15 replies to this topic

[folsom500]

Not the traffic light this time - but maybe related...

December 16, 2011

Bicyclist badly injured in Folsom collision
A bicyclist suffered what was described as major injuries when hit by a car this morning in Folsom.

The bicyclist was hit about 8:30 a.m. at Glenn Drive and East Bidwell Street, according to a Folsom police spokesman. No further details were available.



Read more: http://blogs.sacbee....l#ixzz1giwJSJDW

[bordercolliefan]

Oh dear. I'm worried that it might be a middle school student...

of course, we wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, but I especially would hate to see a child hurt trying to ride their bike to school.

Anyone know more?

[Dave Burrell]

Advisory: Vehicle vs. Motorized Scooter Helmet saved minor’slife in Collision

Friday morning at 8:30 am the Folsom Police Department beganreceiving emergency calls regarding a vehicle which had collided with amotorized scooter at the intersection of East Bidwell Street and Glenn Drive.When officers arrived they found a middle school aged juvenile, wearing ahelmet, pinned under the vehicle. Due to the nature of the accident, thejuvenile’s injuries were initially treated as life threatening.

Emergency personnel from the Folsom Fire Department’s Station 35 were able toextract the juvenile, who was transported via ground ambulance to an areahospital. His injuries were significantly upgraded, which Fire and Policepersonnel attributed to the fact he was wearing a safety helmet. The cause ofthis collision is still under investigation. Exact age, name, and conditionwill not be released.

Per the California Highway Patrol’s website, the California Vehicle Code(406(a) VC) requires the operator of a motorized scooter to be at least 16years of age, possess a Class C Driver’s License or Driver’s Permit, and theymust wear a bicycle helmet. The operation of motorized scooters are limited tobicycle paths, trails, or bikeways. On a roadway with speeds greater than 25miles per hour, the driver must operate the scooter in a Class II bike lane.Just like a vehicle, a motorized scooter must be driven as close to the rightcurb as safe, except to pass or turn left. More information regarding motorizedscooters, bicycles, and skateboards ca be found atwww.chp.ca.gov/html/motors.html .

For full details, viewthis message on the web.

[bordercolliefan]

So it sounds like the kid is going to be okay??

Is a motorized scooter one of those little motorcycles like they ride in Italy, or is it the thing you stand up on?

[ducky]

I pray this young person is going to make a full recovery.

I'm hoping this comment isn't true from the Sac Bee article, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.


"I saw this happen. Kid was at the crosswalk stopped on his "go-ped" (motorized scooter) with a motocross helmet on. He waited for the "walk" sign and green light. Started across the cross walk, truck behind me turned right at the light and instead of yielding to the pedestrian/rider who had the green light and walk signal (regardless of whether he was going against traffic!), ran him over. Either the sun was in his eyes or was on his cell phone talking/texting. Either way, the situation did not look good and the driver was at fault, IMHO. Glad the kid is going to recover."


Read more: http://blogs.sacbee....l#ixzz1gjha6sI5

[tony]

So it sounds like the kid is going to be okay??

Is a motorized scooter one of those little motorcycles like they ride in Italy, or is it the thing you stand up on?

The FPD Notification had a picture of one you stand up on (those incredibly annoying gas powered ones that kids (apparently illegally unless they are 16) frequently ride around the HD.

BTW, the Folsom PD was incorrect in stating that they are only legal on bike paths, bike lanes, and bikeways.

The operation of motorized scooters are limited to bicycle paths, trails, or bikeways. On a roadway with speeds greater than 25 miles per hour, the driver must operate the scooter in a Class II bike lane.

First of all, they are not legal on Folsom bike paths, as no motorized vehicles (other than wheel chairs and, subject to local ordinance, "Electric personal assistive mobility devices", aka Segways, but not in Folsom) are allowed. Second, the FPD statement contradicts itself by first stating that they are only allowed on bike paths, trails and bikeways, and then stating that if the speed limit is over 25 mph, they are only allowed in bike lanes (this was apparently sloppy extraction of what was on the DMV web site). So, if the speed limit is less than 25 mph? Third, bicycle paths, trails and bikeways is redundant and contradictory at the same time, as bike paths and bike trails are both defined as bikeways in the CVC (a bike path is a Class I bikeway; a bike lane is a Class II bikeway, a bike route is a Class III bikeway). Finally, the FPD notice references CVC 406(a), which covers motorized bicycles, not motor scooters, which are defined elsewhere in the CVC (and which are allowed on bike path, unless prohibited by local ordinance, like Folsom's off-road motor vehicle ordinance).

I also find it very interesting that the FPD would first state that the cause of "accident" was yet to be determined, and then spend the rest of the notice expounding (incorrectly)on the rules applying to motorized scooters, without equal mention of the rules requiring yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks. Sure sounds like the victim is presumed guilty before the evidence is in. I'll be shocked if the motorist is cited.

[ducky]

The FPD Notification had a picture of one you stand up on (those incredibly annoying gas powered ones that kids (apparently illegally unless they are 16) frequently ride around the HD.

BTW, the Folsom PD was incorrect in stating that they are only legal on bike paths, bike lanes, and bikeways.

The operation of motorized scooters are limited to bicycle paths, trails, or bikeways. On a roadway with speeds greater than 25 miles per hour, the driver must operate the scooter in a Class II bike lane.

First of all, they are not legal on Folsom bike paths, as no motorized vehicles (other than wheel chairs and, subject to local ordinance, "Electric personal assistive mobility devices", aka Segways, but not in Folsom) are allowed. Second, the FPD statement contradicts itself by first stating that they are only allowed on bike paths, trails and bikeways, and then stating that if the speed limit is over 25 mph, they are only allowed in bike lanes (this was apparently sloppy extraction of what was on the DMV web site). So, if the speed limit is less than 25 mph? Third, bicycle paths, trails and bikeways is redundant and contradictory at the same time, as bike paths and bike trails are both defined as bikeways in the CVC (a bike path is a Class I bikeway; a bike lane is a Class II bikeway, a bike route is a Class III bikeway). Finally, the FPD notice references CVC 406(a), which covers motorized bicycles, not motor scooters, which are defined elsewhere in the CVC (and which are allowed on bike path, unless prohibited by local ordinance, like Folsom's off-road motor vehicle ordinance).

I also find it very interesting that the FPD would first state that the cause of "accident" was yet to be determined, and then spend the rest of the notice expounding (incorrectly)on the rules applying to motorized scooters, without equal mention of the rules requiring yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks. Sure sounds like the victim is presumed guilty before the evidence is in. I'll be shocked if the motorist is cited.

I found that interesting, too. How many times have I complained about motorists not yielding to pedestrians at that intersection? I cross there at least three to five times a week and have people routinely not paying attention because they are on their phone or in a hurry, and then there are those that plain just try to beat you to the punch and gas it before you have a chance to step off the curb.

[jpow5]

Is it true that if a person is riding a bike/scooter/skateboard etc. across an intersection, even if within a cross walk, they are not classified as a "pedestrian" and therefore, not given the same protection of the law as a person walking? That's the reason I once was given for why some motorist aren't ticketed/cited for accidents that seem like an obvious case of failing to yield to a pedestrian.

[Harold]

Is it true that if a person is riding a bike/scooter/skateboard etc. across an intersection, even if within a cross walk, they are not classified as a "pedestrian" and therefore, not given the same protection of the law as a person walking? That's the reason I once was given for why some motorist aren't ticketed/cited for accidents that seem like an obvious case of failing to yield to a pedestrian.

I've been under the impression, if you are riding, you belong in the traffic lane (albeit the far right of the lane), if you are walking your bike, then you belong in the crosswalk.

[ducky]

Is it true that if a person is riding a bike/scooter/skateboard etc. across an intersection, even if within a cross walk, they are not classified as a "pedestrian" and therefore, not given the same protection of the law as a person walking? That's the reason I once was given for why some motorist aren't ticketed/cited for accidents that seem like an obvious case of failing to yield to a pedestrian.

I think what you stated is true.

I guess my pet peeve is all the unsafe practices I see so very often, especially at this intersection, and how many times I have said, "What if I were a kid who wasn't paying attention." I even saw a guy once in a small Toyota pickup drive on the sidewalk to get around traffic so he could turn right onto E. Bidwell from Glenn (right alongside the Indian restaurant side). I know how easy it is to be in a hurry and forget, but I doubt whatever appointment or shopping we are trying to do is going to feel very important when someone else gets hurt. Thank God this child was wearing a helmet. I'm sure the driver feels terrible no matter what.

Even if the child shouldn't have been riding this motorized scooter, I still don't think it gives anyone the right to mow him down if there was every opportunity to see him if one were, in fact, obeying all traffic laws such as coming to a complete stop behind the limit line before proceding to make a right on a red light, paying attention to the pedestrian crossing sign that is on and actually checking for pedestrians or anyone in the crosswalk (motorized wheelchairs included), and being hands-free with the cellphone.

I don't know what really happened because they haven't released the facts. Just stating my reasons for being afraid for any child or anyone who crosses that intersection.

[tony]

Is it true that if a person is riding a bike/scooter/skateboard etc. across an intersection, even if within a cross walk, they are not classified as a "pedestrian" and therefore, not given the same protection of the law as a person walking? That's the reason I once was given for why some motorist aren't ticketed/cited for accidents that seem like an obvious case of failing to yield to a pedestrian.

Here's my understanding. It depends on whether local ordinance restricts bicycle riding on sidewalks (Folsom does not allow bike riding on sidewalks, with the exception of the Lake Natoma Bridge; this even though many bike paths dead end onto sidewalks). State law allows local agencies to restrict bicycling on sidewalks, otherwise it is legal. The crosswalk is an extension of the sidewalk across the street. Therefore, if it is legal to ride on the sidewalk, it is legal to ride in the crosswalk; conversely, if it is illegal, as in Folsom, to ride on the sidewalk, then it is illegal to ride in the crosswalk. It's also generally not a very good idea, as the subject crash indicates because at bicycling (or motorized scooter speeds) you are crossing (half the time from the opposite direction from which motorists would expect you) at much faster speed than a pedestrian, which is, if anyone, for whom motorists are looking out.

However, as of Jan. 1, 2011, bike path crossings are now explicitly recognized by the CVC, so it is legal to ride in a marked crosswalk that is connecting two bike paths, such as the signalized crossing of Oak Ave. at the Willow Creek Trail.

[tony]

I think what you stated is true.

I guess my pet peeve is all the unsafe practices I see so very often, especially at this intersection, and how many times I have said, "What if I were a kid who wasn't paying attention." I even saw a guy once in a small Toyota pickup drive on the sidewalk to get around traffic so he could turn right onto E. Bidwell from Glenn (right alongside the Indian restaurant side). I know how easy it is to be in a hurry and forget, but I doubt whatever appointment or shopping we are trying to do is going to feel very important when someone else gets hurt. Thank God this child was wearing a helmet. I'm sure the driver feels terrible no matter what.

Even if the child shouldn't have been riding this motorized scooter, I still don't think it gives anyone the right to mow him down if there was every opportunity to see him if one were, in fact, obeying all traffic laws such as coming to a complete stop behind the limit line before proceding to make a right on a red light, paying attention to the pedestrian crossing sign that is on and actually checking for pedestrians or anyone in the crosswalk (motorized wheelchairs included), and being hands-free with the cellphone.

I don't know what really happened because they haven't released the facts. Just stating my reasons for being afraid for any child or anyone who crosses that intersection.

I'm right with you Ducky. just yesterday (in Sacramento), I saw car making a right tun almost run over a guy in a crosswalk in a motorized wheelchair. The car stopped less than 5 ft from hitting him. The guy in the wheel chair went on like this happens every day.

The onus of safety of pedestrians, especially children, should be on the licensed adults driving cars, not on the kids. They are kids and cannot be expected to always use good judgement. Unfortunately, when they become adults, that often doesn't change. Everybody just slow down and pay attention when you're driving and these things won't happen.

This seems like a good time to point out that while traffic fatalities and injuries continue to decline to record low levels (not seen in 50 years, and rates per million miles traveled are at the lowest levels ever), pedestrian fatalities and injuries have been going up. Is anyone surprised? This is in perfect agreement with our anecdotal observations (BTW, though no-one knows for sure, the trend toward lower auto fatalities and injuries seems to be due to a combination of safer roads (for cars), safer cars (for occupants) and lower rates of DUI, only the last of which has any benefit to pedestrians.

[rpo]

So, if I am understanding this correctly, motorized scooters ARE allowed on sidewalks?

[tony]

So, if I am understanding this correctly, motorized scooters ARE allowed on sidewalks?

Not in Folsom.

[bordercolliefan]

Well, anyway, I hope this boy is okay. If anyone hears anything about his condition, let us know.