[MillCreek]

The Court of Appeals, Division One, for the State of Washington just released a new decision interpreting some aspects of the rules of the road for bicyclists and motorists. The decision can be found at http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=582216MAJ

In brief, and quoting from the opinion, the case is about "another question about rules of the road for drivers and bicyclists. Here, the bicyclist was riding in a bike lane, but in the direction opposed to the flow of traffic. He was injured when he was hit by a car turning onto the roadway from a parking lot. The jury found the driver not negligent.

The court instructed the jury as to the duties of both driver and cyclist under the statutes. As pertains to bicyclists, the statutes are not a model of clarity. But the instructions were proper, and the evidence supports the verdict. We therefore affirm."


Details are in the opinion, but a bicyclist was riding in a bike lane against the flow of traffic. A motorist was leaving a parking lot and turned right, striking the bicyclist. She did not see him, and did not expect a bicyclist to be riding down the wrong way along the bike lane. The bicyclist filed a civil suit and at a jury trial, she was found not guilty of negligence. The bicyclist claimed that since he was in a bike lane, he was not subject to the rules of the road and should have gotten a jury instruction along those lines. The trial court disagreed, and the appellate court backed up the trial court.

[The BikeForums Team]

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

[DogBoy]

Good decision in my book.

[sggoodri]

The bicyclist claimed that since he was in a bike lane, he was not subject to the rules of the road and should have gotten a jury instruction along those lines. The trial court disagreed, and the appellate court backed up the trial court.

This is the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm at work. The bike lane is not considered by the bicyclist to be part of the roadway, and the cyclist does not consider himself a driver. Rather, he considers himself a pedestrian, and believes his separated space to be "safe" for his use according to pedestrian rules such as traveling against traffic. When this gets him into trouble, he blames the motorist.

[hopperja]

This is the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm at work. The bike lane is not considered by the bicyclist to be part of the roadway, and the cyclist does not consider himself a driver. Rather, he considers himself a pedestrian, and believes his separated space to be "safe" for his use according to pedestrian rules such as traveling against traffic. When this gets him into trouble, he blames the motorist.

While I agree, the cyclist was traveling the wrong way, it is interesting... in other aspects of Washington state bicycle law, a cyclist is a pedestrian on wheels. For example, RCW 46.61.235 indicates a motor vehicle must treat a cyclist the same as a pedestrian in a crosswalk, even if the cyclist is riding. RCW 46.61.261 indicates a motor vehicle must yield to a cyclist on a sidewalk as they would for a pedestrian. Because the latter specifically gives cyclists permission to ride on sidewalks and indicates motor vehicles must yield to them with no exception granted for direction of travel, my guess is the ruling would be different if the cyclist was on a sidewalk...

[sggoodri]

While I agree, the cyclist was traveling the wrong way, it is interesting... in other aspects of Washington state bicycle law, a cyclist is a pedestrian on wheels. For example, RCW 46.61.235 indicates a motor vehicle must treat a cyclist the same as a pedestrian in a crosswalk, even if the cyclist is riding. RCW 46.61.261 indicates a motor vehicle must yield to a cyclist on a sidewalk as they would for a pedestrian. Because the latter specifically gives cyclists permission to ride on sidewalks and indicates motor vehicles must yield to them with no exception granted for direction of travel, my guess is the ruling would be different if the cyclist was on a sidewalk...

Many cyclists, including myself, have suggested that bicycle operators traveling on sidewalks and crosswalks should generally have the rights and duties of pedestrians.

The main difficulty is for a cyclist to fulfill the duties of a pedestrian, such as not entering the crosswalk when a driver is so close as to cause a danger. Cyclists cannot instantly stop and change direction.

Another difficulty is that drivers cannot see a cyclist as soon before a potential conflict as they can pedestrians, because cyclists are usually traveling much faster and are much farther from the conflict point when the motorist must take action.

As a result, cyclists must be prepared to travel at near walking speed at most conflict points, even if pedestrians normally have right of way over vehicle traffic at these places.