In shopping districts, one commonly sees exits out of
parking lots, which cross a sidewalk.  With good visibility,
not a big problem.  But in some cases, it may involve a
blind corner, if a large building is situated at the corner.
A definite hazard, if motorists and pedestrians are
mutually blind.

There's one such in my neighborhood.  I witnessed a
close call yesterday, where the 'pedestrian' was a bicyclist.
It got me wondering...

Everyone knows a victim is entitled to damages,
through torts, if a person/entity can be held legally
liable.  But what specifically are the procedures, in
case of collision?

Consider 4 cases:
The victim is knocked out cold.  Which simplifies his
decision process.
He's seriously injured, requires EMT assistance.
He suffers slight injuries, not urgent, he'll seek
medical care later.
He suffers slight injuries, no need for medical attention.

In each case, after he gathers his wits, he realizes
there will be damage claims, and probably a lawsuit.
What steps should he take, at that moment?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/31/2021 12:49 AM, RichD wrote:

In shopping districts, one commonly sees exits out of
parking lots, which cross a sidewalk.  With good visibility,
not a big problem.  But in some cases, it may involve a
blind corner, if a large building is situated at the corner.
A definite hazard, if motorists and pedestrians are
mutually blind.

There's one such in my neighborhood.  I witnessed a
close call yesterday, where the 'pedestrian' was a bicyclist.
It got me wondering...

Everyone knows a victim is entitled to damages,
through torts, if a person/entity can be held legally
liable.  But what specifically are the procedures, in
case of collision?

Consider 4 cases:
The victim is knocked out cold.  Which simplifies his
decision process.
He's seriously injured, requires EMT assistance.
He suffers slight injuries, not urgent, he'll seek
medical care later.
He suffers slight injuries, no need for medical attention.

In each case, after he gathers his wits, he realizes
there will be damage claims, and probably a lawsuit.
What steps should he take, at that moment?

There'd be an exchange of information between the two parties so that
the driver of the car knows who to sue for damages to the car, the
injuries to the driver when they tried to swerve and wound up in the
ditch, etc.

Oh, wait, you just automatically assumed it's the car driver that was at
fault and that it's the *cyclist* that should be doing the suing?
Bahahahahaha *wiping away tears of laughter*

On the serious side, yes, pedestrians and cyclists have the right-of-way
over cars but that doesn't mean they automatically "are the victim" in
all accidents. They still have to obey various traffic laws such as
walking on the sidewalk when it's available, walking facing traffic when there's no sidewalk, riding the bike in the direction of traffic in the
far right lane unless turning, *not* riding the bike on the sidewalk,
using hand signals for turns, etc. So the pedestrian on the corner that
runs out in front of a car doing 45mph and where the car had a green
light and the pedestrian was crossing on red is at fault. The cyclist
that is in the bike lane but then, with no warning, tries to cross over
three lanes of traffic to make a left turn is at fault. Etc.

Just as even though there's a certain presumption that if someone
rear-ends you, generally it's the person in the back that caused the
accident, the person who gets rear-ended may have done so by cutting
someone else off and thus may be at fault. But if either party is not
able to provide their info on the spot, the police that come to the
scene can do things like check for a wallet that may have ID, run the
tag on the car to see who it's registered to or notify the hospital that
they need it, etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Mike Anderson" wrote in message news:slojjv$1uv$[email protected]...

On 10/31/2021 12:49 AM, RichD wrote:

In shopping districts, one commonly sees exits out of
parking lots, which cross a sidewalk. With good visibility,
not a big problem. But in some cases, it may involve a
blind corner, if a large building is situated at the corner.
A definite hazard, if motorists and pedestrians are
mutually blind.

There's one such in my neighborhood. I witnessed a
close call yesterday, where the 'pedestrian' was a bicyclist.
It got me wondering...

Everyone knows a victim is entitled to damages,
through torts, if a person/entity can be held legally
liable. But what specifically are the procedures, in
case of collision?

Consider 4 cases:
The victim is knocked out cold. Which simplifies his
decision process.
He's seriously injured, requires EMT assistance.
He suffers slight injuries, not urgent, he'll seek
medical care later.
He suffers slight injuries, no need for medical attention.

In each case, after he gathers his wits, he realizes
there will be damage claims, and probably a lawsuit.
What steps should he take, at that moment?

There'd be an exchange of information between the two parties so that the >driver of the car knows who to sue for damages to the car, the injuries to >the driver when they tried to swerve and wound up in the ditch, etc.

Oh, wait, you just automatically assumed it's the car driver that was at >fault and that it's the *cyclist* that should be doing the suing? >Bahahahahaha *wiping away tears of laughter*

On the serious side, yes, pedestrians and cyclists have the right-of-way
over cars but that doesn't mean they automatically "are the victim" in all >accidents. They still have to obey various traffic laws such as walking on >the sidewalk when it's available, walking facing traffic when there's no >sidewalk, riding the bike in the direction of traffic in the far right lane >unless turning, *not* riding the bike on the sidewalk, using hand signals
for turns, etc. So the pedestrian on the corner that runs out in front of a >car doing 45mph and where the car had a green light and the pedestrian was >crossing on red is at fault. The cyclist that is in the bike lane but then, >with no warning, tries to cross over three lanes of traffic to make a left >turn is at fault. Etc.

Just as even though there's a certain presumption that if someone rear-ends >you, generally it's the person in the back that caused the accident, the >person who gets rear-ended may have done so by cutting someone else off and >thus may be at fault. But if either party is not able to provide their info >on the spot, the police that come to the scene can do things like check for
a wallet that may have ID, run the tag on the car to see who it's
registered to or notify the hospital that they need it, etc.

In the case of two motorists, there's a convention and procedure that the
two drivers exchange licenses and maybe write down plate numbers, etc. But
if one of the parties in the accident is someone on a bike, there is a good possibility the person won't have any ID (I, for one, normally don't have my wallet with me when I am riding a bike) and may not want to exchange information, especially if there is no damage to the bike or injuries. In
that case, what's the recourse for the motorist if the person on the bike
just drives away, perhaps on a bike path where the car can't follow? Yes,
the car driver can take pictures and call the police, but are the cops
really going to drop everything to look for a random bicyclist?

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/1/2021 11:40 AM, Rick wrote:

In the case of two motorists, there's a convention and procedure that
the two drivers exchange licenses and maybe write down plate numbers,
etc.  But if one of the parties in the accident is someone on a bike,
there is a good possibility the person won't have any ID (I, for one, normally don't have my wallet with me when I am riding a bike) and may
not want to exchange information, especially if there is no damage to
the bike or injuries.  In that case, what's the recourse for the
motorist if the person on the bike just drives away, perhaps on a bike
path where the car can't follow?  Yes, the car driver can take pictures
and call the police, but are the cops really going to drop everything to
look for a random bicyclist?

"What's the recourse if the other motorist just drives away?"

"What's the recourse if the pedestrian just walks/runs away?"

"What's the recourse if the scammer just hangs up the phone?"

"What's the recourse if the scammer lives overseas?"

Etc, etc, etc.

You'll run into a LOT of times where you may have a legit tort against
someone else but can't identify/locate the person or they are out of the jurisdiction of any court that handles cases for where the tort
occurred. Just the fact that someone harmed you doesn't mean you'll
always be able to get any recovery from it. In some cases, their
behavior (such as the motorist or cyclist that leaves the scene) is an additional criminal offense but that STILL doesn't always mean you'll be
able to get them into a courthouse.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)