Advocacy & Safety - Cars Owe More Care Toward Cyclists

[The difference between Germany and England] is also manifested in the different treatment of crashes involving different modes of transport. Germany ascribes to the principle that heavier, faster vehicles have a duty of care towards more vulnerable road users, and this duty of care precedes any specific road regulations. For example, the Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/0,1518,416418,00.html) reports that in a recent court decision, the driver of a car involved in a collision with a cyclist riding the wrong way down a cycle lane was found responsible for damages.

http://www.velorution.biz/?p=1178


The idea that drivers should be penalized more severely when they hit cyclists than when they hit other cars came up on another thread. I am glad to see that Germany is more enlightened than some bikeforum posters. :)

Brilliant, the way it should be. Just like us riders should be more aware and forgiving of the peds as we can crush and kill them as well. It's a wonderful trickle down effect I think.

The idea that drivers should be penalized more severely when they hit cyclists than when they hit other cars came up on another thread. I am glad to see that Germany is more enlightened than some bikeforum posters. :)


So if you are riding the wrong way into traffic it is someone eles fault? I don't think that is enlightened at all. If the cyclist is obeying the laws I think it has merit but if you are breaking the law, traffic or otherwise, it is your fault.

That's not the point.... the point being the car can and should stop because it's not going to be a fender bender, it's going to be a mangled person.

So, if a car is driving 40 mph down a main road, and a cyclist blows through a stop sign into traffic, it's the car driver's fault????

Not at all if the guys right in front of you , but if he's half a block away and all he has to do is slow down to avoid a colision, yes to a certain degree. As a driver who practices defensive driving I am just a responsible in avoiding a collision as anyone else on the the road, no matter what I need to do to avoid it.

If a ped steps into the street and you can reasonably avoid him, should you? OR should you plow him over because he's doing wrong and you have ROW? See the difference?

Not at all if the guys right in front of you , but if he's half a block away and all he has to do is slow down to avoid a colision, yes to a certain degree. As a driver who practices defensive driving I am just a responsible in avoiding a collision as anyone else on the the road, no matter what I need to do to avoid it.

If a ped steps into the street and you can reasonably avoid him, should you? OR should you plow him over because he's doing wrong and you have ROW? See the difference?

I agree. From other threads about laws in other countries, it has seemed that many want the motor vehicle driver held "at fault" no matter what.
The scary part is that I have actually listened to other drivers that sounded like they shouldn't be held at fault even if they had plenty of time to stop.

If the driver of the car can avoid him he should but if the cyclist is breaking the law it is still the cyclist fault.

Yes exactly...see the driver in the case was responsible for the damages (new bike-his own car repairs). So it would seem the courts came to the conclusion that he could have avoided the whole thing, say by braking. I can't imagine this gets the cyclist off scott-free though. That would be a stretch.

Germany ascribes to the principle that heavier, faster vehicles have a duty of care towards more vulnerable road users, and this duty of care precedes any specific road regulations.

I like the idea, but I think the example they gave was more of an example of how such a law could be abused. If the cyclist is running the wrong way - why should the car be at fault?

Also we all know that a bicycle is more maneuverable than an automobile, so how anybody can think that the car should be more responsible for avoiding the accident is beyond me.

The cars not actually at fault I don't think. He did contribute to the collision because he sees the biker coming.... doesn't stop, when he can, and hits the biker. If he'd hit the brakes let the biker by then all would have been fine no? I know it's a stretch to our mind set here but it really does make everyone in the food chain responsible. If I wade into a play ground of little kids should the parents get theirs kids out of my way or should I just step on them until I get to my child? No I gingerly step around the little ones. Group responsibility, shared safety, collective sense of duty towards caring for other people. Whatever could be wrong with that?

I like the idea, but I think the example they gave was more of an example of how such a law could be abused. If the cyclist is running the wrong way - why should the car be at fault?

Also we all know that a bicycle is more maneuverable than an automobile, so how anybody can think that the car should be more responsible for avoiding the accident is beyond me.

How about at least equally responsible... right now there doesn't even seem to be equality.

But frankly I can also go along with motorist, driving a heavier vehicle, having more responsibility for their actions. Chose your ride, and the responsibilites therein.

As far as a wrong way cyclist... at that moment, they are in violation, therefore at risk.

But why should any rightway cyclist not have at least equality with a motorist. By law they do, but by assumption (of many motorists in the US) they do not. We also have precident in this country for motorists having greater responsiblity... as in the case of pedestrians...

I'm just saying, if somebody rides head on into a train...
There's not a lot of info given here other than the cyclist was going the wrong way - at least in the quote.
The article states that the car was coming from a driveway, my guess is that neither car nor cyclist saw eachother until they were on top of eachother. If that is the case, then I assume it would make sense for them to favour the bicycle over the car. However the driver may have been expecting a bicycle to come from the other (proper) direction and not expected one to be travelling the wrong way - in which case the cyclist I feel would be more responsible for the accident than the car driver.

^^^^^always look both ways^^^^^
Simple drivers responsble, he was not on the roadway if he was in a driveway.
Even if the biker was going the wrong way in the bike lane.

I've never seen a ped manage to destroy a car on impact and kill the driver. Thus the idea that MAYBE the driver should be a little more aware and careful of what's going on around him. I agree it's a great idea, but man it would sooo hard to apply that here in NA, where it's Mc'Ds fault you burned your lap with hot coffee because it didn't have a warning label.

I'm just saying, if somebody rides head on into a train...
There's not a lot of info given here other than the cyclist was going the wrong way - at least in the quote.
The article states that the car was coming from a driveway, my guess is that neither car nor cyclist saw eachother until they were on top of eachother. If that is the case, then I assume it would make sense for them to favour the bicycle over the car. However the driver may have been expecting a bicycle to come from the other (proper) direction and not expected one to be travelling the wrong way - in which case the cyclist I feel would be more responsible for the accident than the car driver.


+1

The cars are always driving up my one way street the wrong way, if I look only one way before stepping and all I had to do was look the other way to not get into it at all, shouldn't I? Or it's ok for me to step off having only looked in the direction the cars "by law" are supposed to come? Having read that it sounds completely stupid doesn't it? I haven't show due diligence, or any form of intelligence in that regard. I think the judgement is to show the need for reason and levelheadedness all around. To hit someone entering the road, means you didn't look, and it honestly shouldn't matter which direction the bike came from. Did the biker get off completly? I do think he should get a fine/ticket. I think the judgments are trying to get people to think about something beyond their fingertips and letting the populace get on with being a society as opposed to a bunch of people running around in their own wheels. We are more than autonomous individuals.

The article doesn't say whether or not cyclist was held responsible in any way. Just that the car driver had to pay her for damages. I'm just assuming she got off scott-free.

As for the accident, say the driver had looked both ways, and the accident had been completely avoided - the cyclist would still have been going the wrong way. Regardless of what had happened, they're still the one making the biggest mistake in this situation.

The idea that drivers should be penalized more severely when they hit cyclists . . . :)

Sort of like a hate crime? Seems like negligent homicide, for instance, already must have severe penalties. :)

^^to MOS6502's post)^^
Absolutely.... no question and if the police had seen him he'd have been fined for it no doubt (I hope he was fined large anyway). As well he's risking being killed. (not an excuse) Doesn't give the driver the right to not be-careful, ever. I've stopped right in the middle of the road for drunkin' peds before, waited and then continued on. I have a ton and a half of responsibility at my fingertips everytime I get behind the wheel.

^^to MOS6502's post)^^
Absolutely.... no question and if the police had seen him he'd have been fined for it no doubt (I hope he was fined large anyway). As well he's risking being killed. (not an excuse) Doesn't give the driver the right to not be-careful, ever. I've stopped right in the middle of the road for drunkin' peds before, waited and then continued on. I have a ton and a half of responsibility at my fingertips everytime I get behind the wheel.


The article doesn't say if the driver looked both ways, if the was an obstruction preventing him from seeing the cyclist or anything else. I think you are assumeing alot to defend your position. Bottom line for me, if the cyclist doens't care enough about their own safety to ride with traffic and be safe it is their fault if they get in an accident, not the other persons fault they didn't see the doing something stupid.

Regardless of fault, cyclists are 400 to 500 times more likely to be injured in a car - bicycle crash than a motorist. The German model makes total sense to me, and I wish it were the law of the land in the USA.

The article doesn't say if the driver looked both ways, if the was an obstruction preventing him from seeing the cyclist or anything else. I think you are assumeing alot to defend your position. Bottom line for me, if the cyclist doens't care enough about their own safety to ride with traffic and be safe it is their fault if they get in an accident, not the other persons fault they didn't see the doing something stupid.

It simply doesn't matter what the biker was doing, when entering a roadway you HAVE to look in all directions to make sure your entry to traffic is a safe one. I think this is the jist of the judgement. This takes no responsibility off the biker, and I hope being hit by a car was a bit of a wake up. A ton of car vs. a few pounds of bike. I'm trying not to make crazy assumptions, but I drive as well and I've entered roadways with all manner of obstacles. There is no excuse period....if you're driving carefully all be be well. Coming out of a driveway and you nail someone? Not safe driving at all. One of the assumptions I do make when I drive however is that anything can happen from any direction and I'd better be ready, but that's just me and I've been trained as a defensive driver.

I drove a truck for 7years and I always took the resposibility that many tons generally crushes 1 or 2 tons into tiny lumps of unrecognizable metal. Even when the fragile little cars were exhibiting ******** behaviour, which was frequently.

It's interesting to note that many smaller vehicle drivers would think aggresive truckers are bullies and laws need to be passed, etc while never seeing themselves in that role while they're dealing with peds and cyclists.

Az

I drove a truck for 7years and I always took the resposibility that many tons generally crushes 1 or 2 tons into tiny lumps of unrecognizable metal. Even when the fragile little cars were exhibiting ******** behaviour, which was frequently.

It's interesting to note that many smaller vehicle drivers would think aggresive truckers are bullies and laws need to be passed, etc while never seeing themselves in that role while they're dealing with peds and cyclists.

Az

That sums it up for me. Thanks.

On investigation in many accidents there is not always 100% fault to one party and 0% to the other. It can be apportioned between the parties, even if not in a strict mathematical sense. As a juror in a civil suit, and a cyclist, I would certainly take it into consideration if the cyclist was riding the wrong way.

And there is a sniff of hypocrisy here, too. Aren't bikes supposed to be vehicles? Yet who is the first one to claim that they are 'small and vulnerable and so people should look out for us?'

roughstuff

Regardless of fault, cyclists are 400 to 500 times more likely to be injured in a car - bicycle crash than a motorist. The German model makes total sense to me, and I wish it were the law of the land in the USA.

It makes no sense at all Randya. I'll bet there are just as many idiot cyclists on the road as idiot drivers.

In Japan the law is that a motor vehicle is always responsible in a crash with a bike as well. I collided head on with a car that had come to a COMPLETE STOP, and I am sorry but it was 100% my fault, since my brakes did not work in the pouring rain. (I was going down a hill on a narrow, soaking wet road.)

I knew exactly what the law said...in fact, I could have easily gotten a cash settlement from his insurance company for many thousands of dollars. All I asked him to do was replace my front wheel, which he did....gladly, as you can imagine. We never even reported the accident...which I have to admit was probably not a good idea. (After all, i could have been more injured than I thought).


roughstuff

A vehicle is a vehicle. Given the logic of holding motor vehicle drivers to stiffer penalties in a crash with a cyclist makes no sense. I agree that penalties should be stiffer in crashes that result in injury or death, but that should be across the board, regardless of the type of vehicle.

Yes, even if the cyclist is found to be at fault and injures only himself. Then the cyclist should face the penalties, careless, wreckless, failure to yield, whatever applies.

This is getting too tied up in "fault". I think what was really intended is that if a driver can avoid a collision, he should, even if he's doing nothing wrong.
If you see a toddler walking into the road in front of you, it's not your fault if you hit him, but since you have time to slow down to avoid hitting him, you're expected to.

I've seen plenty of collision reports right here on BF where the cyclist was not at fault, but was still reprimanded for "not taking any action to avoid the collision" and therefore the motorist got less or no punishment. It makes sense to me that if a cyclist is doing something wrong, and a motorist CAN slow/move to avoid a collision, they should.

Talk to train engineers sometime about fault and big vs little vehicles. Those guys go through psych evaluations and therapy because of all the morons doing stupid stuff that they see turned into a red paste under their wheels. It's not "their fault" but I'm certain they'd be thrilled to even be ABLE to do something to avoid the collision.

A vehicle is a vehicle.

lol

An impeccable tautology and completely nonsensical. A Hummer is not a Metro is not an Insight is not a bicycle.

It makes no sense at all Randya. I'll bet there are just as many idiot cyclists on the road as idiot drivers.

But one set of idiots is inside a steel machines weighing a thousand or so pounds and the other is on a 25 pound bikes. The law is not about stupidity; it's about avoiding dire consequences.

I still maintain that I think the idea trying to be driven home in Germany is that you as a member of society, share in the responsibility of using the roadways. The more potential damage you can do, the greater you're responsibility. They try to get that into people's heads here by say only allowing long haulers to drive a certain number of hours. It's not that the hauler can get hurt as one person, god forbid, if he falls asleep, but a truck crossing four lanes of traffic could kill dozens. When I'm on my bike and a ped steps in front, it's part of my responsibility to avoid. Not smack the ped down and claim "his fault for stepping into traffic". If I can avoid it, within reason, it's my responsibility, by law. This driver was judged not to have shown due diligence when pulling out of his driveway, it's pretty simple.

We all have to look out for each other.

We all have to look out for each other.

Dude, that is the best statement I've seen here on BF. :beer:

A vehicle is a vehicle. Given the logic of holding motor vehicle drivers to stiffer penalties in a crash with a cyclist makes no sense. I agree that penalties should be stiffer in crashes that result in injury or death, but that should be across the board, regardless of the type of vehicle.

Yes, even if the cyclist is found to be at fault and injures only himself. Then the cyclist should face the penalties, careless, wreckless, failure to yield, whatever applies.

You mean the logic of holding an operator of a 3000 pound, 100 horsepower, steel skinned vehicle more responsible for their actions with regard to a 200 pound human powered device just doesn't make sense to you? Yet we do hold drivers to a different standard when facing pedestrians.

The boating community readily recognizes the differences in their vehicles... motorboats must give way to sailing boats, regardless of size. (there is a caveat there... any boat restricted in movement by size does not have to give way -- rule 9).

You mean the logic of holding an operator of a 3000 pound, 100 horsepower, steel skinned vehicle more responsible for their actions with regard to a 200 pound human powered device just doesn't make sense to you? Yet we do hold drivers to a different standard when facing pedestrians.

The boating community readily recognizes the differences in their vehicles... motorboats must give way to sailing boats, regardless of size. (there is a caveat there... any boat restricted in movement by size does not have to give way -- rule 9).

That would be boats so huge they block out the sun....vis-a-vis super tankers, two floating city blocks.
Like riding your bike into the side of a moving building. If you expect one of those puppies to carve around week-end dingy floaters...... ain't gonna happen.
Luckily there is nothing that monstrous on our roads save possibly the super long load house haulers.

Dude, that is the best statement I've seen here on BF. :beer:

And it would be a keen statement if all users of a road believed it... but unfortunatly too many drivers believe they own the road and that "bikes are supposed to get out of the way."

This is further compounded by motorists that don't even realize that cyclists have the same rights to the streets as motorists.

Equality would be great, if all parties really believed.

This is getting too tied up in "fault". I think what was really intended is that if a driver can avoid a collision, he should, even if he's doing nothing wrong.


I don't think we are getting too tied up in 'fault' at all.

For example, the Spiegel reports that in a recent court decision, the driver of a car involved in a collision with a cyclist riding the wrong way down a cycle lane was found responsible for damages.

I think every driver of any vehicle makes a reasonable effort to avoid a crash if it is possible, even if they are not doing anything wrong. Its part of the criteria judges (and juries, if instructed) can use to apportion the 'fault' of the parties in the crash. The two concepts are inseparable.

roughstuff

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1640/reveen2kj.jpg
You WILL believe.....con-cen-trate.

But one set of idiots is inside a steel machine weighing a thousand or so pounds and the other is on a 25 pound bike. The law is not about stupidity; it's about avoiding dire consequences.


Size matters! :)

True. But I am sorry...if a cyclist runs a traffic light and gets clocked and killed by a motorist who jammed on his brakes but still skidded into him or her, as a juror and as a cyclist I am not going to hold the driver of the car responsible (or, horrors, that word again, at fault.) The dire consequences were in part due to the fact that the cyclist chose to ride a vehicle that is smaller, lighter, and without the safety features that larger vehicles have.

roughstuff

^^^gotta agree with that^^^^^
The situation above has the driver doing what he can to avoid, so he's totally off the hook.
Now if he never hit the brake because he was a motorist with a green then it would be different.

Luckily there is nothing that monstrous on our roads save possibly the super long load house haulers.

Or if you happen to work at or bike through a strip mine...

http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/C1276349108/E266581637/Media/Caterpillar%20mining%20truck.jpg

:lol: ^^^^ true true ^^^^
The truck wins....he don't have to look

Size matters! :)

True. But I am sorry...if a cyclist runs a traffic light and gets clocked and killed by a motorist who jammed on his brakes but still skidded into him or her, as a juror and as a cyclist I am not going to hold the driver of the car responsible (or, horrors, that word again, at fault.)

That sounds fine, assuming there's no liability for the city (for example, for not having the light adjusted for cyclists) or for other parties.


The dire consequences were in part due to the fact that the cyclist chose to ride a vehicle that is smaller, lighter, and without the safety features that larger vehicles have.

This part is wrong. Or it's wrong if you believe cyclists should be able to use the roads as cars do.

Size matters! :)

True. But I am sorry...if a cyclist runs a traffic light and gets clocked and killed by a motorist who jammed on his brakes but still skidded into him or her, as a juror and as a cyclist I am not going to hold the driver of the car responsible (or, horrors, that word again, at fault.) The dire consequences were in part due to the fact that the cyclist chose to ride a vehicle that is smaller, lighter, and without the safety features that larger vehicles have.

roughstuff

Look I agree with your statement that a law breaking cyclist has no more rights than anyone else, but the second half of your statement gets into "might makes right."

So in your mind if I chose to drive a smaller car or even a bike, then there is no "reward" for that effort. But if I chose to drive a huge beheomth SUV, then I am "rewarded," in spite of the extra wear and tear on the roads it causes, in spite of the extra pollution it causes.

All I am asking for is that motorists be held responsible for the potential damages their large, larger and largest vehicles can cause.

A pedestrian crossing against a red light has no special rights here in the US, but that pedestrian does have right of way with regard to any legal conflict with a motor vehicle. I would like to see that same application toward cyclists.

The most conflicts I notice are right on red motorists. I saw a motorist slam on their brakes yesterday for a lady in the crosswalk. The light was red for the motorist, yet, they were gonna roll right through the thing like so many do. The older woman walker was right at the fender of the car before the motorist actually stopped... with the whole car heaving forward in the obvious effort. Had that motorist come to a complete stop in the first place, and actually looked... there would not have been a near collision.

Too many motorists are just assuming they have right of way (often empowered by their super large vehicles) and they just bully along.

Size matters!

So what is your conclusion? That a driver of a Ford Excursion is smarter and safer than a bicyclist? And since he has less risk of injury to himself, that he can disregard others who choose not to travel as he does? Also, since he has such a big vehicle, that he can drive less safely amongst others because he's protected himself from his own stupidity?

In regards to the several letters above, my argument is simple. Some vehicles on the road are safer than others....my volvo is safer than a motorcycle, and the new VW 'bugs' are safer than the old VW bugs. Before you get on the road, you should be aware of this. You KNOW that accidents are bound to happen, so please be aware of the risks.

If, in a moment of neglect or distraction, you run a light or drift into an adjacent lane, the consequences are going to vary widely depending on the vehicle that you are riding.

roughstuff

So in your mind if I chose to drive a smaller car or even a bike, then there is no "reward" for that effort. But if I chose to drive a huge beheomth SUV, then I am "rewarded," in spite of the extra wear and tear on the roads it causes, in spite of the extra pollution it causes.



I don't see the word 'reward' coming in at all. To me there are tradeoffs. I ride a bike, its healthy, uses less hydrocarbons, more maneuverable, and quieter so I can hear the chirping birds. I ride a bike, it is lighter, I have no active or passive restraint systems, and I am more vulnerable to hassles (for example, annoying dogs).

I take my volvo, i am more sheltered from the weather, more protected by the frame and technology, and can listen to Rush Limbaugh on my FM radio. :) I take my volvo, i have to use alot more fossil fuels, more wear and tear on the engine, and considerably less maneuverability.

roughstuff

How about this for a list of practical common sense "gee why not" laws:

A "3 foot law..." several states already have this, so there is precedent there.

A no harasment law. Several states already have road rage laws, and a couple even have no harassment laws. Extend or add these laws to cover cyclists.

How about making motorists responsible for right hooks and left hooks. No more "gee I didn't see the cyclist." "Gee, I didn't see the cyclist" translates to "I failed to check if I had the right of way." Bam... motorist responsible.

And last, and this one is going to be a bit controversial... as it involves bike lanes. The commentary usually stated is that bike lanes don't make cyclists safer... well how about making bike lanes a safe zone. Any otherwise law abiding cyclist hit in a bike lane by a motorist... and the guilt automatically goes to the motorist. One reason for bike lanes is that they smooth the flow of traffic for motorists... fine, if BL are for motorists, and cyclists are going to use them, then give them special treatment, instead of "ghettoizing" them.

Now this does not mean that cyclists will have to ride in Bike Lanes, but it does add "power" to the lines.

As far as the "reward" aspect of cycling verses motoring... it goes beyond tradoffs. There was a law on the books that gave special tax incentive to business owners for buying 6000 pound vehicles... I'd call that a heafty "reward." And ever try to claim milage for your bicycle in your taxes. Bottom line is there are "rewards" given to motorists, that cyclists don't get... and yet we "contribute" by reducing the congestion by number of cars on the road, by making one more parking space available, by using very very little oil, by not polluting, and causing far less wear and tear on the roads. I think all those "tradeoffs" deserve a bit of "incentivising," if nothing more than more protective laws.

As far as the "reward" aspect of cycling verses motoring... it goes beyond tradoffs. There was a law on the books that gave special tax incentive to business owners for buying 6000 pound vehicles... I'd call that a heafty "reward." And ever try to claim milage for your bicycle in your taxes. Bottom line is there are "rewards" given to motorists, that cyclists don't get... and yet we "contribute" by reducing the congestion by number of cars on the road, by making one more parking space available, by using very very little oil, by not polluting, and causing far less wear and tear on the roads. I think all those "tradeoffs" deserve a bit of "incentivising," if nothing more than more protective laws.

I don't disagree with any of those ideas, and i like your extension of the issue into this 'larger context.' Still, my comment focused on tradeoffs between safety and convenience; not different treatment by the IRS.

And you are focusing on only one subset of features about cars. Automobile drivers must buy collisions and other insurance. Should cyclists have to do that? Automobile drivers have to wear seatbelts and have numerous safety features standard in their vehicles. Should cyclists have to do that?

Where would we put the air bags! :)


roughstuff

I agree with the German law and wish it was in effect here in the USA.

i couldn't agree more genec.

My response to the rest of the thread...

If I carry around a gun, I have responsibilities for using it properly. If I hurt someone, I'm subject to penalty. If I carry around an automatic rifle, the penalty goes up, etc.

If I drive a 1000 lb vehicle, I have some responsibility. If I drive a 4000 lb vehicle, I have more of a responsibility for using it properly. If I drive a huge truck, I have even more of a responsibility. In the U.S., we recognize the extreme, by limiting the commercial truck driver to 10 hrs a day, zero tolerance for alcohol, and stricter adherence to the laws. I'm all for extending this onus of responsibility to the huge trucks that people are driving around these days as personal vehicles. The bumper height mismatch issue is also something that really ought to be addressed.