the road. after all, a-hole drivers dont come from a different planet than cyclists do.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 673
Bikes: 2005 Trek 1200 T (Mostly stock), 2005 Raleigh C30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well, I hope you spend the time you're driving / riding your bike doing whatever you can to not get hit from behind. And, in the interests of you not having a higher insurance premium, I hope you don't hit anyone while doing so. If you're the hitter, ask your girlfriend how quickly State Farm (who might be the other guy's insurance company) would come rushing to your defense and give you those hundred reasons.
#24
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Considernig the way kids on BMXs ride here, which can at best be described as 'erratic', I'm surprised there aren't more stories like this. My guess would be that he swerved suddenly into the path of the car without checking behind first.
Interesting that there's no mention of whether he was wearing a helmet. My observation has been that if they aren't wearing one it get mentioned, but otherwise the silence is deafening.
A link to the actual story would help.
Interesting that there's no mention of whether he was wearing a helmet. My observation has been that if they aren't wearing one it get mentioned, but otherwise the silence is deafening.
A link to the actual story would help.