Advocacy & Safety - In the paper

Boy injured in bike crash,identity sought. A teenage boy suffered major head injuries when he was struck by a car. The teen was riding a BMX style bicycle when he was hit from behind by a motorist. A preliminary investigation indicated the motorist was not at fault.

how can he not be at fault. that sucks.. what the heck..

how can he not be at fault.

Perhaps the cyclist was not following the rules of the road?

Perhaps the cyclist was not following the rules of the road?


So what, does that make him fair game?

The overtaking vehicle has the duty to pass safely. The rider was struck from behind. Unless he was riding his bike backwards, I'm pretty dubious about this "preliminary investigation."

If this were two cars there'd be no question that the motorist here would be at fault as he struck the cyclist from behind. Not positive, but I think if you get rearended by another car, there are no circs. under which it can be considered your fault, not even a dramatically short stop, etc.

IOW, when driving, aren't you always at fault if you hit the guy in front of you?

...he was hit from behind by a motorist....the motorist was not at fault.

yeah, this seems a bit strange to me too without knowing all the facts.

IOW, when driving, aren't you always at fault if you hit the guy in front of you?

99% of the time you will get a failure to control vechicle ticket or something similar.

If you're driving your car and you hit someone from behind, you're at fault.

If you hit a bicyclist from behind, you don't even get a ticket.

Pretty skimpy information on which to base a conclusion of fault whether for the driver or the cyclist.

In New York State, and of course I can only base what I read based on what I know from where I live, if you hit someone from behind, it's your fault.

Period.

Don't need a whole lot of information on that one.

I imagine it's pretty similar in California. I found this on the web:


Rear-End Collisions
If someone hits you from behind, it is virtually never your fault, regardless of why you stopped. A basic rule of the road requires a vehicle to be able to stop safely if traffic is stopped ahead of it. If it cannot stop safely, the driver is not driving as safely as the person in front.

The other sure-fire part of the rear-end accident claim is that the damage proves how it happened: If one car's front end is damaged and the other's rear end is, there can't be much argument about who struck whom. Of course, the driver of the car that hit you may have a claim against someone who caused you to stop suddenly, or against a third car that pushed his car into yours. But that doesn't change his or her responsibility for injuries to you and damage to your car.

Keep in mind, however, that even if you have been rear-ended, in a few circumstances your own carelessness may reduce your compensation under the rule of "comparative negligence." A common example is when one or both of your brake or tail lights were out, especially if the accident happened at night. Another example is when a car had mechanical problems but the driver failed to do all she could to move it off the road.

They said he came into traffic but he is in a coma and thats what the driver said,no body else came forward with info,only the driver.

Do you have a link to the story?

So what, does that make him fair game?

No, what would make you ask such a silly question?

OW, when driving, aren't you always at fault if you hit the guy in front of you?

No, not if they pull out in front of you, merge incorrectly, or any other number of reasons. I take it many of you don't have a drivers license?

No, not if they pull out in front of you, merge incorrectly, or any other number of reasons. I take it many of you don't have a drivers license?
Yeah, but once he's there, it's on you.

Yeah, but once he's there, it's on you.

Not really, if you make a right on red onto a 35 mile an hour street and do not leave room and you get hit thats on you, not the driver. I'm not trying to argue, we just don't have the facts.

I do have a driver's license, and you're dead wrong. And whatever the facts are, if you nail someone from behind you're guilty, regardless of what they did to get in front of you. Once someone is there in front of you, it's your responsibility not to hit them, not theirs not to get hit.

In Georgia, you are at fault even if the manual shift car ahead of you rolls backwards into you while trying to get started up a grade (following too close).

"if you nail someone from behind you're guilty, regardless of what they did to get in front of you. Once someone is there in front of you, it's your responsibility not to hit them, not theirs not to get hit."

jeez, i started biking more often to avoid the stress of traffic but i might just avoid being near roads altogether... are you serious? are you suggesting that a car can pull out of an intersection at any time he or she pleases and never assume liability for an accident? as i understood driver's education, i was told to follow cars by a 1 second margin for each 10 mph of speed. nobody follows this "rule," but it was taught to everyone who received a license in virginia at least. which is why when people get rear-ended, its the rear-endER, not the rear-endEE, who is liable, because if this rule had been followed, 9 out of 10 times, there would have been enough space to stop, in all circumstances except inclement weather. check your driving on a busy highway next time... if you're going 70, and a car in front of you passes a lamp post, does it take you 7 seconds to reach the lamp post? i doubt it. a whole different set of rules apply if someone pulls out of an intersection/driveway or cuts me off though. who knows, the kid may have been riding erratically, perhaps without reflectors or lights... he was riding a bmx bike after all. so we dont know. it seems like most are glad to jump to the conclusion that motorists are a hazard to cyclists and never the other way around. we can be guilty of improper "driving" too. cycling is not my main mode of transport, but when i drive, i try to be extra considerate of cycling commuters, but at the same time there are a hefty number of cyclists i see and say to myself, "i wouldnt be surprised if he/she got hit in the next 10 seconds..." around campus, i would say that at least half of people riding bikes do so in what would be generally considered an "unsafe" manner, e.g. hopping to and fro between sidewalk and road etc.

are you suggesting that a car can pull out of an intersection at any time he or she pleases and never assume liability for an accident?

No, the key phrase was, "once he's ahead of you." It's your responsibility to control your vehicle.

T-boning somebody who's running a red light is another matter.

i dont wanna debate who is liable when, where, and under what circumstances because that's up to the police officer and insurance company. all i'm trying to say is that we can't assume that because this kid was hit from behind that the motorist was at fault, because my girlfriend sitting next to me who works for state farm can think up a hundred different reasons why a bicycle or a car would be hit from behind and have the posterior vehicle not be at fault. lets cut these motorists some slack, they're not all out to run us off the road. after all, a-hole drivers dont come from a different planet than cyclists do.

Well, I hope you spend the time you're driving / riding your bike doing whatever you can to not get hit from behind. And, in the interests of you not having a higher insurance premium, I hope you don't hit anyone while doing so. If you're the hitter, ask your girlfriend how quickly State Farm (who might be the other guy's insurance company) would come rushing to your defense and give you those hundred reasons.

Considernig the way kids on BMXs ride here, which can at best be described as 'erratic', I'm surprised there aren't more stories like this. My guess would be that he swerved suddenly into the path of the car without checking behind first.

Interesting that there's no mention of whether he was wearing a helmet. My observation has been that if they aren't wearing one it get mentioned, but otherwise the silence is deafening.

A link to the actual story would help.

So many opinions of guilt based on three or four lines of second-hand information. You'd all be good jurors. Not.

No helmet and according to only the driver, nobody else came forward, he swerved into the cars path.

So many opinions of guilt based on three or four lines of second-hand information. You'd all be good jurors. Not.

So little reading on the discussion that those decisions are based on and the laws and procedures that are generally followed when a car rear-ends someone. You'd be a great detective. Not.

Considernig the way kids on BMXs ride here, which can at best be described as 'erratic', I'm surprised there aren't more stories like this. My guess would be that he swerved suddenly into the path of the car without checking behind first.

Interesting that there's no mention of whether he was wearing a helmet. My observation has been that if they aren't wearing one it get mentioned, but otherwise the silence is deafening.

A link to the actual story would help.

All due respect, but if I get rearended and bonk my head on the steering wheel because I'm not wearing a seatbelt, the guy who hit me is still to blame.

So little reading on the discussion that those decisions are based on and the laws and procedures that are generally followed when a car rear-ends someone. You'd be a great detective. Not.

V, it's amazing to me how willing my fellow cyclists are to blame the cyclist in these reports. If there were a cycling version of the derisive term "sellout" I would oft be tempted to use them in these threads. A lot of riders here are like beaten wives, always making excuses for the motorists who abuse them.

So little reading on the discussion that those decisions are based on and the laws and procedures that are generally followed when a car rear-ends someone. You'd be a great detective. Not.
I never wanted to be a detective.

You obviously want to be a either a journalist or a lawyer (I know a few who are both). But I'd suggest you go read some more lay opinions of law based on a four-line posting and see where that gets you.

By the by, in our jurisdiction, there are other pesky little laws that get in the way of the big ones like the rear-ender ones referred to here. But I dare not conjecture on what they are, because I don't have enough information about the circumstances of the incident.

V, it's amazing to me how willing my fellow cyclists are to blame the cyclist in these reports. If there were a cycling version of the derisive term "sellout" I would oft be tempted to use them in these threads. A lot of riders here are like beaten wives, always making excuses for the motorists who abuse them.
Ahh, here we go, the degeneration into accusations of "sellouts" and beaten wives just for pointing out the bleeding obvious. You (and others) have made a number of conclusions based on a scant four-line posting, followed by equally scant and unconfirmed information about an incident on the other side of the continent from where you live.

And I really wouldn't like to be called your fellow cyclist. Our views are too disparate for that.

So many opinions of guilt based on three or four lines of second-hand information. You'd all be good jurors. Not.

Was about to say the same thing. This discussion is pretty moot as it is.

...because I don't have enough information about the circumstances of the incident.

Which doesn't keep you from lashing out at anyone who dares defend the apparently comatose young cyclist. Well done.

Which doesn't keep you from lashing out at anyone who dares defend the apparently comatose young cyclist. Well done.
Me? Lashing out? I don't think so. Just seeking some evidence that might lead me to a personal opinion, which in turn may encourage me to continue following this icnident to its conclusion (unlikely, but possible).

Open mindedness is obviously an afflication with which you are not familiar.

Which doesn't keep you from lashing out at anyone who dares defend the apparently comatose young cyclist. Well done.

Oh the injustice. Glad to see that the ancient art of baseles knee-jerk is alive and kicking in the good old USA. There's glory in over-sensationalising everything, I'm sure.

Open mindedness is obviously an afflication with which you are not familiar.

Pot, kettle, etc.

By the by, in our jurisdiction, there are other pesky little laws that get in the way of the big ones like the rear-ender ones referred to here. But I dare not conjecture on what they are, because I don't have enough information about the circumstances of the incident.

Wonderful.

Congratulations.

Good job.

But based on what I know about my jurisdiction, and the way cases are handled here I drew a conclusion about the man's guilt for hitting the kid from behind, and seeing as you don't even live in the same country I find it interesting that you're arguing what my perception is based on a similar state which most likely has similar laws. Based on what I know about the way these cases are generally decided (and the earlier piece I quoted on Findlaw.com, you know, a legal advice site), the person who rearended the kid is most likely the guilty party.

Now, you can say someone is most likely guilty without saying they are. I don't need evidence to draw a conclusion that someone who rear-ended someone is more often than not the guilty party.

You, with a PR background, should see the difference.

Oh the injustice. Glad to see that the ancient art of baseles knee-jerk is alive and kicking in the good old USA. There's glory in over-sensationalising everything, I'm sure.

If all the ockers are ganging up on me, I must be doing something right.

Oh the injustice...

Yawn...

What I don't get is if someone doesn't want to discuss something until they have more information, why do they continuously discuss something that they aren't going to get more information on?

It's like all the people who hate the Critical Mass threads but can't wait to get their damned opinion in on those same threads they so deplore.

This is a discussion forum with discussion threads where discussion happens. If you don't want to discuss something in these discussion forums, then feel free to click the "Next Thread" button and stop bashing the people who do want to discuss it.

Jeez.

If all the ockers are ganging up on me, I must be doing something right.

Over here it's called sport. Keep swinging. We'll stop laughing later on.

Over here it's called sport. Keep swinging. We'll stop laughing later on.

As long as y'all keep posting, I'll never stop laughing. G'night. ;)

Wonderful.

Congratulations.

Good job.


Ever heard of the court? The place where matters of true guilt or otherwise are decided?

Obviously not. Better to try and convict and execute based on the evidence of two scanty postings.

And funny, I don't ever recall mentioning CM in this thread. But now we know what the agenda is. Good'o.

Oh... ocker is such as passe term...cringe. You've got me on that one!

I do have a driver's license, and you're dead wrong. And whatever the facts are, if you nail someone from behind you're guilty, regardless of what they did to get in front of you. Once someone is there in front of you, it's your responsibility not to hit them, not theirs not to get hit.

I was riding home today at around 25mph in a zone where cars were doing about 50, I cut across a lane, braked hard, and made a sharp left turn, the car behind me almost hit me and I yelled "sorry" as loud as I could. Why? Cause I know if I got hit, it would've been my fault. I forgot to signal, I didn't look behind me, I assumed the cars at the last light haven't caught up yet, I don't have brake lights to show that I'm braking hard for the turn. People have to take responsibility for their own actions, both drivers and bikers, even if the odds are against us.

Ever heard of the court?

I know of a special court Rowan: a kangaroo court. Seem familiar?

Jeez...

I'm not saying that responsibility for the accident being the person behind you gives you the right to act like an unapologetic jerk because it's not your fault if you get hit.

I don't even think I insinuated that.

Oh forget it. I'll just move on here...

Ever heard of the court? The place where matters of true guilt or otherwise are decided?

Obviously not. Better to try and convict and execute based on the evidence of two scanty postings.

And funny, I don't ever recall mentioning CM in this thread. But now we know what the agenda is. Good'o.

No Agenda there, just making a point that the same types of people who can't stand CM get in a shot every chance they get, are the same people who pop in and out telling other people how stupid a discussion is, but they sure as hell make sure they get that point in. It's stupid, but it's okay to add to such a stupid discussion as long as you're informing the participants about its stupidity.

But if it makes you feel better to think I have an agenda, than good on you. Pat yourself on the back.

No one is convicting anyone of anything. Just discussing what we know based on what we know about the situation. Odds are the guy who hit him is the guilty party here. Does that mean he's guilty? Obviously not (here comes that whole reading comprehension thing again).

Like I said, if dismissing me as some agenda driven loon is what makes you feel better, good on you.

What I'm about to say, some of you, you know who you are, might be considered selling out to the automobile crowd.
But imagine if you were piloting a chunk of metal at around 25mph, now say some moron on a BMX bike decides to fly out of his driveway and hop onto the street right in the middle of the lane at 10mph. And your cat like refexes and formula one braking and handling just some how, by some sheer work of the devil and misfortune, fails at stopping your 2500 pound chunk of metal from 25mph down to <10mph and swerving out of the way in the 0.15 seconds that you have to respond.
Now you've got a kid in a coma, their bmx bike is part of your radiator, and before you know what the hell happened, you now find yourself in a situation where you've rear ended a kid and possibly killed him on a bmx bike. Who's fault would that be? That's right, according to some of you, YOURS, for a) not having a formula one car b) not having jedi predictive powers c) not having cat like reflexes.
So now you're in jail, your cell mate's name is Tiny Tim except he's 6' 5" and 280 and he has a thing for skinny cyclists. Who's fault was it again that the kid's dead?

On another sad note an American policeman touring Oz on his bike was killed (nee obliterated) by a road train (that's a very long truck) in Western Australia yesterday. According to the Daily Telegraph "police accident investigators are unsure whether the cyclist had been clipped by the truck, swerved into its path, or had been disturbed by the draught as it passed."

Should the truckie be charged? Go ahead, make a quick assessment and judgment call with no factual information other than the truck was passing a cyclist and the cyclist ended up dead.

What I'm about to say...

Ummm... Guess what slvoid? You're in jail...

Wonder why that is...

Maybe because a hit from behind means the hitter is guilty most of the time?


What I'm about to say may surprise some of you, but I don't really give a damn who's guilty here. The kid's in a coma, and the guy who hit him put him there. Do I think he's guilty? Absolutely. He's guilty of putting the kid in the hospital. Do I need twelve jurors and a judge to tell me that? No. It's my opinion.

When was the last time you consulted a jury while punishing your kids? I don't need a jury to have an opinion.