Who’s right/wrong in crash?

[duff_duffy]

Today I saw biker on sidewalk on wrong side of road ride straight into marked crosswalk at 4 way stop. Car coming perpendicular hit bike rider after going through intersection (pretty much hit biker straight on). Bike jacked up, slight car damage, rider hit head but seemed ok but shook up. Driver kept saying she came out of nowhere. I always thought in a crosswalk it’s drivers fault all the time but when I saw the speed at which this happened wonder legally who’s right. Biker did not stop going into the intersection, I assume car had stopped at far side but did not see that part. In NJ

[cgolvin]

Don't know about NJ, but here (CA) a bike is a vehicle so the only way it's not the cyclist's fault is if (s)he were walking the bike in the crosswalk.

[benb]

Yep.. basic part of learning to ride a bike.

My 11 year old knows you bike in the road or walk in the crosswalk.

I think it probably only matters when you actually get hit of course... it's probably exceedingly unlikely you're going to be ticketed for riding in the crosswalk.

The one case I really object to this rule is MUTs where you come to a road and have to press a button to activate a light. It's pretty ridiculous for all the traffic on the MUT to have to dismount and walk in that case IMO because it is perfectly fine to be riding a bike on the MUT and you didn't go out of your way to go onto a sidewalk.

We definitely have some kinds of ridiculous signage like that some places on paths and trails.

[Peter P.]

Sounds like improper use of a crosswalk by the cyclist. While assigning SOLE responsibility is a kneejerk reaction in most people, there are cases where both parties bear partial responsibility. From your description of the collision this may be the case here. Of course, ticketing the cyclist may not bear any punishment unless NJ law can fine the cyclist. In this case I'd like to say their penalty would be assigning no responsibility to either party: The cyclist gets no compensation for their injuries and damage, and neither does the driver.

That's what King Solomon would do!

Of course, either side could sue the other later on.

Good discussion.

[AngryScientist]

As a cyclist, it's our our responsibility, first and foremost to exercise a healthy measure of self preservation. Bombing down the sidewalk into an intersection and hoping for the best is just stupid, and sounds like a matter of time before this person got hit riding in that manner.

Legal blame could go either way on this one probably, depending on what comes of the case and who gets involved.

Hopefully the cyclist is not hurt too badly and this is a lesson learned in how to ride more responsibly.

As a driver, I know we have to pay attention and drive carefully when pedestrians or cyclists are around, but you just can't anticipate erratic behavior like that. I feel for them in this case. It's highly unlikely (IMO) they will get any money out of the cyclist to fix the car damage and it'll just be a hassle getting it fixed.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

The one case I really object to this rule is MUTs where you come to a road and have to press a button to activate a light. It's pretty ridiculous for all the traffic on the MUT to have to dismount and walk in that case IMO because it is perfectly fine to be riding a bike on the MUT and you didn't go out of your way to go onto a sidewalk.

This is a situation that causes a lot of confusion.

In regard to pedestrians: Street crossings on a MUT are marked cross-walks and pedestrian's have the right of way in marked cross-walks. The light at the MUT cross-walk is a warning to drivers that a pedestrian is about to cross - it is not a stop light, because it doesn't have to be, since by default drivers have to stop for pedestrians in marked cross-walks anyway.

As far as cyclists: A cyclist riding their bike is a vehicle, but a cyclist walking their bike is a pedestrian. When a cyclist is walking their bikes, all the pedestrian rules above apply. But when they are riding their bike, they do not have the right of way in the cross-walk (because they are a vehicle, not a pedestrian). This is why there is a STOP sign on MUTs at all intersections - cyclists (being vehicles) must always stop at street crossings, and can not proceed until they intersection is clear and they won't impede vehicles in the crossing street. If a cyclist pushes the button and the signal light flashes, legally drivers do not have to give the cyclist the right of way to cross - effectively the driver has a flashing yellow, while the cyclist has a STOP sign. But if the cyclist gets off their bike and walks across the intersection, they become pedestrians and have the right of way in the intersection, and drivers have to stop for them. Clear as mud, right?

I know a cyclist that failed to stop at a MUT intersection, and ran into the door of a car that was passing through the MUT crossing. The cyclist was ticketed, and had to pay damages to the driver for the bent door.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Peter P.

Sounds like improper use of a crosswalk by the cyclist. While assigning SOLE responsibility is a kneejerk reaction in most people, there are cases where both parties bear partial responsibility. From your description of the collision this may be the case here. Of course, ticketing the cyclist may not bear any punishment unless NJ law can fine the cyclist. In this case I'd like to say their penalty would be assigning no responsibility to either party: The cyclist gets no compensation for their injuries and damage, and neither does the driver.

That's what King Solomon would do!

Of course, either side could sue the other later on.

Good discussion.

I agree, there's plenty of blame to around here. It is true that riding a bicycle on a sidewalk is not illegal (unless a municipality has passed a specific ordinance banning bikes from sidewalks). But only pedestrians have the right of way in cross-walks, not bicycles, so a cyclist should not proceed into a cross-walk until the way is clear. A cyclist has to obey all the same rules as any other vehicle, so a cyclist must stop at a 4 way stop intersection. But less clear is whether a cyclist on the sidewalk is considered as going through the intersection with the 4 way stop. In these cases, prudence is generally the better part of valor.

[bigbill]

I had a crosswalk on my Oahu commute on the Pearl Harbor MUT. I would stop, look, and make eye contact with drivers if necessary to make sure they acknowledged my presence. It was literally a two lane street width, but it connected the trail near Aloha Stadium.

Everywhere I've lived had the same rules concerning crosswalks and bikes. You only have the right of way if you're walking your bike.

[redir]

They call them sideWALKS for a reason.

[glepore]

In some locales it's illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk unless you're under 12. Seriously.
And its illegal to run a stop sign. Period.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by redir

They call them sideWALKS for a reason.

Right. I have a special room in hell reserved for people who "bomb" on sidewalks. That's the first major infraction here.

People have died in NYC getting hit on sidewalks.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

This is a situation that causes a lot of confusion.

As far as cyclists: A cyclist riding their bike is a vehicle, but a cyclist walking their bike is a pedestrian. When a cyclist is walking their bikes, all the pedestrian rules above apply. But when they are riding their bike, they do not have the right of way in the cross-walk (because they are a vehicle, not a pedestrian). This is why there is a STOP sign on MUTs at all intersections - cyclists (being vehicles) must always stop at street crossings, and can not proceed until they intersection is clear and they won't impede vehicles in the crossing street. If a cyclist pushes the button and the signal light flashes, legally drivers do not have to give the cyclist the right of way to cross - effectively the driver has a flashing yellow, while the cyclist has a STOP sign. But if the cyclist gets off their bike and walks across the intersection, they become pedestrians and have the right of way in the intersection, and drivers have to stop for them. Clear as mud, right?

This is actually not the case I am referring to. I can just think hyper locally in my town and/or the next over and we have at least 3 of the different cases:

Case 1: Bike path crosses the street and there is a crosswalk and the drivers have zero traffic control. Driver recently killed a pedestrian walking a bike in the crosswalk and got no charges. (They already had no license so what more can you take away without charges?)

Case 2: Bike path crosses the street and there is a button for cyclists/pedestrians and it turns on flashing yellow lights for the cars. This seems to be the case you're talking about, and inevitably in this case the cars do seem to gun it and try to blow pedestrians/cyclists out of the crosswalk. I don't really have a problem with this one theoretically requiring a dismount.

Case 3: Big dedicated paved bike path crosses and there is a full traffic control. If the cyclist/pedestrian presses the button the cars get a *red* light and are required to stop. This is the case I find it obnoxious that even after stopping to push the button the cyclists are expected to walk across the road. On wide roads they combine this often with a light timed that makes it hard for a pedestrian to walk across the road before the "don't walk" starts flashing.

The other one I have occasionally seen that drives me bonkers is rural bridges with signs that cyclists have to dismount and walk on the sidewalk.

One of the issues I have with forcing cyclists to dismount and walk is it often exposes people to being vulnerable out in the road longer than staying on the bike. No different than lane splitting for motorcycles reduces the amount of time motorcyclists spend in vulnerable positions. It's not necessarily whether you need to walk in a crosswalk but whether some crossings designated as crosswalks should be given some other designation.

In general we should also be making fewer and fewer laws that let drivers off the hook for hitting vulnerable road users anyway.

[dgauthier]

We all see the cyclist's error here.

There's a nice 5 mile bike path loop that circles a park near my house. When I started "serious" cycling I always rode around it clockwise -- *with* the flow of traffic on the adjacent roads. One day I thought "I'm on a bike path, why don't I ride in the other direction?"

It only took one loop around to discover why not: as cars cross the bike path to leave the park, drivers look both ways for slow moving pedestrians, then take a long look left for fast moving vehicle traffic. Riding counter clockwise, I was approaching from the right, and moving much faster than any pedestrian. Every driver I approached from the right had their head turned away from me, and had no idea I was coming. Not good.

So even if you're on a bike path, you want to plan your route to ensure you approach crossing vehicle traffic from the left.

[unterhausen]

Originally Posted by glepore

In some locales it's illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk unless you're under 12.

In many places it's legal to ride on sidewalks. Here it's legal to ride on sidewalks except in the downtown business district. Which is quite small. I'm pretty sure this is Pennsylvania state law, but I'm pretty sure the prohibition is left up to local governments.

We even have some sidewalk bike routes. One of them is ridiculous, it's on a steep hill and people do actually walk on it. That particular area has a really dangerous design for bicycles.

As far as the situation in the OP, this kind of thing seems to happen quite frequently. Riding off a sidewalk without stopping is incredibly dangerous, I don't care if it's at a 4 way stop or not.

[Catnap]

riding on the sidewalk in NYC is illegal - $100 fine

Cops don't enforce it much, but they can if they want to.