Road Cycling - Fatal Crash - Whose Fault?

Last week, a rider was killed going uphill in Big Cottonwood Canyon outside of Salt Lake City. (Big Cottonwood is a 14-mile climb, going from 5000 to 8800 feet.) Here is an article in the local paper:

http://www.sltrib.com/mullen/ci_2417841

I was interested in people's thoughts. The writer of the article apparently has decided that it is all the driver's fault, and I agree in part (not really knowing exactly what happened), but I wonder: If a biker is going ten miles per hour on a curvy road, where the cars are otherwise going 30 to 40, isn't the biker partially at fault if a car comes around a corner and runs into her from behind?

Overtaking vehicle in this case the car is 100% at fault IMO!

... isn't the biker partially at fault if a car comes around a corner and runs into her from behind?

Are you kidding? The driver is definitely 100% at fault.

You must drive - anything car, motorcycle, truck, bicycle - in a faxhion that allows you not to run into things. If you run into aything 10 mph or stopped it's your fault. It could have been a school bus for example or the postman filling a rural mail box...

Joe

Yes and no. I'd be asking for more details like where was the sun at the time, what were the road conditions like, speed of the automobile, other passenger(s) in automobile, etc. If it's a curvy road I would think that drivers are asked to slow down for the curves? Are there any speed reduction signs on those roads (if not, then it's the township/county that looks after it fault).

As my uncle often tells me "There are many sides to the truth. One side, the other and somewhere in between is the actual truth".

There's not nearly enough information there to make a judgement. In general though, assuming that the cyclist was riding in the correct lane, as appears to be the case, why would it be the cyclist's fault? There are things we can do to increase our chances. Light colored clothing, proper lights and reflectors at night, helmets, mirrors, and in general to be as aware as possible, but that doesn't take responsibility from the driver. Drivers have to be aware of what's on the road, it's a huge responsibility that too many people take too lightly.

Drivers fault - 100%

If it's a curvy road, sunny, slippery, whatever - you're required to drive in a manner that's safe for those conditions. It doesn't take a road sign to figure that out.

Open and shut. Not even a question as to who is at fault in this one.

Very sad. To think that while I was enjoying a race up Mt. Tam somebody was kill doing a climb on a different road. In most cases the car is at fault. To fast, not paying attention, would rather kill a person than loose a mirror to on coming traffic. Probably only one person could say for certain what happen and they are not going to incriminate themselves. I remember several years ago somewhere in central CA a teen age girl was reaching around in her back seat for a CD and killed and entire family on bikes. I wonder what the fatalities per mile would be compared to that a cars, by the hour might be a better comparison. I will light a candle for her family.

[QUOTE=steveh2]Last week, a rider was killed going uphill in Big Cottonwood Canyon outside of Salt Lake City. (Big Cottonwood is a 14-mile climb, going from 5000 to 8800 feet.) Here is an article in the local paper:

[URL=http://www.sltrib.com/mullen/ci_2417841[/URL]




Hello,

I too am from the Salt Lake area. I don't know much about the accident. Thanks to the columnists, Holly Mullen, I learned that Josie was hit from behind. That really sucks.

You know what, the motorist is 100% responsible for this. It is up to the motorist to avoid whatever is in front of them. It is not up to the rider, another driver, or whomever to make sure that they are not hit. The motorist has the responsibility to drive in such away to avoid things that in front of them. That is part of the Utah driver's handbook. I don't remember the page, but I do remember seeing it. I had gotten into an argument with a motorist over just this type of thing and used Utah State Law, as written in the handbook, that I was correct. The Salt Lake County DA should throw the book at the motorist. And Josie's family should go after the motorist too, maybe not for money but to force the motorist into doing public service about the rights, and responisibilities of drivers and cyclists. Go to the drivers ed classes, tell the kids what this act of irresponsibility has done, both personally and to the lives of Josie's family and friends.

I hope that Josie's family is recovering from the shock, as much as it is possible. I hope that the motorist learns and passes on what she learned. We'll see. I, personally, don't see the County DA doing anything. But we can all hope and put pressure on him.

They know what I learned in a just a cursory search of this newspaper's archives, going back to 2002: In more than a half-dozen vehicle-caused adult cyclist deaths in Utah, no driver was cited.
That is so ****ing absurd and offensive. :mad:

The only question is how much of a criminal offense is it.

Not enough info in the article. The answer in a civil suit is whatever the jury decides. Defense would be correct to offer any evidence of contributory negligence (how far from the shoulder, how dark was it in late afternoon, what reflective devices or lights did cyclist have, etc.). Not sure how contibutory negligence is in that state. Some states, it's pure comparative negligence, the % at fault determines each party's % (e.g. 100k damages, then the driver would pay only her % of that amount).

But a woman in an SUV, and probably talking on a cell phone (prosecution will claim), who hits a cyclist..the jury pool will undoubtedly be biased against the driver.

Kind of scary. I'm new to road biking and there's this nice hill I do regularly (it's near 7th street and San Vicente by what's called "The steps" of Santa Monica for those who can relate) and while it's a short climb, it does have this curb that some cars seem to take too sharply. I would like to think that I'm safe doing this but sometimes I'm not so sure...

That's very sad! I think the "share the road" campaign needs to be brought back and make some headlines!

[QUOTE=MsMittens]Yes and no. I'd be asking for more details like where was the sun at the time, what were the road conditions like, speed of the automobile, other passenger(s) in automobile, etc. If it's a curvy road I would think that drivers are asked to slow down for the curves? Are there any speed reduction signs on those roads (if not, then it's the township/county that looks after it fault).
QUOTE]

Where was the sun at the time? Doesn't matter. If it was in the driver's eyes, then it's the driver's responsibility to go an appropriate speed that allows him/her to react appropriately. That includes stopping if they just can't see the road at all!

What were the road conditions like? Same deal - drive for the conditions present.

Speed - obviously the person was going too fast, since they were either unable to see or unable to react to the sudden appearnce of a biker.

Other passengers in the automobile? What's this got to do with the price of tea in China??? If there were people in the vehicle distracting the driver, it's up to the driver to tell them to shut the f up. TOTALLY driver's repsponsibility here.

No signs = the town's fault? WTF???? Probably, given our society's warped sense of responsibility. But are you really saying people are stupid enough to require signs to tell them when the road's curvy and they should slow down?? Drivers are in control of their several thousand pound vehicle and are ultimately responsible for that control; not some nameless agency who posts signs or some other crap.

Regardless of what crafty lawyers and misguided juries have said, you are responsible for driving your car at a speed appropriate for the conditions that exist. WITHOUT having to have a sign up to tell you. When it snows, do you slow down? Or just keep speeding along because there are no signs?

Why do we have to take blame away from the responsible person and shift it to some nameless "other" (be it passenger, road conditions or the sun)? All of these things are the responsibility of the driver to adjust for.

Sorry... got carried away there, but the town is responsible?? C'mon.

That's very sad! I think the "share the road" campaign needs to be brought back and make some headlines!

I actually saw a 'share the road' bumper sticker today! It's definitely a message that needs to be brought out in the open more. Where I live there are barely any shoulders and most cars don't give any room. I try not to think of how dangerous it is otherwise I might never get out.

Well going to a bigger scale, there are a lot of drivers out there who don't deserve licenses and we need stricter testing and revoking. Case in point my wife (and I say this with great affection) who literally can't drive in an almost empty parking lot without getting into an accident. How did she get a license ? She was awarded it in san Antonio because she was already 19 (did not have to take the test).

A more recent experience was yesterday at a crosswalk, the walk sign comes on and as we about to step on the road an old lady with those giant cars barrels thru and would have surely hit us if I didn't move my wife out of the way. The scary thing was the old lady didn't stop, or look concerned, just a blank stare at us like she didn't nothing was wrong.

Assuming the cyclist was riding in a responsible manner (noting that there isn't enough information in the story provided to make a true assessment), I'll offer the following....

I never quite understand why these things are so hard for law enforcement and the local prosecutors to figure out... Vehicle ownership and driver accountability is treated like an unwritten amendment to the Constitution, ney, one of the original amendents in the Bill of Rights. About the only times you can get in trouble for running someone over is if: a) you're impaired by alchohol or a controlled substance, or b) you nail 'em twice for good measure.

Vehicular Manslaughter - Person who while driving a vehicle unintentionally but unlawfully kills another human being. Usually vehicular manslaughter results from some sort of negligence or reckless conduct on the part of the driver.

The only thing that I would think would be at issue would be if it was a misdemeanor or if gross negligence was involved making it a felony.

Interestingly enough, a quick review of Utah's Motor Vehicle Statutes reveals that this very scenario when played-out between a cyclist and a pedestrian is clearly documented to place the responsibility for avoiding an accident on the cyclist



41-6-87.3. Bicycles and human powered vehicle or device to yield right-of-way to pedestrians on sidewalks, paths, or trails -- Uses prohibited -- Negligent collision prohibited -- Speed restrictions -- Rights and duties same as pedestrians.
(1) A person operating a bicycle or any vehicle or device propelled by human power shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
(2) A person may not operate a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a roadway in a crosswalk, where prohibited by official traffic-control devices or ordinance.
(3) A person may not operate a bicycle or any vehicle or device propelled by human power in a negligent manner so as to collide with any pedestrian or other person operating a bicycle or any vehicle or device propelled by human power.
(4) A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a driveway, or across a roadway on a crosswalk may not operate at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions, giving regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.
(5) Except as provided under Subsections (1) and (4), a person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

However, for motor vehicles, there are several provisions that would seem to indicate the motorist was a fault and negligent, but nothing so clear-cut as the scenario outlined for a situation involving a collosion between a cyclist and a pedestrian.

BLUE = Pertains to the Motorist
GREEN = Pertains to the Cyclist

41-6-45. Reckless driving -- Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of reckless driving who operates a vehicle:
(a) in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property; or
(b) while committing three or more moving traffic violations under Title 41, Chapter 6, Traffic Rules and Regulations, in a series of acts within a single continuous period of driving.
(2) A person who violates Subsection (1) is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

41-6-46. Speed regulations -- Safe and appropriate speeds at certain locations -- Prima facie speed limits -- Emergency power of the governor.
(1) A person may not operate a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions, giving regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, including when:
(a) approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(b) approaching and going around a curve;
(c) approaching a hill crest;
(d) traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway; and
(e) special hazards exist due to pedestrians, other traffic, weather, or highway conditions.
(2) If no special hazard exists, and subject to Subsection (4) and Sections 41-6-47 and 41-6-48, the following speeds are lawful:
(a) 20 miles per hour in a reduced speed school zone as defined in Section 41-6-20.1;
(b) 25 miles per hour in any urban district; and
(c) 55 miles per hour in other locations.
(3) Except as provided in Section 41-6-48.5, any speed in excess of the limits provided in this section or established under Section 41-6-47 or 41-6-48, is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful.
(4) The governor by proclamation in time of war or emergency may change the speed limits on the highways of the state.

41-6-49. Minimum speed regulations. (Just in case an argument was put forward regarding encountering slow-moving vehicles on a grade)
(1) A person may not operate a motor vehicle at a speed so slow as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when:
(a) reduced speed is necessary for safe operation;
(b) upon a grade; or
(c) in compliance with official traffic control devices.
(2) Operating a motor vehicle on a controlled access highway at less than the lawful maximum speed side by side with and at the same speed as a vehicle operated in the adjacent right lane constitutes evidence of impeding or blocking normal movement of traffic.
(3) When the Department of Transportation or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the Department of Transportation or local authority may determine and shall post a minimum speed limit below which no person may operate a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation.

41-6-53. Duty to operate vehicle on right side of roadway -- Exceptions.
(1) On all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be operated upon the right half of the roadway, except:
(a) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing that movement;
(b) when an obstruction requires operating the vehicle to the left of the center of the roadway, but the operator shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portions of the highway within a distance constituting an immediate hazard;
(c) on a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the applicable rules; or
(d) on a roadway designed and signposted for one-way traffic.
(2) On all roadways a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic under the existing conditions shall be operated in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

41-6-55. Overtaking and passing vehicles proceeding in same direction.
(1) On any highway:
(a) the operator of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction:
(i) shall, except as provided under Section 41-6-56, pass to the left at a safe distance; and
(ii) may not drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle;
(b) the operator of an overtaken vehicle:
(i) shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle; and
(ii) may not increase the speed of the vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
(2) On a highway having more than one lane in the same direction, the operator of a vehicle traveling in a left general purpose lane:
(a) shall, upon being overtaken by another vehicle in the same lane, yield to the overtaking vehicle by moving safely to a lane to the right; and
(b) may not impede the movement or free flow of traffic in a left general purpose lane or except:
(i) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction in accordance with Subsection (1)(a);
(ii) when preparing to turn left or taking a highway split or exit on the left;
(iii) when responding to emergency conditions;
(iv) to avoid actual or potential traffic moving onto the highway from an acceleration or merging lane; or
(v) when following direction signs that direct use of a designated lane.

41-6-57. Limitation on passing -- Prohibitions.
(1) A vehicle may not be operated to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit overtaking and passing to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction of any vehicle overtaken.
(2) Overtaking and passing under this section may not be made where prohibited by Section 41-6-58.
(3) The overtaking vehicle shall return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practical, and if the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching in the opposite direction, before coming within 200 feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.

41-6-58. Limitations on driving on left side of road -- Exceptions.
(1) A vehicle may not be operated on the left side of the roadway:
(a) when approaching or on a crest of a grade or a curve on the highway where the operator's view is obstructed within a distance which creates a hazard if another vehicle may approach from the opposite direction;
(b) when approaching within 100 feet of or traversing any intersection or railroad grade crossing unless otherwise indicated by official traffic-control devices or a peace officer; or
(c) when the view is obstructed upon approaching within 100 feet of any bridge, viaduct, or tunnel.
(2) This section does not apply on a one-way roadway, nor under the conditions described in Subsection 41-6-53 (1) (b) nor to the operator of a vehicle turning left onto or from an alley, private road, or driveway.

41-6-62. Following another vehicle -- Safe distance -- Exceptions.
(1) The operator of a vehicle:
(a) may not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the:
(i) speed of the vehicles;
(ii) traffic upon the highway; and
(iii) condition of the highway; and
(b) shall allow sufficient space in front of the vehicle to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy the space.
(2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to funeral processions or to congested traffic conditions resulting in prevailing vehicle speeds of less than 35 miles per hour.

41-6-80. Vehicles to exercise due care to avoid pedestrians -- Audible signals and caution. If a bicycle can't be treated as a vehicle then are they treated as a pedestrian in similar situation?
The operator of a vehicle shall exercise care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal when necessary and exercise appropriate precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person. This section supersedes any conflicting provision of this chapter or of a local ordinance.

41-6-110. Driving in canyons and on mountain highways.
The driver of a motor vehicle traveling through defiles or canyons or on mountain highways shall hold such motor vehicle under control and as near the right-hand edge of the roadway as reasonably possible and, except when driving entirely on the right of the center of the roadway shall give audible warning with the horn of such motor vehicle upon approaching any curve where the view is obstructed within a distance of 200 feet along the highway. Interesting that it doesn't say "but only if you see them"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check my math here, but that would be five (5) moving violations pertaining to the motorist's operation of their vehicle in this incident: See Para, 41-6-45. Reckless driving, above. As to the sun and other excuses, those would be prevailing conditions in my book, i.e., the same as rain, snow or fog.

In most states, any operator of a motor vehicle is obligated to possess control over their vehicle at all times. This means that if someone in front of you stops short and you rear-end them, it is your fault; if a car pulls out in front of you and you hit them, it is your fault; if a kid runs out in front of you and you hit him, it is your fault; and if you come up from behind someone on a blind curve who is stopped or moving slowly, it is your fault.

The rationale behind this is that you should always drive in at a speed and in a manner that will allow you to avoid hitting anything that may suddenly be in your way, expected or not. And, let's face it, on 99% of the roads out there, if people drove the posted maximum and paid f**cking attention, this would be the case.

If the driver was able to prove that she was 1) not exceeding the posted speed limit and 2) made every reasonable attempt to avoid hitting the cyclist, then I can see where a split fault might be awarded. Otherwise, I can't see how it is anything other than 100% the fault of the driver.

That is an unfortunate tragedy. Unfortunately, and ****ty as it is, cyclists have to take the defensive and do everything that they can to be seen, if only out of a need for self-preservation. And until the attitude toward driving that virtually all U.S. drivers have (that driving is their God-given right and damn anyone or anything that serves to infringe that) is changed, there is no hope for things getting any better.

yeah... because i want to get somewhere in a timely fashion (5 times the speed of walking on average) and don't want to carry 40lbs of books for an hour instead of ride with them for 10 minutes while going to school and there are nothing but 35 to 45 mph roads (the 35mph one has brick hauling 18 wheelers AND cars doing 60 mph... the others just have cars doing 60 mph). why should only the engined ones have the right to go to college or buy groceries or do any of their necessities? (there are no buses here)


also, if that were someone walking on the road, would the driver have the right to kill them? in your opinion. people have a right to get from one place to another. some like me cannot afford a car. you who drive on the road have no right to threaten my life or think of it as any less valuable just because i don't have some stupid money guzzling car (been there done that. $3000 car = $2000 in reapairs). you also have no right to trap me in my home just beacause there is no sidwalk and no shoulder. :mad:

Not enough facts make this a tough call. Was there a sign to share the road with cyclists? If not, was this a road frequented by cyclists, and was the driver local and should have known to expect cyclists? (I do believe there are some situations where tacit knowledge should apply.) Where exactly on the road was the cyclist? Where was the sun? Was the driver rounding a [blind?] curve? Was the driver faced with a situation of my life or theirs? (Self-preservation is a *very* powerful instinct.)

I am a cyclist and unequivocably feel we should have certain road rights. However, I also drive a car and have cursed the occasional cyclist that was putting him/herself in danger of being hit by me by not riding a straight line and suddenly weaving in my direction, riding in the middle of the lane (instead of demanding respect by not riding too close to the shoulder either), wearing dark clothing during evening hours just before the sunset, riding without lights or reflectors, or riding a narrow winding road where there simply will not be enough room for cars meeting from opposite directions and with a rider in one lane, but with the drivers following every letter of the law, and driving at or even below the posted speed limit.

Let's look at it this way. Imagine you're driving at or below the posted speed limit and being fully attentive, but upon rounding a curve find a person just standing in the middle of the road. I know there have been situations where I could not have stopped in time. The person just isn't supposed to be there. It's that simple. Given that, the police probably would not find me or you at fault. Given that could happen, do I slow to a crawl before each curve? Honestly, I would not. You probably won't either. Let's face it, in such a case the person standing in the middle of the road bears at least part, if not all, of the blame.

Well, like it or not, the reality is a cyclist moving at 10 mph vs. a car legally travelling at 55 mph isn't too very different from that stationary person. And please understand I am not equating a human life with that of an animal, but I have certainly hit a dog or run over a possum in a situation not at all dissimiliar. I simply could not stop in time, although I did my very best. There are those things which we never expect to encounter, but do 1 out of 10,000 times. Unfortunately, bad things likely will happen that one time.

But again, I am a cyclist and have actually chased cars that afforded me no respect or imperiled my life. I also have what some have termed a "Cartesian rationality." Just because I'm a cyclist on the road does not automatically make a driver guilty should something terrible happen. There have been situations which I escaped knowing I could have made a better decision. And had something awful happened, I know a lot of my friends might be very angry at the driver, but if alive I'd have to admit I should be the one held at fault.

The facts about this tragedy may never be known, but we as a collective should exercise caution in assuming we are always right. We aren't. We're also automobile drivers, and I'll venture to say many of us have just barely avoided situations that would have left us vulnerable to prosecution.

But most importantly, I trust Josie Johnson's family and friends may somehow find peace. And so may the driver.

When I started this, my thought was that if the biker was off to the right, or if the accident took place on a straightaway, where visibility is not an issue, then the driver is 100 percent at fault.

But if the cyclist was in the middle of the lane, going around a curve, I think you can't realistically put all of the blame on the driver. If she was going ten, while cars are going forty, then she was basically standing still in the middle of the lane.

If instead of a cyclist, it was a pedestrian standing still in the middle of the road, and a car came around a curve and hit him or her, would the accident still be entirely the driver's fault?

I think it's too simplistic to say that if a driver runs into someone from behind, it's the driver's fault. For example, if you are going down the road, legally going 45, and a car turns into the road from a sidestreet and you run into them, you are not at fault, even though you ran into them from behind. Why would it be that much different if instead of a car, it was a bike that turned into the road?

FWIW, I don't think the driver could claim to have her view impaired by the sun. I think the accident took place at 4:00 p.m., and the car and driver would have been going southeast.

in texas you are always at fault if you rearend someone.

in texas you are always at fault if you rearend someone.

Even if they have just pulled into your 45-mph lane and have only accelerated to 10 mph?

Even if they have just pulled into your 45-mph lane and have only accelerated to 10 mph?

yep....you're obliged not to drive at a speed that doesn't allow you to stop safely to avoid hitting a vehicle in front of you...no matter what.

If the cyclist was riding on the edge of the road, then it's 100% the fault of the driver.

It certainly wasn't the cyclist fault.

We cyclist must take personal responsibility for our own safety. Just because we have the right of way in many situations dosen't me we will be given the right of way by motorist. As an example I could ride to work through town mostly in bike lanes and a few spots on the shoulder and it would be 12.5 miles. Instead I ride 16.7 miles where 11.5 is on a bike path. It's a lot safer but takes longer. Another example is Hwy17 on the way to Santa Cruz. Just too dangerous. I'll ride on old Santa Cruz Hwy and even walk 100yrds through gravel to get to a road that conects to where I'm going.

I wish it was safe to ride on any road but I find myself sacrificing certain rides because I don't feel safe. Although I could get hit on a "safe" route too but the chances are less. If your riding directly into the sun what do you think the motorist is doing.
Anytime I hear of a pedestrian or cyclist being injured or killed my heart sinks.

Do your best to be safe, make good decisions, and hope for the best.

We cyclist must take personal responsibility for our own safety.
so if we get hit, it's our fault?

Sometimes.

yep....you're obliged not to drive at a speed that doesn't allow you to stop safely to avoid hitting a vehicle in front of you...no matter what.

So say I have a ferrari with some exotic carbon brakes, fan assisted ground effects, and from 60 MPH I can outbrake the SUV behind me 4:1 and I jam on the brakes at an offramp, it's autoamtically his fault for running into me?

In Mass the "reasonable and proper" speed rule is the law. Therefore if the sun was in the drivers eyes or some other issue, blind corner, poor surface, etc occurs then it is likely the driver would be found at fault for not maintaining the proper speed. It is also possible that a citation could have been issued to the driver based on the failure to pass where it is safe to do so and failure to yield the right of way to the vehicle being overtaken. I would agree that it appears to be the drivers fault.

Regarding the post from Texas, in Mass at least, the person entering the roadway must wait until it is safe to do so. Therefore if a car traveling in the road strikes the vehicle that just made the turn an assesment needs to be made concerning whether the turning driver had enough space, could actually see the oncoming traffic, and on and on.

I have ridden B.C.C. in the past and between the narrow lanes and blind curves it makes for a dangerous ride if there is traffic. There is zero shoulder to ride on and if there is any type of traffic riding up or down the canyon is dangerous. The article does not say what time the accident occurred, but that is too bad
about the cyclist getting hit and killed.

so if we get hit, it's our fault?

I’m not talking about legal responsibility. Who is at fault no longer matters to the victim. The message that I was trying to get across was to choose routes carefully to reduce risk to yourself. There is not enough in the story to know what happened. From the track record of car vs cyclist we can geuss pretty good. Still dosen't help.

a person can't be held responsible for crap that goes on behind them in traffic. i.e. a car coming up from behind and hitting them.

we shouldn't have to have signs up that say "share the road." the road belongs to everyone, every human being on the planet has the right to go from point A to point B, or just ride loops between points A and B if they choose.

i'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions, but there are far too many humans living today who refuse to so. not limited to motorists, not limited to bicyclists. people. human beings. too many people just don't give a damn in this world today and it's a real crying shame.

"nobody's coming for this dog, you realise that. no it's owners, not the city, not the police, not even the person who hit it. nobody."

a lot of people are inconsiderate because they think they can get away with it, and for the most part, they're right. how many times have you been passed too close, or cut off, or nearly run off the road by some jerk motorist and thought "i should report that person..." and then you never did? the next time it happens, DO IT. maybe the police will actually do something about it if they get enough complaints. too many of us (myself included) have the attitude of "oh, nothing will ever come of it." and every once in a while someone gets killed and we all get riled up and think about how horrible it is and about how irresponsible people are. how responsible are we for not raising our voices when we see things like this happen?

it doesn't matter how safe a route is percieved to be. bad things can happen anywhere, at any time.

write down license plate numbers and report them. even if you see something and you're not on your bike. report negligent drivers. it WILL make a difference.

This is why motorcyclists adopted the "Kill a Biker, Go to Jail" movement at the grass roots level and rally against prosecutors and law enforcement agencies when they find that motorists are not held accountable when they run-down motorcyclists.

The American Motorcycle Association has formalized the "Kill a Biker, Go to Jail" movement by created the "Justice for All" program. The AMA takes proactive steps at the state and national levels to publicize incidents and engage law makers and law enforcement agencies where motorists who kill motorcyclists are either not charged in accordance with the law or allowed to plea out for misdemeanors and minor fines. If you look at the incidents highlighted on the "Injustices" page you'll find they sound quite familiar to many of the incidents where cyclists were killed: http://www.amadirectlink.com/justice/injustice.asp

So say I have a ferrari with some exotic carbon brakes, fan assisted ground effects, and from 60 MPH I can outbrake the SUV behind me 4:1 and I jam on the brakes at an offramp, it's autoamtically his fault for running into me?

Technically one could argue that the SUV was following too close. I think it would be a partial blame on both parties. Adjusting speed to take into account the driving conditions goes beyond just the weather and road surface. One must also take into account the traffic around them. Too many people drive assuming that all vehicles will behave exactly the same as theirs. This is why you see accidents where little sportscar weaving in and out of traffic cuts in front of an 18-wheel truck and ends up becoming differential housing decoration.

So say I have a ferrari with some exotic carbon brakes, fan assisted ground effects, and from 60 MPH I can outbrake the SUV behind me 4:1 and I jam on the brakes at an offramp, it's autoamtically his fault for running into me?

It depends...

If you were stopping abruptly to avoid a 'situation' yourself then yes it is the SUV's fault for following too close.
If on the otherhand you were stopping just because you can, then that could be viewed as wreckless driving(or something similar) and you would be at fault. For some reason I remember that from one of those driver saftey classes I was forced to take some years back to keep my driving record clean for rolling through a stop sign... That was for Illinois, not sure for other states.

yep....you're obliged not to drive at a speed that doesn't allow you to stop safely to avoid hitting a vehicle in front of you...no matter what.

And it's not as hard as it sounds. Try driving around NYC for a few minutes and it becomes completely natural. I can't stand how zoning out while driving a 1-2 ton vehicle is OK. When I drive, every corner is a potential hazard! Maybe it's because I started out riding before driving...

Anyhow, I HAVE been rear-ended by a car while on the bike. I had just come off of the Brooklyn Bridge, riding on Chambers St. Tacoed my wheel but I was otherwise only a little bruised (helmet and gloves every time people). If that poor girl was tossed 20 meters (that's 60 feet, yo) then the car was going way too fast.

Edit: typo

Something that Russia, and the Soviet Union before it, has figured out quite well--if you kill anyone in a car accident, you go to jail. No questions...

FYI: Holly Mullen posted a follow-up article yesterday, with reader comments.

http://www.sltrib.com/mullen/ci_2417984

in texas you are always at fault if you rearend someone.

Even if they have just pulled into your 45-mph lane and have only accelerated to 10 mph?


yup. it's the law.

So say I have a ferrari with some exotic carbon brakes, fan assisted ground effects, and from 60 MPH I can outbrake the SUV behind me 4:1 and I jam on the brakes at an offramp, it's autoamtically his fault for running into me?


in texas you will have a new ferarri if the suv driver has the money. it's the drivers responsibility to follow at a safe distance based on his vehicles abilities.

also, for you who think the speed limit is always the safe, you'd really like this one road down here near cedar creek lake. it ends in a T. if you don't slow down in time you'll hit a nice big tree if your on the trunk of that T. is it the tree's fault that you hit it? perhaps your brights should've been on, eh?


also, what if someone has a flat and no cell phone and no money for a tow. they have to repair this flat on the side of the road. they get killed because someone finds it inconvenient to round that corner at a safe speed. who's at fault?

So say I have a ferrari with some exotic carbon brakes, fan assisted ground effects, and from 60 MPH I can outbrake the SUV behind me 4:1 and I jam on the brakes at an offramp, it's autoamtically his fault for running into me?


I did exactly that and it was the Ford Bronco behind that pushed me into the Mercedes in front's fault.
His insurance paid.
So yes it is his fault.

In response to Merton, I'd be willing to bet that the law does not say that a driver is always at fault for running into a vehicle in front of him/her. I'd imagine that the law uses some sort of "reasonable care" language instead.

And in my opinion, it is not reasonable to require every driver on every highway to always drive slowly enough to avoid someone who may turn onto the highway from a driveway or side street.

Just as it is not reasonable to require every driver to take every curve slowly enough just in case a pedestrian is standing in the middle of the driving lane behind the curve, or a bike is proceeding slowing in the middle of the driving lane.

If the cyclist was following basic laws of the road there is nothing that can make this to not be the driver's fault.



I'd be asking for more details like where was the sun at the time, what were the road conditions like, speed of the automobile, other passenger(s) in automobile, etc. If it's a curvy road I would think that drivers are asked to slow down for the curves? Are there any speed reduction signs on those roads (if not, then it's the township/county that looks after it fault).

If you can't see where you are going - slow down. Speed should never be higher than to allow the driver to stop the car within visible distance. Possible disturbing passengers should be held partly responsible. If driver is unable to adjust speed to present conditions then the driver should not be a driver.



Was the driver rounding a [blind?] curve? Was the driver faced with a situation of my life or theirs?

If there had been another accident where the cyclist was would it have been ok for her to add her car to the accident?

Unless she was chased by the truck driver of Duel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/) I can't see how breaking instead of killing another human could have threatend her life.



So say I have a ferrari with some exotic carbon brakes, fan assisted ground effects, and from 60 MPH I can outbrake the SUV behind me 4:1 and I jam on the brakes at an offramp, it's autoamtically his fault for running into me?

There's a good rule in Sweden (not sure if it's a law, but I believe the police use it to judge if someone is driving too close) that says that one should be at least three seconds behind the car in front. It takes about one second to react, the other two gives the SUV a clear breaking distance of about 60 metres which should be plenty. And no, no one really cares about the rule here either :(.

Roads are not dangerous, people are.

/Csson

FYI: Holly Mullen posted a follow-up article yesterday, with reader comments.

http://www.sltrib.com/mullen/ci_2417984

I found it pretty unsettling the responses Holly Mullen received... although not unexpected.

1). "If this girl was so smart, she would realize the dangers of riding your bike up a narrow winding road...but was willing to take the chance....This shouldn't be blamed on the driver of a car who was probably obeying every law."
Only if by taking a chance would be in the same context as taking her Toyota on the same road. And the driver obeying EVERY law? Well...

2). "Bottom line is Utah and Salt Lake City are a motor state and town - not at all conducive to bicycles."
You might want to check your driving rules and regulations. I don't think its worded quite that way.

3). "We live in constant fear of hitting one of them."
Enough said... why go further.

4)."Two-lane narrow roads are not meant for bicycles, no matter who might be at fault.
Same response as in #2.

She hits it on the head with "I can't offer any solution except to remind both groups to wake up, look out and see each other."
As most cyclists also have experience driving we're close to the target merely by being there. Maybe if all drivers had to spend 2 weeks riding their local streets on a bike each year they may get a more rounded viewpoint of who is out there.

In Vista CA here a man was commuting down a hill and killed by a driver making a left turn in front of him. The driver was not cited.
The article stated it was not determined who was at fault.
Seems pretty obvious to me. But then I was told by an officer to pull off the road whenever someone honks at me from behind.

Although short, the wording from this "police blotter" entry on 9/20 has an attention grabber in it: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2418206

The driver's at fault. The driver was driving at an unsafe speed (30- 40 mph on a curvy road? NOT safe). The rider did everything right. Under the law, if there is one lane, the bicyclist has every right to take the full road... it's actually supposed to prevent accidents like this one, but I guess you get the idiots out there in big cars who break the law when driving and disregard the cyclists.

I hope the driver is prosecuted. It's about time they punished drivers for killing cyclists. Maybe this will teach them to drive with more caution around cyclists and recognize that we are part of the road AND it will teach them to curb their driving so that others aren't killed by their incompetence.

Koffee

Maybe if all drivers had to spend 2 weeks riding their local streets on a bike each year they may get a more rounded viewpoint of who is out there.

Or walking or just even standing there beside the road. The problem with motorist attitudes in general is that they are isolated from their environment. For most people, they may as well be sitting in front of their TV playing Need for Speed 4 on their Playstation. People need to literally step outside their cushy comfy bucket seats and experience first-hand what it means to be part of the environment both manmade and natural. They need to see how much room and speed is reasonable under certain road conditions and how it effects more than just them when they're not sitting in a shock-dampened crash cage with two tons of metal surrounding them. Most people don't understand the forces at work when they're operating a vehicle or the forces that come into play during a collision and thus can't fathom how to operate in a more safe manner allowing for more margins of error and taking into account more possibilities of dangers.