FBinNY 

It depends if the rider was actually hit, or simply frazzled. In most states the passed vehicle has the right of way over the passing vehicles until the passing maneuver is successfully completed. So if the passing car actually contacted the cyclist he's clearly at fault. If there's no contact, the situation is muddier, though if there's a passing margin law, the driver could be found at fault.

As for the car hit from behind, here in NY the cyclist is liable for any damage regardless of how or why he hit the car.

smasha

traffic laws & civil courts vary just as much from state to state (or even city to city, county to county) within the US as they do between the US and NZ.

in other words, it ain't all that different. really, the only significant difference is that we drive on the other side of the road.

i lived most of my life in the US (i've seen the inside of civil courts, criminal courts, and traffic courts in a few different states) and i'd expect the outcome to be similar there... the only variable being how seriously local police take complaints filed by bicyclists. some US police depts may not pursue it at all (or may issue a ticket to the bicyclist for not riding in the gutter), while other "bike friendly" US police depts would prosecute the motorist for several offences (careless driving, unsafe passing, some states have 3-4ft passing laws, overtaking against oncoming traffic, failure to comply with a mandatory turn arrow - those are just the obvious ones).

smasha

this seems to be the relevant section of the passing statute in NZ:

based on that, if a passing vehicle "reasonably" (as assessed by police, then maybe a court) causes another road user to be frazzled or, more seriously, requires another road user to "take evasive action to avoid a collision", then the overtaking driver is in violation of the statute.

likewise... if someone cuts you off, swerves in front of you, blows through a red lights, or does something else stupid, and you're "forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision", the other driver may well be liable/culpable for you crashing, even if there's no contact between your vehicle and their vehicle.

as for damage to the car in front (in this case, there wasn't any) it would (with rare exception) ULTIMATELY be the liability of the vehicle/driver that caused the crash, even if it's via another vehicle/driver/insurance. if there was damage to the vehicle in front, under NZ law, i'm really not sure if the driver/owner would get better/faster results by trying to hold me liable for damages (in which case i would hold the other driver/vehicle liable to "make me whole" for costs), or going straight after the driver/vehicle owner who was found to be culpable/liable for the collision.

generally that's "just handled by the insurance companies", but if i put my head through the rear window of a ferrari as a result of "evading a collision" with a careless motorist, while riding my bike, i'd get a chance to really find out how it works

FBinNY 

The NZ law is very similar to that in NYS, so it's a matter of how close is reasonable. OTOH as you pointed in an earlier post, the video did refute the driver's contention that he stopped, effectively nullifying any testimony on his part, and leaving you the last man standing.




Here in NY the driver of the forward car would have direct recourse against you since the one thing not in dispute is that you hit him. You of course would pass this liability through to the driver you claim caused the chain of events.

The logic of the law here is very simple. The driver who was hit knows who hit him and has to have a line of recourse that doesn't involve him in taking sides in what happened earlier. If that weren't the case, he'd have to take sides and if he picked the wrong horse could get nothing, even though he was clearly an injured party.

surreal

I've been commuting for about a decade, and I've never used a cam in any way, Reading this, my initial response is "I'm glad I avoid all of this complication by not using the camera", but then I realize that having the cam only makes sense when you really need it.... when there's a collision and it's the other road user's fault and you'd need the video evidence to prove it. I totally get that, see the value of a bike-mounted cam, and I might even consider acquiring some sort of camera(s)...

That being said, I'm fairly sure that pestering LE about some buzzes or catcalls is not going to do anything to improve your lot on the road. That seems like it'd be a significant waste of time, and unlikely to be well-received by the police.

Smasha- I'm glad you got some justice from that video, and the guy in the Mitsu was clearly in the wrong, but FB is correct--- in most places here in the US, that video would've got you into trouble moreso than the motorist.

rebel1916

I don't think anybody seriously believes he was hit.

FBinNY 

I originally couldn't see how he wasn't at fault. However if you read his posts, the video served to refute the sworn testimony of the passing driver. That let his claim of a dangerously close pass go unchallenged and he prevailed. It's also possible that the pass was in fact unreasonably close, (though I don't know if the video proves this or not).

In New York and many other states you wouldn't have to prove contact to make a case for an unreasonably close or dangerous pass.

smasha

no one has explained HOW that video might have gotten me in any trouble... at least not explained it in a way that i haven't wiped my ass with.

even if you want to consider this a case of "both parties at fault" or even "bicyclist at fault" (which is clearly not the view expressed by the police and the civil court), it just side-tracks the OP's thread. if someone wants to start a new thread to debate this particular incident, just send me an invite.

that really makes no difference, whether or not there was contact. in either case, the car was too close, for no good reason, and caused me to partially lose control. whether loss of control resulted from physical contact or merely close proximity doesn't matter. i pointed that out in the original complaint, and both the police and the civil court seem to be in clear agreement on that point.

i'm not sure exactly what he said to the police, but note that he was formally warned by the police for "careless driving", not "unsafe passing".

"careless driving" is a more serious offence than "unsafe passing", but a formal warning isn't as serious as a ticket (or as they call it here, an "infringement notice").

i found out later that NZ police were conducting a trial in wellington... when a driver has a clean record, and the police aren't highly motivated to file formal charges, they instead issue a formal warning, often for "careless driving", which probably fits well with the driver's statements to police vs the video evidence. if the driver has later contact with police, the formal warning will come up in the system and the driver will very likely not get a 2nd warning.

similarly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tozX109UMbY

the police got in touch with that driver via telephone. the driver acknowledged that he was driving the vehicle at that time and place, but he was certain that there was no one there on a bike. without video, it would've been game over: your word against theirs. based on the discrepancies between the driver's statements and the video (and the cop telling me that my bike was obviously lit up like a christmas tree), he was charged with "careless driving".

FBinNY 

I'm a fan of the video everything approach, but also can't see how the video could work against you, and never said it would.

smasha

that's not a jab at you.

like everyone, i'm not perfect. sometimes i bend the rules, sometimes i break the rules, and sometimes i **** up. most of those videos don't go to the police

FBinNY 

I didn't take it as a jab. However another poster attributed the idea to me, so I figured I'd disown it.

OTOH- I must live in some kind of strange world here in Metro NY. Though surrounded by rude, rushed, self-important New Yorkers, I so rarely have any negative interactions with the denizens of the motor world. Then again, it's possible that after 45 years riding here I suffer from diminished expectations.

mtbikerinpa

I've never pressed charges with my camera ($20 vivitar 480) but it is enough to record incidents and daylight resolution license plates at 70 ft and conversational level audio at 20 mph. Using it to chart close passes, harassment, hooking, I called in to the local enforcement with enough result that they gave me the direct phone number to put in speed dial. The first month I reported 16 people who had repeated at least 5 times on the same 6 mile route, all called in did not return on the list for over a year. By the time I finished that job and route I didn't even get 4-5 on a month chart, though there were more agressive ones in comparison that I did not wait for repeat to call in. There is a difference between reporting and filing charges. One is simple and done over the phone, sometimes in person. Charges require a court visit ultimately and evidence in some cases. Much more involved. For most people a simple 'talking to' from a report is enough to show intent.

In all cases the enforcement was accepting and constructive with the input. In particular they liked having timestamps and patterns to watch since the excess speed periods that I had been recording were outside what they had termed to be a 'low incidence' road(in fact it was just that they had no skills at hiding the cruisers).

Leisesturm

Amen! I also commuted for years in NYC, to say nothing of riding there for two decades before going corporate. It kills me that the suburban riders have so much conflict. About what? And before they start, I have been commuting between Hillsboro, OR and Forest Grove, OR for the last five years. Every kind of traffic interaction you can think of and I have never had the need to 'report' anyone. What with? If I'm down, my camera isn't going to focus that well on the license plate of the fleeing crew cab that nailed me. I devote my energies into staying out of the way of low flying crew cabs! Some of you would be well advised to do the same. All the settlement money in the world isn't going to re-attach your hoo-hoo if you let some cager run over it! Would you rather have a picture of the hoo-hoo with the distinctive tread pattern of Goodyear All-Season Kevlar Bead Radials on it or would you like it safe and snug in your commuter pants??

H

Leisesturm

That's about what I figured. I guess the word credibility means nothing to you. Because you've got none now. All your bluster is revealed for what it is: BS. You got lucky and we all knew that. Your protests about nothing at all... you just made yourself look more and more ridiculous. I don't want to be anywhere around when the Karma from all that arrogance and lack of accountability comes round to bite your saddle warmer.

H (friends don't let friends buy helmet cams and turn themselves into nuisance callers to the state police)

smasha

it happens - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqSp4XZX0CU

no one is suggesting that a camera is a substitute for defensive riding, common sense, on-road bike training course, etc.

ride safely AND get video.

worst case scenario: the police and coroner can use my video to identify my killer.

boo ****ing hoo. another case of someone who's infalable saying that video cameras are useless, crying and moaning that someone is actually getting results and pissing on your "cameras are useless" theory. next time i'll just claim to be perfect, huh?

you want to see a video of me breaking the law? here it is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udrUmqcNsU8

call the police. they know where to find me

Leisesturm

Smash (irony?) you need help bro... on the serious tip, go get some, we'll wait, word up...

H

smasha

first name's "atom", but that user-name (and "smasher") was already taken.

i guess your best rebuttal was to try and make fun of my name... weak.

surreal

It might have gotten you into trouble b/c it shows you rear-ending someone while blowing an airhorn at the foolish fella who was trying to pass you illegally. Yeah, guy in the Mitsu is at fault in my view b/c he put you at risk, and rattled your cage.... but some may argue, based on the video, that your bike was damaged when you rear-ended the civic, and still others might argue that the rear-end collision was avoidable.

I wasn't there, in your saddle, when it happened, so I won't try to speculate whether or not I'd have fared any differently. Moot point anyway, b/c you hit the Civic while trying to avoid the Mitsu which had needlessly and illegally threatened you. I get that. But, reviewing the video, I can see how someone else might get an entirely different impression.

10 Wheels

Rider could have taken evasive action in place of using the horn.

dynodonn 

I wouldn't either, but cameras sure do a much better job of gathering info that would normally not be available without them, due to the higher speed differential that a number of aggressive motorists in my locale try to use to their advantage.

smasha

that's EXACTLY what happened. that's what i wrote in the police complaint, and that's what i wrote in the civil complaint. the front wheel was damaged by direct impact with the honda, the rear wheel was bent sideways after landing.

both the police and civil court recognized that crashing into the rear-end of the honda resulted from evasive action, necessary to avoid being knocked-over by the careless driver. that makes the careless driver culpable/liable for the crash and resulting damage.

rider can do both. horn and evasive action are not mutually exclusive.

i used the horn how/when it was appropriate to use the horn. that doesn't mean i didn't take evasive action how/when that became appropriate.

another armchair-quarterback who can watch a street-fight/assault on youtube, and always know how to kick the other guy's ass.

muu

I don't always keep my camera charged but for the most part it's on a prominent spot on my helmet. People hate being recorded (funny considering the number of security cameras and such all around you) and many of them act a little better knowing they're being watched. When Google Glass improves and everyone assumes cyclist glasses are doubling as instant-youtube-upload minicomputers I might stop wearing them, until then it adds a slight bit of peace of mind. It's silly to expect them to do everything for you, but it sure as heck doesn't hurt to be wearing one.

niuoka

agree