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..

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?

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

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:

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?

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

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.

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.

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.