Whose fault was this accident?

On the way to pick up my kids from the public swimming pool yesterday, I
witnessed an unusual bicycle/auto accident. Specifically, a bike
hitting a car.

This was in a residential area that I drive through quite often, usually
to and from my office as well as to the kids' school and favorite parks.
At this low-traffic four-way-stop intersection bikes usually do not
stop. I'm used to it--as I say, I drive through it often, and expect
it. (This is a bicycle-friendly city, and bikes are a common sight on
most roads, especially in residential areas like this one.) But
yesterday, I was second in line behind an SUV headed north, and saw a
bike headed east. The SUV stopped at the sign--there were no other
autos at the intersection except me, behind the SUV also headed north.

From my vantage point it was clear that the bike wasn't slowing down
and didn't intend to stop. But as I say, I drive through that
intersection most days, and expect bikes to not stop. The SUV pulled
out in front of the bike; I guess the bike didn't have time to stop or
fully swerve. It pulled to the side a bit, but still hit the SUV in the
driver's door, leaving a good-sized dent. The cyclist was wearing a
helmet and did get up after the collision. Hopefully he wasn't hurt more
than bumps and bruises.

Angry words were exchanged. The SUV driver was yelling, the cyclist was
yelling. I used my cell to call 911, and then to alert my kids that I'd
be a little late. I gave my statement to the police when they arrived,
and then left. I don't know if tickets were issued, or to whom if they
were. I don't know if medical attention was required--I was late to get
the kids and couldn't wait around.

Anyway, I'm curious. Is this a "mutually at fault" type of thing, or
was it the cyclist's fault for not stopping at the 4-way stop? I could
see that the bike wasn't going to stop, but I was sitting waiting for my
turn, and had plenty of time to see what was going on (and again, I'm
there most every day and plan on bikes not stopping there). Was it the
SUV's driver for pulling out in front of the bike?

If there's a lawsuit I guess I'll find out more, but in the meantime I'm
curious.

Monte

Monte,

Hard to say for sure but it's clear that the bicyclist failed to stop.
Your belief that local custom makes this ok is silly. Travelers will know
the law but not local custom. So the bicyclist should have stopped. Your
conclusion that it was obvious to a "local" that this guy was not going to
stop may be interesting but it's unlikely that the SUV thought that the bike
would not yield so that's up to the judge. Why was the bicyclist yelling?
What did he think had happened?

Good luck,
Dave M.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:31:43 -0700, "Zen Cohen"
wrote:


"Monte" wrote in message
...
On the way to pick up my kids from the public swimming pool yesterday, I
witnessed an unusual bicycle/auto accident. Specifically, a bike hitting
a car.

This was in a residential area that I drive through quite often, usually
to and from my office as well as to the kids' school and favorite parks.
At this low-traffic four-way-stop intersection bikes usually do not stop.
I'm used to it--as I say, I drive through it often, and expect it. (This
is a bicycle-friendly city, and bikes are a common sight on most roads,
especially in residential areas like this one.) But yesterday, I was
second in line behind an SUV headed north, and saw a bike headed east.
The SUV stopped at the sign--there were no other autos at the intersection
except me, behind the SUV also headed north.

From my vantage point it was clear that the bike wasn't slowing down and
didn't intend to stop. But as I say, I drive through that intersection
most days, and expect bikes to not stop. The SUV pulled out in front of
the bike; I guess the bike didn't have time to stop or fully swerve. It
pulled to the side a bit, but still hit the SUV in the driver's door, ....

Anyway, I'm curious. Is this a "mutually at fault" type of thing, or was
it the cyclist's fault for not stopping at the 4-way stop? I could see
that the bike wasn't going to stop, but I was sitting waiting for my turn,
and had plenty of time to see what was going on (and again, I'm there most
every day and plan on bikes not stopping there). Was it the SUV's driver
for pulling out in front of the bike?

Assuming this case went to trial, most states now have 'comparative fault'
statutes which require a jury to apportion percentage of blame, if any, for
each party. Here it seems the biker would bear greater fault for running the
stop sign (and there might be a 'negligence per se' issue here for violating
a statute [running stop sign] that will require him to bear all the blame, I
dunno). But if the SUV driver should/could have avoided the accident (there
used to be a "last clear chance doctrine" but I don't think it exists in
comparative fault states anymore) his percentage of the blame would
increase. Bottom line is that it would likely come down to a jury hearing
all the facts and deciding what to do, and the verdict it reached could vary
widely.



Why is that bicyclists feel they are immune from the law?
I was in Monterey Cal. Some guy on a bike came towards me at an
intersection and he politely waved me on.
"Yes sir. That is correct. You WILL stop for stop signs."
A bike is required, by law, to stop at stop signs, the same as they
are for traffic lights.

If a biker runs through a stop sign and is subsequently struck by a
vehicle, the biker is at fault for failure to yield the right of way
and failure to stop. Period.

In article ,
Monte wrote:

Anyway, I'm curious. Is this a "mutually at fault" type of thing, or
was it the cyclist's fault for not stopping at the 4-way stop? I could
see that the bike wasn't going to stop, but I was sitting waiting for my
turn, and had plenty of time to see what was going on (and again, I'm
there most every day and plan on bikes not stopping there). Was it the
SUV's driver for pulling out in front of the bike?

I'd say it's mostly the cyclist's fault. You roll a stop sign at your
own risk, and that's a pretty high risk when the intersection isn't
clear. Second, it was a bloody SUV! It's not like they accelerate very
quickly, so if the cyclist was paying any attention at all they should
have had plenty of time to react. The only possible fault I could see
assigning to the driver would be if they *did* seem to intentionally
accelerate to block the cyclist's path. Since you don't mention that,
it sure sounds like the cyclists was being reckless.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
greatnowhere.com, heapnode.com, individual.net, localhost, ntli.net,
teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:25:35 -0700, "Zen Cohen"
wrote:


"richard" wrote in message
...
If a biker runs through a stop sign and is subsequently struck by a
vehicle, the biker is at fault for failure to yield the right of way
and failure to stop. Period.

Not necessarily. If a driver can avoid the accident he will normally be at
least partially liable. I see you haven't learned much from posting to
usenet all these years.


Read the state laws.
A bicycle is required to stop at all stop signs.
A bicycle is not above the law. You are on foot, approaching a stop
sign controlled intersection. Do you blindly cross anyway?
Do you attempt to cross a heavy travelled roadway on foot and expect
traffic to come to a screeching halt?
Legally you'd be right. But how ya gonna prove it when you're buried
in the ground?


If you're actions cause an accident, you are at fault.
By driving a car, you run through a stop sign, you get cited for it.
Even though the kid on the bicycle just in front of you did the same
thing.
Is the kid any less guilty?
No.

On Jun 16, 7:10*pm, Monte wrote:
On the way to pick up my kids from the public swimming pool yesterday, I
witnessed an unusual bicycle/auto accident. *Specifically, a bike
hitting a car.

?? There's Something Y'don't see everyday, Chauncey...
[snip]

* At this low-traffic four-way-stop intersection bikes usually do not
stop.

Well, that's ****ING STUPID... even in The Absence Of State/
Municipal Ordinances REQUIRING Bicycles TO STOP & YIELD at "Stop
Signs", one would Naturally Assume that a Bike Rider - GREATLY
DISadvantaged in MotorVehicle/PedalPower Encounters - would take Be
HIGHLY Sensitive To Traffic Control Measures - PARTICULARLY a 4-Way
STOP - AND would take EXTREME Caution when the possibility of Compound
Fractures and/or DEATH is a Distinct Possibility...

*I* do...

[ASIDE] *I'm* an AVID Bike Rider - Am going to with ExxonMobil
Ever MORE So in the Face of $4.25/gal - and I _ABSOLUTELY_ DESPISE
those ARROGANT ****S who, By Blowing Thru Stop Signs, et al, Display
the Attitude of "**** All Else!! GetOuttaMyWay!..." Their ARROGANCE is
Absolutely Appaling AND Casts The Rest Of Us in The Same Contemptible/
UNfavorable Light...

*I'm used to it--as I say, I drive through it often, and expect
it.

Well, Y'shouldn't... *I* do... And I Think Everyone Should - Make
Allowances For "California Stops" by Bicyclists... The Fact Pattern
here Does NOT Describe such an Allowable "California Stop" on the part
of Arrogant **** Cyclist...

(This is a bicycle-friendly city, and bikes are a common sight on
most roads, especially in residential areas like this one.) But
yesterday, I was second in line behind an SUV headed north, and saw a
bike headed east. *The SUV stopped at the sign--there were no other
autos at the intersection except me, behind the SUV also headed north.

*From my vantage point it was clear that the bike wasn't slowing down
and didn't intend to stop. *But as I say, I drive through that
intersection most days, and expect bikes to not stop. *The SUV pulled
out in front of the bike; I guess the bike didn't have time to stop or
fully swerve. *It pulled to the side a bit, but still hit the SUV in the
driver's door, leaving a good-sized dent. *The cyclist was wearing a
helmet and did get up after the collision. Hopefully he wasn't hurt more
than bumps and bruises.

Angry words were exchanged.

[snip]

Anyway, I'm curious. *Is this a "mutually at fault" type of thing, or
was it the cyclist's fault for not stopping at the 4-way stop?

You Don't Mention what State yer in, so My Response is Predicated
on the Laws of Colorado and The Municipality where I Nearby, Reside...

IN Colorado, the State Motor Vehicle Law defines "bicycles" as
"vehicles", AND REQUIRES Said "vehicles" to "follow the rules of the
road", that is, EXCEPT where Obviously Immaterial/Irrelevant, Bicycles
are REQUIRED To OBEY THE COMMAND of All Traffic Control Devices,
INcluding Stop Signs...

One CAN BE Ticketed, and held accountable in County/City Traffic
Court for, among other things, Blowing Thru a Stop
Sign ...

Now... That Said... *IN* Colorado, a [Criminal] Court Verdict,
whether Favorable or NOT, is INadmissable in a Civil Action...

So... Whether or Not Mr Arrogant is Ticketed & Found Guilty - or
NOT - of Violating the Traffic Law, The Issue of "Who's Gonna Pay For
MY Dent//My Wheel/Forks/Stem/Handlebars/Broken Leg, will be decided,
Ultimately, in a Small Claims/County/District Court... WITHOUT ANY
Input from a Preceeding Criminal Action arising out of the Same
Incident...

*I could
see that the bike wasn't going to stop, but I was sitting waiting for my
turn, and had plenty of time to see what was going on (and again, I'm
there most every day and plan on bikes not stopping there). *Was it the
SUV's driver for pulling out in front of the bike?

Was it the
SUV's driver [FAULT] for pulling out in front of the bike?

[MY verdict]: NO... And I'm gonna Say This, No Matter what The Laws
of Your State Hold...

Mr Arrogant Knew Or Should Have Known of the CONSEQUENCES OF
Disregarding The Command, Intent, and Meaning of such an AGONIZINGLY
COMMON Traffic Control Device as a STOP Sign...

If there's a lawsuit I guess I'll find out more, but in the meantime I'm
curious.

Ok... well, like I say, *IN Colorado*, Mr Arrogant PAYS a Fine,
PAYS a HEFTY Body Shop Repair Bill, PAYS for Bike Repairs, and WALKS
around Very Sore for a Month or so...

Monte

Naughtius "Mount Evans Road Race" Maximus

On the way to pick up my kids from the public swimming pool yesterday, I
witnessed an unusual bicycle/auto accident. Specifically, a bike
hitting a car.


?? There's Something Y'don't see everyday, Chauncey...
[snip]


At this low-traffic four-way-stop intersection bikes usually do not
stop.


Well, that's ****ING STUPID... even in The Absence Of State/
Municipal Ordinances REQUIRING Bicycles TO STOP & YIELD at "Stop
Signs", one would Naturally Assume that a Bike Rider - GREATLY
DISadvantaged in MotorVehicle/PedalPower Encounters - would take Be
HIGHLY Sensitive To Traffic Control Measures - PARTICULARLY a 4-Way
STOP - AND would take EXTREME Caution when the possibility of
Compound
Fractures and/or DEATH is a Distinct Possibility...

*I* do...


[ASIDE] *I'm* an AVID Bike Rider - Am going to EVEN THE SCORE with
ExxonMobil
Ever MORE So in the Face of $4.25/gal - and I _ABSOLUTELY_ DESPISE
those ARROGANT ****S who, By Blowing Thru Stop Signs, et al, Display
the Attitude of "**** All Else!! GetOuttaMyWay!..." Their ARROGANCE
is
Absolutely Appalling AND Casts The Rest Of Us in The Same
Contemptible/
UNfavorable Light...



I'm used to it--as I say, I drive through it often, and expect
it.


Well, Y'shouldn't... *I* do... And I Think Everyone Should - Make
Allowances For "California Stops" by Bicyclists... The Fact Pattern
here Does NOT Describe such an Allowable "California Stop" on the
part
of Arrogant **** Cyclist...



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

(This is a bicycle-friendly city, and bikes are a common sight on
most roads, especially in residential areas like this one.) But
yesterday, I was second in line behind an SUV headed north, and saw a
bike headed east. The SUV stopped at the sign--there were no other
autos at the intersection except me, behind the SUV also headed north.

From my vantage point it was clear that the bike wasn't slowing down
and didn't intend to stop. But as I say, I drive through that
intersection most days, and expect bikes to not stop. The SUV pulled
out in front of the bike; I guess the bike didn't have time to stop or
fully swerve. It pulled to the side a bit, but still hit the SUV in the
driver's door, leaving a good-sized dent. The cyclist was wearing a
helmet and did get up after the collision. Hopefully he wasn't hurt more
than bumps and bruises.


Angry words were exchanged.



[snip]


Anyway, I'm curious. Is this a "mutually at fault" type of thing, or
was it the cyclist's fault for not stopping at the 4-way stop?


You Don't Mention what State yer in, so My Response is Predicated
on the Laws of Colorado and The Municipality where I Nearby,
Reside...

IN Colorado, the State Motor Vehicle Law defines "bicycles" as
"vehicles", AND REQUIRES Said "vehicles" to "follow the rules of the
road", that is, EXCEPT where Obviously Immaterial/Irrelevant,
Bicycles
are REQUIRED To OBEY THE COMMAND of All Traffic Control Devices,
INcluding Stop Signs...


One CAN BE Ticketed, and held accountable in County/City Traffic
Court for, among other things, Blowing Thru a Stop
Sign ...


Now... That Said... *IN* Colorado, a [Criminal] Court Verdict,
whether Favorable or NOT, is INadmissable in a Civil Action...


So... Whether or Not Mr Arrogant is Ticketed & Found Guilty - or
NOT - of Violating the Traffic Law, The Issue of "Who's Gonna Pay For
MY Dent//My Wheel/Forks/Stem/Handlebars/Broken Leg, will be decided,
Ultimately, in a Small Claims/County/District Court... WITHOUT ANY
Input from a Preceeding Criminal Action arising out of the Same
Incident...



I could
see that the bike wasn't going to stop, but I was sitting waiting for my
turn, and had plenty of time to see what was going on (and again, I'm
there most every day and plan on bikes not stopping there). Was it the
SUV's driver for pulling out in front of the bike?


Was it the
SUV's driver [FAULT] for pulling out in front of the bike?

[MY verdict]: NO... And I'm gonna Say This, No Matter what The
Laws
of Your State Hold...

Mr Arrogant Knew Or Should Have Known of the CONSEQUENCES OF
Disregarding The Command, Intent, and Meaning of such an AGONIZINGLY
COMMON Traffic Control Device as a STOP Sign...

If there's a lawsuit I guess I'll find out more, but in the meantime I'm
curious.

Ok... well, like I say, *IN Colorado*, Mr Arrogant PAYS a Fine,
PAYS a HEFTY Body Shop Repair Bill, PAYS for Bike Repairs, and WALKS
around Very Sore for a Month or so...

Monte

Naughtius "Mount Evans Road Race" Maximus

On Jun 16, 6:10*pm, Monte wrote:

Anyway, I'm curious. *Is this a "mutually at fault" type of thing, or
was it the cyclist's fault for not stopping at the 4-way stop? *I could
see that the bike wasn't going to stop, but I was sitting waiting for my
turn, and had plenty of time to see what was going on (and again, I'm
there most every day and plan on bikes not stopping there). *Was it the
SUV's driver for pulling out in front of the bike?

given the fact pattern, I'd put all the liability on the bicyclist.
He failed to yield the right of way, ran a stop sign, and struck the
vehicle. The last clear chance doctrine usually comes into play when
the striking vehicle does not have traffic controls (or did not fail
to obey them). Since the bicycle was the striking vehicle, and the
SUV was struck on the driver's side door, there was no last clear
chance to avoid on the part of the SUV driver - there was nothing that
s/he could have done to avoid the impact.

The bicyclist is completely at fault here - just as if a car had run
the stop sign and struck the SUV. If the SUV had struck the
bicyclist, the damage to the truck may have been mitigated by the last
clear chance doctrine and comparative/contributory negligence,
provided any of those are in play in your jurisdiction.