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)

unterhausen 05-28-13 07:18 PM

well, New York drivers are a scourge here, so I believe you about not looking when you don't expect something. In Pennsylvania, sidewalk cycling is permitted in most areas. Nobody looks here ether.

UberGeek 05-28-13 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unterhausen (Post 15678249)
well, New York drivers are a scourge here, so I believe you about not looking when you don't expect something. In Pennsylvania, sidewalk cycling is permitted in most areas. Nobody looks here ether.

Since sidewalk cycling is allowed in your locale, it would be expected to watch in all directions for both pedestrians and cyclists. The rules do change as you change areas, and it's the responsibility of all users of the road to be aware of them, and to follow them :)

Chris516 05-28-13 10:54 PM

My state and county are strange. The state says 'no', but defers to the counties. The county says 'yes', but defers to the cities n' towns. The city closest to my town, has had an ordinance of no sidewalk cycling allowed, since 1957. But the next city south of it, has no ordinance against sidewalk cycling. So, Since I see so many people riding on the sidewalk in the city, I wonder when someone is going to get ticketed. Unless the city's police department has taken the unspoken position of not citing people for riding on the sidewalk. Because of the volume of traffic on a daily basis.

Brandonub 05-29-13 10:01 AM

I find it bizarre how often letter of the law type explanations are what's hunted for when looking at the correct and moral approach to a circumstance. This particular incident, and other similar incidents, can be avoided much more regularly by drivers stopping when coming up to sidewalks rather than overtrusting faulty human vision and information processing skills. Even if the cyclist behaved in an illegal fashion, striking them is still an unpleasant experience for everyone involved.

UberGeek 05-29-13 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandonub (Post 15680295)
I find it bizarre how often letter of the law type explanations are what's hunted for when looking at the correct and moral approach to a circumstance. This particular incident, and other similar incidents, can be avoided much more regularly by drivers stopping when coming up to sidewalks rather than overtrusting faulty human vision and information processing skills. Even if the cyclist behaved in an illegal fashion, striking them is still an unpleasant experience for everyone involved.

True, but in this case, the cyclist should have stopped, and waited for the all-clear. Morally, and ethically.

Brandonub 05-29-13 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15680901)
True, but in this case, the cyclist should have stopped, and waited for the all-clear. Morally, and ethically.

I don't really see any ethical burden on the cyclist in this case. From a self preservation standpoint, stopping would have been a good idea, I suppose. I'd personally be inclined to slow to walking speed and be cautious of a vehicle approaching in that particular context, but it seems wildly impractical to come to a dead stop every time there's a vehicle that should be stopping.

DX-MAN 05-29-13 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15678112)
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.

What you "expect" is of no consequence; as a driver, you have an overriding responsibility to look out for others. (Yes, all have this responsibility -- I say 'overriding', because it comes BEFORE your rights as a road user.)

I can see this in civil court.

UberGeek 05-29-13 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandonub (Post 15681047)
I don't really see any ethical burden on the cyclist in this case. From a self preservation standpoint, stopping would have been a good idea, I suppose. I'd personally be inclined to slow to walking speed and be cautious of a vehicle approaching in that particular context, but it seems wildly impractical to come to a dead stop every time there's a vehicle that should be stopping.

The ethical standpoint: Due to negligence of the cyclist, property damage occurred to the vehicle he/she struck. I dunno about you, but I consider it unethical to damage personal property, via my purposeful negligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DX-MAN (Post 15681067)
What you "expect" is of no consequence; as a driver, you have an overriding responsibility to look out for others. (Yes, all have this responsibility -- I say 'overriding', because it comes BEFORE your rights as a road user.)

I can see this in civil court.

I can too, since insurance carriers are involved. And, of course, since the cyclist was operating legally, and the auto driver legally, the auto driver will be found not at fault. Just like if a car going down the wrong side of the street was the one that was hit. The car going the wrong way would be at fault.

That being said: The cyclist has the same responsibility. Which includes operating in a legal fashion.

CB HI 05-29-13 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15678112)
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.

Why am I not surprised that you just blow across sidewalks without making the legally required stop?

UberGeek 05-29-13 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15682404)
Why am I not surprised that you just blow across sidewalks without making the legally required stop?

Who said I blow across sidewalks without looking? I do expect people to follow the law.

When I get to a sidewalk, I check 10 ft on either side.

A cyclist at 10mph will close that distance in under a second. A ped? Not likely.

CB HI 05-29-13 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15682467)
Who said I blow across sidewalks without looking? I do expect people to follow the law.

You did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15678112)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15682467)
When I get to a sidewalk, I check 10 ft on either side.

A cyclist at 10mph will close that distance in under a second. A ped? Not likely.

And again here.
When I run, I travel at 10 mph and I cover 10 feet in one step - less than one second. I have watched NFL players cover 5 yards in each step. Get a clue and start giving everyone on the sidewalk a break from your reckless driving. I am tired of guys like you nearly running over my toes when I run because you cannot stop before crossing a sidewalk.

Shimagnolo 05-29-13 10:57 PM

Colorado Traffic Code:

704. Vehicle entering roadway.
(I included 704 because it is referenced by 710)

The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed. Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.

710. Emerging from or entering alley, driveway, or building.

1) The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, driveway, building, parking lot, or other place, immediately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or into the sidewalk area extending across any such alleyway, driveway, or entranceway, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian upon or about to enter such sidewalk or sidewalk area extending across such alleyway, driveway, or entranceway, as may be necessary to avoid collision, and when entering the roadway shall comply with the provisions of section 704.

(2) The driver of a vehicle entering an alley, driveway, or entranceway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian within or about to enter the sidewalk or sidewalk area extending across such alleyway, driveway, or entranceway.

(3) No person shall drive any vehicle other than a bicycle, electric assisted bicycle, or any other human-powered vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area, except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway.

(4) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.


*** Note that 710(3) seems to *imply* "pedestrian" includes cyclists using the sidewalk. ***
*** As an example, here is another part of the code where "pedestrian" *clearly* includes cyclists: ***


802. Pedestrians’ right-of-way in crosswalks.
...
(3) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and ride a bicycle, ride an electrical assisted bicycle, walk, or run into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.


Ref: http://www.coloradodot.info/business...affic_Code.pdf

CB HI 05-29-13 11:12 PM

In many states, when cyclist are on the sidewalk, they are treated as pedestrians with the exceptions that they may have a speed limit, must yield to pedestrians and in some cases must move in the same direction as road traffic.

UberGeek 05-30-13 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15682892)
You did.

No, I did not. I said if the sidewalk is free of legal traffic, the vehicle is given the right of way.

Quote:

And again here.
I'm sorry, did you miss where I said I stop, and scan for sidewalk users?

Quote:

When I run, I travel at 10 mph and I cover 10 feet in one step - less than one second. I have watched NFL players cover 5 yards in each step. Get a clue and start giving everyone on the sidewalk a break from your reckless driving. I am tired of guys like you nearly running over my toes when I run because you cannot stop before crossing a sidewalk.
You cover 10 ft in 1 second? Really? You must be like, an olympian or something...

But, I've got to ask: Do you stop at green lights, just to check for possible illegally operated vehicles running the red light? I don't, because I presume users of the road will adhere to the laws of the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15682985)
In many states, when cyclist are on the sidewalk, they are treated as pedestrians with the exceptions that they may have a speed limit, must yield to pedestrians and in some cases must move in the same direction as road traffic.

Except in this case, where cycling on the sidewalk was not permitted, hence the ticket.

UberGeek 05-30-13 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimagnolo (Post 15682959)
Colorado Traffic Code:

704. Vehicle entering roadway.
(I included 704 because it is referenced by 710)

The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed. Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.

710. Emerging from or entering alley, driveway, or building.

1) The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, driveway, building, parking lot, or other place, immediately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or into the sidewalk area extending across any such alleyway, driveway, or entranceway, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian upon or about to enter such sidewalk or sidewalk area extending across such alleyway, driveway, or entranceway, as may be necessary to avoid collision, and when entering the roadway shall comply with the provisions of section 704.

(2) The driver of a vehicle entering an alley, driveway, or entranceway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian within or about to enter the sidewalk or sidewalk area extending across such alleyway, driveway, or entranceway.

(3) No person shall drive any vehicle other than a bicycle, electric assisted bicycle, or any other human-powered vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area, except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway.

(4) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.


*** Note that 710(3) seems to *imply* "pedestrian" includes cyclists using the sidewalk. ***
*** As an example, here is another part of the code where "pedestrian" *clearly* includes cyclists: ***


802. Pedestrians’ right-of-way in crosswalks.
...
(3) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and ride a bicycle, ride an electrical assisted bicycle, walk, or run into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.


Ref: http://www.coloradodot.info/business...affic_Code.pdf

I think that is to allow for cyclist under a certain age, I could be wrong here, however.

It is interesting, it does state the cyclist shall not leave a curb or place of safety (Sidewalk), that would constitute an immediate hazard. I suppose this would cover barreling across a driveway as well, without caution.

UberGeek 05-30-13 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15682985)
In many states, when cyclist are on the sidewalk, they are treated as pedestrians with the exceptions that they may have a speed limit, must yield to pedestrians and in some cases must move in the same direction as road traffic.

While, I'm not a lawyer, and not in any way intimately familiar with your state's laws, or CO's; I do know in NYS, any cyclist on the sidewalk over the age of 16 is operating their vehicle illegally.

Brandonub 05-30-13 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15683351)
You cover 10 ft in 1 second? Really? You must be like, an olympian or something...

Covering 10 feet per second is equivalent to 6.82 MPH, or running ~8:48 miles. That's not fast - it's slow. The only time I run that slow is uphill on very, very long runs. At any given moment during a run, I'm averaging something more in the ballpark of 12-13 feet per second, and when finishing at a sprint, I'll be somewhere around 18 feet per second.

So yes, his point is entirely valid. If you're expecting that 10 feet is sufficient clearance for you to look, you're eventually going to have a run in with a semi-competent runner. In all likelihood, you'll just break his/her stride rather than striking him/her, but it's still a dick move.

edit for math - 10 feet per second = 600 feet per minute = 36,000 feet/hour = 6.82 miles/hour.

UberGeek 05-30-13 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandonub (Post 15683443)
Covering 10 feet per second is equivalent to 6.82 MPH, or running ~8:48 miles. That's not fast - it's slow. The only time I run that slow is uphill on very, very long runs. At any given moment during a run, I'm averaging something more in the ballpark of 12-13 feet per second, and when finishing at a sprint, I'll be somewhere around 18 feet per second.

So yes, his point is entirely valid. If you're expecting that 10 feet is sufficient clearance for you to look, you're eventually going to have a run in with a semi-competent runner. In all likelihood, you'll just break his/her stride rather than striking him/her, but it's still a dick move.

edit for math - 10 feet per second = 600 feet per minute = 36,000 feet/hour = 6.82 miles/hour.

10ft is plenty to determine if you have right of way, or not. An extremely brisk walk is 4mph. So, yes, a jog would be about 6 or 7 mph.

And, my bad: I'll make sure to scan 20 ft on either side for runners. But, last I checked, average cycling speed is closer to 12-15mph.

And, since the cyclist was operating illegally, they should have ceded the right of way to all traffic.

Bekologist 05-30-13 09:10 PM

This is what happens when you combine unfriendly streets for bikes with bad legislation. I wonder if the student didn't feel comfortable riding in the street.

I wonder if the student in the OP is going to:

a) ride in the street now;
b) ride on the sidewalk, risk a ticket, and ride with a chip on her shoulder for the repressive treatment at the hands of the law; or
c) give up biking as soon as she possibly can.

Getting ticketed as the result of a collision with a motor vehicle, if riding in the road presents issues, could likely be a deal breaker for the young woman shown in the video.

=======================================

I had to bring this up at a traffic charette a few weeks ago- you can start writing tickets for sidewalk cycling, but if riders don't feel safe riding in the streets, writing tickets isn't going to force people to ride in the street - it's going to force people off their bikes!


Denver, despite its high regard for bikeability, appears to have a very shortsighted traffic safety/enforcement policy for bicycle traffic.

Tickets should be given out according to the vulnerable user doctrine- bicyclists don't threaten motorists, pedestrians threaten neither. In a conflict between two classes of road user, the least vulnerable road user should be culpable barring gross negligence on the part of the more vulnerable road user.

and, IMO, riding on the sidewalk out of fear of traffic isn't gross negligence on the part of a cyclist. Despite what the law says.

and, no, that's not backed up by any US legal precedent, it's the way i think it should be.

CB HI 05-30-13 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15683351)
I'm sorry, did you miss where I said I stop, and scan for sidewalk users?

Yes I did, please point to the word stop in your quoted post. And you stated you only look 10 feet, is your vision that bad or are you in such a rush that anyone 11 feet at the moment must suffer the risk of having you run them over?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15682467)
Who said I blow across sidewalks without looking? I do expect people to follow the law.

When I get to a sidewalk, I check 10 ft on either side.

A cyclist at 10mph will close that distance in under a second. A ped? Not likely.


CB HI 05-30-13 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15683361)
While, I'm not a lawyer, and not in any way intimately familiar with your state's laws, or CO's; I do know in NYS, any cyclist on the sidewalk over the age of 16 is operating their vehicle illegally.

And any motorist not stopping and yielding before crossing any sidewalk is also operating their vehicle illegally. As in the case of the OP.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

CB HI 05-30-13 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGeek (Post 15686563)
But, last I checked, average cycling speed is closer to 12-15mph.

Where did you get that bad information from. Your just making up your so claimed facts. Most all cyclist ride 6 - 10 mph on the sidewalk and even slower when stuck behind pedestrians.

UberGeek 05-31-13 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15687242)
And any motorist not stopping and yielding before crossing any sidewalk is also operating their vehicle illegally. As in the case of the OP.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

How do you know they didn't stop, and yield to legal traffic?

Do you stop, and yield to traffic blowing red lights?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15687237)
Yes I did, please point to the word stop in your quoted post. And you stated you only look 10 feet, is your vision that bad or are you in such a rush that anyone 11 feet at the moment must suffer the risk of having you run them over?

Any legal sidewalk user, within a quick scan has the right of way, so I would yield. Otherwise, I would consider it "safe to proceed". Because, sorry, I don't always take into account things like cars driving down the wrong side of the road, ATV's on sidewalks, cyclists barreling down sidewalks, etc etc

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15687258)
Where did you get that bad information from. Your just making up your so claimed facts. Most all cyclist ride 6 - 10 mph on the sidewalk and even slower when stuck behind pedestrians.

If they're riding 6-10mph, then 10-15 ft scans should be plenty, and cyclists riding on the sidewalk should ALWAYS cede the right of way, if they are operating illegally.

My bad, I just pulled my average speed from my last commute. Albeit, I was on the street, where I belong.

unterhausen 05-31-13 08:49 AM

this one has fully devolved. Thanks for playing. Closed


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:30 PM.