I had a close call/accident today on my way home from work. Luckily I came away with only some road rash and bruises as a result of a hard braking that caused me to go over the handlebars (heh, front brake doesn't work as well on wet pavement), but I'm left wondering if I was in the right, or if the car was in the right.
Here's the situation: On my way to work I take one street up about 5 miles, then cut over on a MUP to another street. This second street is a four lane (+ center lane turning), 55 mph 'state highway'. The MUP runs parallel to this street, connecting busy business area (Walmart, the Mall, shopping center, etc), to the University where I work. I take this MUP all the way up to work. I don't like it much, but I've always felt that it was the safer option considering the high traffic 55mph road beside it (Course I'm really starting to rethink this now).
Looking at the drawing I did below, I need to know something. Who has the right of way? Does the cyclist (going either right to left or left to right) have to stop? Or does the car have to wait for cyclists?
Some notes:
1) The cars do have a stop sign and one of those white lines indicating you have to stop here.
2) There are no crosswalk lines, buttons, etc.
3) There are several of these intersections along the MUP (some with stop signs for the cars, some without.
For those stating that it'd be simpler to drive in the street, I'm starting to agree with you, but let's hypothetically state that you don't have an option and you HAVE to ride the MUP for this scenario.
Thanks for advice in advance:)
H
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
I am not sure about right (and I am not sure it matters much), but I always exercise extreme caution at such intersections. As far as most motorists are concerned, it is a sidewalk and they are not really looking for higher speed traffic. I am glad you are ok.
Treespeed
Was the car stopped at the line or across the path? I would argue that the driver needs to stop, but in the end this is just a bad intersection. I don't want to get into the bike lane tirades that are sure to come I would just argue that considering that you are set on taking the path you will need to treat these intersections more like 4 way stops if for nothing other than your own safety. This doesn't mean that the car driver is right, but that it's the only way to protect yourself.
I hope you heal up and are back on the road soon.
derath
What about on the MUP. Around here the cars may have a stop sign (because it is at an intersection for them) but the stop sign is really to get on to the cross street, not the MUP. The MUP also has a stop sign.
In these cases it generally has seemed (from the MUP's in my area) that the road traffic has the right of way.
-D
shumacher
My take: If the MUP also has a stop, then the first to arrive at the intersection has right-of-way. If both arrive at the intersection at the same time, the party to the right goes first. If the MUP doesn't have a stop (that's what your diagram seems to say) then the MUP has the right-of-way.
That said, the safest action is the right action in these situations.
musicsucks
I think that's one of those deals where you technically have right of way, but if you don't at least slow down and take a good look, then you're going to get hit very regularly.
Mr_H
Was the car stopped at the line or across the path?
The car was stopped at the line, it didn't start moving until I was about 5 feet from him (the video on my bike shows the car moving just as it slips out of the corner of viewfinder, which put it darn close). If it weren't for the passenger, I doubt he ever would have seen me hit the pavement in front of him.
What about on the MUP.
That's one of the reasont that I'm confused by the MUP. There is ONE stop sign on the entire MUP, further down the road, crossing the driveway to a business. There are several businesses I pass and this is the only one with a stop sign. But in the intersection I'm describing, there was no stop sign for the MUP.
I think that's one of those deals where you technically have right of way, but if you don't at least slow down and take a good look, then you're going to get hit very regularly.
Yeah, I don't want to go and blame the driver right away, cause I think I made a big mistake in not stopping or slowing even more. Usually I do, but I think the cold rain short circuited my brain.
As for my injuries, road rash is minor, but I've got a very sore arm/shoulder. I'll probably be unable to bike a day or two, but it's not going to stop me from getting back out there (after all, I still had 6 miles to bike home after the accident :D)
Allister
The car driver undoubtedly has the duty to give way in that situation, but yeah caution should be your watchword there. It's amazing how many drivers don't understand the rules about giving way to traffic on paths, be it foot or cyclie traffic.
I hope you got the license plate number of the car. I strongly suggest you report it to the police even if you didn't (I think it's actually a legal requirement for any collision involving damage to persons or property to be reported). It's unlikely the driver will get cited, although they should, but at least it'll be reported, and maybe we can get some more accurate statistics to argue about.
BarracksSi
Not reading the rest of the thread yet --
In legal terms, the car should stop at the white line, and it should wait for a cyclist (or whoever) to pass across.
In practical terms, the right of way is yielded, not taken; and is yielded to the person who's either not paying attention or is forcing their way through the intersection (although it's usually both).
Whenever I come up to something like this, I assume that the driver isn't going to see me and/or is just going to go ahead, and I won't pass in front of them unless we make eye contact AND they wave me across -- AND I don't see any other traffic wanting to turn into the other lane of the cross street.
edzo
right or wrong only looks good on paper.
on the road, outdoors in real life, you look after your own butt...
next to a 55mph road ? no matter who is right or wrong, the cyclist should
freakin avoid anyone or anything regardless of right or wrong, and act like all cars
are out to hit cyclists. then proceed only after double and triple checking that
you won't get hit.
there is no right or wrong. cyclists always need to look after themselves, especially near a high speed roadway.
if you do get hit, let the courts decide, if you are still alive. see my point ?
look after yourself.
you don't need to draw a diagram for the obvious
BarracksSi
The car driver undoubtedly has the duty to give way in that situation, but yeah caution should be your watchword there. It's amazing how many drivers don't understand the rules about giving way to traffic on paths, be it foot or cyclie traffic.
It's a difficult position for the driver, too. Most of the areas similar to what the OP is describing that I've seen are pretty devoid of foot traffic altogether. Also, drivers are more concerned about whether they'll get hit by other cars, not pedestrians or bikes. Their focus is on the other vehicles in the road, not on the path to the side.
There was a bit of discussion on the local autocross email list about what course workers need to do to make themselves visible if they have to flag down & stop a car already racing on course. There was some concern about racers being so mentally focused on driving the course that they didn't notice a flag-waving course worker. It's a real safety issue because another car could be driving off-course, or a course worker is busy replacing cones, or any other kind of mess, and stopping all on-course driving is necessary for everyone's safety.
One of the members talked about a psychological study they participated in during college. They were told that they were going to see a video of a basketball game, and their task was to count the number of passes before the offense shot for the basket. They watched the video, counted the passes, and had an answer to report.
The tester then asked, "What about the gorilla?" The subjects looked at each other, completely puzzled, not recalling seeing a gorilla at ALL. The tester played the video again, and among the same basketball action they saw before, they watched a guy in a gorilla suit walk into the middle of the court, move around a bit, do some jumping jacks, then walk off.
They were focused on counting basketball passes. They weren't expecting a guy in a gorilla suit. I figure that the driver that hit the OP was focused on other cars and wasn't expecting a "guy in a gorilla suit" -- in other words, a cyclist. ;)
*adding on*
Aha! Found a PDF of the study, or at least one just like it:
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Simons1999.pdf
You can also find some videos here, although now that you know what to look for, the effect won't work.. ;)
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=490946
Another link:
http://home.att.net/~jeff.dean/blind.htm
waldowales
One place I ride regularly has a MUP crossing a city street. There are Trail Crossing signs on the road, and nine out of ten drivers are very courteous and conscientious about stopping. The tenth JAM is the one you've got to watch out for, because you never know which one it'll be.
Mr_H
Yup, I know I made my own mistakes today and I paid for it with some pain. Hopefully some other people will learn the lesson without going through the same thing I did.
I'll be more alert from now on, probably just going to treat MUP crossings as four way stops as long as Im on it.
Thanks for the advice all.
mandovoodoo
Illustration looks like it shows a sidewalk. Unless I had a clear reason to expect cycles, I wouldn't be expecting one. That really limits the amount of looking I'll do. I expect cycles to be in the road. Hadn't really thought about that until now, but cycles on a sidewalk don't show up very well for me. I'm expecting 3 mph, not 15 mph!
Would be interesting to see what state laws really say about this type of thing!
Allister
Illustration looks like it shows a sidewalk. Unless I had a clear reason to expect cycles, I wouldn't be expecting one. That really limits the amount of looking I'll do. I expect cycles to be in the road.
If the stop line is like it's shown in the illustration, before the path, that should provide sufficient clues as to where you should be stopping and looking.
Machka
If you ride a sidewalk or a MUP, you have to come to a complete stop at every single intersection or driveway. Does that make riding a sidewalk or a MUP a pain ... yep. That's why riding in the street as a vehicle of the road is a better idea.
Have you looked up your provincial traffic laws yet?
Mr. Underbridge
Assume the car isn't going to stop until it actually stops moving. That's my personal rule, anyway. I ride on MUPs alot, and I can't tell you how many times a car will see me, slow down to about 15mph, and coast through the crosswalk. Of those that slow down, probably 90% keep rolling. Maybe 5% of cars see me and stop as they're supposed to.
If I asserted my right-of-way blindly, I'd be dead by now.
Dchiefransom
Why don't you ask the police about it, from the perspective of a vehicle driver at the stop sign?
BarracksSi
Illustration looks like it shows a sidewalk. Unless I had a clear reason to expect cycles, I wouldn't be expecting one. That really limits the amount of looking I'll do. I expect cycles to be in the road. Hadn't really thought about that until now, but cycles on a sidewalk don't show up very well for me.
Right; that illustrates the point I was making earlier.
Drivers are trying to look at least a hundred feet down the road at traffic that's moving up to 50 mph. A cyclist is just too different, and might as well be a utility box or electric pole.
I'm expecting 3 mph, not 15 mph!
I've noticed that most people aren't expecting a bike to be going that fast... ;)
BarracksSi
If the stop line is like it's shown in the illustration, before the path, that should provide sufficient clues as to where you should be stopping and looking.
Lots of stop lines don't make a lot of sense, though, and often put the car too far back to get a clear view of traffic. It then becomes a habit to treat those stop lines merely as suggestions.
And, if the driver isn't expecting anyone to be on the MUP, they're not going to look.
Assume the car isn't going to stop until it actually stops moving. That's my personal rule, anyway.
That's a good rule, but in this case, the car was already stopped; check post #7.
If I asserted my right-of-way blindly, I'd be dead by now.
Definitely. If an accident isn't caused by simple error, it's probably caused by someone attempting to take their right-of-way.
Pajaro
Might makes right. A 4000-pound vehicle built of steel, aluminum, rubber, plastic, and glass "calls the shots" as far as I'm concerned. Best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.
syn0n
The driver was legally in the wrong if the stop line was where you drew it. However, riding the wrong way on a MUP around traffic isn't very smart. Drivers are not, and in my opinon shouldn't be, looking for high-speed wrong way traffic on a MUP, simple as that.
BarracksSi
Oh, so anyway, my recommendation for avoiding an accident in this situation in the future --
Never assume that the driver sees you even if they've stopped.
If you can't see their eyes, treat the space between the front of their car and the main street as if it were a nuclear-biological minefield fortified with polio-infected razor wire and rabid lions -- because they will start moving as soon as they get a gap in traffic. They're looking for cars in the road, not bikes on the path; and they probably will floor it in an effort to catch up with traffic and not get rear-ended. Stay away. Far away.
ONLY pass in front if you make eye contact -- and if you either get an extended look or multiple glances -- AND they wave to you, acknowledging your presence and signaling for you to go ahead.
While you're making luvvy-eyes at the driver ;) , don't forget the 50-mph traffic next to you that might want to turn into the same street you're hoping to cross.
If you can't confirm eye contact, and you have a even a slight feeling that they're going to surge into traffic, you can either stop & wait, or you can pass behind them. By going behind, you'll avoid the dangerous space in front; and, if there's a second driver waiting in the same direction, they're more likely to see you due to your angle and less likely to gun the engine because of the car in front.
bmclaughlin807
Colorado law says the cyclist has the right of way. But, like the others say, watch out for yourself. ;)
I've been hit WALKING across an intersection like that. They just don't look, nor do they stop at the line... they pull absolutely as far forward as possible without being in traffic before stopping.
bmclaughlin807
The driver was legally in the wrong if the stop line was where you drew it. However, riding the wrong way on a MUP around traffic isn't very smart. Drivers are not, and in my opinon shouldn't be, looking for high-speed wrong way traffic on a MUP, simple as that.
This is a very American point of view concerning driving... In other countries where bicycling is much more prevalent and accepted as a 'normal' means of transportation, drivers are held to a much stricter standard of care as to what they should and shouldn't be looking for.
A bikeforums member recently posted about his experience overseas, and one story in particular came to mind:
A motorist pulls up to where he's going to turn across a bike path, and the driver stops, and both the driver AND the passenger both turn and look both ways along the bike path to make sure nobody is coming.
Wouldn't want to step on American's God given right to drive as fast as possible at all costs, though.... commence the killing. ;)
Giro
It may depend on your particular state laws. In Wisconsin, bike paths = road and you have right of way over car at stop sign if you do not have a stop sign. As posters above note, it is not worth being dead right.
For a 9 page article on Wisconsin ROW law regarding bicycles and a few ambiguities in the law, see LINK (http://wicip.org/bcp2006/statutes/BikePathROWAns.pdf).
mandovoodoo
My point above probably needs clarification. I'm looking for traffic. Traffic includes cycles, scooters, etc flowing along. I'll keep my eyes out for pedestrians as well. I've been hit as a pedestrian in the situation described above, twice. Motorists pulling right into me. Not when I've been alone - when many people have been crossing!
I'm not looking for traffic on a sidewalk. If a MUP looks like and acts like a sidewalk, I'm not going to be looking for traffic, especially traffic moving against the standard flow. I'll only be scanning for 3 mph walkers on a sidewalk, not 10 mph riders.
If a MUP looks like a MUP (takes big signs or obvious mixed traffic), usually nobody knows what to do in this country, regardless of the local law!!! I'm not sure what to expect if I'm on a MUP. I'm a nervous MUP rider. I don't see MUPs where people know what to do.
When I used to commute on a MUP (GW Parkway MUP in Virginia/DC) long ago the MUP users had stop signs. There was no way that was safe. Lose all momentum and have to start up in cleats and straps? I'd make a token slow down to look for road traffic and keep flying. Same thing today - I ride a tandem on the MUP - no way I'm going to stop most of the time. Moving I have control, stopped and just barely moving while starting up and I'm an almost immobile target.
I suspect that the only really thorough way to ensure MUP / road traffic interaction safety is to redesign the road system a bit (mainly markings and signs) and re-educate the public. I've often thought that a driver's license shouldn't be issued on the basis of car driving alone, but that the test should include navigating a bicycle and a light motorscooter as well. All motorists would realize the advantages and disadvantages of each mode. Could change the way folks are treated a bit.
DieselDan
It isn't law, but consistent court record, that pathway user yield to road user, in South Carolina. The logic? Pathways were built to keep bicycles, pedestrians, and all other non-motorized means of transport out of the road, so the road has right of way. Similar to the railroad's absolute right of way.
cc_rider
The driver was legally in the wrong if the stop line was where you drew it. However, riding the wrong way on a MUP around traffic isn't very smart. Drivers are not, and in my opinon shouldn't be, looking for high-speed wrong way traffic on a MUP, simple as that.
Almost all sidewalks and MUP's are two way. There is no wrong way on a MUP, only wrong side, and that only affects the other MUP traffic.
syn0n
This is a very American point of view concerning driving... In other countries where bicycling is much more prevalent and accepted as a 'normal' means of transportation, drivers are held to a much stricter standard of care as to what they should and shouldn't be looking for.
A bikeforums member recently posted about his experience overseas, and one story in particular came to mind:
A motorist pulls up to where he's going to turn across a bike path, and the driver stops, and both the driver AND the passenger both turn and look both ways along the bike path to make sure nobody is coming.
Wouldn't want to step on American's God given right to drive as fast as possible at all costs, though.... commence the killing. ;)
I consider the bicycle to be a vehicle, and because some cyclists are capable of going very quickly, I want them moving in the same direction as other vehicular traffic. I'm looking for cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and peds to the left. If I'm in an area with lots of wrong-way cyclists, I look right for them too, but that doesn't change my mind at all that it's unsafe to cycle counterflow to traffic on something like what the OP described if there are lots of intersections, and I personally wouldn't do it, period.
dr. nate
MUP IMHO are revenue generators for ambulances and ERs across the nation. When you mix cyclists of mixed speeds, walkers, and runners your asking for an accident sooner or later. You just have to be very defensive and make sure your always watching for dangers.
-Nate
genec
The interesting thing is MUPs like this work well in some other countries where motorists are taught to stop, look for, and respect cyclists.
MUPs like this don't work well in the US as motorists feel they own the road here and everything else be damned.
Here in the US for such an MUP to function safely, signs should indicate to the motorist that they must look for and give way to cyclists... crossing gates may be required... and in lieu of crossing gates**, I am afraid that the cyclists should be notified to slow down and watch for motorists... as that will be the only way to protect the cyclists. Perhaps a traffic light with a no right on red rule and sensors in the MUP to sense approaching cyclists might work...
** I have to laugh here a bit at the crossing gate concept, as this morning I saw a report on the local trolley that included a segment on motorists injured because they drove around lowered crossing gates as the trolley approached... motorists here in the US have an unreal sense of entitlement, even in spite of such safety indicators as lowered gates... SIGH.
testtube
It may depend on your particular state laws. In Wisconsin, bike paths = road and you have right of way over car at stop sign if you do not have a stop sign. As posters above note, it is not worth being dead right.
For a 9 page article on Wisconsin ROW law regarding bicycles and a few ambiguities in the law, see LINK (http://wicip.org/bcp2006/statutes/BikePathROWAns.pdf).
I had read this PDF a few weeks ago. I had wondered why all the MUPs in Madison, WI had stop signs when intersecting streets... After reading that document it was clear that since MUPs are legally streets in the absence of a stop sign on the MUP (uncontrolled intersection) a cyclist could legally expect autos to yield as they entered the intersection in advance of the autos (pretty dicey situation).
I was riding on a sidewalk/MUP this morning and came across the exact same situation the OP described. The driver was stopped at the stop sign as I approached on her right her attention was solely focused to her left (to turn right in front of me). I had no stop sign. Regardless of who was supposed to yield to whom, there was no eye contact. I ended being defensive and going around her to the rear, but did chuckle when I saw her eyes bulge when she saw me. This was a very poorly designed intersection.
It's important to know your rights but, personally, I have no desire to donate my body to cycling advocism.
The MUPs in Madison are nice, with the exception of a few poorly designed intersections similar to the one described by the OP. I guess it's an artifact of transportation by bike being an after thought in the US... Another source of confusion (at least with the Wisconsin State Statutes) is the dual existence of cyclists as vehicles *and* pedestrians.
atbman
If state law argues, as it does in the UK, that the sidewalk/footpath/MUP is part of the highway, then the driver wishing to enter the main road should give way to people travelling along the highway.
If the above is true, then the city council should, given the average level of driver comprehension in the US, place warning signs at the junction, facing the driver, telling them to give way to cyclists/pedestrians crossing the minor road.
While waiting for this to happen, perhaps you could train for the world free-diving record by holding your breath
BarracksSi
The interesting thing is MUPs like this work well in some other countries where motorists are taught to stop, look for, and respect cyclists.
MUPs like this don't work well in the US as motorists feel they own the road here and everything else be damned.
It's not just that, it's also because they don't expect bikes to be anywhere besides being ridden by little kids around the neighborhood.
It ties into the idea that more cyclists on the road makes it safer for cyclists in general. If drivers are expecting to see bikes more often in more places, they'll start to look for them in addition to looking for other cars.
DieselDan
If state law argues, as it does in the UK, that the sidewalk/footpath/MUP is part of the highway, then the driver wishing to enter the main road should give way to people travelling along the highway.
If the above is true, then the city council should, given the average level of driver comprehension in the US, place warning signs at the junction, facing the driver, telling them to give way to cyclists/pedestrians crossing the minor road.
While waiting for this to happen, perhaps you could train for the world free-diving record by holding your breath
It's not just that, it's also because they don't expect bikes to be anywhere besides being ridden by little kids around the neighborhood.
It ties into the idea that more cyclists on the road makes it safer for cyclists in general. If drivers are expecting to see bikes more often in more places, they'll start to look for them in addition to looking for other cars.
Ah yes, then there is the catch 22... how to get more riders out there.
Certain countries have been able to increase their ride share... the US has more bikes per person than anywhere else... but fewer actual people biking on the road... so what does it take to get "butts on bikes?"
Well how about safe MUPs for one.
Allister
Here in the US for such an MUP to function safely, signs should indicate to the motorist that they must look for and give way to cyclists... crossing gates may be required... and in lieu of crossing gates**, I am afraid that the cyclists should be notified to slow down and watch for motorists... as that will be the only way to protect the cyclists. Perhaps a traffic light with a no right on red rule and sensors in the MUP to sense approaching cyclists might work...
A stop sign and a sign indicating that the path has two way bicycle traffic would be an inexpensive start.
** I have to laugh here a bit at the crossing gate concept, as this morning I saw a report on the local trolley that included a segment on motorists injured because they drove around lowered crossing gates as the trolley approached... motorists here in the US have an unreal sense of entitlement, even in spite of such safety indicators as lowered gates... SIGH.
It's not so funny when they overtake cars stopped at pedestrian crossings, and wipe out the people walking across. It's been happening here with alarming regularity.
BarracksSi
Ah yes, then there is the catch 22... how to get more riders out there.
Certain countries have been able to increase their ride share... the US has more bikes per person than anywhere else... but fewer actual people biking on the road... so what does it take to get "butts on bikes?"
Well how about safe MUPs for one.
Safe MUPs, safer & wider streets, better education to start with, closer distances between stores & shops, smaller parking lots, grid-like street plans instead of isolated, convoluted "one way out" cul-de-sac developments joined by highways, etc etc etc.
I'll bike anywhere in downtown DC and in other closely-built urban areas. It's the vast distances and high traffic speeds of typically suburban zones that I'm afraid of.
DCCommuter
It may depend on your particular state laws. In Wisconsin, bike paths = road and you have right of way over car at stop sign if you do not have a stop sign. As posters above note, it is not worth being dead right.
For a 9 page article on Wisconsin ROW law regarding bicycles and a few ambiguities in the law, see LINK (http://wicip.org/bcp2006/statutes/BikePathROWAns.pdf).
There is nothing in Wisconsin law that says that bike paths are roads; they are actually defined as a separate entity, the "bicycle way." The author of this paper puts forth the argument that bike paths are legally considered streets, with this assertion: "since a street is any public way open to vehicular traffic, and a bicycle is a vehicle, a bike path is a street on which motorized traffic is prohibited." This inference leads to the the absurd conclusion that any public space open to bicycles is in fact a roadway.
The author of this paper, while well-meaning, is intellectually dishonest -- or he's looking for something in the law that doesn't exist. The reality is that under Wisconsin law, when a MUP crosses a road it's a crosswalk, not an intersection. At crosswalks, pedestrians and cyclists have right of way, subject to the rather vague limit that "No pedestrian or bicyclist shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield."
He's also wrong about stop signs. There is no legal obligation to stop at a stop sign when a MUP crosses a roadway. Wisconcin law is very clear that operators of vehicles only have to stop at stop signs at intersections, and an intersection is the meeting of two roadways. A crosswalk is an intersection.
Interestingly, Wisconsin law defines "bicycle way," but as far as I can tell never uses the term in any laws!
gcottay
I could very easily have been either the rider or the driver in this incident.
Unless design and controls are well done, MUP/roadway/driveway intersections are a major pain and problem.
Dchiefransom
From the diagram, which shows a stop sign, I'd say the intent of the trafic engineers is for the car to treat the MUP like a sidewalk. Stop before it and ensure that it's clear, then move forward and deal with pulling out onto the road.
Bruce Rosar
There is no legal obligation to stop at a stop sign when a MUP crosses a roadway. Wisconcin law is very clear that operators of vehicles only have to stop at stop signs at intersections, and an intersection is the meeting of two roadways. A crosswalk is an intersection.At the risk of going off topic; given that a driveway is not a roadway, does a Wisconsin driver who's about to leave a driveway and enter a roadway have a legal burden to respect a stop sign posted at the exit of the driveway?
BarracksSi
At the risk of going off topic; given that a driveway is not a roadway, does a Wisconsin driver who's about to leave a driveway and enter a roadway have a legal burden to respect a stop sign posted at the exit of the driveway?
The question is moot (apologies to Jesse Jackson's skit on SNL ;) ).
The only reason a stop sign would be on a private driveway would be if the owner of the property put it there. Then, that sign would be in the jurisdiction of the driveway's owner. It would have very little to do with Wisconsin law.
LittleBigMan
Looking at the drawing I did below, I need to know something. Who has the right of way?
I'd say the car-driver has the right of way.
Roody
I'd say the car-driver has the right of way.
Why the hell would you say that? Whether you define this MUP as a roadway or a sidewalk, I think Michigan law would give the cyclist the ROW for the simple reason that there's a stop sign for the motorist prior to the crossing or intersection of the MUP. In Michigan we're supposed to stop AND yield to crossing traffic and/or pedestrians, wherever a stop sign is provided.
LittleBigMan
Why the hell would you say that? Whether you define this MUP as a roadway or a sidewalk, I think Michigan law would give the cyclist the ROW for the simple reason that there's a stop sign for the motorist prior to the crossing or intersection of the MUP. In Michigan we're supposed to stop AND yield to crossing traffic and/or pedestrians, wherever a stop sign is provided.
An MUP is neither a sidewalk, nor a roadway.
Where I live, every single time an MUP crosses a roadway, there is a stop sign for the MUP. Often there is a stop sign for the MUP at driveways, too.
Maybe things are different where you live, but in my neck of the woods, MUP users always have to yield for road users.
Now pedestrians are a different story. But we're not peds, Rood.
DCCommuter
An MUP is neither a sidewalk, nor a roadway.
Where I live, every single time an MUP crosses a roadway, there is a stop sign for the MUP. Often there is a stop sign for the MUP at driveways, too.
Maybe things are different where you live, but in my neck of the woods, MUP users always have to yield for road users.
Now pedestrians are a different story. But we're not peds, Rood.
Have you looked at what your local law actually says?
Roody
An MUP is neither a sidewalk, nor a roadway.
Where I live, every single time an MUP crosses a roadway, there is a stop sign for the MUP. Often there is a stop sign for the MUP at driveways, too.
Maybe things are different where you live, but in my neck of the woods, MUP users always have to yield for road users.
Now pedestrians are a different story. But we're not peds, Rood.
Even so....the stop sign is known to be there for the driver, just prior to where the path crosses the road. The driver must not only STOP at the stop sign (obviously), he must WAIT there until it's safe to proceed. It's definitely uncool to stop, then hit the gas and plow right into some poor schmuck on a bike. It looks too much like you were aiming!
I think this is pretty much universally THE law of the stop sign, although I guess I could be wrong. (I thought I was wrong once before, but it turns out I was mistaken about that. ;))
Crack Monkey
I'm thinking the car should stop and yield to MUP traffic.
However, I also think the MUP should have stops or yields at each crossing, forcing MUP traffic to take some responsibility for their own well-being. And the road should have signage indicating the presence of the MUP, as a Stop by itself probably doesn't give the drivers any indication that the intersection is any different than any other.