Advocacy & Safety - Accident advice - i'm lost...

I don't know anyone that's dealt with this kind of situation, so i've been a little lost as to how to approach it.

Yesterday I was going to try to bike to work with a few friends. I had gotten just about a mile or two out of my house and had to cross the street. I rode into the crosswalk, but the ramp to get on to the other side wasn't between the two white crosswalk lines (see link), so i had to veer out of them. I saw a car coming to a rolling stop, but instead of stopping, she rolled into me and hit me broadside. I'm perfectly fine - not a scratch. The woman that hit me seemed to be a bit frazzled, but I was alright. I figured... she didn't mean to, and if this happened to my mom, she'd be scared - I don't have to go legal on her if she can pay for any damages on my bike. Decided not to call her insurance, just got her plate number and drivers license info.

This is where the fun began....the damage is about $250, but apparently after thinking it over for the day and consulting her husband, she feels that she wasn't at fault since I wasn't technically between the white lines at the point of collision (since i had started to leave them to get on the ramp). I personally feel that if you hit someone a few feet ahead or behind of a crosswalk where you have a stop.. in a residential street, there should be some accountability. Am I wrong - legally? What should I be doing in this situation? I called a lawyer for a free consult, but as soon as he heard it wasn't an injury case, he hung up (obviously there isn't a lot of money to be made here). If anyone could give me some advice that would be really helpful.

I live in California in case that matters somehow.



(incident link below)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=70+lima+terrace,+fremont,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.107327,114.257812&ie=UTF8&ll=37.537712,-121.922278&spn=0.001608,0.003487&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.537634,-121.922216&panoid=wCT5nD3Qso0LjiTQ9OrRZw&cbp=12,203.37467342760849,,0,8.461538461538463

Good job linking that map and street view. It makes the situation clear.

While you may have not been between the lines in the cross walk you were beyond the stop sign. I can't see if there is a stop line, but absent a stop line she should have come to a complete stop at the stop sign.

If there is any confusion about this consider how somebody in a wheel chair would have had to use that cross walk. Since the wheel chair ramp is between the cross walk and stop sign, a wheel chair would have had to go between the wheel chair and stop sign. Would it be okay if she hit a wheel chair?

Go to your local police and make an accident report right away. Do it now before waiting to talk to her again. Tell her that you filed the report and request her insurance information. If she doesn't want to compensate you, make a claim to her insurance company.

You were doing her a favor by not going to her insurance company. If she doesn't want to take the favor, make a claim.

Speedo

In many places (although not all) it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk. She may have seen you crossing in front of her and assumed that you were continueing along the street, not realizing that you were moving to your right to get onto the sidewalk. If it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk in CA, then your movement, not hers, caused the accident.

Thanks for the prompt response!

Before I report a claim though.. here's my concern. Right now they seem complacent with walking away without having to pay for anything. If i pursue this though, and it's deemed legally not her fault, then the person at fault would be me, right? Does that mean that if her car bumper was scratched when she hit me (which might be the case) I would have to pay for it? I don't have any kind of bike insurance that would cover me, so that would really be the cherry on top of this already screwed up situation.

I'd be asking my insurance agent these questions if I were in a car, but I wasn't. I'll give them a call for some advice anyway, but if someone else has some insight, it would be much appreciated.

but the ramp to get on to the other side wasn't between the two white crosswalk lines (see link), so i had to veer out of them.
I wonder if there isn't an element of negligence on the part of municipality on the way the crossway and the ramp are situated..

I'm not saying you should sue the town but you might want to drop them a note about this crosswalk. If she can use her defense against you, then she (or others) can use it against other users of the ramp.

What were you doing trying to ride on the sidewalk? (I think each town decides on the legality of riding on the sidewalk.)


I rode into the crosswalk, but the ramp to get on to the other side wasn't between the two white crosswalk lines (see link), so i had to veer out of them.

I don't think you have a case. You can't ride all over the place and expect magic immunity for happening to cross through some crosswalk lines.

Is the $250 really worth the hassle?

In many places (although not all) it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk. She may have seen you crossing in front of her and assumed that you were continueing along the street, not realizing that you were moving to your right to get onto the sidewalk. If it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk in CA, then your movement, not hers, caused the accident.

She would have had to been pretty darn inattentive to think that the OP would be continuing straight on the cross street since that ramp is pretty far from the street. But even if she did think he was continuing straight, what excuse could there be for rolling right into him?

In any case, that's a really poorly designed sidewalk.

In many places (although not all) it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk. She may have seen you crossing in front of her and assumed that you were continueing along the street, not realizing that you were moving to your right to get onto the sidewalk. If it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk in CA, then your movement, not hers, caused the accident.

She rolled the stop. That's going to trump his being on the sidewalk or crosswalk should that be an issue.

Speedo

I saw her rolling to a stop, and assumed she saw me. I was getting on the sidewalk because there was no bike lane and in a one lane road, I didn't want to be in front of cars that might hit me (loving the irony)

She rolled the stop.
Since the accident occurred before the stop line (near the ramp), you can't really know if she "rolled" the stop.


I saw her rolling to a stop, and assumed she saw me. I was getting on the sidewalk because there was no bike lane and in a one lane road, I didn't want to be in front of cars that might hit me (loving the irony)

Why did you assume she saw you? It appears that you may have ridden in front of her.

She did not roll throughh the stop. She was coming rolling to her stop. I was between the STOP painted on the ground and the actual crosswalk. Hope that clears up any confusion.

"Why did you assume she saw you? It appears that you may have ridden in front of her."


I assumed so because I was in the crosswalk when I was approaching, and she was rolling to a stop at a stop sign.

Through the miracle of the internet, here's the sidewalk cycling ordinance in your town:

Sec. 3-4103. Riding on sidewalks.
No person shall ride or operate a bicycle on any sidewalk in the city except as herein specifically permitted.
Juveniles under the age of sixteen years, exercising due care and giving the pedestrians the right-of-way, may ride and operate their bicycles upon the sidewalk, except such sidewalks as are in front of schools, stores or buildings used for business purposes.
Persons riding bicycles on sidewalks shall do so in single file.
(Ord. No. 1518, § 1, 9-14-82.)

If you are under sixteen you are home free.

Speedo

@pakoamerican

Do you know how fast you were going at the time?

Upon further reflection, I think you may surprised the motorist if you were moving much faster than a walking pace. She was probably looking ahead to the crosswalk/stop line. If you were going at even 6 or 7 mph it would have been like you were swooping in front of her path of travel.

Still though, very bad sidewalk design.

Really bad design. I can't see any stop lines painted either, just the words STOP. Also on one of the other corners (the one the OP came from) the two x=walks lead to a landscaped corner, while the ramp is set back to access the setback sidewalk.
On another corners the x-walk leads to a dirt patch.

I was going pretty slow, I had slowed down because I saw her and proceeded only after seeing that she slowed down (assuming wrongly that she saw me).

But it looks like there's a lot of things going against me here, legally. I really feel like she was at fault in general - I wasn't out of control, I was slowly approaching, i was just getting out of the crosswalk... and I only aimed for the sidewalk to avoid what I thought was dangerous traffic.....but "in general" isn't what matters here. I wasn't in the crosswalk, and i was going for the sidewalk, which isn't legal in Fremont, CA. At this point it seems like I should stomach the $250 and be thankful that I'm ok.

Appreciate all the help from everyone. This was my first ride to work, my first accident on a bike, and my first posting to this forum. The last has been the most pleasant.

Through the miracle of the internet, here's the sidewalk cycling ordinance in your town:

Sec. 3-4103. Riding on sidewalks.
No person shall ride or operate a bicycle on any sidewalk in the city except as herein specifically permitted.
Juveniles under the age of sixteen years, exercising due care and giving the pedestrians the right-of-way, may ride and operate their bicycles upon the sidewalk, except such sidewalks as are in front of schools, stores or buildings used for business purposes.
Persons riding bicycles on sidewalks shall do so in single file.
(Ord. No. 1518, § 1, 9-14-82.)

If you are sixteen and under you are home free.

Speedo

You should include the link to the source too.

Whatever you do raise a stink about the design. If not for your benefit, but for others, especially those who's only choice is to use the ramps placed before the stop.

Ha, did you notice that the street view actually shows a kid (likely less than 16yrs) on a bike riding between the ramps.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=70+lima+terrace,+fremont,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.107327,114.257812&ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=37.537721,-121.922285&panoid=_XUe7ojQVWF5yq9bPfXIQw&cbp=12,212.18363569175963,,0,17.907293178519602&ll=37.537642,-121.922222&spn=0.001046,0.002275&z=19&iwloc=A

And here's the stop sign info from the CA drivers handbook:

Eight-sided red STOP signs mean you must make a full stop whenever you see a STOP sign. Stop before entering a crosswalk or at a white "limit line" which is a wide white line painted on the street. If a crosswalk or limit line is not painted on the street, stop at the corner.

Hmmm. That's bad if there was no stop line.

Speedo

I really feel like she was at fault in general
She might be at fault but you might be dead. Be careful!

You should include the link to the source too.

I was afraid that the link wouldn't take you right to the spot. It doesn't.

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10734&sid=5

Will get you to the online, searchable (I wish my town did this) municipal codes for Fremont. From there go to Title III, Chapter 4.

Speedo

Sounds to me that everyone is at fault; the city, motorist and cyclist. The city for their unsafe crossing. The motorist for not completely stopping and not avoiding a person crossing the road at an intersection. The cyclist for sidewalk riding and and leaving the crosswalk (you could have bunny hopped onto the sidewalk).

I think each of the 3 parties should pay one third of the cost for the damage to both the bicycle and car.

Ha, did you notice that the street view actually shows a kid (likely less than 16yrs) on a bike riding between the ramps.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=70+lima+terrace,+fremont,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.107327,114.257812&ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=37.537721,-121.922285&panoid=_XUe7ojQVWF5yq9bPfXIQw&cbp=12,212.18363569175963,,0,17.907293178519602&ll=37.537642,-121.922222&spn=0.001046,0.002275&z=19&iwloc=A

That is frikin awesome.


Sounds to me that everyone is at fault; the city, motorist and cyclist. The city for their unsafe crossing. The motorist for not completely stopping behind the stop line. The cyclist for sidewalk riding and and leaving the crosswalk (you could have bunny hopped onto the sidewalk).

I think each of the 3 parties should pay one third of the cost for the damage to both the bicycle and car.

case closed

SHE HIT YOU! She failed to have her vehicle under control - I'd press her insurance company --- they'll be happy to pay to get out cheap!

The other option is to start feeling the pain!!!!! Oftentimes delayed!

Contact her insurance if you can. Anyone who operates a vehicle should be able to judge all obstacles before entering an intersection. It seems if she rolled into you, then she wasn't aware of her surroundings. May, at least, spare her from killing someone else.

She would have had to been pretty darn inattentive to think that the OP would be continuing straight on the cross street since that ramp is pretty far from the street. But even if she did think he was continuing straight, what excuse could there be for rolling right into him?

In any case, that's a really poorly designed sidewalk.

If it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, then she would have assumed that he'd continue along the street, not the sidewalk, right? And if he were to continue along the street, he'd not be turning to get to the ramp and she would have no reason to believe that he was turning toward her to get to a place where he was legally not entitled to ride. The excuse she has for "rolling right into him" is that he rolled right into her. She was somewhere that she was legally entitled to drive and he was somewhere that he was not legally entitled to ride (and changing direction towards her to boot).

That sidewalk is poorly designed but unfortunately this type of crosswalk/ramp offset is all too common.

She rolled the stop. That's going to trump his being on the sidewalk or crosswalk should that be an issue.

Speedo

The ramp is located well behind the stop line. So if the OP was heading for the ramp when the collision occurred, then the driver had not even reached the stop line, let alone rolled the stop. (Maybe she was about to roll the stop but we'll never know since the collision happened before she reached the stop line.)

SHE HIT YOU! She failed to have her vehicle under control - I'd press her insurance company --- they'll be happy to pay to get out cheap!

The other option is to start feeling the pain!!!!! Oftentimes delayed!

He's a VEHICLE just like a CAR! He's not supposed to ride randomly in front of OTHER VEHICLES!!

Definitely, take the advice of the person telling you to lie!

The best he can get out of this is $250. Is the effort going to be worth that?


The motorist for not completely stopping and not avoiding a person crossing the road at an intersection.
Except that he isn't (exactly) a "person" (are you implying "pedestrian"?), he's a "vehicle" who "darted" in front of her.


If it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, then she would have assumed that he'd continue along the street, not the sidewalk, right? And if he were to continue along the street, he'd not be turning to get to the ramp and she would have no reason to believe that he was turning toward her to get to a place where he was legally not entitled to ride. The excuse she has for "rolling right into him" is that he rolled right into her. She was somewhere that she was legally entitled to drive and he was somewhere that he was not legally entitled to ride (and changing direction towards her to boot).
Yes. It's possible that she saw him on a trajectory across the intersection and the next moment he had "abruptly" turned toward her into her path.

SHE HIT YOU! She failed to have her vehicle under control - I'd press her insurance company --- they'll be happy to pay to get out cheap!

The other option is to start feeling the pain!!!!! Oftentimes delayed!

Doubt it, insurance companies don't like handing out money, and will do anything to avoid it, they'd probably find double fault and give no one money.

Except that he isn't (exactly) a "person" (are you implying "pedestrian"?), he's a "vehicle" who "darted" in front of her.Actually, I think that he is a person and that his bicycle is a vehicle. Are you implying that people are inanimate objects?:rolleyes:

Operators of vehicles have a duty to attempt avoiding a collision at all times. The motorist should have been able to avoid the collision as she had time to see the cyclist and stop before teeboning him. The cyclist should not have been sidewalk/crosswalk riding. The city should never build such a stupid and dangerous design. Everyone was wrong and deserves their share of the punishment.

Operators of vehicles have a duty to attempt avoiding a collision at all times.
The cyclist also has this duty and the cyclist was operating his vehicle in an illegal manner (it appears).

It would be hard to prove that the driver did not attempt to avoid the collision (or did anything negligent). It would be easy to establish that the cyclist was negligent because he was acting (illegally) in a manner that encouraged a collision (just like someone running a red light or someone jaywalking).

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/pesky-pedestrians.aspx


Everyone was wrong and deserves their share of the punishment.
Let's play out that scenario. $250 damages to the cyclist, $1000 to the motorist (a complete guess). That's $1250/3, or $417 for each. That figure is ignoring time and court costs. Is it worth it?

The ramp is located well behind the stop line. So if the OP was heading for the ramp when the collision occurred, then the driver had not even reached the stop line, let alone rolled the stop. (Maybe she was about to roll the stop but we'll never know since the collision happened before she reached the stop line.)

It depends upon the stop sign law. What applied in the absence of a stop line. I was thinking that it would be the sign, but apparently in CA it is the crosswalk.

Speedo

The root cause is the design. It must be fixed. As it is now it is a good design to get a young cyclist, runner or person in wheelchair seriously injured or killed.

Let's play out that scenario. $250 damages to the cyclist, $1000 to the motorist (a complete guess). That's $1250/3, or $417 for each. That figure is ignoring time and court costs. Is it worth it?Strawman, as I never argued that the cyclist should pursue a claim against the motorist. My only point was that all three parties are at fault and that all three should pay their third of the cost for damages to the bicycle and car.

Why are you trying to revise my post to create your strawman?

I have to look it up, but I believe in California you are required to stop behind the stop sign, and that's where the stop line is supposed to be painted, if there is one. That intersection is a street coming out of a sub-division onto Mission where the speed limit is lowered on Mission. The car coming to a stop is supposed to look out for anything crossing as she is coming to the intersection. If she can't tell how far away someone crossing the intersection is from her vehicle, then she shouldn't be driving on the street.

My club has checked into the sidewalk laws, and it's illegal for adults to ride on the sidewalks in the Tri-cities(Fremont/Newark/Union city).

We ride up Mission all the time to get to Mission Coffee on Washington. There's only a short section where Mission is too narrow to share a lane with a vehicle. The rest of the distance between I-680 and Washington there's room to ride out a bit from the right edge and cars can pass. I think it's a whole 100 yards or so where Mission is too narrow to share a lane.

Get off the sidewalk. Hugging the curb and using the crosswalk got a cyclist killed at Fremont Blvd and Auto Mall.

Strawman, as I never argued that the cyclist should pursue a claim against the motorist. My only point was that all three parties are at fault and that all three should pay their third of the cost for damages to the bicycle and car.

Why are you trying to revise my post to create your strawman?

It's not a strawman. Nor did I "revise" anything.

No one is going to pay for anything (except for damage to their own propery) unless a claim is pursued.

The driver isn't going to volunteer to pay anything. The city isn't going to volunteer to pay anything. The cyclist isn't going to volunteer to pay anything.

What is the point of saying people should be paying anything if you think no one should persue a claim?

My point is that the cyclist is better off not pursing this. That is, using your scenario, he's better off not doing anything. Since it appears that the cyclist was riding in an illegal manner, his share could be even greater.

Good job linking that map and street view. It makes the situation clear.

While you may have not been between the lines in the cross walk you were beyond the stop sign. I can't see if there is a stop line, but absent a stop line she should have come to a complete stop at the stop sign.

If there is any confusion about this consider how somebody in a wheel chair would have had to use that cross walk. Since the wheel chair ramp is between the cross walk and stop sign, a wheel chair would have had to go between the wheel chair and stop sign. Would it be okay if she hit a wheel chair?

Go to your local police and make an accident report right away. Do it now before waiting to talk to her again. Tell her that you filed the report and request her insurance information. If she doesn't want to compensate you, make a claim to her insurance company.

You were doing her a favor by not going to her insurance company. If she doesn't want to take the favor, make a claim.

Speedo

I agree. I would also contact local advocacy for a lawyer who knows cycling laws. Most will do a consultation for a minimal fee if not zero.

It's not a strawman. Nor did I "revise" anything.

No one is going to pay for anything (except for damage to their own propery) unless a claim is pursued.

The driver isn't going to volunteer to pay anything. The city isn't going to volunteer to pay anything. The cyclist isn't going to volunteer to pay anything.

What is the point of saying people should be paying anything if you think no one should persue a claim?

My point is that the cyclist is better off not pursing this. That is, using your scenario, he's better off not doing anything. Since it appears that the cyclist was riding in an illegal manner, his share could be even greater.Since I made no attempt to make any point of if the cyclist would be better off pursuing or not pursuing a claim, your point has NO relevance in relation to my point. So your use of my post, was in fact a strawman.

You are just like a dog chasing it’s own tail.

Since I made no attempt to make any point of if the cyclist would be better off pursuing or not pursuing a claim, your point has NO relevance in relation to my point.
The original poster was asking for advice. Your comment was pointless (since it wasn't advice) and had NO relevance to the thread.

Maybe sue the city. There's Catch-22 ambiguity in the ordinance.

1. Under 16, you can ride on the sidewalk. But you're not required to, correct? It would border on astonishing if a city ordinance commanded all under-16 riders to use the sidewalk exclusively.

If my surmise is correct, the city has created an unjustifiable and potentially dangerous situation, and arguably an illegal one. To wit, it would be the case that under-16-year-old's in Fremont have a special "rider's choice" privilege.

How can that be justified? It allows very-skilled 15 year olds to alternate between street and sidewalk at their discretion, the way we often did as kids.

But in this situation, no one is saying that it is absolutely unsafe for under-16s to ride in the street, rather they are given the right to determine that it is safer for them to take the sidewalk in certain circumstances. You can't deny the same rights to adults, en blanc. An adult who is returning to cycling after many years may arguably warrant the safety of the sidewalk far more than a 15-year-old with well-tuned biking skills and plenty of practice riding with car traffic. An elderly person may ride no faster than 6 mph, posing a greater obstruction on narrow streets to car traffic than a kid who can do 18-20, but has an option to go to the sidewalk to let traffic pass, which everyone would say, "That's courteous behavior, thank you son." How can you deny an adult rider the right to exercise the same sensible courtesy?

This would raise the issue of pedestrian safety, but 1. if there aren't any pedestrians, there is no safety issue, and 2. who can argue that a 30 year old, perhaps a bit rusty, but responsible, e.g. with a clean driving record for example, would pose a greater danger to pedestrians than a 7 year old with limited riding-control skills? At the same time, why would the rusty-skills 30 year old merit less protection from cars than the 7 year old, afforded by the sidewalk that the 30 year old taxpayer paid for?

You, for example did not attempt to use the sidewalk to harass or endanger pedestrians. You saw a narrow road, with cars, that you didn't want to impede, and were concerned about perhaps having a collision with. Just because the first wave of adult cyclists were jumping on 10 speeds and imagining being Greg Lemond, and it would have been inappropriate for them to sidewalk ride at high speeds doesn't mean that the ordinance is reasonable today, when a lot of slow middle agers and even elderly people are riding for basic exercise and health maintenance.

It can be pointed out that the reason for bike lanes is that cars and bikes sharing the same lane poses avoidable risks that bike lanes reduce, i.e. accidents that can be of minor consequence to drivers, but crippling and fatal to cyclists. On the other hand, no one has shown that adult cyclists using the sidewalk have crippled and killed pedestrians with any statistically significant frequency. Ergo, logic dictates, that in the absence of a bike lane (assuming one not reasonably available to you for commuting), the city is putting over-age-16 cyclists' lives at avoidable risk by not allowing them to use the sidewalk, without the city having a shred of evidence that allowance would endanger a single pedestrian, and if there was a shred of evidence, it could not possibly show that such endangerment was less if the cyclist was under-16 than over-16.

Now with respect to the ramp, that is an attractive nuisance. Any sensible person on a bike or in a wheelchair would go to it. Under current ordinance, for an under-16 rider, the motorist and city would be jointly liable for the accident. It is extremely unlikely the driver thought, "If he were under 16, I would stop because he might be going to the sidewalk, but since he looks over 16 he can't be going to the ramp." Frankly, she was inattentive. For example, you could have been intending to dismount when you reached the curb. If we say the crosswalk is an extension of the sidewalk, and technically you were violating the ordinance, she wouldn't have the right to hit you in the crosswalk.

Furthermore, the city should have run the stop-line on a diagonal to the ramp, to protect wheelchair users and pedestrians, and failure to do this endangers them, unless the law regarding stop signs and crosswalk lines essentially requires drivers to stop first behind an imaginary line running directly out from the stop sign, and then at the crosswalk line as well, in which case the driver violated that law. I don't think there is such a two-stop law, rather I think some dimwit in engineering/public works negligently put the ramp in the wrong place, during design or construction, there being no visible reason to not place it within the crosswalk boundary, which would have protected you and every other crosswalk user in the past, present and future.

That wide-radius corner looks like an invitation to do a rolling right turn. Obviously, the driver was not doing 10-15 at impact, so she could have been preparing to stop. I'd think about doing a stakeout and trying to film her soon. If you catch her running the stop sign, she's toast.

If she stops, have somebody in a wheelchair come off the ramp (park a car in the white one's position to block sightline) and show how close some incidents were, as evidence against city's hazardous ramp.

Finally, when your speed and skills improve, take the street. All kinds of people come out of driveways and parking lots, and cross streets who either don't stop or do so just at the streetline. Where I live sidewalk riding is not only legal, it is recommended by the city and PD for "safety", which is completely wrong, in the complete absence enforcement of the stop-at-sidewalk and crosswalk lines laws except if a car hits a cyclist, then a ticket is issued.

Dont drive on the sidewalk. They are for walking.

Dont drive on the crosswalks. They are for walking.

Unless you lie you don't have a chance I think. Best solution is to get over your fears, and drive on the road. Let us know if you go through with it and the outcome please.

He's got a pretty good chance.

Roughly 20 years ago, an insurance exec in Newport Beach rode on a bike path fast, hit a puddle, slipped, massively injured his brain, and his lawyer claimed city negligence for failure to install a proper drain, which would have eliminated the standing water.

I can't remember if the path had a separate surface irregularity that the cyclist would have seen but water covered, or if the puddle was somehow obscured til the last second, but the rider was doing the path as he normally did, and didn't slow for the puddle. Got $3 mil from City of NB.

Look at the ramp in OP's case. It either shouldn't be there, or if it should be there for some reason unapparent in photo, like unavoidable standing water during rains, then the crosswalk is wrongly placed. This is an incontestable hazard for say young children who are clearly allowed to use sidewalk and crosswalk, as well as wheelchair users for whom the ramp was built as required by Americans with Disabilities Act and attendant Cali law and regs.

Because bicycle operation does not require a riding license or test of local ordinance knowledge. OP may have seen lots of people using sidewalks in Fremont, had no reason to discern "Everyone of them looks under 16 to me, I'm probably to old to be allowed to," and acted appropriately the other day, according to a reasonable man standard. There's no signage in town along streets, alerting cyclists that sidewalks are open only to those under 16.

Put these all together and then ask, Is there some rational basis for the under-16 / over-16 distinction, and the answer is no, it's completely arbitrary, and the city doesn't have a leg to stand on, to wit:

1. Is it safer for young children to ride on sidewalk than street? Not necessarily. Shrubbery can obstruct view of driveway and crossways-street exiters, and children on sidewalk or entering crosswalks may be harder to see than if they are on the street. Street riding may be as safe or safer for parent-unsupervised under-16-year-olds.

2. If it were safer for them, can this safety be denied to older cyclists because "they're too old to deserve it"? Ludicrous.

3. Are older cyclists more hazardous to pedestrians than younger ones? Perhaps for a certain adolescent stage, but not for mature adult riders. Furthermore, is a 15.9 rider less hazardous than a 16.1 rider?

4. There may be some hazy thinking along the lines of, under 16 year olds can't drive, so they may need bikes to commute to after-school jobs, and sidewalk allowance is designed to maximize their mobility and safety, but over 16 they can drive, so...

The age 16 distinction makes no sense, except for DL eligibility, as no other rights or privileges use this age, except work-hours extension allowance, yet even if this was somehow the underlying thinking, it still doesn't hold water. We know as a matter of policy, people with DLs are being encouraged to bike-commute, so accommodations for commuters to young to drive are merited for those who choose not to drive, for societal healthcare cost reduction, global warming mitigation, cleaner, safer air to breathe...

Basically we have laws for reasons. If in this case the city can show no reasonable cause for the under-16/over-16 discrimination, if it's based on some kind of half-baked thought that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and if fair-and-adequate notice isn't given of its existence, then OPs liability may be reduced or eliminated.

If there are frequent newspaper and media reminders to all that Fremont supports biking, and over-16 year olds are required to ride on the street, sidewalk riding is verbotten, and drivers please share the road with bikes, then OP couldn't claim ignorance of the law.

For example, if the ordinance is designed to protect cyclists, but under-16-year-olds are exempted solely because it's harder to ensure their knowledge and compliance, then you have to provide reasonable notice to adults to stay off the sidewalk, including the foregoing and cops stopping offenders and giving them first-time-offense warnings.

Absent these things, common practice can in some cases be accorded the status of a right, which may trump an obscure law which has no reasonably self-evident purpose, and is neither known to most people, nor ever enforced by LEOs to so inform the public of its existence.

OP probably chose the sidewalk due to lack of cycling experience, which together with heading to sharp-corner sidewalk ramp tells me he was going slow. The driver should have seen him well before she got to the impact point, and had time and opportunity to slow to enable him to take the ramp.

Unless she did this, and he suddenly veered towards her because he didn't see the offset ramp until the last second, then she's at fault for inattentive driving, i.e. if she T-boned him ("broadside" per OP description).

She can't argue, "I'm familiar with Fremont ordinance, if the rider was under 16, I would have given him room to go to the ramp, but I ascertained he was clearly older, and was not going to use the ramp, because it was illegal, so I had a right to drive thru the travel line to the ramp, due to rider's age, which I observantly ascertained, and I exercised ny right.

"He then made an illegal maneuver, for his age, which I could not reasonably anticipate."

This wouldn't make sense because then she would know he was not allowed to be in crosswalk, but he was there, and so the law-knowledgeable reasonable person would have to assume rider could potentially be intending to stay on the under-16-year-old-allowed path, i.e. heading to the ramp.

This being said, she might certainly blame city for failure to provide adequate warning that the wheelchair ramp lay in front of the crosswalk boundary, which was unreasonable placement, and it may also have been obscured by a parked car as in the photo.

Bottom line, however, you can't just run into people or objects if they are in places not prescribed by law, but they are nevertheless clearly visible and collision is reasonably avoidable to a reasonably attentive and alert driver. For example, a driver can't sideswipe a parked car and claim, "The car's right rear tire was not less than 18 (or 12 or whatever) inches from the curb as prescribed by law, so I'm not at fault." Or, "The cyclist I hit wasn't riding as far to the right as practicable, as he was 5 feet from the curb, when he was able to ride 2 feet from the curb, so it's his fault, I'm not liable for his injuries."

Not that I necessarily want to get into any cat fight, but:

In CA, bicycles are not vehicles (I don't know of how this would make a difference, but according to CMVC, we are a separate item).

Also, because we have all the "rights and responsibilities" of other drivers, we legally are not supposed to ride in crosswalks, although, like cars, it is okay to cross them (perpendicular) when clear.

Just FYI stuff.

But, I do agree with the "all 3 parties are guilty".

To the O.P.: if you really want to pursue: talk to a lawyer who can tell you the pros/cons of doing such.

Another example of where you can or can't hit somebody would be a car or cyclist hitting a jaywalker. The jaywalker is breaking the law, and isn't supposed to be there. Period. If he darts out from between cars, and you hit him because a reasonably attentive driver couldn't see him in time to stop, not your fault. If he's in the middle of the street 100 feet ahead of you, brightly dressed on a sunny day, and a finder of fact rules that a reasonably attentive driver would see him in time to slow to let him cross, particularly for example if cars right and left of you did slow, but you alone proceeded blithely, you will have to pay in some jurisdictions. (Growing up in Cali, where pedestrians have high rights, I was told in New York that a car hitting a jaywalker was not liable, under the principle that the lawbreaking event of jaywalking dissolved any driver responsibility to avoid collision: only people legally crossing the street were protected by law. Don't know if story was true or not.)

I agree that OP should consult an attorney, maybe a bicycle law one, since case is too small for money-hungry personal injury ones to waste time on. The case of an irrationally age-discriminating city ordinance, and blatant improper wheelchair access required under federal and state law (Clint Eastwood was nailed for his Carmel hotel's lack of handicap access, by some public-interest group, under argument that such failure was tantamount to refusing service to the handicapped in an open-to-public facility), and general hazard to the public might interest someone. It would get some publicity for a young lawyer trying to build a practice, and might fill a pro bono quota.

Of course cyclists are separately treated, with overlaps, from drivers of MVs. Drivers have to possess a class of operator's license, issued by testing of vision, knowledge of the code, and initially and in late age, driving a vehicle with an examiner present who issues orders and observes and records examinees' responses and general demeanor, and it is subject to suspension or revocation for various offenses. DUI blood alcohol limit. Drivers must carry insurance or post bond of a certain amount ("self insured").

Their vehicles must be smog-inspected periodically. Engine exhaust noise must be muffled. Infant and child seats per age and size of children. Seatbelts are required for passengers of all other ages. Cars can use all freeways. Drivers may not use handheld cells or text-message. Accelerating at the car's maximum throttle from a stop sign, spinning and smoking wheels is illegal. etc

*****************************************/worldwide

:roflmao2:

The original poster was asking for advice. Your comment was pointless (since it wasn't advice) and had NO relevance to the thread.You are very childish.

To the OP....

Ummm... who’s to say you weren't "walking" your bike across the street. The driver obviously didn't see you. How could they say otherwise. :rolleyes:

But of course, that would be lying now wouldn't it? ;)

Contact her insurance carrier and push the issue. My son was hit coming off of a sidewalk through a cross street and was totally in the wrong. All it took was the threat of a lawsuit with damages and they settled post haste.

Just remember. "If you're kind to an insurance company, they'll screw live you've never seen."

How is an unmarked crosswalk defined in CA? Is it possible there is an unmarked crosswalk connecting the curb cuts / ramps?

(I am not so concerned about this specific case, but for the situation of others, pedestrians, those using wheel chairs, strollers, etc.)

At minimum the city need to erase all the crosswalk markings at this intersection.