Advocacy & Safety - Friend got into accident with another cyclist.

My friend came out from Long Island, NY to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn to take advantage of the Trek sale going on at the moment. He had just picked up a Trek 3900. The last time he was on a bike was about 10 years ago, so I decided to show him around the bike path I normally ride on, next to the Belt Parkway. It's a dedicated bicycle path, no vehicles. We were riding along single file, me in front, him in back when I heard a loud clang. I look over and see my friend on his side and a woman flying over him. The woman faceplants in the dirt near a tree. I'm not too sure what happened, or who hit who but someone swerved into someone else. My friend ends up with no injuries, and his new bike didn't even have a scratch on it. The woman however ended up with some dirt in her nose, a scraped knee and a messed up rear wheel. My friend comes over to me where I pull over after having been chewed out by the woman for causing the accident, and he sticks around because he feels bad the woman got hurt. The woman rides away but then returns to us when she realized her rear wheel is bent. She then asks my friend for his information, and he obliges, gave her his drivers license info and his phone #, because she demanded that he pays for the damage to the bike. I saw the damage to the bike, and it looks like the rear wheel is just out of true, spokes are all intact. The bike was not rideable in the sense that there is a lot of brake rub on the rim. We go our separate ways, didn't seem too major of an issue, but i'm wondering what my friend should expect. He's willing to pay for her damages and just end this. I'm wondering what my friend should expect in terms of cost for the damages. I know the LBS charges around $10-$12 to true a wheel. She was on an old steel frame Fuji bicycle.

While riding home, I was trying to tell my friend that it's not entirely his fault, and that both parties are wrong for what happened. He said he looked behind him a bit and didn't see anyone, so leaned left to go towards a garbage can. She claims he turned into her because he was too busy watching the ocean to our side. I was thinking it's also her fault because she didn't pass with enough room, or even make an attempt to let the person in front know that someone was passing. Any advice here would be appreciated.

sounds like both are at fault. tough call though, sounds like she didn't give a passing warning and your friend made a erratic move.

This almost happened to me when I was passing a lady without the usual "passing on the left" warning, she made a sudden left turn at a fork and we barely avoided a crash.

If it is true that your friend just avoided a garbage can and didn't do anything else more extreme, I count the other rider as primarily responsible. When overtaking we have better vision of the situation and thus greater responsibility. She could see the obstacle and expect your friend to avoid it.

This opinion does not have force of law in any known jurisdiction, but I would not be inclined to pay the overtaking rider's expenses.

I agree with gcottay...your friend is not responsible to pay for her bike's damage....

I also agree with gcottay. Passing safely is the responsibility of the person doing the passing.

Think of motor vehicle law. The rear-ender is always at fault.

Think of motor vehicle law. The rear-ender is always at fault.

I seem to remember the opposite of that law in assachusetts

cool, thanks for the response, so far the woman hasn't contacted my friend yet.

Totally her fault. Always give a warning when passing.

Think of motor vehicle law. The rear-ender is always at fault.That's not true in the case of motor vehicles either. If the car in front just slows down and is hit then the car in back would generally be at fault. But if the car in front suddenly changes lanes while someone else is in the process of passing then it would usually be the fault of the person who changed lanes. For example, I was once stuck in slow moving traffic on a freeway when the car in front of me suddenly switched lanes. Unfortunately, traffic in the adjacent lane was going about 40 mph faster and a car there plowed into the car that had been in front of me despite making a good effort to stop. It was clearly the fault of the car in front and not of the 'rear-ender.'

Hard to know in the case of this bike accident, but I'd put a decent share of the blame on your friend if he made a sudden turn without checking behind. BTW, if the wheel is bent enough so it won't pass through the brakes even if they're opened with the usual release, then I'd doubt that a simple retruing will be sufficient. Even if it can make the rim reasonably true, the spoke tension would be left very uneven and the wheel would be likely to repeatedly go out of true later. A shop may very well recommend that a new rim be installed so that they can do a build that they're willing to stand behind.

She's at fault and she will have a VERY hard time proving otherwise. However, if all it takes the the cost of a wheel trueing to end it, I'd pay just to end it.

In every state I've bothered to look up the info in, the passing cyclist is required to announce themselves due to the fact that most cyclists DON'T have a mirror to always know what's behind them.

If she didn't announce herself, she's at fault.

The rule is never to move laterally - left or right - without scanning behind to make sure that no one is overtaking you or trying to pass. If someone is already in the lane behind you, they have the right-of-way, and if you swerve or merge into their path without checking behind, you're at fault.

It's usually good etiquette to announce that you're passing, but not a requirement in any state. Announcing "passing, on your left" is good manners, but with so many squirrelly riders and pedestrians out there who take that warning to try and dodge in that direction, many riders opt to give a little wider clearance and pass quietly.

If you or your friend had been on the street and swerved to go around the garbage can, would you have looked behind first? What if there was a bus back there, or one of those sneaky little hybrid cars?

NEVER move laterally on the road or path without checking behind first. If all the lady needs is a truing job, consider it a cheap lesson.

The rule is never to move laterally - left or right - without scanning behind to make sure that no one is overtaking you or trying to pass. If someone is already in the lane behind you, they have the right-of-way, and if you swerve or merge into their path without checking behind, you're at fault.

It's usually good etiquette to announce that you're passing, but not a requirement in any state. Announcing "passing, on your left" is good manners, but with so many squirrelly riders and pedestrians out there who take that warning to try and dodge in that direction, many riders opt to give a little wider clearance and pass quietly.

If you or your friend had been on the street and swerved to go around the garbage can, would you have looked behind first? What if there was a bus back there, or one of those sneaky little hybrid cars?

NEVER move laterally on the road or path without checking behind first. If all the lady needs is a truing job, consider it a cheap lesson.
What if it had been a child who walked in front of the woman?

If you're worried about people dodging in your direction when you announce yourself on a MUP, you're doing it wrong. It sounds as though you sneak up on other users and announce yourself right before you pass. Of course people are going to go all over the place if you do this. Announce clearly, loudly, and with plenty of time to see the reaction. If you don't bother to do this, you are at fault, whether it's a cyclist who thinks he checks behind him, or a child who darts in front of you.

In every state I've bothered to look up the info in, the passing cyclist is required to announce themselves due to the fact that most cyclists DON'T have a mirror to always know what's behind them.

If she didn't announce herself, she's at fault.
Care to share the location of any of that info about state requirements for passing cyclists to "announce themselves"?

I don't know if, as a matter of law, if announcing a pass is required in NYC.
But as a matter of common sense, if she didn't announce that she was passing, then she is taking the bulk of the responsibility for what happened.

Pscyclepath has it backwards. There is no "rule" that you maintain an absolutely straight line, although it is good etiquette. OTOH there is always a requirement to pass safely, which includes slowing down, and often a requirement to announce passing.

If I was on that jury with those facts, I'd find for your friend.

if there is no signal its not your fault are you supposed to be able to sense another person coming around you.

if there is no signal its not your fault are you supposed to be able to sense another person coming around you.
If this happened on a road and involved either a turn or a change of lane, then yes, the vehicle codes generally require that it be done only when safe and that requires 'sensing' another person/vehicle coming around you - generally done by looking, either using a mirror or by turning around far enough to see. The vehicle codes also require that before making such a movement that a signal be given - either using turn signal lights or the appropriate hand signals.

On a typical path the applicability of such rules is less clear since there usually aren't marked lanes. So there's a shared responsibility: the passer should give a wide enough margin and indicate the impending pass, and the passee should avoid sudden direction changes without first checking for any traffic behind.

OTOH there is always a requirement to pass safely, which includes slowing down, and often a requirement to announce passing.


Perhaps you can help out bmclaughlin807 who can't seem to find his references. Why don't you provide any reference that states a safe pass requires slowing down or an announcement to pass?

if there is no signal its not your fault are you supposed to be able to sense another person coming around you.

Yes you use one of your senses - eyesight.

Perhaps you can help out bmclaughlin807 who can't seem to find his references. Why don't you provide any reference that states a safe pass requires slowing down or an announcement to pass?

Can't speak for all states, but Ohio does specify an audible signal in certain cases if passing another vehicle:


4511.27 Overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction.
(A) The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles or trackless trolleys proceeding in the same direction:

(1) The operator of a vehicle or trackless trolley overtaking another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction shall, except as provided in division (A)(3) of this section, signal to the vehicle or trackless trolley to be overtaken, shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance, and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle or trackless trolley.

(2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the operator of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle at the latter’s audible signal, and the operator shall not increase the speed of the operator’s vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

(3) The operator of a vehicle or trackless trolley overtaking and passing another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction on a divided highway as defined in section 4511.35 of the Revised Code, a limited access highway as defined in section 5511.02 of the Revised Code, or a highway with four or more traffic lanes, is not required to signal audibly to the vehicle or trackless trolley being overtaken and passed.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Trackless trolley? Is this paragraph right next to the one that requires all motorists to carry a swinging lantern when entering the city so as not to frighten horses on the street? When was the last time anyone enforced this relic? Lord, what a cacophony of noise if that were true. Bet cyclists would just love every passing motorist to blow his horn and claim this rule required that action.

BTW does this antique law apply to bike paths too?

You asked for reference. Reference was given. Is it a law that is enforced? Not that I have seen. But it is a current law that gives an example of a state requiring an audible signal to be given when passing a vehicle.

You asked for reference. Reference was given. Is it a law that is enforced? Not that I have seen. But it is a current law that gives an example of a state requiring an audible signal to be given when passing a vehicle.
Yes it was a reference, true. Also true is that it has no relevance for the accident scenario cited in the OP or bicycling, and probably no relevance to any situation in the last 50 or 60 years in Ohio or anywhere else.

It is fine with me if Internet cyclists want to rely on arcane, obscure and outdated traffic code as guidance for expounding on "required" behavior for cyclists. I would suggest they don't risk being involved in bicycling accidents by expecting anyone else to pay attention to these so called "requirements."

Yes it was a reference, true. Also true is that it has no relevance for the accident scenario cited in the OP or bicycling, and probably no relevance to any situation in the last 50 or 60 years in Ohio or anywhere else.

It is fine with me if Internet cyclists want to rely on arcane, obscure and outdated traffic code as guidance for expounding on "required" behavior for cyclists. I would suggest they don't risk being involved in bicycling accidents by expecting anyone else to pay attention to these so called "requirements."

To take this a step further and apply it specifically to bikes, my city's municipal codes follow pretty close to state codes, including this:


2173.01 Code application to bicycles, children's non-motorized vehicles.
(A) The provisions of this Traffic Code that are applicable to bicycles apply whenever a bicycle is operated upon any street or highway or upon any shared-use path within the public right-of-way as defined in section 910.01 (P) of the Columbus City Code or easement adjacent thereto or however specifically provided for in Chapter 2173.


2131.03 Overtaking, passing to left; driver's duties.
(a) The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction:
(1) The operator of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall, except as provided in division (a)(3) of this section, signal to the vehicle to be overtaken, shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance, and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.

I'll agree to an extent that we are each responsible for ourselves. But here are the codes in one city that would apply in this case. What you call "so called requirements" are in fact law, at least here.

To take this a step further and apply it specifically to bikes, my city's municipal codes follow pretty close to state codes, including this:

I'll agree to an extent that we are each responsible for ourselves. But here are the codes in one city that would apply in this case. What you call "so called requirements" are in fact law, at least here.

I have seen the light; in at least one city, if the written traffic code were applied at all it would be the noisiest city in the country with auto horns blaring, cyclists yelling and bells ringing 24/7.

You wanted a reference. If you don't like the answer...

Care to share the location of any of that info about state requirements for passing cyclists to "announce themselves"?

Why don't you do your own research instead of lazily insinuating that I'm lying and/or stupid? Ah... wouldn't be quite the same as just blindly insisting that every other person on the planet is wrong and you're the only perfect cyclist out there?


(10)(a) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. A person riding a bicycle in a crosswalk shall do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians.

A cyclist operating on a sidewalk, path, or in a crosswalk is treated as a pedestrian under Colorado law. (Yes, I could pull that law for you, too... if you really insist on being a lazy jackass.)

Do your own research instead of lazily insinuating that I'm lying and/or stupid.

Even if you do provide it, he'll find something wrong with it.

Perhaps you can help out bmclaughlin807 who can't seem to find his references. Why don't you provide any reference that states a safe pass requires slowing down or an announcement to pass?

Sorry, some of us were busy actually out on our bikes, having a life.

Perhaps you can help out bmclaughlin807 who can't seem to find his references. Why don't you provide any reference that states a safe pass requires slowing down or an announcement to pass?


The Virginia Code is very clear
§ 46.2-904. Use of roller skates and skateboards on sidewalks and shared-use paths; operation of bicycles, motorized skateboards or scooters, motor-driven cycles, electric power-assisted bicycles, and electric personal assistive mobility devices on sidewalks and crosswalks and shared-use paths; local ordinances.
....
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.
....
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

Maryland Laws are less explicit, but still suggests a requirement to give warning. And each local jurisdiction in MD has it's own additional laws.
§ 21-504. Drivers to exercise due care.
(a) In general.- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.
(b) Duty to warn pedestrians.- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall, if necessary, warn any pedestrian by sounding the horn of the vehicle.
....

The DC Code is also somewhat vague
1201.2 A person shall operate a bicycle or sidewalk bicycle in a safe and non-hazardous manner so as not to endanger himself or herself or any other person.
....
1201.10 Any person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of way to pedestrians, and shall travel at a speed no greater than the posted speed limit of the adjacent roadway, Provided, that such speed is safe for the conditions then existing on the sidewalk..
1201.11 A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or while crossing a roadway in a crosswalk shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, except that the bicyclist must yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk or crosswalk.

In addition, many of the trails and MUP's around here have posted rules or signs that say "give audible warning when passing"

The Virginia Code is very clear
§ 46.2-904. Use of roller skates and skateboards on sidewalks and shared-use paths; operation of bicycles, motorized skateboards or scooters, motor-driven cycles, electric power-assisted bicycles, and electric personal assistive mobility devices on sidewalks and crosswalks and shared-use paths; local ordinances.
....
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.
....
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

Maryland Laws are less explicit, but still suggests a requirement to give warning. And each local jurisdiction in MD has it's own additional laws.
§ 21-504. Drivers to exercise due care.
(a) In general.- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.
(b) Duty to warn pedestrians.- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall, if necessary, warn any pedestrian by sounding the horn of the vehicle.
....

The DC Code is also somewhat vague
1201.2 A person shall operate a bicycle or sidewalk bicycle in a safe and non-hazardous manner so as not to endanger himself or herself or any other person.
....
1201.10 Any person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of way to pedestrians, and shall travel at a speed no greater than the posted speed limit of the adjacent roadway, Provided, that such speed is safe for the conditions then existing on the sidewalk..
1201.11 A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or while crossing a roadway in a crosswalk shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, except that the bicyclist must yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk or crosswalk.

In addition, many of the trails and MUP's around here have posted rules or signs that say "give audible warming when passing"

Thanks, that certainly is clear about what to do when passing a pedestrian in VA. Did you notice anything about giving audible signals to bicyclists being passed or any requirement to slow down prior to safely passing a bicyclist?

Thanks, that certainly is clear about what to do when passing a pedestrian in VA. Did you notice anything about giving audible signals to bicyclists being passed or any requirement to slow down prior to safely passing a bicyclist?

"A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances."

Don't you ever get tired of making an ass out of yourself?

P.S. The Ohio statute refers to both "vehicles" and "trackless trolleys." Vehicles is defined in the statute to include bicycles. For once, why don't you just admit that you were wrong?

Sorry, some of us were busy actually out on our bikes, having a life.

Nice dodge. See what other "bicycling requirements" you can toss out before your next ride, something is bound to stick.

Even if you do provide it, he'll find something wrong with it.

Not if its relevant.

Nice dodge. See what other "bicycling requirements" you can toss out before your next ride, something is bound to stick.

I posted the exact text from the law. You don't even want to look at it before insulting me again? Or you DID look at it and didn't say anything because you can't possibly admit you're wrong?

"A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances."

Don't you ever get tired of making an ass out of yourself?

So show us, Perry M where "the rights and duties of a pedestrian" requires them to give an audible warning when passing anything. Or does your presumably jailhouse law degree tell you that bicyclists must treat other bicyclists as if they were pedestrians? Lord, some BF legal wannabes sure use your imagination to stretch an internet factoid to "prove" the existence of a fabricated legal requirement.

Edit: If bicyclists are "legally"required to be treated and act as pedestrians, which side of the of the shared path do they ride on?:roflmao2:

Or does your presumably jailhouse law degree tell you that bicyclists must treat other bicyclists as if they were pedestrians? Lord, some BF legal wannabes sure use your imagination to stretch an internet factoid to "prove" the existence of a fabricated legal requirement.For your information, my law degree is from an ABA-accredited law school, where I graduated very high in my class. I am admitted to practice before the Supreme Courts of two different states. I have been admitted to practice pro hac vice in at least three other states. I am also admitted to practice before two federal circuit courts, and three federal district courts. I know how to read a statute.

Now can we please stop the ridiculous ad hominem and address the language of the statute?


So show us, Perry M where "the rights and duties of a pedestrian" requires them to give an audible warning when passing anything.

The statute gives a pedestrians the right to an audible signal before being overtaken and passed. The statute also expressly gives to any person riding a bicycle on a sidewalk or shared-use path all of the rights of a pedestrian under the same circumstances. Thus, a person operating a bicycle on a sidewalk or shared-use path has the right to an audible signal before being overtaken or passed.

I also note that you failed to respond to my point about the Ohio statute, which clearly and unambiguously requires "[t]he operator of a vehicle ... overtaking another vehicle ... proceeding in the same direction" to "signal to the vehicle ... to be overtaken ...."

I also note that you failed to respond to my point about the Ohio statute, which clearly and unambiguously requires "[t]he operator of a vehicle ... overtaking another vehicle ... proceeding in the same direction" to "signal to the vehicle ... to be overtaken ...."

OK. As it stands now you, me and a few others on this thread are the only people who know of it and probably not one single soul in the state to, include anyone in the legal profession pays any attention to it if they should by some chance be aware of it. But you sorta win, you sure showed me about what it takes to safely pass anybody - blow your horn in their ear, or yell at them and call it an audible signal.

When the day comes that the residents of the Buckeye State actually pay any attention to this statue and comply, then Ohio will definitely be the noisiest state in the Union and be known as the Compliant State of Cacophony.

It doesn't really matter if anybody knows about it or not. That old adage about ignorance of the law being no excuse is applicable here. In a civil suit, if there's a legal duty to signal, and failure to signal contributes to an accident, it will be an issue at trial, and ignorance of the law won't excuse the defendant from the duty to signal.

It doesn't really matter if anybody knows about it or not. That old adage about ignorance of the law being no excuse is applicable here. In a civil suit, if there's a legal duty to signal, and failure to signal contributes to an accident, it will be an issue at trial, and ignorance of the law won't excuse the defendant from the duty to signal.
An obscure Ohio law will have no bearing on a civil suit filed in NY.

A problem in this case is that right-of-way rules aren't generally well defined on MUPs - certainly not nearly as well as they are on roadways. It appears that both parties contributed to the collision and the degree of fault of each is hard to determine without knowing all the details (and would probably still be disputed if all details were known). Hope the parties can reach an amiable settlement between themselves.

An obscure Ohio law will have no bearing on a civil suit filed in NY.No, it won't. I'm just not following this closely enough to have even noticed that two different states are being discussed here. Nevertheless, in Ohio, if signaling is required, it might be an issue in an Ohio trial, even if the parties are unaware of their legal duty.

In every state I've bothered to look up the info in, the passing cyclist is required to announce themselves due to the fact that most cyclists DON'T have a mirror to always know what's behind them.

If she didn't announce herself, she's at fault.


Care to share the location of any of that info about state requirements for passing cyclists to "announce themselves"?

This is what helped spark the info given for multiple states.

NY State does not have a specific provision, but does say:


(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the
driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of
the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the
speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

and:


(b) No person shall operate a bicycle unless it is equipped with a
bell or other device capable of giving a signal audible for a distance
of at least one hundred feet, except that a bicycle shall not be
equipped with nor shall any person use upon a bicycle any siren or
whistle.

I really don't think the concept of an audible signal is all that arcane or obscure and seems to imply a responsibility on the part of someone passing to give notice. Or at the very least, be responsible for passing only when it is safe to do so.

I see MUP's like I see a green run on a ski area. As a good snowboarder, I go faster than many on that run. There are people of vastly different experiences. It is my responsibility, as the overtaking individual, to make sure I don't hit someone. When I move around on a slope, I always look behind me to see if anyone is coming, but that doesn't negate an overtaking person's responsibility to avoid hitting me. In every instance, on the slope, the person uphill is at fault if a collision happens. Every time. It doesn't matter what the excuse might be. The overtaking person must look out for those downslope.

The reason this doesn't apply on the road is exactly because there are so many laws that govern all road users rights and responsibilities.

Ya know, your friend could have avoided this entire thing by angrilly yelling 'Watch where you're going! You got in my way!' and pedaling off immedialty after impact.

The incident was the womans fault for passing unannounced, and the only reason your friend ended up agreeing to pay her bills was because she chewed him out first.
Always make sure you're the more Vocal one in a post accident argument, it really does help in causing the other party to back down and accept more blame/deter them pressing you.

From what I see given here, I'd say she's probably more at fault than your friend. (Of course, she doesn't seem to agree, and perhaps there's more to the story.)

Though if her problem is really just an out-of-true wheel, I'd probably say `look, this was your fault and not mine, but I can true a wheel in a few minutes. Stop by my place and I'll show you how it's done. We can also check out the rest of the bike to make sure everything is OK.' Especially if she's cute.

But I'd make really sure that she knows that I'm doing this to be nice, not because I (or my friend) are responsible. After all, she could decide that her knee was hurt and she wants a big cash settlement, and attempt to say that since I fixed her tire, I was admitting responsibility ...

I don't know if the actual laws are going to matter. The police are unlikely to give a ticket. If your friend has renters or homeowner's insurance, she could make a claim and they'd work it out. If not, and he denies responsibility, really, all she could do would be to sue him or take him to small claims court -- and then that's when the actual laws might matter. But usual cycling practice (announcing your passing, for example) may very well matter too.

Thanks, that certainly is clear about what to do when passing a pedestrian in VA. Did you notice anything about giving audible signals to bicyclists being passed or any requirement to slow down prior to safely passing a bicyclist?
Read the third paragraph. Bicycles on sidewalks and trails are considered pedestrians.


But usual cycling practice (announcing your passing, for example) may very well matter too.
Unfortunately there are a lot of cyclists out there who do not think that they need to or should give warning before passing. I remember some discussions on these boards where people said that they never give warning because the person they are passing will turn around to look and get in their way. In my opinion they've made their choice and if there is a collision, it's all on them.

Your friend should not give her a penny..........the accident was her fault. There is no law here in NYC that would place your friend at fault. As a matter of common sense and corteousy, it was up to her to either sound her bell or announce herself "On your left" (Your friend should've checked her bike for one). Had she done either of those, the accident would've never happened. Those kind of people, along with cyclists who use the trails and paths here in NYC who spent a grand on a bike but don't even have a cheap strobe when they ride at night piss me off. I feel safer riding with cars than using bike paths at night in NYC.

I'll also add, there are the morons who announce themselves "On your left" when they're right next to you, in which case, their announcement serves more to startle than anything else.

Read the third paragraph. Bicycles on sidewalks and trails are considered pedestrians.
Considered "pedestrians" by whom other than BF Brand legal pedants?
If you want to get carried away with the idea that cyclists are legally considered "pedestrians" and must be warned when being passed by a vehicle, what is the requirement for one "pedestrian" passing another to sound a warning? What is the requirement for a "pedestrian" to come to a full stop at a stop sign?

Considered "pedestrians" by whom other than BF Brand legal pedants?
....
VDOT, Virginia's official bike site, the Virginia Statewide bike map, WABA, NVPA (they control the W&OD), NPS (they control the Mount Vernon Trail, the Mall, and many other trails in the area), several local police and sheriff's offices (they make a big point of it in the media whenever there is a safety campaign going on (like now in Loudon and Alexandria)), local county bike coordinators (this has been discussed and meetings I've attended), my congressman (used to be my county supervisor, put together the bicycle task force and wrote the county regulations)
That enough for ya?:D