Who is at fault here?

Question

man on bike is going fast on a residentioal road and a car is turning to go out of his driveway and accidently hits him hard with his bumper he doesnt have a insurance and the biker doesnt have a licence to drive a bike does each other fix their own car or what do you think they should have done any good suggestions are taken well

its a motorcycle and he was driving in the middle of the street and he was going fast his excuse was that he hit the ecelerator instead of the brake and he was not hurt thank GOD it sounded like he blew something right before the accident Im a resident on that street

its a motorcycle and he was driving in the middle of the street and he was going fast his excuse was that he hit the ecelerator instead of the brake and he was not hurt thank GOD it sounded like he blew something right before the accident Im a resident on that street

Answer 1

The vehicle on the main road has priority over a vehicle joining the road, so the car driver is at fault regardless of the status of the rider. The driver could claim extenuating circumstances if the rider was going too fast, but this would be difficult to prove without expert witnesses.

Answer 2

You don't say whether the bike is a bicycle or motorcycle. I'll assume the latter since most people know that no license is needed to ride a bicycle.

Unless the biker was going so fast the the car driver could not have been reasonably expected to see him before pulling out, which is unlikely since he hit the biker and not the reverse and because you don't mention any injuries to the biker, the car driver is at fault in the accident and should pay for the damage to the bike.

Bikes are harder to see, but many bikes are rigged so that the headlight is always on. The biker could have obeyed the speed limit. Also note that there are some classes of motorized bikes that don't require licensing, registration, or insurance.

Ultimately, though, the car driver should have looked better before pulling out.

Answer 3

Bike or motorcycle? It really doesn't matter except for the "biker doesn't have a license..." statement.

Bicycles don't need a license to ride of the street. The street is where bikes belong. They have the right of way just like any motor vehicle. Going fast on a bike is all very relative. I doubt if a man on a bike can break the speed limit on a residential street. So speed probably wasn't an issue.

If the car pulled out and hit the bicycle the driver of the car is at fault. Car driver pays for all bike repairs and any injuries incurred.

Answer 4

The car driver is absolutely at fault. They are at fault for two reasons as well. No driver should be driving without insurance. That is extremely irresponsible and they are putting other people at risk due to their shirking of their responsibility. Also the person on the road has the right of way. Someone pulling out of the driveway has to yield to any traffic on a public road.

The driver of the car should reconsider driving if they don't know the traffic laws and can't pay attention while pulling out of their driveway. Also there is no such thing as a license to ride a bike, unless you mean a motorcycle.

Answer 5

Who is at fault really isn't the issue, although I would say the biker is at fault. The issue is that everyone gets their car/bike fixed. Many times an individual's personal liability insurance (which is usually attached to home owners) will cover the repair to the car. Have the bike rider check into this. Most of the time the deductible is low so it might not cost the biker much. That may or may not take care of the cost to repair the bike. I'll bet no go but it never hurts to ask. If there is no insurance, then you could take it to small claims court and you might recoup some of the damages. I am assuming there were no injuries which is the blessing in all this. Good luck... Lareeche...

Answer 6

Philosophically, the person turning is at fault....

However, if you wanna get technical about it, both are in a heap of trouble if either of them decides to take legal action.

The person on the bike shouldn't be going faster than 25MPH on a residential street (very few residential streets have a higher speed limit, a lot have a limit of 15MPH) and DEFINITELY shouldn't be driving without a license.

However, the person in the car needs to be more careful about how they pull out..... oh, and driving without insurance is like begging for trouble... you might as well be driving without a license, or car registration.

I can understand if the car driver is upset (I'm not at fault, I was just pulling out, I'm innocent, he was driving fast) But you can't deny that it's irresponsible to not look where you're backing into. Every single time I back out of a parking spot, or turn a blind corner, I always assume that some idiot is gonna be barreling towards me at 60 MPH... and every single time it's been the case, said idiot just drives past, and I avoid getting into an accident because I was extra careful.

Really, there's no excuse for car driving ignorance. It's a responsibility for all people to be aware of what they're doing, and to be able to anticipate morons who don't.

However, in the case of the biker guy, there's nothing more irresponsible than driving recklessly without a license... and on a motorcycle. Should he get into a single-person accident, he'll have to be answering cops' questions at the hospital bedside.

Anyways, my suggestion : If no one's hurt, live and let live. Unless they wanna get into the sticky-icky of having to own up to their own faults, I highly recommend going the path of "I won't blame you for being reckless, if you don't blame me for being an idiot."

Either that, or both can end up in court, defending themselves as to WHY they're driving without license/insurance.

I mean, it's pretty obvious to me : Let it go, and stop trying to blame the other.... both of them did something pretty dumb, and pretty illegal. If it's a small deal, keep it a small deal... or let it turn into a total crapfest when someone tries to take the other to court for damages.

Answer 7

The biker will get a ticket for driving without a license, the driver will get two not paying attention, and driving with no insurance, the second is the bigger one. Whether or not the biker had a license is immaterial at this point the car driver was reckless and without insurance and will end up being at fault in this instance

Answer 8

You dont need a license to ride a bike unless it's a motorbike. If the bike is proceeding correctly along the road in the correct direction the onus is on the person pulling out of the drive to make sure it is safe to do so.
The car driver is responsible for all repairs and also liable to pay compensation if he has injures the cyclist at all.
I'm sure the police and the cyclist solicitor will be interested.
Motor claims handler for large ins co.

Answer 9

I believe they both are at fault. The motorcycle driver should be going fast and obey the speed limit in a residential street. The driver backing out of his drive way should have been more careful and stopped before proceeding out completely making sure no one was driving pass.

Answer 10

By bike I assume you mean motorcycle. But, from the sound of it, it seems that the driver pulling out of the driveway would be at fault. Regardless of whether the operator of the motorcylce has a liscense or not, he still had the right of way.

Its possible though, that it would be deemed a no fault, meaning each would be responsible for his/her own vehicles, if the motorcyclist were actually speeding.