Only in America, as they say - as the Rochester City Newspaper report that a driver who rear-ended a cyclist had the audacity to sue for damage to his vehicle... and claimed the incident happened because the cyclist was riding at 60mph and "came out of nowhere."
Bryan Agnello was cycling home in Rochester, NY last month when he was struck from behind, leaving a mangled bike and Agnello heading to hospital mostly with minor injuries. A month later he received a notice from Rochester City Court stating that the driver Jovonte Cook had filed a $700 claim against him for damage to the vehicle.
“I felt like I just got punched in the gut again. It was painful. I was angry”, said Agnello.
Agnello claimed Cook hit him as he slowed down to make a left-hand turn, but Cook's version of events differed wildly: he said that Agnello was riding his bike "at about 60mph" and "came out of nowhere and splashed on my front windshield". He says he didn't see Agnello because of the bad weather. When asked if he thought it was possible a cyclist could be riding at 60mph, Cook told the City Newspaper over the phone: “Of course, depending on if it’s an expensive bike.”
Agnello commented: “If I could go 60 mph I wouldn’t be here, I’d be in the Olympics", while an attorney advising him in the case said “there is no legal basis for this ridiculous claim.”
Cook and Agnello are scheduled to appear before a City Court judge on March 25, with Agenello saying he wants drivers to pay better attention to their surroundings and have more respect for cyclists. He is counterclaiming for $2,500 to cover the cost of his destroyed bike and time spent recovering, but says he would settle for Cook dropping the claim.
“I’m not about this stuff. This is not me at all. I just want to ride my bike”, said Angello.
Add new comment
19 comments
Geelong council; wow! Utter cretins. The article doesn't explain why they think a cycle route causes congestion, but the comments of Dr Fiona Grey are right to the point "But still I fail to understand why my 10 years of education and 20 years of practice in the fields of urban design, architecture and place making was treated with such disregard and even contempt by elected lay people."
Despite my MSc in Transport Planning and years of experience, I'm regularly told how to solve the transport problem by people with no knowledge, experience or understanding. It's funny, but transport is something many people consider themselves experts on, and everyone has an opinion on, usually quite extreme, with wild ideas like flying cars or fantastically expensive underground systems, or HS2.
So a cycle lane is causing congestion, so they'll rip it up and replace it with car storage... Won't that cause congetion too, then??
What, you don’t expect them to be rational thinkers do you? There’s three things you need to know about the average Australian. One, they expect to be able to drive wherever they want and park immediately outside their destination. Two, they expect to be able to store their unnecessarily large truckasaur wherever they want, for free and for as long as they like. Three, it’s always someone else’s fault. That thinking is what guides the Geelong councillors. And often they are pressured by retailers who use bike lanes as a scapegoat for loss of trade.
I would agree with you, except that my experience with transport planners has not been entirely impressive. In particular my local highways department seem almost incapable of admitting that they might be wrong, even in the face of objections from local councils, police, etc. In fact the only time they did admit an error was when I pointed out that their data analysis supporting a scheme was mathematically incorrect and invalid. Made no difference to the scheme going ahead, though.
That applies to any professional, who all find it very hard to admit they've made a mistake. I worked for one LA and lived in a neighbouring one, and proved them wrong so many times I actually began to feel sorry for them, then I remembered it was my money they were wasting and carried on. Like you, the experience was rarely beneficial to the outcome.
60mph? Reminds me of the public meeting about the ill-considered chicanes on the Bristol/Bath path, where some fool made the same claim, to universal laughter.
I had a similar incident many years ago. Driver turned right across my path and clipped my rear wheel, knocking me off and wrecking the wheel. He then proceeded to claim I was going too fast and when asked to justify this statement he said "you must have been going too fast because I didn't see you". He then drove off. Fortunately one my friends followed him and noted his address. I called the police when I got home and they summond him to come to my house to explain himself. When he arrived he told the police officer the same thing, at which point the police officer advised him to say no more and to agree to pay the repairs to my bike, which he did.
Which is a good outcome, in your case, but what about the thousands of others where the driver gets away with it? Assuming your friend saw everything, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the driver wasn't prosecuted, but all that happened was he had to pay for a new wheel, he didn't even get a letter telling him to drive better. I wonder if that has encouraged him to look properly?
Many years ago I got overtaken and left hooked on the roundabout at the entrance to the housing estate where I lived. It was one of my not so close neighbours, but as I had had my mind made up for me about which way to go at the roundabout (go left or crash into the side of a car) I followed him to his house and asked what he thought he was doing overtaking in such a dangerous place. His response - "You were going too fast". When queried why he felt that if I was going too fast, he then went faster in order to overtake me, he corrected his statement to "You were going too fast for a bicycle".
Ah, yes: the bicycle. The only vehicle that can simultaneously be travelling too fast and too slow.
I suspect that the safety bicycle was actually invented by Erwin Schrodinger...
I have also been accused of going too fast, when I was nearly knocked off by a driver pulling out of a side road.
I was doing around 28mph in a 40mph limit!
Loving that front end on the Argon track bike! It's so mean, if bikes could talk that one would probably say that he ate someones liver with some fava bean and a nice Chianti...
"He is counterclaiming for $2,500 to cover the cost of his destroyed bike and time spent recovering, but says he would settle for Cook dropping the claim."
Bollocks to that - sue him for $3200 then give him $700 back!
I'm surprised the amounts are so little. American lawsuits tend to be huge, and frankly in Bryans situation I'd be going for more if some cretin tried this on me - the fact that he didn't claim damages initially makes me think he is too easy to take advantage of, probably why the driver thought and their lawyer thought they could try this on.
People who make such rediculous claims shouldn't be allowed to participate in society.
Lets get this straight.......
The 85 year old driver of a left hand drive car, with about 80% of the windscreen directly in front of their face was obliterated - but they weren't aware they had hit something.
WTF!!!!
That's the scary thing, if they genuinely had no idea then that's a pretty strong argument to say they shouldn't be driving.
It was an 80 year old that hit me.
He didn't have a lot of choice not to stop as my head was through his windscreen.
Despite good lighting and bright clothes, he hadn't seen me either.
Yek!! I hope you were ok.
Maybe they'd thought it was one of those fabled sacks of potatoes which (apparently) occasionally drop from the sky out of some weird space/time warp thing... Cough-cough "Gail Purcell"