Advocacy & Safety - Got hit while on the sidewalk, is it my fault?

Hi, I got hit by a car the other day while riding the sidewalk. I am a big advocate of cyclists sharing the road but this day I was pretty tired and was riding at a very slow pace to get to class. I am doing a project on cycling safety and created this video to show how to it went down.



So is it my fault because I was riding on the sidewalk? I don't think so, personally, but others who I've told about the crash disagree.

Though IANAL and I'm not sure what your local laws are, the driver is at least partially responsible, due to his/her failure to yield. I can't imagine that you would be found to have a serious burden of responsibility in this case.

Hope you are OK and that your project goes well!

Hi, I got hit by a car the other day while riding the sidewalk. I am a big advocate of cyclists sharing the road but this day I was pretty tired and was riding at a very slow pace to get to class. I am doing a project on cycling safety and created this video to show how to it went down.

http://web.missouri.edu/~jgb9d6/Crash%20SWF/Crash.html

So is it my fault because I was riding on the sidewalk? I don't think so, personally, but others who I've told about the crash disagree.

Nice presentation. How long did that take?
Yes your fault you are ridding the wrong way. A driver didn't see (that was their stopping) they were looking for legal cyclists and motorists comming in the other direction.

Common problem with sidewalk ridding as you need to walk your bicycle to avoid cycling in the wrong direction.

Well, according to the presentation, the car didn't stop at the stop sign at all. That would be breaking the law in any case, wrong-way-sidewalk-riding-cyclist-slash-pedestrian or not.

Tricky.
Technically the car is at fault for not stopping at the stop light. However if you were riding here (your local laws may be different) you are required to dismount from your bike when crossing a road when transitioning between footpaths. This is because when you ride a bike on a road you are regarding as a road user (same as a car) and since cars aren't allowed to do that neither are you.

If you were walking your bike, the car would be required to yield to you regardless of whether there was as stop sign, give way sign, or nothing at all.

Fair enough. But I was coming from a complete stop and they did not stop but rolled through. What if I had no bike and were a pedestrian crossing? The exact same thing would have happened. I would have still gotten hit with no bike.

oh, and as far as i know, according to my friend, cyclists are allowed to ride on the wrong way sidewalk here in Columbia, MO. I could be wrong though, but that's just what I've heard.

In most cases there is no "wrong way" if you're riding on the sidewalk...pedestrians don't get ticketed for walking the "wrong way", and unless there is a law specifically requiring the cyclists to ride in the same direction of traffic I'm pretty sure that's not a requirement on the sidewalk.

In my town it's a crime for a person above a certain age (I think 12) to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk in a business or residential district (which covers most of town). Check your local laws.

That said, even if you broke a "no sidewalk" law, if the presentation is correct the motorist failed to stop at the stop sign, and also failed to yield to a human being in the crosswalk directly in front of his/her vehicle, so I'd place most of the blame on the motorist.

If it was legal for you to ride on the sidewalk, and you are not required by law to dismount at crossings or ride in the same direction as traffic on the roadway, of course even more of the blame would be on the motorist, because they should spend extra time looking for wrong way cyclists flying through the crosswalk if that is legal in your area.

A few details that could sway the amount of blame. How was the lighting at the time? If it was dark, was the bicycle equipped with the legally required reflectors and light(s)?

It was the middle of the afternoon on a sunny day. If I had been "flying through" the intersection on a bike on the sidewalk, I would have taken all the blame, but I think the fact that I had completely stopped for the previous car, I presented enough opportunity for myself to be seen.

The inevitable questions...

Were you injured? Did you fall? Did the driver stop? Etc...

You were both at fault, but you were more at fault than him. You were riding illegally on the sidewalk and entered the intersection from an unexpected direction. You knew it was wrong and risky. No excuse for you. He cruised through a stop sign - illegal, but normal driver behaviour that you should have expected.

The driver is legally responsible. But please stop wrong way riding on the sidewalk - it is begging to get hit.

Assuming you are correct that wrong way cycling on the sidewalk is legal in your area.

apparently it is legal outside business districts:


http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/Columbia_Code_of_Ordinances/Chapter_14/507.html
Chapter 14 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Section 14-507 Riding on sidewalks.




(a) No person shall ride a cycle upon a sidewalk within a business district.


(b) The designee of the city manager is authorized to erect signs on any sidewalk prohibiting the riding of cycles thereon by any person, and when such signs are in place, no person shall disobey the same.


(c) Whenever any person is riding a cycle upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian, and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.


(Code 1964, § 12.1550)

Hi, I got hit by a car the other day while riding the sidewalk. I am a big advocate of cyclists sharing the road but this day I was pretty tired and was riding at a very slow pace to get to class. I am doing a project on cycling safety and created this video to show how to it went down.

http://web.missouri.edu/~jgb9d6/Crash%20SWF/Crash.html

So is it my fault because I was riding on the sidewalk? I don't think so, personally, but others who I've told about the crash disagree.Legally, you are not at fault; you were obeying the law (unless it is illegal to ride on sidewalks where you live), and the driver of the car that hit you wasn't obeying the law.

Practically speaking, riding on sidewalks is not as safe as riding in the road. In your particular crash, the driver *may* have been looking towards oncoming traffic, rather than at you. Or maybe the driver just didn't care who had the right of way and blew the stop. But riding against traffic on the sidewalk does lead to collisions with drivers who aren't expecting a vehicle to be coming from the "wrong" direction, which is why it's less safe than riding in the road with traffic.

Nevertheless, the driver is solely at fault for this crash-- again, assuming that riding on the sidewalk is legal where you live. If riding on the sidewalk is not legal where you live, you would both be at fault.

You were both at fault, but you were more at fault than him. You were riding illegally on the sidewalk and entered the intersection from an unexpected direction. You knew it was wrong and risky. No excuse for you. He cruised through a stop sign - illegal, but normal driver behaviour that you should have expected.I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. you're not required to anticipate another vehicle operator's illegal behavior, unless its is patently obvious that the illegal behavior is occurring.

As far as it being "illegal" to ride on the sidewalk, that will vary from town to town. You can't just assume that it's illegal-- or legal.

EDIT: And I see that you discovered that sidewalk riding is legal outside a business district in Columbia, MO.

Riding against traffic on the sidewalk means the driver at the t-stop is looking left at traffic, not right at you.

Coincidentally, the shortest route back to my house involves using the sidewalk, but against traffic. There's a t-stop along this sidewalk and all the motorists getting off the freeway pull up to it, look to their left and if no cars are coming, they gun their engines and make the right on red. This t-stop is the very reason why I won't go home this way. I actually ride about 3 miles out of my way to avoid it because it's so dangerous.

I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. you're not required to anticipate another vehicle operator's illegal behavior, unless its is patently obvious that the illegal behavior is occurring.

Maybe not required, but it's something that everyone should be doing.

It's basic defensive cycling/driving/walking/skateboarding/moped'ing. Always assume that the other person is going to do something completely moronic, illegal, and dangerous. Be pleasantly surprised when they don't.

The driver is legally responsible. But please stop wrong way riding on the sidewalk - it is begging to get hit.

Assuming you are correct that wrong way cycling on the sidewalk is legal in your area.

Is there any such thing as "wrong way" cycling on the sidewalk (i.e. cycling in an improper direction on the sidewalk) spelled out in any legal code, anywhere?

^^As far as I'm concerned any sidewalk cycling is "wrong way", but it appears the good burghers of Columbia MO don't see it that way.

The whole incident is quite ironic. The OP is doing a project on cycling safety, and because he was feeling tired and was being a little cautious, he rode on the sidewalk for safety, forgetting or not realizing that it can actually be more dangerous than the road, and indeed he had an accident. It turns out that in his community what he did was legal, so any legal fault must reside with the driver, but if we set the law aside and just think about self preservation, the accident was due in part to his "wrong way" sidewalk cycling. Had he been coming from the other direction, either on the road or the sidewalk, the driver would have been more likely to see him, since the driver was probably scanning to his left for motor vehicle traffic.

Was it a wide side walk? In that case I don't see why everyone has such a problem here, they're made wide to accomodate for cyclists and peds, respectively. The driver didn't stop at the stop sign, failed to yield to you, they are more at fault. I don't understand this "wrong way" malarky. Why does that matter? Like someone else said, pedestrians don't have a wrong way deal. What if there was no sidewalk on the other side of the street?

Was it a wide side walk? In that case I don't see why everyone has such a problem here

The problem, obviously, is that he got hit. Luckily it wasn't serious, and technically it not have been his fault, but is that most important issue? Or is the really important issue: how to minimize the risks of accident?

Sidewalk cycling, whether legal or not, poses certain hazards. Pedestrians and dogs may not anticipate cyclists and may veer into their path. Cars drivers certainly may not expect cyclists to enter an intersection from the sidewalk. In this case, the cyclist was under a huge tree - perhaps he was shaded or shielded from view (unless the leaves aren't out yet). Sidewalk cyclists may conflict with drivers at driveways and parking lot entrances.

For these reasons, cyclists who assume the sidewalk is "safe" compared to the street, may be mistaken, and should always be especially vigilant, because other sidewalk users or crossers may not be.

You were both at fault, but you were more at fault than him. You were riding illegally on the sidewalk and entered the intersection from an unexpected direction. You knew it was wrong and risky. No excuse for you. He cruised through a stop sign - illegal, but normal driver behaviour that you should have expected.

Wow, did you folks even look at the presentation? The cyclist stopped at the intersection. He was as visible as a pedestrian. He was hit by a car that failed to stop for a stop sign.

While it may be illegal, in some places, to ride a bike on the sidewalk, the cyclist did indeed stop and presented himself in the proper place. The motorist was at fault for failing to stop, period.

^^As far as I'm concerned any sidewalk cycling is "wrong way", but it appears the good burghers of Columbia MO don't see it that way.

The whole incident is quite ironic. The OP is doing a project on cycling safety, and because he was feeling tired and was being a little cautious, he rode on the sidewalk for safety, forgetting or not realizing that it can actually be more dangerous than the road, and indeed he had an accident. It turns out that in his community what he did was legal, so any legal fault must reside with the driver, but if we set the law aside and just think about self preservation, the accident was due in part to his "wrong way" sidewalk cycling. Had he been coming from the other direction, either on the road or the sidewalk, the driver would have been more likely to see him, since the driver was probably scanning to his left for motor vehicle traffic.

So if the cyclist was riding "wrong way" then can peds walk "wrong way?"

The cyclist came to a complete stop and presented himself in the same manner as a pedestrian at an intersection with a stop sign. He then left the curb after an earlier car stopped and then went on. A second car which should have stopped did not.

The cyclists only "fault" was assuming that the oncoming car would stop as it was required to do.

A pedestrian in the same situation would also have been hit. Would it have been the pedestrians' fault for walking the "wrong way?"

You folks are a bit hung up on the "cyclist on the sidewalk" when clearly the stop sign running motorist is the key here. The cyclist met his legal obligation if not his common sense "obligation." The motorist failed to meet their legal obligation.

Driver was at fault. BUT be warned, if you are cycling on the sidewalk against traffic in the adjacent lanes, you have to be doubly vigilant because drivers are NOT looking your way. that's how I had an accident a couple years ago.

Riding against traffic on the sidewalk means the driver at the t-stop is looking left at traffic, not right at you.



The motorist has the obligation to stop and look both ways before proceeding... they failed in that obligation. It was the motorist's fault.

None the less, the cyclist should never assume that motorists will obey the law.

BTW not too long ago I took a walk over to my favorite pub... I was quite amazed and disappointed to find that motorists failed to yield to me as a ped even though they had red lights, but never even looked in my direction when making a right on red... three motorists in a row never even looked to the right, the very direction they were turning... none of them came to a complete stop either.... all in violation of the law... but this is what the right on red rules have bred.... motorists that habitually break the law.

On top of that, they did not even look where they were driving, that alone is just plain stupid... to start out in any direction without even checking to see if the way is clear.

You folks are a bit hung up on the "cyclist on the sidewalk" when clearly the stop sign running motorist is the key here. The cyclist met his legal obligation if not his common sense "obligation." The motorist failed to meet their legal obligation.

+1

There are reasons why riding on a sidewalk is often more dangerous than riding on the street. IMO, one of those reasons is *not* that a car might blow through a stop sign and hit you. It would be different, IMO, if he were speeding along, bike ninja style, and didn't stop at the crosswalk because he assumed that the car would come to a complete stop at the stop sign. But that's not what happened here.

It also doesn't matter what direction he was coming from since he was stopped at the intersection, just like a pedestrian would be.

Being hit by a car that runs a red light can happen in the road as easily as it can happen on the sidewalk; that has happened to me in my car. (Well, it was a stoplight, but same principle).

Being hit by a car that runs a red light can happen in the road as easily as it can happen on the sidewalk; that has happened to me in my car. (Well, it was a stoplight, but same principle).

Riding legally in the road would have been safer in this case, because the driver would have been looking for traffic in that direction.

You folks are a bit hung up on the "cyclist on the sidewalk" when clearly the stop sign running motorist is the key here.
Same type of "hang up" as the folks with bike lane hysteria. The "Good Book" condemns those who ride on any sidewalk or bike lane, no matter what the situation as incompetent, lawless cyclists suffering from some sort of psychological defect. Any problem is always the fault of the blaspheming cyclist and his foolish/ignorantchoice of cycling method.

Riding legally in the road would have been safer in this case, because the driver would have been looking for traffic in that direction.

Would that have mattered if the driver still failed to stop?

Would that have mattered if the driver still failed to stop?

Doncha know that BF/VC brand post accident reconstruction always proves that a competent cyclist never would have been involved in the accident because such a properly trained cyclist ALWAYS would have done something else or been somewhere else.

Doncha know that BF/VC brand post accident reconstruction always proves that a competent cyclist never would have been involved in the accident because such a properly trained cyclist ALWAYS would have done something else or been somewhere else.
Do you think the cyclist contributed to the accident? Would you have ridden out in front of a car approaching a stop sign before he actually stopped?

Do you think the cyclist contributed to the accident? Would you have ridden out in front of a car approaching a stop sign before he actually stopped?

Everyone "contributes" to an accident by the virtue of their presence at that time and place. My point is that it gets very tiresome to read the post accident analyses of the "experts" who assume (and sometimes declare) that properly trained cyclists would never make errors in judgment, never would have deviated from the dogmatically determined correct course, and never make a mistake; and that motorists always react properly and obey all rules when in the presence of such cycling perfection.

Or at least that collisions for properly trained cyclists under such circumstances are as rare as meteor strikes.

Maybe not required, but it's something that everyone should be doing.

It's basic defensive cycling/driving/walking/skateboarding/moped'ing. Always assume that the other person is going to do something completely moronic, illegal, and dangerous. Be pleasantly surprised when they don't.Yeah, no disagreement there, but when the OP is asking who's at fault, the correct answer is that he has no legal obligation to anticipate the driver's illegal behavior. As a practical matter, what you're saying will be a safer riding practice than sticking by his legal right not to anticipate illegal behavior.

Is there any such thing as "wrong way" cycling on the sidewalk (i.e. cycling in an improper direction on the sidewalk) spelled out in any legal code, anywhere?

Yes. Tempe, AZ municipal code (http://www.tempe.gov/citycode/07bicycles.htm)

"(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."

---------------------------------------------

As an aside....
Municipal code also says:
"No person shall drive a vehicle upon or across a sidewalk except to enter or leave the roadway and only after giving the right-of-way to all bicycles or pedestrians lawfully upon the sidewalk."

So in Tempe, AZ if you are cycling against traffic flow on a sidewalk does a motorist crossing the sidewalk need to yield?

(none of this is applicable to OP's situation as he is in different state and city)

Al

Was it a wide side walk? In that case I don't see why everyone has such a problem here, they're made wide to accomodate for cyclists and peds, respectively. The driver didn't stop at the stop sign, failed to yield to you, they are more at fault. I don't understand this "wrong way" malarky. Why does that matter? Like someone else said, pedestrians don't have a wrong way deal. What if there was no sidewalk on the other side of the street?Pedestrians travel at a slower rate of speed and can stop on a dime. Cyclists move at a faster rate of speed and can't stop as quickly. There's no such thing as "wrong way" on the sidewalk, from a legal standpoint, but traveling into an intersection from an unexpected direction-- i.e., against the flow of traffic-- is one of the common ways sidewalk cyclists get hit.

The other common ways sidewalk cyclists get hit are by riding across an intersection with a driveway just as a car is crossing. While the driver has the legal obligation to keep a proper lookout and to yield the right of way, as a practical matter, cyclists travel at a faster rate of speed than pedestrians, and a driver may not see the cyclist until it's too late-- assuming that the driver is even bothering with his/her legal duties in the first place.

Yes. Tempe, AZ municipal code (http://www.tempe.gov/citycode/07bicycles.htm)

I learn something new every day. Never heard of it before. Now I be smarter! :)

Pedestrians travel at a slower rate of speed and can stop on a dime. Cyclists move at a faster rate of speed and can't stop as quickly. There's no such thing as "wrong way" on the sidewalk, from a legal standpoint, but traveling into an intersection from an unexpected direction-- i.e., against the flow of traffic-- is one of the common ways sidewalk cyclists get hit.

The other common ways sidewalk cyclists get hit are by riding across an intersection with a driveway just as a car is crossing. While the driver has the legal obligation to keep a proper lookout and to yield the right of way, as a practical matter, cyclists travel at a faster rate of speed than pedestrians, and a driver may not see the cyclist until it's too late-- assuming that the driver is even bothering with his/her legal duties in the first place.Actually, this has got me thinking. While it's true that one can avoid common sidewalk cycling crashes by riding in the road, that's merely saying that one can avoid sidewalk crashes by not riding on the sidewalk; it's not saying that one can avoid common cycling crashes.

What's really happening is that one is removing oneself from one type of danger-- the danger of a collision where the sidewalk intersects with streets and driveways-- and placing oneself in another type of danger-- the danger of the types of collisions that occur in the street. The question then raised is whether there's a measurable improvement in safety gained by riding in the street...

Pedestrians travel at a slower rate of speed and can stop on a dime. Cyclists move at a faster rate of speed and can't stop as quickly. There's no such thing as "wrong way" on the sidewalk, from a legal standpoint, but traveling into an intersection from an unexpected direction-- i.e., against the flow of traffic-- is one of the common ways sidewalk cyclists get hit.

The other common ways sidewalk cyclists get hit are by riding across an intersection with a driveway just as a car is crossing. While the driver has the legal obligation to keep a proper lookout and to yield the right of way, as a practical matter, cyclists travel at a faster rate of speed than pedestrians, and a driver may not see the cyclist until it's too late-- assuming that the driver is even bothering with his/her legal duties in the first place.

Yeah but the "faster rate of speed argument" is null and void... the cyclist was waiting stopped at the side of the road and went across when it was his turn... the driver failed his obligation to stop.

The cyclist was acting just like a ped and had stopped, so the argument of being fast or going the wrong way just does not apply in this situation.

Actually, this has got me thinking. While it's true that one can avoid common sidewalk cycling crashes by riding in the road, that's merely saying that one can avoid sidewalk crashes by not riding on the sidewalk; it's not saying that one can avoid common cycling crashes.

What's really happening is that one is removing oneself from one type of danger-- the danger of a collision where the sidewalk intersects with streets and driveways-- and placing oneself in another type of danger-- the danger of the types of collisions that occur in the street. The question then raised is whether there's a measurable improvement in safety gained by riding in the street...

Well I don't know about you, but around here when riding on the street I have to interact with the same exact intersections that I would encounter if I were sidewalk cycling... except in the street, I also have right hooks, over taking collisions and car doors as added hazards and off course just rude motorists that feel I shouldn't be there. Is it any wonder that some cyclists ride on sidewalks? Oh sure, I would not ride on the sidewalks as fast as I might on the street... but then again my defensive cycling requires that I not ride as fast as I can on the street too... as I cannot assume that motorists will stop at intersections or will try to otherwise avoid me.

Maybe not required, but it's something that everyone should be doing.

It's basic defensive cycling/driving/walking/skateboarding/moped'ing. Always assume that the other person is going to do something completely moronic, illegal, and dangerous. Be pleasantly surprised when they don't.

Yeah, no disagreement there, but when the OP is asking who's at fault, the correct answer is that he has no legal obligation to anticipate the driver's illegal behavior. As a practical matter, what you're saying will be a safer riding practice than sticking by his legal right not to anticipate illegal behavior.

Yeah, that's the intent. I mean, no legal document can bring back someone's crushed leg, for example. I'd rather stay defensive and healthy than cry out, "You're making an illegal turn!!" while being dragged under a car.

Check sig:

Yeah, that's the intent. I mean, no legal document can bring back someone's crushed leg, for example. I'd rather stay defensive and healthy than cry out, "You're making an illegal turn!!" while being dragged under a car.

Check sig:

Sure, but the reality is you make assumptions about motorists all the time, otherwise you would be so cautious as to never ride in traffic...

Sure, but the reality is you make assumptions about motorists all the time, otherwise you would be so cautious as to never ride in traffic...

That's the line between making assumptions (or riding defensively) and becoming paralyzed with fear.

If I think that they're probably going to do one thing, but still know that they can easily lose their mind and do something else, I can (mostly) plan ahead and give myself escape options.

That extra knowledge makes riding on the street much more palatable, IMO.

Please give me a call at 573-442-7189 ext. 28.

You have a resource in the community that 99% of the country does not have. The GetAbout Columbia office would love to get you into a bicycle education course. We also have dozens of other programs that can help and that you would enjoy.

Everyone can benefit from the course. I really hope you take advantage of it.

Thanks for the offer, but this was a one time mistake riding on the sidewalk. I usually ride on the road, helmet, lights, and all, and ride as safe as possible. I do appreciate the efforts that Pednet makes around town, though.

Yes. Tempe, AZ municipal code (http://www.tempe.gov/citycode/07bicycles.htm)

"(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."...

AlSimilar law in Hawaii as well.

Hmm can someone clear this up for me, even though your laws may be slightly different (and please don't flame me, this is a serious question).
I replied earlier after watching the presentation and although I agree it was the driver of the car who was at fault becuase they didn't come to a stop at the stop sign I believe the cyclist was not completely obeying the laws either.

OK, presuming it is legal to right on sidewalks (it is around here) and also legal to ride on the road if you obey normal road rules. When there is an intersection such as the one incountered here any cyclist or pedestrian using the sidewalk must cross a road. Now, to obey the law totally I would think that the cyclist would have to dismount and then walk across the road. Why? Becuase as soon as the cyclist starts crossing the road while riding, they are immediatly regarding as a road user and must follow all the same rules a car does. And since a car is not allowed to cross a road like that, neither should a practising cyclist. Laws here also state than cars at an intersection such as the one we are discussing, even if there is no signage must give way to 'pedestrians' with no mention of cyclists. A cyclist riding across an interection between sidewalks is NOT a pedestrian.

All the traffic laws stated in this thread apply to sidewalks and bicycle paths separate to the road. But any such path would stop at an intersection...right?

Hmm can someone clear this up for me, even though your laws may be slightly different (and please don't flame me, this is a serious question).
I replied earlier after watching the presentation and although I agree it was the driver of the car who was at fault becuase they didn't come to a stop at the stop sign I believe the cyclist was not completely obeying the laws either.

OK, presuming it is legal to right on sidewalks (it is around here) and also legal to ride on the road if you obey normal road rules. When there is an intersection such as the one incountered here any cyclist or pedestrian using the sidewalk must cross a road. Now, to obey the law totally I would think that the cyclist would have to dismount and then walk across the road. Why? Becuase as soon as the cyclist starts crossing the road while riding, they are immediatly regarding as a road user and must follow all the same rules a car does. And since a car is not allowed to cross a road like that, neither should a practising cyclist. Laws here also state than cars at an intersection such as the one we are discussing, even if there is no signage must give way to 'pedestrians' with no mention of cyclists. A cyclist riding across an interection between sidewalks is NOT a pedestrian.

All the traffic laws stated in this thread apply to sidewalks and bicycle paths separate to the road. But any such path would stop at an intersection...right?

The problem is there is ambiguity in the law and the treatment of cyclists... for instance here where bike paths cross the street, there is a walk signal for cyclists to push... so are those cyclists then "peds" using a crosswalk or illegal cyclists riding the "wrong way," perpendicular, to the flow of traffic?

OK, presuming it is legal to right on sidewalks (it is around here) and also legal to ride on the road if you obey normal road rules. When there is an intersection such as the one incountered here any cyclist or pedestrian using the sidewalk must cross a road. Now, to obey the law totally I would think that the cyclist would have to dismount and then walk across the road. Why? Becuase as soon as the cyclist starts crossing the road while riding, they are immediatly regarding as a road user and must follow all the same rules a car does. And since a car is not allowed to cross a road like that, neither should a practising cyclist. Laws here also state than cars at an intersection such as the one we are discussing, even if there is no signage must give way to 'pedestrians' with no mention of cyclists. A cyclist riding across an interection between sidewalks is NOT a pedestrian.

Right, a riding cyclist isn't a pedestrian -- but then again, a cyclist riding on the same path as a pedestrian (in your scenario, taking a crosswalk) is NOT behaving as a vehicle would, either.

That's really the difference, and why it's more dangerous to continue riding into intersections. Drivers are looking in the road for other high-speed users, and sidewalks are almost exclusively used by pedestrians, not other high-speed users.

Look at it from the other side, even as someone who's trying to do the right thing. Picture driving up to an intersection where you're planning to turn right. Put on your signal, start braking, check to the right to see if there's anyone standing on the corner or already walking in the intersection, and you don't see anybody. Then, start looking left to find a big enough gap in traffic. You might wait for the clump of traffic to pass, so before the clump passes, you glance right again to make sure that there isn't a pedestrian either in front of you or standing & waiting to cross the same street you're turning onto. You still don't see anyone, so you look left again, the clump passes, and you start your turn.

The actions in that last sentence can take only two seconds, and those two seconds are NOT spent looking to the rear right quarter. Realize how far a cyclist can move in two seconds at even moderate speed -- far enough to go from being hidden behind the cars parallel parked on the side of the street to being IN the intersection.

So, no, despite the vagueness of cyclist-as-pedestrian laws, a cyclist should NOT behave as a cyclist when using a pedestrian crosswalk. Just like a pedestrian, you should stop and wait, because you're coming from the blind spot in the second-least important quadrant of a right-turning car (least important being to the rear left, of course).

My simple rules-for-self may be relevant here.

Bikes belong on the road, bike lane, MUP, sidewalk and trails.
On the road, ride like a vehicle, sharing wide lanes, commanding narrow ones, and staying out of the gutter.
Use bike lanes when it makes sense but understand and deal with their risks at intersections and avoid door zones.
On high speed highways, consider wide smooth clean shoulders a unmarked bike lanes.
Take the time to register clam and specific complaints about bad design, debris, potholes, etc.
Support local cycling advocacy groups.
On MUPs, be prepared to yield to everything and do not assume you have a right to any particular speed.
On sidewalks, ride at no more than walking speed and understand you do not really belong there.
You know next to nothing about trail riding so stay out of the way of those who do.

Most of us, I suspect, have our own list.

I think Al nailed it.

You have no right of way per the lack of legal frame work giving you right of way on a sidewalk. You need to ask permission for every thing you encounter peds or motorists. They might not give it to you. This is the case.

The stop sign is not for your right of way because you are cycling on a sidewalk. There is no legal framework for crosswalks. The stop sign is for cross street right of way management.

Pedestrians have the legal frame work in place to protect them so they don't need the stop sign. IE if no stop sign was there the car still would have to yeild to the peds right of way in an unmarked crosswalk.

Al didn't put the law up that a bicyclist needs to stop, I am guessing because you did stop and yeild for the first car.

Tempe has added right of way laws which is needed in your town. Of course you still would be at fault because Tempe is not going to give right of ways to wrong way drivers. See Al's post.

The driver didn't stop at a stop sign. The driver never gave you the right of way when you asked for it. Driver cited for not stopping, and you get a ticket for not yielding to the right of way of a motorist. If there is one in the law books. Case closed.

Thanks for the offer, but this was a one time mistake riding on the sidewalk. I usually ride on the road, helmet, lights, and all, and ride as safe as possible. I do appreciate the efforts that Pednet makes around town, though.

I think the course has a lot more to offer than you are imagining. You would learn a lot......I guarantee you that. People who have ridden for decades leave the class having learned a lot. You do have to be open minded though and consider that maybe.....just maybe there is something you could learn.