powerjb

I got in an accident today. I had just gotten on my bike and was riding on a bike/ped path that leaves my campus. I looked down to ensure that I was in the clips all the way, and looked up just as I pulled across a parking lot that typically has little to no traffic in it. A guy going a bit fast around the corner pulled in front of me and I ran into his rear left panel. Went over the bars, landed on the ground unhurt. Unfortunately, my wheel was tacoed and my frame pretty bent. Also, there as 10"x8" dent in his car and a 10" scratch. The cop told me it's my fault.

Now here's what I don't get. Her explination to me was that if i am going a pedestrian pace (<5mph) on a path then I count as a pedestrian. Since I looked down and didn't see him before I ran into him it's my fault. But if I'm a pedestrian I should have the right of way, no? I get that I was negligent about not seeing the car and looking down; had i not this could have been avoided. But it seems to me that this is at least somewhat his fault as well though.

Am I completely out of line here? Should I just suck up the expences and get on with it, or should I do something?

Thanks for your help.

webist

She's probably correct about it being your fault even if she used the wrong explanation. Be prepared to pay up for failure to maintain control of your vehicle.

Treespeed

Sad, but true. Be thankful that you learned your lesson without getting too hurt. It could have been worse if she was going slower and you ended up in front of her car instead of hitting the side. Again,
glad that you're alright.

powerjb

^^ yeah, I figured that was the case. Her explination really confused me though. THat's the second frame I've destroyed this week. suck

genec

Tend to agree that you were not a ped at that point.

But I want to know what happens when one of those Segways gets hit by a car... what will be the claim then?

Helmet Head

How fast were you going?

Either way, congratulations on experiencing a text book example of a bike crash (most of them are text book).

Bike path end points are notoriously dangerous for precisely the reason you, uh, ran into.

As indicated by the police officer's explanation, right-of-way here is pretty confusing. In these instances, it's most prudent to assume you have no right-of-way over anyone. This applies whenever transitioning between pedestrian and vehicular modes of travel. During the transition, you're in a "no man's land" when it comes to right-of-way.

Also, if you want to claim pedestrian right-of-way, I suggest you become a pedestrian, and walk your bike.

cc_rider

Don't know about right-of-way in Colorado, but in Virginia if a sidewalk or path crosses a driveway or entrance, anything on the sidewalk has the r.o.w.. At a public road, traffic on the road usually has the r.o.w. Check you local laws to see who was really at fault.

Did you get ticketed, or were you told that it was you fault so the cop wouldn't have to give the driver a ticket? Is the driver asking you to pay for the damage to the car?

powerjb

No, I didn't get ticketed. I think the cop was probably right. I am being asked to pay for the damage to the car though. Kind of just glad to get out unscathed (minus my wallet). I think i'll check into the laws, but I'm pretty sure that in CO a bicycle on the sidewalk never really has the right of way. I do feel like I should have been paying better attention. Bad situation, but it's just money at this point.

DCCommuter

If you were actually in a crosswalk, here is the applicable law:

https://bicyclecolo.org/site/page.cfm?PageID=45

The applicable section reads:
The applicable sections of 42-4-802 read:
You're both at fault -- you for riding into the path of a moving vehicle (section 3), the motorist for failing to yield (section 1). The question of liability boils down to who was more at fault.

The cop is full of it, the law is clear that cyclists normally have the right of way unless they act recklessly.

If there was no crosswalk, and you were just crossing a parking lot, I'm not sure what law applies. If you were actually on the path proper the motorist is clearly at fault, he has no business driving on a path.

DCCommuter

As a quick addendum, since you have already admitted responsibility to the police and the driver presumably has not, your case is very weak if it does come down to weighing who was more at fault.

powerjb

^^ Thanks for the help DCCommuter. If i'm reading it right and like you say we're both at fault then the best I could do is to have him pay his damages and me pay mine. According to the latter part of the section that you did not post, I would be guilty of a class 2 traffic misdemeanor. I think that if I fight this and do win, i'd end up being ticketed for the traffic offence, as would the driver.

As it stands now, my parent's insurance (which i'm on until I finish my degree in may) will pay for his damages with no deductible, and i'm left paying my own still. I think that if I fight it and get a ticket i'll actually end up having more out of pocket expence. That noted, there is something to be said about fighting for cyclist rights even if it does cost me a bit more.

I'm not really sure what to do, and either way I end up having to buy myself a new bike and his car gets fixed without my personal expense.

rvabiker

I'd dare disagree with DC...I feel that you are supposed to yield to the car and failure to do so puts you squarly in the wrong. By riding the bike into the vehicle you obviously posed an immeadate hazard that he could not avoid and therefore section 3 takes priority over section 1.