Advocacy & Safety - getting rear ended-what charges should be brought against motorist?

This thread is related to my earlier thread. I got rear ended by a vehicle on a 55 mph highway. Luckily, only the mirror caught me, which was bad enough! The responding officer incorrectly told me that I did not have the right of way, which is obviously BS. What I want to know is what charges SHOULD have been brought against the motorist? Someones already told me she should have at least gotten an improper pass ticket. What else, maybe a reckless driving ticket? I'm trying to get the report changed, but we all know how dealing with police can be. I can't imagine how anyone that works for the law can tell me that I did not have the right of way when I nearly got killed while riding the white line.

This thread is related to my earlier thread. I got rear ended by a vehicle on a 55 mph highway. Luckily, only the mirror caught me, which was bad enough! The responding officer incorrectly told me that I did not have the right of way, which is obviously BS. What I want to know is what charges SHOULD have been brought against the motorist? Someones already told me she should have at least gotten an improper pass ticket. What else, maybe a reckless driving ticket? I'm trying to get the report changed, but we all know how dealing with police can be. I can't imagine how anyone that works for the law can tell me that I did not have the right of way when I nearly got killed while riding the white line.


Simply ask a cop what ticket they would write for a motorist rear ending another motorist. The same thing should apply when a motorist rear ends a cyclist.

Simply ask a cop what ticket they would write for a motorist rear ending another motorist. The same thing should apply when a motorist rear ends a cyclist.

In my opinion, the charges should be even higher in the case of a bicyclist, since they're clearly more vulnerable in a situation like that. Reckless driving should be seriously considered by the police in every car-cyclist collision that is caused by fault on the part of the motorist.

I think the laws on this can vary quite a bit from state to state. Here in MA, if you rear end any other vehicle, regardless of what it is, it is your fault by default. A lawyer could surely answer
your question.

In my opinion, the charges should be even higher in the case of a bicyclist, since they're clearly more vulnerable in a situation like that. Reckless driving should be seriously considered by the police in every car-cyclist collision that is caused by fault on the part of the motorist.

+1 From my reading, a careless charge would be warranted. I cannot believe the responding officer making the comment about you not having the right of way... Where the blazes are they training police officers these days?

Find a lawyer that will help you. They should work with the DA to bring charges against the motorist.

This thread is related to my earlier thread. I got rear ended by a vehicle on a 55 mph highway. Luckily, only the mirror caught me, which was bad enough! The responding officer incorrectly told me that I did not have the right of way, which is obviously BS. What I want to know is what charges SHOULD have been brought against the motorist? Someones already told me she should have at least gotten an improper pass ticket. What else, maybe a reckless driving ticket? I'm trying to get the report changed, but we all know how dealing with police can be. I can't imagine how anyone that works for the law can tell me that I did not have the right of way when I nearly got killed while riding the white line.


There's a host of possible charges, depending on your jurisdiction; Driving without due care, following too closely, reckless driving, failure to observe right-of-way, etc.

Get a lawyer if you're trying to get restitution from the driver for medical bills or equipment damage.

If the driver said she was trying to pass you but misjudged, it would be improper passing. But if she says she didn't see you, it would be failure to reduce speed or careless (or reckless) driving, since she failed to detect traffic in the lane ahead of her.

I'm trying to get the report changed, but we all know how dealing with police can be.

Yea they are lazy. Everytime I try talking to them or try to get something done they do nothing. They never help. They are fat lazy pigs. And they dont know bike laws. Maybe the pig was trying to be nice to the girl because she was hot? I dont know.

In my opinion, the charges should be even higher in the case of a bicyclist, since they're clearly more vulnerable in a situation like that. Reckless driving should be seriously considered by the police in every car-cyclist collision that is caused by fault on the part of the motorist.

That is my opinion also.

However the American public (including many LEOs) feels that cyclists take the risk onto themselves by choosing to use "automobile streets" for cycling... and that bicycles are toys that should be relegated to parks and the like. Hence the fact that most paths are built and controlled by parks departments vice transportation divisions.

This whole mentality shapes the way cyclists are viewed by Law Enforcement and the public. We cyclists hit the road with that burden against us every time we ride.

In my opinion, the charges should be even higher in the case of a bicyclist, since they're clearly more vulnerable in a situation like that.

If we want the same roads, same rules, same rights then this logic doesn't apply. Granted, I like the idea, it's just that it starts to equate a bicycle with a pedestrian, not a vehicle. By your logic, if someone hits a motorcycle they would face stricter fines / charges.

If the driver said she was trying to pass you but misjudged, it would be improper passing. But if she says she didn't see you, it would be failure to reduce speed or careless (or reckless) driving, since she failed to detect traffic in the lane ahead of her.

This ^^^. A driver in DE rear ended cars stopped at a light and got charged with negligent driving, the same should be applicable to running into cyclists in the road in front of you.

If we want the same roads, same rules, same rights then this logic doesn't apply. Granted, I like the idea, it's just that it starts to equate a bicycle with a pedestrian, not a vehicle. By your logic, if someone hits a motorcycle they would face stricter fines / charges.

I don't agree that it starts to equate a bicycle with a pedestrian, or undermines the right to use the road with the same rules necessarily. We can still have the same rules, and the same right of access, but demand that people in vehicles that are more dangerous to others face higher penalties when they fail to follow the rules. We already recognize this principle in the distinction between commercial drivers' licenses and regular drivers' licenses: you have to meet higher standards to get and keep a CDL, presumably because large vehicles are inherently more dangerous to others than smaller vehicles. The law recognizes that the drivers of those vehicles have a special responsibility to drive responsibly and professionally because of the major risk to others that their vehicles pose. That doesn't imply that cars shouldn't be allowed to use the road because of all the dangerous 18-wheelers they have to share it with. Nor does requiring that drivers be extra cautious around bicyclists imply that bicyclists shouldn't be on the road. We can all share the road with the same rules without having to ignore the real differences between different modes of transportation.