[tasty_freeze]

Yes, it is amazing when the driver says, "I just didn't see him!" and that is accepted as a reasonable explanation.

I think it is because the overwhelming number of drivers (in the US) haven't ridden a bike since they were children. A judge and most of the jurors fall into that category, and they empathize with the driver, as they could imagine themselves doing the exact same thing that the driver did.

[pseudo0]

It's because a driver can do everything right and still miss a cyclist. Humans aren't infallible, and driving is an extremely complex task. In many cases it's an issue of bad road design or cyclists not following the rules of the road. For a driver to be held criminally responsible they have to be negligent, eg. using a cellphone, speeding, distracted, etc.

From my own experience interacting with cyclists on the road, the riskiest situations I saw were ones the cyclist created. Eg. Running reds, doing 15+ mph on the sidewalk, lane-splitting, etc.

[tonyedgecombe]

>From my own experience interacting with cyclists on the road, the riskiest situations I saw were ones the cyclist created. Eg. Running reds, doing 15+ mph on the sidewalk, lane-splitting, etc.

In the UK the most common cause of cycling fatalities is being rear ended. Risky behaviour by cyclists is rarely to blame for accidents.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling...

[giantg2]

I do agree that empathy plays a big part.

However, just like with drivers, often times the cyclists have negligent (or reckless) factors against them as well, which is often used to downplay the contribution of any reckless or negligent actions of the driver. For example, about 20% of cyclist-vehicle fatalities involve cyclist DUI. About 60% of cyclist fatalities are not wearing a helmet despite recommendations and applicaible laws. That's why most cycling-vehicle deaths are handled in civil cases - a lower burden of proof and you can still get a payout even if the cyclist had some level of contributory negligence depending on the state.

[konschubert]

I am sure you don't mean it this way, but this suggests a false equivalency.

If a cyclist does not wear a helmet and gets killed by a driver running a red light, it is still 100% the driver's fault.

A kill is still a kill even if the victim didn't wear a bulletproof vest.

[jstarfish]

If we're talking US law, you are absolutely incorrect and making a false equivalence yourself. A murder victim is not a MVC victim.

Only the collision is 100% the driver's fault (in most states).

The death is up for debate. If you die because you weren't wearing a seatbelt/helmet, you were negligent, so fault is shared.

There is no law mandating everyone wear bulletproof vests. All states have seatbelt laws, and most have helmet laws.

[tonyedgecombe]

>and most have helmet laws

For cyclists?

[giantg2]

Most do have some cyclist helmet law. However, only a few have laws that apply to adults. Most are only applied to children of various ages.

[giantg2]

You may want to look into what I said about contributory negligence instead of strawmanning in this comment thread. It seems this is a pattern with you as you strawmanned in another thread here too.

[Ferret7446]

I don't think "I just didn't see him!" is considered a reasonable explanation in court. Now, if the cyclist came out from the gap between parked cars or a tight corner...

Cyclists can absolutely be at fault. I don't see why you'd think otherwise. Humans are uniquely fallible, cyclist and drivers are both human (if you ignore Waymo et al).