by

by

October 17, 2013

Comments (4)

Comment Feed

Good stuff, but...

An infant rides a mountain bike? What?

Classic left cross it looks like, correct?

Richard Masoner 322 days ago

"Infant"

I couldn't find anything about the case in a quick search, but it seems sensible to read "infant" as used here simply as 'juvenile'.

infinitebuffalo 322 days ago

The Law Could and Should be Better

This decision merely gives bicyclists the same rights as drivers of motor vehicles. http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/british-columbia/court-of-appeal/1993/01/27/pacheco-guardian-of-v-robinson-1993-383-bc-ca.shtml
This is the law in Washington State where I represent bicyclists and I suspect in most of North America.

This needs to change. We should make drivers who hit bicyclists or pedestrians presumed to be at fault. This is the law in many European countries where the statistical likelihood of being hit is significantly lower than in the US or Canada.

Bob Anderton 323 days ago

Protect the Vulnerable!

Agreed. I've heard lawyers describing the bias against bikers and walkers and much like this story, it's appalling. Stricter liability for drivers works well since vulnerable road users are currently presumed guilty. I work with kids, they run in roads and that can't be changed. A child being hit by a car is never their fault. I wish drivers and traffic engineers were held liable for their actions. Somethings from the past are worth bringing back!

jamesbikesgreen@gmail.com 323 days ago