Bikepacker67

Sorry bud... I ain't buying it.

He shouldn't have been tooling along at 20mph on the approach of a bottleneck.

Remember now, if he isn't riding vehicularly (which by all accounts, he wasn't), motorists lose sight of him as they pass.

It was his fault in the sense that a responsible cyclist should (if he wants to live) predict such hairy circumstances when the flow of traffic is obstructed.

anders

I responsible motorist should have predicted the circumstances and should not have pulled in front of the cyclist abrubtly.

Bikepacker67

I see you still don't get my point.

Whoulda Coulda Shoulda.

The fact remains, that the ultimate responsibility of life and death lies with the cyclist. And that means being cognizant of common cager behavior.

Kyle90

Proper driving, insts you use your damn mirrors. Meaning, it was the MOTORISTS fualt, bar none. Meaning, if the driver was LOOKING then he wouldn't have stopped suddenly like stated and would have slowed to a stop. and the only freakin' possible way an SUV can't see a cyclists out the rear mirrior is the if the driver is blind as bloody hell, or is a midget. Period, I've been behind literally thousands of SUV's and have them see me even when I'm touching their bumper. Ohwell, someone should burn that punks SUV.

Bikepacker67

Ohh Kyle.. I hope your adolescent attitude fades before you pay dearly.

Kyle90

I love that line, could you possibly be any more cliché? If you think my attitude is "adolescent", then you're a moron. Assuming my attitude is "adolescent". I love it when people do that, as they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. Evidently, neither do you. I'd much rather burn someones vehicle then have them go to jail. It's much more enjoyable to watch them cry as thier 50 thousand dollar vehicle burns into ashes. Yes, I'm a pyromaniac. Oh, and I won't pay dearly in any type of situation my misguided friend.


Ethier way, someone should burn it, to ashes..


On a more postive note, I'm right. Unless they created some new amazingly stupid law I am un aware of, although it's highly possible. It's doubtful. Although, you have your point of him being aware as a cyclist. Still, an SUV who suddenly stops with a cyclist behind him, is the SUV's fualt.. and, if the SUV didn't see him, how is it not the SUV's fualt?

Bikepacker67

No Kyle. It's not.

The law will (rightfully) find the trailing vehicle at fault for not keeping a safe distance/speed from the motorist in front of them.

tippy

I guess I'm still unclear. Why did 'B' go around on the left if 'B' thought 'A' was stopped to make a left turn? Also, when I see a motorist stopped in the road, I get very cautious, even to the point of slowing down or stopping. The final thing is, could you have stopped in time before hitting the pedestrian had the two motor vehicles not been there. Obviously, they stopped suddenly for a reason even though they might have went about it very sloppily.

Hope you heal up quick!!!!

dtipton

mac

Glad you are still alive, however I'm trying to understand what you said. Is this right?

* car stopped in middle of street going to make left turn
* SUV drives up behind car and then passes on the right
* SUV stops (why?)
* you rear-end the SUV

lilHinault

True, though, once the hood passes you, to them you don't exist.

Cyclaholic

If what the driver said is true, ie. there was a pedestrian wlking across the road, then the pedestrian would have been run over by the SUV. Makes sense to me that the driver would hit the brakes with a pedestrian in front, and beleiving that the cyclist, somewhere behind, has to fend for himself.

I can see how the SUV driver may be legally at fault, but I can also see how the cyclist could have used a bit more forward planning or more defensife style of riding leading up to the collision...... It's a tough call without having witnessed it first hand.

H23

There is a lot (too much, I think) emphasis on these accident threads about FAULT and BLAME. Some of you are too comfortable with assigning 100% of the responsibility for the accident to one party or the other.

This is the type of accident that could happen to any of us, even the safety-patrol-geeks among us.

Why does it always have to be totally someone's "fault"? The reality of accidents is more complex than that, although legally, someone does have to be "at fault".

Precisely trying to assign "fault" does not do anything to help prevent these types of accidents. Instead, it just makes people defensive and absolves one party or the other of responsibility. In many accidents, all the people involved played a part in its occurence, so everyone shares the blame for the accident (some more than others).

oboeguy

I'm getting SO SICK of the CAPITAL LETTER lecturing going on HERE. Take CHILL PILL people.

OP, glad you survived!

DC_Emily

Agreed, glad you're ok!! Hope you have a speedy recovery!

DC_Em

clancy98

hahaha everyone is so friendly and supportive here.




I'm smarter than you. all of you...

Alloy Addict

No Bikepacker67. It won't. At least not every time.

That may be the law where you live, but it isn't the law everywhere. A couple of years ago I totalled my car (mainly because it wasn't worth fixing) because a driver cut me off. I was doing 40 mph on a 40 mph road in the right lane when a guy in a Chevy pickup decided he didn't like waiting in traffic in the left lane and changed lanes without a signal. I was on the brakes the second I saw him pull out but there was no way I could stop and no way I could have predicted his action. None. I still thought I was going to be found at fault because I hit him in the back, just like you seem to believe is always the case. An officer came to the scene, took both sides of the story, measured the skidmarks, and found the guy in the truck to be 100% at fault. He drove away in his steel bumpered truck with minor damage, and I ended up with another car payment even though I got money from his insurance.

A rear end collision is not always the fault of the person in the back, at least not in every state. Being cut off is not the same following too close.

anders

Thank you for straightening bikepacker out. He does not know what he is talking about.

Bikepacker67

I've never needed "straightening out" because I've never plowed into a vehicle in front of me.

Bikepacker67

Let me be clear (and reiterate my mantra on this subject).

When riding a bicycle in traffic, one should always treat any car on the immediate left (or right in UK) as a car that has already passed.

Look at it from the motorist perspective... once you're out of their sight, you're out of their minds.

Is it right? It doesn't matter if your prime directive is survival.

CB HI

Based on your mantra, you must brake every time any vehicle is along side you in an adjacent lane until you are a safe following distance/speed, and when the next vehicle comes up along side 2 seconds later you must brake again. If anyone truly followed you guidelines as stated, they would never be able to get anywhere.

Do you also assume every oncoming car is going to swerve into you and you must swerve into the ditch to prevent being blamed for causing an accident when the car hits you?

Yes, VC includes defensive driving, but it also includes cooperation and mutual observation of the traffic laws. You seem to be blinded by the defensive driving aspect to the exclusion of all other aspects of responsible vehicle operation.

Bikepacker67

If cars are passing you every 2 seconds, then you are obviously in a very congested traffic pattern in which your speed is very closely matched to the traffic.

In this case, I'd take the lane, and stay in the "stream".

But that puts a "kink" in your 'cut to the front of the queue' mentality, dun'it?

Now you see how this VC stuff worx?

CB HI

No Kink at all, since that is preciously when motorist most often cut off others.

And by your mantra, you have taken the lane and the guy in the lane to your left moves along side, cuts right in front of you and slams on his brakes it is your fault because you did not brake before he cut in front of you.

That is the sum of your confused post.

Be Ready

In Ohio, if you hit someone in the rear, it is automatically your fault. Period.

This law is enforced routinely w/o exceptions. Your insurance company will snarl at you and settle with the other party out of court if they find out you hit someone in the rear -it will never even make it to the judges chambers. Logic is that your are supposed to allow proper distance between you and the other vehicles based on how much time/distance it takes your vehicle to stop (hence, maintaining control of your vehicle) and in all cases that distance should be the equivalent of at least one car space. The time/distance would change based on variable or things such as weather, and weight of vehicle...

I actually appreciate this law because I certainly do not like people who tailgate me -how annoying is that?

Be Ready

Which brings me to another question, shouldn't we as cyclist have road insurance. God! That would be expensive.

The above note I wrote was in relation to what would happen if you were driving a car and rear-ended another vehicle.

But, if you rear-ended someone as a cyclist, and you damaged their vehicle, and you were clearly wrong as specified under Ohio law -I don't supposed your car insurance company would cover you. It seems that your insurance would only apply if you were driving your motor vehicle per the insurance agreement...but I'm not sure. I think progressive would definitely find a way out of paying on my behalf. I would have to surrender some cash from...

Do we really want to bring this up w/ insurance companies? It will come up one way or another.

sentinel

Folks, do you people think there may be a degree of fault. In Indiana there are degrees of fault so maybe each is 50/50 at fault. Also remember, there was only ONE person on this board who was there for this crash and that is the injured person. Sometimes we have a tendency to remember things in a manner that benefit us sometimes deliberately and sometimes it is natural tendency. If the car was in front of him and stopped suddenly it could be the fault of both 1) the car for sudden braking and 2) the bike for following too closely.
How many times have you seen a bike approaching an intersection and pass the car right turning car on the right without yielding to the car in the turn?