Advocacy & Safety - Responsibility

It seems to me when you watch the news or read the paper, certain vulnerable road users get more respect than others after they've been hit. A child pedestrian who gets hit will get much more sympathy and respect than an adult cyclist who gets hit, no matter who is at fault. It seems if a driver hits a child pedestrian the driver is automatically blamed for the accident 99% of the time, if a driver hits an adult cyclist the cyclist is automatically blamed for the accident 99% of the time.

Drivers shame/blame:

Child pedestrian
Adult pedestrian
Child cyclist
Adult cyclist

If a driver hits a child pedestrian he's much more likely to be blamed for the accident than if he hits an adult cyclist. If a driver hits an adult pedestrian he's much more likely to be blamed for it than if he hits a child cyclist (I think). If driver hits a child cyclist he's much more likely to be held at fault than if he hits an adult cylist (I think).

Questions:
What percentage of drivers who hit adult pedestrians and what percentage of drivers who hit child cyclists would you guess are held responsible for the accidents?

Where do elderly pedestrians and elderly cyclists fit in? Do drivers who hit the elderly face as much blame as drivers who hit children or adults?

I don't think I perceive it the same way. It seems to me that the driver gets the full blame unless witnesses, or perhaps tread marks, point at the cyclist/pedestrian as the culprit.

The trouble as I see it lies in just how guilty the driver is judged to be. Too many times, it seems, the driver is seen to be not guilty of any malice. But it seems to me that plain old indifference equates with malice when the perpetrator is in a two ton vehicle and the victim the victim is unprotected.

It's a driver's responsibility to see to it that he/she doesn't hit anything, anything at all, that might be in the road. If that "object" happens to be a person, then hitting them should be viewed as a crime roughly along the same lines as firing a weapon in the course of a robbery, at least.

It seems to me that in the various sorts of collisions that you've mentioned the driver's are assigned roughly equal blame. i.e.: not enough.

The key point for me is that I am responsible for my own actions.

Maybe this might be why hitting an adult cyclist is not looked at the same way as hitting a kid on a bike

(I think some people treat elderly people the same way they treat kids so...)

you can't blame a kid for being a kid and adults should be responsible for their actions.

A peds vulnerability is cause for greater concern but an adult should take greater care for his/her own responsibility while being vulnerable.

No one appreciates what they cannot relate to and adults on bikes is something many people can't understand, let alone relate to.

If a motorist hits a cyclist, the motorist figures it's the cyclists fault because not only shouldn't the adult be on a bike, he/she shouldn't be in his/her way and who wants to take the blame if you can throw it onto someone else?

I think how often people are held to their responsibility is how often people know how to present a case well. It doesn't matter who's to blame if the innocent party can't present a decent case (as when the cyclist has been killed and there are no witnesses - "He unexpectedly swerved out in front of me!")

Usually the blame instantly goes to the driver of the car at least the way it is reported around here. If that changes they hide it in a small article later on.

Part of me feels its not fair, but I also feel if it gets people to notice cyclists more and "fear" hitting one for being blamed (pretty sad that its gotta get to people fearing more for themselves than others) then it will make the roads safer for people on bikes.

It seems to me when you watch the news or read the paper, certain vulnerable road users get more respect than others after they've been hit. A child pedestrian who gets hit will get much more sympathy and respect than an adult cyclist who gets hit, no matter who is at fault. It seems if a driver hits a child pedestrian the driver is automatically blamed for the accident 99% of the time, if a driver hits an adult cyclist the cyclist is automatically blamed for the accident 99% of the time.

Drivers shame/blame:

Child pedestrian
Adult pedestrian
Child cyclist
Adult cyclist

If a driver hits a child pedestrian he's much more likely to be blamed for the accident than if he hits an adult cyclist. If a driver hits an adult pedestrian he's much more likely to be blamed for it than if he hits a child cyclist (I think). If driver hits a child cyclist he's much more likely to be held at fault than if he hits an adult cylist (I think).

Questions:
What percentage of drivers who hit adult pedestrians and what percentage of drivers who hit child cyclists would you guess are held responsible for the accidents?

Where do elderly pedestrians and elderly cyclists fit in? Do drivers who hit the elderly face as much blame as drivers who hit children or adults?

Psssst! Let me let you in on a little secret. Don't tell anyone, but there are a significant number of car drivers that have an absolute hatred for bicyclists. They don't believe cyclists have any right to be on the road.

There are also many, I would say the majority, that believe cyclists are insane for riding on the road and those people therefore have very little sympathy for a cyclist who gets hit because they believe its the cyclists fault for riding a bike in such a dangerous environment.

So with the pervasive attitude of drivers, little wonder that people care more about little Johnny getting run over as he walks across the street than some "crazy cyclist."

People always care more when something happens to a kid than when it happens to an adult...why should it be any different in cycling?