Originally Posted by
Moe Zhoost
I happened on
this article today while browsing. I know it's a few year's old, but I found it enlightening and disturbing.
"
A relatively rare legal precedent only applied in a handful of states and the District of Columbia — the doctrine of contributory negligence that some call the “one percent rule” — often places the fault of a collision on cyclists. "
"According to data from 1997 to 2010 from the N.C. Department of Transportation, of the 1,207 disabling cycling accidents statewide, in 53.9 percent of the crashes, a cyclist was found to be at fault. In 15.9 percent of the cases, the motorist was found to be at fault."
I'd say that in most accidents, both parties may have made faulty decisions, for instance: the cyclist assuming that a car won't do a left hook, but that's not a reason to lay blame on them. The concept that the cyclist was at fault because he or she did not accurately predict the future (as well as the idea that the victim must prove that the motorist was at fault) is so skewed.
Actually, you're lucky you're only in NC, and not in Washington DC. Enforcement of liability is difficult enough, but contributory negligence laws can virtually remove it completely.
Contributory negligence (NC,VA, DC, MD; AL) produces extreme results, since it is difficult (if not impossible) to prove the victim is not even 1% at fault, and police tend to be motorists rather than pedestrians or bicyclists.
With comparative negligence, the victim might will settle for 99% of damages. With contributory negligence, police may assign partial fault due to incomplete investigation, by creating obligations that are not legally required (e.g. wearing fluorescent clothing), or outright bias.
In my accident (DE, not contributory negligence), the police report asked about 5-6 items of bicyclists safety equipment but instructed the officer to list a maximum of 2. He listed my helmet (not legally required) but did not mention the required lights I also had, falsely creating the appearance that I was at fault.
As noted in other comments, if the driver hits the bicyclist hard enough, the collision can also destroy lights, reflectors, etc, creating the appearance of partial fault and completely eliminating the motorist's liability.
Finally, Washington DC says that bicyclists are at fault if they do not anticipate motorists illegally violating their right of way (for some reason this does not apply in collisions between motorists).
https://medium.com/@ShaneFarthing/th...n-561c4c2ea191