Advocacy & Safety - A conversation about who is at fault.

After reading many of the advocacy and safety threads on this forum I have come to the conclusion that most discussions revolve around the automobile driver being at fault and always the bad guy. I think it would be interesting to discuss different angles and aspects of fault. Also I am doing some research and am looking for data in relation to fault when bicycles and cars or peds make contact.

Some of my questions or specific points are:

1) Is there data collected in any state or on the federal level that indicates fault?

2) If so what do we think the ratio of fault might be?

What got me thinking about this was a cyclist I saw recently blitz through a red light and almost get himself killed. During this incident two other cars and an 18 wheeler were doing there best to dodge each other. Accident - no but the real possibility for multiple vehicles to get involved and very likely fatality(s).
In another non related event I saw two cyclist riding down a winding road on the wrong side of the road against traffic. They had no helmets, lights and it was approaching dark.

Please don't get me wrong. My motive is not to down play the real concern that all cyclist have with drivers attitudes, lack of cycling rights and carelessness towards anything other than another vehicle that can do major harm to them. I just think if we examine the facts we might have a much better or even different case for better driver education, training and general support for all cyclist, especially the ones that always obey the laws and ride by the rules. I know that is the majority of cyclist. At least I hope so.

Any thoughts.

To me, fault is not a useful concept.

I believe that most accidents could have been prevented by either party. Ride carefully and defensively. Watch ahead, predict the likely outcome of any moves. Never be in the place where the accident happens.

The road game is like chess -- whoever sees the most moves ahead will be the winner. If there is an accident, the only winners are the lawyers.

I disagree, the winner in any car/bike accident will ALWAYS be the car.

To me, fault is not a useful concept.

I believe that most accidents could have been prevented by either party. Ride carefully and defensively. Watch ahead, predict the likely outcome of any moves. Never be in the place where the accident happens.

The road game is like chess -- whoever sees the most moves ahead will be the winner. If there is an accident, the only winners are the lawyers.

I think this is probably the most coherent and useful post I've ever seen in this particular forum.

I think that fault is an important concern. But not allways possible to define so that it is meaningful. If a car driver is legally at fault, they should be made aware and fined possibly have their license revoked if there are enough problems or if gross negligence is involved. Mostly all of the accidents that I have had did not involve another car. Therefor, hey I am at fault. I learn from each and move on. I've only had 3 accidents worth note in 20 years, none resulted in significant injury. Chess is a slow game and cycling you have 10's of a second to respond before all is lost. There is a business district where drivers routinely enter the street at the duress of others, (aka dooring) once a passenger of a car in traffic opened the passenger door and doored me in this area. In chess you can at least see when the pawn is trying to turn into a queen.

I think it is important to at least understand how and why the accident occured and learn from that. You are always looking for the parked car but might miss the car in traffic that stops unpredictably.

Once I hit a cycist. I was pulling a uturn on a residential intersection around midnight and bang! THe cyclist had no light, but wasnt thinking that that would be a problem since he was behind me. If he had a light, I would have seen him, because I looked. Here I guess that we both where at fault. Lesson from that one is use a light, unless you are on some covert operation.

Recently there was a db posted off of www.bike-pgh.org, but it is suprisingly useless. Accidents are scattered, so you dont get obvoius bad intersections, where you could say hey that is an area to watch.

Fault is an important idea when you get folks too old to be behind the wheel. They really need to have their liceneses pulled if they are allways screwing up.

Ditto what Roody said.
In particular, as cyclists, we have little if any control or influence on the behavior of motorists anyway, while at the same time we have total control of our own behavior. Since that alone can prevent practically all cyclist injuries and fatalities, meaning perhaps the ability to reduce the approximate 700 U.S. cyclist deaths per year to 35 or less, it makes little sense, if your goal is really to increase cycling safety, to focus on anything other than cyclist behavior until we make significant progress in that area.

The road game is like chess -- whoever sees the most moves ahead will be the winner. If there is an accident, the only winners are the lawyers.

Lawyers win at chess?

*oww*!! sorry! :D

Ditto what Roody said.
In particular, as cyclists, we have little if any control or influence on the behavior of motorists anyway, while at the same time we have total control of our own behavior. Since that alone can prevent practically all cyclist injuries and fatalities, meaning perhaps the ability to reduce the approximate 700 U.S. cyclist deaths per year to 35 or less, it makes little sense, if your goal is really to increase cycling safety, to focus on anything other than cyclist behavior until we make significant progress in that area.

Is that honestly possible? How many of those deaths were experienced cyclists verses wrong way, sidewalk riders?

To me, fault is not a useful concept.

I believe that most accidents could have been prevented by either party. Ride carefully and defensively. Watch ahead, predict the likely outcome of any moves. Never be in the place where the accident happens.

The road game is like chess -- whoever sees the most moves ahead will be the winner. If there is an accident, the only winners are the lawyers.

I disagree. As a course of survival, fault is not as important because it is more productive to be defensive, but fault has to be determined because of the nature of our road system. Our road system depends on the cooperation of massive numbers of vehicles. The rules of cooperation are defined by the traffic laws. Fault is given to the party who did not follow these rules of cooperation. Determining the party of fault in an accident determines where there are weaknesses in the education of various parties.

Many accidents could be prevented by either party, but there would not be an accident to avoid if the party at fault did not violate the rules of the road. If we all relied only on our reflexes to avoid potential collisions, bikes would not have a place on the road and we would all ride like inner city messengers. The "might makes right" attitude would dominate traffic (I've seen this in action in Cambodia, where the traffic laws are not enforced). The whole concept of VC relies on the rules of the road being followed by both parties, as does all regular traffic driving in a car. In order to enforce the rules, every accident needs to have party of fault assigned and proper punative measures taken. If there arises a situation where there is no party of fault (a pure accident) then the rules of the road governing the situation are not complete.

I speak as if there is always one party of fault, but of course, there can be shared responsibility. My point is that fault is a concept which is very much applicable to any discussion of an accident.

Is that honestly possible? How many of those deaths were experienced cyclists verses wrong way, sidewalk riders?
This is the discussion I am interested in. Spot on with the question.

To me, fault is not a useful concept.

I believe that most accidents could have been prevented by either party. Ride carefully and defensively. Watch ahead, predict the likely outcome of any moves. Never be in the place where the accident happens.

The road game is like chess -- whoever sees the most moves ahead will be the winner. If there is an accident, the only winners are the lawyers.

I agree with most of this. Good post. But there are so called "cyclist" that do not practice this therefore this leads to the ongoing and never ending debate over the definition of "cyclist". I am not interested in that discussion but think there is probably a relation between accidents and cyclist that have bad practices.

In particular, as cyclists, we have little if any control or influence on the behavior of motorists anyway, while at the same time we have total control of our own behavior. Since that alone can prevent practically all cyclist injuries and fatalities, meaning perhaps the ability to reduce the approximate 700 U.S. cyclist deaths per year to 35 or less, it makes little sense, if your goal is really to increase cycling safety, to focus on anything other than cyclist behavior until we make significant progress in that area.
Is that honestly possible? How many of those deaths were experienced cyclists verses wrong way, sidewalk riders?
The different studies vary somewhat and I have none of them in front of me at the moment, but I know that while blatant errors by cyclists (night riding without lights, wrongway cycling, sidewalk cycling) are factors in a significant percentage of cyclist injuries and fatalities, there are still plenty in other categories that do not involve those types of behavior. In particular, classic left and right hooks comprise a large percentage, afflict "experienced" cyclists, and, according to defensive driving principles that I have no reason to believe do not apply to cyclists in traffic, most of those could be avoided by changes in cyclist behavior too.

As you know, and this is controversial, I would also include many of the hit-from-behind collisions in this category too, in those cases where they occur under low traffic conditions from the motorist drifting into the cyclist -- usually caused by the motorist not being aware of anything up ahead NOT in his path, including a cyclist off to the side -- because I believe many of these can be avoided by the cyclist riding in a more prominent position on the road and moving out of the way only when the motorist is close enough for it to be a very low probability that the motorist is still unaware of the cyclist's presence (thus greatly reducing the possibility of drifting into the cyclist).

Bottom line, the vast majority of collisions that occur, even with experienced cyclist, could be avoided by cyclist behavior. In numbers, that translates into something like being able to reduce cyclist fatalaties from about 700 to probably 50 or less by altering cyclist behavior alone. This is why I am so saddened by how little emphasis there is on changing cyclist behavior in the cycling community, and why I stress the importance of doing so.

The different studies vary somewhat and I have none of them in front of me at the moment, but I know that while blatant errors by cyclists (night riding without lights, wrongway cycling, sidewalk cycling) are factors in a significant percentage of cyclist injuries and fatalities, there are still plenty in other categories that do not involve those types of behavior. In particular, classic left and right hooks comprise a large percentage, afflict "experienced" cyclists, and, according to defensive driving principles that I have no reason to believe do not apply to cyclists in traffic, most of those could be avoided by changes in cyclist behavior too.

As you know, and this is controversial, I would also include many of the hit-from-behind collisions in this category too, in those cases where they occur under low traffic conditions from the motorist drifting into the cyclist -- usually caused by the motorist not being aware of anything up ahead NOT in his path, including a cyclist off to the side -- because I believe many of these can be avoided by the cyclist riding in a more prominent position on the road and moving out of the way only when the motorist is close enough for it to be a very low probability that the motorist is still unaware of the cyclist's presence (thus greatly reducing the possibility of drifting into the cyclist).

Bottom line, the vast majority of collisions that occur, even with experienced cyclist, could be avoided by cyclist behavior. In numbers, that translates into something like being able to reduce cyclist fatalaties from about 700 to probably 50 or less by altering cyclist behavior alone. This is why I am so saddened by how little emphasis there is on changing cyclist behavior in the cycling community, and why I stress the importance of doing so.


Yes, you are right, this is controversial... on two points. It means that cyclists have to have better skills for "evasive maneuvers" in spite of ROW being violated, than motorists... therefore you are putting cyclists in a performance catagory that motorists do not have to maintain.

Second, there is no evidence that the "hit from behind" evasive move you describe, works, or is workable, in everyday traffic. You are assuming that you are more visible to a motorist behind you by being in the center of the lane. I say that in the case of many of these accidents, even a cement truck might be hit.

Your methodology calls for cyclists to practice and maintain supperior handling skills to avoid what should not occur in the first place if the motorists acknowledged our rights and presence on the road, the same as other vehicle users.

Brian hit the nail on the head with his comment: "The rules of cooperation are defined by the traffic laws." If a motorist violates those "rules of cooperation," you believe we should then have the practiced skills to avoid nearly all bad situations.

So much for the fully loaded tourist with a heavy bike, so much for the student with heavy book bags, so much for the older cyclist with less then perfect response time, so much for the new cyclist just aquiring those "evasive maneuvers." They are all losers in your world.

Now on the other hand, those blatant errors by cyclists (night riding without lights, wrongway cycling, sidewalk cycling)... can and should be corrected. Clearly these cyclists are not following the "rules of cooperation."

One of the problems I see is that cyclist, even when doing everything right, put themselves in harms way simply because of their speed and the fact that this leads to cyclist not flowing smoothly with traffic the way a car, truck or even motorcycle does. I think motorist take far more chances with cyclist on the road than they would another motorist.

Does anyone know what the rate of cyclist fatality or injury accident in relation to the number of cyclist? That number for motorist is probably easier to obtain because motor vehicles are registered. I doubt anyone really knows how many cyclist their are. It would be interesting to see the chance or odds of fatality or accident on a bicycle vs a car lets say.

There's a saying amongst motorcycle riders: "no matter who's at fault, its your fault" because its just a fact that there are so many stupid drivers out there, and in any motorcycle vs. car accident the motorcyclist already has a much bigger chance of dying.

There's a saying amongst motorcycle riders: "no matter who's at fault, its your fault" because its just a fact that there are so many stupid drivers out there, and in any motorcycle vs. car accident the motorcyclist already has a much bigger chance of dying.
I agree there are lots of stupid motorist but there are lots of decent, law abiding and just plain nice drivers out there also. I run across them every day. And you know what. Some of the decent, law abiding drivers hit cyclist too because some cyclist put themselves in harms way intentionally or because of lack of smarts or education on safety and the rules in which you should ride under. I am trying to separate the good from the bad. So there are 700 cycling fatalities. If you took out the number where the cyclist could have changed the situation such as not blowing through a stop sign or red light intersection, wearing a helmet, or rideing with traffic instead of against itwould the number be 350, 200, or 100 or would it make a significant difference at all?

Most bad attitude driver, when it comes to cycling, do not understand the rues of engagement with a cyclist on a public road. The verbal encounters I have had are centered around me not having the right to ride my bicycle on a public road. They do not understand, in my opinion, that I have just as much right there as they do and should be treated as a slow vehicle. I often say to them "would you get out of your car and confront a guy on a farm tractor" and the answer is always "no".

I am real big on educating the motorist but am just as big an advocate in training the cyclist in safety and best road riding practices.

Here's my 2 cents worth, which is based on 10 years of handling auto claims for a certain insurance company in the US. During my time with the company, in a very busy Southern California location, we saw thousands upon thousands of claims. Yet I never saw a single accident claim involving an "Experienced" cyclist. Drunks on bikes, wrong way riders on bikes, kids being stupid, etc. Plenty of those. But not one claim, even by our own policyholders, where a responsible rider was involved with a vehicle.

Now, before any one jumps to conclusions, let me point out that our unwritten policy was probably the same as that of every other company. Regardless of who may have been at fault, nearly 100% of those claims were closed right away. We did not pursue the "At fault" party, even when they were clearly the cause of the accident. Juries are extremely sympathetic to someone on a bike being injured by a motorist, even if that cyclist contributed to his/her injuries by riding the wrong way, or not wearing a helmet. So we did get every file to review, but it was a pretty rare thing for us to pursue someone.

My opinion is that the majority of accidents are the cyclists fault, on a certain level. Either blatant disregard for traffic rules in the case of the inexperienced riders, or failure to properly assess traffic conditions/behavior by more experienced riders. Yes, you have the right to ride in the traffic lane. Yes, cars should yield when you are going straight across an intersection, and not cut in front of you. No, drivers should not open doors when you pass parked cars. But I can assure you that as a cyclist, it's your responsibility to be on the lookout for inattentive, inconsiderate, or just plain ignorant motorists. You can be in the right, and get killed. No value in that.

Take this information at face value, consider it any way you want. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=140036

This thread is a great example of an uneducated cyclist.

When a seemingly experienced cyclist (riding a metric century) has to ask the question "Is it against the law to roll through a stop sign with the police watching?" then there needs to be some education process for cyclist as well as motorist. Maybe that was just a troll :). I hope so but I can tell you that most of the local club will blow through a 4 way stop and barely look.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=140036

This thread is a great example of an uneducated cyclist.

Too easy. I've added an appropriate comment and link to that thread.

To me, fault is not a useful concept.

I believe that most accidents could have been prevented by either party. Ride carefully and defensively. Watch ahead, predict the likely outcome of any moves. Never be in the place where the accident happens.

The road game is like chess -- whoever sees the most moves ahead will be the winner. If there is an accident, the only winners are the lawyers.

I agree, except you can't account for the flukes. I could be on my trainer in the living room and get run the **** over by a Mack truck that lost it's brakes.

Here's my 2 cents worth, which is based on 10 years of handling auto claims for a certain insurance company in the US. During my time with the company, in a very busy Southern California location, we saw thousands upon thousands of claims. Yet I never saw a single accident claim involving an "Experienced" cyclist.

Take this information at face value, consider it any way you want. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
My question/comment: Is not your analysis self-serving; i.e. you define "experienced' as not having accidents cross your desk. It appears that in your view - having an accident is prima facie evidence of not being a member of the Experienced Cyclist Club . If this isn't the case, do you have any idea of how many "Experienced Cyclists" are present (percentage of total cyclists) and actually ride in your claim area? If there are any, what percentage of them ride under the same conditions as those having the accidents. For example do the "Experienced Cyclists" ride many miles ALONE in bad weather, rush hour traffic or at night on city (especially inner city) streets to and from jobs, shopping, etc.? Do your statistics include collisions with child cyclists? Why not compare apples to apples?

My opinion is that the majority of accidents are the cyclists fault, on a certain level. Either blatant disregard for traffic rules in the case of the inexperienced riders, or failure to properly assess traffic conditions/behavior by more experienced riders. Yes, you have the right to ride in the traffic lane. Yes, cars should yield when you are going straight across an intersection, and not cut in front of you. No, drivers should not open doors when you pass parked cars. But I can assure you that as a cyclist, it's your responsibility to be on the lookout for inattentive, inconsiderate, or just plain ignorant motorists. You can be in the right, and get killed. No value in that.

Take this information at face value, consider it any way you want. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Blatant disregard of traffic rules are what creates fault. If the cyclist was not lit at night or was not following the rules of the road, then the accident is the fault of the cyclist. However, we don't have the responsibility to look out for the mistakes of others, though it is in our best interest and good practice demands it. Responsibility implies that if we are not on the lookout for inattentive, inconsiderate, or ignorant moterists, then we are at fault for the accident, and this is most definitely not the case. Every user of the road has the responsibility for being attentive, considerate and knowledgable of the laws of the road.

So while defensive cycling is extremely important, and must be learned and practiced by everyone, fault must be assigned to the responsible party. If we as cyclists are being harrassed or abused by moterists for riding where it is legal to ride, regardless of best practice policies such as VC, it means that moterists are not educated as to the laws, and the consequenses for moterists violating the laws are too weak. Not every driver out in the road practices defensive driving, and a prosecution based on a moterist not practicing defensive driving is laughable. Cycling should be held to the same standard. If drivers were truely held to their legal responsibilities, then the defense of "I did not see him" would not hold (of course this implies the cyclists was riding legally). It was the driver's responsiblity to see the cyclist.

My point with all this is to dispell the notion that cyclists are somehow responsible for heading off the mistakes and ignorance of moterists. It is, of course, to our best interest to behave defensively, and every cyclist should learn, not just evasive maneuvers, but also best practice regarding lane positioning and traffic negotiation. This is why cycling advocacy should be aimed primarely at getting laws enacted which favor the cyclist's position on the road, and ensuring that moterists who violate the law and hurt or harrass cyclists get prosecuted to the fullest extent. Every cyclist should be taught defensive cycling, a.k.a. vehicular cycling, but that alone cannot advance the status quo between cyclists and cars on the road. What will advance the status quo, and this will work on its own, as opposed to purely teaching cyclists VC skills, is teaching every person who uses the road, both cyclists and moterists, their legal responsibilities.

This means that moterists are responsible for looking for us in the bike lane.
This means that moterists are responsible for knowing that we are able to take the lane.
This means that it is illegal to taunt or throw things at cyclists, and moterists are prosecuted for it.
This means that the moterist is at fault and is prosecuted for a right or left hook.
This means that the response "I didn't see him" does not, on its own, hold water.

I don't hold with the notion that every driver is out to kill a cyclist and subsequently, I don't agree with the notion that cyclists cannot be part of the cooperative venture of the road, and that we are unique in having some "responsiblity" to look out for the mistakes of others. If all we are doing on the road is playing defense and we are not working to correct the mistakes and ignorance of drivers, then we may as well give up.

I think it was in a movie where I heard this line, but it involves defending against terrorist attacks. The terrorist is talking to a security agent and he makes this point: "You [security] have to be lucky 100 or 1000 times to thwart my goals. I only have to be lucky once." The point is equally valid here. If all we do is defend, then we have to be lucky thousands of times to be safe. To get injured, we only have to be unlucky once. Our advocacy needs to have an offense as well as a defense to make the roads safer for cyclists. If we need stronger defense, then we do that, but not at the expense of our offense.

My question/comment: Is not your analysis self-serving; i.e. you define "experienced' as not having accidents cross your desk. It appears that in your view - having an accident is prima facie evidence of not being a member of the Experienced Cyclist Club . If this isn't the case, do you have any idea of how many "Experienced Cyclists" are present (percentage of total cyclists) and actually ride in your claim area? If there are any, what percentage of them ride under the same conditions as those having the accidents. For example do the "Experienced Cyclists" ride many miles ALONE in bad weather, rush hour traffic or at night on city (especially inner city) streets to and from jobs, shopping, etc.? Do your statistics include collisions with child cyclists? Why not compare apples to apples?

There are no statistics here, only my observations and comments. You either didn't read thoroughly, or you're trying to start an argument. Southern California, for gosh sakes. There's a fairly good chance that there are a couple of commuters, college students and weekend racers in that area. My point was that those that ride their bikes in a responsible manner, and understand the road rules seemed to be unrepresented when it came to claims. The only claims we saw were where the cyclist failed to obey road rules or common sense. And I still say take that for what it's worth.

And to Brian Ratliff,

You made this statement:

My point with all this is to dispell the notion that cyclists are somehow responsible for heading off the mistakes and ignorance of moterists.

I you don't like the word "Responsible", thats' fine. But as cyclists, it's our duty to watch out for those motorists that pose a threat. That's pretty much all of them. Other than getting hit from behind, your chances of avoiding a collision are directly related to how well you pay attention and assess every situation.

My point with all this is to dispell the notion that cyclists are somehow responsible for heading off the mistakes and ignorance of moterists.

I you don't like the word "Responsible", thats' fine. But as cyclists, it's our duty to watch out for those motorists that pose a threat. That's pretty much all of them. Other than getting hit from behind, your chances of avoiding a collision are directly related to how well you pay attention and assess every situation.

Sure, but to the point were cyclists are "responsible" for keeping out of harm's way in the event a motorist choses to do the wrong thing?

Isn't that a bit like telling pedestrians that they should learn how to leap and roll so that in the event a motorist does not stop for them at the crosswalk, the ped can leap back out of the way or the ped can do a roll over the hood to prevent injury?

I am not saying learning defensive moves is NOT a good idea, but simply that cyclists and peds should not be EXPECTED to make up for motorists not following the rules that govern the safe and cooperative use of the streets by all users.

If you follow the logical thread that peds and cyclists should be EXPECTED to keep out of the way of errant motorists... then the next extension of that is motorists doing whatever they want, and everyone best just stay out of their way.

No. I'm saying that as cyclist, pedestrians, or rollerbladers, we should try to anticipate the unexpected. When you ride next to a long line of parked cars, you should expect that any one of them could have some idiot open the door into you. If they do, it's not your fault. But it's your responsibility to recognize that threat, and prepare for it. Does that clarify my position? Oh, Segway owners are on their own. If they get hit, too bad.

No. I'm saying that as cyclist, pedestrians, or rollerbladers, we should try to anticipate the unexpected. When you ride next to a long line of parked cars, you should expect that any one of them could have some idiot open the door into you. If they do, it's not your fault. But it's your responsibility to recognize that threat, and prepare for it. Does that clarify my position? Oh, Segway owners are on their own. If they get hit, too bad.

Sure, prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

You are assuming that you are more visible to a motorist behind you by being in the center of the lane. I say that in the case of many of these accidents, even a cement truck might be hit.

I have been in a bus when it was stopped to pick up passengers and hit from behind. I have seen a bus stopped and hit from behind. My friend was in a bus when it was hit from behind. Buses are very visible, but stop/drive slow often and in my observation are still hit from behind. All three cases were on 2-3 same direction lane 45mph roads.
I have also watched a car get rear ended who was slowing for a right turn in the right lane of a three lane road. A car in the center lane was driving fast in center lane (est. 60mph), a slower car (est. 45mph) was in front of them they swerved right to pass them and rear ended the car slowing (20mph with right turn signal) for the right turn. This was on a 45mph posted road.

Al

No. I'm saying that as cyclist, pedestrians, or rollerbladers, we should try to anticipate the unexpected.
Agreed, but it is not unreasonable expect motorized vehicles drivers to also drive with this principle in mind. We can never assume they do, but we must give the expectation that we expect them to.
Al

Agreed, but it is not unreasonable expect motorized vehicles drivers to also drive with this principle in mind. We can never assume they do, but we must give the expectation that we expect them to.
Al

But I do expect them drive in a safe manner consistent with the rules and laws that govern their behaviour at that time... of course I cannot assume they will do this, (I actually assume otherwise) but I want motorists to at least attempt to follow the letter of the law.

The biggest single failure I see daily, is failure to stop before a "right on red." This single item easily effects all other users of the roadway, be they motorists, peds or cyclists.

If I ride as fast as I am able as close as possible to parked cars so as to have someone to blame when they open the door?

If I put my head down and race through multi-lane intersections when I have the green just to see if someone turns or stops in front of me?

If I ride without regard for what happens behind me as long it is "my" lane?

Am I exercising my rights? Am I putting all drivers on the spot for proper behavior? Will I be fault-free in any accident which may occur? Or, am I riding stupidly?

[snip]am I riding stupidly?[snip]

Yes.

(1)If I ride as fast as I am able as close as possible to parked cars so as to have someone to blame when they open the door?

2)If I put my head down and race through multi-lane intersections when I have the green just to see if someone turns or stops in front of me?

(3) If I ride without regard for what happens behind me as long it is "my" lane?

Am I exercising my rights? Am I putting all drivers on the spot for proper behavior? Will I be fault-free in any accident which may occur? Or, am I riding stupidly?
1. Stupid
2. Stupid
3. Maybe Stupid, but exceptions. I often find I need to ride for 100-200yrd without looking behind because there is so much going in front of me. (like riding by high school in AM past 4 successive & close intersections when there are always u-turners, rapid left hooks, red light runners, pedestrians jaywalking, etc. I take the right lane to have one less thing to worry about (right hook) and ignore by rear)

Al

Example: a motorist swerves into the path of a cyclist riding on the fogline of a two-way, four-lane city street. The same motorist continues to drive in an erratic manner ahead of the cyclist. At the next traffic signal, the motorist stops on red in the left lane. The cyclist, in the right lane, moves ahead of the motorist. After the light turns green, across the intersection, the motorist again swerves acroos the entire lane and strikes the cyclist, injuring him seriously.

Who is responsible? Who is at fault? Who is the loser?

The motorist clearly broke the law and is legally at fault. But why the hell did the cyclist pass the motorist at the intersection? He easily could have prevented the accident by holding back, staying behind the motorist. Therefore, the cyclist is responsible for the accident. The cyclist is the one who got hurt, so he is the loser. Maybe he will feel better when he "wins" a lawsuit against the motorist!

You are assuming that you are more visible to a motorist behind you by being in the center of the lane. I say that in the case of many of these accidents, even a cement truck might be hit.
To be clear, I am NOT assuming that I will definitely be visible to a motorist behind me when I'm in the center of the lane. I am assuming a motorist is significantly more likely to be aware of a cyclist up ahead who is in the center of the lane, than of one who is off to the side. Just because there are edge cases where some motorists are not even aware of cement trucks or buses up ahead is not a refutation of this assumption. If you think it is, please explain how.


Your methodology calls for cyclists to practice and maintain supperior handling skills ...
"Superior" is a loaded term. My methodology requires only skills that anyone who is able to ride a bike in traffic should be able to learn easily.


So much for the fully loaded tourist with a heavy bike, so much for the student with heavy book bags, so much for the older cyclist with less then perfect response time, so much for the new cyclist just aquiring those "evasive maneuvers." They are all losers in your world.
False. The methodology requires nothing that any of these could not do.

If I ride as fast as I am able as close as possible to parked cars so as to have someone to blame when they open the door?

If I put my head down and race through multi-lane intersections when I have the green just to see if someone turns or stops in front of me?

If I ride without regard for what happens behind me as long it is "my" lane?

Am I exercising my rights? Am I putting all drivers on the spot for proper behavior? Will I be fault-free in any accident which may occur? Or, am I riding stupidly?

Put it this way. It is in my best interest to not ride stupidly. However, I expect (or would like to expect) that moterists will follow the laws of the road. I will not accept responsibility for an accident caused by someone else.

For example, I am not at fault in an accident simply because a moterist drifted into my space without me noticing. I know how to avoid most accidents by application of defensive cycling principles, along with VC and specific gestures of intent or instruction, but this does not mean that I am responsible if an accident gets through my defenses.

For your specific examples:

1) I wouldn't do this as a matter of course, but if something happens; I get caught out in the door zone for some reason and somebody doors me, the party at fault is the person with their hand on the car door.
2) If for some reason I am going full blast through an intersection and the car ahead of me stops, causing a rear end, I, not the driver, am at fault.

3) I already ride like this. I don't use a mirror, though I have been considering it lately, so I keep an ear out for cars coming from behind. I'll sometimes indicate to a driver coming from behind to wait to pass, or to slow down, etc., but other than that, I don't overly concern myself with cars coming from the rear.

I'd just like to interject that you guys should not confuse fault and responsibility with liability. Fault and responsibility are generic terms, while liability is a legal term.

In Roody's example, the cyclist is at fault for the accident. The motorist is the liable party. Another example: You stop at a 4 way stop sign. You then proceed, even though you can clearly see that a car to your right is not going to stop. You are at fault, as you had the last chance to avoid the collision. The other party is liable, as they are the cause of the collision. There's no value in exercising your right of way if it gets you injured or killed.

Example: a motorist swerves into the path of a cyclist riding on the fogline of a two-way, four-lane city street. The same motorist continues to drive in an erratic manner ahead of the cyclist. At the next traffic signal, the motorist stops on red in the left lane. The cyclist, in the right lane, moves ahead of the motorist. After the light turns green, across the intersection, the motorist again swerves acroos the entire lane and strikes the cyclist, injuring him seriously.

Who is responsible? Who is at fault? Who is the loser?

The motorist clearly broke the law and is legally at fault. But why the hell did the cyclist pass the motorist at the intersection? He easily could have prevented the accident by holding back, staying behind the motorist. Therefore, the cyclist is responsible for the accident. The cyclist is the one who got hurt, so he is the loser. Maybe he will feel better when he "wins" a lawsuit against the motorist!

The driver is at fault. The loser is the cyclist. However, it is the responsibility of the moterist to drive predictably. It is in the cyclist's best interest to avoid the accident all together, but that is not always possible and it is not the cyclist's responsibility to see the behavior and react to it. In this case, the driver will (ideally, of course) lose his privilege to the road, making the road safer for other users.

There is a defensive maneuver for every mistake a driver can make around a cyclist. Wouldn't it be nice if we had to rely on defense less and more moterists understood their responsibilities around cyclists. Cyclist eductation is important because it enables cyclists to cope with the current environment. Driver eduction is at least equally as important because it enables cyclists as a whole to rely less on defensive reactions and more on the cooperative rules of the road for safe travel.

"Superior" is a loaded term. My methodology does requires only skills that anyone who is able to ride a bike in traffic should be able to learn easily.


False. The methodology requires nothing that any of these could not do.

Fine, I want to see you demonstrate a "quick turn" with a loaded bike trailer.

Fine, I want to see you demonstrate a "quick turn" with a loaded bike trailer.
Or a quick turn when the side street is covered by metal plates covered with dirt. Sure one should only ride at a speed safe, but do you take into account the condition of every side street corner? Yes you should, but can you reasonably? Can you even see the condition of the corner before its too late?

Then there is also practice vs. reality. I've practiced high speed quick turns in parking lots, etc. But how am I going to fare when it really happens and reactions, judgement come into play. For a car turning left in front of me: Do I quick turn, do I turn to the left to try and clear its rear bumper, do I panic, do I quick turn too hard and go down under car instead of over car? Unfortunately these are maneuvers that required a high level of skill to exectute under pressure. Not everyone should be expected to have a road racing background and skill set just to share the roads. If so that makes transportational cycling a very exclusive activity. Maybe more of the burden should be shifted to those we share the road with, requiring far more training and demonstration of skill to use motorized vehicles on the road. I think the current bar is too low for what is expected of users of motorized vehicles.

Al

I'd just like to interject that you guys should not confuse fault and responsibility with liability. Fault and responsibility are generic terms, while liability is a legal term.

In Roody's example, the cyclist is at fault for the accident. The motorist is the liable party. Another example: You stop at a 4 way stop sign. You then proceed, even though you can clearly see that a car to your right is not going to stop. You are at fault, as you had the last chance to avoid the collision. The other party is liable, as they are the cause of the collision. There's no value in exercising your right of way if it gets you injured or killed.

This is a perfect example of the mind set which needs to be changed in the cycling community. Yes, fault and responsibility are generic terms, but they have meaning. Assigning fault to the cyclist in this example is wrong, because it implies that we always have to be out of the way as a principle when a driver breaks a law. It implies that there is a lawlessness that exists at a fundamental level with interactions between driver and cyclist. It also implies that drivers can use this perception of lawlessness and might makes right to push cyclists around and off the road. If this were extended to the rest of the road users, only semi's would be allowed to travel at will on the road.

The laws of the road protect all the users, and when there is a violation on the part of the driver which maims or kills a cyclist, there should be an outrage and a legal prosecution to punish that violation. Blame, fault, liability; the whole works should be directed at the party legally at fault.

I go on about this because the only reason riding a bike in traffic works at all is because of the system of laws we have set in place. We go on and on about the benefits of vehicular cycling, but none of it works unless drivers respect the laws of the road. Without driver education about the cyclist's right to the road, the only way to take a lane is to find some respecting, accomodating person in a car to let you in. Too bad the disrespecting, unaccomadating people don't put signs on their car windshield letting us know who they are! The reason the unaccomodating person still lets a cyclist into a traffic lane is because they respect the laws of the road more than they are willing to disrespect the cyclist. If we, through our lack of advocacy, let this respect of the laws of the road decay, we will all become sidewalk cyclists. If we don't forward our attempts at educating drivers, then we are stuck in the statis quo. It is only by asserting and teaching drivers our rights as road users that we are able to make cycling a safer, more enjoyable activity for more people to take part.

This is a perfect example of the mind set which needs to be changed in the cycling community. Yes, fault and responsibility are generic terms, but they have meaning. Assigning fault to the cyclist in this example is wrong, because it implies that we always have to be out of the way as a principle when a driver breaks a law. [snip]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop participating in this discussion, as you're not being open minded at all. First, where in my stop sign example did I state that either party was a cyclist? My example could have been 2 bikes, I purposely left it open to interpretation. If you were in your car, you stopped, and then pulled out in front of the cyclist that didn't stop, is the cyclist still not at fault? The point is that if you can avoid a collision, regardless of fault, you have a responsibility to do so.

You want to think that just because someone has been issued a license, and is operating a motor vehicle, that they should look out for cyclists, and respect their right of way. That's all well and good, but if you ride your bike in the real world, you need to treat every motorist as a possible threat to your safety. If you don't, you will eventually have an accident.

Fine, I want to see you demonstrate a "quick turn" with a loaded bike trailer.
No method I have ever advocated requires the ability to execute a quick turn.

No method I have ever advocated requires the ability to execute a quick turn.

Oh, excuse me... both the quick turn and quick stop are taught in Road 1, and you did "test" me quite some time ago about being able to perform these skills. Now you say that they are not needed?

Great.

Now what about "center-biased dynamic lateral lane positioning" or whatever the latest version is called? Even Forester couldn't do that, as he doesn't use a mirror.

Blatant disregard of traffic rules are what creates fault. If the cyclist was not lit at night or was not following the rules of the road, then the accident is the fault of the cyclist. However, ... Every user of the road has the responsibility for being attentive, considerate and knowledgable of the laws of the road.
Brian, most of what you say in this thread is based on this premise that you laid down in post #23.

What I'm curious about is whether the rules/laws of the road that you have in mind include these two, and, in particular, the second one:


Between intersections, choose your position according to speed (slower traffic to the right).
At intersections and their approaches, choose your position according to destination.


The problem is that 99% of cyclists disobey rule #2 at least some of the time, and doing so is arguably a significant factor in most collisions that do not involve the cyclist or motorist doing the really "blatant" stuff (riding at night without lights, riding against traffic, drunk driver barelling across traffic).

It is a factor, for example, in the vast majority (not ALL, Al) of hooks and crosses.

I honesty believe that if cyclists took responsibilty for obeying rule #2 above, we could reduce cyclist fatalities to half of what they currently are, if not significantly less than that.

Everything else we could realistically do, all put together, couldn't come close to making cycling that much safer.

Oh, excuse me... both the quick turn and quick stop are taught in Road 1, and you did "test" me quite some time ago about being able to perform these skills. Now you say that they are not needed?
Like I don't have enough posts here to make clear what I advocate? You have to add on stuff from Road 1 and attribute it to my advocacy?

Where and how did I "test" you on "quick turn"? And even if I did, that does not necessarily mean I was arguing it was necessary to know how to do to be safe.

What the US needs is roundabouts. They eliminate so many accidents, and keep traffic flowing at the same time.

Actually, roundabouts are gaining popularity in the U.S. traffic engineering world.

We're getting 7 or 8 put in the Bird Rock neighborhood in the community of La Jolla in San Diego.

Some cyclists have complained about them already (a few are in) because they require a cyclist to take the lane as he goes through it, and too many lack the confidence and/or knowledge to do so.

I steer, she signals. Good to know roundabouts are gaining popularity. Better than speed bumps in residential areas.

What is a roundabout?