Advocacy & Safety - Assigning fault in accidents with cars

Like many here, I'm often disgusted with the lack of consequences for reckless, aggressive or careless drivers in the US. From some posts here (i.e., not from personal experience) I've gathered that there is a different attitude across the pond. I have a hard time accepting that cars should ALWAYS be at fault, which I think is the case in some European countries, when hitting a ped or cyclist. Because it is sometimes impossible for police to determine who was at fault, I think that those countries have the right attitude, even if it is hard for me to swallow. I think it was Peter Parker's uncle who said, 'with great power comes great responsibility' ;)

With that quote in mind, I think car drivers (and I am a driver as well, and would be willing to accept this) should bear the brunt of responsibility in almost every accident with a ped or cyclist. Since I'm not crafting any real policy here, I don't want to list exceptions; and, in fact, I believe exceptions would screw the whole thing up. So, in EVERY accident with peds/cyclists, the car driver should be responsible.

Car drivers get away with far too much, as I'm sure most of us would agree. I believe the only way to reverse this trend is to go to the complete opposite: let them get away with nothing. This isn't meant to discourage driving or to demonize drivers, but to force those of us who drive into paying absolute attention and to remind the public of the sheer power of the automobile.

There are two systems in the US that deal with a cycling accident, the criminal (traffic) and the civil system. So it depends on which system we are talking about when car driver liability is assessed.

In the criminal system it tends to be pretty cut and dried, based exclusively on right of way. If the car has the right of way and hits a bicycle, he is absolved of criminal/traffic liability. Even if he could have avoided the collission, he is absolved. And even if the driver violated the right of way, he is usually only responsible for a minor traffic violation unless there is an aggravating circumstance like alcohol, gross negligence, road rage, deliberate indifference etc, before any criminal penalties are actually assesed. This is because in the criminal/trafic system, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the culpability of the defendant.

A civil suit is completely different because the plaintiff just has to prove his/her case by a preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard. So in the same collission where the driver did not get convicted of violating the right of way in the criminal case, a jury can come back and say he was negligent and award damages to the cyclist, even though he was acquitted in the crimal case.

The classic example illustrating the difference between civil and criminal/traffic courts are the OJ Simpson trials. A criminal jury found that he didn't committ the murders (actually that the state didn't prove its case) while a civil jury found that he did committ the killings.

I think in general the system is pretty fair. In egregious cases, the driver goes to jail and then its guaranteed a money damages judgement is entered against him.

In not so egregious cases, the driver doesn't go to jail, but then gets nailed with a big judgement against him.

Since the ped/biker is much more vulnerable in accident, it would be a reasonable protection to assign fault to the operator of a car. But, also in the case of a bike/ped accident, the fault should then be assigned to a the bike.

So, in EVERY accident with peds/cyclists, the car driver should be responsible.

Last night at approximately 11:30 PM, as I was driving down a poorly lit residential street, two cyclists darted out from between two parked cars and rode directly in front of me. Neither cyclist had a light, or a helmet. I did not hit them because I was traveling slowly and saw them in time to brake. But let's suppose, purely as a hypothetical, that one of those cyclists had been hit as he rode in front of me, and the other ran into the side of my car, was catapulted across my hood, and suffered a serious head injury when he landed on the other side. Why, in this hypothetical example, should the injuries to either cyclist automatically be my responsibility? Why should all motorists have to subsidize, through increased insurance premiums, the cost of injuries that are the direct result of grossly negligent cyclists?

Perhaps an incentive that's less one-sided would be to simply shift the burdens of production and proof to the motorist always. In your example, you would be liable unless you could show you weren't at fault. A subtle but important viewpoint.

Last night at approximately 11:30 PM, as I was driving down a poorly lit residential street, two cyclists darted out from between two parked cars and rode directly in front of me. Neither cyclist had a light, or a helmet. I did not hit them because I was traveling slowly and saw them in time to brake. But let's suppose, purely as a hypothetical, that one of those cyclists had been hit as he rode in front of me, and the other ran into the side of my car, was catapulted across my hood, and suffered a serious head injury when he landed on the other side. Why, in this hypothetical example, should the injuries to either cyclist automatically be my responsibility? Why should all motorists have to subsidize, through increased insurance premiums, the cost of injuries that are the direct result of grossly negligent cyclists?

Simply because the car holds more power. I know you can throw countless hypos out to say the driver shouldn't be punished for this, this, and this; but by punishing the driver in every case, you foster the belief that the community is more important than the individual (an ideal that many Americans shudder at). Of course this type of law would not be accepted and will probably never be in place; but how do you propose we deal with this situation of motorists getting away with hitting law-abiding cyclists or peds, and then saying 'I didn't see him!' This is a problem. Browse through the forums or the newspapers and you will see that, although that is anecdotal evidence.

Those who have more power should bear more responsibility. Do you agree with this in theory, applied to the hierarchy of cars / bikes / peds?

And yes, I agree that if a bike and ped are involved, the bike would be responsible under this system.

"Fault" is not a function of the type of vehicle, power of the vehicle or the damage it can do...fault is a function of the ACTIONS and/or intent of the operator, whether they be operating a car, bike or themselves. Assigning fault to the automobile by default is about the goofiest thing I have ever heard.

"Like many here, I'm often disgusted with the lack of consequences for reckless, aggressive or careless drivers in the US...."

Find some similar law that's been proposed here in the US--I think I read somewhere around here that a "Vulnerable Road Users" bill had been introduced in Ohio?--and get in touch with your own state rep about bringing the same kind of law up for vote next legislative session. If not your own rep, any cycling/pedestrian/motorcycling-ally in the State Capital will do. Bills are introduced in the early winter, so you have about 3 months to get your act together, or wait until next year. A winning strategy would also be to find a young person who died riding and see if the parents are willing to have a bill named after their lost offspring.

"Fault" is not a function of the type of vehicle, power of the vehicle or the damage it can do...fault is a function of the ACTIONS and/or intent of the operator, whether they be operating a car, bike or themselves. Assigning fault to the automobile by default is about the goofiest thing I have ever heard.

In my OP I was a little braindead, I think, because all along I was missing my own point. I was daydreaming about Europe and missing a key point: burden of proof, which was brought up here.

I don't think assigning the burden of proof to the driver is goofy, and you might agree with that statement. However, the goofiest thing I have ever heard is a driver getting off the hook for injuries or manslaughter because they didn't see a ped or cyclist (or another car).

I think before we start proposing a bunch of new laws, the biggest problem is a lack of awareness in juries and officers.

Right now it seems to start from "the cyclist should not have been in the road, and if he chose to engage in this risky behavior we should not penalize the motorist too badly", and deteriorates from there.

If we could educate the public through ad campaigns, billboards, and just plain word of mouth, that "bikes belong in the middle of the lane quite often" I think the enforcement (And the entire bicycling experience) would change for the better.

Always blame the driver? What kind of nonsense is that? Where is the common sense in that? One of the most hare-brained ideas I've ever seen on this forum.

In my OP I was a little braindead, I think, because all along I was missing my own point. I was daydreaming about Europe and missing a key point: burden of proof, which was brought up here.

I don't think assigning the burden of proof to the driver is goofy, and you might agree with that statement. However, the goofiest thing I have ever heard is a driver getting off the hook for injuries or manslaughter because they didn't see a ped or cyclist (or another car).

You DO know that cell phones disable windows, mirrors and turn signals, right?

"Fault" is not a function of the type of vehicle, power of the vehicle or the damage it can do...fault is a function of the ACTIONS and/or intent of the operator, whether they be operating a car, bike or themselves. Assigning fault to the automobile by default is about the goofiest thing I have ever heard.

I think accelerating several tons of metal to tens of miles per hour qualifies as an action...and a very dangerous one at that, especially when done in mass (as is evidenced by the fact that it is one of the top causes of death in America today).


Always blame the driver? What kind of nonsense is that? Where is the common sense in that? One of the most hare-brained ideas I've ever seen on this forum.

Why not? If drunk drivers always get blamed then why should road users engaging in other behavior which greatly increases the risk of harm to others get off the hook? Surely vehicle momentum is far more correlated to road deaths than BAC.

Surely vehicle momentum is far more correlated to road deaths than BAC.

So, in any accident involving a truck and a car, would you automatically hold the truck driver responsible, regardless of fault?

What about accidents involving trucks and trains? Would you automatically hold the train operator responsible, regardless of fault?

So, in any accident involving a truck and a car, would you automatically hold the truck driver responsible, regardless of fault?

What about accidents involving trucks and trains? Would you automatically hold the train operator responsible, regardless of fault?

Well, in an "accident" between a drunk and sober driver would you automatically absolve the drunkard of responsibility if he just so happened to be operating in an otherwise legal manner at the moment of collision or would you hold him responsible for the inherent danger he created when he got behind the wheel?

If every road user obeyed every regulation to the letter of the law, then I could maybe see having motorists bear the brunt of responsibility in the event of a collision. As things stand with all road users following or breaking the law as is convenient for the individual, then no, there is no viable reason to hold one group any more responsible than another.

If a cyclist decides to run a red light and a collision results, there is no way a the motorist should share any fault at all, unless they did something equal.

What I can get behind is more stringent enforcement and penalties for all road users across the board, and making fines a percentage of a person's net annual household income. Regardless of a person's chosen vehicle type.

In Denmark you have to try pretty hard to hit a cyclist in a car and not be at fault. Cyclists have their own paths, and on the roads some parts are painted blue to give the car drivers more assistance in recognising a cyclist could be there.

Yet, cars still hit cyclists. I've actually yet to see an accident where the car driver didn't know a cyclist was there. Often car drivers drive into cyclists because it's a power thing. They're in a bigger vehicle, so it won't hurt them, so they think the cyclist will stop for them, or they push the cyclist from the road, often just for the fun of it, reckoning no one will come forward with a complaint.

Well, in an "accident" between a drunk and sober driver would you automatically absolve the drunkard of responsibility if he just so happened to be operating in an otherwise legal manner at the moment of collision or would you hold him responsible for the inherent danger he created when he got behind the wheel?

This is a red herring. "Absolving the drunkard of responsibility" and "determining the drunk driver to be at fault" are two separate issues. If the intoxicated driver could show that he was not at fault, then he should not be responsible for the accident. He is still "responsible" for driving while intoxicated, however, which is a criminal offense and he should be prosecuted for that offense.

For example, suppose an intoxicated driver were sitting a red light when he was rear-ended by a sober driver. Five independent witnesses confirm that the intoxicated driver was not at fault. In that situation, I would determine that the sober driver who caused the accident was at fault and responsible for the damages arising from the accident. However, that would not "absolve the drunkard of responsibility" for his criminal act of driving while intoxicated. He should still be prosecuted for that offense, lose his license, pay substantial fines and perhaps do jail time.

Now, could you answer my question?

"Fault" is not a function of the type of vehicle, power of the vehicle or the damage it can do...fault is a function of the ACTIONS and/or intent of the operator, whether they be operating a car, bike or themselves. Assigning fault to the automobile by default is about the goofiest thing I have ever heard.

+1

I would just be happy if they would enforce the existing laws.

This guy should not still have a drivers license:

http://austincyclingnews.com/?p=148

The one about the driver being held responsible in a criminal sense is certainly part of French law. In France, you are required, by law, to give a cyclist 2 metres room when overtaking. If you hit one, you are therefore breaking the law unless you can show that the cyclist was behaving in an utterly erratic manner, since even one swerving to avoid an obstacle would be unlikely, in the extreme, to swerve as much as 2m.

A bit similar to being found in someone else's house where door has been forced and you have a bag full of the owner's property. There is still the presumption of innocence, in that the DA would have to prove intent, but, in reality, the burglar would have to provide an extraordinarily good reason for his actions.

I would just be happy if they would enforce the existing laws.

This guy should not still have a drivers license:

http://austincyclingnews.com/?p=148

Unfortunately, they did just that.

The laws are extremely weak in that regard... only if there is a DUI is there generally a prosecution in such a case.

So, in any accident involving a truck and a car, would you automatically hold the truck driver responsible, regardless of fault?

What about accidents involving trucks and trains? Would you automatically hold the train operator responsible, regardless of fault?

1
Yes, SUVs too,
people driving ridiculously oversized vehicles ought to pay a special road/green tax as well...

2
don't be silly, trains run on rails, and trucks run on roads, these are two separate worlds
..next you'll ask about what happens when an oil tanker hits a truck

Simply because the car holds more power. I know you can throw countless hypos out to say the driver shouldn't be punished for this, this, and this; but by punishing the driver in every case, you foster the belief that the community is more important than the individual (an ideal that many Americans shudder at). Of course this type of law would not be accepted and will probably never be in place; but how do you propose we deal with this situation of motorists getting away with hitting law-abiding cyclists or peds, and then saying 'I didn't see him!' This is a problem. Browse through the forums or the newspapers and you will see that, although that is anecdotal evidence.

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?

In his hypothetical example, the two cyclists were NOT law-abiding. Unlit, no helmets, "jaybiking" into the street from between parked cars, riding recklessly -- that's a disaster waiting to happen, and without ANY help needed from the driver to make it worse.

Punishing the driver in every case only gives a false sense of invulnerability to peds & cyclists. That's what DC is stuck with, and I hate it.

I think before we start proposing a bunch of new laws, the biggest problem is a lack of awareness in juries and officers.

Right now it seems to start from "the cyclist should not have been in the road, and if he chose to engage in this risky behavior we should not penalize the motorist too badly", and deteriorates from there.

If we could educate the public through ad campaigns, billboards, and just plain word of mouth, that "bikes belong in the middle of the lane quite often" I think the enforcement (And the entire bicycling experience) would change for the better.

Second that. Unfortunately, in most cases the Law seem not to apply to accidents with bicycles involved. Some examples? If you run a red light or a stop sign and hit a car you get a citation. If you hit the cyclist, many times all that is done is make sure that there are no major injuries and the parties involved are recommended to just solve the matter in private with their insurance companies. THis sort of gives the idea that hitting a cyclist is someway less punishable than hitting another car. It does NOT make sense, but from what I see around here it happens every day. People hit cyclists and they are not even cited, they just refund some damages and that's it.
It is, most of all, lack of education. Most drivers do not know that a bicycle is supposed to behave like a car and to follow the same rules. Many times I hear people reporting that drivers yelled at them to 'get out of the road and ride on the walkway'. That is against the Law, but many do not know. And may times, when the car has a stop sign or a yield sign and a bicycle is on the road with the right of way, the driver assumes that it is allowed to ignore right of way only because the car is faster than the bicycle - so in other words they assume that the more powerful vehicle gives them the right to disobey traffic Laws.
It is a deeply rooted misconception that is very hard to overcome in most places. In many cities, even the Police Officers do not know all the laws pertaining to bicycles - so we go back to lack of education.
Maybe we should start teaching kids when they are young and step on the first bike - hopefully they'll remember when they get a driving license years later!

2
don't be silly, trains run on rails, and trucks run on roads, these are two separate worlds

They are not separate worlds. Collisions between trains and vehicles at grade crossings are not uncommon. This example is no sillier than the original proposal.

Lets put it this way then
Suppose its an Airplane taking off on a runway versus a truck.

Thing is, truck has no business being on the runway.
Just as truck has no business being on the railroad tracks.

So the train vs truck analogy really doesn't fit with the bike vs car or truck vs car situations, since those are all on shared roads, not separate areas like tracks vs road, or runway vs road.

They are not separate worlds. Collisions between trains and vehicles at grade crossings are not uncommon. This example is no sillier than the original proposal.

Yeah but there was no way a train can even try to dodge a truck! :D

I've been mulling this over a bit. The context here is that a car must give a cyclist 3 feet in passing. Cyclists must obey traffic laws. Generally neither party in an accident will acknowledge fault. So the legal system has to address who is responsible for what damage in both civil and criminal worlds.

Criminal - seems the 3 ft rule and other traffic rules of the road would make the auto presumptively at fault in most situations involving impact. That things don't work out this way is generally lack of education and caring on the part of law enforcement. But the main effect of the 3 ft rule, dogs at large, and rules of the road is in the civil world.

Civil - bar is quite lower - preponderance of the evidence. Car and bike collide. Under the rules of the road, most situations make the car presumptively at fault because the impact required violating a law. Negligence per se.

Given that backdrop, considering the motorist at fault and having to defend seems a fairly reasonable way to accommodate the most likely circumstances and provide an incentive to watch out.

In action: smashed bike and dented car at a 4 way stop. Currently in the absence of other evidence it's a wash on the criminal side. And on the civil side. Cyclist has to prove everything to get anything, or her estate does. Putting the burden on the heavy, powerful, insured side doesn't seem unreasonable at all - motorist must demonstrate they weren't at fault.

The various hook scenarios become easier to collect from. Dart outs are still a problem.

Anyway, an interesting thread.

Putting the burden on the heavy, powerful, insured side doesn't seem unreasonable at all - motorist must demonstrate they weren't at fault.

Guilty until proven innocent?

That flies in the face of the most basic tenets that the American legal system is founded on.

Guilty until proven innocent?

That flies in the face of the most basic tenets that the American legal system is founded on.

The guilty till innocent thing is a myth anyway.
Consider if a defandant is poor and can't make bail, he'd be stuck in jail (basically treated as if guilty) till the slow court system gets him tried. It's only innocent till guilty for those with money or power....

So yeah, I don't see putting burden on the powerful insured side as unfair at all. It fits right in with the way things get done in practice...

That's not at all why it works that way. All bail does is help ensure that the person will show up for trial. After being arrested, many people get released on their own recognizance. That's just a promise for the person to be where their supposed to be. Some flee even after posting bail, so it's no guarantee. Some get denied bail if they are determined to be a flight risk.

No, holding one group of people above another is an all around bad idea, and is just wrong. We've already proven that in the history of the U.S., and are still seeing the repercussions.

Yeah but there was no way a train can even try to dodge a truck! :D

My Dad worked as a crane operator in a naval shipyard when I was a kid. He often drove those great big cranes that ran on tracks like a train. There was no way to see anything close behind them from the operator's compartment, so there were all kinds of flashing lights and warning sounds to indicate when they were backing up. One day a driver parked his delivery truck on the tracks just behind Dad's crane and went inside a building; when he came out he found that Dad had backed up and pushed the truck a fair distance down the track without even being aware that it was there. The driver tried to file a complaint, but he was told, "The crane belongs on those tracks, and your truck doesn't. If that crane ever jumps off the tracks and runs down the street to hit your truck, let us know."

This happened in the '60s, when the "Laugh-In" show was on the air, and Dad said the truck had a "Sock it to Me" bumper sticker right next to the point where it was struck by the crane. :roflmao2:

Guilty until proven innocent?

That flies in the face of the most basic tenets that the American legal system is founded on.

Really? I don't think so. I never wrote "guilty." I'm writing about who has the burdens of production and proof. That's a different matter. If you consider that burden "guilt" then we have lots of examples of per se guilt in the legal structure.

Consider any situation where a defendant admits to a crime resulting in injury and the civil plaintiff demands compensation. The defendant has the burden of proof. He's "guilty" until he proves himself innocent in the civil system. Look up negligence per se.

And so on.

In a situation involving negligence per se, the plaintiff still bears the burden of proof. It's just that the burden is easier to meet because the plaintiff need only show that the defendant violated a statute, which creates a presumption of negligence and essentially eliminates the need for the plaintiff to prove one of the four elements of negligence. The presumption doesn't shift the burden of proof; it allows the party who holds that burden to meet it.

What you're describing would be an actual shift in the burden of proof and the creation a rebuttable presumption that the driver is at fault.

To illustrate the difference, take your example of the defendant who admits to a violating a statute, resulting in injury. The civil plaintiff demands compensation. The plaintiff files a civil suit, and in his complaint, he alleges that the defendant violated the statute, the statute is a safety statute, the violation caused the kind of harm the statute was designed to prevent, and the plaintiff was within the zone of risk. (In other words, the plaintiff's complaint alleges all of the required elements of negligence per se.) The case goes to trial, and the plaintiff rests without submitting any evidence. If the burden of proof is on the plaintiff--which it is, even in cases of negligence per se--the trial court would be required to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. If the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant, however, then the plaintiff would be able to rest merely on his allegations, and burden would be on the defendant to present evidence.

Guilty until proven innocent?

That flies in the face of the most basic tenets that the American legal system is founded on.

Really... ever hear of "3 strikes" or "use a gun, go to jail?" There is precedence for "presumed guilty."

The thing is that we are not really talking about "presumed guilty," what we are talking about is shifted responsibility.

The current system has all parties bearing equal responsibility to avoid a collision, yet the motorist with the much larger vehicle has a greater potential for damage. There is no compensation for that potential in either the law or in society. In fact in society, the weight is actually shifted to the cyclist... who is generally viewed as being foolhardy for riding a bike amongst auto traffic. Thus in the case of a collision, the motorist is presumed to be overwhelmed with the burden of remorse, and the cyclist, dead. The motorist is tagged with the fine of failing to yield or some such, and off they go. The cyclist is buried.

Very rarely in the event of a collision between cyclist and motorist is the motorist ever charged with a serious offense... the laws simply are not there and the burden of proof for reckless driving or the like involve intent. Only when alcohol is involved are charges generally brought.

If the responsibility of avoiding a collision was weighted to the motorist, and a collision occurred... the cyclist would still be dead, but the motorist would be punished for failing to prevent the collision. Loss of license and or jail time could be incentive for the motorist to avoid collisions.

Here is a classic case: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/708333.html

His defense: "it was his driving style."

Now if the burden to avoid those cyclists had been on the motorist... perhaps he might have changed lanes to avoid them... But society and the general driving community tend to look at cyclists as bearing the burden, for simply being on the road.

Really... ever hear of "3 strikes" or "use a gun, go to jail?" There is precedence for "presumed guilty."

The three strikes laws are sentencing guidelines. The refer to sentences that are imposed after a defendant is convicted of a crime. They do not presume the defendant to be guilty of that crime.

The three strikes laws are sentencing guidelines. The refer to sentences that are imposed after a defendant is convicted of a crime. They do not presume the defendant to be guilty of that crime.

Use a gun, go to jail.

Use a gun, go to jail.

Another sentencing guideline. Can you point me to any such law that puts a defendant in jail without him first being convicted of a crime involving a gun, in a trial in which there is a presumption of innocence?

Another sentencing guideline. Can you point me to any such law that puts a defendant in jail without him first being convicted of a crime involving a gun, in a trial in which there is a presumption of innocence?

No, and no such thing is being suggested either. OK, you call it a "sentencing guideline..."

And that is all that is suggested for motorists too.

Think of it as: "Hit a cyclist, go to jail."

Go to this link and tell me what you would suggest in this case: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/708333.html

I think before we start proposing a bunch of new laws, the biggest problem is a lack of awareness in juries and officers.

Right now it seems to start from "the cyclist should not have been in the road, and if he chose to engage in this risky behavior we should not penalize the motorist too badly", and deteriorates from there.

If we could educate the public through ad campaigns, billboards, and just plain word of mouth, that "bikes belong in the middle of the lane quite often" I think the enforcement (And the entire bicycling experience) would change for the better.

Lack of awareness won't go away without a stick behind it. "Educating the public" is akin to "herding cats" or "pushing water uphill." Without some punitive measure behind making people listen, they won't. But once there's even one news story about some guy who loses his license for ten years and is in jail for three because he killed a cyclist and was at fault, people will start to get the point...

This approach seemed to be pretty effective regarding drunk driving, don't see how it wouldnt' be equally effective in this case... or rather, I don't see mere education and publicity campaigns being any more effective than the were for drunk driving.

New laws like this don't have to be cycling specific, and probably shouldn't be. A "Vulnerable Road Users" law, like HB4861 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=4861&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=35678&SessionID=51) in IL would cover pedestrians and motorized two wheelers as well, but it could also be expanded into a "Negligent Drivers" law to cover accidents with other cars resulting in injury or death as well. Apparently there are five states considering Vulnerable Road Users laws: Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Vermont, and Iowa.

If you're not in one of these states, consider checking with state-level advocacy groups to see if they are working on introducing such legislation or approaching your own representative about sponsoring such a bill. (Note to self: get on this...)

No, and no such thing is being suggested either. OK, you call it a "sentencing guideline..."

I call it a sentencing guideline because that's what it is. It is not a presumption of guilt, and you incorrectly suggested. In order for the sentencing guideline to be applied, there must first be a conviction. The accused has a right to a trial, in most instances by jury, and in that trial, the state bears the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no presumption that the accused is guilty.


And that is all that is suggested for motorists too.

Think of it as: "Hit a cyclist, go to jail."

And how exactly would that work? How would the law read?


Go to this link and tell me what you would suggest in this case: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/708333.html

First, it is really difficult to make an informed assessment based on the limited facts that appear in that article. We have no idea of how the evidence went in at trial and all of the facts that were available to that jury as it deliberated. The way the facts are presented in the article, it appears that the jury reached the wrong verdict, and if that is the case, it is truly unfortunate. But the fact that the jury system may occasionally allow a guilty man to go free is hardly justification for imposing a system that would substantially increase the likelihood that innocent people go to jail.

Second, notwithstanding the fact that the driver was acquitted of criminal charges, he is still subject to a civil suit for wrongful death.

Perhaps an incentive that's less one-sided would be to simply shift the burdens of production and proof to the motorist always. In your example, you would be liable unless you could show you weren't at fault. A subtle but important viewpoint.


I don't see that flying, since one of the main premises of the American judicial system is "innocent until proven guilty"

-R

I call it a sentencing guideline because that's what it is. It is not a presumption of guilt, and you incorrectly suggested. In order for the sentencing guideline to be applied, there must first be a conviction. The accused has a right to a trial, in most instances by jury, and in that trial, the state bears the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no presumption that the accused is guilty.



And how exactly would that work? How would the law read?



Check with a lawyer or go to Germany or France, where such laws exist and ask them.

The first thing I can think of is laws that mandate 3 feet of space and laws similar to those for pedestrians. On top of that, how about a "sentencing guideline" that says, if you kill a cyclist you go to jail.




First, it is really difficult to make an informed assessment based on the limited facts that appear in that article. We have no idea of how the evidence went in at trial and all of the facts that were available to that jury as it deliberated. The way the facts are presented in the article, it appears that the jury reached the wrong verdict, and if that is the case, it is truly unfortunate. But the fact that the jury system may occasionally allow a guilty man to go free is hardly justification for imposing a system that would substantially increase the likelihood that innocent people go to jail.

Second, notwithstanding the fact that the driver was acquitted of criminal charges, he is still subject to a civil suit for wrongful death.

Provided some family remains and has the monetary means to mount a civil suit.

Some states like Oregon do not even have wrongful death laws pertaining to motorists.

Can you give me a good example of a case where a motorist harmed a cyclist and was tried and convicted in the US... that did not involve alcohol?

Lack of awareness won't go away without a stick behind it. "Educating the public" is akin to "herding cats" or "pushing water uphill." Without some punitive measure behind making people listen, they won't. But once there's even one news story about some guy who loses his license for ten years and is in jail for three because he killed a cyclist and was at fault, people will start to get the point...

This approach seemed to be pretty effective regarding drunk driving, don't see how it wouldnt' be equally effective in this case... or rather, I don't see mere education and publicity campaigns being any more effective than the were for drunk driving.

New laws like this don't have to be cycling specific, and probably shouldn't be. A "Vulnerable Road Users" law, like HB4861 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=4861&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=35678&SessionID=51) in IL would cover pedestrians and motorized two wheelers as well, but it could also be expanded into a "Negligent Drivers" law to cover accidents with other cars resulting in injury or death as well. Apparently there are five states considering Vulnerable Road Users laws: Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Vermont, and Iowa.

If you're not in one of these states, consider checking with state-level advocacy groups to see if they are working on introducing such legislation or approaching your own representative about sponsoring such a bill. (Note to self: get on this...)

One problem with HB 4861 is it still has the burden of "careless or reckless manner." Careless or reckless is subjective, and in a society where the majority tend to drive, the jury will tend to side with the motorist and "insist" that it is cyclists that are in the wrong simply by riding on the road.

Another solution to part of the civil aspects of fault in a car/bicycle collission is simply to make those types of collissions "no fault" and require the car to carry insurance to cover it. Many states, including Florida, have no fault insurance requirements, where each auto has to carry insurance to pay for the medical bills of THAT car's occupants, regardless of fault.

A state could pass a law that the car's insurance has to pay the meds and lost wages up to a certain limit no matter who was at fault, and other damages, pain and suffering, permanent injury, future lost wages, etc would only be assesed if the driver was at fault.

From an actuarial point of view, the additional cost in insurance would be miniscule, since car/bicycle collissions are a tiny fraction of all road collissions and claims in terms of dollar amounts.

..... Since I'm not crafting any real policy here, I don't want to list exceptions; and, in fact, I believe exceptions would screw the whole thing up. So, in EVERY accident with peds/cyclists, the car driver should be responsible.



Stupid idea and I have personal experience with why it should be. In Japan this is the rule. I collided head on with a car when i was riding my bike. The car had come to a complete stop and my brakes, which weren't all that strong anyway, failed to stop me as i came around the bend of a narrow 'road' in the middle of the roadway. My front wheel got crushed, I went over the handlebars, hit the hood, fell off and cracked a rib or two.

Now, since the rule in Japan is the car is always responsible, i probably could have soaked the guys insurance company for a hundred thousand $, or whatever, but I am sorry to say I am not made of that cut of cloth. We worked out a deal where he replaced my front wheel (my frame was intact) and we called it a day.

To suggest that a car should always be responsible when ya have yahoos and drug dealers on bikes dashing in and out of traffic, and critical Mazholes running red lights, etc, is ridiculous. What ya need to accept is that as a rider of a two wheeled vehicle, you are more vulnerable on the roadway than many other users. This is YOUR CHOICE, not theirs.

roughstuff

Like many here, I'm often disgusted with the lack of consequences for reckless, aggressive or careless drivers in the US. From some posts here (i.e., not from personal experience) I've gathered that there is a different attitude across the pond. I have a hard time accepting that cars should ALWAYS be at fault, which I think is the case in some European countries, when hitting a ped or cyclist. Because it is sometimes impossible for police to determine who was at fault, I think that those countries have the right attitude, even if it is hard for me to swallow. I think it was Peter Parker's uncle who said, 'with great power comes great responsibility' ;)



My wife is from Germany. Hasn't been home in a while so things may have changed. But the driver is 'always' at fault. If the bike is in the bike lane. That is far different from always anywhere.

Perhaps an incentive that's less one-sided would be to simply shift the burdens of production and proof to the motorist always. In your example, you would be liable unless you could show you weren't at fault. A subtle but important viewpoint.

So a motorist is guilty until proven innocent? Somehow I don't think that will fly, and rightfully not.

What ya need to accept is that as a rider of a two wheeled vehicle, you are more vulnerable on the roadway than many other users. This is YOUR CHOICE, not theirs.

roughstuff

It is not always someones' choice to not own a car...

That "choice" concept is straight out of a typical "motorist mentality."

There are honestly people that cannot afford a car, insurance and fuel.