RT

Not to belabor this, but the only indication I saw that it was 'safe' to cross was the Walk signal. The light was still red going that direction, which typically means that opposing light is green. I don't know how that can be if the Walk indicator was lit. Confusing.

dpark

According to comments where the video was originally posted, the light was/is red due to construction. I'm not sure if that means that the street is now right-turn-only or what, though. It's also possible that with no straight traffic, they do crosswalks first and then left/right at the same time.

Seattle Forrest

Nope, you're understanding what I'm saying. And it's common practice for drivers to blow through / right on reds in that particular neighborhood. These handful of crosswalks are very dangerous places to not be in a car. It's a problem in our fair city.

The area has been under construction for a long, long time, until about two months ago.

Doohickie

In the comments it says "In Seattle, riding in the crosswalk is legal, as is riding on the sidewalk." If this is true, car driver is 100% at fault (although the bike rider could have been more careful when driving in between cars, imo).

dpark

I don't know if I've ever been in that area. I haven't really explored most of Seattle yet. Sucks that cars are dangerous in that area. I'd assume there are a lot of cyclists and pedestrians who travel through there, since there's a park and all.

It is true. Seattle allows bikes on sidewalks/crosswalks. They have to yield to pedestrians, and it's illegal to dart into a crosswalk at high speed (such that a motorist cannot reasonably stop). Aside from that they have all the same rights as a pedestrian.

atbman

1. How does anyone know from the video that the driver blew through a red light? Perhaps someone with local knowledge may be able to tell, but I can't. But she seems to have been going rather fast for someone approaching a crosswalk with the lights against her.

2. I repeat, the rider was not on the crosswalk, because the red mini SUV had blocked it (their bad - it's illegal in the UK), so he left it to go round the rear of that vehicle

3. Had he been on the crosswalk, he would not have been hit because the driver stopped before she reached it.

4. He landed on the crosswalk and walked back off it to pick up his bike which was not on the crosswalk, demonstrating that she had stopped several yards before the crosswalk.

5. While the video makes it appear that she was travelling pretty quickly, she cannot have been going very fast otherwise she wouldn't have been able to reduce her speed enough so that he didn't suffer any apparent injury - tho' props to him for his quick reflexes and to her for hers.

As I see it, there were a number of unfortunate elements to this collision:

1. The large white van/RV went through on red (at about 12 sec the light turns to green before he goes over the CW)
2. The small red SUV's driver was at fault for not stopping before the CW, but on it, which caused the rider to ride round the rear of the SUV, thereby taking him off the CW
3. Since he was no longer on the CW and any vehicle in the RH lane would, if driving legally, still drive up to the CW, he should have checked to his right to check that it was clear, since a driver might not expect someone to appear from the position he did
4. The woman seemed to have been going pretty quickly for someone approaching a CW with the lights against her, tho' to her credit, she did manage to stop before reaching it

So, who actually broke US law?

The rider? He started crossing on his green, so no. Altho' it could be argued (and I do) that he should have checked to his right as he went round the rear of the red SUV, since he was, at that point entering a part of the roadway which a driver could reasonably expect to occupy because it wasn't, actually, part of the CW

The woman? If she had, in fact gone through a red light (not clear to me from the video), then yes she was legally at fault since the rider would not have been reaonably expecting to see someone in her position. If not, then, apart from approaching a CW with the light against her at a speed which seems from the video to have been unnecessarily high, she didn't actually hit anyone on the CW.

The red SUV driver? S/he had sufficient time to stop before the CW, instead of on it, because the preceding white van/RV crosssed the CW on red. If US/local state law says that you should not stop on a CW, then s/he was probably the only one who visibly committed an offence

All in all, a mix of unfortunate circumstances conspiring to bring about a situation where all parties miscalculated or misjudged things.

Catgrrl70

The intersection noted is very, very busy with the new park, especially on nice days. The cyclist was heading north. He is using the marked pedestrian/bike route - the signage is behind him along Terry Ave so you can't see it. When the pedestrian signal is "walk" the east/west traffic signals turn red. The silver car is heading west. This is a wide intersection that also includes a streetcar track which she also crossed running the red (far to the right off screen). She did not complete a turn but had a straight shot at the light. The red light you see for northbound traffic is always red. This is a construction zone through which north/southbound motor vehicle traffic is not allowed, thus, the solid always red. There are lots of pedestrians and cyclists using the crosswalk. This could have had a much worse outcome.

I ride through this area every day. Every day. This intersection and the one just further west at Valley/Westlake are chronic problems for cyclists (not to mention Westlake/Mercer as well). At many of these intersections cars usually block the crosswalk, if not the entire intersection, on a regular basis - I have made who knows how many complaint calls and emails to SPD about this problem area to no avail. I have not once seen any officer issuing tickets to drivers blocking an interection/crosswalk. And I see drivers consistently running this red light although not at the speed of the silver car (are they used to having no cross traffic - to the extent that they 'forget' that there is a crosswalk here? Are they inured to the fact that THEY won't get t-boned but are oblivious to the fact that they could do real harm?) This particular intersection is also quite wide which is why it's not easy to see the vehicles to the right of the frame who are stopped at the red light.

As a cyclist being used to drivers blocking intersections in this area on a regular basis, as I suspect the cyclist in the video is, I consistently HAVE TO go around cars who are blocking the intersection/crosswalk in order to proceed. Oftentimes, they proceed in front of me as I am already proceeding on my green light or walk signal. They are blocking my ROW and I am proceeding around them with no incident and not in turn blocking them for blocking me (yielding to the blocker as the cyclist did). If a driver cannot clear an intersection on the light they should not proceed. The driver of the red car should not have proceeded on the green (yellow more likely) because they could not clear the intersection. If another driver is not obeying the law and runs their red as I am proceeding around a car blocking my ROW (and I watch for them, they do try to get away with it or are oblivious as the driver was in the video) how exactly is that my fault? Because of my bike, I can go around the blocker and clear the intersection. As a pedestrian, do we not all walk around vehicles that are blocking the crosswalk? Do all pedestrians just end up waiting for the next light cycle? The driver ran a red, caused a crash into another road user who was legally proceeding.

SMC 11.66.060 Blocking intersections and crosswalks.
No person who is responsible for the operation of any railroad train or car shall stop the same within an intersection or on a crosswalk except to avoid accident or upon direction of a peace officer.

SMC 11.40.090 Entry into street outside of crosswalk -- Disabled persons -- Exception.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, every pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than at designated crosswalks or other than within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

exile

At about the 13 second mark the cyclist gets the signal to cross (the crosswalk sign, not the stop light). As the cyclist proceeds a white van/bus moves through the intersection and clears the 1st lane.

From about the 16-20 second mark the red SUV moves forward in the 2nd lane blocking the crosswalk.

At that point the cyclist seemed to have a number of choices. Ignore the crosswalk signal and never move. Proceed to move and plow into the red SUV blocking the crosswalk . Go in front of the red SUV which was moving forward . Or proceed behind the red SUV (thus getting out of the crosswalk) and in front of the black sedan (in the 2nd lane) which seems to have permitted about a 10 foot gap between both vehicles.

At the 19 second mark the silver Subaru can be seen "hurrying" through the intersection in the 3rd lane and at the 20 second mark the silver Subaru looks to slow, but still hits the cyclist .

In Seattle it is legal to ride through a crosswalk. The cyclist had the crosswalk signal and proceeded. The cyclist chose not to ride in front of a moving vehicle in the 2nd lane or to plow into it since it was in the crosswalk area (thus was not in the crosswalk when struck by the vehicle in the 3rd lane). The cyclist was struck in the 3rd lane in what appears to be a vehicle moving quickly through an intersection.

Since the cyclist had the crosswalk signal I (assume) the traffic control devices were working properly and that traffic from both directions would have the red light.

After clearing the first two lanes successfully (although needing to ride outside the crosswalk area to do so), the cyclist was struck by a vehicle in the third lane that was not visible for the first 19 seconds of the video. Luckily the cyclist did a clever move and appears to be unscathed .

However it seems the cyclist should (assume) that traffic control devices do not work (should vehicles be allowed the same assumption) and that every vehicle is driven by maniacs looking to take out cyclist. Thus the cyclist is partly or fully to blame for not having the same assumptions as some of the posters on this forum .

dpark

1. Because he had a crossing signal. In general it's a pretty bad idea to tell pedestrians to walk into traffic, so even in the US we tend to tell cross-traffic to stop first.

2. This is pretty much irrelevant. When a car is blocking the crosswalk, it is legal to go outside the crosswalk. Also, he did not go out of the crosswalk into traffic. He moved into the intersection. That car should never have entered the intersection. The illegality is not merely that she hit a cyclist in a crosswalk. It's that she hit a cyclist.

3. This is almost certainly untrue. She stopped because she hit him, not because she reached the crosswalk and then suddenly decided that the middle of the intersection was the appropriate stopping point.

4. Again, irrelevant. He had the right of way. He was legally riding around the blocked crosswalk. She was illegally running a red light and illegally striking a cyclist.

5. Does your car not have brakes? On dry pavement a car can go from, say, 30 mph to zero very quickly. In any event she was going far faster than she should have, considering she should have been stopped a hundred feet back, before she ever entered the intersection.

This isn't simply a red light for the crosswalk. It's a large intersection. No one should have been approaching the crosswalk at all. The cross traffic had a red light. The through traffic was blocked, and there was a red-light facing anyone who might have gone left.

The intersection is to the (camera) right of this crosswalk. When the cyclist left the crosswalk, he entered the intersection. No cars could legally approach from the right the way the Subaru did. They had a red light, and it is never legal to drive across the intersection on a red light. All crossing cars should have stopped at the stop line (probably at least 100 feet back/to the right of the crosswalk).

Yes, the driver of the Subaru is at fault. She ran a red light and entered the intersection illegally. Had she not struck the cyclist, she would also probably have crossed over the crosswalk without stopping.

The driver of the red SUV committed a traffic violation and should be ticketed, but is not responsible for the accident. At least two other cars also committed traffic violations (the white van and the car behind the red SUV) because they entered the intersection illegally, but they were not responsible for the accident either.

atbman

dpark, thanks for the information about the intersection. In the UK, crossings are frequently placed at locations other than junctions, so it wasn't clear to me that the CW was on one.

One point, does anyone local to this incident know if the lights were set to green because the intersection was closed off? In the UK, I've seen temporary lights set to green under such circumstances while the CW lights can be turned to green by the CW user using the approriate button.

I'm not excusing the driver who was approaching too fast even if my suggested scenario were to be correct.

On the other hand, if I'd been in his situation, I'd still have looked to my right - not saying that I thinnk what he did was illegal, simply unwisely optimistic, given many of the descriptions of US driving standards given on this forum

toddles

This video is a fraud!! I can prove it. There's sunshine out.

AlphaDogg

He kicked himself off of the hood of the car. Pause the video around 0:15 and hit play and pause repeatedly until you see the accident.

Edit: Also, here in Denver, it is illegal to ride in the crosswalks. You have to dismount and cross like any other pedestrian.

CB HI

Try this, it happened in the USA. You appear to believe that the women driver never entered the intersection, which is wrong. She had already ran a red light. She stopped in the intersection only because she saw the cyclist at the last second and jammed on the brakes. Otherwise she would have blown through the intersection and crosswalk without ever slowing down. The other cars were also illegally in the intersection blocking the intersection during their red light.

The cyclist had to leave the crosswalk and continue crossing IN THE INTERSECTION because of the illegal cars blocking the crosswalk and intersection.

dpark

You're quite welcome. I hope my comments didn't come off as abrasive or rude. We have crossings without intersections here as well, though their frequency depends on where you visit in the US. I grew up in the south and pretty much never saw them. Now I live in Seattle and there are several near me.

I cannot confirm first-hand that the cross lights were not set to green. The comments from others who are in the area indicate that the lights are still changing to red, but I haven't been to that intersection to observe for myself.

I fully agree that he should have looked to the right. If he had, he would have seen the car. I'm fully aware that I could make that same mistake, though (and have, but I was on foot which saved me from getting hit).

Commodus

Look at all these tools blaming the cyclist. For what? Not being fast enough to deal with the driver RUNNING THE RED LIGHT?

Oh, what a forum.

RT

Still don't see where you get your logic. The light facing the cyclists was red. It has also been mentioned that there is construction going on. It is far too confusing to draw any conclusions, but it has been proven that had the cyclist looked to his right, he could have avoided this.

Oh, what a forum.

oban_kobi

I think the bigger issue is why aren't traffic laws enforced? Seems like it would be really easy to police, if the worst area is the rather small area mentioned.

It's also proven that had the driver not run the red light or been driving recklessly, she wouldn't have hit him.

Oh, what a forum. (I think this should be a thing, I'm stealing it for my sig. Want credit Commodus or do you not mind?)

dpark

In my experience, red light laws are rarely enforced in the US. The police give out lots of speeding tickets and not much else. That's what I've seen in TN, MS, CA, and WA. MS had the most people running red lights, and WA has the fewest. The prevalence of drivers respecting or disrespecting red lights seems to come down more to culture than rate of enforcement, though.

pallen

I dont think anyone is "blaming" the cyclist. The driver was clearly at fault. That doesnt mean we cant learn from it and see ways to avoid these kinds of accidents.

What I get from this is some good reminders.
1. Just because the signal says you are clear, keep a sharp eye out - particularly in irregular circumstances like this (cars blocking crosswalk, etc)
2. Reminder: you're less noticeable coming from the left after the intersection (from the driver's perspective). If he had been in the other crosswalk (to his right on the other side of the intersecting street) he would have been where cars are paying more attention. Sometimes its too much of a pain to add extra crossings, but you have to be extra careful and realize that you are not where drivers are looking when you cross like that.
3. Practice ninja moves.

RT

I am blaming the cyclist in part, and no, the driver was not clearly at fault. Nothing is clear here - construction changes everything. Yes, we do need to be more aware - it is our duty as the more vulnerable vehicle.

I am passionate about this because I read many articles (a lot from Florida, for some reason) about cyclists being struck and sometimes killed by cars where yes, it is entirely the driver's fault. Too often in injury accidents though, I see the cyclist complaining about how he/she had the right of way or was doing everything right. While that may be true, this does not absolve them of the responsibility to be hyper-aware, and lack of awareness is the reason they are on the ground/bleeding/suffering broken bones/whatever (note that some accidents cannot be avoided and this is not a blanket statement saying that hyper-awareness can stop all accidents). We as cyclists lament the motorist at almost every turn, but incidents like this just give credence to the motorist's most common assertion: Cyclists think they own the road. We all know this isn't true, so why give the motorist fuel for their argument?

Yes, make this a learning experience. I guarantee you the cyclist in this video will not make this mistake again.

crhilton

The walk sign was on, he was a few feet from the cross walk to go around a car in the cross walk. Clearly this is either:
1. The city's fault for setting the intersection up with competing rights of way.
2. The motorists fault for running the light.

crhilton

In the words of Lois Griffin: "What?!"

CCrew

Driver's insurance could walk on this for contributory negligence in VA for sure.. Driver clearly stopped prior to the crosswalk. Sure, can play what if's all you want, but at the end of the day they both shared a role in questionable decisions.

And yes, red car was in the CW, but it was also stopped - he could potentially have passed in front of it and still been in the CW.

RT

If you want to be oblivious to traffic just because you have a right to be somewhere, you will suffer the fate of this chap.

And who is Lois Griffin?

bhop

It's not confusing at all. Crosswalk had the right of way.. he should've looked to the right, but in no way was he to blame, not even partial. The blame was 100% on the car running a red light.