Who Gets the Blame for a Crash (Page 2)

And stop getting your info from the National Enquirer 

In the USA, no. In the UAE, yes.

Let's put it this way: in the US it would depend on what state you live in and what the laws are. Some places would blame one, some states the other...some states would split the costs for injury/damage by percent among the two. (What if the driver you hypothesize was stopped in the fast lane on the expressway where there is a minimum speed limit because his stereo was broken? Changes the liability, doesn't it?) 

In this instance, I do think we need more info...like I said, I only know IL law but yes here the stopped cyclist would bear some of (not all) the responsibility. I'm not sure about other areas...I'm wondering if cycling habits are regional enough to explain some of our differences in opinion on fault. 

If it were on the trail where I ride regularly, we call cyclists out if they're stopped on the trail...but we also stop and help if we see someone off to the side. I frequently have to explain "just getting my sunglasses" to passing trail users in the morning. 

Thank you all for the responses.  This has been very educational.

I'm not sure the tri guy deserves a lot of the blame for the accident.  He had about three feet of path to the right and about 8-10 feet to the left of him.  Technically he was to the right, maybe not as far as he could have been but he was there.  I think the stopped cyclist might have considered that not everyone is going to be paying attention because cyclists are not regulated like drivers and we've all seen people riding erratically on a path by either swerving back and forth in a lane, stopping short, or just not paying attention and veering into a line.  I would argue that due to the unpredictability of the varying levels of skills on a bike path, you may want to improve your chances of not getting bowled over by getting completely out of the way. To me, that's off the path if it's possible.  Also, I'm not a huge fan of headphones while riding but as was stated earlier in the thread the fact that he had headphones on is irrelevant and I should not have even mentioned them.  He could have been trying to fix his computer, his helmet, sunglasses, shoes, shifting southern region, whatever.  It doesn't really matter. 

There's a major difference between the two examples.  Stopping in the fast lane on an interstate to fix your radio is an extreme example.  Stopping on a MUP to fix your radio would seem perfectly appropriate to 99% of the public... I mean, people us MUP's to stroll, walk a dog, take their kids on tricycles, stand around and chat etc.  How is a stopped cyclist any different than a stopped pedestrian?

Yes, I agree there are a lot of blanks to fill in.  That's probably why there are very different opinions on this thread.  In my area the MUP's are called "Greenways" and I can't imagine anyone standing still being even remotely at fault for getting hit by a cyclist looking at his crank (haha.)

This is why I try to stay off MUPs. 

Around here, we'd yell at a pedestrian standing still on the path, too. Equal opportunity! You bring up a valid point about what seems reasonable to your average joe versus thinking more like, say, the police in who they fault in a crash report. Most people would say a driver needs to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk...then again, if a person steps into a crosswalk on a red light and gets hit the police aren't going to charge the driver of the car for not yielding because the pedestrian violated laws to put themselves in that position. Even if it was the driver who couldn't stop in time. 

Some MUPs here actually have written warnings at some entrances and printed on trail maps you'd download to move off the path if stopped. 

Jason and Chris I completely agree.  I never ride (training) on a MUP.  However, I do run on them.

Newfangled- Sounds like your paths are a lot more serious in Chicago.  I still have to agree to disagree though... in your example, I would find fault with the driver even if the pedestrian was jaywalking if 1) The pedestrian entered the road when there was not a vehicle in their vicinity, and 2)The driver had ample time and clear vision of the pedestrian entering the road to avoid a collision.

Don't even get a Chicagoan started about etiquette on the Lakefront Path in the summer! lol They had to start an education campaign last summer to ease tensions.

I usually ride a paved suburban trail with a heavy mix...people with headphones, runners, casual bike riders, people training for races on bikes, homeless people pushing shopping carts to the fireplace shelter in the forest preserve. Not to mention that my summer average for deer crossing the trail is usually 10 per morning ride. 

Exactly.  Also why I step off the trail/path or even off the shoulder to do any housekeeping on a run/ride.  It's prudent.  It's small consolation if I can put the blame on the guy who hits me when my arm is broken or injured enough to not be able to train.

The only good time to ride on the Lakefront Trail during the summer is about 4:30 am, and don't even THINK about riding on it on the weekends if you don't want to come away with some sort of "road rage" and slightly hoarse from trying to call out 'on your left' constantly.  

All I know is that after cycling along Philly's Schuykill River Trail on Monday evening, it was a reminder of just how clueless people are on (and off) a MUP - runners who decide they're done and suddenly stop and turn left to cross the street; a couple who get ready to start their ride and just push their bikes right onto the path (without looking left/back); people walking and looking down texting/messing with their smartphones while drifting left; walking/running several abreast, and then look at you like you should move over for them.  Unbelievable!  I actually felt safer riding home on the road, at rush hour, out of a major city.

All I wanted to do was enjoy my ride and make sure I swallowed no more than 10 bugs (boy, they came back with a vengeance!), and that's what I had to deal with.

But seriously, regarding the comments about the young woman running who was crushed by the falling tree... you are absolutely right, she didn't have a chance with one of her senses completely cut off.  Other posters can make their comments from afar, but every time I pass the little memorial where she was killed, I think to myself to make sure that I keep my headphones to a reasonable sound level when running (I absolutely never use them on a bike - mountain or road). 

Had she not been on that path the odds would have been 0% everybody makes choices.  The likelyhood that the music was any real factor is negligible at best.

I can only speak for my situation, but the trail I describe above (the shopping-carted homeless & deer one) also has a canopy of older trees over it...you can frequently hear branches snapping before they fall. 

But I'm also in the crowd that never ever wears headphones to ride or run. It's just too dangerous. It will always be something you don't hear...falling trees, someone shouting "on your left," cars, a huge dog chasing you. 

Can you tell the difference between one that will fall on you and one that will fall away from you?

Can you tell the difference between a car that is coming up behind you to pass you and the one that is coming up behind you to hit you?

I wear earphones when I ride or I should say earphone, I ride with one in and one out.  Yes I do not like being surprised by things coming up behind me but I think people over estimate what "danger" they can hear.

Great, another thread that goes down the headphone path.

For grins, I just did a google search for the last 20 minutes and there are really no statistics or studies done to prove that headphones are "too dangerous".

The University of Maryland did a study but it was for walkers and they said that accident that appear to involve headphones has gone up 300% since 2006 (and most of those were walking in front of a train or moving car).  So it was DISTRACTION that causes the accident, not failing to react to something you don't see, but could have heard.

Also, what does a 300% increase REALLY tell you?  Not much.  If 1 person out of a million walkers (0.0001 %) was hit, and now 3 were hit (so 0.0003 %) - that's a 300% increase.  But still too small to worry about.

Also, could a 300% increase be because there is a 300% increase of headphone usage?  So the ratio is exactly the same?  What if headphone usage went up 500%.  Then the 300% increase would mean people are SAFER then in the past.

Hey, if your gut feeling is wearing them is unsafe.  If that's your personal smell test...  That's absolutely fine.  But beware, there is no real evidence or studies to back up that headphones are "too dangerous".  So telling people they are dangerous is more your opinion than real fact.

But if someone CAN find a study that does a good job in analyzing it, I would love to read it.  If I can be convinced that headphones are bad, I will stop using them ASAP.  Till then, I'm willing to take the risk on my runs and long solo rides.

Science has nothing to do with it for me...and I'm a science geek! I go strictly by the "not wanting the headphones to make me lose credibility" rule. Not to say people shouldn't wear them for running. I know people like to listen to music when they're working out. Users just have to be aware that if they should happen to not hear something they otherwise might have then the headphones will get the blame. Er...they'll get the blame for wearing headphones. Like was said previously, we all take risks.

But, back to the tri bike guy on the path...if he was wearing headphones on the bike, some people may see him to be more at fault--beyond being in the way on the path. Again, in IL it is up for debate about the legality of headphones on bikes. Dunno about elsewhere. 

For tree branches, yep, it's generally quiet enough on this trail and the wood is brittle enough that you can hear above, left, right, ahead.