Topic: Girl Texting while Driving hitting Cyclist says "I just don't care"

[Noto]

That's what insurance is all about - piece of mind.  Happy you have it, never want to use it.

Still, as a personal injury lawyer, you'll never see me with a $2M policy.

[rrocket]

Well if you are young and have high income, then its still worth it no? Lots of garnishment could happen.

As an aside, I'm usually a little bit more on the "take care of your own business" side of the political spectrum but in this specific case IMO the risk should be socialized.

Its extreme tail risk type scenarios that are largely outside of the control of people. Given that you hit someone, you don't have any influence over whether you hit a 75 year old man who died instantly or a van full of kids who or a couple of high paid laywers on their way to a trial. And yet the system requires an effectively different level of punishment for what is the essentially the same transgression in each case. The only way for an individual to cover this risk is to not drive, which is clearly impractical.

I suppose you could view this as an extreme deep tail risk that's not worth "fixing" from a social structure perspective. Some people get run over by a bus when they cross the street, some people get cancer at age 10, ... society isn't here to cover every single base. But IMO if the system itself is creating these situations, rather than it being something out of our sphere of control, that's not a desirable design trait.

If you're so concerned about financial risk and losing assets, surely you must have a pre nuptial agreement?

You're many times more likely to be damaged financially through a failed marriage than a car accident claim against your personal wealth.

I looked at my pre nuptial as another form of personal insurance....

[X-Traction]

To address something other than insurance coverage, if this woman was correctly quoted, she is dangerously sociopathic and should be required to have psychiatric counseling. 

This case is also an example of why we should make it law that the motorist is held responsible for EVERY traffic accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, and a motorist.  This is fair because it compensates for the imbalance in the chances for harm to result from carelessness or malevolence on the part of the motorist.

[Fobroader]

To address something other than insurance coverage, if this woman was correctly quoted, she is dangerously sociopathic and should be required to have psychiatric counseling. 

This case is also an example of why we should make it law that the motorist is held responsible for EVERY traffic accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, and a motorist.  This is fair because it compensates for the imbalance in the chances for harm to result from carelessness or malevolence on the part of the motorist.

Thats just stupid.....youve never had a cyclist/pedestrian do something stupid/illegal/dangerous in front of you?? If some idiot jaywalks between two cars and I cant stop, why is it my fault??

[X-Traction]

To address something other than insurance coverage, if this woman was correctly quoted, she is dangerously sociopathic and should be required to have psychiatric counseling. 

This case is also an example of why we should make it law that the motorist is held responsible for EVERY traffic accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, and a motorist.  This is fair because it compensates for the imbalance in the chances for harm to result from carelessness or malevolence on the part of the motorist.

Thats just stupid.....youve never had a cyclist/pedestrian do something stupid/illegal/dangerous in front of you?? If some idiot jaywalks between two cars and I cant stop, why is it my fault??

I know it's not easy to grasp any fairness in this.  The idea is to recognize and compensate for the fact that your chosen means of getting around in that example, pose a far greater risk of harm to others and property damage.  This measure levels the playing field and promotes low impact means of getting about.

If you were also on foot, rather than choosing to interact with pedestrians while encased in 4000lb of metal, you probably could have avoided hitting them, and if you did, the consequences would be minor.

In some places in Europe, similar measures are in effect.  Motorists are expected to expect cyclists and pedestrians to do things motorists don't anticipate, and to be suitably cautious.  It also prevents motorists from blaming accidents on others that really were the fault of the motorist.  Most collisions between adult cyclists and motorists are the fault of the motorists.  But who gets hurt?

[mmret]

Well if you are young and have high income, then its still worth it no? Lots of garnishment could happen.

As an aside, I'm usually a little bit more on the "take care of your own business" side of the political spectrum but in this specific case IMO the risk should be socialized.

Its extreme tail risk type scenarios that are largely outside of the control of people. Given that you hit someone, you don't have any influence over whether you hit a 75 year old man who died instantly or a van full of kids who or a couple of high paid laywers on their way to a trial. And yet the system requires an effectively different level of punishment for what is the essentially the same transgression in each case. The only way for an individual to cover this risk is to not drive, which is clearly impractical.

I suppose you could view this as an extreme deep tail risk that's not worth "fixing" from a social structure perspective. Some people get run over by a bus when they cross the street, some people get cancer at age 10, ... society isn't here to cover every single base. But IMO if the system itself is creating these situations, rather than it being something out of our sphere of control, that's not a desirable design trait.

If you're so concerned about financial risk and losing assets, surely you must have a pre nuptial agreement?

You're many times more likely to be damaged financially through a failed marriage than a car accident claim against your personal wealth.

I looked at my pre nuptial as another form of personal insurance....

My understanding is that prenup only applies to specific assets obtained before marriage, which wasn't much in my case.

Besides, there are all sorts of differences between covering the extra $1m in accident liability and losing money in a divorce. Since you are probably just trolling, I won't get into them.

[mmret]

Most collisions between adult cyclists and motorists are the fault of the motorists.  But who gets hurt?

Proof?

[aquadorhj]

Most collisions between adult cyclists and motorists are the fault of the motorists.  But who gets hurt?

Proof?

i don't know know about your location, X-Trac, but here, i'm sure it's mostly cyclists' fault.
we get many cyclists killed by light rail trains we have every gotdamn year, it's ridiculous. 

[Noto]

My understanding is that prenup only applies to specific assets obtained before marriage, which wasn't much in my case.

Pre-nuptial agreements are contracts between persons intending on being spouses.  As a contract, they can vary widely based on whatever terms are contained therein.  It's not necessarily only on assets - you can contract out of spousal support obligations, ownership of pets, and many other things...you only can't opt out of Child Support obligations.

I agree, however, that a pre-nupt is not a form of insurance.  There is no third party insuring against a certain peril or loss, which is the very effective definition of what an insurer is.  Arguing that divorce is a peril/loss that one will be indemnified over between set assets is simply not the same as paying annual premiums to a body that will pay for losses.

I'm not yet married, but we will have a pre-nupt that will be fair to both parties.  It will ensure that spousal support cannot be sought on certain conditions, that assets will go where we want them to, etc.  It'll be a form of controlling emotions in the event of a marriage breakdown.  Anything else will be covered in a will.

[X-Traction]

Most collisions between adult cyclists and motorists are the fault of the motorists.  But who gets hurt?

Proof?

Without doing an exhaustive search, here you are:

I've heard that the majority of cyclist/motorist collisions are the fault of cyclists.  However, there is plenty of evidence that is not the case.  The second important distinction is that I said "adult" cyclists.  Most accidents between cyclists and motorists involve children on bicycles.  When you consider only adult cyclists to compare to the adult motorists, the motorists are at fault most of the time.  Cyclists who have taken formal bicycle safety training are involved in far fewer accidents, but in Canada at least, such training has been left to the severely constrained resources of cycling organizations.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/10/car_versus_bicycle_crashes_denver_police_report.php
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758677.ece
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/car-drivers-more-at-often-at-fault-in-accidents-with-bike-riders/story-e6freooo-1225959019825

And here's more background on what might seem to be an illogical proposal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214856/Motorists-blamed-accidents-cyclists-fault--says-Government-advisor.html

"The proposal by Cycling England is modelled on regulations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, which are heavily skewed in favour of cyclists.

Even in cases where a crash results from illegal or dangerous manoeuvres by the cyclist, the motorist is usually blamed.

The motorist is always legally responsible for any crash involving a child or elderly cyclist, even if they are cycling in the wrong direction, ignoring traffic signals, or otherwise flouting traffic regulations. Now cyclists' groups want similar measures included in the Government's forthcoming National Cycling Plan and Active Transport Strategy.

As well as cyclists, pedestrians would also be assumed not to be at fault in civil law if hit by a car. The 'most powerful vehicle' involved in a crash would automatically be liable.

Where a cyclist was hit by a car, the presumption of blame would fall on the driver. Cyclists would automatically be blamed if they hit a pedestrian."

[Northernridge]

Small aside, in Turks and Caicos cars have the right of way on roads not pedestrians. So if you smoke someone who is walking on the road...it's their fault. Sounds like Deathrace but it does provide clarity...

[sailor723]

Small aside, in Turks and Caicos cars have the right of way on roads not pedestrians. So if you smoke someone who is walking on the road...it's their fault. Sounds like Deathrace but it does provide clarity...

I like the way they think! Roads are for motor vehicles.

[Fobroader]

Small aside, in Turks and Caicos cars have the right of way on roads not pedestrians. So if you smoke someone who is walking on the road...it's their fault. Sounds like Deathrace but it does provide clarity...

What a fantastic idea!!

[sailor723]

Most collisions between adult cyclists and motorists are the fault of the motorists.  But who gets hurt?

Proof?

Without doing an exhaustive search, here you are:

I've heard that the majority of cyclist/motorist collisions are the fault of cyclists.  However, there is plenty of evidence that is not the case.  The second important distinction is that I said "adult" cyclists.  Most accidents between cyclists and motorists involve children on bicycles.  When you consider only adult cyclists to compare to the adult motorists, the motorists are at fault most of the time.  Cyclists who have taken formal bicycle safety training are involved in far fewer accidents, but in Canada at least, such training has been left to the severely constrained resources of cycling organizations.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/10/car_versus_bicycle_crashes_denver_police_report.php
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758677.ece
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/car-drivers-more-at-often-at-fault-in-accidents-with-bike-riders/story-e6freooo-1225959019825

And here's more background on what might seem to be an illogical proposal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214856/Motorists-blamed-accidents-cyclists-fault--says-Government-advisor.html

"The proposal by Cycling England is modelled on regulations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, which are heavily skewed in favour of cyclists.

Even in cases where a crash results from illegal or dangerous manoeuvres by the cyclist, the motorist is usually blamed.

The motorist is always legally responsible for any crash involving a child or elderly cyclist, even if they are cycling in the wrong direction, ignoring traffic signals, or otherwise flouting traffic regulations. Now cyclists' groups want similar measures included in the Government's forthcoming National Cycling Plan and Active Transport Strategy.

As well as cyclists, pedestrians would also be assumed not to be at fault in civil law if hit by a car. The 'most powerful vehicle' involved in a crash would automatically be liable.

Where a cyclist was hit by a car, the presumption of blame would fall on the driver. Cyclists would automatically be blamed if they hit a pedestrian."

Most of that is just absurd!  Although, given the stories I've read and heard about modern Britian, It doesn't surprise me.  Anyone remember the story about the fire brigade that wouldn't try and save a drowning man in a pond because entering the water would violate some kind of safety regs?

X-traction, many of your posts seem to be quite "anti-car". Why are you on this site? Is it just for trolling purposes?

[Solstice2006]

To address something other than insurance coverage, if this woman was correctly quoted, she is dangerously sociopathic and should be required to have psychiatric counseling. 

This case is also an example of why we should make it law that the motorist is held responsible for EVERY traffic accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, and a motorist.  This is fair because it compensates for the imbalance in the chances for harm to result from carelessness or malevolence on the part of the motorist.

Thats just stupid.....youve never had a cyclist/pedestrian do something stupid/illegal/dangerous in front of you?? If some idiot jaywalks between two cars and I cant stop, why is it my fault??

Usually happens this time of year, when more people are out.  Driving down the street as usual, doing around 40km, signal my turn to make a right, and halfway through the turn almost clipped a jogger wearing all black at night!   Yes it would have been my fault, but why should cars be forced to have lights, and all this safety stuff, and a jogger can't put on a reflective shirt.... 

[Fobroader]

To address something other than insurance coverage, if this woman was correctly quoted, she is dangerously sociopathic and should be required to have psychiatric counseling. 

This case is also an example of why we should make it law that the motorist is held responsible for EVERY traffic accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, and a motorist.  This is fair because it compensates for the imbalance in the chances for harm to result from carelessness or malevolence on the part of the motorist.

Thats just stupid.....youve never had a cyclist/pedestrian do something stupid/illegal/dangerous in front of you?? If some idiot jaywalks between two cars and I cant stop, why is it my fault??

Usually happens this time of year, when more people are out.  Driving down the street as usual, doing around 40km, signal my turn to make a right, and halfway through the turn almost clipped a jogger wearing all black at night!   Yes it would have been my fault, but why should cars be forced to have lights, and all this safety stuff, and a jogger can't put on a reflective shirt....

I meet lots going to work in the morning, not a reflector or light on them and wearing dark clothing......if you want to kill yourself, there are easier ways that dont involve me doing paperwork.

[sailor723]

To address something other than insurance coverage, if this woman was correctly quoted, she is dangerously sociopathic and should be required to have psychiatric counseling. 

This case is also an example of why we should make it law that the motorist is held responsible for EVERY traffic accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, and a motorist.  This is fair because it compensates for the imbalance in the chances for harm to result from carelessness or malevolence on the part of the motorist.

Thats just stupid.....youve never had a cyclist/pedestrian do something stupid/illegal/dangerous in front of you?? If some idiot jaywalks between two cars and I cant stop, why is it my fault??

Usually happens this time of year, when more people are out.  Driving down the street as usual, doing around 40km, signal my turn to make a right, and halfway through the turn almost clipped a jogger wearing all black at night!   Yes it would have been my fault, but why should cars be forced to have lights, and all this safety stuff, and a jogger can't put on a reflective shirt....

How would it have been your fault?  Unless you had swerved onto the sidewalk or the shoulder I'd think it would be a case of "person in the roadway and not in a crosswalk". 

[Solstice2006]

To address something other than insurance coverage, if this woman was correctly quoted, she is dangerously sociopathic and should be required to have psychiatric counseling. 

This case is also an example of why we should make it law that the motorist is held responsible for EVERY traffic accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, and a motorist.  This is fair because it compensates for the imbalance in the chances for harm to result from carelessness or malevolence on the part of the motorist.

Thats just stupid.....youve never had a cyclist/pedestrian do something stupid/illegal/dangerous in front of you?? If some idiot jaywalks between two cars and I cant stop, why is it my fault??

Usually happens this time of year, when more people are out.  Driving down the street as usual, doing around 40km, signal my turn to make a right, and halfway through the turn almost clipped a jogger wearing all black at night!   Yes it would have been my fault, but why should cars be forced to have lights, and all this safety stuff, and a jogger can't put on a reflective shirt....

How would it have been your fault?  Unless you had swerved onto the sidewalk or the shoulder I'd think it would be a case of "person in the roadway and not in a crosswalk". 

Because I am the motorist, always in the wrong, joggers on the sidewalk, crossing on the street (no marked crosswalk) to get to the other side.  But the look he gave me, like I almost committed murder.  Even if it was a market crosswalk, why isn't there a law, because many lack common sense, to wear something visible! 

[Fobroader]

To address something other than insurance coverage, if this woman was correctly quoted, she is dangerously sociopathic and should be required to have psychiatric counseling. 

This case is also an example of why we should make it law that the motorist is held responsible for EVERY traffic accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, and a motorist.  This is fair because it compensates for the imbalance in the chances for harm to result from carelessness or malevolence on the part of the motorist.

Thats just stupid.....youve never had a cyclist/pedestrian do something stupid/illegal/dangerous in front of you?? If some idiot jaywalks between two cars and I cant stop, why is it my fault??

Usually happens this time of year, when more people are out.  Driving down the street as usual, doing around 40km, signal my turn to make a right, and halfway through the turn almost clipped a jogger wearing all black at night!   Yes it would have been my fault, but why should cars be forced to have lights, and all this safety stuff, and a jogger can't put on a reflective shirt....

How would it have been your fault?  Unless you had swerved onto the sidewalk or the shoulder I'd think it would be a case of "person in the roadway and not in a crosswalk". 

A buddy of mines dad hit a guy that jaywalked in front of him, nowhere near a crosswalk, between two cars and the guys dad clipped him, he was going under the speed limit. Put the guy into the windshield, broken arm. Cops claimed that because he hit a pedestrian the fault was 50/50....thats why this whole "pedestrians have the right of way" is BS. You should lookout for the larger thing that can kill you, you can stop and change direction quicker on foot or on a bike. A lot of the pedestrians around here dont give a crap about their well being and expect that you as a driver will stop for them no matter the situation.

[Solstice2006]

^^ That drives me crazy whenever I am downtown Toronto, and the pedestrians don't have the right of the way, but sure enough they are in the friggin way, and the cars can't make the turns because of the pedestrians walking when they aren't supposed to...