Bat22

Square and compass right on the money. One intersection got so many hits there is
an added sign. "Right on red only after full stop and intersection is clear"

thomson

A snippet from https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/leg...0+cod+46.2-904 Virginia Law

§ 46.2-904
Operation of bicycles on sidewalks and crosswalks
The governing body of any county, city, or town may by ordinance prohibit
the riding of bicycles on designated sidewalks or crosswalks, including
those of any church, school, recreational facility, or any business
property open to the public where such activity is prohibited. Signs
indicating such prohibition shall be conspicuously posted in general
areas where bicycle riding is prohibited.
A person riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway on a
crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall
give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.
No person shall ride a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway on a
crosswalk, where such use of bicycles is prohibited by official traffic
control devices.
A person riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway on a
crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under
the same circumstances.

-----
I am not trying to detract from the original issue that happened in Ohio. All I am trying to do is show how one's perception of their own law may be a little different than reality.

Wanderer

Check your state and local laws.

In Illinois, a bicyclist in a marked crosswalk, has all of the rights of a pedestrian, and is to be treated as such. (New law on the books here.)

JeffS

I'm not ready to concede this point. I am specifically referring to the moment she began her movement. Maybe they were already standing in the road, and maybe they didn't leave the sidewalk until she was well into the turn. I don't know that it changes anything -- except the perceived carelessness of the driver.

Hell, for all I know the driver stopped, began her turn and the kids came rolling down the sidewalk full speed and rode out in front of her. Either way, she clearly didn't see them and would have admitted fault.

Anyway... my main point is that it very much does matter if both sides were breaking a law.

10 Wheels

Fully agree, She made Two Illegal Moves.

sreeb

A lot depends on if the kids were on the right side of the street. If they were on the right side of the street then I think they were OK. If they were using the crosswalk on the left side of the street then they were vehicles going the wrong way and should have been cited.

steveknight

crosswalks anymore are very dangerous. drivers tend not to yield to peds. or not see them. I have come cose to getting hit so many times crossing while walking. but since I watch I don't get hit. but if I just crossed like normal I would have been toast many times. Hell I get yelled at crossing while I have the walk sign. drivers seem to expect you to wait for them to turn now.

Bat22

I'm guessing here, but I'll give it a try.
Riding in a crosswalk is a misdemeanor?
Hitting some one in a crosswalk is a felony?

habernac

both parties are at fault: the kids for not walking their bikes across and the driver for not making sure the crosswalk was clear.

Riding through a crosswalk is a good way to get hurt. Teach them early that they must dismount and wait for traffic to stop before proceeding.

ItsJustMe

Walking speed is the relevant issue here. It's not fair to a motorist to expect to check for a crosswalk to be clear of ALL traffic regardless of its speed. If someone is coming down the sidewalk at 25 MPH, they'd have to check so far back (and possibly out of their line of sight) that in many cases they'd never be able to actually proceed.

Yes, it's the motorist's responsibility to ensure that the crosswalk is clear. But how far back? Should a racer on a bike doing 40 MPH, appearing from behind a building a fraction of a second before entering a crosswalk expect ROW? I know that's not anything like the situation here, but when making general statements about crosswalks I don't think you can always just say "if a motorist with a red hits a cyclist while doing a right on red, he must always be at fault."

Again, I believe that in THIS case, he was at fault, because the cyclists were proceeding at reasonable walking speeds.

If you're going walking speed (say, no more than 5 MPH) then whether walking or cycling, you should expect to be given ROW.

andrelam

Let me get this straight, if the kids had walked accross instead of ridden their bikes accoss it would have been safer? The driver would have just plowed into the kids AND the bikes. Maybe there would have been some broken legs as well... I know you are supposed to walk a bike accross, but I don't see how it is in ANY way safer. If a car blows through taking a right on red, or just planned on stoppen once they passed well into the cross walk (I see both ALL the time), you are going to get creamed riding or walking your bike won't make a difference. The only think that I find better about being on the bike is that I am up a little higher and I can change directions a little easier. Walking a 35 Lbs bike loaded down with an other 15 Lbs of gear I am very slow to maneuver when I am pushing it around, when I ride I can be agile.

The lady made a right on RED... hitting anything after than is HER fault, she failed to yield plain and simple. Hitting any thing or anyone in the cross walk is not acceptable.

If she doesn't pay, threaten with small claims court. Somehow I don't think she will have a leg to stand on.
Better yet, call Judge Judy... this would make for a fun episode. So Madam you made a right on read and clipped two kids and ran over their bikes and you say that they were at fault for being in a cross walk with a white crossing light in their favor...

Happy riding,
André

DCCommuter

The law varies from state to state.
Ohio law permits riding on sidewalks, but allows municipalities to prohibit it. Ohio law is silent on crosswalks and bicycles.

When the law is silent, case law precedent decides. This article has a discussion of cases involving bicycles in crosswalks:
https://velonews.com/article/6740

Generally the courts rule that cyclists in crosswalks have the rights of pedestrians, but not always.

Ohio follows a doctrine of comparative negligence, each party's liability in an accident is proportional to their responsibility. Regardless of whether cycling is illegal in a crosswalk, it would be up to a court to determine how much responsibility for the accident comes from the cyclists' actions, and how much from the motorists actions.

Square & Compas

Perhaps the OP could elaborate a little more on this. But it sounds to me like the driver stopped on the red, which you are supposed to do, even when turning right on red. then proceeded through even after she may have seen the kids, or did not notice the kids already there. But it does sound like the kids were already in the crosswalk or right on the cusp of entering it. What tells me this is the fact about the kids having the crossing signal. These usually require some sort of interaction from the party wanting to cross the intersection, like pushing the button or setting off some sort of sensor. Which means the driver should have seen them and stayed stopped, even if the kids were not in the crosswalk yet. She should have known kids will be kids and will cross, because they have the signal that states they can and that cars are to remain stopped, and they were not any sort of distance away from the crosswalk, there were right there at it when this happened. So the excuse of the kids being some distance away and where is the ROW to be perceived, etc. etc. is not really valid in this context or situation.

thdave

The sidewalk they were on came from the right of the driver. You are right that they did push a button to trigger the crosswalk signal. The driver came up to the intersection, stopped for red (the kids saw her stop). Then they started across the road on the crosswalk and she started, too, to turn right, at the same time as the kids started. Despite the kids being one yard in front of her, she didn't see them. They were hit immediately. Both bikes were hit, as one was right behind the other, and three of the four wheels were ruined.

While the driver left the scene without providing insurance, the kids never asked for it. In defense of her, she admitted fault, apologized right away, and was grateful that the kids were ok. In fact, she offered to drive the kids home, although she couldn't fit the bikes in her car.

An odd thing is that the paper she wrote her number on was an ATM receipt. She has $37 dollars remaining in her account (and paid $2 to get $20 out of the machine)! Looks like the three bike wheels together will cost $155.

Nerdanel 

Obviously the motorist in this case was wrong for entering the crosswalk with the kids in it, and wrong for leaving the scene. However, if I were the OP who began the post with the words "My son" I'd be more concerned with whether the kids were safe than with whether they were legal (I'm sure this is how the OP feels as well). Whether walking or riding, people crossing an intersection to the right of right-turning cars are in a danger zone. It is much safer to bike across the intersection in the traffic lane than to the right of it. If the kids are 15, I'd want them educated in traffic laws and riding in the street. If the street is too busy for that, I wouldn't want them riding in the crosswalk either.

thdave

Like I said in the OP, the kids are perfectly fine. Don't chide me on my lack of concern.

The comments here are suprising. I really feel that the driver was the only party at fault but it's clear that more than a few think the kids were wrong. I'd dismiss it if I sensed these were rabble rousers, but the posts seem honest.

I contacted my city councilman, who's a lawyer that I know pretty well, to check on the law here. I'll try not to be so outraged with him as I feel, given these comments. I'd like to see the council address this if the law is as the police say. I like the Oregon law. But the bottom line for me is that the cager cannot enter a crosswalk when they have a red light and people are there. Bikes or not. I believe most (90% or more) would agree that's critical.

By the way, there's no way I'd tell my kids they must bike in the road. They can if they want to but only if they put on a blinkie and lights at dusk/nighttime (I have a couple ;o)). To be honest, the chances of them doing that are zip. This was at 6:30 pm on a cloudy day--yesterday, so I prefer the sidewalk for them. Besides, after they crossed this road, they get to bike across a parking lot to the park and then to our house. It's the right way to go.

ItsJustMe

I think the driver is mostly at fault. Even if the law stipulates that the riders should be walking in the crosswalk, IMHO the PURPOSE of such a law is to force walking speed. If they were riding at a walking speed, then the driver has no excuses for not seeing them in time and stopping.

lil brown bat

There's something I'm confused about here. Did the driver hit the kids as they were crossing the street that she was already on, or as they were crossing the street that she was turning onto?

thdave

yes.

genec

While I basically agree with you, that it is not a stupid law and that folks in crosswalks should WALK... I question whether the driver ever even looked. It has been my experience that motorists rarely look to the right when they are about to make a right on red... they tend to stare to the left and then just go.

So indeed while it was wrong to ride a bike in a crosswalk, it was probably equally wrong of the driver who probably didn't even look.

Belazriel

Still looking but I couldn't find anything with the basic search of walk and bicycle or dismount and bicycle in the Ohio Revised Code.

Now, we have what the driver did covered by the Code:

And of course you are legally allowed to ride your bicycle on the sidewalk:

Now this seems to be close but it does refer to when there are no signals assigning right of way:

Section A is saying they have to yield to you, B is saying you can't rush out in front of them. I'll try to find court cases defining "immediate hazard".

I might look up more later, local laws may vary, I am a lawyer but no one seems to want one without at least 2 years experience so I'm hopelessly unemployed in the legal field.

degnaw

Legally, I believe the driver was at fault for not yielding (but as for leaving the scene of the accident, I don't think stopping, making sure everyone's okay, offering a ride and sharing contact information can be considered that).

Aside from that, I really don't think that it's safe for a rider with no lights in the dark, going the wrong way, to dart right in front of a driver who's probably looking to her left for cars. "walking speed" doesn't really mean anything in this context, given that the car was adjacent to the curb - who can accelerate to 20mph in a ten feet or so?

DCCommuter

Clearly, the law is not as the police say.

Belazriel

I glanced through Cleveland local ordinances, couldn't find anything prohibiting riding your bike in a crosswalk. I would try to find out from the police, politely, what law prohibits riding through a crosswalk. It may be that at some point it's been interpreted as a hazardous method of operating your vehicle but I couldn't find anything.

crocodilefundy

no matter what the cycling laws are it is the motorist who is operating the killing machine. they are responsible for not hitting anyone/thing. for example, one time a car made a left from the far right lane and cut my car off. I hit the turning car because it was not possible for me to stop in time. in the official report I was at fault because I hit the other car even though there was nothing short of not driving that could have prevented me form hitting the other car.