Advocacy & Safety - How to never yield - the ostrich method

I was riding home on the Burke Gilman Trail the other day, and Trouble almost caught up with me. I'm wondering whether I was partly in the wrong in my understanding of traffic law in this instance, and if not, how other cyclists would have handled the situation?

There are a few areas in Fremont where the trail crosses mostly unused one-way streets. Many of these roads have stop signs before they cross the trail, which is the same intersection as when they cross the main road - it's a weird setup. The trail does not have a stop sign here, but a mile up there are stop signs ( and lights ) for the trail. So, this leads me to expect that trail users have the right of way.

As I was crossing one of these roads ( map (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=47.650421,-122.331594&spn=0.001829,0.005327&t=h&z=18) ), a driver in an SUV was at the stop sign, waiting for a break in the auto traffic to join the main road. He saw me coming down the trail on his left, at about 15+ mph, from a good distance. So the guy looked right, and didn't look back. He pulled out into the main road, through my intersection, when I was about 75 feet away.

I had a feeling he might cut me off like this, based on his obstinate refusal to look at me, like a protest of ignorance. This is pretty upsetting; if I were in a car, he'd have waited, because I could have done damage to his property, but if the only risk is hospitalizing a fellow human, well, other peoples' lives aren't worth your 15 seconds. I was able to brake and turn, and avoid a crash.

Other than carrying a paintball gun to warn other cyclists of idiots at the wheel, how would you handle a situation like this? Or was I wrong in expecting the driver to yield in this case? I mean, you always have to be prepared for surprises, but I did have the right of way, yes?

He was at this stop line and you were coming from his right on the trail?
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=47.650461,-122.331575&spn=0,0.001725&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.650461,-122.331575&panoid=00BNNooyxAZj6wemM0ZK0A&cbp=12,62.29,,0,27.04

I would have stopped.

75ft is 'cut-off' ???

I was riding home on the Burke Gilman Trail the other day, and Trouble almost caught up with me. I'm wondering whether I was partly in the wrong in my understanding of traffic law in this instance, and if not, how other cyclists would have handled the situation?

There are a few areas in Fremont where the trail crosses mostly unused one-way streets. Many of these roads have stop signs before they cross the trail, which is the same intersection as when they cross the main road - it's a weird setup. The trail does not have a stop sign here, but a mile up there are stop signs ( and lights ) for the trail. So, this leads me to expect that trail users have the right of way.

As I was crossing one of these roads ( map (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=47.650421,-122.331594&spn=0.001829,0.005327&t=h&z=18) ), a driver in an SUV was at the stop sign, waiting for a break in the auto traffic to join the main road. He saw me coming down the trail on his left, at about 15+ mph, from a good distance. So the guy looked right, and didn't look back. He pulled out into the main road, through my intersection, when I was about 75 feet away.

I had a feeling he might cut me off like this, based on his obstinate refusal to look at me, like a protest of ignorance. This is pretty upsetting; if I were in a car, he'd have waited, because I could have done damage to his property, but if the only risk is hospitalizing a fellow human, well, other peoples' lives aren't worth your 15 seconds. I was able to brake and turn, and avoid a crash.

Other than carrying a paintball gun to warn other cyclists of idiots at the wheel, how would you handle a situation like this? Or was I wrong in expecting the driver to yield in this case? I mean, you always have to be prepared for surprises, but I did have the right of way, yes?

Well, the situation is that a minor road always gives way to a major road... and I'd call the bike trail pretty minor to that much wider road. I really don't think the stop line is there to give you ROW... so I wouldn't depend on it.

Well, the situation is that a minor road always gives way to a major road... and I'd call the bike trail pretty minor to that much wider road. I really don't think the stop line is there to give you ROW... so I wouldn't depend on it.
That is my thinking too

I'd guess he might have thought you were far enough away and going slow enough that he would have had sufficient time (it's possible that his estimation was incorrect). It's possible that his intent was to force you to stop or slow. If you were in a car, you would have likely been travelling much faster (25+mph). 75 feet seems quite a lot of space for an "collision avoidance" maneuver.

It seems more prudent for the cyclist to treat the path through the intersection as a crosswalk (which it is sort of) and not expect to "barrel through" it. (Note that crosswalks don't often have stop signs for pedestrians.)

He was at this stop line and you were coming from his right on the trail?
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=47.650461,-122.331575&spn=0,0.001725&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.650461,-122.331575&panoid=00BNNooyxAZj6wemM0ZK0A&cbp=12,62.29,,0,27.04

I would have stopped.

75ft is 'cut-off' ???

I was coming from the driver's left, but otherwise, that's what happened. I don't know, it may have been 50 feet ... I didn't have a ruler at the time. :D It was about two seconds ahead of me on the trail. In hind sight, 75 seemed like an appropriate number, but it's a guess.


Well, the situation is that a minor road always gives way to a major road... and I'd call the bike trail pretty minor to that much wider road. I really don't think the stop line is there to give you ROW... so I wouldn't depend on it.

I thought about that, and it's a valid interpretation. I don't think it's the right one, but I'm not sure, and that's why I'm asking. Shouldn't the fact that the 'roads' cross at 90 degrees, and the fact that the driver had a stop sign and I didn't, adds up to trail users having the right of way. Am I really that off in my thinking.

When I see a car on one of these side roads in the future ( which isn't that often ) I'll probably slow down a bit more and prepare to stop, if necessary, regardless. Traffic law takes a back seat to the laws of physics...

Consider that if a driver was parallel to you in adjacent roadway and were to turn right the travel across that bike path you are on that they do not have a stop sign. You should be stopping before crossing this road.

I can't tell you whether he was legally supposed to yield to you -- I don't know anything about Washington State traffic law -- but if I were in the same situation, I would definitely slow way down when approaching intersections like the one you describe, and never assume that cross traffic is going to yield. A multi-use trail is not really a road but not really a sidewalk, and it's hard to predict how a given driver will react to it.

Is the stop sign on the perpendicular road before the point where the path crosses, or after? If the stop sign is before the crossing, it seems more likely that you have the legal right of way...but I would still be careful there, and never approach the intersections at such a speed that you would be in danger if someone cut you off. You can't really expect to move at a decent speed on most MUPs; they're designed for recreation, not efficient transportation.

One question, though: if there is a road paralleling this path, why do you choose to ride on the path? You might find the road to be a lot safer and faster.

A tombstone doesn't differentiate ROW. Motorists are known for being A-holes to bikes regardless of traffic laws, it's unfortunately something we have to deal with so...

I am actually convinced that it is the motorists' attitude towards cyclists that make most avid cyclists such A-holes to everyone else. How many times has a car pulled in front of you while not looking or not caring and you follow that action with some verbal assault on the motorist? If you live in a big city I promise it happens 1-10 times each ride. Well as they say "practice makes perfect" and eventually you turn into a permanent A-hole yourself!

One question, though: if there is a road paralleling this path, why do you choose to ride on the path? You might find the road to be a lot safer and faster.

That's a good question. I'm not a sidewalk rider otherwise.

The Burke is a great trail, and just simple fun. It's MUP, but there are actually two trails at this point in the path: one for cyclists, and a second for walkers and joggers. These "super pedestrians" do often borrow the use of the bike trail, but it's about six to eight feet wide at most points, so very easy to navigate. And while there are some bumps from tree roots under the pavement, it's usually kept clear of debris. It doesn't have the feel of a sidewalk - more like an isolated bike path. I'm often passed by faster cyclists here, even when I'm doing about 20 mph. It's just a really nice trail.

So, it seems like the consensus is that it's not as clear cut as it seemed to me, and that I need to take care for my own safety, regardless of what the law says. As stubborn as I'll continue to be in asserting that I do have the right of way at this type of intersection ( and I the stop is before the trail, not after, as the trail crosses the street at the cross walk ), I can't let that stubbornness get in the way of my safety. So I'll have to at slow down when I see autos on these cross streets ( which isn't often ). Thanks, all, for setting me straight.

So, it seems like the consensus is that it's not as clear cut as it seemed to me, and that I need to take care for my own safety, regardless of what the law says. As stubborn as I'll continue to be in asserting that I do have the right of way at this type of intersection ( and I the stop is before the trail, not after, as the trail crosses the street at the cross walk ), I can't let that stubbornness get in the way of my safety. So I'll have to at slow down when I see autos on these cross streets ( which isn't often ). Thanks, all, for setting me straight.
Perfect.

It is completely appropriate and correct (in any vehicle) to yield your so-called "right of way" to avoid a collision. In fact, you must do that.

Enjoy the trail (and be careful).

I was riding home on the Burke Gilman Trail the other day, and Trouble almost caught up with me. I'm wondering whether I was partly in the wrong in my understanding of traffic law in this instance, and if not, how other cyclists would have handled the situation?

There are a few areas in Fremont where the trail crosses mostly unused one-way streets. Many of these roads have stop signs before they cross the trail, which is the same intersection as when they cross the main road - it's a weird setup. The trail does not have a stop sign here, but a mile up there are stop signs ( and lights ) for the trail. So, this leads me to expect that trail users have the right of way.

As I was crossing one of these roads ( map (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=47.650421,-122.331594&spn=0.001829,0.005327&t=h&z=18) ), a driver in an SUV was at the stop sign, waiting for a break in the auto traffic to join the main road. He saw me coming down the trail on his left, at about 15+ mph, from a good distance. So the guy looked right, and didn't look back. He pulled out into the main road, through my intersection, when I was about 75 feet away.

I had a feeling he might cut me off like this, based on his obstinate refusal to look at me, like a protest of ignorance. This is pretty upsetting; if I were in a car, he'd have waited, because I could have done damage to his property, but if the only risk is hospitalizing a fellow human, well, other peoples' lives aren't worth your 15 seconds. I was able to brake and turn, and avoid a crash.

Other than carrying a paintball gun to warn other cyclists of idiots at the wheel, how would you handle a situation like this? Or was I wrong in expecting the driver to yield in this case? I mean, you always have to be prepared for surprises, but I did have the right of way, yes?

You were, and ARE, all the way wrong; you cannot assume you have the right of way. And, uh, 75 feet at 15+ mph is NOT a cut-off. A tiny bit rude, but then you were being rude in assuming he was supposed to wait for you.


I was coming from the driver's left, but otherwise, that's what happened. I don't know, it may have been 50 feet ... I didn't have a ruler at the time. :D It was about two seconds ahead of me on the trail. In hind sight, 75 seemed like an appropriate number, but it's a guess.

I thought about that, and it's a valid interpretation. I don't think it's the right one, but I'm not sure, and that's why I'm asking. Shouldn't the fact that the 'roads' cross at 90 degrees, and the fact that the driver had a stop sign and I didn't, adds up to trail users having the right of way. Am I really that off in my thinking.

When I see a car on one of these side roads in the future ( which isn't that often ) I'll probably slow down a bit more and prepare to stop, if necessary, regardless. Traffic law takes a back seat to the laws of physics...

A bike trail, essentially a MUP, does not have equal standing with a road, as far as right-of-way goes; the stop sign is where it is because any closer to the corner would block the sidewalk and/or the MUP. It DOESN'T mean you have right of way. So traffic law is NOT taking a back seat to safety or physics.


That's a good question. I'm not a sidewalk rider otherwise.

The Burke is a great trail, and just simple fun. It's MUP, but there are actually two trails at this point in the path: one for cyclists, and a second for walkers and joggers. These "super pedestrians" do often borrow the use of the bike trail, but it's about six to eight feet wide at most points, so very easy to navigate. And while there are some bumps from tree roots under the pavement, it's usually kept clear of debris. It doesn't have the feel of a sidewalk - more like an isolated bike path. I'm often passed by faster cyclists here, even when I'm doing about 20 mph. It's just a really nice trail.

So, it seems like the consensus is that it's not as clear cut as it seemed to me, and that I need to take care for my own safety, regardless of what the law says. As stubborn as I'll continue to be in asserting that I do have the right of way at this type of intersection ( and I the stop is before the trail, not after, as the trail crosses the street at the cross walk ), I can't let that stubbornness get in the way of my safety. So I'll have to at slow down when I see autos on these cross streets ( which isn't often ). Thanks, all, for setting me straight.

Stubborn doesn't get you anything except lumps on your head from beating it against that wall. Asserting a non-existent right WILL, however, turn you into grill-grease.

That's a good question. I'm not a sidewalk rider otherwise.

The Burke is a great trail, and just simple fun.
Fair enough; that's a good reason to ride the trail. I do the same thing; most of the time, I strongly prefer a road when it's available, but if the offroad trail is much nicer than the road itself, I'll take it.

The thread had come to a satisfactory conclusion before you arrived. The OP had reserved judgment on the legal situation, and come to understand that the best course of action would be to take caution around this intersection. And yes, there is some question about who has right of way. The presence of a stop sign sees to that. Especially since the MUP doesn't have one, even though it is marked with signs and lights at other intersections. A bike trail can have equal standing with a road in [B]certain situations[\B], it all depends on local traffic laws.

sorry, sanitycheck, I was speaking to DX-MAN. Indulging my morbid desire to feed the trolls.

I thought about that, and it's a valid interpretation. I don't think it's the right one, but I'm not sure, and that's why I'm asking. Shouldn't the fact that the 'roads' cross at 90 degrees, and the fact that the driver had a stop sign and I didn't, adds up to trail users having the right of way. Am I really that off in my thinking.

When I see a car on one of these side roads in the future ( which isn't that often ) I'll probably slow down a bit more and prepare to stop, if necessary, regardless. Traffic law takes a back seat to the laws of physics...

The sad thing is that the road engineers that placed the stop sign there probably did not take the path into account... so as much as you want the stop sign to be for cross traffic for the path, it is not. Likely the path wasn't even a consideration for the traffic engineers...

Further, based on that lesser road/greater road issue, the path itself probably should have a stop sign.

It is always wise to protect ones self from injury. Some are blaming the cyclist here and I dont believe that he is at fault. Here is why; A motorist, while stopped at a stop sighn has the legal responsibility to look for ALL traffic. Motor traffic AND pedestrian traffic, He, the motorist has a stop sighn, not the cyclist/pedestrian therefor the bike path has not been established as the lesser route the cross road has. This stop sighn gives the right of way to the pedestrian/cyclist on the path, the motorist has the responsibility to give way, or put another way to yield right of way to the other traffic. I would also like to point out that had this been a pedestrian it would be open and closed case of failure to yield.
On that note I would also like to say good job in avoiding a bad situation and recognizing it before it became a huge problem. I would urge you to complain to the appropriate governing body about this potentially unsafe intersection.

The sad thing is that the road engineers that placed the stop sign there probably did not take the path into account... so as much as you want the stop sign to be for cross traffic for the path, it is not. Likely the path wasn't even a consideration for the traffic engineers...

Further, based on that lesser road/greater road issue, the path itself probably should have a stop sign.

Unfortunately you may be correct as to the why this happened. But the facts are that the motorist has the responsibility to obey the traffic signs as they are placed not interpret what they may or may not have meant. Also note that the cyclist is not operating on the road ,this removes the stipulation that some states have that a bicycle is a vehicle. Since the cyclist is not on the road but on a separate path that makes him a pedestrian. And a pedestrian always has the right of way in most states.

You were, and ARE, all the way wrong; you cannot assume you have the right of way. And, uh, 75 feet at 15+ mph is NOT a cut-off. A tiny bit rude, but then you were being rude in assuming he was supposed to wait for you.



A bike trail, essentially a MUP, does not have equal standing with a road, as far as right-of-way goes; the stop sign is where it is because any closer to the corner would block the sidewalk and/or the MUP. It DOESN'T mean you have right of way. So traffic law is NOT taking a back seat to safety or physics.



Stubborn doesn't get you anything except lumps on your head from beating it against that wall. Asserting a non-existent right WILL, however, turn you into grill-grease.

actually I think you are wrong, but I will change my answer so you dont have a sizure ok,? take some deep breaths and try to relax the medication will start to work shortly. Wow.

The sad thing is that the road engineers that placed the stop sign there probably did not take the path into account... so as much as you want the stop sign to be for cross traffic for the path, it is not. Likely the path wasn't even a consideration for the traffic engineers...

Further, based on that lesser road/greater road issue, the path itself probably should have a stop sign.

I don't think this is correct. The stop is before the path/crosswalk.

Regardless of intention, the way the road is laid out implies that the cycle path would have right of way. However, it is very confusing for drivers, thanks mostly to America's terrible driver's ed programs. If it were me, I'd assume right of way, but go very, very slow, ready for someone to do something stupid. As soon as possible, I'd talk to the city and explain that the intersection is likely to cause issues if the situation isn't clarified. A stop sign on the MUP would be acceptable, if not ideal. Better would be a simple sign warning of bicycle cross traffic, provided the traffic on the MUP isn't heavy enough to cause a real disruption of motor vehicle traffic.

Unfortunately you may be correct as to the why this happened. But the facts are that the motorist has the responsibility to obey the traffic signs as they are placed not interpret what they may or may not have meant. Also note that the cyclist is not operating on the road ,this removes the stipulation that some states have that a bicycle is a vehicle. Since the cyclist is not on the road but on a separate path that makes him a pedestrian. And a pedestrian always has the right of way in most states.

Right :rolleyes: Try to get that one by most motorists... Heck, more pedestrians are killed than cyclists... good luck with that line of thinking.

There are conflicts at that intersection... that of minor paths meeting a major road, of paths having no "weight" in the mind of most motorists, and of the stop line being too close to the path as to render the stop ambiguous.

I would NOT depend or expect motorists to treat users of the path in a good way. The drivers are looking at their minor road, which meets a major road as being the only valid users of the facilities in that area. Motorists will not look at the path as any more than a "park/recreation" situation, while they, the motorists are the "official" users of the road. Such is the mentality of most drivers. Try to change that or expect different treatment... and you will no doubt be in for a huge disappointment and a lot of frustration.

Now if you really wanted to get things set right, the first thing I would suggest is educating motorists... and the best way would be with a sign placement indicating that motorists must wait for crossing traffic. Something like: Yield to Bikes and Pedestrians. Without that, as far as motorists are concerned, you don't exist. Even with that, there is a strong chance that such signage will be ignored.

Around here in some places, in order for pedestrians to get the ROW they actually are granted by law, there are special crosswalks, with road level inset blinking lights, and roadside signs with large blinking lights, to stop motor traffic and permit pedestrians to safely cross. :mad: It takes that much to get drivers to stop, look and obey the law.

Here is an example of such a crosswalk:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.956609,-117.264311&spn=0,0.022552&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.956694,-117.264334&panoid=Xrsct3ixFEJ6qNbaZBJVTg&cbp=12,181.15,,0,5.34

Notice the speed limit on the road, the dayglow ped signs, and in the street, the inset lights that flash. It takes that much to tell motorists they don't in fact "own the road." :innocent:

but that is exactly my point. I f we continue to give up our right to the road and let them bully us because they are in a car then we will eventually lose those rights. my above argument is about what the road says is legal and who should be yielding to who. I completely understand what you are saying about the motorists perception, but that doesnt make thier behaviour right or legal. Dont misunderstand me I am not saying to throw yourself in fron of a car because you have the right of way, but to stand your ground whan it is appropriate. the op asked if his thinking was wrong. And from where I sit I dont think he is. I believe the motorist violated his right of way and failed to yield to him. I also believe that he did a great job of recognizing a bad situation and dealing with it in a safe maner.
Laws make us all equall, without them then the only thing on the road would be semi trucks and the occasional army tank. In a civilized society might does not make right.

actually I think you are wrong, but I will change my answer so you dont have a sizure ok,? take some deep breaths and try to relax the medication will start to work shortly. Wow.

Actually, I think you're foolish, and I don't require medication. But I'll forgive you, since I see you're from Detroit.

but that is exactly my point. I f we continue to give up our right to the road and let them bully us because they are in a car then we will eventually lose those rights. my above argument is about what the road says is legal and who should be yielding to who. I completely understand what you are saying about the motorists perception, but that doesnt make thier behaviour right or legal. Dont misunderstand me I am not saying to throw yourself in fron of a car because you have the right of way, but to stand your ground whan it is appropriate. the op asked if his thinking was wrong. And from where I sit I dont think he is. I believe the motorist violated his right of way and failed to yield to him. I also believe that he did a great job of recognizing a bad situation and dealing with it in a safe maner.
Laws make us all equall, without them then the only thing on the road would be semi trucks and the occasional army tank. In a civilized society might does not make right.

OK I agree that Peds do have ROW at that intersection... and maybe the stop line IS placed where motorists should also stop for cyclists (who BTW do NOT have the rights of peds as someone mentioned). So how are you going to "fight" motorists who don't yield to either peds or cyclists... as the OP opined, this guy intentionally did not look... pretty much shifting the responsibility of safety to the path users.

Sure this sort of thing really ticks me off too... we have similar problems here with paths, even with signs that indicate cyclists are crossing, and with motorists that have red lights and are making right turns on red and crossing the path.

Now tell me how to stop such behavior and man I'll be right behind you.

What are you going to do... Write politicians? (Oh like that will help) Demand police protection? (Good luck) Use loud horns to warn motorists (might stop one or two).

The problem is that motorists feel they own the road have some sort of priority over any other road user... the only real answer is to re-educate all motorists. (and that isn't going to happen either)

Yes, I am cynical... I've been around long enough to see just how selfish some folks can be when behind the wheel... even to other motorists. I'd love to hear a real solution.

I'm waiting...

how you say? One motorist at a time. I have had plenty of altercations with motorists, where I have had to let them know what is correct and why what they just did was wrong. I have called the cops, I have gone to court. Its how its done. The laws are already there to protect us but we need to be willing to go the extra mile, to see that those laws are enforced, because we have been lax in the past.
I agree that education is the key, and, like you I also feel it probably wont happen. But I wont give up. I ride my bike on the street because I am free to do so. Because the law says it is my right. So I will excersise that right. I will not give in to the mechanised bully's, and I will make them pay for threatening my safety at every oppertunity I can. I do whatever I can, whenever I can. Why? because I am tired of giving my rights away so some Suzie home maker can drive her suv to pick up Jr. from soccer and text and talk at the same time. Then when she violates the law and creams one of us she only gets a ticket. If we as the cycling comunity just let them take our right to ride away who do we have to blame. If we allow the police to selectively enforce the laws then we get what we deserve. Or worse yet if we allow the motorist to dictate to us what the laws are then we have aready lost, and I for one will not allow it.

And one more thing then I will put the soap box away.
Bike paths. I hate them. I already have a bike path, its called the road. Instead of spending the money to educate the public on drivers safety and awareness. They will spend billions on bike paths. I am a vehicle by law. I belong on the road. not a trumped up side walk.

OK I agree that Peds do have ROW at that intersection...
Pedestrians have the right in the crosswalk. The do not have the right of way 75 feet before the crosswalk. Pedestrians typically have to yield before they enter the crosswalk.

but that is exactly my point. I f we continue to give up our right to the road and let them bully us because they are in a car then we will eventually lose those rights. my above argument is about what the road says is legal and who should be yielding to who.
The "right of way" isn't a "right" like free speech. If you see a car running a red light and you can stop to avoid a collision, you stop. You don't plow into the other car even if you have the so-called "right of way". (This should be obvious.)


And a pedestrian always has the right of way in most states.
No, pedestrians have the right of way in the crosswalk. They typically are required to yield to traffic before they enter the crosswalk. Anyway, it's simple common sense to look before you enter the crosswalk (and the law basically requires you to do so).

how you say? One motorist at a time. I have had plenty of altercations with motorists, where I have had to let them know what is correct and why what they just did was wrong. I have called the cops, I have gone to court. Its how its done. The laws are already there to protect us but we need to be willing to go the extra mile, to see that those laws are enforced, because we have been lax in the past.
I agree that education is the key, and, like you I also feel it probably wont happen. But I wont give up. I ride my bike on the street because I am free to do so. Because the law says it is my right. So I will excersise that right. I will not give in to the mechanised bully's, and I will make them pay for threatening my safety at every oppertunity I can. I do whatever I can, whenever I can. Why? because I am tired of giving my rights away so some Suzie home maker can drive her suv to pick up Jr. from soccer and text and talk at the same time. Then when she violates the law and creams one of us she only gets a ticket. If we as the cycling comunity just let them take our right to ride away who do we have to blame. If we allow the police to selectively enforce the laws then we get what we deserve. Or worse yet if we allow the motorist to dictate to us what the laws are then we have aready lost, and I for one will not allow it.

Been there done that. I carry small business card sized cards with the laws of my state that pertain to cyclists... (emphasis on cyclists' rights). Every now and then I give one out to a motorist that might actually read it. Good luck with your campaign.

Until judges read the laws and uphold them, we really don't have much of a chance, and right now there are far too many examples of judges not heading the laws with regard to cyclists rights, and far too many motorists getting away with nearly murder with regard to the deaths of cyclists on our shared roadways.

Carry out your campaign... but don't forget to stop when that 2 tons of metal doesn't.

I will , dont get me wrong like I said before I dont expect anyone to throw themselves into the path of a vehicle, you need to apply soome common sense. AND also the judges and cops wont do anything until it is made obvious that there is a need. They will continue to do things the easy way, like they have been doing.
nj
I am not going to get into this contest if you cant even read what was said before. And I am sorry you dont get it but a crosswalk doesnt have anything to do with right of way, and yes I understand what the term means, perhaps it vvarys from state to state but a pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way, and a motorist must yield. Now the point I was making about the pedestrian, in the context that the op gave. The motorist was stopped at a cross street where he had a stop sighn. This puts the burden of safe pasage on the motorist because he cannot move until he knows it clear to do so. THIS INCLUDES PEDESTRIANS. A bicycle not on a roadway is concidered a pedestrian. That isnt to hard to grasp is it? Crosswalk doesnt even enter into the equasion, has no merit or bearing on the discusion. Suppose the cyclist was on the road, it is a two way stop, the motorist has the stop sighn. A cyclist is approaching from the right side of the motorist. Is it legal for the motorist to run the cyclist down? Well why not he wasnt in a cross walk?

Now did I say any of this was a good idea? No I did not. The op asked if he did anything wrong, did he? NO he did not. There was no stop sighn for him but the motorist was stopped at one. Should he have continued to cross the motorists path? NOT unless he wanted to be steak tartar. But, in the insuing investigaion and the subsequent trial after the disasterous crossing, since the motorist had a stop sighn and the bike path did not where do you think fault would be found? Might does not make right no matter how bad you want it too.

The "right of way" isn't a "right" like free speech. If you see a car running a red light and you can stop to avoid a collision, you stop. You don't plow into the other car even if you have the so-called "right of way". (This should be obvious.)


No, pedestrians have the right of way in the crosswalk. They typically are required to yield to traffic before they enter the crosswalk. Anyway, it's simple common sense to look before you enter the crosswalk (and the law basically requires you to do so).

EDIT: the rights I was refering to is our right to ride on the road safely, You seam to have misunderstood what I was saying I did not mean to intertwine these rights with right of way, see context.
In your above statement on " right of way" you conveiniently glossed over the fact that the traffic light in this case has dictated who has the right of way. and That if I did plow into the car crossing illegally against the right I would not be at fault. I still have the right of way, the illegally crossing car has failed to yield. I will agree that yes for my own self preservation I should do everything I can to stop.
in the second example on crossing, the is no sighn and the motorist has the stop sighn he also bears the same responsibility. Ignoring cross traffic is not a defense.

Might does not make right no matter how bad you want it too.

I don't want it to... that is your assumption. But there is something called "dead right." Think about it.

EDIT: the rights I was refering to is our right to ride on the road safely, You seam to have misunderstood what I was saying I did not mean to intertwine these rights with right of way, see context.
In your above statement on " right of way" you conveiniently glossed over the fact that the traffic light in this case has dictated who has the right of way. and That if I did plow into the car crossing illegally against the right I would not be at fault. I still have the right of way, the illegally crossing car has failed to yield. I will agree that yes for my own self preservation I should do everything I can to stop.
in the second example on crossing, the is no sighn and the motorist has the stop sighn he also bears the same responsibility. Ignoring cross traffic is not a defense.
No

You don't have right of way once he is in front of you. At that point, he has failed to yield, but if it can be demonstrated that you didn't fully attempt to stop, you would still be at fault. It required by law to avoid a collision in any way possible.

One thing I hate about America is the tendency to treat symptoms instead of the disease. You see it all the time with new road signs. Drivers never had enough education to understand the rules of the road, so we put up signs telling them exactly what to do. Then they get used to those signs, and we have to up the ante. That's why they've installed a couple of those flashing light crosswalks here.

It should be much easier to lose your license than it is now, and to get it back, you should have to go through a new comprehensive driver's education program.

It required by law to avoid a collision in any way possible.
It's hard to say whether this is required by law. It is required by common sense!

EDIT: the rights I was refering to is our right to ride on the road safely,
This makes sense. No one is arguing that. Anyway, every body has that right.


In your above statement on " right of way" you conveiniently glossed over the fact that the traffic light in this case has dictated who has the right of way.
I didn't "gloss over" this. It's completely unimportant IF you can reasonably avoid a collision. Avoiding collisions is the first and primary goal.


and That if I did plow into the car crossing illegally against the right I would not be at fault.
Yes, you would not be legally "at fault" but you would be in a collision, with damages, maybe injuries, maybe even dead.

The only value of the "at fault" stuff is to mitigate a mess. You are much better off avoiding the mess entirely.


I still have the right of way, the illegally crossing car has failed to yield. I will agree that yes for my own self preservation I should do everything I can to stop.
No, you (as a pedestrian) have the right-of-way IN the crosswalk. You as (as a pedestrian) are required (typically) by law to yield before you enter the crosswalk.

(The OP was 75 feet away from the intersection!)


in the second example on crossing, the is no sighn and the motorist has the stop sighn he also bears the same responsibility.
Everybody has the responsibility and requirement to try to avoid collisions. Everybody.

It's hard to say whether this is required by law. It is required by common sense!

It's my understanding that you can still be at fault for failure to yield, even if the person you failed to yield to also violated the law. The exception being when you are unable to react in time. I.e. it is illegal to intentionally collide with someone, no matter what the circumstances.

Regardless of right or wrong, I would give way to the larger vehicle. If I were a pedestrian I would yield to a vehicle turning off the main road. To a driver, it's all the same- he would expect to be able to go right through and expect peds/bikes (it's all the same to him) to wait. This is the car-centric view. I would guess, though, that a pedestrian crossing the road there would have a right of way even though cars would expect the peds to wait. Making it more confusing, there's a clearly marked crosswalk across the main through road, but not across the entrance to the harbor area.

It's just kind of fupped duck.

It's my understanding that you can still be at fault for failure to yield, even if the person you failed to yield to also violated the law. The exception being when you are unable to react in time.
I think the problem is that it typically very difficult to tell whether or not there was enough time to avoid the collision.
Put another way, the first person "at fault" made a mistake. Why can't the second person also have made a mistake?

I think it would be quite unusual that a "violation" would result. The collision and the costs associated with that are punishment enough.


I.e. it is illegal to intentionally collide with someone, no matter what the circumstances.
We aren't talking about "intentional", which would be willful destruction of property or assault or murder.

Regardless of right or wrong, I would give way to the larger vehicle. If I were a pedestrian I would yield to a vehicle turning off the main road. To a driver, it's all the same- he would expect to be able to go right through and expect peds/bikes (it's all the same to him) to wait. This is the car-centric view. I would guess, though, that a pedestrian crossing the road there would have a right of way even though cars would expect the peds to wait.
But it's always right (to take action to avoid a collision). (Unless you want to get hurt, I guess.)

Essentially, so-called "right of way" is something you (clearly) have or is something somebody else has yielded to you. The "right of way" rules inform people who is supposed to do what in different situations (like dancing instructions).


Making it more confusing, there's a clearly marked crosswalk across the main through road, but not across the entrance to the harbor area.
Typically, crosswalks exist whether or not they are marked as such.

======================

Regarding avoiding crosswalk collisions, both parties have the responsibility: the pedestrian must expect to have to stop for traffic and cars must expect to have to stop for pedestrians. This way, there are two independent processes that will tend to reduce the number of collisions if somebody (one, the other, or both) make a mistake in judgement.

I agree that no violations would be likely. I also think we agree in spirit. I'm just saying that if somebody breaks the rules of the road, it does nothing to reduce your responsibility to drive safely, even your legal responsibility. You're not going to be excused from doing something stupid, just because somebody else did something stupid first.

I think the law I'm talking about says that the vehicle in already in the roadway has right of way no matter what. Definitely ambiguous, but that and common sense led to my conclusion.

Basically, when we talk right of way, we need to remember that it's not immutable.

I agree that no violations would be likely. I also think we agree in spirit. I'm just saying that if somebody breaks the rules of the road, it does nothing to reduce your responsibility to drive safely, even your legal responsibility. You're not going to be excused from doing something stupid, just because somebody else did something stupid first.

I think the law I'm talking about says that the vehicle in already in the roadway has right of way no matter what. Definitely ambiguous, but that and common sense led to my conclusion.

Basically, when we talk right of way, we need to remember that it's not immutable.

Yes, we are basically saying the same thing.

One risk of talking about the "legal" stuff is that it is after the fact. The best thing would be for people do do what they can to avoid the fact entirely!

Some people seem to think that it is other people's responsibility to keep them safe. While this is true, you have no control over what other people do.

The OP's "mistake" in this particular case was relying on other people to do the right thing and not quite realizing that he had a responsibility too.

Things are more reliable if both parties do the right thing (and try to avoid a collision).

I wont beat this dead horse any more except to say in Mi. the ped ALWAYS has the right of way. That is in the drivers ed manual and it is taught as such.
In the red light discusion, The point you make is a really crummy one . If they fail to yield and I hit them they are at fault. If there was some way for me to avoid them then they still are guilty of an infraction and if witnessed by a l.e.o. would be ticketed. Now your point is that if I could avoid them and I chose not to then I have also failed to yield? yes I have failed to yield to basic common sence and self preservation, and I cant comprehend a situation that this course of action would come about. Other than a mechanical failure.
Yes, I will give you that it is illegal tointensionaly collide with someone, but thats not what we are talking about.
I just cant understand how the op is at fault when the motorist
A) Had a stop sighn
B) Did not look to see if the intersection was clear of traffic motor or pedestrian.
C) The op did not have a stop sighn.
And again I am not saying turn yourself into human tartar to prove the point. The motorist should have given upright of way to the op. Look at it another way If a l.e.o. witnessed this do you think the l.e.o. should have issued a citation to the motorist?

This makes sense. No one is arguing that. Anyway, every body has that right.


I didn't "gloss over" this. It's completely unimportant IF you can reasonably avoid a collision. Avoiding collisions is the first and primary goal.


Yes, you would not be legally "at fault" but you would be in a collision, with damages, maybe injuries, maybe even dead.

The only value of the "at fault" stuff is to mitigate a mess. You are much better off avoiding the mess entirely.


No, you (as a pedestrian) have the right-of-way IN the crosswalk. You as (as a pedestrian) are required (typically) by law to yield before you enter the crosswalk.

(The OP was 75 feet away from the intersection!)


Everybody has the responsibility and requirement to try to avoid collisions. Everybody.

I just got to ask. Are you a troll? Please explain to me how if car A runs a red light and crosses into my path and I collide with him I am at fault for failing to yield. Unless you are going to try to prove that it was my intension to go drive around and run GREEN lights to try and force someone else to run a red light in front of me, so that I have an oppertunity to have a collision.and it is everyone elses responsibility to avoid contact with car A or they have failed to yield to someone who does not have right of way?
Listen the way our system works is that I trust the rest of the people driving to follow the same rules as I do those are the traffic laws we all drive with. I have a reasonable expectation that when I approach an intersection and I do not have a stop sign and the other driver does that that person will obey the law and do what he is supposed to. If you come to an intersection and its a two way stop but you dont have the stop sighn do you stop?
The same for the red light intersection. I have a reasonable expectation that the other motorist will obey the law. I have no requirement to expect otherwise. other than deffensive driving. It is illegal to intensionally collide with some one. Well then tell me who has demonstrated intent to collide with some one, car A who has just run a red light , or car B who has just crossed a green light.
It is also required by law that you operate your motor vehicle in a maner that is consistent with the expectatons of others ( I know that isnt the legal wording I cant think of it right now) so the next time you come to a green light and cause an accident because you stopped dont be suprised if you get a ticket.

It's my understanding that you can still be at fault for failure to yield, even if the person you failed to yield to also violated the law. The exception being when you are unable to react in time. I.e. it is illegal to intentionally collide with someone, no matter what the circumstances.


The only instance that I can concieve of this being the case is when someone is trying to merge with traffic, and neither party gives way. normally circumstances have changed on the roadway if there is a change in who has the right of way. a merge lane , a lane ends there is a intersection etc. as to the rest of your post I would think that the rest would be obvious.

Yeah, I was mostly just responding to the guy who said a while back, that if you fail to yield to him, then expect to get hit. That's what I was making a point of, that he wouldn't have been in the right, even though he seemed to think so.

I read an interesting article about a European city (can't remember which one) that removed signage from many "dangerous" intersections. Collisions were actually reduced because drivers entering the intersections did not assume any "rights" and proceeded with caution, naturally. Food for thought.

I'd put money on the trail being the right of way with more traffic than that cross street.

that intersection needs much better and higher quality crossing and signage for the Burke-Gilman. Its pretty lame, motorists accustomed to waiting for cyclists at that intersection will pull a 'blind eye' encroachment into the poorly defined MUP crossing. the ostrich!

Just glanced through this thread for fun and wow- some of you are really over thinking this. You've clouded the issue with complaints about bike paths, stop signs, pedestrian and cyclist right of way, motorist education and blah, blah, blah...

For those of you who would actually like to avoid collisions in such incidents the key statement in the OP is this:


I had a feeling he might cut me off like this, based on his obstinate refusal to look at me, like a protest of ignorance...

If you ever get that feeling, even for a fleeting instant, take heed. More than likely the motorist will proceed as if you do not exist. Doesn't matter if there's a stop sign, a bike path or who has the "right of way". In my experience I assume invisibility* and act accordingly.

*meaning be as visible as possible but ride like no one sees you.