"You know when you crash your car into another car or a person, you know you gotta exchange information, insurance info and so on...
What do you do when you crash your bike?
I've been involved in 2 crashes this summer, one was caused by someone else and the other was 100% my fault, a result of too much biking on a hot day and basically zoning out.
I was wondering what was the etiquette? What if I had a 4000$ bike and it was trashed? I kinda would be majorly pissed and want to sue the jerk who caused the accident... So what do you do when you crash?
The first time I was angry but kinda resigned to ""what's done is done"" and didn't see the point in screaming at the guy. When I caused the crash, the other person seemed to be seething but didn't do anything either. After first aid was done, we went each our own way...
"
Crash etiquette
"I was taken down by another rider who grabbed on to me from behind as he was falling, taking me down and another rider, and causing a few hundred dollars of damage to just my bike. When I asked him to help me out with the expense of repair, at least split it with me, he said no. According to his ""racer friends"", he told me we are responsible for our own gear. I told him, that this wasn't a race, we weren't even on a ride. We were just exiting the Park. When he started to blame me for causing the accident, I realized that it was a losing battle. He was a lawyer as well.
Good luck."
I don’t know but ask yourself the following questions first .
Do you want to be forced to have insurance to ride a bike?
Do you want to register your bike and have small license plate like a car on the back?
Do you want to follow all traffic laws like stopping and waiting at every red light?
If people start suing each other that’s what will happen . I would say proper etiquette is always carry a cell phone and if injure someone stop call for help.
"I'm not up on all the laws of the land - but something tells me that if you have considerable damages to your person or property during an ""accident"" - you have some recourse to the legal system. I'm thinking at least the Small Claims Court for damages/repairs up to whatever the limit is - or get legal help for things more substantial. For sure get a name & phone number and/or call the police to file an incident report. If there is personal injury you will want to file a report of some kind for sure - so why not for property damage?
M"
Right, I pretty much agree with you on that point. I like breaking the rules as much as the next guy.
It's just frustrating though that all you can do is pretty much grin and bear it.
Such is the life of the long-distance rider...
"Something to ponder. If you are driving a car and rear-end another vehicle, say due to the car ""stopping short"", you are liable. Now, you are in a paceline, the person ahead of you goes down, ""causing"" you to crash, damaging your bicycle. My guess is a court may see this situation as similar to that of a car rear-ending another car. You may actually be liable for damages to the lead rider's bike, if you caused damage by hitting him."
"Cars have brake (and reverse) lights, to which car drivers (and roadies) must pay attention. In a paceline all we have is trust that riders will behave consistently and predictably, point out road hazards, and verbally warn other riders when they are suddenly slowing or swerving to avoid an unexpected hazard. Unless a motor vehicle or other major hazard has suddenly blocked the right of way, ""stopping short"" in a paceline is simply wrong."
"You did not get my point. I doubt that from a legal perspective someone in a paceline could hold claim to damages even if someone else's ""fault."""
"Then we agree after all! Your earlier comments reflected otherwise.
""My guess is a court may see this situation as similar to that of a car rear-ending another car. You may actually be liable for damages to the lead rider's bike, if you caused damage by hitting him.""
"
"""My guess is a court may see this situation as similar to that of a car rear-ending another car. You may actually be liable for damages to the lead rider's bike, if you caused damage by hitting him.""
This would apply if Rider B is drafting on Rider A without Rider A's knowledge or permission. If Rider B rear ends Rider A in that scenario, I say Rider B is at fault even if Rider A stopped short without warning.
In normal paceline riding I think all participants have to accept the inherent risk.
""Chainwheel"""
My original and subsequent posting did not reflect any view on paceline etiquette, rather my non-lawyer interpretation of possible liability remedy in event of an accident, so I can’t say I agree with you. My point, from a legal perspective, is that if you are in paceline and crash due to someone in front of you going down, not calling out a pothole, etc., you will not be able to take any legal action against such person, and may in fact be liable for any additional damages you cause to that person’s bicycle due to your impact. This is based on traffic laws requiring all vehicles to maintain a safe distance at all times. I don’t remember seeing a paceline exemption anywhere and unless specifically exempted by law, bicyclists are subject to all traffic laws. However, a lead cyclist brought down from behind would be able to expect compensation for damages.
the legal concep that applies to - most - sporting activities is assumption of the risk. if you are a goal keeper and get one in the face, if you are a running back and get your knee snapped in a tackle, if you become a human road crayon while pacelining - you assumed the inherent risk and have little if any recourse.
this concetp extends to spectators also. getting a foul ball in the face at a baseball game or eating a hockey puck leaves little recourse. the only exception is if management took steps to protect - say, plexiglass or netting - and did not properly maintained.
so, if in a paceline, perhaps even if just riding along, no one has recourse. i do not know of any cases involving cyclist v. cyclist, but i assume there would be exceptions that would emerge for simple transportation/ commuting and/or for someone doing something stupid ..., uh, negligent, like going up a one way street and hitting you, or running a light, etc. but once you start sucking wheels, front or back, i know of no legal basis for a participant successfully suing another participant. even if there were a basis, the proffer of proof would be inadequate - imagine trying to explain to a jury that the guy in front of you in the 26 mph paceline changed his cadence, causing your front wheel to touch his rear wheel and crash you. what - negligent shifting, shimano v. campy, use a fix, ....
the problem here is that this rational concept of law of assumption of risk can be used by automobiles againt cyclists. you crashed your bike because my car cut you off - too bad, you're on a sporting vehicle and assumed the risk - get 2-3 tons of metal, 2 more wheels and abs and you'd be ok. i think that is what cops and motorists ''think'' when they see us on the floor.
"...between a car vs bike accident and a paceline crashing into each other is the former isn't a ""sporting activity"", it's transportation.
Imagine you and you son decides to throw a football in the middle of Time Square and got a tourist on the face and knock some teeth off. The tourist can sue your shirt off. You may have assumed the risk of the activity. The tourist did not. You can't even call him a spectator!
So the driver of a car can not ASSUME the cyclist is engage in a sporting activity.
I would tend to agree with you on the paceline crash though. You may choose never to follow that particular wheel ever again. But I don't think you can get anywhere in court."
yes, you are right, car v. bike is not a sporting activity and as i said, an exception should be made for that. but the most drivers and police seem to think that the cyclist involved is engaged in a sporting event and if the cyclist gets killed by a driver's negligence, the driver is somehow exonerated - somehow. unfortunately.
and i think that the basis of this view is that the drivers and police view the cyclist as assuming the risk. how many times have we cyclists been told we are crazy going to nyack or bear mt or montauk, told by people who want a 4 ton fuv so that they can cut through other vehicles if there is an accident.
for example, dooring someone is negligent and if the victim dies, as has sadly happened this season, it is not intentional by the driver, but it is still homicide. but the driver goes home without even a citation and says ''what a day'' - and the cyclist is scooped up and buried. inequtiy.
