Im just wondering in this particular case, what facts have come out to prove the driver was negligable? An opinion at the time from law enforcement doesnt mean, in a court of law, that the driver was negligent.... what if he just simply lost control? So far, no actual facts have been provided except a questionable statement to the press at the time from law enforcement. Just because someone is law enforcement shouldnt mean we should take them at their word.
Thats why we have a legal system.
Dont get me wrong, my best friend is a cylcists. I used to hit up OP Shinable, 700 acres and most recently Government Canyon.
My friend does bikerides through Downtown through Planet Bike. Tom is his name and Carlos is the owner.
I'm all for cyclists rights, but there has to be a point where they take responsibility. Just because they have the same rights to a road as a car, doesnt mean they should jump on an express way and expect nothing to happen.
Losing control doesn't just happen in a vacuum. In a single vehicle incident, you are either are drunk, distracted, or falling asleep, all of which are actionable in court.
True. Additionally, a driver is charged with a legal duty to keep his vehicle on the roadway. The failure to abide by that duty is, technically, negligence -- or the failure to exercise the degree of care deemed reasonable in the cir stance.
Look, suppose that the driver had swerved off the road -- for whatever reason -- and a cop had been right there on the spot. Would you argue that the cop would have no reason to stop the driver and ticket him for failure to maintain a single lane of traffic? The only difference here is that when this driver lost control of his vehicle, for whatever reason that happened, there were bicyclists there and they were struck by the vehicle. The question a jury would be asked is, essentially, how much was the driver's negligence a part of causing the accident (and specifically, the injuries suffered by the bicyclists) and how much was the bicyclist's negligence a part of causing the accident?
I'm not sure it would be a good rule for society to simply allow drivers to leave their lanes of traffic without consequence, if leaving that lane results in accidents. Building on the earlier example, if this driver had lost control of his vehicle and moved to the left (rather than the right) and struck another vehicle, is there any doubt that he'd face the possibility of a civil suit for the damages caused by that accident (whether those were personal injuries or property damages)? Of course he would, and nobody would think anything of it. That he happened to drift right doesn't absolve him of that possibility, particularly where doing so resulted in injuries.
I hate cyclists on the road...I think theyre ing insane and have a real overconfidence problem to think that their hobby is important enough to risk their life, to trust other idiots on the road to drive safely and with their best interests in mind.
I do nothing in my life with the laundry list of assumptions that a cyclist must adhere to to even have the balls to get on a highway with a rinky-dink helmet and spandex.
Beyond that, I have a question, but I dont know if its a legal question or not.
Bikes being on the road, especially a highway of 60+mph, creates an unfair liability problem for the drivers of motor vehicles. I have always thought this. What would have been a fender-bender, or a side-swipe or maybe even a hospital visst is instant ing death if you hit a bike.
A bike, mind you, that is nearly 10x as small on the road, with nearly no "road profile" to speak of...especially when traveling at highway speeds.
It just seems that if you drive a car, youre at a disadvantage to a person on a bike legally...no matter what happens, youre the asshole that kills someone which requires an immediate investigation from the authorities. Even if you had a lapse in judgement, again, if you had hit another vehicle, its a simple exchange of insurance info.
Now, youre up for vehicular homicide.
Deck is stacked against drivers in this instance. Legally, is this a valid argument?
On a personal note, I cant stand cyclists on main road's. Residentials and low-traffic areas, fine. But I see these schmucks on the main veins of town...during rush hour...on a Friday.
Its like "suicide by cop" only theyre waiting for just one driver to have a bad day or a teenage queen to be texting, boom, youre dead. Dont act all surprised or outraged when it happens, either.
Right or wrong, responsible or not, you put your life in your hands when you thought it was a good idea to play "Tour de France" on the same road as double-trailer Mack trucks going 50mph with an assumption of safety on the part of your fellow man.
I mean, if you dont mind dying doing what you love, by all means, continue. Because it really is only a matter of time before youre dead or seriously injured with a dumbass hobby like that.
Youre literally going against every shred of common sense youve ever heard. Dont play in traffic....unless youre an adult....on a bike....with spandex and a dream. To me, its like a guy who swallows swords crying how his throat got cut.
I don't think so, because none of those arguments apply, for example, to a driver who strikes a pedestrian. We permit civil and criminal liability against drivers who leave the roadway and strike pedestrians (or for those who fail to yield to pedestrians in the roadway -- ask Donte Stallworth). I'm not sure, legally, why there would be any difference (or why there should be any difference) between a pedestrian and a bike rider.
And I don't buy, from a public policy standpoint, that pedestrians are somehow without recourse if a driver leaves the roadway to strike them.
Again, the protections are inherent in the system for the driver. From a criminal standpoint, if the driver's conduct is simply a matter of inadvertence, the charges against him will be reduced and, in the overwhelming number of instances, will be so insubstantial as to deter any prosecution at all. From a civil standpoint, the protections vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but if a state doesn't recognize an "assumption of the risk" defense to the driver, it allows the driver's negligence to be compared to the pedestrian/bike rider's; that allows a jury to conclude (essentially) that the bike rider assumed the risk of an accident and bears the consequences of that accident.
But, with that said, the law itself -- AGAIN -- favors the bike rider. Drivers are obligated (by law) to maintain a single lane of transit and, presumptively, leaving a lane of traffic (other than making a legal lane change) is a violation on the part of the driver. Fundamentally, this is why we allow the imposition of liability against drivers who strike pedestrians. And its why I think the civil claims asserted against this driver are likely to either settle or go to trial (rather than being dismissed). It might be that, in the civil context, a jury would decide that the Plaintiffs should recover nothing, but that's a very different question than whether the claims asserted by these Plaintiffs are legally valid.
One other thought about this:
the credibility of claims aren't determined by what's reported by the media and it's rarely decided before parties have an opportunity to conduct discovery. Assuming the civil case goes forward, the plaintiffs get the chance to question the driver, to subpoena his records, to depose anyone they can find who witnessed the accident, and to otherwise investigate their claims. That's not a process that's either: (a) done very quickly; or (b) limited to what the media reports (or what the police now know). , at this point, it's likely that discovery hasn't even begun in any civil action that might be ongoing. Discovery can take months or even years, in some instances.
If, after discovery has concluded, there's insufficient proof that the driver did anything wrong -- for instance, if discovery reveals that the bike swerved into the path of the driver -- the Defendant will be en led to summary judgment. If, however, discovery shows that reasonable people could conclude that the driver was negligent -- perhaps in ways that we don't yet know -- then the case will go to trial (or settle).
The notion that the validity of cases should ever be decided by what we are told through the media is a frightening idea.
Alright, I'll buy that. Thanks for the reply.
While I see the similarity between a pedestrian and cyclist in that they both have right-of-way, the similarities end there.
One is considered a vehicle, an uninsured vehicle that has rights to lanes of traffic, but a vehicle nonetheless.
The other is a person on foot.
I understand having concern for a pedestrian because they arent trying to share the road with motorized vehicles on the regular. Cyclists are and I still think cyclists put drivers at a complete legal disadvantage in every imaginable way.
They are:
1. considered vehicles
2. require no insurance
3. unlicensed
4. have a miniscule "road profile" in comparison to other vehicles, even motorcycles
5. have no means to keep pace with other traffic, creating a very dangerous gap in capability
It just seems the deck is stacked totally against drivers and totally for adults who like to ride bikes on busy roads.
I just dont get the equalizing between a cyclist and pedestrian. If a pedestrian wanders onto a highway, in Michigan anyway, is hit and killed by traffic travelling the posted 70mph speed limit, its the pedestrians fault, end of discussion.
Not so with a cyclist because as a vehicle, he has rights to the road. Catch 22 of bull proportions.
It's not even about the right-of-way. It's about maintaining a single lane of travel and remaining within that single lane while travelling. If a driver leaves the roadway and strikes, for example, a farmer's fence, the driver is liable for property damages associated with striking the fence not because the fence had the right-of-way, but because the driver violated his duty to maintain a single lane of travel.
I don't see that as a particularly controversial principle.
If the bicycle is operating in a lane of traffic, the questions are different, but I'm not sure that they make your argument. If I'm driving in any lane of traffic, I have an obligation to operate my vehicle in a manner that reasonably ensures that others around me (whether they be in cars, on motorcycles, on bicycles, or on foot) aren't injured. Certainly, there may be situations in which sudden emergencies may arise and it may be that the conduct of others will leave me unable to do anything other than hit them. But, in the main, my duty (as a matter of law) is to avoid others -- and my obligation is to operate my vehicle in a manner that will allow me to avoid others. Presumptively, obeying the speed limit will show that I've done that; but if it's raining or icy or foggy, obeying the speed limit won't protect me from the consequences of hitting someone. And, if I leave my lane, it doesn't matter what my speed was before I did that -- I could have never gone above the speed limit and still be negligent for having left my lane.
But, again, the systems in place create protections for drivers in those situations, too. I'm not sure why people refuse to acknowledge that fact in this thread -- I think I've noted it about 7 times now. Drivers have defenses that include the negligence of the bike riders and that negligence could include something as simple as putting themselves in that position.
Take this particular case as an example. Police think that there's no basis to press criminal charges -- I think that's not because there wasn't some sort of criminally-cognizable conduct, but because proving a criminal charge against this driver in light of the silliness of riding a bicycle in this location is astronomically difficult.
From the civil side of things, again, if the case makes it to a jury, the driver can point to the bicyclists and say "no sane person would have ridden a bike on this highway and you [the jury] should put a significant portion of the responsibility for this accident on the bike riders." Whether a jury buys that or not is a different question, but that's why we have juries. By and large, juries have pretty good bull detectors and usually apportion responsibility in a manner that would make common sense to most people -- after all, juries are comprised of our friends and neighbors.
See above.
And had this bicycle wandered onto the highway (and the evidence might end up showing that it did), there would be no liability because the accident would be the rider's fault. But I don't think we can assume that the bike did that -- at least not without evidence to support that theory -- and if it's the truck that left its lane of traffic and struck the bike, then the truck driver is at least somewhat at fault. Just as he would be at fault if he left his lane and struck:
1. another vehicle
2. a motorcycle
3. a pedestrian; or
4. a piece of personal property
That's not a function of whether any of those things has rights to the road; it's entirely a function of the driver's obligation to maintain his lane of travel.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
