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:

https://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?

kgatwork

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

MTN2SEA

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

joeprim

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

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).

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".

twahl

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.

Laggard

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.

acrafton

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

Cerberusgl

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.

cyclingute

[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=https://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.

LordOpie

That is so ****ing absurd and offensive.

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

ManBearPig

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.

jslopez

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...

Barren

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

skiahh

[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.

mirona

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.

jslopez

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.

TandemGeek

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


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.

tbreihan

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.

Maj.Taylor

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.

steveh2

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.

steveh2

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?

venga venga

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.

Laggard

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.

Cerberusgl

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.