I-Like-To-Bike

I have seen the light; in at least one city, if the written traffic code were applied at all it would be the noisiest city in the country with auto horns blaring, cyclists yelling and bells ringing 24/7.

politicalgeek

You wanted a reference. If you don't like the answer...

bmclaughlin807

Why don't you do your own research instead of lazily insinuating that I'm lying and/or stupid? Ah... wouldn't be quite the same as just blindly insisting that every other person on the planet is wrong and you're the only perfect cyclist out there?

A cyclist operating on a sidewalk, path, or in a crosswalk is treated as a pedestrian under Colorado law. (Yes, I could pull that law for you, too... if you really insist on being a lazy jackass.)

politicalgeek

Even if you do provide it, he'll find something wrong with it.

bmclaughlin807

Sorry, some of us were busy actually out on our bikes, having a life.

cc_rider

The Virginia Code is very clear
§ 46.2-904. Use of roller skates and skateboards on sidewalks and shared-use paths; operation of bicycles, motorized skateboards or scooters, motor-driven cycles, electric power-assisted bicycles, and electric personal assistive mobility devices on sidewalks and crosswalks and shared-use paths; local ordinances.
....
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, 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.
....
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

Maryland Laws are less explicit, but still suggests a requirement to give warning. And each local jurisdiction in MD has it's own additional laws.
§ 21-504. Drivers to exercise due care.
(a) In general.- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.
(b) Duty to warn pedestrians.- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall, if necessary, warn any pedestrian by sounding the horn of the vehicle.
....

The DC Code is also somewhat vague
1201.2 A person shall operate a bicycle or sidewalk bicycle in a safe and non-hazardous manner so as not to endanger himself or herself or any other person.
....
1201.10 Any person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of way to pedestrians, and shall travel at a speed no greater than the posted speed limit of the adjacent roadway, Provided, that such speed is safe for the conditions then existing on the sidewalk..
1201.11 A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or while crossing a roadway in a crosswalk shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, except that the bicyclist must yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk or crosswalk.

In addition, many of the trails and MUP's around here have posted rules or signs that say "give audible warning when passing"

I-Like-To-Bike

Thanks, that certainly is clear about what to do when passing a pedestrian in VA. Did you notice anything about giving audible signals to bicyclists being passed or any requirement to slow down prior to safely passing a bicyclist?

Febs

"A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances."

Don't you ever get tired of making an ass out of yourself?

P.S. The Ohio statute refers to both "vehicles" and "trackless trolleys." Vehicles is defined in the statute to include bicycles. For once, why don't you just admit that you were wrong?

I-Like-To-Bike

Nice dodge. See what other "bicycling requirements" you can toss out before your next ride, something is bound to stick.

I-Like-To-Bike

Not if its relevant.

bmclaughlin807

I posted the exact text from the law. You don't even want to look at it before insulting me again? Or you DID look at it and didn't say anything because you can't possibly admit you're wrong?

I-Like-To-Bike

So show us, Perry M where "the rights and duties of a pedestrian" requires them to give an audible warning when passing anything. Or does your presumably jailhouse law degree tell you that bicyclists must treat other bicyclists as if they were pedestrians? Lord, some BF legal wannabes sure use your imagination to stretch an internet factoid to "prove" the existence of a fabricated legal requirement.

Edit: If bicyclists are "legally"required to be treated and act as pedestrians, which side of the of the shared path do they ride on?

Febs

For your information, my law degree is from an ABA-accredited law school, where I graduated very high in my class. I am admitted to practice before the Supreme Courts of two different states. I have been admitted to practice pro hac vice in at least three other states. I am also admitted to practice before two federal circuit courts, and three federal district courts. I know how to read a statute.

Now can we please stop the ridiculous ad hominem and address the language of the statute?

The statute gives a pedestrians the right to an audible signal before being overtaken and passed. The statute also expressly gives to any person riding a bicycle on a sidewalk or shared-use path all of the rights of a pedestrian under the same circumstances. Thus, a person operating a bicycle on a sidewalk or shared-use path has the right to an audible signal before being overtaken or passed.

I also note that you failed to respond to my point about the Ohio statute, which clearly and unambiguously requires "[t]he operator of a vehicle ... overtaking another vehicle ... proceeding in the same direction" to "signal to the vehicle ... to be overtaken ...."

I-Like-To-Bike

OK. As it stands now you, me and a few others on this thread are the only people who know of it and probably not one single soul in the state to, include anyone in the legal profession pays any attention to it if they should by some chance be aware of it. But you sorta win, you sure showed me about what it takes to safely pass anybody - blow your horn in their ear, or yell at them and call it an audible signal.

When the day comes that the residents of the Buckeye State actually pay any attention to this statue and comply, then Ohio will definitely be the noisiest state in the Union and be known as the Compliant State of Cacophony.

Blue Order

It doesn't really matter if anybody knows about it or not. That old adage about ignorance of the law being no excuse is applicable here. In a civil suit, if there's a legal duty to signal, and failure to signal contributes to an accident, it will be an issue at trial, and ignorance of the law won't excuse the defendant from the duty to signal.

prathmann

An obscure Ohio law will have no bearing on a civil suit filed in NY.

A problem in this case is that right-of-way rules aren't generally well defined on MUPs - certainly not nearly as well as they are on roadways. It appears that both parties contributed to the collision and the degree of fault of each is hard to determine without knowing all the details (and would probably still be disputed if all details were known). Hope the parties can reach an amiable settlement between themselves.

Blue Order

No, it won't. I'm just not following this closely enough to have even noticed that two different states are being discussed here. Nevertheless, in Ohio, if signaling is required, it might be an issue in an Ohio trial, even if the parties are unaware of their legal duty.

politicalgeek

This is what helped spark the info given for multiple states.

NY State does not have a specific provision, but does say:

and:

I really don't think the concept of an audible signal is all that arcane or obscure and seems to imply a responsibility on the part of someone passing to give notice. Or at the very least, be responsible for passing only when it is safe to do so.

UnsafeAlpine

I see MUP's like I see a green run on a ski area. As a good snowboarder, I go faster than many on that run. There are people of vastly different experiences. It is my responsibility, as the overtaking individual, to make sure I don't hit someone. When I move around on a slope, I always look behind me to see if anyone is coming, but that doesn't negate an overtaking person's responsibility to avoid hitting me. In every instance, on the slope, the person uphill is at fault if a collision happens. Every time. It doesn't matter what the excuse might be. The overtaking person must look out for those downslope.

The reason this doesn't apply on the road is exactly because there are so many laws that govern all road users rights and responsibilities.

xenologer

Ya know, your friend could have avoided this entire thing by angrilly yelling 'Watch where you're going! You got in my way!' and pedaling off immedialty after impact.

The incident was the womans fault for passing unannounced, and the only reason your friend ended up agreeing to pay her bills was because she chewed him out first.
Always make sure you're the more Vocal one in a post accident argument, it really does help in causing the other party to back down and accept more blame/deter them pressing you.

dougmc

From what I see given here, I'd say she's probably more at fault than your friend. (Of course, she doesn't seem to agree, and perhaps there's more to the story.)

Though if her problem is really just an out-of-true wheel, I'd probably say `look, this was your fault and not mine, but I can true a wheel in a few minutes. Stop by my place and I'll show you how it's done. We can also check out the rest of the bike to make sure everything is OK.' Especially if she's cute.

But I'd make really sure that she knows that I'm doing this to be nice, not because I (or my friend) are responsible. After all, she could decide that her knee was hurt and she wants a big cash settlement, and attempt to say that since I fixed her tire, I was admitting responsibility ...

I don't know if the actual laws are going to matter. The police are unlikely to give a ticket. If your friend has renters or homeowner's insurance, she could make a claim and they'd work it out. If not, and he denies responsibility, really, all she could do would be to sue him or take him to small claims court -- and then that's when the actual laws might matter. But usual cycling practice (announcing your passing, for example) may very well matter too.

cc_rider

Read the third paragraph. Bicycles on sidewalks and trails are considered pedestrians.

Unfortunately there are a lot of cyclists out there who do not think that they need to or should give warning before passing. I remember some discussions on these boards where people said that they never give warning because the person they are passing will turn around to look and get in their way. In my opinion they've made their choice and if there is a collision, it's all on them.

ricardo_NY1

Your friend should not give her a penny..........the accident was her fault. There is no law here in NYC that would place your friend at fault. As a matter of common sense and corteousy, it was up to her to either sound her bell or announce herself "On your left" (Your friend should've checked her bike for one). Had she done either of those, the accident would've never happened. Those kind of people, along with cyclists who use the trails and paths here in NYC who spent a grand on a bike but don't even have a cheap strobe when they ride at night piss me off. I feel safer riding with cars than using bike paths at night in NYC.

I'll also add, there are the morons who announce themselves "On your left" when they're right next to you, in which case, their announcement serves more to startle than anything else.

I-Like-To-Bike

Considered "pedestrians" by whom other than BF Brand legal pedants?
If you want to get carried away with the idea that cyclists are legally considered "pedestrians" and must be warned when being passed by a vehicle, what is the requirement for one "pedestrian" passing another to sound a warning? What is the requirement for a "pedestrian" to come to a full stop at a stop sign?

cc_rider

VDOT, Virginia's official bike site, the Virginia Statewide bike map, WABA, NVPA (they control the W&OD), NPS (they control the Mount Vernon Trail, the Mall, and many other trails in the area), several local police and sheriff's offices (they make a big point of it in the media whenever there is a safety campaign going on (like now in Loudon and Alexandria)), local county bike coordinators (this has been discussed and meetings I've attended), my congressman (used to be my county supervisor, put together the bicycle task force and wrote the county regulations)
That enough for ya?