Moe Zhoost

Yes, this is the one that I remembered.

Phil_gretz

...concerning pedestrian contributory negligence in civil awards. From my experience in Virginia, although the court may find in favor of the injured pedestrian (plaintiff), the award can be significantly reduced with any contributor factors, such as not using reflective clothing or lights at dusk, and the like. Yes, I said any.

YMMV

thumpism 

No, but I feel I could have beaten it handily.

There was some satisfaction when the trooper asked me when I first noticed the Murano and I told him, "When I saw it land in my lane from above." He kind of glared at me and I pointed to the top of the embankment where stood a witness who I already knew had seen the car go off and said, "You probably want to talk to that guy."



Just as an aside, you would not believe the amount of stuff that gets shaken off and out of a car that tumbles down a slope and lands on pavement.

Paul Barnard

No, but I did stay in a Motel Six a few weeks ago.

indyfabz

I stayed in a couple in September of 2018 during what turned out to be an aborted bike tour. Nicely renovated.

Paul Barnard

If you'll forgive me, I'll drift back toward topic. Us cyclists need to be keenly aware of the fact that if people normally have any sense of awareness of their surroundings, they often abandon it when they become pedestrians. Someone took issue earlier with the comment that we should expect the unexpected. They'll probably take issue with this too. Pedestrians are predictably unpredictable. And they truly are. I guess people take a stroll to get away from it all. May of our paths are in parks or have a park-like feel. Pedestrians often get lost in their thoughts in parks. Heck, cyclists do too.

I slow to pass with minimal speed disparity, announce my presence whether it will be heard or not, and proceed with caution while prepared to stop or swerve.

mcours2006

On the MUP part of my commute there is a bus stop right next to the path. There are usually commuters waiting for the bus there, most of whom are on their devices, and even if not, they are not paying attention to anything. I often have to come to a complete stop because a few have wandered off onto the MUP, or just standing right in the middle of it. Do I like having to slow down? No, but that's my responsibility. And I smile and say thank you when they move over.

On the same MUP there are a few parking lots that exit across the path. Often the drivers come to a stop right across the path, even though there are signs clearly telling them to yield to cyclists. I have no such courtesies toward these drivers. Quite the opposite.

Tombaatar

You are drifting away from the topic not towards.

Paul Barnard

Not if you read critically. Knowing that pedestrians kind of lose themselves and are prone to behaving unpredictably, if you choose to pass at 18 MPH, have a crash and that cyclist is injured, please know that if it goes to civil litigation, you very likely bought yourself some of the responsibility.

Tombaatar

Again. Specifically. I do not care to read your opinion of safe passing procedures or your opinion on my presumed behavior.

indyfabz

The question has been asked and answered.

indyfabz

That's precisely what the ignore function is for. Check it out.

livedarklions

I think that sums up to one Motel 12.

livedarklions

Right, the question legally is going to be one of comparative negligence, and there's going to be competing standards of care for the pedestrian and the cyclist. At trial, this would go to a judge or jury to decide, and I'm going to guess there are few if any cases that have created any useful precedent in any given state, so it's really going to be a crap shoot based on the specific facts of the case, credibility of witnesses/evidence, and the judge or juries' views about how careful cyclists need to be as compared to pedestrians.

You've also got a situation where there very likely will not be any insurance coverage, so even in the rare event of such a collision, there might be very little incentive to take this thing to trial.

I'm going with the winner is going to be the one with the better lawyer.

I'm leaving in the ginormous run-on sentence just so indyfabz can give me a hard time.

indyfabz

Senator, you're no Vintage Schwinn.

Paul Barnard

I have broken our conversation down to it's simplest elements and highlighted the most pertinent of those simple elements.

My opinion quoted above is not an opinion about safe passing procedures. It is exactly what you asked for. It's how I think the courts would see a bike on pedestrian crash in an overtaking situation as outlined.

badger1

Yep. I left the practice of law years ago for an academic career in another field, but this pretty much sums things up as far as 'law' is concerned, iirc. Canada and the U.S. aren't that much different when it comes to tort principles, though application/results can still be quite different. However, both you and @indyfabz are much better placed to comment than me.

As to that run-on sentence, well, that would take us into my professional sphere, but no comment other than to say that technically, it isn't. There are multiple coordinate clauses, properly punctuated. The only substantive question arises with the 'so' clause. 'So' certainly can be a coordinating conjunction; however, it can also be used as a subordinating conjunction, roughly equivalent semantically to 'so that' or 'therefore'. One could argue that in this context your 'so' is a subordinating conjunction = 'therefore'. If so, then the pattern ought to have been "... in any given state; so, it's really going to be ... ". However, I incline to the view that the sentence is just fine as you structured it: stylistically a little 'stringy', but grammatically fine ...

Paul Barnard

Thank you. For the life of me I could not think of that term.

Cyclist753

Nah... it was just an accident. Now... if we had made eye contact or there was certainty it was deliberate then... IT'S ON! lol

honcho

Reading this thread, I recalled an incident in Virginia on the Washington & Old Dominion trail several years ago where a cyclist hit a pedestrian and the pedestrian died. Searching on google, I found the incident reported here https://www.arlnow.com/2012/06/11/wo...it-by-cyclist/

We ride a tandem and when preparing to pass we signal with one or more bells. Not surprisingly the bells are often ineffective in getting attention since the pedestrians often have on audio devices. Screaming at the top of my lungs usually works but it's jarring to them and us. Of course, being startled is better than hitting or being hit. We work hard to be vigilant and I will abort a pass if I conclude if Its going to be too close for comfort. Not that we want to injure anyone but the basic truth is we're more concerned about our safety than that of the other guy. A little selfishness can go a long way toward safety for all.

As for the legal ramifications I haven't a clue. I carry personal liability insurance and a big umbrella policy which I hope never to use.

SherpaBob

Many runners (and some cyclists) have earbuds in their ears.. I have a really loud and resonant brass bell and I never know if they can really hear it.

Anyway, neither runners, pedestrians, cyclists nor drivers have cornered the market on idiots. There are good and bad in each category.. That seems to be the thing that many cannot comprehend. So I believe your remark to "expect the unexpected" is good advice for all the MUPers.

Bobcarlson1

I have a bell on my bike. I recall coming up behind a jogger, on a town trail, ringing my bell and yelling loudly PASSING ON YOUR LEFT! So, of course, the stupid jogger stepped to her left. I had to do a quick swing to the right to get around her. I don't think she was even responding to me. She just decided to run more in the center of the path.

Strawpile

I completely understand your frustration, because this is exactly the situation that I have found myself in numerous times. What I have learned through simple observation about how the law is interpreted in the United States is that it all comes down to the lived experience of those that have the power to interpret it. If the jury or judge that is deciding this case is a cyclist that has experienced your situation, they are likely to rule in your favor. If, on the other hand, they have found themselves in the situation of the jogger, then it is unlikely to go your way.

Unfortunatlely, I have had to resort to playing it safe and will always assume that the person I am about to pass is plugged in to loud music, and act accordingly.