Advocacy & Safety - 4 year old hit by car on bike path-police do nothing-anyone offer advice or a lawyer?

Hey...

Long time reader, first time poster.

Trying to live a car-lite life...have a six year old daughter and four year old son, both who've been riding by themselves w/o training wheels since they just turned four.

We were on a bike path today that crosses streets. An out of state driver turned left right in front of my 4 year old son, who tried to stop and hit the driver's door with his helmet, and then fell to the ground and hit the back of his head. The helmet is cracked in four places, with the earflap about to detach.

Thankfully my son was OK after a visit to the ER. Mom and Dad are more upset than him. Everything checked out fine, and my son has a new helmet already and is back on his bike. I shutter to think of what might have happened if he didn't have a properly fitted and adjusted helmet on....

The police didn't give the driver a ticket or anything. To be fair, on most parts of this bike path there are yield signs painted on the ground or stop signs. On this, at the top of a very steep hill in Colorado, there is no sign. This is so the bikers climbing up "heart attack hill" (as it's sometimes called) don't have to stop at the last part of the climb. (We were all headed downhill when the accident occurred) The police talked with the parks department and decided to list the driver as the first cause of the accident on the police report, but not to find him "in the wrong"

I don't want to over-react...the main thing is that he is fine. I don't think it would be too much to ask the driver to pay for the ER bill (a $100 co-pay), a new helmet for my son, and perhaps a new bike. (It appears that it is still functioning fine...haven't had the time to give the frame a thorough review.)

Anyone have a similar experience on this forum and have a suggestion for us? Anyone a lawyer who could give some initial thoughts. As a Christian, I want to do the right thing here, and yet I feel like doing nothing does nothing to protect others who are legally riding on a bike path (or in the street) and get hit by cars.

Thanks for any thoughts or advice anyone has...

Peace,
Matt

PS--If there's a better forum to post this in, please let me know...

'advocacy and safety' may be a good category for this.

I'm not sure there is enough info about how the accident happened to give much of an opinion. Was the driver in the wrong for turning there? If so, how? From the simplistic description you give, is it possible that maybe your son was so low (being small) that the driver didn't see him?

You would do very well to talk to the patrol supervisor (the commander of the patrol unit at the police department) and find out first why they made the decisions they did. After that, talk to their legal counsel (probably a city attorney) for a bit more analysis on their end. It's free and a reasonable first step.

What city?

Not enough information about the streets and configuration to make a judgement on who is in the wrong here. You can always file a small claims lawsuit or just call his insurance company and file a claim.

First, I'm glad to hear that your son is doing okay.

I'll have to join the others here in saying that there doesn't seem to be enough information to really say. I'm not sure of the laws regarding bikes and crosswalks, but I do remember that it was always pounded into me as a kid to walk your bike across the street when you encounter a crosswalk. Sure, I don't do it so much anymore (still do it sometimes though), but if I had a 4 and 6 year old with me, it seems like fairly sound advice.

Good luck with whatever course of action you take and let us know how things turn out.

who actually has the right of way on the road? it sounds like normally there is a yield/stop sign for cyclists, but this particular section didn't?

First off, i'm glad your son's okay. It sounds as though it could have been much worse.

Secondly, i must say that the legal route may not be your best bet here. I would imagine that you got the information of the driver, so i would just call him and ask him. It is reasonable to assume that he is expecting such a call and would gladly pay 100-150 dollars to keep you from contacting his insurance company or taking any further legal action. If he says no, quite honestly the best option is to just let it go, suck up the cost, and be glad nothing truly bad happened. Other cyclists that get hit shouldn't be your concern, unless you want to lobby the local government to put up some more signs.

if you didn't get any information, just let it go. In my opinion, 100 dollars isn't enough to worry about in this particular scenario, and i'm sure you are not all that upset about the cost of the new helmet (after all, the first one worked, right?).

^^I think this is good advice.^^

Even if he wasn't ticketed, if he's not interested in covering the costs, I would think his insurance co. will, right? You don't have to get a ticket to have insurance pay for something.

You would do very well to talk to the patrol supervisor (the commander of the patrol unit at the police department) and find out first why they made the decisions they did. After that, talk to their legal counsel (probably a city attorney) for a bit more analysis on their end. It's free and a reasonable first step.

What city?

+1

Thank goodness your son is ok. I'm with the others here there is not enough info to make a informed judgement.

I'm curious but did your son's bike have a tall flag so others can see him riding because the other poster that mentioned the small size does have a valid point. Tho it sounds like the driver had time to see the child as they stopped. I know what I'm driving in a parking lot I'm very cautious as little kids are hard to see especially when backing up and drive uber slow scanning for kids and people all the time.

OP, what is your motivation in seeking legal recourse against the driver, vengeance? Are you looking for a pay out? What outcome would you like to see from this?

You say you'd like to protect other cyclists, wouldn't talking to the parks department about proper signage be a better option than going after the driver who in all honesty most likely made a simple mistake? One thing that people on this board seem to forget is that sometimes an accident is just that, an accident.

You need to know and understand, and teach your children, that bike paths are not roads and a bicyclist should never, ever expect a driver to yield to him where a path intersects a road. If you can verify that the driver has noticed AND is DEFINITELY yielding to you, THEN, and only then, should you proceed. Maybe.

To rely on drivers focused on driving their cars on the road to see and not hit your 4 year old who appears "out of nowhere" from a bike path is bordering on parental negligence, if you ask me.

With all due respect, where were you when all this happened? What the heck is your 4 year old doing crossing a street unsupervised?

talk to a motorcycle or bicycle personal injury lawyer. most offer free consultations. no fee unless you retain them and you win a judgment.

How does the path cross the street?

Generally, unless marked up all over the place with signs, crosswalks, etc... the car has the right of way. It is another reason bike paths stink--- they often cross roads in the middle of nowhere, where cars are not expecting cross traffic- like in the middle of a block in a residential neighborhood. It sounds like in your case, the general signage indicates that bikes must yield. The best you can probably hope for is to have a sign installed at the intersection in question.

Are you in a no fault state? If not then I would talk to the guy and go through his insurance, I think they would easily pay the 200 or so to get you off their back, and if he doesn't realize this then he's an idiot. It really is a shame the police didn't have the cahone's to point out to this guy that: It's a child for god's sake!!! I would have had a hard time dealing with this. I'm glad he is okay!

First, I'm very glad to hear that your son is ok.

Contact an atty.

People need to be held accountable for mistakes. If you were in the wrong and damaged the guy's door, do you think he'd not come after you? Assuming the driver was at fault he needs to cover your child's new helmet and any medical costs, and his insurance needs to be notified. He needs to pay a higher premium as a reminder to drive with due caution & responsibility. You should not have to be out of pocket for something that wasn't your fault.

Since you say the driver was turning left where the path crossed the street, this sounds like an intersection with a sidewalk-type path transitioning to a crosswalk. Since you say your son struck the driver side door of a left-turning car, I infer that he was traveling on the left side of the street (but on the sidewalk rather than the roadway).

Drivers don't scan reliably for contra-flow traffic traveling faster than walking speed. It's much safer to travel on the right side of the street even if you are using the sidewalk. Even at walking speed it's a problem; collision rates for pedestrians on sidewalks and crosswalks are higher for those walking on the left side of the street rather than the right. Drivers are used to looking in the direction where other vehicles are usually coming from, and forget to look elsewhere.

Depending on the state, the law for crosswalks is that the driver must yield to pedestrians who are already in the crosswalk and about to move in front of them, but the pedestrian may not move in front of a driver who is so close to create a danger. This sets up a sort of race condition; if the driver gets to the crosswalk area first, the pedestrian must wait until the driver clears. In your case, the driver was already in the crosswalk when your son struck the side of the car. The race condition isn't so dangerous when the pedestrian is moving at walking speed and can stop instantly and even step back. But for the driver of a vehicle on an interesecting course with another driver, it's a bigger problem, which is why drivers of vehicles have different rules, which don't include using sidewalks.

I'd like to look at the location using satellite photos. What are the names of the two streets, and the city?

What Steve said is basically correct for the first curbside travel lane but some states have additional rules that once a pedestrian (which may not include cyclists) is in the crosswalk adjacent lanes (or all lanes) of traffic must also stop.

I'd say you already got the best possible outcome from this incident. Almost any other result would have you praying to be in the position you are in.

Find out what the laws are in your state. In NY state for instance your health insurance will deny payment for the ER visit as the injury was caused by an accident involving a motor vehicle. In our state the auto insurance for the driver that hit your child will have to pay the ER bill (No Co-Pay for you either!). This falls under a No Fault rule when an accident involved a car and a pedestrian or cyclist. If you don't have the information from the other driver, you should be able to get a copy of the police report. Again this differs from state to state, but you don't want to be caught off guard. Also you should DEFINITELY get a new helmet and get the driver of his insurance company to pay.

Happy riding,
André

Seriously, stop at intersections of the MUP and a road. In the DC area, we've had a few fatalaties from that in the last year. Whether it's posted or not - yield to road traffic. They're bigger than you.

And Dad should always check for traffic first and shield the flock from cars. I'd not let a 4-year-old cross a street on his own.

I agree with the general consensus - you're danged lucky.

What Steve said is basically correct for the first curbside travel lane but some states have additional rules that once a pedestrian (which may not include cyclists) is in the crosswalk adjacent lanes (or all lanes) of traffic must also stop.

I like those states that require drivers to yield and/or stop if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk but still in another lane.

Here in NC, the driver is not cited for failure to yield to a pedestrian unless a collision actually occurs in a marked crosswalk. No marking or no collision = no citation (even though most legal crosswalks are unmarked and many drivers force pedestrians to take evasive action even in marked crosswalks).

However, I think the driver still has to be given a reasonable opportunity to stop. If a pedestrian enters the crosswalk when a driver is too close to stop while traveling at a reasonable lawful speed, I don't think the driver should be cited for failure to yield. As a matter of courtesy and prudence, I think drivers should try predict pedestrian actions near the curb - especially when the driver is turning - but sometimes this is difficult, such as at mid-block crosswalks where some pedestrians wait behind the curb for a traffic gap.

I will note there was a particularly nasty mid block trail crossing in PG County they first put up a safety island and signs saying stop for pedestrians in crosswalk. Within a month most the signs had been run over and lay broken in the gutter. They now have sensors that detect cyclists and pedestrians and turn on flashing lights embedded in the roadway. Cars are now stopping to allow pedestrians to cross.

The in road flashing lights seem to work better than any other solution for problem crosswalks and MUP crossings.

If you want safety, push the park to put the lights in.

For money, file a claim with the motorist insurance.

If you have not had the time to do a complete inspection the bike, why is your son still riding it?

Hey...

Long time reader, first time poster.

Trying to live a car-lite life...have a six year old daughter and four year old son, both who've been riding by themselves w/o training wheels since they just turned four.

We were on a bike path today that crosses streets. An out of state driver turned left right in front of my 4 year old son, who tried to stop and hit the driver's door with his helmet, and then fell to the ground and hit the back of his head. The helmet is cracked in four places, with the earflap about to detach.

Thankfully my son was OK after a visit to the ER. Mom and Dad are more upset than him. Everything checked out fine, and my son has a new helmet already and is back on his bike. I shutter to think of what might have happened if he didn't have a properly fitted and adjusted helmet on....

The police didn't give the driver a ticket or anything. To be fair, on most parts of this bike path there are yield signs painted on the ground or stop signs. On this, at the top of a very steep hill in Colorado, there is no sign. This is so the bikers climbing up "heart attack hill" (as it's sometimes called) don't have to stop at the last part of the climb. (We were all headed downhill when the accident occurred) The police talked with the parks department and decided to list the driver as the first cause of the accident on the police report, but not to find him "in the wrong"

I'm not a lawyer, however the law is pretty clear for the State of Colorado:

(d) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk shall dismount before entering any roadway and, when crossing any such roadway, shall observe all the rules and regulations applicable to pedestrians.

Reading the above, you are supposed to stop and get off your bike at any crossing. I've heard of instances in Colorado where someone hit at a driveway over an MUP was deemed to be at fault for not dismounting. It's a goofy law and efforts have been made to change it but it just hasn't happened yet.

Additionally, just because there isn't a yield sign at the top of a hill is no reason to assume that you have the right of way. Signage can be removed for many reasons...construction, sand, weather, etc. Personally, I'd assume that there was a yield at that intersection since there's yields elsewhere on the MUP. It's pretty much common sense.

I'm glad your child is alright however, you need to show better judgement. I've successfully raised 2 kids on bicycles and I've done some stupid things but I would never let a 4 year old on his own bike to be anymore than a wheel diameter away from me...his wheel...not mine! In fact, at 4 years old, I'd have his bike attached to me either as an alley cat or a tandem. 4 year olds - and 6 year olds for that matter - do not have the ability to judge distances and speeds of cars. Letting them ride more then a few inches away from you is irresponsible. I'd say you were lucky not to be cited for child endangerment. That seems harsh but considering how this could have turned out, I'd say you are pretty lucky.


I don't want to over-react...the main thing is that he is fine. I don't think it would be too much to ask the driver to pay for the ER bill (a $100 co-pay), a new helmet for my son, and perhaps a new bike. (It appears that it is still functioning fine...haven't had the time to give the frame a thorough review.)

Yes, it would be too much to ask. You made the error. You should pay for it...and be thankful that it didn't turn out worse. Bite the bullet and learn from your mistakes.


Anyone have a similar experience on this forum and have a suggestion for us? Anyone a lawyer who could give some initial thoughts. As a Christian, I want to do the right thing here, and yet I feel like doing nothing does nothing to protect others who are legally riding on a bike path (or in the street) and get hit by cars.

Thanks for any thoughts or advice anyone has...

Peace,
Matt

PS--If there's a better forum to post this in, please let me know...


As for this question: Were you supervising your son properly (by letting him ride without close supervision)? Did you teach him how to properly cross a roadway according to Colorado law? Did you know the laws yourself? If not, then what are you trying to do to the driver? Vengeance? Get money from them? If so, then you already know the answer.

You'd be better off learning the laws, exercising proper judgement and trying to educate other bicyclists and automobile drivers on how to properly use the road. That's the best way to help your son and other cyclists.

Thanks for all the thoughts and advice.

I could post a bunch more information that would "support" my case (the sign 150 feet from the intersection that says "Yield to people in crosswalk"), but I've decided to just be grateful that my son is OK.

Just so some of you have a better understanding, my wife was less than 5 feet away from him when the accident happened. We were riding on a MUP that has the right of way when the driver--traveling the same direction as us--turned left directly into my son. The lessons on braking (OK, laying some rubber in the parking lot...) really served him well and perhaps saved his life.

Like I said, I'm just grateful he's OK. I was glad he got right back on a bike (another one--not the one that he crashed until I could go over it) and is currently out riding a three mile loop with my wife.

Thanks for all the ideas, suggesions, and constructively critical comments. I am a huge safety person and appreciate everyone's comments.

I've always been in the helmet crowd. I have my taco-ed wheel from my bike accident last year hanging next to my son's helmet which cracked in four places hanging on my wall in the study at the church here in Aspen. Quite the reminders...

Thanks again to all,
Matt

From what I understand , the Police will never find an out-of-state driver to be at fault.

The assumption is that since he's from out-of-state, he doesn't know the road, and made an honest mistake.

I would have exchanged insurance policy numbers, if he wasn't from another state.


Glad to hear your son's okay. If there's a positive side to this story, it's that it may convince others to wear a helmet.

I can't say anything about CO law, but in Texas, there are two sets of laws at work, civil and criminal. Though not usually thought of as such, ticketable traffic code violations fall under criminal law, and police enforce such laws. Then, there is civil law, which covers the area of civil monetary damages. A police officer may, perhaps, not issue a citation, or show fault, under the criminal/traffic law end of things, but a civil court can still find fault, or partial fault, on the part of the driver. In fact, technically, "fault" is not determined by a police officer in Texas at all; the officer merely shows shows facts/factors contributing to the crash, and indicates any tickets written or charges filed. It is also indeed possible for a civil court to find fault, and award damages, contrary to anything (facts/factors, citations, charges) shown on the police report. I will not comment on the specifics of the OP's incident, and should add that I wear a badge, but am not a lawyer, and am not employed by the hometown indicated in my profile.

I'm always chilled to hear about incidents concerning children, especially since I've got 2/5/8 yo grandsons running amuck.

In this case, I'd be hard pressed to fault the driver and excuse the actions of a 4 yo. What concerns me more is that a young child would be allowed to lead the pack across a road. Regardless of signage, I've instructed my charges to always assume the worst.

I'm not a lawyer, however the law is pretty clear for the State of Colorado:

(d) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk shall dismount before entering any roadway and, when crossing any such roadway, shall observe all the rules and regulations applicable to pedestrians.


Yes... you're NOT a lawyer. That section of the law was repealed two years ago.

Bikes on the sidewalk are treated as pedestrians. Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way in Colorado. The driver was at fault, legally.

That said, I still ALWAYS slow down and watch for cross traffic, and I'm especially careful to watch what's going on when I'm riding with my wife, who doesn't have nearly as much experience as I do.

edit: And personally I think your entire post is condescending and insulting. But thanks for reminding me why I generally avoid this subforum altogether.

Here's the actual crosswalk law:

Your son could have been in violation of section 3... depending, I would think, on whether your son was already entering the crosswalk when the driver began his turn. Hard to really say without having been there and witnessed the event.


42-4-802. Pedestrians' right-of-way in crosswalks.


(1) When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply under the conditions stated in section 42-4-803.

(3) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and ride a bicycle, walk, or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(4) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

(5) Whenever special pedestrian-control signals exhibiting "Walk" or "Don't Walk" word or symbol indications are in place, as declared in the traffic control manual adopted by the department of transportation, such signals shall indicate and require as follows:

(a) "Walk" (steady): While the "Walk" indication is steadily illuminated, pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal indication and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.

(b) "Don't Walk" (steady): While the "Don't Walk" indication is steadily illuminated, no pedestrian shall enter the roadway in the direction of the signal indication.

(c) "Don't Walk" (flashing): Whenever the "Don't Walk" indication is flashing, no pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of such signal indication, but any pedestrian who has partly completed crossing during the "Walk" indication shall proceed to a sidewalk or to a safety island, and all drivers of vehicles shall yield to any such pedestrian.

(d) Whenever a signal system provides for the stopping of all vehicular traffic and the exclusive movement of pedestrians and "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signal indications control such pedestrian movement, pedestrians may cross in any direction between corners of the intersection offering the shortest route within the boundaries of the intersection while the "Walk" indication is exhibited, if signals and other official devices direct pedestrian movement in such manner consistent with section 42-4-803 (4).

Here's another relevant section:

42-4-807. Drivers to exercise due care.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this article, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction.


42-4-903. Turning movements and required signals.

(1) No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in section 42-4-901, or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in sections 42-4-608 and 42-4-609.

(2) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning in urban or metropolitan areas and shall be given continuously for at least two hundred feet on all four-lane highways and other highways where the prima facie or posted speed limit is more than forty miles per hour. Such signals shall be given regardless of existing weather conditions.

(3) No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in sections 42-4-608 and 42-4-609 to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such signal.

(4) The signals provided for in section 42-4-608 (2) shall be used to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position and shall not be flashed on one side only on a parked or disabled vehicle or flashed as a courtesy or "do pass" signal to operators of other vehicles approaching from the rear.

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


And last:


42-4-1402. Careless driving - penalty.

(1) Any person who drives any motor vehicle, bicycle, or motorized bicycle in a careless and imprudent manner, without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and use of the streets and highways and all other attendant circumstances, is guilty of careless driving. A person convicted of careless driving of a bicycle or motorized bicycle shall not be subject to the provisions of section 42-2-127.

(2) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense, but, if the person's actions are the proximate cause of bodily injury or death to another, such person commits a class 1 misdemeanor traffic offense.

I would say that turning across a marked crosswalk without checking for people using said crosswalk should at the least be careless driving.

Again... I wasn't there, and I really don't know the specifics of what happened. This could go either way....

Thanks for these last two posts...

I appreciate all the info and thoughts. I'm confident my health insurance will require more information to pay the claim for my son's ER visit. If that happens, I will get the police report and give the driver's insurance information to my health insurance company. I'll let the two of them figure it out...

My son continues to bike daily and has shown no ill effects from this event. We took apart my daughter's 16" Barbie bike, spray painted it a metalic red, put the bike together, and then went on a 7 mile ride on a dirt path that used to be an old railroad. We hiked by the river, sat on rocks, climbed a bridge, and laughed a bunch. I felt like I was 8 again. When he said, "Dad, this is just so much fun!" I about melted.

Thanks for all the thoughts, well wishes, and well intended--I'm hoping--criticism.

Peace,
Matt

The police didn't give the driver a ticket or anything. To be fair, on most parts of this bike path there are yield signs painted on the ground or stop signs. On this, at the top of a very steep hill in Colorado, there is no sign. This is so the bikers climbing up "heart attack hill" (as it's sometimes called) don't have to stop at the last part of the climb. (We were all headed downhill when the accident occurred) The police talked with the parks department and decided to list the driver as the first cause of the accident on the police report, but not to find him "in the wrong"

I am sure it was very traumatizing for this infant to have a car collision. On the bright side, this may be his life saver in the future as he may develop a healthy distrust of bike paths and motorists.

Unfortunately, on a bike path, whether there are yield/stops signs or not, you SHOULD ALWAYS STOP AT INTERSECTIONS as you are barely visible to motorists and so basically by cycling on bike paths you are giving up your right of way. Had you been on the main pavement area, the motorist WOULD HAVE BEEN TICKETED for NOT giving right of way. Conversely, had you been on the main pavement, the motorist would have might have seen you,especially in a left turning situation (i.e. if you were on the correct side of the road) and the accident would might "not" have occurred, food for thought...

Also, may I suggest that you wait until your children are old enough and tall enough to ride on Big Roller Coasters before they are allowed to lead a bike ride... In my experience 4 y/o children are barely able to eat cleanly at the table and bathe themselves, let alone take on the responsibilities of motor traffic.

Hopefully this will serve as a valuable learning experience for both you and your son. Also maybe you should consider your son develop a conversation with that motorist as the motorist probably also feels pretty bad, and wrongfully so, if he was cleared of wrongdoing.

May your future cycling be safer
Best wishes

Seriously, stop at intersections of the MUP and a road. In the DC area, we've had a few fatalaties from that in the last year. Whether it's posted or not - yield to road traffic. They're bigger than you.

And Dad should always check for traffic first and shield the flock from cars. I'd not let a 4-year-old cross a street on his own.

I agree with the general consensus - you're danged lucky.

The intersection of the Cap. Cres. Trail and Little Falls Parkway comes to mind on this one- you get a bike path divided by 4 lanes of high speed roadway.

Here's the actual crosswalk law:



No, here is the crosswalk law as applies to cyclists.

10)(a) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. A person riding a bicycle in a crosswalk shall do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians.
(b) A person shall not ride a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk where such use of bicycles is prohibited by official traffic control devices or local ordinances. A person riding a bicycle shall dismount before entering any crosswalk where required by official traffic control devices or local ordinances.
(c) A person riding or walking a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, including, but not limited to, the rights and duties granted and required by section 42-4-802.

Your quotes are as applies to pedestrians.

You are correct that the law was changed. I couldn't remember if it had been and the only Colorado Revised Statutes that I found had the old law listed in it (Lexus search). The above is from the Bicycle Colorado website.

As for my post being condescending, it was meant to be. Anybody that lets a 4 year old ride ahead of them on a bicycle, assumes that they don't have to stop at an intersection because 'there wasn't a sign', and then asks if they should sue, needs a dope slap! If you have children, you are responsible for exercising judgment. It's part of the package.

Thanks for all the thoughts and advice.

I could post a bunch more information that would "support" my case (the sign 150 feet from the intersection that says "Yield to people in crosswalk"), but I've decided to just be grateful that my son is OK.

Just so some of you have a better understanding, my wife was less than 5 feet away from him when the accident happened. We were riding on a MUP that has the right of way when the driver--traveling the same direction as us--turned left directly into my son. The lessons on braking (OK, laying some rubber in the parking lot...) really served him well and perhaps saved his life.

Like I said, I'm just grateful he's OK. I was glad he got right back on a bike (another one--not the one that he crashed until I could go over it) and is currently out riding a three mile loop with my wife.

Thanks for all the ideas, suggesions, and constructively critical comments. I am a huge safety person and appreciate everyone's comments.

I've always been in the helmet crowd. I have my taco-ed wheel from my bike accident last year hanging next to my son's helmet which cracked in four places hanging on my wall in the study at the church here in Aspen. Quite the reminders...

Thanks again to all,
Matt
In the OP and this post there are hints of an underlying expectation of motorists to make fewer mistakes than we know that they make. I think this kind of underlying expectation makes you more vulnerable to being involved in a crash.

I've failed at clearly explaining a similar concern with others in the past. So instead of going any further, I will simply recommend reading Robert Hurst's The Art of Urban Cycling, particularly the chapters entitled "Blame versus Responsibility" and "Vigilance". He explains this much better than I ever could.

I haven't read this thread, but perhaps something can be related to this. yes I know its AZ different laws, etc. But maybe some similarities can generate thoughts.

http://azbikelaw.org/blog/sidewalk-cycling-in-arizona/

Al

In the OP and this post there are hints of an underlying expectation of motorists to make fewer mistakes than we know that they make. I think this kind of underlying expectation makes you more vulnerable to being involved in a crash.

^
Whether you like Helmet Head or not, he's got it pretty much on the nail with this one. From what I can tell, the O/P has only listened to the information in this thread that he has wanted to hear (you can easily get that feeling from his replies - lost in the enjoyment of cycling, and not paying enough attention to safety - like most leisure cyclists :rolleyes:), and has ignored the rest - most importantly, the following facts:

#1: The child was leading the pack
#2: The child did not stop at the intersection

Yes, one can easily BE upset at the driver, but you must realize that most drivers are NOT expecting traffic other then pedestrians from a sidewalk, and for two, although visible, a 4-year-old child on a bike is not as easily visible as a full size machine.

I do not have a visual reference of the scene to go by, so speculation as to the reason this event happened would be either fruitless, or far too complicated to analyze given the fact that little is known about the physical attributes of the area this happened in. Perhaps the O/P can send us a photo of the location?

-Kurt

First rule of bike paths: never assume a driver will stop for you, even if they see you and know you have the right of way. This holds true for vehicluar cycling too. Often bike paths are more dangerous than riding in the street especially if they cross a lot of side streets. Be thankful there was no serious injury and be extra defensive and alert. The bright yellow safety vests and orange bike flags aren't a bad idea for small children either. They are so much smaller and sit lower to the ground they are harder to see. You can add a flashing tail light to his bike to help visiblity too.

When we go out with the kids, one of us rides in front and one in back and they stay in the middle. Commuting has taught me never to trust a motorist. I've had people look right at me knowing it's my turn and go anyway or try to beat me to the turn, etc.

It's a good opportunity to talk with the city planner, engineer, and development personelle. Many times the people who design the paths know little about cycling. Maybe you could get them to place a few Watch for Cyclists or Watch for Children signs and go over the path and make sure bikers and drivers both have clear signs so they know what they should be doing. I've come across a few paths that cross streets were neither has a posted yield. Granted it was very rural in that area and possibly private roads on private property, but they should still be there.

As for my post being condescending, it was meant to be. Anybody that lets a 4 year old ride ahead of them on a bicycle, assumes that they don't have to stop at an intersection because 'there wasn't a sign', and then asks if they should sue, needs a dope slap! If you have children, you are responsible for exercising judgment. It's part of the package.

Oh boy I missed this ... :lol:

EDIT: For my tastes, I would have worded the cyccommute's original message differently. Moreover, I can understand how a parent can make a mistake given the enormity of every decision. But I think that cyccommute's content is pretty much dead on.

Odd, no one here has mentioned that in California, any motorist that makes a LEFT turn and causes a collision IS at fault.
The OP listed enough information that it can be determined that the motorist turned LEFT, causing the collision.

But contact Gary Brustin, he's a cyclists injury advocate attorney. Google his name to find him.

OP, very glad your son is OK! If it had been me and one of MY small children, I probably would have said consequences be damned, and beaten the **** out of the driver.
But that's just me! :rolleyes:

And my kids don't even TOUCH their bikes, scooters or skateboards WITHOUT a helmet on!

Odd, no one here has mentioned that in California, any motorist that makes a LEFT turn and causes a collision IS at fault.
The OP listed enough information that it can be determined that the motorist turned LEFT, causing the collision.

Well, since the collision occurred in Colorado, California law applies about as much as Uzbekistan. From a practical standpoint, claiming that all left-turners bear responsibility for any sort of collision is pretty dumb.



OP, very glad your son is OK! If it had been me and one of MY small children, I probably would have said consequences be damned, and beaten the **** out of the driver.
But that's just me! :rolleyes:


If I'd have seen you letting your 4-year old lead the way through an intersection, I'd help the driver beat YOU.