chicagojlo

In Holland everyone has to have personal liability insurance because if you step out in front of a cyclist they can sue you!

neil

"Real" cyclists are pretty serious about their responsibilities on the road - there's an excellent book called "Bicycling and the law" which you might find to be an interesting read, but along with that they are pretty serious about their rights on the road which are often ignored by drivers (probably at least as often as bad cyclists ignore the rights of pedestrians and other road users).

I honestly think that there should be cyclist education in schools - I had it growing up, there was a whole cycling proficiency program when I was in primary school. I also believe something like that would make for better drivers when they are older.

I hate bad cyclists probably as much as you do, if not more, because it makes for a tough time on the roads for me. After a couple of close encounters in the last year I have now bought myself a video camera I can mount on my handlebars for evidence in case something does happen to me.

Edit: just one note on your article - I'll think you'll find the roads were originally paved for cyclists, and the many road related laws were initially introduced on the insistence of cyclists because of the horse and cart owners who thought that they were the only ones with rights to the road.

neil

I hate the fact you can't buy separate insurance in the US for cycling - I spent ages looking for it only to find it doesn't exist.

Duncan Roberts

I was never trying to say that the woman deserved no punishment or was not responsible at all.

Look at it from the opposite side. If a cyclist was texting, a car went through a red light, swerved to avoid it and the driver died because they hit a wall, would the cyclist go to jail for 4 years or would it be put down to the car driver running the red light?

Roland Hulme

That's a brilliant idea!

And you were probably right about the paving! Cycles were in Winchester before cars (and the pub The Old Gaolhouse has pictures to prove it!!)

meauxna

Don't underestimate the Rule of Large(tm).

The car is a lethal weapon; its operator must always account for the extra 2000# its pointing at people. It's called 'defensive driving'.

We're going through a lot of this in Portland right now. It was a bad summer for the bikers.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

In the "civil" arena, the Common Law rule of contributary negligence was that ANY contribution to the accident was a complete defense. Even if the plaintiff was 3% at fault -- no recovery from the person who was 97% at fault. Of the last 50 years, this has been generally replaced by the concept of "comparative negligence."

A related concept was "joint and several liablity." Lets say a 100% innocent child was severely injured by two people -- one 10% at fault and the other 90% at fault. Common law was that the child could recover for EITHER defendant. If the If the 90% defendant was insolvent and the 10% was wealthy, the 10% would have to pay all of it and was left to his remedies to recover from his co-defendant. [It should be noted that California voters considered this so unfair, an initiative was overwhelmingly passed in the early 1980's that shifted the burden to the innocent child. Go figure].

The above discussion relates to liablity from one person to the other. It would apply to the family of the man on the bicycle bring a wrongful death action.

Now, when it comes to criminal liability, it is the interests of the STATE [e.g. Crown, or in California "The People"] that control. An ancient example is assault with battery contrasted to mayhem. If one punched a man in the nose, it did not affect the availability of the victim to serve as a soldier for the Crown. In contrast, if you broke his arm so that he couldn't draw a bow -- that did impact the Crown.

I think there is a societal interest in having people paying attention while driving. That is the offense. The result and surrounding circumstances affect the level of the offense and sentencing. [I've noted elsewhere that there is a philosophical discussion on this -- there was a string about three boys throwing a stone blindly over a wall.]

Roland Hulme

Paddington Green's work there. Great thread.

neil

Depending on the factors involved I don't see why it wouldn't be a possibility - if there is a law against texting while cycling and it can be shown that the cyclist could have avoided causing the car to crash then you would expect that the cyclist could go to jail. However, it's unlikely due to the relative speeds and sizes of the vehicles involved that you'd be able to prove that the cyclist could have avoided it. In the original case, don't forget speeding was also a factor.

Duncan Roberts

I've sped on a bike before.

Tarkak9

hear dat...

there was something which floored me up in lah-lahland - I was in line at a traffic light when I noticed a this woman with a 3 wheeled 'all terrain' buggy travelling down the bicycle lane with a toddler in it - she was Rollerblading with headsets in her ears!!! If that wasn't bad enough, she didn't slow down when approaching the intersection and a turning vehicle screeched the brakes and she had the balls to flick the driver off and flap a couple of words!! I wanted so badly to get her name and number and call social services on her (after drinks ofcourse). By the time the light changed and I was through the intersection, she was gone. Who the hell exposes a kid to that??

neil

Me too. Chances are that you weren't texting in those situations though.

neil

Not enough information - where did the bicycle lane end and did the driver indicate an intention to turn? A cycle lane is legally another lane of traffic. If you decided to turn right from a left lane on a 2 lane road you would check for traffic in that lane before making your turn.

Tarkak9

in my mind doesn't matter. total disregard to the traffic. Red light, she didn't stop - kept on going.. (jaywalk) the car had the right of way as it was turning on their light especially while its in the intersection.
so you prefer, encourage and endorse a person to simultaneously rollerblade and listen to music while pushing a toddler in a buggy in the street when common sense would say she shouldn't really be in a bicycle lane under those circumstances; when she doesn't have full control of the buggy (being on wheels), herself nor paying attention to her surroundings?!?! What happens if she accidently fell and let go of the buggy? Why stop there? lets get her speed skating on the highway with the kid in the buggy too. Reassuring that she would be willing to compromise and potentially sacrifice her child just so that she can still go rollerbladeing in life... can't disrupt that. Call it naive but I view it as child endangerment. Sidewalks are there for a reason too.

neil

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't defending the woman, just pointing out the motorist may have not had the law on his side. The woman was obviously an idiot.

Either I missed it, or it wasn't clear in your first post, that the light was red in this case. If the light was green and the pedestrian was crossing (no matter what their speed) and the car was turning right then it would entirely be the fault of the driver if something happened.