Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Student hit by SUV cited for riding on the sidewalk (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/811754-student-hit-suv-cited-riding-sidewalk.html)

Digital_Cowboy 04-25-12 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopperja (Post 14141524)
I'll take the bait...

Because you have difficulty ever admitting that the police are just there to do their job and, for the most part, attempt to do that job in an unbiased manner. Because you think the police are wrong in every thread where I've ever replied to your posts and that the cyclist and/or motorist was right. This leads me to believe that you are incapable of viewing police action objectively. You seem to be a great example of what Lt. Col. Grossman aptly described as a sheep.

Or maybe it's more likely that I've read where TOO many cyclists have had encounters with LEOs after crashes where even though they were acting correctly, legally, and safely and still got the blame. And usually they ended up getting the "blame" because they were on bicycles.

marmot 04-25-12 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuji86 (Post 14141588)
Is it just me ? But it seems that the tolerance for sidewalk riding is relative to how old you are. Nobody has a problem with it when it's an elementary school aged child, but late teen and older and it's a citable offense. This 20 yr old woman, college aged chubby and still holding onto her childhood baby fat, and she should be riding on the street ? Anyone take a good look at what's riding & wandering around on college campuses for girls these days ? I mean, I have a niece who is a couple of years younger, she can be rather awkward and clumsy herself. Would my brother want her riding out in the busy streets ? Well apparently it's the proverbial mother bird pushing the babies out of the nest, fly or crash & burn ? Just me, but I've always been that the motorist really has the obligation to really be extra careful. About the only way I'd see it otherwise is the radical punk that rides with wreckless abandon. I'm sure there are other case by case instances that are inexcusable, but I don't see this gal as the type that's weaving thru pedestrians on the sidewalk on a bmx and doing jumpsup against walls or sliding down handrails being a public nuissance ? Sorry if I come across with no love or sympathy for the beanie wearing, skateboard punk on a bmx that's defacing public property ? They need to be protected too as an endangered species ? :-)

If I'm not mistaken, you're suggesting that a 20-year-old is too young to ride on the street. Old enough to be sent into combat, but too weak, clumsy and naive to get off the sidewalk?
Besides, you've kind of missed the point, which is that riding on the street is SAFER, by far, than salmoning on the sidewalk.
The only time I've come anywhere near colliding with a cyclist, it was one of these wrong-way sidewalk riders. Pulliing out of a driveway, I stopped, noted a pedstrian a good 60 feet away to my right, checked for traffic to my left and started to pull out. I caught movement out of the corner of my eye, and slammed on the brakes just in time to miss a stupid teenager going all-out on a mountain bike, who evidently came from beyond the pedestrian, passed him and closed the distance to the driveway all in the time it took me to glance left and start to pull out. Bikes are too fast to be safe on the sidewalk, especially on the wrong side of the road.

hopperja 04-25-12 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14143455)
Or maybe it's more likely that I've read where TOO many cyclists have had encounters with LEOs after crashes where even though they were acting correctly, legally, and safely and still got the blame. And usually they ended up getting the "blame" because they were on bicycles.

1. You've read... and in these stories the cyclists write, they claim to be acting correctly. Have you read the police reports related to those incidents? I doubt it, so you've drawn a conclusion based on one side of the story. Every story has two sides. Despite that, I bet you have your mind up before you're even through the reading.

2- They get the blame because they were on bicycles... that's pure speculation. You have NO idea what the police were thinking. You don't even know the police's side of the story because you haven't read the police reports. How can you say they get the blame because they were on bicycles? Perhaps you're delusional and think you know both sides of the story even though you've only heard one.

3- Have you ever considered how many LEOs mistakenly attribute blame to one motorist in a two vehicle (non-bicycle) collision? Perhaps you're only reading about the mistakes, and nobody writes about the thousands of positive interactions with LEOs. If you have half a brain, you know people are more likely to take the time to complain than to offer a compliment.

4- If your reading on bikeforums.net is where you get your information, it is hardly unbiased. You and I both know this is a pro-bicycle website. Most people here are inclined to give the cyclist the benefit of the doubt not the motorist. Usually we take their words at face value and don't even consider other possibilities.

5- Not sure about any other state, but in WA, police don't decide fault/blame in collisions, insurance companies do.

In summary: your information source is biased, you may or may not have half a brain, you're quick to judge without having all the facts, and possibly even delusional. Sounds like you are exactly what you're ranting against. Dare I say reaction formation?

fuji86 04-25-12 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmot (Post 14144311)
If I'm not mistaken, you're suggesting that a 20-year-old is too young to ride on the street. Old enough to be sent into combat, but too weak, clumsy and naive to get off the sidewalk?
Besides, you've kind of missed the point, which is that riding on the street is SAFER, by far, than salmoning on the sidewalk.
The only time I've come anywhere near colliding with a cyclist, it was one of these wrong-way sidewalk riders. Pulliing out of a driveway, I stopped, noted a pedstrian a good 60 feet away to my right, checked for traffic to my left and started to pull out. I caught movement out of the corner of my eye, and slammed on the brakes just in time to miss a stupid teenager going all-out on a mountain bike, who evidently came from beyond the pedestrian, passed him and closed the distance to the driveway all in the time it took me to glance left and start to pull out. Bikes are too fast to be safe on the sidewalk, especially on the wrong side of the road.

No, I understand the whole legal age thing, but you've seen some of these people ? You're with your friend and you both look at each other and come to the same realization/conclusion, "not gonna make it". And then there are odds on how long until it does happen to them ? Yeah, agree, salmon/wrong way on the sidewalk is too dangerous for anyone.

Digital_Cowboy 04-25-12 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopperja (Post 14146486)
1. You've read... and in these stories the cyclists write, they claim to be acting correctly. Have you read the police reports related to those incidents? I doubt it, so you've drawn a conclusion based on one side of the story. Every story has two sides. Despite that, I bet you have your mind up before you're even through the reading.

I'll admit that I haven't had the opportunity to read the actual police reports. I've also read articles from various sources. Phrases such as:

a) no charges were pressed
b) cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet
c) cyclist didn't have any lights

As well as the "venomous" comments from the "loving" public. And yes, every story has two sides. But after reading numerous articles from various sources is it any wonder that anyone would think that the police/media/motorists are "against" cyclists?

Plus also as I've before a number of years ago I was stopped by an off duty traffic homicide cop. Who started his "tirade" against me with "you and your clubs need. . ." and switched to "I'm sick and tired of cleaning your brains up. . ." Thus showing that he in fact has a bias against cyclists. As do you think that he (despite his job description of being a traffic homicide officer) is really going to going to go into a motor vehicle/bicycle crash unbiased? Or do you think that more likely than not he's going to approach the investigation thinking that the cyclist was somehow at fault?

Also there is/was a crash here in the Tampa Bay area not all that long ago where a woman rearended a cyclist, there still haven't been any charges pressed in that case against the motorist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopperja (Post 14146486)
2- They get the blame because they were on bicycles... that's pure speculation. You have NO idea what the police were thinking. You don't even know the police's side of the story because you haven't read the police reports. How can you say they get the blame because they were on bicycles? Perhaps you're delusional and think you know both sides of the story even though you've only heard one.

Given my first hand experience with an off duty traffic homicide office, as well as reading the various articles regarding car v bicycle crashes it becomes pretty clear that there are in fact plenty of cops out there who are biased against cyclists. Also when was the last time that you heard of a cop telling the driver of a car who was being loaded into the back of an ambulance that they couldn't leave their car on the side of the road?

We've heard from (IIRC) cyclists who have been told just that.

As well as how can a police officer conduct a full investigation if they've never talked to both parties involved in the crash?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopperja (Post 14146486)
3- Have you ever considered how many LEOs mistakenly attribute blame to one motorist in a two vehicle (non-bicycle) collision? Perhaps you're only reading about the mistakes, and nobody writes about the thousands of positive interactions with LEOs. If you have half a brain, you know people are more likely to take the time to complain than to offer a compliment.

I don't believe that I've ever said that that never happens. And I do know that it does happen. But in a car v car crash they are willing to listen to BOTH drivers. Or at least are willing wait and listen to the other party. Yet as we've heard here police have all too often only taken the side of the motorist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopperja (Post 14146486)
4- If your reading on bikeforums.net is where you get your information, it is hardly unbiased. You and I both know this is a pro-bicycle website. Most people here are inclined to give the cyclist the benefit of the doubt not the motorist. Usually we take their words at face value and don't even consider other possibilities.

As I've said I also have read various articles from various sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopperja (Post 14146486)
5- Not sure about any other state, but in WA, police don't decide fault/blame in collisions, insurance companies do.

They may not, but they are usually the one's who are conducting the investigation. And if they already have some bias against cyclists do you really think that they're going to give a cyclist involved in a crash with a car an even break?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopperja (Post 14146486)
In summary: your information source is biased, you may or may not have half a brain, you're quick to judge without having all the facts, and possibly even delusional. Sounds like you are exactly what you're ranting against. Dare I say reaction formation?

It is based as I've said on not just the accounts provided here, but from other sources as well. And no I am not biased against the police, as I know that they have a tough job, but they are suppose to be an IMPARTIAL investigator.

All I (and many others here) are/is asking for is for the police to perform their job, i.e. conducting a fair and IMPARTIAL investigation. Is that asking too much?

Oh, and go to the commuting forum and read about the person driving a company van who passed a cyclist too closely. When the owner of the business called the police they were basically told that "aggressive" cyclists are going around with video camera's in the hopes of catching something on video. Sounds to me as if the police have some sort of bias against cyclists.

Also up there in Clearwater not all that long ago a cyclist was ticketed for "impeding" traffic for simply making a left hand turn from the left hand turn lane. From talking with several other cyclists in the area it appears that one of the judges had "ordered" either the sheriffs department or the local Clearwater police to "go after" cyclists. Again, it sounds as if a bias of some sort exists.

Chris516 04-28-12 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 14107004)
Talk about adding insult to injury, aren't motorists supposed to proceed slowly,look both ways when crossing a sidewalk/driveway, and not act like it's a freeway on ramp. I'm surprised that the motorist was not cited for an unsafe crossing/turning movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodus (Post 14107025)
I'm with the cops on this one.

Motorists still need to drive responsibly. While a cyclist may have violated the law, the motorist's rush to get into the traffic flow definitely needs to be looked at.

I was in a crosswalk a couple months ago when I was hit by a driver approaching the crosswalk didn't stop. I fell over. When I got up, I glared at the motorist for a long time. I was legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. But this is why I don't like riding on the sidewalk.

Deathly Hallows 04-28-12 06:01 PM

The exact same incident just happened where I live -- a 17 year old cyclist RIDING in the crosswalk was hit by a car and was later fined for riding in the crosswalk.

It is illegal to RIDE a bike in the crosswalk or on the sidewalk unless the rider is under 12 years of age (where I live); therefore, the ticket is warranted under law. Personally, I am sick of cyclists who ride on sidewalks or on the wrong side of the street. I give no quarter when I encounter a cyclist riding illegally whether I am walking, biking, or driving.

Digital_Cowboy 04-28-12 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris516 (Post 14156489)
Motorists still need to drive responsibly. While a cyclist may have violated the law, the motorist's rush to get into the traffic flow definitely needs to be looked at.

I was in a crosswalk a couple months ago when I was hit by a driver approaching the crosswalk didn't stop. I fell over. When I got up, I glared at the motorist for a long time. I was legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. But this is why I don't like riding on the sidewalk.

Yet, try explaining why we don't belong on the sidewalk to someone who doesn't ride, or doesn't ride all that often. Although the other day when I was explaining to a couple, that essentially every driveway becomes an intersection thus increasing the danger did it sink in at least a little.

Chris516 04-28-12 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14156572)
Yet, try explaining why we don't belong on the sidewalk to someone who doesn't ride, or doesn't ride all that often. Although the other day when I was explaining to a couple, that essentially every driveway becomes an intersection thus increasing the danger did it sink in at least a little.

Ditto!!

It is like trying to explain E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP] to an elephant!!!

Digital_Cowboy 04-28-12 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris516 (Post 14156602)
Ditto!!

It is like trying to explain E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP] to an elephant!!!

Yep, that doesn't mean that in the case of an emergency that the sidewalk can't (shouldn't) be used as an "escape route" to protect/save one's arse.

Sadly, though for whatever reason the "we travel too fast" argument doesn't seem to make much of a dent on them.

Although I think that coupled with the "every driveway becomes an intersection" the "drivers aren't looking for 'fast' traffic on the sidewalk" both helped.

mikeybikes 04-29-12 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 14128607)
Note the reasonable lines of sight the motorist should have had if they stopped before the sidewalk as required by law. No reason not to see the cyclist if driving safely. With that sidewalk set back, what motor traffic did the motorist need to look for before crossing the sidewalk to cue up to enter the roadway?

And this is really my issue with the whole story. The motorist had such clear sight lines. Very unusual for the area. There was no excuse for the motorist not seeing a cyclist.

dynodonn 04-29-12 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deathly Hallows (Post 14156565)

.......I give no quarter when I encounter a cyclist riding illegally whether I am walking, biking, or driving.


Then there are a number motorists who will give no quarter when a cyclist is riding legally. Catch 22.

One of my main duties, especially as a road user, is to avoid all objects in my path to the absolute best of my ability.

Deathly Hallows 04-29-12 12:43 PM

I would say that one the main RESPONSIBILITIES of any person using a roadway is to know and follow the law.

tjax 05-28-13 04:50 AM

I don't know, but the laws in CO state no biking on an Interstate. Everything else is to your city. Castle Rock doesn't particularly care, however my acquaintances in Denver are badgered when biking on a sidewalk or through a city park. Colorado Springs, I haven't heard of anything good or bad. Maybe it's just the cop acting out on his view as to whether or not bikes should be on the road. Either way almost all cities have a bicycle enforcement. I would call them and find the law out. I am one to raise a big stink to police officers if they even speak to me and I know I am following the law. One cop once asked to search my car, it took 45 mins of arguing for a warrant before he gave up and gave me a "warning." Cops are public officials, they work for us, and if they aren't doing their jobs in a correct manner, it is up to you to inform their superior. Unless of course anyone enjoys living in a police state.

UberGeek 05-28-13 06:34 AM

Bottom line, is that apparently in that municipality of CO, whichever vehicle is operating illegally is the one to get the ticket; much the same in my area. The cyclist was operating illegally (No cycling on sidewalk, presumably over a certain age), and the auto was operating legally (Pulling into traffic).

From all appearance, the cyclist was riding contraflow. Auto drivers don't tend to look for traffic coming from the direction it's not supposed to come from. And, seeing as no fast moving vehicles are allowed operating on the sidewalk, the driver wouldn't be expected to check for fast moving, opposite flow, vehicles from that area.

Yes, a fast runner could have been there too, but you tend to see pedestrians coming up with a much longer lead time. Cyclists tend to come up much faster.

Yes, the cyclist should have been ticketed. Yes, I am also hard pressed to see how the driver here is at fault. Yes, I ride on the sidewalk sometimes. But, when I do, I try to operate as a pedestrian would (Slower riding, coming to a crawl at driveways, etc etc). And, yes, I understand if I am hit, it's my fault (I do sometimes have to make a Sophie's choice).

UberGeek 05-28-13 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris516 (Post 14156489)
I was in a crosswalk a couple months ago when I was hit by a driver approaching the crosswalk didn't stop. I fell over. When I got up, I glared at the motorist for a long time. I was legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. But this is why I don't like riding on the sidewalk.

I just looked up your locale's regulations, in regards to riding on the sidewalk. Cycling on the sidewalk is expressly prohibited by your city's ordinances:
http://www.waba.org/resources/laws.php

mikeybikes 05-28-13 08:05 AM

Holy old thread batman!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjax (Post 15675015)
I don't know, but the laws in CO state no biking on an Interstate. Everything else is to your city. Castle Rock doesn't particularly care, however my acquaintances in Denver are badgered when biking on a sidewalk or through a city park. Colorado Springs, I haven't heard of anything good or bad. Maybe it's just the cop acting out on his view as to whether or not bikes should be on the road. Either way almost all cities have a bicycle enforcement. I would call them and find the law out. I am one to raise a big stink to police officers if they even speak to me and I know I am following the law. One cop once asked to search my car, it took 45 mins of arguing for a warrant before he gave up and gave me a "warning." Cops are public officials, they work for us, and if they aren't doing their jobs in a correct manner, it is up to you to inform their superior. Unless of course anyone enjoys living in a police state.

I'm not sure what this blabbering post is getting on about. Note that there is no Colorado law prohibiting cyclists from the interstate highways. In fact, there are sections of the three cross state interstate highways in which cyclists are allowed. They are usually prohibited from them within cities, or where there are alternate routes.

Do let your acquaintances know that if they wish not to be badgered, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk within the city and county of Denver. If they follow the rules of the road, they won't be badgered.

CB HI 05-28-13 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15675194)
Bottom line, is that apparently in that municipality of CO, whichever vehicle is operating illegally is the one to get the ticket; much the same in my area. The cyclist was operating illegally (No cycling on sidewalk, presumably over a certain age), and the auto was operating legally (Pulling into traffic).

Failing to stop and yield before crossing a sidewalk is illegal.

Keith99 05-28-13 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeybikes (Post 14108852)
Probably not all that rare. Just seems like there are more hit and run stories in the news regarding cyclists. We probably, of course, only hear about them because of the hit and run.

Bingo.

Jimi77 05-28-13 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeybikes (Post 14116019)
Here's a google street view of the driveway: http://g.co/maps/xv7rj

Its the driveway for the starbucks strip mall going onto Asbury. Those look like some nice sight lines.

I used to go into that bagel shop all the time and that parking lot/intersection is a zoo. The lot itself is usually beyond capacity. The side streets are usually packed with parked cars (some illegally). Whether your on foot, in a car or on a bike at that intersection, you need to be extremely cautious.

UberGeek 05-28-13 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15676839)
Failing to stop and yield before crossing a sidewalk is illegal.

Yield to oncoming traffic. And, if vehicular traffic is coming from the wrong way, it's not longer considered "oncoming traffic", but instead "illegal operation".

Again, the vehicle operating illegally (The cyclist) will be the one who is at fault. In the LEO's eyes, in the insurance carrier's eyes, and in the court's eyes; in most jurisdictions.

We have rights and responsibilities on the roads, not just rights.

CB HI 05-28-13 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15677823)
Yield to oncoming traffic. And, if vehicular traffic is coming from the wrong way, it's not longer considered "oncoming traffic", but instead "illegal operation".

Again, the vehicle operating illegally (The cyclist) will be the one who is at fault. In the LEO's eyes, in the insurance carrier's eyes, and in the court's eyes; in most jurisdictions.

We have rights and responsibilities on the roads, not just rights.

Did you even look at previous post to see how far that sidewalk is set back. There is no oncoming traffic, there were no concerns with road traffic if the motorist did not break the law by not stopping and yielding at the sidewalk. The cyclist was not the only one that broke the law. If the cops decided to cite the cyclist, the cops should have also cited the motorist for the law he broke.

Why are you working so hard to blame the cyclist over the motorist, when they were both wrong?

DX-MAN 05-28-13 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14107488)
Why do I think that even IF Hoad had been out in the travel lane that she would have still been hit by the SUV, and that the driver of the SUV still wouldn't have been issued a ticket?

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinquad (Post 14108015)
It might be fun to indulge your request for psychoanalysis, but I'll restrain myself and simply observe that drivers are generally pretty attentive to traffic that is present where they expect it to be.

Obviously NOT, in this case. She could just as easily have been a pedestrian, and that would have been 100% the driver's fault; as far as 'a request for psychoanalysis', well...this forum has a censor that prohibits the answer that deserves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeybikes (Post 14107860)
While I agree, it is a bad idea to ride on the sidewalk and is illegal in the area, I still don't agree that it absolves the motorist of all responsibility. Motorists should still be responsible for making sure their path is clear when crossing sidewalks.

THIS. Again, for the reason of "possible pedestrian".

Shimagnolo 05-28-13 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjax (Post 15675015)
I don't know, but the laws in CO state no biking on an Interstate.

Incorrect.
CRS 42-4-109 (11) lays out the situation in which heavily-traveled roads *may* be restricted if there is no alternative parallel path/road nearby.

UberGeek 05-28-13 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15678004)
Did you even look at previous post to see how far that sidewalk is set back. There is no oncoming traffic, there were no concerns with road traffic if the motorist did not break the law by not stopping and yielding at the sidewalk. The cyclist was not the only one that broke the law. If the cops decided to cite the cyclist, the cops should have also cited the motorist for the law he broke.

Why are you working so hard to blame the cyclist over the motorist, when they were both wrong?

And, if there is no legal oncoming traffic on the sidewalk, the driver is free to move into the traffic, given they have a right of way.

The cyclist was operating illegally. So, the cyclist got the ticket, and the driver got none.

Sorry you don't like it. But, in the eyes of LEO's, courts, and insurance agencies, that's how it goes.

And sorry, I don't see the motorist at fault here. When I drive, I don't expect to see fast moving vehicles barreling down the sidewalk either... as it's illegal to do here as well.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 AM.