Digital_Cowboy

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

Ditto!!

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

Digital_Cowboy

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

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 

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

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

tjax

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

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

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:
https://www.waba.org/resources/laws.php

mikeybikes

Holy old thread batman!

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

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

Keith99

Bingo.

Jimi77

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

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

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

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.

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

Shimagnolo

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

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.