Bunnylicked

A little while ago, I was on my way home from a bike ride. I went along the bike path to the only major intersection on the way home. I pressed the crosswalk button and got the walk signal immediately. If I remember right, the only cars were an approaching right-turning car and a distant pickup truck. I watched the right-turning car- which had slowed almost to a stop - for a moment, and the driver appeared to be looking at me. I assumed that she was letting me cross, so I started crossing. Whil I was in front of her, she suddenly sped up and hit my seat and back tire. I was pretty shocked, of course, so I stopped and talked to her for a second. Besides a scrape on my ankle and some scratches on my bike, nothing and nobody was harmed. After I crossed the street, I looked back - she still hadn't turned, but she had gone forward so that the front of her car was covering the crosswalk.

In your opinion, was this primarily my fault? I can't help but feel like I was the one who caused it by crossing at the wrong time or something. Also, how can I prevent this kind of thing from happening again?

DeadheadSF

From your description, I don't feel you were at fault at all. It's the driver's responsibility to not only look both ways but to confirm that there is nothing in their intended direction of travel.

Now, generally I wouldn't be putting myself in a position where I'm negotiating a crosswalk while on my bicycle - I stick to the roads and follow the same conventions as cars, but from the sound of it, you were probably trying to get to the other side of a proper bike path (not a sidewalk), so I guess an exception must be made here.

At any rate, when I'm in pedestrian-mode, I see this kind of thing all the time. I always work on the assumption that the driver doesn't see me and I make every effort to make eye contact with the driver and show - even just by body language - that I intend to either cross or wait. The key is making sure the driver understands your intentions.

sathor

if you were on foot, she would be at fault, but if you were riding, I can't say for sure, since you would have lost your status of being a pedestrian in a pedestrian right of way. I probably would have called the cops, at least got her plate number, etc.

EsoxLucius

The driver was at fault. You were going straight through an intersection and she was turning. She has to yield to you for that reason and because you were also in a crosswalk. Just my take on it.

KD5NRH

There used to be quite a few cars in Dallas with my hip-prints in the hood. Seems I just lose all sense of balance when somebody pulls their car into my crosswalk.

buzzman

Are you asking about legal responsibility for the accident or are you asking about personal responsibility?

Legally, I think the driver probably bears the brunt of the fault. Personally, you've got to be really careful when in that middle ground between riding the bike on the road and coming off bike paths, sidewalks and using crosswalks. It's something many of us do all the time but it requires extra caution and that you expect the unexpected. An incident like this is not all that unusual and can be avoided by knowing that drivers can and will do something stupid and need to be given plenty of room for error.

EsoxLucius

Colorado law states:
Section 42-4-1412
10. b. A person shall not ride a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk where such use of bicycles or electrical assisted bicycles is prohibited by official traffic control devices or local ordinances. A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall dismount before entering any crosswalk where required by official traffic control devices or local ordinances.
10. c. A person riding or walking a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, including, but not limited to, the rights and duties granted and required by section 42-4-802.

If not prohibited from riding a bike through that particular crosswalk by signage or local ordinance, one has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian. So, the automobile driver is likely at fault in this instance. If Colorado officials consider a walk light signal to mean literally "walk", then that would suggest the bicyclist bears some responsibility as they should have dismounted to cross. However, I think that is highly unlikely given the nature of the two parties in such an encounter, someone riding a bike and someone driving a 4000 lbs. vehicle.

sggoodri

Lots of drivers turning right on red fail to look right before accelerating into a gap in vehicle traffic coming from their left, and hit pedestrians coming from their right, who were crossing lawfully with the light. It's always the driver's fault in this situation, but the frequency with which it happens is one reason why cyclists should avoid riding on crosswalks through intersections, particularly in a contra-flow direction, in favor of traveling with the normal flow of vehicle traffic.

See https://www.pedalclub.org/index.php/s...nt/co-bike-law

njkayaker

According to this quote, a bicyclist is required to walk the bike in the crosswalk but it also says they do not lose the rights of a pedestrian if they are riding. Put another way, the fact that the bicyclist was riding doesn't serve as an excuse for the driver.

njkayaker

Where you crossing from the right side (on her right side)?

Unless the local Bolder laws allowing, riding on the sidewalk or crosswalk is illegal (that means both you and her could have been doing something illegal).

If you had a walk signal, then she had a red light.

Drivers making right-turns-on-red, are typically focused on traffic coming from the left (that is, they don't often look carefully enough at what is happening at the crosswalk/sidewalk to their right).

If you were riding, then you were possibly moving faster than people would expect.

If she was actually yielding to you, she should have stopped (the law likely requires her to stop). It would be more prudent for you to wait until the car is actually stopped before crossing.

Keep in mind that the goal is to avoid a collision entirely. Since you can't control what other people do, the idea is to figure out what action you can take to avoid collisions.

Cyclaholic

You were on a bike and she was in a car therefore it was your fault even if it wasn't.

Chris516

If you crossed when(and where) you weren't supposed to, then you were at fault.

sggoodri

I think that's probably the correct interpretation. But does that mean the cyclist is 50% at fault, or less? It matters in Colorado:
https://www.the-injury-lawyer-directo...tml#negligence
Whereas in strict contributory negligence states like NC the cyclist would get nothing even if only 1% at fault.

Digital_Cowboy

Where you were crossing the road were you on the bike path or regular sidewalk?

unterhausen

this is why I no longer ride on the one section of "bike path" that I might otherwise ride on. I almost got turned into a hood ornament by some guy in a Mercedes who was turning right on red. I had decided there was no way he was going to make the turn because there was oncoming traffic, he decided his car was fast enough to make it. Tight turn on red after stop has been modified to "what red?" by most drivers around here. Which is why I find the whining about cyclists running stop signs to be so laughable. Last night on my commute I watched a car run a red light at speed. It was the intersection where my daughter was hit on her bike last summer.

andboy

This almost happened to me last week. The last bit of my partial commute takes me onto a busy three lane road. Then there's a cross roads with traffic lights. During rush hour, I ride on the side walk as I can't keep up with the traffic and can't safely cross two lanes of traffic.

So i'm on the sidewalk, push the button to cross and when i get the cross light, i ride across. At which point three cars, one after another, turn right on red and pretty much have to avoid me. One clever little man shouted that I need to buy a car...

The lesson I take after reading the above is to get off bike and walk across. I still don't believe I was in the wrong in that if you have a cross signal, then the traffic turning right has to yield to you if you are on the crossing.

This is the only sidewalk I ride on BTW. 1/2 mile of nasty narrow lane fast moving traffic with cranky people heading home after a fun day in the office... I'll ride the road if I'm before or after rush hour.

sathor

I sometimes go onto the sidewalk on the state route in town, especially if I am feeling tired and don't want to dodge the semi's. Other than that, just the sidewalk in front of my house, but then again, I am the only house on that side of the block. Lately though, I've found getting onto the sidewalk on the state route to be harder than just dealing with the madcap traffic, including a large chunk of emergency vehicles that populate that road.

prathmann

According to the original post: "I went along the bike path to the only major intersection on the way home."

So it appears that the rider was on a bike path (probably technically a multi-use path for both cyclists and pedestrians) which crossed the street at a cross-walk with a button-activated traffic signal. Those are common here and it's entirely proper and expected for bicyclists to ride on such paths, including riding across intersecting streets with the appropriate signal for the crosswalk. A driver on the intersecting street would be facing a red signal while the WALK light is on and would definitely be at fault if they fail to wait at the stop line for any traffic, incl. both cyclists and pedestrians, to clear the crosswalk before turning right.

Of course it's still prudent for cyclists and pedestrians to carefully watch vehicles approaching the stop line to be sure they are really going to come to a complete stop and remain stopped. But I don't see any legal fault being assigned to the original poster if I'm understanding the situation correctly from his post.

sudo bike

^ Ditto.

njkayaker

I think the original law indicates whether or not the cyclist was riding is irrelevant.

Yuck.

njkayaker

Yes, if he was on a MUP or a bike path (probably a MUP), it isn't illegal to ride there.

The real issue is the crosswalk and it appears to be illegal to ride there.

It is not at all clear that it is legal in this case or even legally normally.

The important thing is to avoid the accident in the first place. If you really need to assign fault, it's kind of too late.

The OP is not at all interested (it seems) in determining legal fault.

Instead, he seems to be interested in avoiding collisions. It seems clear that he could have done more to avoid the collision than he did.

radshark

I must try that....

adablduya

this is so clear cut, it's ridiculous. she has a red light. that means stop. period. right on red means stop, and if the pathway forward is CLEAR , then the motorist may proceed. period. there is no wiggle room here. pedestrian status or not, the motorist is 100% at fault.

Camilo

I just want to re- post this because it is the absolute bottom line. Just one of many fairly predictable hazards that, while the driver's fault technically and legally, is really the rider's responsibility to avoid.

It's happened to me as a pedestrian (got bumped by a car turning right just as I was walking in front). I yelled at him but later realized I really set the situation up and could have easily predicted it, avoided it and prevented the shock to both myself and the driver.

As a driver, even being ACUTELY aware of this hazard for bicylists, have had to make sudden stops as bicyclists shot across a cross walk opposite to traffic flow. I'd checked the intersection both ways, but the speed of the cyclist changed the situation much, much faster than a pedestrian would have. It's just a set up for an injury even with drivers who really are careful.

genec

+1000.

Right on red means stop first.