Update: Cyclist Struck @ 11th & U

[mrkenny83]

From DCist:

Last week we reported that Shawn Streiff, the 29-year-old cyclist that collided with a truck at the corner of 11th and U Streets NW, had been cited by police for running a red light, failing to yield the right of way and not wearing a helmet. It now looks like one of those citations is being dismissed.

According to police, the citation given to Streiff for riding without a helmet has been set aside, seeing as existing D.C. law only requires helmets on cyclists aged 16 or younger. After the accident, which a police report pinned on Streiff for riding straight through a red light as a lumber truck made a legal right turn on to U Street, he was also cited for running a red light and failing to yield the right of way.

According to The Washcycle, police representatives told the D.C. Bicycle Advisory Council that Streiff was interviewed by police before being cited, and he admitted to running the red light. (The police report says that due to his injuries, he was not questioned at the scene.) Additionally, police reps said that they might dismiss the citation for failing to yield the right of way, since it is very similar to the citation for running the red light:

The citation for “no helmet” was obviously a mistake, and should never have been approved by the Sergeant, so that one will be dismissed. The MPD representative added that giving two very similar tickets, for running a red light and failure to yield seems unnecessary. A statement was sent to the force about that, as well as a reminder about where information on bike laws can be found.
Regardless, that Streiff has been cited and reportedly admitted to running the red light means that the medical bills from his substantial injuries might not be covered by his insurance he won’t be able to get anything from the truck driver. D.C., Virginia and Maryland are contributory negligence jurisdictions, which means that if a person in an accident is found to have been even marginally responsible, they can be denied any compensation whatsoever. (Streiff’s friends were raising funds for him last week.) For cycling advocates, this is the very reason that police reports need to be accurate and reflect what happened—an errant ticket can be enough for an insurance company to deny claims, they say.

A September 2011 report from the D.C. Office of Police Complaints recommended that police learn the laws regarding cycling in the District and be more careful in assigning blame after accidents, especially when a cyclist is injured and not able to be questioned at the scene.

Topic

[Terpfan]

The bolded part should really be emphasized since the ticket they issue will definitely differ from what they tell you at the scene. It should also be emphasized that if they are wrong, go up the chain to have it corrected.

[MCL1981]

Why would his being at fault make his insurance not cover the injuries??? Medical insurance doesn’t really care how you got hurt or require that it be somebody else’s fault (perhaps short of doing something like jumping off a bridge…). That’s what insurance is for… covering the cost of you getting hurt. That whole part of the article makes no sense and I’m pretty sure it’s total BS. The guy’s medical insurance will cover him. Assuming he has it of course.

If the truck was found to be at fault, the cyclist’s insurance company would probably go after the truck driver or his insurance company to reimburse them for the their expenses covering their client’s medical bills. The cyclist would of course also have the opportunity to sue the driver personally for damages too.

The contributory negligence issue in this case just means the cyclist can’t sue the trucker now, and rightfully so. There are many other situations where it becomes a cop-out for the bad driver. But in this case, it is square on the shoulder of the cyclist who made a very bad decision and nearly paid for it with his life.

[mrkenny83]

DCist has corrected the article and that piece has been removed. Their bad.

[MCL1981]

That’s good. However, it does make a good point to those who don’t have medical insurance. If you get in an accident, you’re going to be in a world of hurt both physically and financially.

[StopMeansStop]

What’s not said in the article is the driver can file a claim against the rider.

[MCL1981]

Well, in order to do that, the truck driver would have to show damages. Considering the truck driver did not even know he ran the guy over and had to be flagged down by pedestrians, I don’t think he’s got much to sue for. But along these lines, if it was a car and the bike caused damage to the car or injury to the driver/passenger, you’re absolutely right.

[Author]

Replies