Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Almost Killed (Again) By (Another) Stupid Driver


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16 fatfenders

fatfenders

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:12 AM

...but if you were riding a bike you were in the wrong here and contributed significantly to the event. No disrespect intended, but you are picking on a car driver for not reacting to a poor and illegal choice of your own.


Andy, Just for the sake of argument, would you accuse a pedestrian, in the exact same situation, of "contributed significantly to the event" if they were crossing that intersection in the exact same crosswalk? Whats the difference to the driver? Me thinks "contributed somewhat to the event" might be more appropriate.

OK, so if, as a bicyclist, I should NEVER EVER use a crosswalk, how would you suggest one cross Folsom Blvd at Parkshore when approaching the intersection northbound on the trail? Virtually every bicyclist I have every seen (and I have seen a bunch) cross here in the crosswalk. What else are they supposed to do... meander out into the traffic and somehow fit themselves into a lane of travel? I guess the only other answer would be to walk your bike across but lets get real... no one is going to do that.
One other thing... where is it stated that riding a bicycle in a crosswalk is illegal? I have seen references to several CA city ordinances that state, under various circumstances, it is, in fact, legal.

Posted Image



#17 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:15 AM

Interesting you brought up the "red arrow" area. First of all, I ride that just about where you put the red arrow (maybe a foot or two to the right). That makes it clear that I am proceeding straight and allows the motorists trying to turn right an invitation to go around to the right rather than trying to pass me and then turn right in front of me (the dreaded right hook). I've never had a problem there, although I would say that the whole intersection leaves me a little uncomfortable because is is so large and has so many oddly-striped lanes. Second, I have been complaining to the city about this (and the double right turn lane from Blue Ravine to E. Natoma, which is death trap for pedestrians) since the day it was built. The striping for that right turn lane where you put the red arrow is just plane wrong and needs to be fixed. The best solution would be to eliminate that driveway, because it is too close to the intersection. Alternately, the striping could be fixed to at least include a bike lane where it belongs.

The other problems at that intersection are the fact that EB E Natoma has an extremely long right turn only lane approaching Blue Ravine that crosses several driveways, making it difficult for bicyclists to determine when to move to the left to the bike "pocket". the other place is WB Blue Ravine after the intersection where there are two lanes to the left of the bike lane that either drop or become right turn only lanes. All in all, that whole intersection (and the stretch of Blue Ravine from Manseau/Parkway to E. Natoma is just horrible for bicyclists and pedestrians, and not much better for motorists, IMHO.


Tony,
Again, I don't disagree with your reasoning but, when you ride through that intersection over to Natoma do you feel comfortable on the stretch shown in red? I sure don't. I have found (until today) the crosswalk/sidewalk to be the lesser of two evils. Cars come flying out of the intersection wanting to turn into the shopping center. I used to take that route but the 'red' part made me very uncomfortable. Often wondered just what the legal issues are since there is no marked bike lane until you get to the other side of driveway.

All that said, I agree about Manseau completely. That's the route my wife usually takes and has been trying to convince me to do the same for a long time. Convinced. I shall cross at the main intersection no more forever!

Posted Image



#18 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:43 AM

I don't think biking in the crosswalk is specifically illegal but rather you do not have the right of way (peds do) and bicycles are considered vehicles when being operated. As such, you wouldn't drive a car across a crosswalk.

#19 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:50 AM

The difference between you and the pedestrian is mostly speed. Motorists expect people in crosswalks to be moving at walking speed. Now, given that you were starting from a stop, you probably weren't going much faster than a pedestrian at the point the car pulled in front of you. So, I would agree with you in this case that the driver's behavior probably was not any different than if you were walking, and that you merely contributed to the incident by riding.

However, the law would not be with you. Here's why. A crosswalk is defined as the prolongation of the limits of the sidewalk across an intersection, whether marked or not, and includes marked crosswalks at midblock locations. As such, the crosswalk is considered an extension of the sidewalk, so if bikes are allowed on sidewalks, then they are allowed in crosswalks (this is a liberal interpretation, with which not all traffic engineers or magistrates will agree). Conversely, where bicyclists are not allowed on sidewalks, then they are not allowed in crosswalks. State law does not dictate whether bicyclists can ride on sidewalks, but specifically allows local agencies to do so. In Folsom, a local ordinance makes it is illegal to ride on sidewalks (even thought many bike paths dead end into sidewalks in Folsom). Therefore, it is illegal to ride in crosswalks, and that's how the police have interpreted it when cyclists have been hit in crosswalks.

There is one other part of the law that influences how this issue is dealt with, and that is the requirement that motorists yield to pedestrians in crosswalks (and requires peds not to "jump out" in front of cars). Because this section of the VC uses "pedestrians" and not "persons" or something like that, this is used as backup to the argument that bicyclists in crosswalks do not get the same protection as pedestrians there.

But, if that's not confusing enough, there was a new addition to the VC about 2 years ago that defines "bike path crossings", which, by definition allows bicyclists to ride in these. Obviously, this doesn't apply to the incident under discussion here, but it is very relevant to the Folsom Rail Trail along Folsom Blvd., the Willow Creek Trail Crossing of Oak Avenue Parkway, and a number of other places where bike paths cross roads with marked "bike crossings". So, at these locations, state law has your back. That said, I'm not sure it's been tested here in Folsom, or whether your average police officer even knows about the change.

So, there is one other fine point to be made about the E. Natoma-Blue Ravine incident. And that is, since you were traveling with the direction of traffic, if you had pushed the button and then ridden in just outside of the left edge of the crosswalk, you would have been in a legal position as a bicyclist (although arguably not a good one) and, provided you were there firs, you would have had the right of way to proceed straight (as you would have been meeting the as near as practicable to the right edge of roadway requirement.

As for the Parkshore example, you are certainly correct that most cyclists use the crosswalk and 50% of them are going the wrong way. Here's my inelegant solution (which is what I generally do here): use the ladder crosswalk across Parkshore to get to the bike lane on Parkshore (this is legal because it is a "bike path crossing") and simply wait for the light to turn green for Parkshore. There is a loop detector in the bike lane, and the timing on that signal is actually adequate for bicyclists. Yes, it's a little awkward, and the whole issue would go away if the city would merely turn the ped signal on across the other leg of Folsom Blvd. and stripe the other crosswalk (yes, it's there). Then bicyclists would have the option of pressing the ped signal and riding in the street as I previously described. The other problem with the red arrow route is highlighted by the way you drew the red arrow, extending along the wrong side of Parkshore after crossing Folsom Blvd. Unfortunately, this is how many bicyclists do this. Or, worse, they make a sweeping turn from the crosswalk across Parkshore to get to the right side, in conflict with the light and often with other traffic. Yes, few cyclists will walk their bikes across intersections, but sometimes, it's the only reasonably safe thing to do. Yes, there are engineering solutions that would make this much less problematic and encourage cyclists to behave more predictably (and legally), but transitions between bike paths and roads will always be awkward and require special attention by users. This location is one of those.


Andy, Just for the sake of argument, would you accuse a pedestrian, in the exact same situation, of "contributed significantly to the event" if they were crossing that intersection in the exact same crosswalk? Whats the difference to the driver? Me thinks "contributed somewhat to the event" might be more appropriate.

OK, so if, as a bicyclist, I should NEVER EVER use a crosswalk, how would you suggest one cross Folsom Blvd at Parkshore when approaching the intersection northbound on the trail? Virtually every bicyclist I have every seen (and I have seen a bunch) cross here in the crosswalk. What else are they supposed to do... meander out into the traffic and somehow fit themselves into a lane of travel? I guess the only other answer would be to walk your bike across but lets get real... no one is going to do that.
One other thing... where is it stated that riding a bicycle in a crosswalk is illegal? I have seen references to several CA city ordinances that state, under various circumstances, it is, in fact, legal.

Posted Image


I don't think biking in the crosswalk is specifically illegal but rather you do not have the right of way (peds do) and bicycles are considered vehicles when being operated. As such, you wouldn't drive a car across a crosswalk.

You said that a lot more succinctly than I (although I did add a little more information)!

#20 fatfenders

fatfenders

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:43 PM

Tony, Good stuff. Thanks for all that. But I guess I am still a little rankled by Andy's characterization that I "contributed significantly" to the near incident. I just don't believe that to be the case. My point is, given some of the examples I found (below) there are places around the country where it is perfectly legal to ride in a crosswalk. Would I be "contributing significantly" if I did the same thing in Portland? Would I be "contributing significantly" if I did like you say and rode a few inches just outside the crosswalk? It seems to me that local laws addressing bicycles in crosswalks are driven by the bicycle-pedestrian relationship and not the bicycle-automobile relationship. "Ducky" makes a very good argument by pointing out that if a "'walk light" is on, someone must be there. And lets face it, a rider on a bicycle is a much larger visual image than a pedestrian.
Oh, and just for the record, that collision last summer has changed things for me when I am on my bicycle around traffic. I see ever car around me now as a "Cobra" (the snake, not the car). While I do ride in crosswalks, I go slow and cautiously, focusing as carefully as I can on each vehicle as I approach it.

Another good point you make (and I make below): Bicycle law concerning sidewalks and crosswalks is simply all over the place.

Here are a few examples I found:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Oregon law, bicyclists can ride in crosswalks as long as they go no faster than a "walking speed." Yes, even in downtown Portland –where the prohibition on sidewalk riding oddly doesn't extend to crosswalks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Alameda, the Municipal Code says that it is legal to ride on the sidewalk in certain areas. "Bicycles may be ridden on the sidewalk, except such sidewalks that pass directly in front of or adjacent to any stores, schools, or other buildings used for business purposes during the hours that such establishment is open for business." a. Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. b. It shall be unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle in any pedestrian crosswalk at a signal controlled intersection, adjacent to any school, or one which is under the control of the school crossing guard. At all other intersections the bicyclist shall exercise due caution before entering onto the roadway." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This from Bob Mionske ... the 'go-to' guy concerning bicycle law.
In California, cyclists may legally ride on sidewalks and within crosswalks; while doing so, cyclists have the same rights and duties as pedestrians (but cyclists must yield the right of way to pedestrians). However, California authorizes municipalities to prohibit cyclists from riding on the sidewalk and/or within the crosswalk. Where laws prohibiting cyclists from riding on sidewalks and in crosswalks are in effect, cyclists must dismount and walk their bikes while on the sidewalk or in the crosswalk. Section 21201(d) makes it clear that it is not in fact against state law to ride on the sidewalk. And that brings us to crosswalks. By definition, under Section 275 of the California Vehicle Code a crosswalk is an extension of the sidewalk across the intersection. Thus, generally speaking, the legality of riding within the crosswalk will be determined by whether or not it is legal to ride on the sidewalk. If it is legal to ride on the sidewalk, it is also legal to ride within the crosswalk; if it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, it is also illegal to ride in the crosswalk. This is the general rule; state laws may specifically address riding in the crosswalk, but where no such state law exists, the legality of riding in the crosswalk will be determined by the legality of riding on the sidewalk. In fact, it's as legal for a cyclist to ride through an intersection in the crosswalk as it is for the cyclist to ride through the intersection in a traffic lane. When the cyclist is in the traffic lane, the law treats the cyclist as a vehicle operator; when the cyclist is in the crosswalk, the law treats the cyclist as a pedestrian (albeit, a pedestrian who must respect the right of way of pedestrians who are on foot—and because the cyclist is a pedestrian under the law while riding on the sidewalk, the cyclist has the duty to exercise the same caution as a pedestrian when entering the crosswalk; thus, incautiously entering the crosswalk at speed would be as illegal for the cyclist as it would be for the pedestrian).

#21 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:08 PM

All good stuff, and it sounds like Bob Mionske and I are on singing from the same song book. But at the risk of trying to read Andy's mind, I would merely say that, given that sidewalk riding is illegal in Folsom (FMC 10.24.070 Riding restrictions), and this has come up before, I would expect the police to take Andy's position if there were, indeed, a collision in the circumstances you described, and the driver would not be held responsible.

BTW, here's the language from the FMC: "No person shall ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk and the rider of a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when passing a standing vehicle or when making a left turn at an intersection. (Prior code § 9916)" Which brings to mind a couple of issues. First, maybe the FMC should be changed to allow sidewalk riding, with appropriate restrictions in business districts. Given the many 8-ft sidewalks linking directly to bike paths, the fact that those along arterials tend to have very few pedestrians or conflicting driveways, and that it is common and not enforced (except to excuse motorists in crosswalk collisions) it would not be unreasonable to allow sidewalk riding. Second, this passage highlights the fact that the provisions in the FMC regarding bicyclists are way out of date and, in fact, inconsistent with state law. The latter part of that section is much more restrictive than state law, which was amended about 10 years ago to explicitly provide several more exceptions to the "close as practicable to the right..." clause. Others include a prohibition of riding on the Folsom Dam Road, and the requirement for licenses, including the $1 annual fee. Perhaps you would like to lead an effort to bring the city's laws regarding bicyclists out of the 1970s and into the 21st century.

Tony, Good stuff. Thanks for all that. But I guess I am still a little rankled by Andy's characterization that I "contributed significantly" to the near incident. I just don't believe that to be the case. My point is, given some of the examples I found (below) there are places around the country where it is perfectly legal to ride in a crosswalk. Would I be "contributing significantly" if I did the same thing in Portland? Would I be "contributing significantly" if I did like you say and rode a few inches just outside the crosswalk? It seems to me that local laws addressing bicycles in crosswalks are driven by the bicycle-pedestrian relationship and not the bicycle-automobile relationship. "Ducky" makes a very good argument by pointing out that if a "'walk light" is on, someone must be there. And lets face it, a rider on a bicycle is a much larger visual image than a pedestrian.
Oh, and just for the record, that collision last summer has changed things for me when I am on my bicycle around traffic. I see ever car around me now as a "Cobra" (the snake, not the car). While I do ride in crosswalks, I go slow and cautiously, focusing as carefully as I can on each vehicle as I approach it.

Another good point you make (and I make below): Bicycle law concerning sidewalks and crosswalks is simply all over the place.

Here are a few examples I found:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Oregon law, bicyclists can ride in crosswalks as long as they go no faster than a "walking speed." Yes, even in downtown Portland –where the prohibition on sidewalk riding oddly doesn't extend to crosswalks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Alameda, the Municipal Code says that it is legal to ride on the sidewalk in certain areas. "Bicycles may be ridden on the sidewalk, except such sidewalks that pass directly in front of or adjacent to any stores, schools, or other buildings used for business purposes during the hours that such establishment is open for business." a. Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. b. It shall be unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle in any pedestrian crosswalk at a signal controlled intersection, adjacent to any school, or one which is under the control of the school crossing guard. At all other intersections the bicyclist shall exercise due caution before entering onto the roadway." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This from Bob Mionske ... the 'go-to' guy concerning bicycle law.
In California, cyclists may legally ride on sidewalks and within crosswalks; while doing so, cyclists have the same rights and duties as pedestrians (but cyclists must yield the right of way to pedestrians). However, California authorizes municipalities to prohibit cyclists from riding on the sidewalk and/or within the crosswalk. Where laws prohibiting cyclists from riding on sidewalks and in crosswalks are in effect, cyclists must dismount and walk their bikes while on the sidewalk or in the crosswalk. Section 21201(d) makes it clear that it is not in fact against state law to ride on the sidewalk. And that brings us to crosswalks. By definition, under Section 275 of the California Vehicle Code a crosswalk is an extension of the sidewalk across the intersection. Thus, generally speaking, the legality of riding within the crosswalk will be determined by whether or not it is legal to ride on the sidewalk. If it is legal to ride on the sidewalk, it is also legal to ride within the crosswalk; if it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, it is also illegal to ride in the crosswalk. This is the general rule; state laws may specifically address riding in the crosswalk, but where no such state law exists, the legality of riding in the crosswalk will be determined by the legality of riding on the sidewalk. In fact, it's as legal for a cyclist to ride through an intersection in the crosswalk as it is for the cyclist to ride through the intersection in a traffic lane. When the cyclist is in the traffic lane, the law treats the cyclist as a vehicle operator; when the cyclist is in the crosswalk, the law treats the cyclist as a pedestrian (albeit, a pedestrian who must respect the right of way of pedestrians who are on foot—and because the cyclist is a pedestrian under the law while riding on the sidewalk, the cyclist has the duty to exercise the same caution as a pedestrian when entering the crosswalk; thus, incautiously entering the crosswalk at speed would be as illegal for the cyclist as it would be for the pedestrian).



#22 fatfenders

fatfenders

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:46 PM

All good stuff, and it sounds like Bob Mionske and I are on singing from the same song book. Perhaps you would like to lead an effort to bring the city's laws regarding bicyclists out of the 1970s and into the 21st century.

Tony, Well, whatever I am, or am not... I am not a crusader so don't be looking for me down at city hall anytime soon!
One last point about 'fault' in a bicycle/automobile collision in Folsom... Referring to my collision last summer... I was doing everything right, she was doing everything wrong. She admitted it. She was not cited. What else do I need to say.

I guess we have pretty much beaten this one to death but thanks for your input. You too Andy, Ducky, and all else.

Posted Image

#23 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:35 AM

Just thought I'd add this. In the DMV Handbook there is a section about yielding to pedestrians and there are places where bicyclists are mentioned at intersections and crosswalks. It also explains about needing to prepare to stop when turning right when the pedestrian light is flashing.

dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/right_of_way.htm




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users