Talk about ignorance in the law
 

Here in Nebr and in Lincoln anyway, if a bike path crosses a street, a cyclist is supposed to dismount and walk across the intersection. If the cyclist gets hit in the cross walk, say by a car turning right on red, the law says it is the cyclist fault.

The brilliant fools in our legislature had a chance to correct this stupidity this year, but voted it down.

Can you quote the language and/or provide a reference to the legal provisions in question?

Around here there are signs on the busiest intersections...http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=445418

Seems to me that if a person is walking their bike, they are clearly a pedestrian.

This thread is without a doubt correctly titled and accurately describes the original post.

Highly improbable.

Lincoln Municipal Code says a bicycle rider needs to dismount and walk the bike on a crosswalk, which is the law everywhere I've lived. It says nothing about shifting accident liability to the bike rider which violates the Code, though if you hit a pedestrian in that crosswalk I suspect violating this section would create a presumption of negligence. Nebraska is a modified comparative negligence state, meaning your negligence in operating your bicycles reduces your recovery until you are 50% or more at fault, then you get nothing. The issue is whether your riding in the crosswalk contributed to the accident.

Do some reading.

Sounds like weaseling out of responsibility. Where the state legislature ignored the comparative negligence position of the state. In favor of making it look like it is always the cyclist's fault.

Which is sort of like saying in a fatal accident between a 18-wheeler, and a Ford Pinto(remember, the car that would explode if it was rear-ended). That it is always the fault of the driver driving the Ford Pinto. Never the larger vehicle.

I don't see what you're referring to.

https://www.lincoln.ne.gov/City/atto...i10/ch1048.pdf

The subject of this thread IS ignorance of the law.

A lady in our bike club just got hit in the street cross walk in line with a bike path. There was a green light for pedestrians, but she was on her bike insteadof walking it. It is my understanding that she got hit a a right turn on red driver. She went to the hospital and also got a ticket.

I might also add that there are approx 130 miles of bike trails in Lincoln, so there are may intersections that the bike trail crosses streets. Most of these crossing near the down town is controlled by traffic lights.

So much ignorance of "The Law"; luckily there are plenty of electrons to dedicate to the cause of spreading it around.

Putting aside the legal issue, seems line it's a bad/unsafe/risky practice to travel at bicycle speeds in crosswalks that drivers expect people to be walking in.

She should be more interested in not getting run over in the first place than whether or not she might get a ticket.

The first question is what was the ticket for?

how

Failure to yield.

The point here is------------you are on a bike path. There are traffic lights, and a cross walk that goes straight ahead and the bike path continues. Where would you have the cyclist ride, and why shouldnt the cyclist be protected in the cross walk just like people on foot?

What you mentioned. Reminded me of when I was (stupidly) on the sidewalk a couple years ago. Approaching a four-way intersection. Just as I was about to cross the street, a car suddenly turned right, causing me to have to slam on my brakes, hard. I came within inches of getting knocked off my bike.

So much ignorance spread by one "curmudgeon." Signal. Must add noise!

(Helpful hint, "the invisible zebra" - and we got it good compared to Nebraska.)

-mr. bill

I consider traffic laws to be pretty much irrelevant when it comes to cycling. As a cyclist, it's my job to avoid getting hit by a car. Motorists aren't out there trying run down cyclists on purpose. Who cares if somebody gets a ticket if you're lying in a hospital bed? I have never gotten a ticket on my bike but if I did I would pay it an move on; just another government tax. It's not like they are going to take away your cycling license or anything.

The bottom line here is that the "law" flys in the face of common sense and logic.

That's never mattered before though :p