Advocacy & Safety - Hit a car

I was going into the left lane, showing that i am changing lanes with my left hand. Since I was looking left, i did not see a hole in the road. So, i rode over it, I lost control of the bike, hit a car that in front and flew over the handlebar:bike2:. I am fine:thumb:, except for huge bruises all over my body.
However, I did break the car's taillight. I think I know the answer to my question, but I am still going to ask it; Do I have to pay for the broken taillight?:o

I was going into the left lane, showing that i am changing lanes with my left hand. Since I was looking left, i did not see a hole in the road. So, i rode over it, I lost control of the bike, hit a car that in front and flew over the handlebar:bike2:. I am fine:thumb:, except for huge bruises all over my body.
However, I did break the car's tale light. I think I know the answer to my question, but I am still going to ask it; Do I have to pay for the broken tale light?:o

If your answer is that yes, you are responsible for paying for the broken taillight, you are right. It's your responsibility to make sure that you can change lanes safely.

good stuff..thanks.. at least it was a honda..

The damaged taillight, from the OP's story, was an unintended consequence of the hole in the road.

You and the driver should contact the city to see about having the insurance company for the road contractor compensate you for any medical supplies and/or care you might have needed as a result of the hole + compensation for resulting property damage - namely, the taillight.

Granted, a cyclist must pay attention to road hazards while riding, but said cyclist cannot pay attention to two hazards at once.

-Kurt

The damaged taillight, from the OP's story, was an unintended consequence of the hole in the road.

You and the driver should contact the city to see about having the insurance company for the road contractor compensate you for any medical supplies and/or care you might have needed as a result of the hole + compensation for resulting property damage - namely, the taillight.

Granted, a cyclist must pay attention to road hazards while riding, but said cyclist cannot pay attention to two hazards at once.

-Kurt

Depending on the age of the pot hole why would it be the contractor that has to pay? If the road was just laid, or repaired I could see it being their responsibility. But if it's an "old" pot hole, or one that had recently been created because of weather, or a recent accident that is hardly the contractor's fault. Or down here in Florida and similar states if a sink hole opened up under the road, again how would that be the fault of the contractor?

But if it's an "old" pot hole,

If it is old, it's the fault of the city. Failure to properly maintain the roadway.

-Kurt

If it is old, it's the fault of the city. Failure to properly maintain the roadway.

-Kurt

Kurt,

Exactly, as I said if the road was just laid or recently repaired it could be the contractor's responsibility. The rest of the time, it would be the city, county or states responsibility. With the possible exception if the damage had just occurred, such as a sink hole that had just opened, or as the results of an accident.

And trust me sink holes DO have a tendency to open up without warning. And they do open under roadways, houses, or in the middle of fields.

The rest of the time, it would be the city, county or states responsibility.

Yes; but my point is that the city, county, or state ends up claiming the damage - new or otherwise - against the contractor's insurance company.

-Kurt

Ouch, ouch, ouch. Best wishes for rapid recovery and the happy discovery that the tail light does not cost as much as a good bike.

That could so easily have been me. I find it pretty easy to keep track of traffic and even easier to avoid holes, but doing both at once gets downright difficult.

Around here, the municipality has to know about the hazard to be responsible. After it's reported, you can file a claim if damage happens. Check with the city to see if it was previously reported.

depends on the state. Here in IL the state surpreme found in it's infinite wisdow that while cyclists are allowed to use roads, roads are not designed for cycling. therefore the claim of cyclist who crashed (I believe he crashed or something) due to poorly maintained roads was dismissed.

depends on the state. Here in IL the state surpreme found in it's infinite wisdow that while cyclists are allowed to use roads, roads are not designed for cycling. therefore the claim of cyclist who crashed (I believe he crashed or something) due to poorly maintained roads was dismissed.

Yes, a terrible decision by your state supreme court. There was some construction being done on a bridge and as a result a gap that was several inches wide was created and the cyclist's wheel fell into it resulting in serious injuries. The court's ruling was that cyclists were "permitted but not intended" users of the roadway and that therefore there was no legal obligation to maintain safe conditions for them.

I thought there was going to be an effort to have the legislature modify the law to make it clear that cyclists are entitled to safe road conditions. Has any progress been made on that front?

Right, thanks for the clarification, prathmann. No progress made according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boub_v._Township_of_Wayne

Yes, a terrible decision by your state supreme court. There was some construction being done on a bridge and as a result a gap that was several inches wide was created and the cyclist's wheel fell into it resulting in serious injuries. The court's ruling was that cyclists were "permitted but not intended" users of the roadway and that therefore there was no legal obligation to maintain safe conditions for them.

I thought there was going to be an effort to have the legislature modify the law to make it clear that cyclists are entitled to safe road conditions. Has any progress been made on that front?

The irony is that the League of American Bicyclists are the one's who first lobbied for paved roadways to make it safer for bicyclists.

Here's a good question, being as it should be public record how each lawmaker voted. What would be the effect if everyone who is injured on Illinois streets while riding their bikes sued those who voted against it.

. . . What would be the effect if everyone who is injured on Illinois streets while riding their bikes sued those who voted against it.

Bigger houses for attorneys.

Bigger houses for attorneys.

Aside from that, would holding the lawmakers responsible in a court of law have any practical effect on changing the status of bicycles on the streets in Illinois?

That ruling is the biggest single reason I will not pedal in the state of Illinois. When that story hit Bicycling Magazine o so many years ago, a reader wrote in suggesting a boycott of the state's tourist attractions, based on the premise that out-of-state cyclists are 'permitted' spenders, not 'intended' spenders. Worked for me....

To the OP, good luck in getting your city to take ANY responsibility for that crack-up -- city gov'ts are notorious for claiming immunity from it. And getting away with it. But you may get lucky....

Each state is different. In NY the rule is that the pot hole must have been reported at least 30 days prior in most instances. If you want to sue and get a lawyer for a grand to recoup a $300 tail light lens (Honda's aren't cheap) go for it.

the guy asked for 94 bucks and 17 cents(lol). It's easier for me just to pay the guy, instead of going through the bureaucratic bs. thanks for your advice, people.

the guy asked for 94 bucks and 17 cents(lol). It's easier for me just to pay the guy, instead of going through the bureaucratic bs. thanks for your advice, people.

You did the right thing.

If you were driving a car and hit a pot hole, which caused you to damage someone else's car...you'd be at fault, and good luck with trying to get any shared fault decried with the government agency responsible for the maintenance of the road you were riding on. That very rarely happens...

I'm glad you weren't injured badly. :)

too many philosophical questions that have nothing to do with the op's question.

see if the city will help you out. if not, cough up a few bucks at autozone or score a new taillight on ebay. stuff like that happens; at least nothing more than bruises occurred.

Aside from that, would holding the lawmakers responsible in a court of law have any practical effect on changing the status of bicycles on the streets in Illinois?

You absolutely cannot sue a lawmaker acting in his/her official capacity, under the doctrine of official immunity:


Members of Congress and state legislators are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits for their votes and official actions. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S. Ct. 966, 140 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1998), extended absolute immunity to local legislators (e.g., city council members, and county commissioners) when they act in their legislative, rather than administrative, capacities.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Immunity

The irony is that the League of American Bicyclists are the one's who first lobbied for paved roadways to make it safer for bicyclists.

Here's a good question, being as it should be public record how each lawmaker voted. What would be the effect if everyone who is injured on Illinois streets while riding their bikes sued those who voted against it.
Here is another question:
Do you believe many or any cyclists from Florida or any of the other states ever collect damages from municipalities for injuries suffered from riding over/into potholes/sinkholes, whatever obstacles, that are in plain sight in front of them? Any references?

BTW, I'd cease beating the dead horse about who first lobbied for paved roads. One, it is irrelevant in any argument except for Trivial Pursuit; two, nobody but pedants give a dang.