Advocacy & Safety - Brooklyn Bridge - we were both wrong

This past Sunday, I walked across the Brooklyn Bridge. From past experience, I expected that it would be crowded with pedestrians and cyclists on a sunny Sunday afternoon. That it is under construction only adds to the congestion.

I am an avid photographer. During previous visits, my photographc kit was a bit limited, hence, the reason for this visit (I had with me two still cameras and one camcorder.

I had walked from the Brooklyn side to the center of the bridge and had for the most part completed shooting those shots for which I had come.

On my "decent" to the NY side, I came upon another scene that invoked me to raise camera to eye.

In the process, I strayed a few steps into the bike lane (there is a line painted on the "path" designating pedestrian/bike).

I hear someone saying "watch, watch" and then I am brushed by a cyclist.

"Watch, watch" say I, and the cyclist brakes so that he can respond.

I continue, "next time, try using your brakes." to which cyclist responds, "you were in the bike lane, sir," and then, he continued on his way.

Further contemplation leads me to the conclusion that we were both wrong. I should not have strayed into the bike lane. He should have used his brakes to avoid contacting me.

I am of the notion that, just because a lane is marked for bikes, does not grant cyclists unfettered right of way to travel that bridge at speed amongst pedestrians (and I am not accusing this cyclist of speeding - I didn't observe his speed, but assume it was more than reasonably slow and in line with what would be appropriate for the conditions).

Had I been quicker of mind, I might have queeried the cyclist as to whether he would justify being struck behind by a car on a street where he had strayed from the bike lane.

Is it justifiable for a cyclist or auto driver to strike a pedestrian who is "J" walking?

I have always believed that it is incumbent upon any vehicle operator to avoid collisions in these circumstances, legality of the pedestrian's actions notwithstanding.

I concede that I should have been more careful so as not to venture into the bike lane.

But, I continue to maintain that the cyclist should not have struck me. I fully support his right to confront me on my "infraction," but he was wrong to have struck me.

Now, just to put this all into perspective, the strike was of a minor nature. Neither I nor my equipment was damaged.

The cyclist was well-mannered, and so was I.

I regret that i did not more fully engage him. I think that a more complete discussion might have benefited both of us.

I suspect that the cyclist is a good guy, probably a safe cyclist.

He likely has no clue that i am an avid cyclist, as well.

All in all, none of this is a big deal.

But, I think it a perfect example of our collective attitude as cyclists. I have read more than one thread here discussing how out of it pedestrians on a path can be.

My distraction was not ear buds, it was my camera.

When I ride, I feel it is my responsiblity to avoid collision whenever I overtake someone in front of me, no matter their mode of transportaion at the time.

To the "offending" cyclist, feel free to cut me up for crossing into "your" lane, but, next time, also take care not to contact those whom you are passing.

Caruso

The bridge is dicey. Especially during commute hours. Stay on your side. Crossing the line over into the bike lane is tempting fate and there is little space available for cycling, or pedestrians.

Both of you were courteous - let it go.

queeried the cyclist

:eek:

=========

The cyclist knows (should know) there are pedestrians and inattentive photographers/tourists) on the bridge (especially, if they have used the route multiple times).

Yes, you are both wrong but the cyclist has a larger responsibility (operating a faster vehicle). It's common that collisions between people are the result of errors made by both people. The second person has a responsibility to react to try to avoid a collision.


Is it justifiable for a cyclist or auto driver to strike a pedestrian who is "J" walking?
The law doesn't allow you to choose to run somebody over. Everybody has a requirement/responsibility to work at avoiding collisions (with people/cars/things).

You were wrong, stop trying to find blame where it doesn't exist & get over it.

Is it justifiable for a cyclist or auto driver to strike a pedestrian who is "J" walking?

No. It is not, but if said cyclist or motorist does not have time to respond to the errant ped, there may be little choice.

So one has to ask, is it justifiable for a ped to walk about blindly unaware of their surroundings?

You were in the wrong. Period. He was polite, and you should be grateful.

You say you strayed "a few steps" into the bike lane--that lane is barely a few steps wide--with bikes going in both directions! I take that to mean you were at least in the middle of the lane. If so, it would be almost impossible for the guy to totally avoid brushing you without risking going into the pedestrian lane or hitting another bike.

People like you are why I added a mile to my commute and started taking the Manhattan Bridge.

No. It is not, but if said cyclist or motorist does not have time to respond to the errant ped, there may be little choice.

So one has to ask, is it justifiable for a ped to walk about blindly unaware of their surroundings?

Each party has a separate and distinct requirement/duty to work to avoid collisions. You can only control your actions; you can't control the other person's actions.

Each party has a separate and distinct requirement/duty to work to avoid collisions. You can only control your actions; you can't control the other person's actions.

Exactly.

I'm amazed that you wrote a big post about it. You were in the wrong, he probably avoided a collision as much as he could, and then you responded with a smarmy "try using your brakes" comment. You're lucky he was civil about it.

I'm amazed that you wrote a big post about it. You were in the wrong, he probably avoided a collision as much as he could, and then you responded with a smarmy "try using your brakes" comment. You're lucky he was civil about it.

+1. I can't believe the OP, as a cyclist responded like that! Next time, try "Sorry! I wasn't paying attention! My mistake!"

It's best to watch out for ones self.

It's best to watch out for ones self.
No one is suggesting otherwise.

There are two "selves".

OP, I am with the others. You go all clueless pedestrian. You do not even know how fast or how much the cyclist braked to just brush you rather than lay you flat out on the ground. You go rude to the cyclist and the cyclist is nothing but polite to you. And then you have the nerve to whine on a bicycle forum about how half the fault is on the cyclist, sorry you own 100% of the fault on this one.

For reference, here is a photo of the brooklyn bridge lanes:

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/23/Narrow.JPG

It is a very narrow lane for 2 way traffic. Bikes are expected to stay on their side, peds on theirs. It is clearly marked. Clueless peds with cameras have nearly caused me to crash many times. It was ONLY the fact that I was very alert that saved both of us. I suspect from this story that OP, even if he is a cyclist, is just a clueless a ped as the others. Because this lane is so iffy, I switched to the Manhattan Bridge which physically separates peds and bikes and has a much wider lane.

I think a while back a cyclist got into an accident and went over the railing onto traffic & died after getting hit by vehicular traffic. FWIW, if I was on that bridge and didn't have time to stop before hitting a pedestrian that stepped out in front of me, I would not try very hard to swerve out of the way. The OP is lucky he was only brushed up against.

You are in New York...you were lucky to have even been warned and/or acknowledged. Right or wrong? Fuggedaboutit!

Dude you just wandered out into a lane of traffic without looking. You seriously don't know who's in the wrong here?

Of course the cyclist has a responsibility to avoid hitting stupid people. That doesn't absolve the people of their responsibility to not be stupid, however.

Dude you just wandered out into a lane of traffic without looking. You seriously don't know who's in the wrong here?

It looks like you have trouble reading.


Brooklyn Bridge - we were both wrong


Further contemplation leads me to the conclusion that we were both wrong. I should not have strayed into the bike lane.


I concede that I should have been more careful so as not to venture into the bike lane.

...I have always believed that it is incumbent upon any vehicle operator to avoid collisions in these circumstances, legality of the pedestrian's actions notwithstanding.

...

Caruso

This is not exactly on point since you are talking about NY and this is (only?) relevant in OR. Last year, I was walking/talking with a local judge and this topic came up. She told me that OR had rescinded it's law regarding a motorist's responsibility to avoid a collision. I wasn't sure I believed her until the recent sentencing of a motorist who ran over a local cyclist. He had two prior collisions in which he was not held accountable in which he acknowledged that he could have taken action to avoid the collisions but did not since he knew he had the right-of-way. Apparently, he had no legal requirement to avoid the wrecks. (For the record, his attorney in the wreck where he killed the cyclist successfully pleaded for a reduced sentence because this killer has a documented history of brain damage.)

Now, as far as a moral obligation, that's a no-brainer. Every decent human being should strive to avoid harming others. I've had people momentarily lose their brains which has forced me to take extreme evasive actions while driving 80,000 pounds down the road. Fortunately, I found ways to buy them enough time to find their brains and we all lived to tell about it.

It looks like you have trouble reading.

Read more carefully and you may change your tune. The cyclist in question managed to most narrowly avoid collision, only brushing the jaywalker who wants to ascribe fault to the cyclist.

Read more carefully and you may change your tune. The cyclist in question managed to most narrowly avoid collision, only brushing the jaywalker who wants to ascribe fault to the cyclist.

Not exactly. He wants to ascribe partial fault to the cyclist (he clearly has assumed some fault for himself).

Both parties certainly are responsible to try to avoid collisions.

We really have no idea whether the cyclist really did anything (or enough) to avoid the collision (so your "managed to" has no real foundation).

Cyclists should certainly be aware that the Brooklyn Bridge is rife with careless pedestrians and ride in a manner consistent with that awareness.

Certainly, the OP didn't do anything (or enough), by his own admission.

It looks like you have trouble reading.

You may want to look up what the word 'both' means if you're going to be talking other's reading abilities.

For reference, here is a photo of the brooklyn bridge lanes:

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/23/Narrow.JPG

Because this lane is so iffy, I switched to the Manhattan Bridge which physically separates peds and bikes and has a much wider lane.

I'd like to add - as shown in the picture they are doing ongoing construction on the bridge. There are metal walls which restrict the size of the lanes even more to the point where it is more or less single track. It's to the point where it is patently uncomfortable to cycle on the bridge for fear of collision, or other acts of 'bozonity' by pedestrians crossing into the bike lane.

Just watch out for that damn gecko!

Just watch out for that damn gecko!

"Oh, come off it, mate!" ;)

There's a funny youtube video where a pedestrian steps into the street and gets creamed by a cyclist. The pedestrian yells at the cyclist for going the wrong way, the cyclist points out the pedestrian wasn't in the crosswalk. They both look sheepishly at each other, both admit they were both wrong and carry on. All in about 20 seconds. It was on Tosh.O a while back.

To the "offending" cyclist, feel free to cut me up for crossing into "your" lane, but, next time, also take care not to contact those whom you are passing.

Hey Caruso, not to pile on, but I think you might want to ask yourself if you are not stretching to "share" blame -- here's some food for thought:

- Would it have been fair for you to say to the cyclist, " ... next time, also take care not to contact those who unexpectedly step out in front of you"? Because that would be a more accurate description of the situation. He wasn't merely passing you, he was avoiding you.

- It sounds to me like you feel cyclists are wrong if they don't successfully avoid all pedestrian collisions, regardless of pedestrian behavior. This reminds me of other posts where cyclists seem to feel that they should be able to blast off a sidewalk directly in front of oncoming traffic, and then blame motorists for failing to avoid the collision.

- Sounds like you goofed, and rather than immediately owning it and apologizing for it, you instead told HIM to do something differently. That reaction and your subsequent post sound like someone who is struggling to deal with the reality that they bear primarily responsibility for a particular outcome. You're not alone -- my whole life, I've never met a person who admitted they were at fault in an automobile accident. It's always the other guy's fault.

To be fair, you did take responsibility for your part in it -- I'm just suggesting that that part is greater than 50%.

No one is suggesting otherwise.

There are two "selves".
Wrong. You are one. Watch out for ones self.

You aren't piling on (at least in my opinion).
I wish I had this all to do over again. I certainly, as a cyclist, would have exercised more care to avoid straying into the bike lane.
OTOH, I did walk across that bridge. It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon, and the bridge was extremely crowded with pedestrians and cyclists.
I, frankly, was amazed at the speed some cyclists were crossing the bridge, and observed more than one close call with pedestrians. There were many points along the bridge at which it was virtually impossible for anyone (cyclist or pedestrian) to navigate without straying into the bike lane (vendors lining the route, shoppers perusing vendors' wares clogging the pedestrian lane, etc.).
I am not citing any of the above as an excuse for my own straying. I saw a picture, and I concentrated on that opportunity, and I strayed into the bike lane. I admit that the primary responsibility in for this incident is mine.

Neither of us (the cyclist or me) was rude. Our encounter was brief.

Upon reflection, I decided to post here because I feel it food for further fault.

To those "dude" posters who admonish me to just take responsibility and move on, I would suggest that attitudes that put cyclists (and pedestrians) at great risk are fueled by such attitudes.

Obviously (and I admit), I did not observe the cyclist as he approached me from the rear.

My encroachment into the bike lane was not abrupt. I had been there for at least 30 seconds or more (I admit).

The bridge was extremely congested at the time with both cyclists and pedestrians. I was not the only pedestrian in the bike lane.

The propensity for me to excuse myself for "trespassing" is, in my opinion, equally balanced by the cyclists failure to exercise due care not to strike "trespassers".

To keep things totally in perspective, this incident is no big deal, but only food for thought (my reason for posting about it here).

Neither I nor the cyclist was injured, neither of us raised our fists (physically or verbally).

. . . and I am more than willing to accept my responsibility.

I am not looking for exoneration, not looking to shift (further) responsibility to the cyclist.

I do, however, hold this incident up as one example where we, as cyclists, motorists, pedestrians) might learn more about our interactions.

The conditions on the Brooklyn Bridge "ain't" going to change anytime soon.

More importantly, conditions out on the street are a much longer way from being resolved to the collective safety of users in all modes.

Hopefully, we, on this forum, can forsake what I perceive to be such a black and white attitude (generally skewed pro-cyclist) to a more balanced consideration of issues that will make all users more safe.

. . . and that is the only reason why I chose to post details of such a minor incident.

Respectfully,

Caruso

Sorry man, but it is black and white. No matter how many times you say you are not, you are in fact still trying to deflect some blame. The bridge is always very crowded, and the incident is 100% your fault. The speed of the cyclist, other people in the bike lane, how long you were in the lane, etc. These things don't change the basic issue: If you weren't in the lane, it would not have happened, period.

Sorry man, but it is black and white. No matter how many times you say you are not, you are in fact still trying to deflect some blame. The bridge is always very crowded, and the incident is 100% your fault. The speed of the cyclist, other people in the bike lane, how long you were in the lane, etc. These things don't change the basic issue: If you weren't in the lane, it would not have happened, period.+1

........frankly, was amazed at the speed some cyclists were crossing the bridge, and observed more than one close call with pedestrians.


I was wondering about this, and if this pertained to your case. As a cyclist operating within close proximity to peds, painted line or not, I take even more due care in my actions.

If the OP was standing in the bike lane for 30 seconds or more and still gets brushed, sounds like somebody is in too much of a hurry or staring too much at their front wheel

Sorry man, but it is black and white.

Very rarely.


No matter how many times you say you are not, you are in fact still trying to deflect some blame. The bridge is always very crowded, and the incident is 100% your fault. The speed of the cyclist, other people in the bike lane, how long you were in the lane, etc. These things don't change the basic issue: If you weren't in the lane, it would not have happened, period.
Of course they change the basic issue. If the cyclist was going too fast for conditions (which my experience on the bridge says they probably were) and so was unable to stop, that's partially on him. This doesn't change that fault also (and probably primarily) rests with the OP, which he said multiple times. But that doesn't invalidate any criticism towards the cyclist for cycling outside of his abilities (especially considering if he's a regular... he should know speeding on that bridge is inviting trouble). Were this a driver/cyclist collision, I don't think you'd see as much deflecting of that point.

It sounds like the OP's mistake with the cyclists' mistake combined to make a dangerous situation. Cyclist was riding faster than he was able to avoid collision, OP wasn't paying attention enough to avoid collision. Everybody has a lesson to walk away with.

I really don't know what the purpose of this post is. It's pretty ridiculous given the poster is a experienced cyclist. However, it does provide some interesting fodder regarding liability should the brush have resulted in some type of actionable injury.

Let's say the biker hit the ped. and it went to court:

a. did the ped know that crossing over was not a good thing, or even allowed?
b. is the ped an experienced biker and knew better?
c. did the ped purposely go over to the wrong side of the bridge knowing that conditions weren't optimal leading to a possible hit?

d. was the biker going at a safe speed to avoid collision knowing existing conditions?
e. did the biker make any type of effort to avoid collision?

I bet if it went to court the weight of liability would rest with the ped., an experience cyclist acting in a negligent way.

BTW - I am no lawyer. Just a cyclist who knows the Brooklyn Bridge and would not walk over to bike lane under any circumstance unless there were a true emergency occurring.

You aren't piling on (at least in my opinion).
I wish I had this all to do over again. ...

Hopefully, we, on this forum, can forsake what I perceive to be such a black and white attitude (generally skewed pro-cyclist) to a more balanced consideration of issues that will make all users more safe.

. . . and that is the only reason why I chose to post details of such a minor incident.

Respectfully,

Caruso

Hey, fair enough. I guess my point is this -- if I'm the pedestrian in this situation and I observe there are cyclists whizzing by, I'm going to assume it is 100% my responsibility to keep from stepping in front of one. However, if I'm a cyclist in this situation and I see there are distracted pedestrians near the path, I'm going to assume it is 100% my responsibility to slow down and anticipate that one may step unexpectedly in my way. In my opinion, it is far more empowering to assume personal responsibility than it is to assign blame to another, because in assigning blame, one adopts the role of a victim. (this is not directed at you personally -- I'm just giving you the thinking behind the opinion)

BTW: Previous post "fault" should have been "thought". "Finners" did not serve my mind well, LOL.


I really don't know what the purpose of this post is. It's pretty ridiculous given the poster is a experienced cyclist.

The intended purpose of the post was to share my encounter and reflection upon same. As an experienced cyclist, and one who has spent a number of hours reading and contributing to this forum, I reflect upon that encounter and my reaction and that of the cyclist with a more informed perspective.

I came away from the encounter wiser to the possibility that all of us (myself included), no matter how experienced, can at times make mistakes.

One mistake does not excuse another, so, no matter how dogmatic some are to absolve the cyclist of any and all responsibility, I will continue to maintain that both of us were wrong.

I can tell you that, when cycling, you will not hear me call out at pedestrians as I approach them from behind. I know that they are not listening for me, will not recognize my calling as intended for them, will likely not comprehend my message accurately in time to take evasive action, and, if they do respond, may do so in exactly the opposite direction of that required to avoid collision. That's why, when cycling, I slow down for pedestrians even if I think they are wrong.

You may disagree, you may be on solid legal ground, but I manage not to strike pedestrians.

If you find my approach objectionable or too restricting, then I can only state that everyone is free to adopt his/her approach to safe cycling.

Fortunately, neither me nor the cyclist sustained an injury, and we both remained anonymous, so I have absolutely no need to shift responsibility, and I have no ego in the direction this thread takes.

I shared (and I posted) because I thought to do so would stimulate a useful, thoughtful exchange.

Those who seem so determined to "absolve" the cyclist are welcome to hold and express their view.

If one other poster besides me is spared injury or, at least, the embarrassment of an encounter such as I describe here, then the sharing of my story will have been of some value (in my opinion).

I have no other motive than to share my thoughts and hope that they are meaningful to someone here.

If the consensus on this forum is that such posts are not welcome, let me know, and I will certainly refrain from posting in the future.

Respectfully,

Caruso

Very rarely.

Of course they change the basic issue. If the cyclist was going too fast for conditions (which my experience on the bridge says they probably were) and so was unable to stop, that's partially on him. This doesn't change that fault also (and probably primarily) rests with the OP, which he said multiple times. But that doesn't invalidate any criticism towards the cyclist for cycling outside of his abilities (especially considering if he's a regular... he should know speeding on that bridge is inviting trouble). Were this a driver/cyclist collision, I don't think you'd see as much deflecting of that point.

It sounds like the OP's mistake with the cyclists' mistake combined to make a dangerous situation. Cyclist was riding faster than he was able to avoid collision, OP wasn't paying attention enough to avoid collision. Everybody has a lesson to walk away with.So how fast was the cyclist riding?

Oh, thats right, neither you or the OP know, yet you both are so anxious to assign so much of the blame to him.

So how fast was the cyclist riding?

Oh, thats right, neither you or the OP know, yet you both are so anxious to assign so much of the blame to him.
Hang on there, trigger :50:. I can assume the OP probably has a general idea. As to me, nope, no clue. I'm not anxious to assign "so much of the blame" (which is?) to him. I'm just pointing out the world ain't as black and white as people like to make it out to be. Wise words I was once told: A collision almost always has some amount of fault on either side. If both sides are being prudent, a collision is *nearly* always avoided. Unless OP literally stepped right out in front of him (which doesn't sounds like that's what happened), he was probably riding faster than he should have been.

Large speed differential is a recipe for trouble, whether it's cars and bikes or bikes and peds. Little room for error.

Unless OP literally stepped right out in front of him (which doesn't sounds like that's what happened), he was probably riding faster than he should have been.


When judging safe travelling speed (and in, you know, everything else), you make assumptions about what is likely to happen, not what might happen. If the bridge collapsed 10 feet in front of him, he wouldn't have fallen in because he was travelling to fast for the situation. This example is perhaps less extreme, but nonetheless I believe the same principle applies.

I agree, and I've used just that principle to argue that "ride like I'm invisible" is almost always a false statement, because you usually are putting at least a small bit of faith in people not swerving madly into you. But riding on a bridge so heavily trafficked would probably call for slower riding than is often seen there. Again, I'm not really pegging the cyclist for being at fault so much as saying it's a strong possibility there was a little carelessness on both ends.

Hang on there, trigger :50:. I can assume the OP probably has a general idea. Reread the OPs post trigger. He stated he did not know how fast the cyclist was riding, he just ASSumed. Since only a light brush occurred, there was no high speed collision as you now allude too.