Choose a side (motorist suing dead cyclist's family)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

In this case, the driver was violating the law. If the biker was as well, then both were at fault, and neither pays the other.

Depends on how the law is written. In many jurisdictions a 50-50 means you pay for half of his, and he pays for half of yours. The key is that a driving violation by each does not mean that it is a 50-50. Driving at night with no lights may well be deemed to be more detrimental than speeding; probably depends on how much the guy was speeding.

[Richards 0]

Quote

+1

I rarely see bicyclists offering basic traffic courtesy, let alone following rules. Especially messengers, but ordinary looking people as well. As a pedestrian at least you can shift your stance and pretend you don't see them and they'll swerve at the last minute. Not much you can do if you're in an automobile...I've found they're immune to reason.

That's the sad truth. I appreciate that when you drive a vehicle you take on a certain responsibility but like you pointed out pedestrians and bicyclists act like idiots (most). I jaywalk but when I do so I realize that I am the one in the wrong and that it is my responsibility to not get killed. To many expect the car driver to know what they are thinking and dart out without warning and act like arseholes when they almost get hit.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

>That said, I have no problem with a motorist sueing a bycyclist or a
>pedestrian who's carelessness causes an accident which damages the
>drivers car even if that pedestrian was harmed.

The evidence presented so far indicates that the driver was careless, not the biker.

Which was precisely my point when I said "Since he was speedng he should get nothing"

Quote

The burden belongs on both; both have an equal right to the road, and both have the burden to obey traffic laws. In this case, the driver was violating the law. If the biker was as well, then both were at fault, and neither pays the other. If the driver alone was at fault, then he pays for everything.

Which was the point I was trying to convey. Obviously I did not make my point well.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[billvon 3,085]

>Driving at night with no lights may well be deemed to be more detrimental than speeding . . .

Yep; it all depends on the laws there. If there's no law on bike lights, then the driver pays.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

then both were at fault, and neither pays the other

Back in 2001, I was heading home late at night after dropping Tamara Koyn off at her home, as I was getting off of Hwy 270 on to I-70 I rearended a car that was stopped on the freeway. I didn't see the guy until the last second as his car was a dark blue and his lights were off. He was at the end of the entrance ramp waiting for a car to pass even though there was no reason to do so as there is more then a mile of lane to run on before it merges and being late at night there was not much traffic to contend with. His insurance refused to pay for my damage stating that I was at fault for hitting him in the rear. My insurance company said he was at fault for being stopped on the interstate ramp with lights off as was stated in the police report. In the end we both ended up being responsible for our own damged cars. I believe he was responsible for the damage to my beautiful 80 SS El camino. Still haven't been able to find a chrome 1980 grill for her. Sometimes, it just isn't right but, what can you do? At least no one was hurt or killed. Plus, I was really glad that Tamara wasn't in the car at the time as I hit him at about 60mph.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

If he was shown to be driving excessively fast and contributed to the accident (as stated) - he should get fuck all (but neither should the family) - Life's tough sometimes, deal with it.

Ditto

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[tbrown 26]

Somebody should shoot the cocksucker (Delgado). He not only killed, he expects to be compensated for it. Fuck him - in the ass.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Richards 0]

Quote

Back in 2001, I was heading home late at night after dropping Tamara Koyn off at her home, as I was getting off of Hwy 270 on to I-70 I rearended a car that was stopped on the freeway. I didn't see the guy until the last second as his car was a dark blue and his lights were off. He was at the end of the entrance ramp waiting for a car to pass even though there was no reason to do so as there is more then a mile of lane to run on before it merges and being late at night there was not much traffic to contend with. His insurance refused to pay for my damage stating that I was at fault for hitting him in the rear. My insurance company said he was at fault for being stopped on the interstate ramp with lights off as was stated in the police report. In the end we both ended up being responsible for our own damged cars. I believe he was responsible for the damage to my beautiful 80 SS El camino.

What if his electrical system had conked out? What if he was a motorcyclist lying unconcious on the road? AT the end of the day your duty is to be aware of what is going on around you (particularly in front of you) and if the light conditions are bad then you need to adjust your speed accordingly.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Loonix 0]

Quote

I rarely see bicyclists offering basic traffic courtesy, let alone following rules. Especially messengers, but ordinary looking people as well. As a pedestrian at least you can shift your stance and pretend you don't see them and they'll swerve at the last minute. Not much you can do if you're in an automobile...I've found they're immune to reason.

That sure goes both ways. I've spent quite much more time on a bicycle than I have driving a car, and it's amazing how many drivers that doesn't know that a cyclist actually has rights in the traffic. To survive as a cyclist, I've basically had to learn to live by the "fact" that every driver is trying to kill me. (also, that all pedestrians are suicidal, and aims for death-by-bike).

This only leaves other cyclists to be afraid of, because they (like yourself) think they have everything under control

Actually I sometimes think that bicycling is the most dangerous activity I participate in. I've sure had far more oh-shit moments on a bike than under a parachute
For the OP, it sounds to me like the driver is clearly at fault. And for the cyclist not wearing a helmet, that doesn't have anything to do with damages to his car either way.

Not wearing a helmet is beyond stupid, though. Never understood why some people won't wear one. Plenty of comparisons to various skydiving safety equipment could be made here

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

For the OP, it sounds to me like the driver is clearly at fault. And for the cyclist not wearing a helmet, that doesn't have anything to do with damages to his car either way.

No, but riding in the dark without lighting may well have a lot to do with what happened. Even if not legally required by local laws, it can still be considered a cause of the collision.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Lights and speed are possibly red herrings here. If decided by English courts, the main thing a Judge would be looking at is what actually happened to cause the collision - movements of the vehicles, points of impact etc etc. Lighting and speed may be a very small part of the equation – eg, so what if someone was not displaying a light – they pulled out of a side road into the path of a vehicle when it was only 10ft away. Equally, so what if the driver was doing 55 instead of the posted 50 – the kid would still be dead because he was dumb enough to pull out of a side road right into the guy's path.

We don't however of course know the circumstances of the accident so it's all pure speculation. There's just not enough info in the article to make any kind of informed judgment.

If both parties were at fault to a degree then the Audi driver would get back a portion of his repair and hire costs in line with any split decision already reached. It's unclear if such a decision has been reached – the Eur 33,000 payment may have been ex gratia for example, or it may have been 50% of the value of the claim representing a 50/50 split in liability.

Bear in mind also that notwithstanding the quotes from the driver in the OP, it may not actually be him pursuing the claim against the family.

If he's claimed on his motor insurance or perhaps used something called "credit hire" then it may be the hire provider or his insurance co. suing in his name. He'll then be contractually obliged to assist with the suit but not actually bringing it himself or for his own financial gain.

[Loonix 0]

Quote

Quote

For the OP, it sounds to me like the driver is clearly at fault. And for the cyclist not wearing a helmet, that doesn't have anything to do with damages to his car either way.

No, but riding in the dark without lighting may well have a lot to do with what happened. Even if not legally required by local laws, it can still be considered a cause of the collision.

Yes, definately. But assuming (which may be assuming much...) that both parties were acting responsibly expect for the things mentioned, the cyclist would be close to the side of the road, going the same way as the car. This lessens the relative speed between them, and the turn needed to evade the cyclist would be quite small. As Richards said, you should be able to avoid an obstacle in the road either way. A cyclist without light is not the most difficult scenario I can imagine.

In Norway at least, you can be ruled to have acted irresponsibly as a driver even if you didn't drive faster than the speedlimit. Under difficult conditions, you need to drive accordingly.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes, definately. But assuming (which may be assuming much...) that both parties were acting responsibly expect for the things mentioned, the cyclist would be close to the side of the road, going the same way as the car. This lessens the relative speed between them, and the turn needed to evade the cyclist would be quite small. As Richards said, you should be able to avoid an obstacle in the road either way. A cyclist without light is not the most difficult scenario I can imagine.

I come across cyclists in Golden Gate Park at night all the time who aren't using any lighting. Some lack reflectors as well (I can understand pedals - clipless systems don't have space for it). In areas where there is little street lighting, these guys can be very close to invisible, yet a few ride in a manner that presumes 1) they're are visible and 2) (incorrectly) that they have the right of way.

Given the craziness I see from cagers when I'm on a bicycle, I have a hard time understanding these riders. I always presumed self preservation would lead them to behave intelligently, but observation says otherwise.