GailT

In the Denver Post today. Hopefully it stands up to appeals. Another article about the accident and cyclist safety issues here.

canklecat

Monetary penalties and judgments won't change the indifference and incompetence of the typical driver. Most drivers are insured for the minimum, a few thousand dollars that will barely cover a victim's emergency medical costs. It'll take convictions for negligence and jail terms.

SHBR

These motorists should not be allowed to drive EVER again.

It reminds of motorcide incident years ago in Foshan China.

At the time there was a video that played several times on the news, showing at least 18 people walking past her, most didn't even care or notice, and by now, almost everyone has forgotten.

Teamprovicycle

Its always a good idea to know your route , understan tje intersections , assume the car is going make a mistake , people always miss the bike , these car companies pit all kinds of needless crap in the cars maybe its time they have to put heads up display markers that can track movement in front of the cars , marking moving objects before the driver can even ger close .

JoeyBike

It is a dangerous world out there. What's new?

grayEZrider

I hope I live long enough to see driverless cars takeover!

GailT

The driver of the second vehicle, the one who stopped and then left, got a 5 year prison sentence.

JoeyBike

Awesome. That should teach the rest of them. Now I can ride my bike with impunity! Every motorists will now pay attention to the road and give me 3-feet! Woohoo!
.
.
.
.
Dude is still paralyzed. And ZERO remaining motorists will change their habits.

canklecat

Yup, the following driver got an appropriate penalty. But the emphasis on a monetary settlement is misleading. That's strictly due to the first negligent driver working for a business with deeper pockets. In the real world where the vast majority of drivers hitting pedestrians and cyclists carry minimal liability insurance with a "no-fault" mindset that's reiterated by the attitudes of law enforcement and the courts.

Unless the driver of a private vehicle is drunk, in a state or region where anybody gives a damn about drunk driving, the attitude remains "Just an accident. Nobody's fault. Here's $5,000 after your attorney takes his cut. Enjoy your lifetime disability and tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid medical bills."

A one-off multi-million dollar verdict won't instigate the paradigm shift needed in the US to change the behaviors of most drivers. That will require a massive shift ranging from drivers education to law enforcement to courts to media attitudes. A good start would be the end of new car ads that hype reckless, fast, selfish driving.

I-Like-To-Bike

Any "real world" references for the insurance coverage of "the vast majority of drivers hitting pedestrians and cyclists" besides your own agenda based hyperbole?

Any references or is this also hyperbole about regions where nobody gives a darn about pedestrians or cyclists casualties of collisions with motor vehicles?

Any references or is this also hyperbole about the prevalence of pedestrians/cyclists struck by automobiles who receive "lifetime disability and tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid medical bills?"

downhillmaster

Maelochs

Seems to me ... the penalty isn't about changing the behavior of other driver, but penalizing the transgressor.

Seems to me ... the penalty isn't about changing the behavior of other driver, but penalizing the transgressor.

(Imagine if you were caught speeding on your bike, and were banned from cycling for life "to teach all the other cyclists a lesson." See the problem?)

The guy is freaking paralyzed. He deserves $52 million or whatever he can get ... because he will need to rebuild his house, buy a van or a car with a scooter rack, wheelchairs, maybe a lifetime supply of ostomy bags .... his life is Screwed Seriously, which is why he was rewarded a lot of money. It will take a lot of money just to keep living, and in some way, to help compensate him for Losing the Use of Half His Body.

People in court aren't trying to do behavior modification or social engineering. The people who awarded several hundred thousand to the elderly lady who got burned by McDonald's coffee weren't "sending a signal" to all fast-food restaurants---they were screwing McDonald's for being dickish to some horribly burned elderly lady.

I know all you zealots hate facts ... but it is not fair nor just to "make an example" of a person. Doing so in effect punishes that person for his own transgressions---and for the sins of others. (The opposite is also true--OJ got off because LA cops had been huge richards to minorities for so long.) In any case, what would be the "lesson" here? Put removable crash bars on your vehicle so if you do a hit-and-run you can take them off and hide the evidence?

I sometimes call for higher penalties for drivers hitting cyclists---but not to "make an example," or to change behavior. Changing behavior, in fact, comes when justice is applied, and then publicized. if other drivers think a penalty is too high, the result might be the opposite---more dislike for cyclists, instead of more respect. I want drivers who hit and injure Anyone to be held more accountable---but particularly those (pedestrians, cyclists) who depend entirely upon the care of drivers for their safety (other drivers depend on airbags and crumple zones.)

But the rationale has to be explained and understood. That is hwy I liken driving a car to firing a gun---potentially lethal or highly injurious activities which can be done with complete safety by a responsible person. A judge handing down a harsh ruling for someone injuring or killing a cyclist would need to be able to explain the logic behind it, or it would seem like vengeance or injustice.

In this case there is no reason to explain the penalties---everyone can see that what was done, was very wrong.

Expecting This case to change people's perceptions is pointless---people already perceive the wrongness.

What is needed, IMO, is stronger penalties for the less egregious but still serious car/bike collisions which all too often see drivers getting short-term license suspensions or minor fines---and what needs to be done there is to break the notion of "I drive and it could happen to me so I will let this guy off easy" and replace it with "Wow, this guy really didn't take care and could have killed me." That is a tough sell, and likely it will take a while and more than one case .... but whatever.

But a post like this: shows Zero understanding of justice, or behavior modification, or even any compassion for the victim.

The idea here is Not to train motorists. If that is one person’s personal crusade, get busy. Start with public service announcements, free safe-biking clinics for kids (the parents will come of course) and then move up to crafting legislation and meeting with legislative assistants of local politicos, and also writing op-eds for local websites, papers, and magazines.

If training motorists is key, Do It. Don’t whine because someone doesn’t do it for you.

But what I notice here is you are offended that You aren’t safer … and seem not to care at all that this guy, who is freaking Crippled for Life, got a decent settlement.

I think you missed the point entirely.

JoeyBike

The burned woman in that infamous McDonald's lawsuit won her large settlement because: There were over 500 burn complaints already registered against McDonalds for serving coffee "too hot to drink" from their drive-thru windows. The woman in the infamous lawsuit placed the cup of coffee in her lap and the top popped off causing burns so sever to her nether regions that she needed several plastic surgeries to put that area back into reasonable aesthetic and working order.

So, in fact, they were also sending a message to all fast food restaurants to NOT SELL scalding hot coffee through a drive-thru window. It worked.

Maybe you missed the sarcasm in my post.

Maelochs

Prove that.

I have seen some stuff on this case, and the jurors expressly stated that they were punishing McDonald's, not All fast-food restaurants, and Not because the coffee was too hot, but because the McDonald's legal department tried so hard to make the horribly injured victim seem like an idiot and a greedy loser who didn't deserve anything.

Jurors stated directly that it was the McDonald''s legal team's lack of compassion or humanity which led them to such high punitive damages, and that if McDonald's had just shown a little sympathy they wouldn't have added punitive damages.

Here are some FACTS, hope they reach you in that “war zone" you inhabit:

“Albuquerque, New Mexico—When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

“After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.” (https://www.vanosteen.com/news/mcdon...ee-lawsuit.asp)

So there goes your LIE that the case was aimed at fast food restaurants in general. Oops.

Also from that article: “Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.””

Further from the same article

“For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk… and had no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan.”

And …

“When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."

Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.”

And this: (https://www.todayifoundout.com/index....ee-incident/)_

“When Liebeck first contacted McDonald’s to let them know what had happened, she asked for them to cover the cost of her medical bills. She reportedly wanted around $11,000. McDonald’s felt that because they really had nothing to do with how the coffee was spilled, they shouldn’t be liable, but did offer her a payment of $800. She refused their counteroffer and hired an attorney.”

Same source:

“Testimony from a McDonald’s quality control manager, Chris Appleton, ……. “Q: … I’m curious because I’ve shown you recordations here of some 700 people here that have been burned [by McDonald’s coffee]. Obviously, to you 700 people burned is not a significantly high enough number to turn down the heat. Do you have in mind a number of how many people would have to be burned for you to become so concerned that you would insist that burn specialists be consulted and something be done to sell this coffee at a lower temperature?

A: No, I don’t have a number in mind.” “

And finally …. (HOT COFFEE - FAQ ABOUT THE McDONALDS COFFEE CASE)

“The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages — reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault — and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct.”

Thanks for playing. Sorry you get no consolation prize.

Teabike

Sadly this is bound to happen when two vehicles with such different power and vulnerability compete for the same space. I hope this will help change the system.

Leisesturm

I don't accept that as fact. In any case, a 'separate but equal' cycling infrastructure is NEVER going to become part of the American landscape. If that is what you are pining for, get over it. It is not going to happen. This is as good as it gets, infrastructure wise. The improvements lie in the education of drivers ... no, no more 'education', the improvements lie in the prosecution of drivers that are careless. Not their employers, the drivers themselves. If they do not have tangible assets then they will have to make restitution with their bodies. It is not draconian or unreasonable if the penalties are known in advance. That is called deterrent. Deterrents work IF they are fairly applied and enforced. We should be outraged at the prospect of one individual getting a $52M windfall because they had the 'luck' to be hit by a driver whose employer could be dragged into what should be a clear case of driver negligence. Their medical and rehabilitation costs should not be at issue. In a properly functioning First World Democracy those costs should be taken care of by the UHC social safety net. The only costs that should matter are the 'pain and suffering' and 'negligence' aspects intrinsic to each situation individually.

indyfabz

His M.O. is inflaming.

longdistancestu

wow!

Maelochs

Wrong. In This case, the person who first hit the cyclist was transporting workers and company documents .... albeit in a private car ... so That is why the employer was liable.

If I am just driving to work, my employer would not be liable. I would have to be on the job, for the employer to have any liability---because the employer, in that case, would have certified me as a safe driver. if I am commuting or just driving around, my employer would have Zero responsibility.

From the article linked above: "Suydam’s attorneys argued Brewer was transporting two coworkers, along with company supplies and financial documents, back to the company’s Lakewood office. They said that Labor Finders had negligently failed to train Brewer to drive."

SHBR

Its simple.

If you severely injure or kill someone while operating a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be allowed to drive again.

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did.

Maelochs

This is problematical.

A father of three whose wife stays home to raise the kids makes a stupid maneuver and kills a cyclist. He is a skilled tech worker, employed by a factory over 30 miles from his home via highways. There is no public transit serving the factory.

So ... the guy loses his job, his family loses their home, the kids get uprooted, the wife has to take a local job to help make ends meet, the guy ends up working in a grocery store or convenience store just to have any income at all.

The kids have no college funds suddenly---they are needed to pay fines and for d a deposit on the crappy apartment they now live in. The kids have to go to a crappy school because we use the archaic method of property taxes to fund education. Three promising young citizens end up not getting half the education they could have, and end up much poorer ... and their kids likewise.

Big issue here is----none of that in any way deters other drivers, and none of that in any way helps the family of the victim.

Justice is really supposed to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and sentencing guidelines are supposed to be guidelines only. But also, judges are supposed to be infinitely wise and fair ... and a lot of them are old, closed-minded, and far too limited in experience.

While in some cases a lifetime driving ban might be appropriate .... i'd say lifetime restitution as in the driver pays a percentage of his/her income to the victim's family for the rest of his/her income-earning career, might be more useful. And I am sure some folks could think up situation where that idea would be terrible too.

I think you would. You'd feel lousy for a long time, and then after, every time you thought about it, but you wouldn't (I don't think) take your own life ... so you would live with it. And you are probably the sort of person who would Not deserve a lifetime driving ban. other people might refuse to ever accept responsibility, always blame the road conditions, the cyclist, the weather, whatever ... and those people should probably receive harsher penalties.

Again, i am just guessing.

parkbrav

I'm having a tough time disagreeing with your logic, Maelochs. But there is such a thing in the legal system as personal accountability. That's my first point. Personal accountability.

My second point is, there seems to be a yawning gap of insensitivity from motorists towards cyclists. Maybe if motorists were asked to stand in the shoes of cyclists this gap would narrow. I'm suggesting, offending motorists should do more cycling. Maybe even more winter cycling. Something that asks them to stand in the shoes of cyclists and see things from our perspective.

Lemond1985

Make them ride a Big Box Bike (from Walmart or Target) to work every day for a year. Nahhh, that would be too cruel.

SHBR

You have guessed wrong, the main reason I ended up in China was to escape car culture.

I have mostly succeeded, never had to drive here, and I generally avoid riding in personal cars whenever possible.

People who make deadly choices, often don't realize the consequences of their actions until after a tragedy occurs.

I'd rather not be part of the "carnage".

livedarklions

I don't care to get into an argument with a certain ranter about whether commercial entities take "regulatory" cues from jury verdicts, but having studied the subject, I'm absolutely certain that they do.

This verdict. if it holds up, will definitely be a message to anyone employing commercial drivers that they might get held responsible for inadequately training their drivers to avoid hitting cyclists. It's also a message that juries might be fairly open to the reach to get to the employer in cases where cyclists are struck. This was a borderline call as to whether or not she was driving in the course of her work duties, and the jury found against the company.

Predicting trends is difficult, but this could turn out to be an important case. The weird thing about the tort system as a "regulator" is that, for the most part, each case is considered in isolation from all other cases (except, of course, class actions), But jury verdicts don't occur in isolation--they are affected by the opinions that the jurors bring into the case and the types of evidence that judges allow and that are available to be presented by the parties . First of all in this case, you had a bunch of people testifying that the driver went against the light. I've seen enough postings on this forum claiming that witnesses tend to side with drivers by default that we should probably see that by itself as a possible signal of changed societal attitudes. And if we don't, that jury verdict where the jury sided with the plaintiff on every major issue and gave him a large award indicates a lot less societal hostility to cyclists than many of the posters on this forum seem to assume.

Now this verdict could just be a local Denver phenomenon, we'll have to see if similar things occur in other jurisdictions. But there's a general pattern that this might follow. For one thing, plaintiff's lawyers learn from victories as well as defeats, so the courtroom strategies get sharper over time. I could go on and on about areas where juries would side consistently with defendants, then the trend changed drastically (tobacco manufacturer liability is the best example), Suffice it to say that verdicts like this encourage the development of a "plaintiff's bar" in an area where lawyers find an incentive to get really skilled in arguing a particular type of case.

Whether or not this will make us marginally safer over time, who knows? But his winning this verdict is a lot more encouraging than if he had lost. At the very least, I might expect commercial drivers to get more training in avoiding cyclists.

Meantime, any time you're doing anything in the road, driving, riding, walking, biking, you are always at risk that someone will do something completely illegal and kill you. Take precautions, there's no magic fix coming from any source. The most we can hope for from any legal change is marginal improvement in our odds.