driver automatically at fault
Thread started by
mechazawa at 11.10.10 - 6:02 pm
How hard would it be to get legislated that if you hit a cyclist that the driver is automatically at fault? Has anyone tried?
Yeah, people will try to scam people, but should the whole group be penalized? If you rear-end a car with your car you are automatically at fault,correct?
reply
i'm all for driver's paying for accidents theyve caused but you seem to forget how many idiot cyclists are out there too.
i drive through the city and ive had numerous idiots on bikes do stupid shit such as riding the wrong way, darting in front of cars, etc etc.
KiMS111.10.10 - 7:43 pm
reply
Bad, bad, bad idea. Well-intentioned, I'm sure, but antithetical to the whole idea of justice.
PC11.10.10 - 8:10 pm
reply
i was hit from behind but my report faults me when it really was negligence on the part of the driver. you may have seen many cyclist do dumb shit but how do you legislate protection for those who are riding correctly and are hit/hurt, that you don't see? why can't the same provisions apply to me? she wasn't paying attention to me.
Part of my irritation comes from cops who doesn't do their fucking job correctly, but the issue i brought up is valid. Not every cyclist disregards the laws, knows how to ride and other various blanket generalizations. Just become some do it does not mean all should. If drivers have protections under the laws and cyclist don't even though they are vehicles and we don't there an issue.
mechazawa responding to a
comment by PC
11.10.10 - 8:58 pm
reply
I think you make a good point. Laws should Favor bikes over cars rather than vice versa which is the norm.
Joe Borfo responding to a
comment by mechazawa
11.10.10 - 9:14 pm
reply
+1 PC
It wouldn't only be hard, it would be impossible.
You're talking about making people pay for accidents that weren't their fault simply because the other person is on a bicycle? Fault is fault, no matter what the person is riding/driving/skating/whatever.
I'm sure you are angry over what happened in your case, but wouldn't you be more angry if you had to pay, or worse go to jail, for something that was entirely not your fault?
Our justice system may suck, but it was made that way for a reason. It is better for a thousand guilty people to go free than one innocent person to go to jail. At least in the eyes of our system.
The only way this could work is to legislate a
presumption of innocence, which would shift burden of proof to the driver to prove it was, in fact, the cyclist's fault, but I still don't see that happening.
What would be next? Favoring mini coopers over F-150s? Favoring pedestrians over cyclists? A vespa over a Civic? There a grand legal implications in what you suggest here, that would affect much more than just cyclist-motorist interactions.
shotgunBOOMBOOM11.10.10 - 10:00 pm
reply
No. They shouldn't favor the members of any class when it comes to determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases, or fault in civil cases. That would be intolerably unjust and backwards.
By the way, the answer to the question in the original post:
If you rear-end a car with your car you are automatically at fault,correct?
..is no.
PC11.10.10 - 10:08 pm
reply
^^^^That was in response to Borfo, not shotgun.
PC11.10.10 - 10:09 pm
reply
The only way this could work is to legislate a presumption of innocence, which would shift burden of proof to the driver to prove it was, in fact, the cyclist's fault, but I still don't see that happening.
You mean a rebuttable presumption of fault. In some states, this is what applies to drivers of vehicles that rear-end other vehicles, and it's based on the notion that a driver who crashes into the car in front of him probably failed to maintain a safe following distance as required by state law. It would still be a bad and unjust thing to apply to drivers of cars involved with bikes, though--because you're taking a principle that is just when applied to a
situation and applying it to a class.
PC
responding to a comment by shotgunBOOMBOOM
11.10.10 - 10:16 pm
reply
Here, let me close that tag for you.
I shouldn't type this stuff on a phone keyboard, QWERTY or no.
PC11.10.10 - 10:18 pm
reply
I read your comments. i understand what you, shotgun, and i agree. After quick research i understand that automatic fault and fault are different.
As PC mentioned, what i was thinking but what i did not have the correct wording for, rebuttable presumption of fault. It's fair to me. i would prefer to have presumed innocence or the driver be at fault. If drivers have the protection why not cyclists.
mechazawa11.10.10 - 11:20 pm
reply
in england, a motorist is always at fault. it offers a great disincentive for motorists to hit cyclists. the disincentive for cyclists is that they don't want to take a trip to the hospital.
everybody wins!
tortuga_veloce responding to a
comment by mechazawa
11.11.10 - 11:47 am
reply
Nice. I think the video says it all. But in a country where you can still kill a cyclist and get little or no jail time, this is just a dream.
shotgun_mike11.11.10 - 12:57 pm
reply
You'd think reckless driving was a right in this town.
tortuga_veloce responding to a
comment by shotgun_mike
11.11.10 - 12:59 pm
reply
As PC mentioned, what i was thinking but what i did not have the correct wording for, rebuttable presumption of fault. It's fair to me. i would prefer to have presumed innocence or the driver be at fault. If drivers have the protection why not cyclists.
I figured that's probably what you meant. It's still unfair and unjust, though. The rebuttable presumption of fault makes some sense when applied to the *specific situation* of a car following another car, because in that specific situation the following things will almost always apply:
* The car in the rear and the car in the front are going in the same direction
* Because they're in the same lane and going the same direction, the car in the rear can see the car in front
* The car in front is being driven safely and predictably and has its taillights and brake lights in working order (if not, that easily constitutes a rebuttal of the presumption of fault)
* The driver of the car in the rear has an ongoing obligation under state law to know where the car in front is, and to maintain a following distance such that if the car in front has to slow, stop, or change directions, the driver of the car in the rear will have adequate time to react and avoid a collision. This obligation begins when she begins following the car in front, and ends when the two cars go their separate ways.
Because of this, a rebuttable presumption of fault in that *situation* is arguably just and fair, because barring some unusual circumstance (e.g., the car in front made a sudden stop, the car in front had inoperative brake lamps), if a driver in that situation rear-ends the car in front, she should have been maintaining a greater following distance. That's why the presumption is allowed to exist in some states (as I said before, California isn't one of them).
What is unjust and unfair, on the other hand, is applying a presumtion like that to a member of a *class*. In that case, the only thing we know about the person is that she was driving a car. That's it.
We don't know whether the cyclist was going in the same direction, coming the wrong way down the street, or entering the road from one side or the other. If the cyclist was entering the road from a cross street, we don't know whether he was going the right way, or whether he came from the road or the sidewalk.
We don't know whether the car had the right of way or the cyclist did.
We don't know whether the cyclist was holding his or her line or hugging the gutter and popping out from behind parked cars.
We don't know whether the cyclist was drunk or sober.
We don't know how fast the car was going relative to the cyclist. We don't even know whether one of them was standing still.
We don't know whether the driver or the cyclist was making an unsafe left or right turn, or changing lanes or entering traffic from a stop without looking.
We have absolutely no idea how the two vehicles collided, or what sort of legal obligations were not being met by either of the operators of the two vehicles; all we know is that one of them burns gas.
Under anything that you can really call justice, that's not enough reason to create even a rebuttable presumption of fault in the absence of other evidence.
PC responding to a
comment by mechazawa
11.11.10 - 4:58 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
