SuncoastChad

https://www.baynews9.com/article/news...car-cited.html

Officials say a bicycle ridden by 25-year-old Scott Sauls was traveling southbound in the northbound lane of U.S.19.

That's where an unmarked FHP patrol car was stopped in a driveway, preparing to make a right turn. Robert Ifft, 39, was behind the wheel.

Ifft attempted to make a right turn into the northbound lanes, when the Sauls struck the car.

Sauls was transported to Oak Hill Hospital with minor injuries. He was issued a citation for traveling the wrong direction on the roadway.

Ifft did not receive any injuries.

UnsafeAlpine

You know, I see a lot of people who are turning right and not actually looking right. My guess is that the cop didn't bother looking in the actual direction he was turning.

dougmc

People look where they expect traffic. They generally don't look often or at all in places that should not have traffic.

This is one reason why going the wrong way on the sidewalk is dangerous -- even if it's legal, drivers (and cyclists, for that matter) don't expect traffic to come from that direction. If you're going to ride that way, you need to be extra vigilant, probably starting with the assumption that nobody is going to see you and so you'll have to yield to everybody.

genec

+100. That cyclist just learned a lesson as to why we should ride the same direction as all other traffic.

Not to rub salt in the wound, but the cop would be justified in giving the cyclist a ticket.

Chris516

The fact that the cyclist was breaking the law from the start, makes the officer's not looking right, a moot point.

UnsafeAlpine

So not looking where you're driving is ok because other people are breaking the law?

I'd like to refer you to Bob Mionske's blog about this kind of situation.

gmt13

With right-turn-on-red, pedestrians are at risk because most motorists are looking left, and most motorists forget the "after stop" part. This reinforces a couple of things: 1) If your riding (or walking) pattern is not predictable, then motorists won't see you and 2)the only thing predictable to most motorists is other motorists.

-G

honey locust

Agree, as soon as you put the key in the ignition you are in control of a potential killing machine. What if that was a child that had no concept of proper traffic procedures, they would be a road stain. Cars are not toys!

dougmc

If you define "driving OK" as "not going to get a ticket, not going to be assigned liability in a collision" ... yes, that's exactly what it means. (Especially if you're a cop, but you don't have to be a cop for this one.)

A cop isn't likely to give you a ticket for failing to look for traffic going the wrong way on the road. And if there's an accident with damages and it goes to a jury, the jury isn't likely to rule in favor of the person going the wrong way on the road. (Unless the person who didn't look is drunk, of course.)

Fair or not, right or wrong ... this isn't a new situation and we know how this is going to turn out. Don't like it? Don't go the wrong way on the road. (Or if you do, be aware that others are likely to not even look for you and ride/drive accordingly.)

Yup, he pointed out how unfair it was, but how the cyclist got all the blame anyways. Being a practical guy, he'd probably suggest complying with the law as a way to avoid these situations.

Ultimately, if you're breaking the law in any way when there's a collision -- it's quite likely that it will be used against you when assigning blame, even if the connection to the collision is rather tenuous. (And in this case -- it's not really tenuous at all. The unfair part is that all the blame was assigned to the cyclist, not just half of it.)

Chris516

I never implied that the officer never 'needed' to look right. But that, the ninja cyclist was already breaking the law, regardless of whether the officer had seen him or not.

jakub.ner

Actually you are quite wrong. This is exactly where a pedestrian belongs. Pedestrians are safest walking contra traffic. It's the law in Ontario (and probably most other jurisdictions) to walk against traffic in the absence of sidewalks (e.g. country roads).

Ifft is as much at fault as the cyclist. They both had a brain fart.

From the Ontario Traffic Act:

Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway

179. (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).

CommuterRun

Putting idle speculation aside and going by the information in the news story. The cyclist was entirely at fault for driving on the wrong side of the road. The motorist did nothing wrong. His vehicle was hit by another vehicle which was approaching from a direction that a vehicle should not have been present.

UnsafeAlpine

You don't hit things coming from your right side unless you aren't looking that way.

CommuterRun

The car didn't hit Sauls. Sauls hit the car. There is a difference. You are much less likely to hit cars if you're not riding on the wrong side of the road.

work4bike

I guess it's somewhat common for some to bike the wrongway, I just don't get that mindset https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfUnwynwZvE

dynodonn 

Goes to show the need to look both ways when pulling out of a driveway or starting across an intersection, also why it's generally more advantageous for a cyclist to flow with traffic.

dougmc

Yes, it's where a pedestrian belongs. And yet it's also exactly where drivers often don't look. Quite a conundrum, isn't it?

What I said was exactly correct.

You'll note that the passage you quoted said nothing of legal or illegal -- it talked about dangerous.

Fortunately, pedestrians usually have a low rate of speed, and even joggers are slow compared to somebody on a bicycle, so problems for people on foot are rare. Pedestrians can easily yield to cars even at the last second (I'm not saying that they legally have to, only that they can if they need to to avoid a collision) where it isn't quite so easy for cyclists.

nymtber

Cyclist is at fault. Yes, the officer should have looked right, of course. But depending on the driveway, it might have been hard to see the cyclist anyway. Travel against traffic and this happens. The officer, or any other car, should NEVER have to yield to an idiot riding his bike the wrong way. The cyclist could also be at fault for any damages done to the patrol car (legally) since he was, in fact, BREAKING THE LAW. Illegal is Illegal, if you can't understand that, well, you might end up like this guy someday.

I can stop my bike pretty darn quick. I find, though, that a lot of people on bikes have "tunnel vision" so to speak and they don't really pay attention, run stop signs, run red lights, do as they please. Why not just play Russian Roulette? If he was riding in a residential area, he should have been prepared to stop for a car backing out of their driveway, since I find most cars don't give a crap if your coming, they think they have the right of way.

"You can't fix stupid" -Ron White.