Cyclist and a car... Who's at fault?
 

Wherever I go, I always see cyclists who think they own the entire road. They don't stop at stop signs. They swerve around people and vehicles as they wish. They don't check for traffic before turning. And this got me thinking: what happens if a car enters an 4-way stop intersection, and proceeds to drive through an intersection, only to find a cyclist didn't obey the stop sign and collides into the car. Who is liable? And how does insurance deal with this? It is not like cyclists are required to buy insurance for using public roads.

A cyclist ran my friend down while we were crossing a 4-way stop intersection at UBC. [ HIT and RUN ]

The Guy didn't even have a helmet nor slowed down for the intersection and we had NO license plate to follow.....

I should have called the police....

Short answer: cyclists have to obey the same rules of the road as any other drivers; if they break the law and an accident results, they're at fault. They won't receive much sympathy, either, as it's a lot easier for them to see the car than it is for the car's driver to see them, AND they're a lot more maneuverable, so they should be better able to avoid the car.

Not sure how ICBC would handle things - I believe they'd simply pay you out and then go after the cyclist civilly.

Knowing ICBC, I think they'd make you pay your deductible and you go after the cyclists in civil court yourself. What sucks though is the cyclist usually just rides away before you can stop them too. I really wish all cyclists were required to have a license plate of some time so they can be tracked.

question is would you be able to find yourself a witness ? Cyclist vs CAR, what would be the first impression from others ? Always cars at fault...
I hate cyclist with passion to be honest

I have charged cyclists who rode off the sidewalk & out onto crosswalks & hit cars. ICBC didn't like me charging them...said I should have charged the car driver for not yielding to a "pedestrian". I told them to look up a definition of a pedestrian and one of a cyclist..and what laws a cyclist who rode on a sidewalk or crosswalk, would be breaking. The tickets stood.

Yeah, ICBC doesn't like that because they would lose money from that.

This is kind of different but in Columbia all Motor Cyclists must have their licence plate and in addition the plate number on the back of their jackets and helmets. Due to all the drive bys and people removing their plates this makes it easier to identify.

I don't mind seeing a similar thing with bicyclist where they need to have something on the back of their jacket and helmet or something.

"Yeah, ICBC doesn't like that because they would lose money from that. "

You would think that they would sue the bicycle rider in Civil court for the money they have to pay out for car repairs and his own injuries. How would an uninsured bicycle rider be any different from an uninsured car driver...both are "vehicles" under the motor vehicle act?

Well... it's not illegal to ride an uninsured bicycle, for starters.

I have 5 near miss occurances as a pedestrian with cyclists between September and now. None of them seem to care that they are a vehicle. They think they are some kind of mechanized pedestrians who does not need to follow any of the rules within the MVA.

Bringing them to civil court is a long and expensive process. In the end, the car driver always get the short end of the stick. I can understand that a cyclist on foot holding a bicycle is a pedestrian. Why do they think that riding on one still makes them one? Why can cyclist who use public roads can ride their bicycle uninsured and potentially damage other vehicles not need to pay the annual premium other road users have to? What makes them so privileged?

"Well... it's not illegal to ride an uninsured bicycle, for starters."

I agree, but if they are found to be responsible for causing a crash with damage or injury, they are liable in civil court for the damages. Unlike the car driver, they will not have ICBC defending their actions to negate a payout. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian, their wallet is going to be emptied by civil law. If a cyclist damages a car, they are also liable in civil court.The one advantage that insured car drivers have is that ICBC will pay the costs up front and then sue the person who caused the damages to get their money back.

Hey guys, i got into an accident yesterday,
So the cyclist was on the side walk (opposite direction of the traffic flow too) and she hit side of my car when I was turning right
Note that I had a stop sign and she didn't
Am I 100% at fault for this?
Posted via RS Mobile

if she was ON the sidewalk, she is breaking the law if i remember correctly. so you might get away with it that way. did you stop at the stop sign?

She was riding along the sidewalk. & Yeah I stopped At the stop sign before proceeding and I started accelerating cuz I didn't see her. Had obstructed view (she said she didn't see me either) cuz of the bushy fence thingy this house had at that corner :(
Just went to icbc and they said there's a possibility it's 100% her fault (note POSSIBILITY not confirmed) cuz motor vehicle 183.1 states she has same duty as car and 183.2a states she can't be on the side walk. On top of that she wasn't wearing a helmet and SHE hit ME (but we were both moving). She didn't take measures to stop when crossing and Richmond municipal by-law states that cycles are not allowed on cross walk. UGHHHH this is so stressful.
Posted via RS Mobile

^ she'll be 100% at fault. She's not supposed to be in that line of traffic ANYWAY. Sidewalk or not.

And a stop sign is a stop sign. Cyclists MUST obey them. Again, REGARDLESS of what side of the road they were on.

If cyclists want to "share" the roads with automobiles, they should be subject to the same rules AND licensing AND insurance, unless they're riding in/around a school/park/beach.

I hate that I pay for road maintenance, licensing and insurance and have to share the road with people who usually don't follow the rules and will rarely (if ever) get ticketed. Every single day I see cyclists weave in and out of traffic, ride on the sidewalk and through crosswalks (to avoid red lights).

Want to play with the cars? Pay with the cars and be just as liable.

/rant

Questions for Zulu. If a cyclist is on the street, not on the sidewalk, and gets to an intersection with a car turning right does the cyclist need to wait for that car to turn right like other traffic, or does the cyclists have the ability to go past the car on the inside (effectively block the turn or hit the car, whichever comes first lol)?

I had this situation years ago and was told I was in the right when the cyclist hit my car, but I still wonder.

Do you think the insurance should apply on little kid as well ? or on a Tri-cycle ? Do we fine little kids for riding on sidewalk ?

I just thought about this haha

Both are vehicles and are required to obey the MVA. Vehicles cannot pass on the right unless the road is wide enough and the vehicle is turning left. Substitute another car or a motorcycle and it becomes more clear. saying that, every turn to the right should include a right blind spot check...that's what I teach my students for the very reason you have brought up.

It's actually legal for kids with certain sized wheels (I think it was smaller than 61cm??) to ride on the side walk as long as they're accompanied by an adult.
Posted via RS Mobile

But then after doing my shoulder check, and seeing the cyclist coming down the road toward the intersection I am turning right on, is it on me to wait for the cyclist or is it on the cyclist to stop and wait until I complete my right hand turn?

I’m not asking for anyone to say I have the right to drive in front of cyclists, I just would like to know in that situation, would it be the cyclists fault or the cars if there was a collision?

I understand that as a vehicle, it has to obey the rules of the road, but it seems like so much leeway is given to the cyclist that it’s ALWAYS the drivers responsibility to look out for them. Just wondering what that situation holds from an officers perspective.

That is a good question... I always wondered this because it happens a lot where I am blocked from turning right because there is a Biker coming on the right side of the right hand lane I am in. I realize if there was a legit bike lane beside me, I would yield, but most streets don't have that lane.

It should be as simple as making cyclists get insurance. i don't know why it is taking so long, especially if Mr. Hipster Robertson wants this city to be filled with other Hipsters and less cars....

Just forget for a moment that it is a bicycle. If you had started a right turn legally and a motorcycle came up behind you and tried to pass you on the right as you turned, who do you think would be breasking the law?

Well lane splitting for motorcycles is illegal in BC. I'm not to sure about bicycles.