Google sponsored links
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040924/news_lz1s24bikepth.html
As an avid jogger and cyclist, I am troubled that some bicyclists on Fiesta Island are telling joggers to get off the road, just as some motorists give bicyclists the same message on other roads. It can be as difficult or dangerous to run on a sloping shoulder or in loose sand as it is to ride on these surfaces. Although I rarely visit Fiesta Island, this article hits close to home, because Stephan Vance is a friend and Tamara Lave once interviewed my son as a witness for one of her cases. I do have similar jogger-cyclist conflicts sometimes on Coast Highway 101, with 3-abreast joggers taking up the entire bike lane.
My partial solution is for the peleton of bicyclists to assume a longer, narrower (and actually more aerodynamic) formation, to share the road with the joggers.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
That's scary. In my humble opinion a lot of the problem is that the runners are told to run on the left side. We have multi-use here, the W&OD trail, and everyone uses the right side, runners, walkers, cyclists, bladers, and I don't see much in the way of dangerous passing. We're all taught to pass on the left...
... We have multi-use here, the W&OD trail, and everyone uses the right side, runners, walkers, cyclists, bladers, and I don't see much in the way of dangerous passing. We're all taught to pass on the left...
That makes sense to me, twahl, but it runs counter to most other paths I have seen. For example, on the relatively narrow two-way path along the shore of Lake Tahoe, signs admonish users to walk on the left and to bike on the right. Running with, rather than against, the flow of cyclists might have given Tamara Lave slightly more time to be seen, but it also would have given her less time to react and try to jump off the road.
Cyclists need to keep an assured clear distance like all other traffic. We also need to avoid yelling insults at other people legally using the road. But I find it annoying that when we use multi-use paths, we're told to slow down or get on the road. Then, when we use the road, we're still told to slow down. 30-35 mph is not that fast of a speed for traffic (which cyclists are).
If the runners want the cyclists to slow down, maybe the runners should try confining their speed to 4 mph. That's roughly equivalent of limiting cyclists to 15 or 20 mph.
On a serious note, John E is right, if more people (joggers & cyclists) stayed single-file, there would be a lot fewer conflicts.
Yeah there's the visibility issue, and reaction, but then there's the instinct to pass left. I dunno, I don't have extensive experience or anything, but I haven't seen any problems with the trails here. We do have an added advantage of having a fine gravel tred path that runs alongside the paved trail, and many of the runners seem to prefer that to pavement. I'm sure that helps some.
The trouble with making peds and runners going against the traffic is that it implies the ped is bobliged to get out of the way of the traffic. I think it safer and less ambiguous if the obligation is on the faster vehicle to is obliged to avoid the slower.
Peds, even ones that could be less erratic and give more space, should always be given safe passing clearance and the cyclist should stop (and be prepared to early) if there is not.
If a cyclist needs open space for continuous fast riding, then a multiuse path is not for them. Alternately a cyclist can understand the need for slowing, stopping and caution around peds. If anything the slowing/stopping and resulting need for getting back up to speed will give a better workout ;)
There are multiuse paths around where I live and I would never consider cycling for a workout on them.
Al
The complicating factor here is that asphalt path around Fiesta Island is actually a public one-way street without sidewalks or bike lanes. Yes, it is open to motor vehicles as well as to bicycles, but very people choose to drive on it. I miswrote when I entitled this thread "multiuse trail dangers," although most of the comments in this thread do apply to multiuse trails, in general.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?location=ju%2fRY50yj331ItYY9B3qd2cVCQzmB%2bdgR67r%2fFAJwFQOspgkiJ6OguCXh7qfLg95PxFg%2fy03bkc GrLFpR9Nk59E2rSZX9vavEvlTEExv6r6FD%2bfoQDxhYRA9FxOCnjJ1wk2dijYNHDh1dAs07ZH4FA%3d%3d&searchtype=address&searchtab=address&countryid=US&address=Fiesta%20Island%20Rd&city=San%20Diego&state=CA&zipcode=&country=US&addtohistory=
If a cyclist needs open space for continuous fast riding, then a multiuse path is not for them.
This is the very nub of the issue. Shared paths are totally inappropriate for cycling any faster than 20km/h. Conflicts like this on MUP's are nothing new, in fact, they've been known to turn quite violent on many of the paths around here, which is one of the reasons I avoid them.
If these things are going to work (and I'm yet to see any evidence of this), there need to be some ground rules laid down, and they need to be enforced. Paint a line down the middle of the path, ask the peds to stay on one side of that line, and put the emphasis on the passing cyclists to avoid them -- and give the police the power to remove anyone who doesn't comply from the path. Then they might serve some purpose.
Sometimes you just have to be aware and take into account the road conditions regardless of whether it's a public road, closed road, MUP, track, trail, park, whatever. Just because it's labelled one thing does not obviate you from making sure that conditions are safe for the speeds you're travelling. This includes watching for congestion points, other traffic, pedestrians, etc. Sometimes high speed cycling in congested areas is like attempting to run sprints in a shopping mall during the last weekend before Christmas.
I am not familiar with the road in San Diego but the rule I adopt around here is that MUP's are not for serious riding. There are too many pedestrians, roller bladers, and small children on the path for that.
Ultimately the paths in exsistance are being heavily used and therefore there is an argument for more bike paths and multi-use paths to be put in place in that area. Could the local government and DOT possibly be petitioned by neighboorhoods and user-groups to provide more adequate transportation options in their next 10 year plan?
:D It takes real persistance to see something like this through though.
That's scary. In my humble opinion a lot of the problem is that the runners are told to run on the left side. We have multi-use here, the W&OD trail, and everyone uses the right side, runners, walkers, cyclists, bladers, and I don't see much in the way of dangerous passing. We're all taught to pass on the left...
Here in Central Florida, all of our bike trails have signs and everyone uses the right side of the trail. Trails are far too narrow for pedestrians to walk facing vehicles (bicycles) as pedestrians are supposed to do on the roads.
Are you refering to the Orange Blossam Trail Pat? I have wanted to try that one soon but have heard the north end of it goes through some pretty "questionable" neighborhoods. What can you say about it?
I think y'all are missing the point by discussing MUP's. I read the article to say the accident happened on a road, not a path. The caption on the photo refers to a "shared road." The article says cyclists are there because there's little traffic. This appears to have been a road, which is exactly the place cyclists should be able to go fast.
I think y'all are missing the point by discussing MUP's. I read the article to say the accident happened on a road, not a path. The caption on the photo refers to a "shared road." The article says cyclists are there because there's little traffic. This appears to have been a road, which is exactly the place cyclists should be able to go fast.
And my point was that just because they're on a road does not necessarily mean they should be going fast. If the road is congested then they need to adjust their speed for safety.
And my point was that just because they're on a road does not necessarily mean they should be going fast. If the road is congested then they need to adjust their speed for safety.
And I did start off my initial post with, "Cyclists need to keep an assured clear distance like all other traffic. We also need to avoid yelling insults at other people legally using the road." But there is a difference between safety and annoyance. Many pedestrians are annoyed by "fast" moving cyclists (by "fast," they generally mean >10 mph) when there is no real safety issue. Pedestrians who don't want to be near "fast-moving" cyclists have near infinite options of places where cyclists are banned (sidewalks, parks, walking paths, etc.).
Many pedestrians are annoyed by "fast" moving cyclists (by "fast," they generally mean >10 mph) when there is no real safety issue.
In this case, the pedestrians obviously have concerns that are not completely unfounded.
In this case, the pedestrians obviously have concerns that are not completely unfounded.
How was this runner hit from behind if he was following the rules? On the road, runners and other pedestrians are supposed to go against traffic. Did the cyclist cross the center line and rear-end him? If this had been a cyclist who got in an accident while riding on the wrong side of the road, we’d all say the cyclist was an idiot and was at fault. (Remember Ringo?) Well, here the pedestrian appears to have been on the wrong side of the road.
I also like this line, "The runners believe the cyclists ride too fast, too close to the side of the road...." Drivers tell us we go too slow and stay too far from the side of the road.
I don't think either side has the moral high ground in this incident. (mapquest link (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?location=ju%2fRY50yj331ItYY9B3qd2cVCQzmB%2bdgR67r%2fFAJwFQOspgkiJ6OguCXh7qfLg95PxFg%2fy03bkc GrLFpR9Nk59E2rSZX9vavEvlTEExv6r6FD%2bfoQDxhYRA9FxOCnjJ1wk2dijYNHDh1dAs07ZH4FA%3d%3d&searchtype=address&searchtab=address&countryid=US&address=fiesta%20island%20road&city=san%20diego&state=ca&zipcode=&country=US&addtohistory=) to the road/island in question)
The area in question is a road, which as noted would require joggers to run on the opposite side against traffic. On the other hand cyclists shouldn't be travelling at a rate of speed where they are unable to react to conditions on the road ahead of them. If you look at the island, you can see why there is an attraction for cyclists. Large swaths of open road with few turns and no grade.
It seems that both the joggers and cyclists want to take advantage of these roads because they are devoid of traffic. Part of the problem is that this is a park, which may lead joggers to asssume that the roads are 'paths' when they are not.
Perhaps it wold be wise to post signs for joggers to remind them to run against traffic. With only one bridge onto the island, people wouldn't be able to miss a large sign on the way in. Then perhaps post speed limits for sections of road where visibility is reduced. People should be able to get along, it looks like a great place to run/ride.
Regards,
Savant
Maybe the solution would be to ban cars, then to divide the road into areas for cyclists and for joggers.
Lave's attitude of not wanting to sue the cyclist who hit her is commendable; she treated him like a brother athlete.
But that doesn't change the basic fact that cyclists are responsible for the safe operation of their vehicles on public roadways, just like motorists. The fact that these cyclists are training hard places an even greater burden on them to be cautious.
Even joggers can adopt an aggressive attitude. One day I was walking to a grocery store downtown when a jogger coming the opposite direction came straight for me. There was nowhere else for him to go, since the sidewalk was blocked with other people. I thought he'd slide around me somehow. I was suprised and angered when he slammed into me and purposely pushed me aside with his shoulder. On another occasion, a group of high-school runners did exactly the same thing to me as I walked on the sidewalk.
I don't agree that joggers running with traffic are any more likely to be hit by cyclists than those who run against traffic. The space they take up is the same. What's more likely to happen is that the jogger will see the cyclists coming and leave the roadway out of sheer intimidation.
I think y'all are missing the point by discussing MUP's. I read the article to say the accident happened on a road, not a path. The caption on the photo refers to a "shared road." The article says cyclists are there because there's little traffic.
It appears to be a shared "road" in name only. The reality is probably more like a multi-use path than any road I've ever ridden.
Lave's attitude of not wanting to sue the cyclist who hit her is commendable; she treated him like a brother athlete.
But that doesn't change the basic fact that cyclists are responsible for the safe operation of their vehicles on public roadways, just like motorists. The fact that these cyclists are training hard places an even greater burden on them to be cautious.
Even joggers can adopt an aggressive attitude. One day I was walking to a grocery store downtown when a jogger coming the opposite direction came straight for me. There was nowhere else for him to go, since the sidewalk was blocked with other people. I thought he'd slide around me somehow. I was suprised and angered when he slammed into me and purposely pushed me aside with his shoulder. On another occasion, a group of high-school runners did exactly the same thing to me as I walked on the sidewalk.
I don't agree that joggers running with traffic are any more likely to be hit by cyclists than those who run against traffic. The space they take up is the same. What's more likely to happen is that the jogger will see the cyclists coming and leave the roadway out of sheer intimidation.
You are right, the cyclist should have been on the lookout for wrong-way joggers. But that doesn't change the fact that the "victim" was a wrong-way jogger under current law.
Maybe what happened is that both the cyclist and the jogger realized that they both screwed up, and both were adult enough to take their licks and move on. The jogger may not want to sue because she knows she would be as successful as Ringo would have been. I agree that cyclists are responsible for safely operating their bicycles, but Ringo tried to make the same argument about drivers when his wife was hit riding the wrong way.
Note: I'm basing my argument on the assumption that there are no special rules for pedestians on this road. If you are familiar with this road and I am wrong, please correct me.
Note: I edited out the word "idiot" as applied to the jogger.
You are right, the cyclist should have been on the lookout for idiot wrong-way joggers. But that doesn't change the fact that the "victim" was an idiot wrong-way jogger under current law.
The point of this article is that cyclists are riding dangerously fast without proper care for joggers, regardless of which way the joggers are travelling.
If you choose to call a public defender and experienced marathon runner an "idiot," perhaps you are using the wrong measuring stick.
You are a runner,not a jogger. Jogger is a bad word to any self respecting RUNNER!
The point of this article is that cyclists are riding dangerously fast without proper care for joggers, regardless of which way the joggers are travelling.
That is one of two important points. According to the article, many of the runners, including the one who got hit, appear to pigheadedly stick to the wrong side of the road. This accident could not have happened unless both the runner and the cyclists were careless. The runner would not have been rear-ended if she had been running against traffic as the law requires.
Edit: As a later poster showed, the law permits pedestrians to go with traffic on the left. Yet another poster said there were signs recommending that pedestrians go against traffic.
If you choose to call a public defender and experienced marathon runner an "idiot," perhaps you are using the wrong measuring stick.
According to the article, the cyclists on the island are equally experienced. I say the label "idiot" fits someone who runs on the wrong side of the road and then whines to the police when her illegal behavior contributes to an accident. The fact that she's a lawyer probably explains why she's smart enough not to sue for an accident that she helped cause.
On the American River Parkway east of Sacramento, the signage directs walkers/joggers (oh OK, runners ) to the left shoulder.
Sunday morning, the traffic was thick, peds were all over the place. I pushed the baby stroller on the right side and kept to a straight line. Road bikes passed us going way too fast IMHO, but the baby loves them, she laughed every time we were passed.
According to the article, many of the runners, including the one who got hit, appear to pigheadedly stick to the wrong side of the road.
The article does not say that. It says runners are "strongly recommended to go against traffic."
The article continues, "'But (cyclists and drivers) certainly have a responsibility that if they see something, they've got to do all they can to avoid any conflict,' said Sgt. Victor Colvin, with the San Diego Police Department's Traffic Division."
This accident could not have happened unless both the runner and the cyclists were careless.
The article does not say anything about any runners being careless. What the article repeatedly emphasizes is the aggressiveness and carelessness of a specific group of 50 - 100 cyclists who regularly train on the island.
The runner would not have been rear-ended if she had been running against traffic as the law requires.
Lave was running on the far left side of the road. The article says that a group of cyclists were riding so close together that the man who hit her didn't see her until it was too late. These cyclists are not riding to the right, because the article says that several cyclists swerved to the right to avoid Lave before someone hit her.
The only way Lave could have avoided being hit by going against traffic would have been for her to leave the roadway, something the law does not require. Had she been going against traffic and stuck to the road, she would have been hit anyway. The fact is that these cyclists are hogging the entire road and playing "chicken" with runners.
Let's get real. It's not about stupid runners. It's about negligent cyclists.
The article does not say that. It says runners are "strongly recommended to go against traffic."
That's like saying runners are "strongly recommended to follow the law."
Edit: I was wrong, LittleBigMan was right. Pedestrians are "strongly recommended," but not "required," to go against traffic.
The article continues, "'But (cyclists and drivers) certainly have a responsibility that if they see something, they've got to do all they can to avoid any conflict,' said Sgt. Victor Colvin, with the San Diego Police Department's Traffic Division."
I agree. Nothing I've written contradicts this.
The article does not say anything about any runners being careless. What the article repeatedly emphasizes is the aggressiveness and carelessness of a specific group of 50 - 100 cyclists who regularly train on the island.
The article repeatedly emphasizes that runners complain about what runners perceive as cyclist aggressiveness. There's not enough in the article to verify that the runners' perceptions are correct.
Lave was running on the far left side of the road. The article says that a group of cyclists were riding so close together that the man who hit her didn't see her until it was too late. These cyclists are not riding to the right, because the article says that several cyclists swerved to the right to avoid Lave before someone hit her.
Cyclists riding at the speed of traffic are entitled to use the whole lane. This is a one-way road, so it is OK to be on the left.
The only way Lave could have avoided being hit by going against traffic would have been for her to leave the roadway, something the law does not require. Had she been going against traffic and stuck to the road, she would have been hit anyway.
But if she had been running against traffic, she could have and would have jumped off the road to protect herself, which is one reason pedestrians are supposed to go against traffic. Again, I agree that the cyclists were also at fault, but Lave could have prevented the accident if she had been following the rules.
The fact is that these cyclists are hogging the entire road and playing "chicken" with runners. Let's get real. It's not about stupid runners. It's about stupid cyclists.
It takes two to play "chicken." Both players are wrong. That's my point.
Daily Commute, this was a hit-and-run.
Daily Commute, this was a hit-and-run.
This was not a hit-and-run: "Lave said the cyclist who hit her stopped to see if she was OK and apologized."
Let me repeat this one more time: The cyclist was NOT riding safely. As fellow cyclists, we can and should condemn the cyclist for reckless riding. But wrong-way runners don't have the moral high ground here. I would like to see runners criticize their colleagues for going the wrong way just like LittleBigMan criticizes the cyclist (and like we all did to Ringo a month or so ago).
This was not a hit-and-run: "Lave said the cyclist who hit her stopped to see if she was OK and apologized."
It is a felony not to give your name and address when operating a vehicle involved in an accident that results in the injury or death of any person. It is hit-and-run, regardless of whether the injured person claimed to be, "ok."
The article does not say that. It says runners are "strongly recommended to go against traffic."
The article continues, "'But (cyclists and drivers) certainly have a responsibility that if they see something, they've got to do all they can to avoid any conflict,' said Sgt. Victor Colvin, with the San Diego Police Department's Traffic Division."
The article does not say anything about any runners being careless. What the article repeatedly emphasizes is the aggressiveness and carelessness of a specific group of 50 - 100 cyclists who regularly train on the island.
Lave was running on the far left side of the road. The article says that a group of cyclists were riding so close together that the man who hit her didn't see her until it was too late. These cyclists are not riding to the right, because the article says that several cyclists swerved to the right to avoid Lave before someone hit her.
The only way Lave could have avoided being hit by going against traffic would have been for her to leave the roadway, something the law does not require. Had she been going against traffic and stuck to the road, she would have been hit anyway. The fact is that these cyclists are hogging the entire road and playing "chicken" with runners.
Let's get real. It's not about stupid runners. It's about negligent cyclists.
On a one way road fast traffic is going to be on the left.
On a one way road fast traffic is going to be on the left.
Fast traffic is on the left on a freeway. Otherwise, left-turning traffic precludes that rule.
It is a felony not to give your name and address when operating a vehicle involved in an accident that results in the injury or death of any person. It is hit-and-run, regardless of whether the injured person claimed to be, "ok."
If the "injured person" said she was "OK," then the rider had no way of knowing that she was injured. Although she kept bleeding for awhile, we have no way of knowing what she looked like right after the accident. Here, all that the cyclist might have seen was some road rash. As a general rule, felonies almost require that the prosecutor prove the defendant acted with some kind of intent. No knowledge of injury means no intent means no crime. If you think California's hit-and-run law is an exception to this rule, feel free to provide us proof. Also, the article doesn't say whether the runner gave her name to the cyclist. If she didn't, is she a felon, too?
Edit and Clarification: California law requires only the driver to disclose his or her name, but I was right about the intent. To win, it looks like the prosecutor would have to show that failing to provide a name was "criminally negligent," that is, a "gross departure" from the standard of care. Given that the cyclist stopped and apologized and that the runner said she was fine, it would seem a stretch to put the guy in jail for a year. Maybe a California lawyer could correct both LittleBigMan and me
Your argument is even weaker on moral grounds: There was an accident. The cyclist stopped. The runner told the cyclist that she was not injured. The cyclist took the runner at her word, apologized, and moved on. I certainly hope that's not a felony in California.
In any case, I have conceded over and over and over again that the cyclist was reckless and wrong. Even if this were techinically hit-and-run, the runner could have avoided the accident if she had followed the rules of the road. That's my main point, and you haven't been able to show that it's wrong.
Responding to "On a one way road fast traffic is going to be on the left." Fast traffic is on the left on a freeway. Otherwise, left-turning traffic precludes that rule.
This makes no sense. Even on residential streets, faster moving traffic can pass on the left.
P.S. The cyclist was estimated to be going 22 mph. Hardly a scorching pace for a road. LittleBigMan, why is it so important for you that we deem the runner to be entirely blameless? Do you really think she bears NO responsibility for this accident?
It is a felony not to give your name and address when operating a vehicle involved in an accident that results in the injury or death of any person. It is hit-and-run, regardless of whether the injured person claimed to be, "ok."
If the "injured person" said she was "OK," then the rider had no way of knowing that she was injured. Although she kept bleeding for awhile, we have no way of knowing what she looked like right after the accident.
Neither did Ms. Lave have any way of knowing the extent of her injuries.
After being assaulted by a pedestrian on my bike, I went face-first over the bars. When I came to, I saw several women staring at me. One said, "I think his teeth went through his lip."
I believed none of it. I thought I was just fine. I felt no pain. I even told them, "I'm fine!" But they stood there, staring...
It wasn't until the ambulance arrived that I realized I was hurt. And I was hurt, bad.
If you hit someone, don't assume they are "ok," just because they tell you so. Call 911 and stick around until the police have a chance to talk to you.
There are numerous signs posted on the island that it is a shared roadway for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. I have never seen signs like that posted on other roads. Being a "shared roadway" runners are not required to run against traffic. The cyclist is entirely at fault. If he was unable to ascertain that she had severe injuries when the other witness said "there was blood everywhere" that is simply hard to believe. Looks like he stopped, then realizing he was in the wrong, slipped out of there and made his getaway.
The island does have its fair share of vehicular traffic. A lot of people take their dogs there to walk them or just hang out on the beach. My guess is there will be an increase in vehicles making slow laps around the island on Thursday's for a while.
There are a couple things mentioned in the article. First, it's the Thursday night training ride. The lady that was hit knew about the ride. I personnally wouldn't be jogging/running on the road down there between 6-7pm on Thursdays, but that's just me. Usually the ride attracts 50-100 riders like the article said. It is a peleton and does take up the full road. The speed of the ride is around 28mph give or take, with bursts well over 30mph. I don't have the full gist of the story from people that were there yet, however it appears she was running on the left side of the road, and for the most part there is a double yellow there, right next to the dirt. Not knowing the full details, but knowing how fast those guys go, and how they take up the whole road, I would say the cyclist was at fault. However, the runner was aware of these guys and probably should've taken precautions. Again, I wouldn't be running while the peloton was on the road. There is just too much that could happen. I may go down there tomorrow just to watch what happens. I have no doubt that there will be quite a bit of "slow" traffic circling the island. I also have no doubt that the cyclists will just go around the "slow" traffic. I've watched the pack just split around the cars like it was a road median or something. They don't hesitate and just go. I also won't be surprised if they do pass a car if that car doesn't start drifting to force the cyclists off the road. Hopefully this won't happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if it does. There seems to be quite a bit of tension over this right now. Good news is that the Thursday rides end with the switch to/from daylight savings time, and won't start up again til spring. IMHO, the runner should've known better than to be there, and the cyclists need to give more room. It's scary being passed on a bike by them, and I can't imagine trying to share the road on foot when they come by.
It is still a public roadway and she is just as entitled to be there as the cyclists are.
I didn't say she wasn't entitled to be there. She is entitled, whether it was wise or not is another story. She knew about the cyclists, and made her decision. Just like riding a bike on some streets during rush hour. Yes, you're entitled to be there, but you are also taking a risk. Those guys need to be way more careful on the island when they do the training ride. On the other hand, if you aren't in the peloton, you need to be aware that it's coming and watch out for it. Again, the cylist hit her, it's his fault. From the sounds of it, it was from behind. Here's another question. Was she wearing headphones? I've seen quite a few joggers/runners down there running with headphones on. I've also seen them out at places like the lake at Miramar, and Mission trails. Completely impervious to what is going on around them. You hollar "On your left" they don't hear you, and then they get mad when a bike comes by them at 15-20mph and scares them. Oh, and don't get me started about joggers going the wrong way in the bike lane on the 101. Why don't they just run in the car lanes?? :)
Being a "shared roadway" runners are not required to run against traffic.
What's your authority for this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but one idea doesn't necessarily flow from the other. With the exception of freeways, nearly all roads are "shared roadways," even when not marked as such. Why is this road different?
My bottom line is this: There was something the runner could have reasonably done that probably would have avoided the accident. She could have followed the cop's recommendation and run against traffic. Whether that is a recommendation or the law, I don't know. In either case, she would not have been injured if she had been more prudent. The cyclist was reckless and blameworthy, but the runner was not entirely innocent.
I'm also skeptical when we only have one side of the story. If interviewed, the cyclist might have said that she swerved into his line or that she was farther out into the lane than the runners said. We just don't know. Yes, the cyclist left the scene, but only after the runner said she was OK. In addition, we don't know what she looked like immediately after the accident. I've had scrapes that were nothing for a few minutes, but that later let out so much blood that someone might have said I was "covered" with blood. The cyclist may have only seen a little road rash.
Again, the cyclists need to be much more careful, but if the runners don't learn a lesson from this, the accident will be repeated.
Neither did Ms. Lave have any way of knowing the extent of her injuries.
After being assaulted by a pedestrian on my bike, I went face-first over the bars. When I came to, I saw several women staring at me. One said, "I think his teeth went through his lip."
I believed none of it. I thought I was just fine. I felt no pain. I even told them, "I'm fine!" But they stood there, staring...
It wasn't until the ambulance arrived that I realized I was hurt. And I was hurt, bad.
If you hit someone, don't assume they are "ok," just because they tell you so. Call 911 and stick around until the police have a chance to talk to you.
If there was no evidence the runner had injuries such that she was cognizant of, once the pedestrian said she was ok, there was no apparent reason for a reasonable person in the shoes of the cyclist or runner of the cyclist remaining, that criminally relieved the cyclist of the hit and run. The cyclist isn’t jailable on hit and run because of the runner’s misstatement on whether they are injured.
The assault charge in Little Big Man’s case is a separate offense the prosecutors could pursue independent of whether the victim sustained injuries and independent of whether the victim stated they were ok. Assault charges have traditionally been felonies in and of themselves, although modern trend is to handle most assaults has misdemeanors.
What's your authority for this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but one idea doesn't necessarily flow from the other. With the exception of freeways, nearly all roads are "shared roadways," even when not marked as such. Why is this road different?
My bottom line is this: There was something the runner could have reasonably done that probably would have avoided the accident. She could have followed the cop's recommendation and run against traffic. Whether that is a recommendation or the law, I don't know. In either case, she would not have been injured if she had been more prudent. The cyclist was reckless and blameworthy, but the runner was not entirely innocent.
I'm also skeptical when we only have one side of the story. If interviewed, the cyclist might have said that she swerved into his line or that she was farther out into the lane than the runners said. We just don't know. Yes, the cyclist left the scene, but only after the runner said she was OK. In addition, we don't know what she looked like immediately after the accident. I've had scrapes that were nothing for a few minutes, but that later let out so much blood that someone might have said I was "covered" with blood. The cyclist may have only seen a little road rash.
Again, the cyclists need to be much more careful, but if the runners don't learn a lesson from this, the accident will be repeated.
I am no authority on it, just the fact that I have never been on a road that said shared roadway such as this one. When I ran a lot I always went went the flow on the island and never had any close calls. But I didn't use headphones and stayed left of the yellow lines.
I don't know exactly what happened as I wasn't there, but I do know Tamara Lave is an elite athlete that has been training for a long time. Personally, I don't see any fault on her part at all. Sure she would have been safer if she stayed home or went to the gym and ran on a treadmill. There are risks in almost everything we do, but getting pelted by an out of control cyclist while running on Fiesta Island should not be a risk we have to evaluate.
The cyclist isn’t jailable on hit and run because of the runner’s misstatement on whether they are injured.
Wrong.
responding to: If there was no evidence the runner had injuries such that she was cognizant of, once the pedestrian said she was ok, there was no apparent reason for a reasonable person in the shoes of the cyclist or runner of the cyclist remaining, that criminally relieved the cyclist of the hit and run. The cyclist isn’t jailable on hit and run because of the runner’s misstatement on whether they are injured.
Wrong.
Again, we don't know. It would be an interesting legal question. It's also possible that the cyclist told the runner his name, but in the confusion of the moment, she forgot. The runner is a public defender, so I'm sure she'd be the first to agree that you can't reach a fair conclusion after only hearing half the story. We've only heard half the story. I'm now going to try to show enough discipline to let this thread go.
I have been a cyclist for many years and in fact train often at Fiesta Island. First and foremost since you're in Ohio and probably haven't ridden at Fiesta Island let me give you some facts. Fiesta Island is a public one-way roadway opened to traffic. It is not a running path and it is not a cycling path. While it may be referred to as a multi-use roadway, truly it is not because it is open to automobile traffic. So we must treat it like any other public roadway where automobiles travel.
California Vehicle Code section 21202(a)
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway, shall ride as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the road.
California Vehicle Code section 21956
No pedestrian shall walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his left hand edge of the roadway.
There is nothing in California law that requires a pedestrian to walk against the flow of traffic. But really, let's be honest folks, what in the world is a cyclist doing on the left hand side of traffic. I ride on the left side of traffic when I'm making a left hand turn into a driveway or I need to get into a left turn lane, and I assure you it's done with extreme caution and my head on a swivel. Just because there are fewer cars than your average road does not change the fact that it's still a roadway and still in the state of California. STAY ON THE RIGHT OR IT'S YOUR FAULT. It matters not which direction the pedestrian was travelling. And if it happened because you went wide to pass some riders in the peleton then this peleton was too wide and should've been stretched out further. When we talk about passing on the left we certainly don't mean on the extreme left of the roadway. And by the way, I'm a lawyer too and the runner has every right to sue. So stop speculating about her intentions like you have about California law Mr. Buckeye.
I have been a cyclist for many years and in fact train often at Fiesta Island. First and foremost since you're in Ohio and probably haven't ridden at Fiesta Island let me give you some facts. Fiesta Island is a public one-way roadway opened to traffic. It is not a running path and it is not a cycling path. While it may be referred to as a multi-use roadway, truly it is not because it is open to automobile traffic. So we must treat it like any other public roadway where automobiles travel.
California Vehicle Code section 21202(a)
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway, shall ride as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the road.
California Vehicle Code section 21956
No pedestrian shall walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his left hand edge of the roadway.
* * * * And by the way, I'm a lawyer too and the runner has every right to sue. So stop speculating about her intentions like you have about California law Mr. Buckeye.
You say you're a California lawyer. That's interesting. When I looked up the statute you cited on the California DMV's web site, it says (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm):
Section 21202(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. . . .
Somehow, the highlighted language disappeared from your quote. In my posts, I said cyclists could be on the left if they kept up with traffic. That's exactly what the statute says.
So why would a California lawyer misquote a statute by leaving out critical language? What would a California judge (or the Bar Association) do if a lawyer did the same thing in court? I wonder. I could imagine the explanation: "Your honor, I would have correctly quoted the statute, but the actual words of the statute would have killed my case."
P.S. 21202(b) allows cyclists to ride on the left of multilane one-way roads. If this road has more than one lane, riding on the left is fine regardless of speed. As to pedestrians running against traffic, I was careful to say I did not know what the law was. But, according to other posts in this forum, there are signs recommending that pedestrians go against traffic on this road. This accident is proof of the wisdom of that advice.
P.P.S. On a more serious note, my disagreement with Mike Garcia shows why no one should rely on what appears to be legal advice on this forum. Clearly, one of us is wrong. If you rely on this forum to figure out the law, you could get yourself in a lot of trouble.
In my posts, I said cyclists could be on the left if they kept up with traffic. That's exactly what the statute says.
Isn't there a law against cyclists riding more than two abreast? If there is, it would apply against these cyclists in this situation.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.