bikinpolitico

My co-author at Austin Bike Blog just wrote an article about a push in Europe to make drivers civilly liable by default in accidents with cyclists and pedestrians (criminal cases not affected.) Here's the article: https://austinbikeblog.org/2008/11/25...streets-safer/

So what do you think? Would this make our streets safer for cyclists?

Lot's Knife

Does the pope s--- in the woods?

Yes.

DataJunkie

It would sure make hit and run a more likely result of a car vs bike accident.

CCrew

It also makes a mockery of the premise American law is founded on. The good old "innocent until proven guilty". Besides, most of us here have seen enough bonehead moves by cyclists to know it isn't guaranteed it's the cagers fault.

-Roger.

cradduck

+1 ftw.

MadCapsule

I think it would make cyclists dumber.

CB HI

Hawaii (and other states) have no-fault laws that make the motorist insurance liable for the medical cost for any cyclist or pedestrian that they have a collision with, regardless of fault.

It has not made Hawaii safer for cyclist.

BarracksSi

No.

Like the comment about making cyclists dumber, it'll make pedestrians even more self-important than they already are. I don't know whether I'm seeing boldness, stupidity, or a figurative handgun loaded with lawsuit papers when I watch peds walk into moving traffic here.

pinkpowa

Working in the insurance industry, I can tell you that 95% of the time, if there's a bike involved, it's the car's fault. At least that's how it is in Florida.

GodsBassist

I think both of these are correct.

I just don't like the idea that any one party should be held automatically liable, especially in situations where it's just not the case. There are lots of stupid bikers out there who do dumb things, and it would be a shame to empower reckless individuals.

As far as pedestrians go, that might be another story, though.

bikinpolitico

I think this is saying that the car would be liable by default. This is currently the case in other situations such as if I rear-end someone. Unless you can provide evidence somehow to the contrary, you are at fault. I think it changes the mind set of the driver to be sure.

As for enboldening cyclist to act stupidly, I don't buy it. Sure there are stupid cyclists, and there would continue to be stupid cyclists. But I think the average cyclist realizes they aren't going to fair well against a 2 ton piece of speeding metal regardless of whose fault it is.

bikinpolitico

This applies to civil cases, not criminal. Presumed innocence is maintained in criminal cases.

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to current U.S. civil codes so that would not be a change.

tcs

In order to sort out the chaos and anarchy that was the local "bike" path, they enacted an ordinance making cyclists automatically at fault in any collision with a pedestrian.

This made the path safer because every cyclist that rode above 5 mph quit using it.

tcs

ted_major

If you click through the links above, the proposal is for strict liability: driver pays for injuries in case of car-bike/pedestrian accident, regardless of fault. (It's not a default rule: driver liable unless evidence shows fault of cyclist/pedestrian.)

I don't think it would make much difference. In the early part of the 20th century, many US states outlawed auto insurance because they believed that drivers would be more careless if they didn't have to pay for the damages they caused. That logic didn't hold up over time.

I don't believe that drivers decide who to run over or not run over based on liability--if you're too careless a driver to notice a pedestrian or cyclist, paying damages after an accident won't do much to prevent the accident in the first place.

jsonnabend

You might also look into the concept of "strict liability". It's not newly developed jurisprudence.

- jeff

CCrew

No, but reasonable doubt is applicable to Civil cases. You're still removing that. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, I just see them on TV

Febs

Incorrect. The "reasonable doubt" standard is almost never applied in civil cases. The standard that is usually applied in negligence cases is "preponderance of the evidence." That means that the plaintiff needs to prove only that it is more likely than not that the defendant was negligent.

In some instances in civil cases, the burden of proof requires "clear and convincing evidence." This means that party with the burden of proof must do more than merely persuade the jury that the proposition is probably true. To be clear and convincing, the evidence must be strong enough to cause the jury to have a clear and firm belief that the proposition is true.

There is no rule that I am aware of that would make you "liable by default" if you rear-end someone. The plaintiff would still be required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were negligent. However, in the absence of some unusual factor, it is usually fairly easy for a plaintiff to meet that burden in the case of a rear-end collision. Among other things, in those situations there is usually (though not always) a violation of the "assured clear distance" rule.

bikinpolitico

Thanks for the legal background, Febs. It helps when us non-lawyers make our best guesses at what the law actual is.

MMACH 5

It would only make a difference if America's dumb-***** drivers were aware of the law, (most don't even know that bicycles are allowed on the street).

Bat22

The city I grew up in has a bike friendly mayor who makes an effort to build
advocacy groups and try to build bike lanes. I feel the groups just turn
into a local mayoral power base. Bike lanes don't make any sense
in these tight city streets. Some thoughts I had.
Turn some streets into bike only during rush hour.
Bikers dressed like cops. Let the cager play russian roulette.
Extend civil rights protection to bikes.

BroadSTPhilly

This is a good point. I am not sure how far a law like this would go when drivers can't even figure out that I am required to ride the road.

wirehead

I like the idea better of enhanced penalties for hitting bikes.

Does anybody know if the whole double-traffic-fine for highway workers worked out? Did that make it safer to be a highway worker?

Hot Potato

Horrible idea. I presume some of you also own and operate a car? If so, do you want to automatically lose your assets because someone else jumped in front of or behind you? Furthermore, logic would then demand that ALL cyclists be automatically liable for collisions with pedestrians? Seems like mandatory cycling license and insurance might be in order?

Of course, it is also horrible that someone can run you over, maim or kill you, and just receive a $75 ticket for failure to yield.

Febs

Of course. And vans would automatically be liable for collisions with compact cars. Buses would automatically be liable for collisions with vans. Trains would automatically be liable for collisions with buses. Etc.

Bat22

This must be the big bang theory I hear once in awhile.