Commuting - A lady screamed, and I heard the impact...

of an SUV hitting a biker HARD. I was waiting for the light to change and the SUV was running the tail end of a yellow while the biker was doing the same from the opposite direction. I didn't actually see the impact but the SUV must've turned left and the biker T-boned him. I could see big dents in the SUV's grill and fenders, and the whole windshield had caved in. Unbelievably the biker was picking himself up off the pavement and had a stunned grin on his face. In hindsight, I think the stunned grin was because he was instantly in shock. He obviously did not know what was going on.
What really impressed me though, was how all the people around reacted. It was rush hour. A couple drivers, several pedestrians, and even a bike courier were INSTANTLY helping the biker. I think everyone realized that even though this guy was up and walking around he had to be hurt. Sure enough the blood started flowing from a face or head wound (seemed like a delayed reaction). Somebody made him sit down, someone else phoned 911, everyone was trying to help. The biker HAD to have some broken bones - I don't know how he got up. I'm guessing the helmet saved his life.
Anyhow, I watched from across the street long enough to realize everything was being taken care of and there was nothing I could do to help. I have no special medical skills to offer and by now there were at least a dozen people all over this guy - trying to help. I hope that if I ever get in an accident I'll get the same help from all those good samaritans. Maybe there's hope for humanity after all...

Don't ask me who was at fault. Like I said, I didn't actually witness the accident - just the aftermath. I sure hope that biker is OK today.

My brother's a paramedic. He's seen people walking around with broken bones, trying to figure out how come their hands don't work; can't feel the break at all. Totally pumped silly on adrenaline.
It can be very difficult to get people with that much juice in their blood to lie down, but they can really hurt themselves if they don't.
Hope the guy's alright.

I've seen some bike and car accidents. Not pretty usually. Peoples reactions are interesting after seeing an accident. Everyone (including me) goes bug eyed for a second trying to process what happened and then 1/3 the people run over and try to help another 1/3 just continues to gawk and the last 1/3 goes about their business like nothing out of the ordinary happened.

I think he could have been okay.
If the windshield soaked up all of his kinetic energy it might not have been that hard on his body.

It doesn't really matter whose fault it was. SUV's have incredible destructive power, accidents will inevitably happen sooner or later, and when they do, the owners should be held responsible for driving such a dangerous machine.

Genericbikedude
You cannot be serious? I have a Jeep cherokee and a toyota truck that is lifted with large tires on it. By your statement I should be held responsible for a bike/ped/or other driver that hits me because I have a SUV/large truck? Please tell me you don't sell insurance.
I will stop here before I say something that really doesn't need to be said here.
Stacey

Don't ask me who was at fault. Like I said, I didn't actually witness the accident - just the aftermath. I sure hope that biker is OK today.

If the truck turned left before the intersection is clear, it's the truck driver's fault.

I've been hit seriously twice; both times were in the days before foam helmets. Once a left cross just like the collision you witnessed, where I smacked the grill, flew over the hood and through the windshield *KRUNCH*. The adreneline rush is the most amazing thing I've ever felt. I was up and walking immediately, but I was also uninjured other than minor cuts and scrapes. The bike was completely wrecked. I was probably in clips and straps.

Regarding seriously injured walking after an accident: I watched a guy try to beat a train across the tracks and lose (badly). Amazingly, he was conscious when I got to him and he tried to get up. It was pretty gruesome and he didn't live for long.

It doesn't really matter whose fault it was. SUV's have incredible destructive power, accidents will inevitably happen sooner or later, and when they do, the owners should be held responsible for driving such a dangerous machine. Huh? I don't think in a car-bike collision in matters too much to the biker whether the car was an SUV or a compact hybrid. So you gotta hold drivers of all cars responsible for driving such dangerous machines?

I am no fan of SUVs myself, but I think you're getting carried away, to put it mildly. A few months ago I would've said this had to be irony, but I have since learned that some people actually mean such things. :D

It doesn't really matter whose fault it was. SUV's have incredible destructive power, accidents will inevitably happen sooner or later, and when they do, the owners should be held responsible for driving such a dangerous machine.

As much as I detest land-yachts for simple transportation purposes (if you haul stuff or actually need the space, I dig it), this is absurd.

Here's the best analogy I can think of.

I'm a fire performer. The troupe I'm in has a space assigned to us every Sunday night. This space is a stage out in public. There is a ramp which leads to this stage. A few (one or two) cyclists on the campus will go up the ramp and jump the stage to the ground.

Fire is dangerous. We are in complete control of it. If a cyclist comes up and accidentally hits one of us and we drop the fire and hurt ourselves and/or the cyclist, who's to blame? The one who caused the accident, not the one with the "incredible destructive power." Is my point clear, or did I lose you?

Blame the cause, not the effect.

Is my point clear, or did I lose you?
Not so clear, no. The SUV was hurtling about amongst a mass of vehicles and pedestrians. Your fire performer was in a contained environment where only other performers that know what they are doing would be expected.

Not to reinforce the idea that the SUV driver is automatically at fault (that is going a little too far), but I do think that large numbers of SUV drivers to not take enough precautions considering the damage they (and most motor vehicles, really) can cause.

Sounds like they were both chasing a yellow so there is blame to go all around. I would, however, subscribe a little to generics ... viewpoint in that:

1) The bikers stupidity largely put himself at risk.
2) The SUV's stupidity largely put someone else at risk!

Out of curiosity how is this handled insurance-wise.

Let's say the cyclist made the mistake and from the standpoint of the law was at fault for the collision. Then let's say that the cyclist is car-free and therefore does not have car insurance. How is this covered. Just out of the pocket of the cyclist? I'd love to be able to figure out how to get insurance in the event I'm on my bike, I collide with a car and I'm at fault. Or, worse yet, I'm not at fault but the driver is uninsured and doesn't have enough money to pay for my medical/property-damage bills.

Anyone have suggestions?
-sv

Out of curiosity how is this handled insurance-wise.

Let's say the cyclist made the mistake and from the standpoint of the law was at fault for the collision. Then let's say that the cyclist is car-free and therefore does not have car insurance. How is this covered. Just out of the pocket of the cyclist? I'd love to be able to figure out how to get insurance in the event I'm on my bike, I collide with a car and I'm at fault. Or, worse yet, I'm not at fault but the driver is uninsured and doesn't have enough money to pay for my medical/property-damage bills.

Anyone have suggestions?
-sv

Well, I do have experience being totally not at-fault and partially at fault in car-bike collisions. As I don't drive, I don't have my own insurance, so injuries and damages are the responsibility of the driver's insurance company. The adjuster will negotiate a settlement according to your fault and the circumstances of the accident.

Out of curiosity how is this handled insurance-wise.

Let's say the cyclist made the mistake and from the standpoint of the law was at fault for the collision. Then let's say that the cyclist is car-free and therefore does not have car insurance. How is this covered. Just out of the pocket of the cyclist? I'd love to be able to figure out how to get insurance in the event I'm on my bike, I collide with a car and I'm at fault. Or, worse yet, I'm not at fault but the driver is uninsured and doesn't have enough money to pay for my medical/property-damage bills.

Anyone have suggestions?
-sv
You would probably covered by liability coverage under a home-owners or renter's policy. Even if you have a car, your auto insurance would probably not be involved since you weren't driving it...Your medical bills might be paid by your car insurance depending on state no-fault laws...state laws and insurance coverage rules vary all over the place so the best source of info would be from either a local insurance agent that you trust or have good referrals to; or your state insurance commissioner's office.

Steve
(former insurance agent...many years ago)

I've been hit by four cars and still counting.
Hospolized twice due to injuries.
I totaled a Dodge Stealth, and walked away without injury, how this happens we'll never know.
I was hit once when a young lady thought that she could beat me, and make a turn into a 7-11. Little did she know, but I have a average riding speed of 25 miles an hour on my road bike, by the time she made the corner, I saw this comming, I braced for impact, and nailed the passenger side, and did a complete flip over the hood, and landed on my bum. My $4000 bike was snapped in 2 places just from the impact.
I yelled at her for a good 20 minutes while other people who witnessed her idiotic move yell at me to get her information. A "on-call" ambulance EMT's saw the whole thing, and she was in the wrong.

Genericbikedude
You cannot be serious? I have a Jeep cherokee and a toyota truck that is lifted with large tires on it. By your statement I should be held responsible for a bike/ped/or other driver that hits me because I have a SUV/large truck? Please tell me you don't sell insurance.
I will stop here before I say something that really doesn't need to be said here.
StaceyThe bumper on an SUV is higher than the bumper on a car. Add larger tires, and the bumper is even higher. A bumper on a car is designed to channel a pedestrian onto the hood where damage will be minimized. A bumper on an SUV is designed to impact a pedestrian at torso height. The vehicles you choose to drive are lethal to other drivers as well as to pedestrians and bicyclists. It's been well-documented by the auto industry itself that SUV buyers choose SUVs because they are self-centered, and see driving as a zero-sum game in which they survive and others die.

So if your vehicle, freely chosen, does more damage to an accident victim than a safer vehicle would have, why SHOULDN'T you be held liable?

Agreed.

The bumper on an SUV is higher than the bumper on a car. Add larger tires, and the bumper is even higher. A bumper on a car is designed to channel a pedestrian onto the hood where damage will be minimized. A bumper on an SUV is designed to impact a pedestrian at torso height. The vehicles you choose to drive are lethal to other drivers as well as to pedestrians and bicyclists. It's been well-documented by the auto industry itself that SUV buyers choose SUVs because they are self-centered, and see driving as a zero-sum game in which they survive and others die.

So if your vehicle, freely chosen, does more damage to an accident victim than a safer vehicle would have, why SHOULDN'T you be held liable?

That's the most rediculous thing I have ever read. You're saying that people who drive SUV's are self centered. What a joke. I know so many of my friends who drive SUV's, and they, incliding myself, are some of the most defensive drivers I have ever seen. The most self-centered people I have ever seen driving vehicles are young teenagers inthose fancy screaming rice-burners, and the big soccer Mom's in their minivans, "Oh, I'm so special, because I'm a soccer Mom in a minivan." Those people are the most dangerous, non-attentive drivers I have yet to encounter on the road. The word Brain-Dead is an understatement.

If anything, the most curteous drivers are the old boys in their chugging pickup trucks, out here in the country where I live. They drive slower, and give me more space when passing than anyone else I encounter, anywhere. Heck, even the rich ladies out here in their Range Rovers give me alot more curtesy than the big mommas in their minivans.

So, according to your logic, a carpenter driving a suburban, or a pickup truck with a lumber rack, should be penalized more than some worthless, pot smoking, snot-nosed teenager screaming around in his faux rice burning race car. But then, you're right, the carpenter chose to be a carpenter, and he should pay for working hard and being productive. :rolleyes:

dude, you can help by being an eye witness so the guy with the Hummer doesn't get off easy.

and so the scumbag insurance companies like Mercury Insurance doesn't screw over the cyclist like they did me.

Out of curiosity how is this handled insurance-wise.

Let's say the cyclist made the mistake and from the standpoint of the law was at fault for the collision. Then let's say that the cyclist is car-free and therefore does not have car insurance. How is this covered. Just out of the pocket of the cyclist? I'd love to be able to figure out how to get insurance in the event I'm on my bike, I collide with a car and I'm at fault. Or, worse yet, I'm not at fault but the driver is uninsured and doesn't have enough money to pay for my medical/property-damage bills.

Anyone have suggestions?
-sv

you pay from your pocket. Even if your in the right and have eye witnesses, but don't want to go to court because of legal fees/lost of workday. Be Careful of Mercury Insurance. They totally screw me over when I was hit and in the right.

WTF? If it had been two cars, the turning driver would clearly be at fault. How is it any different with a bike?

The most self-centered people I have ever seen driving vehicles are young teenagers inthose fancy screaming rice-burners, pay for working hard and being productive. :rolleyes:

You can also consider yourself a bit racist, too.

Also, another thing, I implore everyone to take the time and become an eye witness if they saw an accident. Wait for the cops to come and have them take down your information. I remember when I was hit, taking eye witness information was not my top priority at the moment, I was too shook up. You'll see if you ever get hit. I'll be very grateful for anyone who is nice enough to give up 15-30 minutes from their day to state what they witnessed.

You can also consider yourself a bit racist, too.


Your right, I hate snot-nosed, pot smoking teens. ;)

I guess I should call everyone racist who refers to me as a "cheese head", because I grew up in Wisconsin. Oh, those horrible prejudiced people. Throw them all in jail!!! :rolleyes:

Grow some skin!

That's the most rediculous thing I have ever read. You're saying that people who drive SUV's are self centered. What a joke. I know so many of my friends who drive SUV's, and they, incliding myself, are some of the most defensive drivers I have ever seen. The most self-centered people I have ever seen driving vehicles are young teenagers inthose fancy screaming rice-burners, and the big soccer Mom's in their minivans, "Oh, I'm so special, because I'm a soccer Mom in a minivan."

Patriot, perhaps where you live people actually drive sport utility vehicles for their utility, but in the downtown core, as some radio personality pointed out, you'll never see a dirty one. Their only utility is to impress and intimidate.

That's the most rediculous thing I have ever read.Then you should read more. Start with High and Mighty (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586481231/102-7964369-8352114?v=glance&n=283155).



You're saying that people who drive SUV's are self centered.You should definitely read more, because your reading comprehension is a bit, shall we say, under par. I clearly said that the auto companies are the ones who have identified SUV drivers as "self-centered." I didn't say that SUV drivers are self-centered, the auto companies said it. Now, where did they get that notion? From years and years and years worth of marketing data. Straight from the horses mouth-- the purchasers themselves. But hey, who needs data when they’re going off on an ill-informed rant?


What a joke. I know so many of my friends who drive SUV's, and they, incliding myself, are some of the most defensive drivers I have ever seen.So what does this anecdote have to do with reams of marketing data? For that matter, what does "defensive driving" have to do with a zero-sum mentality that urges consumers to buy vehicles that they believe will make them safer by killing the "other drivers" instead, to say nothing of pedestrians and bicyclists?


The most self-centered people I have ever seen driving vehicles are young teenagers inthose fancy screaming rice-burners, and the big soccer Mom's in their minivans, "Oh, I'm so special, because I'm a soccer Mom in a minivan." Those people are the most dangerous, non-attentive drivers I have yet to encounter on the road. The word Brain-Dead is an understatement.Funny, the worst I've encountered in my anecdotes are the brain-dead princesses yakking on cell phones while piloting a sport ute they clearly can't control.

But once we leave anecdote-land, the facts are indisputable: mini-vans are far, far safer vehicles than sport utes. So are "rice burners," for that matter.


If anything, the most curteous drivers are the old boys in their chugging pickup trucks, out here in the country where I live. They drive slower, and give me more space when passing than anyone else I encounter, anywhere. Heck, even the rich ladies out here in their Range Rovers give me alot more curtesy than the big mommas in their minivans.Hello? Can you read? We're not talking about "drivers." We're talking about "vehicles." Sport utes-- and the pickup trucks they're based on-- are inherently more dangerous vehicles than mini-vans, "rice-burners," or whatever else you care to compare them with. And we’re talking about the *fact* that the auto companies have described the purchasers of sport utes as “self-centered.”


So, according to your logic, a carpenter driving a suburban, or a pickup truck with a lumber rack, should be penalized more than some worthless, pot smoking, snot-nosed teenager screaming around in his faux rice burning race car. But then, you're right, the carpenter chose to be a carpenter, and he should pay for working hard and being productive. :rolleyes:No, that's not "my logic." That’s your straw man argument. Since it's you argument, you can keep it-- I don't want it. My argument-- the one that you’ve conveniently failed to address, is that according to the data that the auto companies have spent years and millions of dollars compiling, purchasers of sport utes are self-centered. My argument—the one that you’ve conveniently failed to address, is that sport utes are, due to their design, inherently more dangerous to other drivers, as well as to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Not so clear, no. The SUV was hurtling about amongst a mass of vehicles and pedestrians. Your fire performer was in a contained environment where only other performers that know what they are doing would be expected.

Not to reinforce the idea that the SUV driver is automatically at fault (that is going a little too far), but I do think that large numbers of SUV drivers to not take enough precautions considering the damage they (and most motor vehicles, really) can cause.

Contained...in a stage or in a lane.

Drive/ride with clear intentions and perform with clear intentions.

If you break the law, it's your fault, whether you're on the receiving end of the pain or not. Period.

Contained...in a stage or in a lane.

Drive/ride with clear intentions and perform with clear intentions.

If you break the law, it's your fault, whether you're on the receiving end of the pain or not. Period.And who broke the law here? Let's review the facts:

1) The cyclist was running through the tail end of a yellow. Probably against the law.

2) The motorist was running through the tail end of a yellow. Probably against the law.

3) The motorist failed to yield to the cyclist as the motorist was making a left turn. Definitely against the law.

Factor everything together, and they were probably both skating close to the edge on running through that light, but the motorist bears the responsibility for failure to yield the right of way, and that is what caused the accident.

WOW, look at the response Blue Order wrote up. That guy reminds me of Euro. He must love to argue. :D

WOW, look at the response Blue Order wrote up. That guy reminds me of Euro. He must love to argue. :D:roflmao:

I guess I should call everyone racist who refers to me as a "cheese head", because I grew up in Wisconsin. Oh, those horrible prejudiced people. Throw them all in jail!!! :rolleyes:

Then you have all the racist black guys to deal with. They can be racist but you cant, because your white.
I'm racist, and my best friend is black.. and he hates black people more than I do!

And who broke the law here? Let's review the facts:

1) The cyclist was running through the tail end of a yellow. Probably against the law.

2) The motorist was running through the tail end of a yellow. Probably against the law.

3) The motorist failed to yield to the cyclist as the motorist was making a left turn. Definitely against the law.

Factor everything together, and they were probably both skating close to the edge on running through that light, but the motorist bears the responsibility for failure to yield the right of way, and that is what caused the accident.

Very good conclusion. I was hoping you'd see it my way.

Now I'm just wondering how you got the idea that the SUV driver is wielding a weapon and not driving a car. I mean, taking SUV's off the road because some drivers don't possess logical driving skills is about the same as the bill going through California attempting to euthanize all pit bulls because a few attacks happend. Making a generalization about all SUV's (or pit bulls, Mexicans, Jews, Blacks, Caucasions, Macintosh users, lefties, republicans, democrats, green party members, Pastafarians, etc.) doesn't seem to be the best way to go about living.

WOW, look at the response Blue Order wrote up. That guy reminds me of Euro. He must love to argue. :D

He did do a good bit of ass kicking though. I wonder if he is really Colbert? High and Mighty is my next book. He convinced me.

It doesn't really matter whose fault it was. SUV's have incredible destructive power, accidents will inevitably happen sooner or later, and when they do, the owners should be held responsible for driving such a dangerous machine.

I agree, but fat chance you'll get anybody else to listen. I hate the way they cut off all lines of vision.

I hate the way they cut off all lines of vision.

Hoo boy, does that irritate me too!

Nice thing about being on a bike is that standing up usually lets me see over any of them that aren't lifted!

By the way, my defending SUV drivers doesn't mean that I like SUVs. My mom drives an SUV and if she weren't sponsoring races every month and hauling stuff to and from things, I'd be 100% against her owning it. SUVs scare me, but I feel that if a person is competant to drive one, there shouldn't be anything stopping them from driving one. I much prefer a smaller, zippy car, but some people like the false security of a behemoth. *steps down from the soapbox -- Neutrogina, I believe*

The bumper on an SUV is higher than the bumper on a car. Add larger tires, and the bumper is even higher. A bumper on a car is designed to channel a pedestrian onto the hood where damage will be minimized. A bumper on an SUV is designed to impact a pedestrian at torso height. The vehicles you choose to drive are lethal to other drivers as well as to pedestrians and bicyclists. It's been well-documented by the auto industry itself that SUV buyers choose SUVs because they are self-centered, and see driving as a zero-sum game in which they survive and others die.

So if your vehicle, freely chosen, does more damage to an accident victim than a safer vehicle would have, why SHOULDN'T you be held liable?
So what you are saying is that because I have a Cherokee for the room of 3 kids and a larger dog I should automatically be held liable for any accident(mind you I have never been in one in my life and I have been driving for 20 years). My toyota truck is used for a hunting rig. I have 1000 acres of land and my little toyota camry I use for city driving just doesn't quite handle the off road driving. So again I have a lifted truck with big tires so I am liable for all the other idiots on the road. Not to mention that I live in north central WI and like my wife to have the security of 4x4 in the winter with her cherokee.(she also has never been in an accident in 18 years of driving).
I would really love to know what ya'll think of the guys like me that farmed all my young life and drove those monstrous tractors down the road to get to the fields.
The thing that is being failed to be seen in this situation is the fact that yes some folks by the biggest most obnoxious vehicle they can afford to be "cool". That however does not lump all of us in the same category. You see what you see in your big city. I live in a city of 60,000 and I can count on my two hands the number of people that actually own Hummers. Those that own the large tahoes and the such actually own them for hauling thier boats and snowmobiles and atvs, or horse trailers and the such.
So before you lump us all in to one category of being self-centered and snobbish, look outside your large cities and realize that there is a use for the large vehicles.

So what you are saying is that because I have a Cherokee for the room of 3 kids and a larger dog I should automatically be held liable for any accident(mind you I have never been in one in my life and I have been driving for 20 years). My toyota truck is used for a hunting rig. I have 1000 acres of land and my little toyota camry I use for city driving just doesn't quite handle the off road driving. So again I have a lifted truck with big tires so I am liable for all the other idiots on the road. Not to mention that I live in north central WI and like my wife to have the security of 4x4 in the winter with her cherokee.(she also has never been in an accident in 18 years of driving).
I would really love to know what ya'll think of the guys like me that farmed all my young life and drove those monstrous tractors down the road to get to the fields.
The thing that is being failed to be seen in this situation is the fact that yes some folks by the biggest most obnoxious vehicle they can afford to be "cool". That however does not lump all of us in the same category. You see what you see in your big city. I live in a city of 60,000 and I can count on my two hands the number of people that actually own Hummers. Those that own the large tahoes and the such actually own them for hauling thier boats and snowmobiles and atvs, or horse trailers and the such.
So before you lump us all in to one category of being self-centered and snobbish, look outside your large cities and realize that there is a use for the large vehicles.If I were an attorney, and my client was injured in an accident, I would argue something along the lines of you created a hazard with a jacked up vehicle and oversized tires, and my client was injured more severely as a result. Even with a stock SUV, I could make the case that people choose them because they have the perception that they're safer than minivans for the owner because they kill the other person instead of you.

If you were my client, I would argue what you're saying.

I'm the OP and just wanted to add two comments:

1. I didn't actually witness the accident, so I didn't think I could contribute anything to the report that the 2 dozen or so actual witnesses couldn't. My main concern was to make sure the biker was being taken care of - and he was. Overwhelmingly. I would've had to elbow my way through the crowd.

2. I wish I hadn't mentioned it was an SUV, but it's a good thing it wasn't a pickup truck. I never did understand the hate towards SUV's. Spread that hate around to all vehicles. Personally, I have more issues with taxi cabs than I do with SUV's.

Personally, I have more issues with taxi cabs than I do with SUV's.

You shouldn't. Cabs, public transit, and bikes are part of the solution. Sure, cab drivers are aggressive and irritating, but they are expert drivers who can handle their vehicles. They put a lot of miles on them, and often carry more than one passenger, so the environmental cost of making them is spread over more useful miles than for a private car. They help keep at least some of the drunk drivers off the road, and they facilitate people tentatively starting to commute by bike or transit instead of car, since those people can reassure themselves by thinking "if it's late or I'm tired or the weather is bad, I can always take a cab", even though most of the time they don't need to.

The bumper on an SUV is higher than the bumper on a car. Add larger tires, and the bumper is even higher. A bumper on a car is designed to channel a pedestrian onto the hood where damage will be minimized. A bumper on an SUV is designed to impact a pedestrian at torso height. The vehicles you choose to drive are lethal to other drivers as well as to pedestrians and bicyclists. It's been well-documented by the auto industry itself that SUV buyers choose SUVs because they are self-centered, and see driving as a zero-sum game in which they survive and others die.

So if your vehicle, freely chosen, does more damage to an accident victim than a safer vehicle would have, why SHOULDN'T you be held liable?

Well put. People need to read "High and Mighty"