Cyclist seriously injured by car running red….

[Steve O]

@Brendan von Buckingham 96711 wrote:

First paragraph, completely agree. Second paragraph–sadly–is wishful thinking. Driver will use the “I didn’t see the red light because of the sun” defense and nothing of great consequence will be further done.

I am hopeful, but not confident, that you will be wrong. Great article in the Economist about the vast difference in how society (and the legal systems) differ in their approaches between the US and Europe:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/cycling-v-cars

Quote from article:

To sum up: in the Netherlands, if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, the accident is always assumed to have been the driver’s fault, not the cyclist’s. As explained in this FAQ from the ANWB, the Dutch tourism and car owners’ organisation, “the law treats pedestrians and cyclists as weaker participants in traffic… The driver of the motor vehicle is liable for the accident, unless he can prove he was overpowered by circumstances beyond his control (overmacht). The driver must thus prove that none of the blame falls on him, which is extremely difficult in practice.”

(emphasis added)

The contrast between that and the law in DC/MD/VA of pure contributory negligence is stark. Here we have to prove that not even 1% of the fault lies with the cyclist or she is entitled to no compensation. Beyond absurd.

[jrenaut]

I don’t think it’s good to completely flip the contributory negligence like that. If it’s unfair that a cyclist who is .000001% at fault can’t get anything, it is also unfair that a driver who is .000001% at fault bears the full burden. I’m okay with putting MORE burden on the less vulnerable user, just not ALL.

I mean, what if I’m doing 28mph in a 25 zone in my car and some headphoned expletive-clown on a bike decides he has to turn left from the right lane and cuts in front of me. Maybe if I’m doing 25mph I could have stopped in time, maybe not. But I’m 100% at fault? That’s not just either.

[Steve O]

@scoot 96728 wrote:

If this woman had been hit by an unintentional discharge from a firearm, would society be so quick to write it off as an “unfortunate accident”?

Sadly, yes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263601/Joseph-Loughrey-Father-wont-charged-accidentally-shooting-dead-son-7.html

[mstone]

@jrenaut 96736 wrote:

I don’t think it’s good to completely flip the contributory negligence like that. If it’s unfair that a cyclist who is .000001% at fault can’t get anything, it is also unfair that a driver who is .000001% at fault bears the full burden. I’m okay with putting MORE burden on the less vulnerable user, just not ALL.

I mean, what if I’m doing 28mph in a 25 zone in my car and some headphoned expletive-clown on a bike decides he has to turn left from the right lane and cuts in front of me. Maybe if I’m doing 25mph I could have stopped in time, maybe not. But I’m 100% at fault? That’s not just either.

I think it’s completely just for drivers to have to be paranoid about hitting someone. If you don’t want that kind of stress, then don’t operate a motor vehicle. (I scoff at the “well, cyclists won’t have an incentive to be careful” argument and counter with “avoiding death is already an incentive”.)

[Steve O]

@jrenaut 96736 wrote:

I don’t think it’s good to completely flip the contributory negligence like that. If it’s unfair that a cyclist who is .000001% at fault can’t get anything, it is also unfair that a driver who is .000001% at fault bears the full burden. I’m okay with putting MORE burden on the less vulnerable user, just not ALL.

I mean, what if I’m doing 28mph in a 25 zone in my car and some headphoned expletive-clown on a bike decides he has to turn left from the right lane and cuts in front of me. Maybe if I’m doing 25mph I could have stopped in time, maybe not. But I’m 100% at fault? That’s not just either.

In the Netherlands, you would be at fault.

More from the article:

To illustrate how traffic regulations in the Netherlands differ from those in America, here are a few mostly hypothetical Dutch cases to consider.

• Let’s say a truck is making a turn onto a high-speed four-lane street in The Hague, and rides over a cyclist in the bicycle lane. The accident is witnessed by a very reliable observer whose testimony is likely to stand up in court—say, the prime minister of the country. Who is at fault, and will have to pay damages and/or face criminal penalties? Answer: the truck driver.

• But what if the same accident occurs on a two-lane street with no designated bicycle lane, so the bicycle is riding out in traffic? And what if there are no witnesses or video evidence? Who is at fault then? Answer: the truck driver.

• What if there was a separate traffic light for bicycles at this intersection, and the cyclist was clearly running a red light? Answer: still the truck driver.

• Okay, so…what if the bicycle was coming the wrong way up a one-way street, arrived at the intersection at the same time as the truck, and despite the fact that the truck was on the right, the bicycle seized the right-of-way and dashed straight across the intersection? Answer: the truck driver would have to pay at least 50% of the cyclist’s damages, unless he can prove there was no way he could have seen the cyclist.

• Fine. What if a tornado is racing through the streets of some Dutch town, picks the truck up, and hurls it into the bicyclist, who is in the middle of running a red light while going the wrong way up a one-way street, no hands? Answer: the truck driver will probably not have to pay the cyclist’s damages, unless the cyclist was 14 or younger, in which case the truck driver will have to make an extra effort to prove that there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident.

Have they gone “too far” in the Netherlands? I’d like to think that the giant pendulum of justice swings a lot closer to them than to us.

[jrenaut]

@mstone 96748 wrote:

I think it’s completely just for drivers to have to be paranoid about hitting someone. If you don’t want that kind of stress, then don’t operate a motor vehicle. (I scoff at the “well, cyclists won’t have an incentive to be careful” argument and counter with “avoiding death is already an incentive”.)

Yeah, sure, but that’s not what I said.

And Steve O, the examples there suggest it’s not the exact opposite of here and they do have some relative liability. As to whether they’ve gone too far – eh, dunno, but when you’re the country always used as the example for how cycling should be, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[mstone]

What this boils down to is that, in reality, most collisions are going to come down to he said/she said. In that case, who should the tie go to? From a public policy point of view, “justice” is everyone having a strong incentive to do the right thing. Cyclists and pedestrians have fear of death, motorists have…fear of feeling bad that they killed someone?

[elbows]

I guess if they did, they would have mentioned it, but does anyone know how this woman is doing? I think about her often.

On a sidenote, does anyone remember an accident at George Mason and Four Mile Run (or is it W&OD) where a cyclist was seriously injured or, I thought, killed like 4 or 5 years ago? It does not show up here, so maybe it was not a fatality. (Sorry, was having too much trouble embedding my link.)

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24532/where-dc-area-bike-fatalities-happen-in-one-map-and-whats-the-real-intersection-of-doom/#comments

[Tim Kelley]

@elbows 97495 wrote:

I guess if they did, they would have mentioned it, but does anyone know how this woman is doing? I think about her often.

On a sidenote, does anyone remember an accident at George Mason and Four Mile Run (or is it W&OD) where a cyclist was seriously injured or, I thought, killed like 4 or 5 years ago? It does not show up here, so maybe it was not a fatality. (Sorry, was having too much trouble embedding my link.)

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24532/where-dc-area-bike-fatalities-happen-in-one-map-and-whats-the-real-intersection-of-doom/#comments

5/8/2011. It was at FMR and Walter Reed Dr.

[elbows]

Thanks for the response. I know that one well, but there was another accident at George Mason.

[DismalScientist]

I think you mean Four Mile Run east of Columbia Pike. An older couple were riding westbound on FMR and some doofus lost control of his truck making a high speed right from Columbia Pike to FMR. He crossed the median and hit the cyclists. The woman was severely injured. I don’t know anything more.

[baiskeli]

@Tim Kelley 97496 wrote:

5/8/2011. It was at FMR and Walter Reed Dr.

And that one was indeed a fatality.

http://www.arlnow.com/2011/05/08/breaking-news-bicyclist-dead-after-collision-with-car/

[Author]

Posts