Commuting - Need advise for visibility at the cross walk

I've added 4miles onto the old route to get to yet another new office. This is my 2nd commute while using a bike trail that forces you to use the crosswalk between major streets then continues on the other side.

At the same intersection, ***ALL 4 times *** while slowly crossing the crosswalk, a car blew through the crosswalk risking an accident. This morning, a lady even blew right through a red light, crossed the walk and made a right turn on a side street. I was in the middle of the crosswalk, saw her and had to stop in front of 2 lines of traffic to avoid being hit.

Tonight's adventure, someone made an illegal left turn (left hook) while I was at that same intersection. It was a both feet down hard stop. All 4 times, I had the WALK light.

Although I saw and avoided all 4 driver infractions, I'm worried that it's "a matter of time". Even though my bike is well lit, Is it just as dangerous to just get off and walk across? Maybe drivers are doing this on purpose but to what end? Who wants a dent in the hood? What recourse do I have if any?

Maybe walk your bike? Do other pedestrians encounter similar close calls at this intersection?

...Is it just as dangerous to just get off and walk across...

I feel it is safer to dissmount and walk in your example. Here's why(although your state may have diff laws):

If you dismount, and are walking a bike, you are legally a pedestrian. Pedestrians have certain specific rites of way, that operators in vehicles are required to yield to (for example: being a pedestrian in a crosswalk with a walk light).

Riding a bicycle (even at walking speeds) you are operating a vehicle. Operating a vehicle in a crosswalk violates vehicle codes. You may not have much recourse in the event of a colision (in a crosswalk).

Crossing a street on foot (as a pedestrian), you can look+wait for an appropriate break in traffic. Step further from the curb, allowing drivers to see your intent/eye contact/gestures-and more important, for you to see that the driver(s) stop. You can also step backwards/side step/jump.

On a bicycle, at a "slow" speed your allready at a walking pace(excluding track stands), you (probably) will not have use of hands to signal your intent (ie palm up/out facing traffic), you may not have time to make good eye contact with the driver. You can't back up, and slow evasive movement is difficult, perhaps dangerous.

Just my opinions-I'm not lawyer, and doubt I could play one on TV.

Can't you just ride in the road, with the cars? Numpty drivers are less likely to blow through a lane of flowing traffic.

Why not skip the trail and ride on the road to and from work?

Why not skip the trail and ride on the road to and from work?
BTW, there's a discussion about the best way to travel by bike in another thread
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=84928

After looking at the "Gallery of Bicycle Driving Demonstrations"
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/gallery/
one cyclist posted in that thread: "Outstanding!" "Everybody! Check it out!"

To which another poster responded:
"Nice web page... and what beautiful roads to bike upon.
Not a single road with multi lane dense traffic going over 45 MPH.
I did not even see a hill."

To see the fundamentals of bicycle driving applied
in more challenging situations, check out David Smith's site
"Looking Sharp! Visual Language Vehicle Driving for Bicyclists and Motorists"
http://www.bicycledriver.com

Looking Sharp! includes the following sub-sections:

Left Turn in Heavy Traffic
Left Turn: Let's Make it Difficult
Narrow Lanes Uphill

Maybe walk your bike? Do other pedestrians encounter similar close calls at this intersection?

Fixer it's too soon to tell. But last night another cyclist was moving in the opposite direction. As he crossed one walk and I the other we both looked to each other with concern for safety and traded a thumbs up.

The road route is hillier and longer. Guess that's the way to go. They spent millions on that trail. What a death trap.

Crosswalks are for pedestrians, not cyclists.

If I were you, I would learn how to ride safely in traffic.
You can take a class through League of American Bicyclists (bikeleague.org).
If you're good at learning from books, study Effective Cycling by John Forester.
John Allen's pamphlet Street Smarts is a good reference, but I don't think I can recommend it as effective learning material.

Until you learn to feel comfortable and safe riding in traffic, use the path, but dismount and walk across the crosswalk.



They spent millions on that trail. What a death trap.
Where paths meet roads, that is almost always the case.

Paths might be safe for slow recreational cycling where the cyclist never leaves the path. But the idea that paths make bicycle transportation safer, is absurd.

Serge

If you using the pedestrian crosswalk, you should walk your bike. It's there for pedestrians, not bicycles.

Crosswalks are for pedestrians, not cyclists...

...Until you learn to feel comfortable and safe riding in traffic, use the path, but dismount and walk across the crosswalk. Where paths meet roads, that is almost always the case...




I agree-sounds (to me) like the path in this situation works ok for the OP, untill the crossing. In this case the OP has several options:

a) act as a vehicular cyclist at the intersection (exit, then re-enter the path, if so inclined once across).
b) walk across the cross walk.
c) cycle across the crosswalk.

Option "b" may be faster than "a" to continue in some circumstances-usually "bike path" (MUP)/road crossings




Paths might be safe for slow recreational cycling where the cyclist never leaves the path. But the idea that paths make bicycle transportation safer, is absurd.



I agree, but some MUP's are a nice scenic alternative to exclusive road riding. I use a combination of MUP and road riding for commuting in fair weather just for that reason. When I'm late or in a hurry, I don't bother with the MUP.

If you can get where you are going on the road, read up and ride on the road.

If you need to cross that cross walk, get used to that. It happens all the time around here. I think all the lights get run at the crosswalks I have been at. You have to wait and see what all the cars are doing before going into the street. Expect it to be run all the time. It does not matter here if you are crossing on a bike or on foot you just have to be careful.

In the state Of R.I. a bicycle has all the rights and responsibilities of a pedestrian when on the sidewalk or a crosswalk, riding or walking. There are other laws that require you to ride slowly and warn pedestrians etc. When a cyclist is on the road they have the rights and responsibilities of a vehicle. Get on the road, you can ride faster, with less problems. But read up.

In california you are a vehicle EVEN IF you are walking your bike. You are NOT protected by the law in this instance. i agree it is probably safer to walk across, but you do not gain the protection of the pedestrian laws by doing so.

Always, be careful, drive (and walk) defensively.

In california you are a vehicle EVEN IF you are walking your bike.

Wow, that's crazy! How 'bout if you're carrying it, cyclocross style?

In california you are a vehicle EVEN IF you are walking your bike.
That does not appear to be correct.



467. (a) A "pedestrian" is any person who is afoot or who is using any of the following:

(1) A means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle.
...


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc467.htm

Anyone who is "afoot" is a pedestrian, period. Whether you're also pushing a bicycle along does not matter: you're still "afoot".

The part that says you're even a pedestrian if you're not afoot but using any human powered conveyance other than a bicycle (like a Razor push scooter) is not applicable since a person walking and pushing a bicycle is "afoot".

Now, if you're NOT afoot, and you're using a bicycle, then you're not a pedestrian.

Serge

The road route is hillier and longer. Guess that's the way to go. They spent millions on that trail. What a death trap.

If this is a bike path then there should not be x-walks, there should be stop sign or a light for the crossing.
Generally I would suggest the road, but there are states that I have visited that have converted old railroads to bike paths that can take a cyclist on a route that avoids many roads, is often scenic and can sometime be much more direct - (For example I have friend that can ride 10mi to work on one vs. 15 on the road and they have only a couple of road crossings as it uses old rail bridges and underpasses). But on this converted path the road crossing have a stop sign for the cycle path and the cyclist can cross the road when traffic is clear - this means no dismount and walk. On busy roads I have even seen a light controlled crossing for the bike path.

But if this is a MUP where you must share with peds and use x-walks, I'd suggest using the roads instead. MUP tend to go nowhere and nowhere fast.

Al

Can't you just ride in the road, with the cars? Numpty drivers are less likely to blow through a lane of flowing traffic.

I forgot to mention that this dedicated bike trail ends on sidewalks has signs posted that say "BIKES MUST USE THE CROSSWALK" to enter or exit. I'm a street rider and this new 4mi stretch has me wondering whether it safe even to walk it across. Wirh a bike, you have more maneuverability(sp?)

But if this is a MUP where you must share with peds and use x-walks, I'd suggest using the roads instead. MUP tend to go nowhere and nowhere fast.

Al

It was a dedicated bike path when it opened in 2002. But the peds are slowly taking it over. Like they don't have a billion miles of sidewalks and parks already.

You could just use the road, or advocate like cyclists did in Santa Barbara for a bike lane adjacent to the MUP in case they are insisting that because there is a bike path you must use it. If you get a lane as well, then at least you have a choice.

When there are sketchy intersections in suburban areas where a bike trail crosses a roadway, I usually move off the trail and into the road prior to the intersection. Streets that have right turns into highway onramps, for example. Drivers are WAY more concerned about zipping thru the turn before the light changes than looking for peds/bikes in the crosswalks.

It was a dedicated bike path when it opened in 2002. But the peds are slowly taking it over. Like they don't have a billion miles of sidewalks and parks already.
Maybe you can advocate for changing the x-walk to a 4-way stop intersection. Or even just a stop sign for the bike path - if x-traffic had enough breaks in it that this would be possible. If it is a dedicated bike path it should not lead the cyclist to a cross walk. Is this a bike path that provides a unique route not availble by road or is it a path that parallels roads? If the later than just give up on it.
Al

OK I don't get it. Today at that same intersection, same outfit, same lights and the WALK sign. I trotted the bike across both intersections (about the same speed as when I pedal across that same crosswalk.

A lady was signalling to turn right. Wheels turning, she was thinking about going but waited. How come?

OK I don't get it. Today at that same intersection, same outfit, same lights and the WALK sign. I trotted the bike across both intersections (about the same speed as when I pedal across that same crosswalk.

A lady was signalling to turn right. Wheels turning, she was thinking about going but waited. How come?

I dunno. Maybe she had more time to see you (you wrote were going ABOUT the same speed-I take it that means slower?). Maybe she is a good attentive driver, or perhaps a cyclist as well (When I drive these days, I find myself checking more for peds+cyclists--particularly when turning--compared to before I started cycling).

same intersection, same outfit, same lights and the WALK sign
But not the same driver!

Can you say, "sample too small"?