what's worse for the driver
 

-so here's a scenario for you:

-motorist is driving on the right lane, doesnt see a cyclist (or maybe they did) and has 2 choices to make do they:

-A: swerve out of the way to avoid the cyclist, but while doing so hits another car

-B: hits the cyclist

-the reason i bring this up is because lately i've seen stories of people hitting cyclists, whether it be by accident or on purpose, and the outcome is that they are given nothing but a slap on the wrist, maybe even pay a fine for accidentally or purposefully running over another human being.

-of course about 90% of the time the cyclist is typically injured or even killed and yet the justice system seems to look the other way when it comes to disciplinary action saying that it was "just an accident"

-the 2 outcomes that i see from these 2 scenarios are:
scenario A: motorist has their insurance raised and has to pay for damages to the car
scenario B: motorist goes to court, mentions it was an accident, and walks away with no disciplinary action, or of course in some cases they face manslaughter charges.

-what are your guys' thoughts?

In a related matter:

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/fa...sonTROLLEY.pdf

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...ammed-to-kill/

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

Oh, can I go back to college please? These are so much fun!

I have heard this asserted that when a driver hits a cyclist it gets billed as "just an accident," but when a driver hits another car, it is more than just an accident. However, I have never pursued what's going on here, legally. And I have heard some horror stories that I almost cannot believe (one I recall where a gal was hit from behind and the driver's insurance BILLED HER for the damage to the car. "You backed into him...").

I am astonished that there is so much anti-bike or at least head-patting sentiment out there.

But then again, I live outside Boulder.

My car has brakes, I'd probably opt for option C and give them a try

Stop calling them accidents. They're collisions.
The term accident reduces the seriousness.
I've had a lawyer + police officer both agree on this.

survivor or survivor's family sues driver in civil court and it gets more tangled up than that.

Can't make this stuff up. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/04/2...teens-parents/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puK5CwThaq4






William

that's a situation totally dependent on the circumstances. if i'm travelling so fast that i can't stop in time, there's no way i'm carrying that speed head on into oncoming traffic. that's suicidal. if i've got my kids or passengers in the car, then definitely not. just slam on the brakes.. if i hit the cyclist (or runner, parked car, etc...) i'll at least have slowed down enough that it's not catastrophic. it's on me and i'll deal with the consequences.

btw, i've encountered cyclists in full rapha-esque all black kit cruising along 3 feet into the lane under the shadows of trees or with the sun in my eyes. it's quite effective camouflage. it's not impossible or negligent to be surprised by cyclists. we don't want to admit it, but it's possible

I use hi powered tail lamps. I defy anyone to claim they didn't notice me even in broad daylight.

That's the correct term alright - collisions. It's what attorneys, police, and insurance companies use to describe incidents involving crashes. 'Accident' is a euphemism for sure.

I agree it sucks that a cyclist can be injured or killed with little happening to the driver, but it's not just a cyclist vs car thing. I've seen many head on car collisions where a careless driver went across the white line and killed people in an oncoming car, with it being ultimately considered an 'accident'. Or a pedstrian being killed while someone was texting and driving. People rarely get what's coming to them when they kill someone with a car. I guess it's just a societal thing.

Ask the kid in his Mom's basement who coded the self-driving car on a contract basis.

In real life?

I think it's a red herring excuse used by bad drivers. IIRC "Accident" is the term used because the auto industry went on a campaign to make people say that a long time ago because early auto drivers were killing so many pedestrians the car was in danger of being banned. "Accident" came about at the same time they basically kicked everyone else out of the road rather than make the auto drivers be responsible.

What situation do you get stuck with only those 2 options and it's not an option to just slam on the brakes and not hit the car or the cyclist? Even if you're going to get rear ended by the car behind you that is a much less severe accident than a head on accident with another car and you don't kill a cyclist or pedestrian.

The correct solution to a hazardous situation 99% of the time whether on bike, motorcycle, or car, is to slow down.

Bleed off energy, even if you can't stop in time you have a collision in a lower energy state and reduce your chances of injury.

This comes up a lot in motorcycling. You know someone is bad when they say they "laid it down to avoid a collision." I have heard a few cyclists say that too. Particularly at motorcycle speeds you always slide further on the pavement than it would take your motorcycle to stop from the same speed*.

Same thing with trying to accelerate out of a dangerous situation.. usually not a good idea, usually not much of an option on a bicycle anyway.. but if you accelerate you put yourself in a higher energy state and then have less time/space to deal with follow on hazards.

* - If you know how to use the brakes properly. I have usually heard this story from old guys riding cruisers who got their license before training was available/required, and they are afraid of the front brake.

Like it or not, if forced to make an instantaneous decision, most drivers would veer away from a head on collision with another automobile even if it resulted in hitting a softer target moving in the same direction as them.

I say this, but it occurs to me that if it was a pedestrian then a greater percentage of drivers might instantaneously choose the head-on collision instead. I think this may be because we are drilled to be careful of pedestrians while driving but not so much of cyclists. Maybe it is also because all drivers can identify with a pedestrian's vulnerability but many fewer identify with a cyclist's. Or maybe the act of using a traffic lane while on a wheeled vehicle enters you into some sort of unconscious shared risk pool with other users that leaves you fair game when someone is trying to avoid a serious accident.

The term accident implies that no one is to blame, which is rarely, if ever the case. It becomes much more difficult to avoid legal repercussions when blame must be assigned.