Advocacy & Safety - Hit from Behind

Hi -- need to vent -- my brother, an experienced biker was riding on a country road (typical two lane, paved with asphalt, gravel shoulders, small rolling hills, good visibility) near Rockford, Ill. He was alone. There was little to no car traffic. It was 5:30 in the afternoon, sun still high in the sky. A car approached him from behind, he was riding with traffic, and the next thing he knew, he was sitting on the ground with a ring of paramedics around him asking him who he was!!!!

Apparently an older (70+) man, alone in his car, hit him from behind. He flew up and over, landed on his back/head on the grass near the shoulder -- frame (carbon) broken, bothe wheels tacoed, helmet broken in half. He has a concussion (grade 1 ?) and swollen and bruised left side, and large bruise on right buttock (car mirror?). The man who hit him HAD LEFT THE SCENE BEFORE MY BROTHER REGAINED CONSCIOUSSNESS!!! This really pisses me off. The 'preliminary' police report does not mention a ticket or citation of any kind!!! How do we at least get the driver to be ticketed???? There were no other cars on the road at the time -- no witnesses.

I am so glad he is OK, but mad beyond belief at the driver of the car.

if anyone has legal advice or something we can say to the police, I would love to hear to hear it.

Sounds like your brothers injuries are temporary and for that we all can be thankful. Though from your description it sounds like you brother suffered a much more severe grade 4 concussion:


Concussions can be divided into five grades, 0 thru 4. Grade 0 results when the head is struck or moved rapidly. It is characterized by a post injury headache and difficulty with concentration. The athlete may not notice any other symptoms. Grade 1 concussions occur in the same manner but the athlete may appear stunned or dazed. There is no loss of consciousness (LOC), and sensory difficulties clear in less than one minute. Grade 1 concussions are the typical “I got my bell rung” description from the athlete.

Grade 2 concussions are characterized by headache, cloudy senses lasting longer than one minute, and no LOC. The athlete may have other symptoms including, tinnitus, amnesia, irritability, confusion, or dizziness. One, all or none of these symptoms could be present.

Grade 3 concussions are characterized by LOC of less than one minute, the athlete will not be comatose, and exhibit the same symptoms as a grade 2 concussion. Grade 4 concussions are characterized by LOC of greater than one minute. The athlete will not be comatose, and will also exhibit the symptoms of the grade 2 and 3 concussions.

I hope there is no permanent brain damage.

As for the driver - give it some time. Follow up with the investigating officer. Leaving the scene of an accident is a MAJOR offense. They are probably taking the time to gather enough evidence to ascertain who was driving the car before they make out the charges.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a MAJOR offense.

This is where the driver really screwed up. If he had stayed on the scene and called for assistance then, as long as they were no other witnesses, he could have claimed the cyclist swerved in front of him. This happens ALL the time. Your brother, with the concussion, is not in a position to dispute this and it doesn't even matter if he could. There is a built in bias when it comes to car / cyclist collisions.

P.S. - statistically getting hit from behind is uncommon but very deadly. Your brother now has 8 lives left. Spend them wisely.

Did the driver leave the scene without calling/waiting for help, or did he leave once the paramedics and/or police had arrived, yet before your brother had regained consciouness? From the original post it sounds like the latter, but the replies seem to assume it was the former.

If he had left after the paramedics and police had arrived then I would assume he would not be 'leaving the scene of an accident'.

I wish your brother a speedy recovery.

Thsnkd for your good wishes -- they did a CAT scan and two x-rays, and kept him in the emergency room for 4+ hours -- My brother read me the police report, and it is unclear WHO called the ambulance -- although I'm sure they know who it was, from the call center data -- we just don't know. We also don't know when the driver left -- I think he may have stayed until the paramedics ariived, and then left. We don't know. My brother obviously has no idea. I have a feeling this will end up a "he swerved and I could not help it "-- scenario -- and no citiation.....

thanks again

If the driver left the scene, and there were no witnesses, how'd they figure out it was a 70+ year old man alone in his car?

Good question. That is why we are assuming the driver called it in, and stayed until the police/paramedics arrived. The prelim report just does not state the details. But is seems the only way that they would know is if the driver called it in. It was the paramedics who told my brother it was an elderly man.

Sorry to hear that Deeder. Hit's from the back of the bike seem rare...I wonder why the driver didn't see your brother and how he can prevent future hits.

I think all drivers who lose control of their cars should be cited. Yesterday on the freeway sombody lost control of their truck towing a 4-wheel ATV. They hit a Cal-trans sign, the trailor broke off and the ATV smashed into a naked homeless guy sleeping in the bushes next to the freeway. The driver wasn't cited. I think he should be. He lost control, caused an accident and hurt someone. The driver who hit your brother should be cited too. It's not fair how they coddle drivers. It's like the value of their property and inconvenience is greater than the lives they ruin.

Imagine the big deal that would be made if a cyclist hit a ped from behind... when are people going to figure it out? As someone who was once hit from behind, I feel for you and your bro. (I was lucky, getting only a couple of bruises and one tacoed wheel.)

Sorry to hear that Deeder. Hit's from the back of the bike seem rare...I wonder why the driver didn't see your brother and how he can prevent future hits.

While rear end collisions are rare (the most common is simply falling), they are also the most deadly. Deeder's brother was lucky.

I never leave home without my rear view mirror.

UPDATE -- driver was ticketed, cited for 'improper passing'. Also, in the past two days, with more medical investigation -- bro has torn up left knee -- probably ACL surgery in his future -- so much for the rest of the summer riding/tri season. It's a darn shame. Thanks for all your support.

why don't they file attempted murder charges on him? can't he file charges on the guy that did this? he did run him over after all.

First, I'm glad your brother is relatively okay, Deederdoll. It could have been much worse.

Second, I'm with barenakedbiker, "I never leave home without my rear view mirror", but I take it a step further (as many of you have heard many times before...).

On such a road the typical cyclist keeps as far right as practicable, thinking that's safest, and what the law requires. I recommend against that (in CA, and in many other states, as long as there is no other traffic in your direction at the time, there is no legal requirement to keep to the right). It is logical to think that doing so just makes one more vulnerable to being hit from behind. But such logic misses a key point: a key element in being hit from behind is the driver not being aware of the cyclist's presence prior to hitting him.

My hypothesis is based on several assumptions (listed below) I cannot prove, but believe to be true based on observation of myself (both as a driver and as a cyclist), and from observing friends, colleagues and family drivers. I contend these assumptions should be acceptable to anyone who takes an honest look at the problem.


Drivers tend to not be consciously aware of cyclists who are up ahead if they are not in the driver's intended path.
Drivers tend to be consciously aware of cyclists who are up ahead if they ARE in the driver's intended path.
For various reasons (and sometimes for no reason), drivers sometimes drift out of their intended path for short periods, particularly on "rural" (not urban) roads where there is relatively little traffic, and usually to the right (as opposed to left into the adjacent/opposing lane).


If the above are true, it makes for a dangerous situation for the cyclist who keeps to the right along a "rural" road. Why? Because he is vulnerable to motorists approaching from behind who are not consciously aware of his presence (because he is not in their intended path), but who unintentionally drift out of their intended path, to the right, into the path of the cyclist. I wish I could hear the driver's story. I'd bet an inner tube that's what happened here.

The solution? Punish drivers who drift? Hardly. The fact is drivers drift thousands of times like that without incident. It is human nature for them to learn to naturally assume it's safe to do so. You can't legislate common sense, especially when common sense says otherwise.

What's much more effective is to use a mirror and ride in the path of vehicles approaching from the rear, and moving out of the way only after they are consciously aware of you (or so close that you're actually in danger of being hit). With a mirror this is very easy to do. Depending on the road and sight lines, you can learn to glance in the mirror for a fraction of a second every few seconds. It becomes a habit. When you see a car approaching from the rear, long before it becomes an actual threat, you start looking for clues that they see you, like them slowing down, adjusting their lane position like they're going to pass, honking, etc. Once you are reasonably sure that they see you, then move over. Now you know they are consciously aware of your presence, and are therefore much less likely to inadverdently drift into your path. A bonus is that when they see you move out of their way, they often wave thank you, showing that the move is taken as a friendly gesture of accomodation, a boon for cyclist-motorist relations.

I'm with barenakedbiker... Don't leave home without it (rear-view mirror)!

why don't they file attempted murder charges on him?
They'd have to show intent (to murder), which obviously was not present, or prove a high degree of negligence, which could be easily defended against. Any half-decent lawyer is going to be able convince just about any jury that what this driver did is no different from what each of the jurors and everyone else in the court room, even the judge, has done from time to time: inadverdently and momentarily drift to the right out of one's intended path. This guy's "crime" would be that his unintended path just happened to coincide with the path of a cyclist. Getting a conviction for that would be so tough, no DA worth his salt would bother pursuing it.

On the other hand, I'm sure he feels guilty for hitting the cyclist, and very glad that he didn't kill him. Paying the fine for an illegal pass, and thus admitting to a relatively low degree of negligence, is probably going to fly.

Per my previous post, driver's drifting right is a very common behavior. You can't find someone negligent for doing something that most everyone does from time to time, just because he got unlucky and happened to hit someone when he did it. That's not a serious degree of "gross" negligence, one that would constitute attempted murder, as I understand it.

I continue to contend that it is the cyclist's responsibility to choose a lane position on such a road that makes motorists approaching from the rear aware of his presence.

If one wants to stay to the right and keep approaching motorists oblivious to his presence, that's his choice. It's not a risk I'm willing to take.

and the driver didn't get charged with hit and run? they can prove that can't they?


ok... this is how it played out...

the driver rammed the cyclist. the driver drove off and left the cyclist for dead.


no.. that's not any form of assault at all is it? *sarcasm*

the driver rammed the cyclist. the driver drove off and left the cyclist for dead.
It's pretty clear the driver called 911 and hung around at least long enough to identify himself and speak with the paramedics. That hardly qualifies as hit and run.

why don't they file attempted murder charges on him? can't he file charges on the guy that did this? he did run him over after all.

Because their is no criminal degree of neglegence (only civil). I know all about criminally neglegent homicide (my father was killed in a cage on cage crash) and simply having an automobile "accident" is not criminal neglegence. You need to be driving wrechlessly (like over twice the posted limit) or be drunk, or be high, etc. However, you can still sue for pain, suffering, lost wages, medical care, etc. I bet his insurance would settle out of court pretty fast.