Most of my cycling is done within the primary traffic lanes so I have had little reason to use pedestrian crosswalks. Last Monday, while enjoying a day off of work, I decided to ride a local MUP because it passes through some beautiful forest preserve areas. It also guides users up to crosswalks placed directly in front of the vehicle stop line at intersections. Most of these intersections are on high speed multi lane roads.
While heading north I had two lanes of eastbound traffic stopped at the line to my left awaiting the green light, so I ventured across. Just as I started to cross the left turn only lane, a small to mid size car that I had not seen plowed into me directly on my left. I only seen it milliseconds before impact. I went up the hood and probably hit the windshield (not sure) and ended up on the ground about 12 feet in front of the car with my bike in between the two of us. I remained conscious the entire time and was taken to the hospital by ambulance.
Injuries included a broken left wrist, which required surgery and a metal plate for repair, a fractured pelvis and numerous scrapes and bruises, including a bump on the head. (I wasn’t wearing a helmet at the time) Fortunately nothing bad became of the head injury. The good news is that I am expected to make a full recovery and will soon be back on the bike.
Had I waited for the walk signal, or at least properly verified that the crosswalk would be clear, I never would have been hit. I am certain that in the driver’s eyes I “popped out of nowhere”. She had a green arrow and I had red light/red hand. I even received a citation for such.
Besides properly waiting for the walk signal, there was one other option at this particular intersection that I believe would have worked well to ensure safety. Several hundred feet before reaching the main intersection, there is a minor street that the MUP crosses that one could easily use to enter the traffic lane of the main arterial. By doing this, a rider could then make a vehicular left turn at the main intersection, followed by an immediate right to get back onto the trail. (The trail enters at the SE corner of the intersection, and resumes at the NW corner, requiring a rider to make TWO crosswalk crossings if you follow it.) I actually considered doing the traffic lane option at the time and now regret that I did not. At the crosswalk I acted like a pedestrian, and many pedestrians will cross against the signal. In the traffic lane I never would have considered crossing on a red.
It’s embarrassing having to admit to making such a foolish mistake, but I do so in hopes that it may prevent someone else from having a similar tragedy. Be careful in those crosswalks!
flipped4bikes
10-29-07, 11:26 AM
Ouch. Hope you recover soon. Not the best way to learn a lesson.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-29-07, 11:46 AM
...including a bump on the head. (I wasn’t wearing a helmet at the time) Fortunately nothing bad became of the head injury. The good news is that I am expected to make a full recovery and will eventually be back on the bike.
The additional "good news" was that not wearing a helmet must have saved your life! eh? :p
Get well soon.
genec
10-29-07, 12:01 PM
At the crosswalk I acted like a pedestrian, and many pedestrians will cross against the signal. In the traffic lane I never would have considered crossing on a red.
It’s embarrassing having to admit to making such a foolish mistake, but I do so in hopes that it may prevent someone else from a similar tragedy. Be careful in those crosswalks!
OK you did act the fool by crossing against a red... but it may not have mattered much... far too many motorists turn right on red without even looking to their right to see if a ped is crossing on a legal crossing signal.
I rode my cruiser bike on the sidewalk two weeks ago to visit my favorite pub.
At one particular busy intersection, while I had a valid walk signal, I watched two motorists come up, and execute the right on red move... the first one didn't even bother to actually stop... they just slowed down, glanced left and zipped off. The second guy stopped, glanced left and then took off... neither motorist considered that someone standing there with a valid crossing signal has ROW. They didn't even look!
rando
10-29-07, 02:11 PM
I watched two motorists come up, and execute the right on red move... the first one didn't even bother to actually stop... they just slowed down, glanced left and zipped off. The second guy stopped, glanced left and then took off... neither motorist considered that someone standing there with a valid crossing signal has ROW. They didn't even look!
this is exactly what happened to me. just as I was about to cross on the crosswalk from the sidewalk (on the wrong side of the street, BIG mistake)) guy pulls up RIGHT in front of me, looking left. BAM! did not see me, and I couldn't brake in time. ouch. always, always, even if you have ROW make sure it's clear. THEY DON'T LOOK FOR YOU. THEY ARE LOOKING FOR OTHER CARS.
genec
10-29-07, 02:39 PM
this is exactly what happened to me. just as I was about to cross on the crosswalk from the sidewalk (on the wrong side of the street, BIG mistake)) guy pulls up RIGHT in front of me, looking left. BAM! did not see me, and I couldn't brake in time. ouch. always, always, even if you have ROW make sure it's clear. THEY DON'T LOOK FOR YOU. THEY ARE LOOKING FOR OTHER CARS.
Not exactly the same thing.
What I am speaking of is when motorists have a red light... and you the ped has a green hand or walk signal. You legally have the Right of Way... but since the motorists are intent on their "right on red," they don't even look. You can be mowed down while being fully in the right.
You stated you didn't wait for the walk signal. I am telling you it doesn't matter. The walk signal means nothing for pedestrians.
I have even seen motorists honk at school kids that have a valid walk signal.
The whole right on red thing has been carried too far. Motorists believe they can turn right on red, no matter what.
Helmet Head
10-29-07, 02:43 PM
I support bike paths and MUPs, and I enjoy riding on them. But I swear, they seem to induce some kind of relaxing state of mind that can be lethal when encountering vehicular traffic. The most dangerous aspect of bike paths is when they intersect with streets. As you approach a street, it's important to snap out of the mindlessness that is fine on paths and engage in the vigilance that is appropriate on streets. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasized.
genec
10-29-07, 02:46 PM
I support bike paths and MUPs, and I enjoy riding on them. But I swear, they seem to induce some kind of relaxing state of mind that can be lethal when encountering vehicular traffic. The most dangerous aspect of bike paths is when they intersect with streets. As you approach a street, it's important to snap out of the mindlessness that is fine on paths and engage in the vigilance that is appropriate on streets. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasized.
True.
But perhaps equally important is that motorists are abusing ROW in Right on Red situations and it is high time to curtail that abuse.
Helmet Head
10-29-07, 02:46 PM
Gene, Rando didn't say he didn't wait for the walk signal.
rando
10-29-07, 02:49 PM
truth is I was crossing on the flashing red hand (bad)... guy pulled up over the crosswalk just seconds before I got there, looking to his left ... he was making a right on red. I was riding against traffic. ouch.
Helmet Head
10-29-07, 02:50 PM
But perhaps equally important is that motorists are abusing ROW in Right on Red situations and it is high time to curtail that abuse.
It's very difficult to change behavior that is inconsequential the vast majority of the time.
People drive for years like that - approaching an intersection where they want to turn right that has a red light - slow down, looking left to see if it's clear, and then proceeding when they see that it is, without looking right at all, or not until they start turning right. Even with peds there, peds are usually looking for that. Or, at least as likely, as the motorist is approaching the intersection, he sees there are no peds, and subconsciously rules out the need to look right. What he does not expect is rando riding along at 15 mph on his bike on the sidewalk, still out of view at the time the motorist is approaching the intersection and "clearing" the corner on the right (by "clearing" I mean ruling it out as a potential hazard).
So time after time, week after week, month after month, year after year, that's how motorists turn right on ride, without incident. Now you want them to change their behavior for the highly possibility that some cyclist will come blowing by on the sidewalk at too fast a speed for sidewalk-to-crosswalk transitioning. Good luck with that.
rando
10-29-07, 02:55 PM
It's very difficult to change behavior that is inconsequential the vast majority of the time.
People drive for years like that - approaching an intersection where they want to turn right that is red - slow down, looking left to see if it's clear, and the proceeding when they see that it is, without looking right at all, or not until they start turning right. Even with peds there, peds are usually looking for that. Or, at least as likely, as the motorist approaching the intersection, he saw there were no peds, and subconsciously ruled out the need to look right. What he does not expect is rando riding along at 15 mph on his bike on the sidewalk, still out of view at the time the motorist is approaching the intersection and "clear" the corner on the right (by "clears" I mean he rules it out has a potential hazard).
yep. we both got tickets. he pulled up over the crosswalk just before I got there, I couldn't stop. not sure how fast I was going... the cop was right there in the intersection at the time.
Helmet Head
10-29-07, 03:00 PM
truth is I was crossing on the flashing red hand (bad)... guy pulled up over the crosswalk just seconds before I got there, looking to his left ... he was making a right on red. I was riding against traffic. ouch.
Flashing red means you don't have time to cross all the way before it turns red, assuming you're walking at a relatively slow walking speed. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with entering on flashing red, especially if you're going faster than typical walking speed, and noticed when it started flashing and you know you can make it all the way across before it turns solid red.
But if you're going faster than a typical walker, whether on a bike, push scooter, or running, I think the onus is on you to make sure the potential right-on-red turners have noticed you before you step or ride in front of their vehicles, for they are likely to have "cleared" the intersection while you were still out of sight, and are now focused on looking only left.
Helmet Head
10-29-07, 03:01 PM
yep. we both got tickets. he pulled up over the crosswalk just before I got there, I couldn't stop. not sure how fast I was going... the cop was right there in the intersection at the time.
What were you cited for violating?
rando
10-29-07, 03:05 PM
What were you cited for violating?
crossing on red! even though it was only flashing, you are not supposed to even enter the crosswalk once it starts. also cited for riding the wrong way. (against traffic)
genec
10-29-07, 03:18 PM
It's very difficult to change behavior that is inconsequential the vast majority of the time.
People drive for years like that - approaching an intersection where they want to turn right that has a red light - slow down, looking left to see if it's clear, and then proceeding when they see that it is, without looking right at all, or not until they start turning right. Even with peds there, peds are usually looking for that. Or, at least as likely, as the motorist is approaching the intersection, he sees there are no peds, and subconsciously rules out the need to look right. What he does not expect is rando riding along at 15 mph on his bike on the sidewalk, still out of view at the time the motorist is approaching the intersection and "clearing" the corner on the right (by "clearing" I mean ruling it out as a potential hazard).
So time after time, week after week, month after month, year after year, that's how motorists turn right on ride, without incident. Now you want them to change their behavior for the highly possibility that some cyclist will come blowing by on the sidewalk at too fast a speed for sidewalk-to-crosswalk transitioning. Good luck with that.
No I don't want a change of behaviour for cyclists. I want a change of behaviour for everyone trying to cross at a legal crosswalk with a walk signal.
That type of intersection cross used to be "protected..." now it is a free for all, with motorists generally having the upper hand.
Perhaps rather than change the law of Right on Red (legally after a stop and after waiting for anyone crossing), technology can come into play, and modify the red signal in some manner when a crossing button has been pushed... then when the ped (or cyclist in the rare case) pushes a walk button, they do get a protected signal, and motorists will stop and wait.
Of course there is still no guarantee that motorists will stop... any more than motorists stop for any red light at any intersection.
But in the mean time, this nonsense of not even looking both ways or in some cases not even stopping, is ridiculous and clearly exemplifies my thoughts that motorists only do the minimum of what they need do "to just get by.".
Helmet Head
10-29-07, 04:19 PM
No I don't want a change of behaviour for cyclists. I want a change of behaviour for everyone trying to cross at a legal crosswalk with a walk signal.
That type of intersection cross used to be "protected..." now it is a free for all, with motorists generally having the upper hand.
Perhaps rather than change the law of Right on Red (legally after a stop and after waiting for anyone crossing), technology can come into play, and modify the red signal in some manner when a crossing button has been pushed... then when the ped (or cyclist in the rare case) pushes a walk button, they do get a protected signal, and motorists will stop and wait.
Of course there is still no guarantee that motorists will stop... any more than motorists stop for any red light at any intersection.
But in the mean time, this nonsense of not even looking both ways or in some cases not even stopping, is ridiculous and clearly exemplifies my thoughts that motorists only do the minimum of what they need do "to just get by.".
So you want right turning motorists to put more attention on looking right, and, thus, less attention on looking left, from where the vast majority of likely hazards are probably coming, including maybe a cyclist riding too far to the right (say in a dashed bike lane) and thus difficult to notice, just because there is a tiny, tiny probability that a Darwin award seeker might cycle into the crosswalk from the right who was not yet visible when the motorist cleared the sidewalk moments earlier? Again, good luck with that.
discosaurus
10-29-07, 04:37 PM
At one particular busy intersection, while I had a valid walk signal, I watched two motorists come up, and execute the right on red move... the first one didn't even bother to actually stop... they just slowed down, glanced left and zipped off. The second guy stopped, glanced left and then took off... neither motorist considered that someone standing there with a valid crossing signal has ROW. They didn't even look!
I got hit by a driver just like that, where a bike path crosses a 3-way intersection. I had the right of way, and was moving walking speed. Right on red, didn't even look. AND HE DIDN'T GET A TICKET!
genec
10-29-07, 04:40 PM
So you want right turning motorists to put more attention on looking right, and, thus, less attention on looking left, from where the vast majority of likely hazards are probably coming, including maybe a cyclist riding too far to the right (say in a dashed bike lane) and thus difficult to notice, just because there is a tiny, tiny probability that a Darwin award seeker might cycle into the crosswalk from the right who was not yet visible when the motorist cleared the sidewalk moments earlier? Again, good luck with that.
Uh, go back and read what I wrote. Boy, talk about someone with a reading comprehension problem... :rolleyes:
Take notice that I indicated in the first line that this is NOT specifically for cyclists.
This is to fix a behaviour that is wrong in the first place...
What I want is for motorists that are turning right on red to actually slow down, stop and look. Both ways.
Helmet Head
10-29-07, 05:20 PM
Uh, go back and read what I wrote. Boy, talk about someone with a reading comprehension problem... :rolleyes:
Take notice that I indicated in the first line that this is NOT specifically for cyclists.
This is to fix a behaviour that is wrong in the first place...
What I want is for motorists that are turning right on red to actually slow down, stop and look. Both ways.
What if a driver who plans on turning right sees the sidewalk is empty (as far as he can see) as he comes to a stop, at which he point he looks left to check for traffic coming from there. If it's clear, he goes, if not, he waits until it's clear, then goes. Depending on how long he has to wait, he might glance right again. Are you okay with that? Or do you want something different?
rando
10-29-07, 05:52 PM
I would want him not to block the crosswalk until he has a green.
genec
10-29-07, 05:58 PM
What if a driver who plans on turning right sees the sidewalk is empty (as far as he can see) as he comes to a stop, at which he point he looks left to check for traffic coming from there. If it's clear, he goes, if not, he waits until it's clear, then goes. Depending on how long he has to wait, he might glance right again. Are you okay with that? Or do you want something different?
I am almost OK with that. The motorist stopped, and looked both ways before proceeding. But if he is looking left for a long time... then he needs to look right again before proceeding... and in all cases he needs to look where the car is going as it moves. The main problem is most motorists are too impatient to do this correctly... and just look left and then zoom out, if they even bothered to stop in the first place. Well news to motorists... if it is too busy for you to stop, look both ways and then proceed safely, wait for the darn green light.
I know where you're going... you're going to introduce the fast cyclist on the sidewalk.
Hey, we've all talked about cyclists on sidewalks, and that they too have responsibilities... one of which is to ride at the speed of pedestrians and give way to peds on the sidewalk.
Now consider that a cyclist on a sidewalk should be using the walk signal... just like a ped. And therefore the cyclist should stop at the intersection and wait for a walk signal, just like a ped. In the scenario you mentioned (that I refined a bit) the cyclist waiting for the walk signal is visible and should be properly yielded to.
In the earlier scenario I presented, where the motorist never even looked to the right... there was never an opportunity for the cyclist to use their ROW which the walk signal and the motorists' red light both grant.
(FYI the scenario I presented is real life, from the intersection of Clairemont Mesa Blvd and Shawline (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=92117&ie=UTF8&ll=32.832586,-117.166915&spn=0.006283,0.011362&t=h&z=17&om=1), just east of the 805 bridge)
Com'on up sometime and we can watch the motorists exercising their bad habits... and then go to OBriens (http://www.obrienspub.net/) for a proper pint and then cruise back on sidewalks.
Helmet Head
10-29-07, 05:59 PM
I would want him not to block the crosswalk until he has a green.
Well, that means no right on red, doesn't it? As a bicyclist and as a motorist, I would hate that.
By the way, can you cite the law that prohibits peds from entering crosswalks on flashing red? I would have though the law was to not be in the crosswalk when it is solid red.
rando
10-29-07, 06:06 PM
Well, that means no right on red, doesn't it? As a bicyclist and as a motorist, I would hate that.
By the way, can you cite the law that prohibits peds from entering crosswalks on flashing red? I would have though the law was to not be in the crosswalk when it is solid red.
no, I'm not going to cite it, but yeah, I looked it up, it's a tempe law.
CB HI
10-29-07, 06:08 PM
What I want, is an end to right turns on red. The number of injured and killed is not worth the minor time savings.
CB HI
10-29-07, 06:10 PM
Well, that means no right on red, doesn't it? As a bicyclist and as a motorist, I would hate that.
By the way, can you cite the law that prohibits peds from entering crosswalks on flashing red? I would have though the law was to not be in the crosswalk when it is solid red.
Honolulu police will also ticket for entering the crosswalk when the signal is flashing.
noisebeam
10-29-07, 06:22 PM
no, I'm not going to cite it, but yeah, I looked it up, it's a tempe law.
It's an AZ law:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00646.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS
The officer could have also cited you for the Tempe law which requires bicycle drivers to travel with the flow of traffic even while on the sidewalk.
http://www.tempe.gov/citycode/07Bicycles.htm
"Sec. 7-52 (c) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle in any direction except that permitted by vehicular traffic on the same side of the roadway where the sidewalk or bicycle lane exists; provided, that bicycles may proceed either way where signs or pavement markings on the sidewalk, bikeway or bicycle lane appear designating two-way traffic."
Then there is this, arguably bad or at least confusing, Tempe law:
"Sec. 7-52 (d) Any person riding a bicycle on a bikeway, sidewalk or bicycle path that is about to enter or cross a roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic on such roadway. (Ord. No. 87.24, 1-14-88)"
Which I interpret to mean, if you want to have the right rights and duties of a pedestrian at a roadway crossing, then dismount (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00792.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS), otherwise if you stay on the bike you always must yield the ROW.
Al
pj7
10-29-07, 06:37 PM
By the way, can you cite the law that prohibits peds from entering crosswalks on flashing red? I would have though the law was to not be in the crosswalk when it is solid red.
The information is in The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and is uniform in all states (unless changed since I last read up on it less than a year ago).
Green Light / Walking Avatar / WALK = Leave the sidewalk and cross the street.
Flashing Upraised Hand / Flashing Yellow / Flashing Red / DO NOT WALK = Do not leave the sidewalk but you may continue crossing the street if you are already in the crosswalk.
Solid Upraised Hand / Solid Red / Solid DO NOT WALK = Do not leave the sidewalk and you should already be across the street.
The MUTCD provides that there should be at least 7 seconds of walk time before the "clearance interval" (flashing light) begins.
And "technically" a vehicle should never be stopped in the crosswalk. When the light changes to red the vehicle is "supposed" to top at the stop line or in front of the crosswalk if a stop line is not present. Once they completely stop then they may procede through the crosswalk slowly and turn right "if they are clear to do so".
If it is a STOP sign then they must stop at the sign or the stop line (whichever is closest) and follow the same procedure. But they are not supposed to be "stopped" in the crosswalk... at least according to information I currently have in front of me.
noisebeam
10-29-07, 06:40 PM
HH,
The AZ law reads like this:
" 28-646. Pedestrian control signals; loitering prohibited
A. If special pedestrian control signals exhibiting the words "walk" or "don't walk" or a symbol of a walking person that symbolizes the word "walk" or a symbol of an upraised hand that symbolizes the words "don't walk" are in place, the signals shall indicate as follows:
1. Walk or a symbol of a walking person. Pedestrians facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of vehicles.
2. Don't walk or a symbol of an upraised hand. A pedestrian shall not start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but a pedestrian who has partially completed crossing on the walk signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island while the don't walk signal is showing.
B. A pedestrian shall not loiter or unduly delay crossing the roadway after traffic has stopped to give the right-of-way. "
It doesn't call out flashing or not, but it also doesn't need to. It is what the words (or symbols) say/mean that allows peds to enter x-walk or not.
Al
rando
10-29-07, 06:44 PM
It's an AZ law:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00646.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS
The officer could have also cited you for the Tempe law which requires bicycle drivers to travel with the flow of traffic even while on the sidewalk.
http://www.tempe.gov/citycode/07Bicycles.htm
"Sec. 7-52 (c) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle in any direction except that permitted by vehicular traffic on the same side of the roadway where the sidewalk or bicycle lane exists; provided, that bicycles may proceed either way where signs or pavement markings on the sidewalk, bikeway or bicycle lane appear designating two-way traffic."
Then there is this, arguably bad or at least confusing, Tempe law:
"Sec. 7-52 (d) Any person riding a bicycle on a bikeway, sidewalk or bicycle path that is about to enter or cross a roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic on such roadway. (Ord. No. 87.24, 1-14-88)"
Which I interpret to mean, if you want to have the right rights and duties of a pedestrian at a roadway crossing, then dismount (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00792.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS), otherwise if you stay on the bike you always must yield the ROW.
Al
thanks Al.
ChipSeal
10-29-07, 09:55 PM
It’s embarrassing having to admit to making such a foolish mistake, but I do so in hopes that it may prevent someone else from having a similar tragedy. Be careful in those crosswalks!
How come education is always so expensive?:(
Heal fast! CS
genec
10-30-07, 07:43 AM
What I want, is an end to right turns on red. The number of injured and killed is not worth the minor time savings.
CB HI this is exactly what I am talking about... however I am willing to compromise a bit... and allow technology to perhaps introduce a new idea... that of right turn on red if no one is at the walk signal.
But otherwise, I tend to agree... Right turn on Red would work if motorists would actually stop, and look both ways before proceeding... rather than the glance and go that usually occurs.
genec
10-30-07, 07:45 AM
And "technically" a vehicle should never be stopped in the crosswalk. When the light changes to red the vehicle is "supposed" to top at the stop line or in front of the crosswalk if a stop line is not present. Once they completely stop then they may procede through the crosswalk slowly and turn right "if they are clear to do so".
If it is a STOP sign then they must stop at the sign or the stop line (whichever is closest) and follow the same procedure. But they are not supposed to be "stopped" in the crosswalk... at least according to information I currently have in front of me.
Right... and how often do motorists follow this "technical" procedure?
AlmostTrick
10-30-07, 10:08 AM
Many of the intersections around here where peds are common (including the one where I was hit I believe) have signs that say "No right on red when pedestrians are present" (or something to that effect) It helps a bit. But yeah, almost no one stops at the line so unless the ped was there first the car will be blocking the crosswalk. This sidepath, sidewalk, crosswalk riding is a lot different than riding in the traffic lanes for sure.
John Wilke
10-30-07, 10:41 AM
Sorry to hear of your incident. Heal well!
I'd rather wait 10 minutes for traffic to pass than spend 10 days in the hospital. :)
genec
10-30-07, 11:30 AM
Many of the intersections around here where peds are common (including the one where I was hit I believe) have signs that say "No right on red when pedestrians are present" (or something to that effect) It helps a bit. But yeah, almost no one stops at the line so unless the ped was there first the car will be blocking the crosswalk. This sidepath, sidewalk, crosswalk riding is a lot different than riding in the traffic lanes for sure.
Yeah, I've seen similar signs on some intersections around here... and some even more harsh. But all they are doing is reminding the driving public of laws they should already know and of habits they should already have.
The fact that such signs have to be added is an indication of the failure of Right on Red for other road users. Right on Red has become a default "go if you can squeeze in," with no regard for pedestrians or cyclists and in some cases even other motorists approaching. Right on Red has become the poster child for an autocentric system gone mad with power.
pj7
10-30-07, 06:01 PM
What I want, is an end to right turns on red. The number of injured and killed is not worth the minor time savings.
however I am willing to compromise a bit... and allow technology to perhaps introduce a new idea... that of right turn on red if no one is at the walk signal.
Without the right on red rule there would be times when it is impossible to turn right at all. I'm sure anyone who has been to downtown NYC or Chicago (where I experienced this) has seen the times when the pedestrian herds are so thick that they completely fill the crossing time alloted (and then some) and any right turners were unable to do so until the light turned red.
Right... and how often do motorists follow this "technical" procedure?
I never said that the rule was followed, but rather that it existed. I for one do follow it those very rare times that I drive.
AlmostTrick
10-31-07, 09:00 AM
I remember a while back a regular forum member (one of the Ratliff's I believe) explained that when using a crosswalk he preferred to dismount and walk his bike for the purpose of providing a clear distinction between "vehicle mode" and "ped mode". I may be a little gun shy thanks to my wreck, but this sounds like sound advice that could also enhance safety. If you're not using crosswalks that often, (like myself) walking across really wouldn't be much of an inconvenience.
Thanks to all who wished me a speedy recovery. I'll be back soon!
ibikedc
11-01-07, 04:12 PM
I'd prefer right now to set aside all the semantic discussion of what the proper course of action would have been, and just say I'm sorry to hear of your injuries, AlmostTrick, and I hope that you recover well.