Bad name for bikers

[Robert Gardner]

As I was walking out of a doughnut shop this morning I heard this loud screaming, “Hay Hay”. I looked over at the intersection and this bicyclist was riding through the cross walk on the left side of the street with the green light. A van making a legal left turn had almost collided with him. The biker was proceeding to holler profanities at the driver and shouted out that he was a dumb a*s as he proceeded to ride up the wheel chair ramp onto the sidewalk going on down the sidewalk. Incidentally he was not wearing a helmet. I think such bikers give the sport a very bad name. I am sure that driver will be very hostel to bikers from now on, and I hope he understands that he had the right away. I think it was too bad that the biker was not hit he would of then learned the law.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

As I was walking out of a doughnut shop this morning I heard this loud screaming, “Hay Hay”. I looked over at the intersection and this bicyclist was riding through the cross walk on the left side of the street with the green light. A van making a legal left turn had almost collided with him. The biker was proceeding to holler profanities at the driver and shouted out that he was a dumb a*s as he proceeded to ride up the wheel chair ramp onto the sidewalk going on down the sidewalk. Incidentally he was not wearing a helmet. I think such bikers give the sport a very bad name. I am sure that driver will be very hostel to bikers from now on, and I hope he understands that he had the right away.
A motorist making a left turn IS supposed to yield to whoever/whatever is in the crosswalk, especially if crossing with the green; if the motorist almost collided with the cyclist IN the crosswalk he wasn't making as legal a left turn as you think.


I think it was too bad that the biker was not hit he would of then learned the law.

I doubt that one such event will cause the car driver to become as "hostile" as you already are towards those cyclists who don't follow YOUR preferred cycling techniques.

PS: Don't fess up about doughnut shops or the food-nanny, holier-than-thou types will rant of their disdain for "your kind."

[cc_rider]

I'll ride on your rant, if that's ok.

This morning while driving to a meeting on the way to work, I stopped at the 3 way stop sign at the end of my street at the feeder road for the highway. Full stop, look all ways, no one coming, I start to turn right, and suddenly a young guy on a mtb blows straight through the stop sign on my left at a high speed (a rise in the road on left limits the sight line in that direction.) I stop quick to let him by. On the feeder road he doing a slow zig-zag across both lanes, then switches to riding down the left hand lane. At the next intersection (another 3 way stop with a traffic light onto the highway) he blows through a second stop sign, this time in front of a car crossing with the green light. The car stops quick, the car behind him stops quick, and only by luck there is no collision. The last I see of the guy he is merrily rolling along the feeder road, doing his zigzags.

Disgusted. Gave me a cager moment.

[tippy]

...bicyclist was riding through the cross walk on the left side of the street... Doesn't say which direction the cyclist was going and it really doesn't matter. I may be mistaken (in which I appologize for ahead of time) but it seems that you were implying that he was going the wrong way. Generally, a sidewalk/crosswalk is multi-directional unless explicitly posted otherwise. So his direction was not clearly noted nor did it have to be.
... I think such bikers give the sport a very bad name ...
I think people who either don't know the (actual) laws or choose to ignore them are the ones giving us the bad names.
... he would of then learned the law.
Good then maybe the biker could have explained it to you. The biker was a pedestrian (due to the pathway of choice) and therefore is required to follow pedestrian rules. The motorist being on the roadway in a vehicle is required to following vehicular rules; in which one of the many rules is NOT to run over pedestrians in crosswalks.
...that driver will be very hostel to bikers...
Hostel? An inexpensive accommodation, typically in dormitory style? I think a few bikers might just like this. I think you meant 'hostile'

d.tipton

[FLBandit]

Mmm, doughnuts!

[konageezer]

As I was walking out of a doughnut shop this morning I heard this loud screaming, “Hay Hay”…

Sounds like it might have been Krusty. Did he have green hair?

[tippy]

I'll ride on your rant, if that's ok.

This morning while driving to a meeting on the way to work, I stopped at the 3 way stop sign at the end of my street at the feeder road for the highway. Full stop, look all ways, no one coming, I start to turn right, and suddenly a young guy on a mtb blows straight through the stop sign on my left at a high speed (a rise in the road on left limits the sight line in that direction.) I stop quick to let him by. On the feeder road he doing a slow zig-zag across both lanes, then switches to riding down the left hand lane. At the next intersection (another 3 way stop with a traffic light onto the highway) he blows through a second stop sign, this time in front of a car crossing with the green light. The car stops quick, the car behind him stops quick, and only by luck there is no collision. The last I see of the guy he is merrily rolling along the feeder road, doing his zigzags.

Disgusted. Gave me a cager moment.

OP rant = apples
Your rant = oranges.

OP cyclist was pedestrian. No traffic violations except for the motorist that almost hit him. Bad motorist.
In your rant, the cyclist was violating traffic code out the wahzoo. Bad cyclist!

d.tipton

[MisterJ]

A small but important point. A bicyclist riding a bike is never a pedestrian.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

A small but important point. A bicyclist riding a bike is never a pedestrian.
Rather, an irrelevant point as far as OP's rant. Either way, the bicyclist/pedestrian was in a crosswalk travelling with a green light. A motorist making a turn, left or right, is required to yield to WHATEVER is in the crosswalk, PERIOD.

[ngateguy]

A small but important point. A bicyclist riding a bike is never a pedestrian.

It depends, if you live in a city that does not allow bikes on the sidewalks then he was in the wrong. Here in Seattle it is legal to ride bikes on the sidewalks (at a reasonable speed). The law says they are to be treated as pedestrians when using a crosswalk.

[DC_Emily]

the whole bicycle in the crosswalk thing is a touchy subject, let's face it. You wouldn't expect an old woman on a cruiser to be in traffic, would you? Plus, how many times have you been walking in a crosswalk and a car will make a legal left hand turn and have to stop in the lane of opposing traffic cause they didn't see you in the crosswalk.

Not saying the cyclist or the driver was correct, it could go either way.

[Don Gwinn]

The other rule of being a pedestrian is that right of way won't keep you from being pasted by an 8-ton truck if the driver doesn't see you, so he that is smallest and lightest should also be the most vigilant.

In other words, technicalities aside, don't jump out in front of traffic if you can help it.

[tippy]

A small but important point. A bicyclist riding a bike is never a pedestrian.
Sorry ... my bad ... let me rephrase ...
In Florida,
A person on a bicycle operated on a pedestrian pathway (sidewalk/crosswalk/MUP) is required to operate said bicycle according to the rules applicable to pedestrian traffic.
So the cyclist in the OP was required to obey pedestrian rules because of WHERE he chose to operate the bicycle. So pedestrian traffic rules applied in his case. He might not have been A pedestrian but he was defined as pedestrian traffic.

A person on a bicycle on a public roadway is defined as an operator of a vehicle and have the same rights AND obligations (plus a few extra because of the type of vehicle chosen) to obey vehicular traffic rules as other vehicles on the public roadway (which includes not running over pedestrian (traffic). :)


d.tipton

[tippy]

In other words, technicalities aside, don't jump out in front of traffic if you can help it.
Actually technicalities do not have to be put aside, in this case, jumping into traffic is a violation of traffic code (much like running over pedestrians in crosswalks).

Florida Traffic Code 316.130(8) Pedestrian obedience to traffic control devices and traffic regulations
"No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield."

So motorists are obligated by law to NOT run over pedestrians IN the crosswalks however pedestrians are obligate to remain on the curb or "place of safety" until they verify that ALL approaching vehicles has the ability to safely yield. It's a two way street (pardon the pun).

d.tipton

[MisterJ]

I have a tendency to be somewhate cryptic in my responses but here is a site link to a pdf that summarizes California laws regarding bicycles and traffic.

http://www1.pvsd.k12.ca.us/pvsd/Superintendents%20Office/Traffic%20Safety.pdf

From the pdf.

"Bicycles, scooters, skateboards, and skates
• In January 1994, in an effort to reduce head injuries and
fatalities, a law was added to the California Vehicle Code
requiring bicycles riders under the age of 18 to wear a helmet
when riding a bicycle.
• In January 2003, the bicycle helmet law was expanded to
include scooters, skateboards, roller blades, and roller skates.
• Bicycles ridden on the street should use a marked bicycle lane
when available.
• Whether there is a bicycle lane or not, the California Vehicle
Code requires bicycles to be ridden along the right side of the
roadway, the same direction as traffic.
• When crossing the street it is best to walk your bicycle in a
crosswalk. As a pedestrian in a crosswalk, vehicles are required
to yield. However, if you are riding your bicycle you are not a
pedestrian."

I included more than was really necessary and I beg your indulgence regarding the extra information regarding helmets as it really doesn't apply. It is unfortunate that despite the attempts to implement a uniform vehicular code there are such wide variations in local law. Please also note also that the cyclist in question was riding on the left side of the street and in keeping with the orginal post he was both rude and legally off-base. Had he been walking the bike, it would have been a different story.

Thanks for the civility and even-handedness in this discussion.

[tippy]

... http://www1.pvsd.k12.ca.us/pvsd/Superintendents%20Office/Traffic%20Safety.pdf
"...When crossing the street it is best to walk your bicycle in a
crosswalk. As a pedestrian in a crosswalk, vehicles are required
to yield. However, if you are riding your bicycle you are not a
pedestrian."

... the cyclist in question was (1) riding on the left side of the street and in keeping with the orginal post he was both rude and legally off-base. Had he been walking the bike, it would have been a different story.


You are right, that is confusing. The Florida DOT site has the same pedestrian "safety" brochures available in PDF form. Be careful. Some of the "statements" in these (well ... Florida anyway) brochures are "comments" that are supposed to provide emphasis or background to the law however it may not actually be a law. Would you write a law that said "it is best to ..."? Is that a suggestion or law? Does it explicitly say I am required to walk my bike? That's confusing. The actual Florida traffic code is available and I access that when I get confused with the brochures.

... this bicyclist was riding (1) through the cross walk on the (2) left side of the street with (3) the green light
(1) through the crosswalk - not on the roadway. OP never said which direction the cyclist/pedestrian was traveling, only that
(2) he was on the left side of the street relative to the witness (OP) point of view. As said earlier, a sidewalk/crosswalk is multi-directional so it is moot anyway.
Now that I think about it, "through the crosswalk" might not be "in" the crosswalk either. It could mean "through the crosswalk" like a motorists drives through a crosswalk. Crap ... I'm holding a discussion with myself now!!! I need a break.
(3) With the green. Only applicable if the pedestrian traffic control device/light had a green light. The ones I've seen have a "white" walk indication and a "amber" stop indication. Otherwise, the green light was to mention which direction the vehicles were traveling relative to the direction the cyclists was traveling (parallel or perpendicular).

d.tipton

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You are right, that is confusing. The Florida DOT site has the same pedestrian "safety" brochures available in PDF form. Be careful. Some of the "statements" in these (well ... Florida anyway) brochures are "comments" that are supposed to provide emphasis or background to the law however it may not actually be a law. Would you write a law that said "it is best to ..."? Is that a suggestion or law?
Tippy is quite correct. The cited reference and statements appears to be from a handout from the K-12 school system that is just a summary of safety tips, not "laws" of anywhere.

Seems like several posters are working up all kind of rhetorical gyrations in order to blame the "wrong kind of cyclist" for almost being run down in a crosswalk by a less than attentive motorist who was making a left turn without assuring the crosswalk was clear. If the cyclist suddenly appeared by speeding into the crosswalk, the OP made no mention of it.

[Dchiefransom]

Hmmm, almost hit by a van making a left hand turn. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Has anyone else picked up on what possibly caused this, and why the cyclist needed to be a bit more aware of his surroundings? I had this happen to me in my mail vehicle.

[N_C]

I-Like-To-Bike, take a look at this please. It is the bicycle law in Iowa. I think you're trying to base your opinions on the laws in this state. I hope you realize it is not the same in all states as it is here in Iowa. Here it is, take a look:
http://www.iowabicyclecoalition.org/bikelaw.htm

[AverageCommuter]

however pedestrians are obligate to remain on the curb or "place of safety" until they verify that ALL approaching vehicles has the ability to safely yield.

Glad to see that point presented. The original post does not tell whether the cyclist was in the intersection prior to the point at which the motor vehicle was committed to turning. Once you begin a left turn you must complete it or risk being hit by the oncoming traffic.

Most likely scenario, the bike is travelling in the same direction as the motor vehicle, moving at a high rate of speed (say 15-20mph), and is no more than a few feet from the curb when the motor vehicle begins its turn. The motor vehicle fulfills its obligation to make sure that the crosswalk is clear prior to beginning the turn and starts to turn (the crosswalk only, that obligation ends at the curb). Cyclist sees a walk signal and assumes that because there is nothing directly ahead of him in the crosswalk he is free to continued at speed through the intersection. Cyclist has not looked to his right to see the MV beginning its turn just prior to the cyclist entering the crosswalk. Cyclist is travelling too fast to stop even if he had looked.

This problem does not happen to pedestrians because they have both sufficient time to look for cars before entering the crosswalk and because even if they do, unless they are running, they do not move nearly fast enough to find themselves in the path of a MV that has made its move at the same time as them.

Fortunately, unless either has changed their laws very recently, both the city I'm in (70k) and the city I'm from (1M+) specifically prohibit riding on the sidwalk, unless (?) you are below a certain age. Unfortunately, it is rarely enforced.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I-Like-To-Bike, take a look at this please. It is the bicycle law in Iowa. I think you're trying to base your opinions on the laws in this state. I hope you realize it is not the same in all states as it is here in Iowa. Here it is, take a look:
http://www.iowabicyclecoalition.org/bikelaw.htm
I read and found nothing relevant to this thread. Let me know when you or anyone else finds the law from anywhere that says a motorist making a turn across a crosswalk does not need to yield to someone already in the crosswalk crossing (in any manner) with the green. Please no more time wasters.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Hmmm, almost hit by a van making a left hand turn. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Has anyone else picked up on what possibly caused this, and why the cyclist needed to be a bit more aware of his surroundings? I had this happen to me in my mail vehicle.
"What possibly happened" could be anything. The OP bellyached about the cyclist and felt oh so bad for the "legal" motorist and did not provide any information about "what happened" to substantiate any fault on the cyclist's part, except for a potty mouth.

Presumably sweet nothings would have been the preferred response to getting nearly clipped in the crosswalk by a turning motorist. Is that what other cyclists on this list do when motorists turn across their path?

[MisterJ]

I think that the main point here is that civility appears to be a lost art. To expect it without giving it is self-delusion.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Glad to see that point presented. The original post does not tell whether the cyclist was in the intersection prior to the point at which the motor vehicle was committed to turning. Once you begin a left turn you must complete it or risk being hit by the oncoming traffic.

Really? Come hell or high water the motorist "must" not stop if "committed" to a turn in city traffic? Where did you learn this driving technique?