Biking through pedestrian crosswalks w/o stop signs or traffic lights

[Steve O]

Is this where you mean?
https://goo.gl/maps/ePnkI

Or this:
https://goo.gl/maps/xk3Qr

[JustinW]

Funny, I biked thru the area (using a signalled crosswalk) and almost got hit by a guy trying to jump the green light (no arrow) and turn left across the crosswalk that indicated “walk”….But I don’t think I was “your guy” as I did not yell at anyone later.

In your scenario, you ask who would be at fault. I would prefer to take the angle of “what’s the safest approach in a situation like this”. Having just taught my two kids to drive, I made sure I gave them specific info about crosswalks and users of crosswalks (peds, cyclists, etc.) and the random nature of their use. As a motorist, you should look not just at the crosswalk but also at the approaches to said crosswalk. Even then you may not catch everything (e.g. the cyclist in the OP’s account) if someone blasts into the crosswalk. So, caution when approaching any crosswalk, even those that are seemingly vacant, is a safe approach. It means you’ll be a bit slower traveling in the car, but ultimately it should avoid a chance encounter with a late crosswalk user.

As a motorist, I’ve screwed up and not always been as vigilant as I should be. As a cyclist I have not always been as predicable as I should be. Still working on improving in both arenas….

[ShawnoftheDread]

The crosswalk is right at the head of a multi-use trail. You should use caution when approaching it. The fact that it’s an unsignaled crosswalk means you should be extra cautious.

You said he raised his hand “a second or two before” you stopped, which indicates to me, given the narrowness of the street there, that you saw him in plenty of time to stop but thought for some reason that he should wait instead of you.

[Mmmk]

@ShawnoftheDread 121244 wrote:

The crosswalk is right at the head of a multi-use trail. You should use caution when approaching it. The fact that it’s an unsignaled crosswalk means you should be extra cautious.

You said he raised his hand “a second or two before” you stopped, which indicates to me, given the narrowness of the street there, that you saw him in plenty of time to stop but thought for some reason that he should wait instead of you.

Several misunderstandings here. I didn’t mean “a second or two” to be taken so literally. He flew into the crosswalk and raised his arm in just enough time for me to see and react by slamming my brakes. If I had not done that, then there would have been a collision.

Also you really can’t assume everyone driving in the area knows that it’s near a trailhead, I certainly didn’t and had no reason to.

And the fact that it’s an unsignaled crosswalk means everyone, especially pedestrians and bicyclists, should be extra careful. I can’t be much more careful than I was here, that’s why I was so outraged about it.

[ShawnoftheDread]

I agree with you that cyclists and pedestrians have a responsibility to exercise caution when entering roads, even at marked crossings. When I ride, I’m completely responsible for my own safety, to the point that I need to anticipate the stupid and/or illegal things drivers (and pedestrians) may do around me.

But when I’m a driver I have an even bigger responsibility. I have to anticipate the perhaps stupid, but in this case probably legal, actions of others because I could easily kill them.

You said you were accelerating just before you had to stop for the cyclist. That seems like an odd location for acceleration. The crosswalk is clearly marked ; there are even signs for it.

[mattotoole]

A crosswalk user cannot enter the crosswalk “in disregard of traffic” which is what it seems this guy did. But I’d hate to have to argue it with a police officer, or the a-hole that did it. Best to shrug it off, and be glad no one was hurt.

[Steve O]

@Mmmk 121241 wrote:

Is this a correct understanding of how this works legally and in practice?

If you are asking the legal question, then it would depend not only on the circumstances but the interpretation by the responding officer and potentially a court of law. Historically this has not played well for people on bikes.

If you are asking the ethical question, then I might pose a hypothetical. What if the person on the bike had been a child who had obliviously ridden into your path? Perhaps legally you would not be found at fault, but I’m not sure you would feel very good about it.

It also depends on where it happens. In The Netherlands, if you had struck the person on the bike you would be 100% liable. As the pilot of the far more dangerous and deadly machine, you bear an extraordinary responsibility for other people’s lives, even if they act incautiously. In the U. S., unfortunately, we don’t generally require the pilots of the deadly machines to bear that responsibility.
The Economist laid out some interesting examples in this article.

To sum up: in the Netherlands, if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, the accident is always assumed to have been the driver’s fault, not the cyclist’s. As explained in this FAQ from the ANWB, the Dutch tourism and car owners’ organisation, “the law treats pedestrians and cyclists as weaker participants in traffic… The driver of the motor vehicle is liable for the accident, unless he can prove he was overpowered by circumstances beyond his control (overmacht). The driver must thus prove that none of the blame falls on him, which is extremely difficult in practice.”

[ShawnoftheDread]

@mattotoole 121258 wrote:

A crosswalk user cannot enter the crosswalk “in disregard of traffic” which is what it seems this guy did. But I’d hate to have to argue it with a police officer, or the a-hole that did it. Best to shrug it off, and be glad no one was hurt.

And a driver must yield to those in the crosswalk. The cyclist had to cross two to three lanes before being in front of OP’s car in one of the southbound lanes.

[kwarkentien]

The crossing of which you speak does have a flashing yellow light activated by a beg button.

The signs at the crosswalk specifically state that drivers must yield when the light is flashing. I have had many close calls at this crossing as many drivers do not in fact stop and yield to those in the crosswalk when the lights have been activated. It doesn’t appear that you noticed this detail but it sounds like the cyclist may not have activated the beg light. I pay close attention here both on the bike and in the car.

[Steve O]

@Mmmk 121241 wrote:

moving 10x slower at least than this guy

This is one of my minor grammar/math pet peeves. It’s, of course, impossible to go 10x slower than someone else. One times slower is already zero. I suspect you mean 90% slower.

That’s quite hyperbolic, though. Given the cyclist had to make a 90-degree right turn right there, I doubt he was traveling more than 13-16 mph at that point; even that might be optimistic. It’s possible he entered the intersection at 20, but I doubt it. Most people walk at 3-4 mph; your claim of 30-40 mph is obviously an enormous exaggeration. His speed was probably about double that of a jogger.

[Vicegrip]

Help me out here a bit. Dd the driver have a green light and was he moving before the cyclist entered the crosswalk?

[ShawnoftheDread]

@Vicegrip 121279 wrote:

Help me out here a bit. Dd the driver have a green light and was he moving before the cyclist entered the crosswalk?

No, he was coming across the mid-block crosswalk where 4MR hits Shirlington Rd. There are signals a half block north and a half block south. The crosswalk itself has beg-button-activated yellow flashers and yield signs.

[mstone]

@Steve O 121277 wrote:

This is one of my minor grammar/math pet peeves. It’s, of course, impossible to go 10x slower than someone else. One times slower is already zero.[/quote]

Huh? I’m pretty sure that “slower” is a relative adjective with many values between zero and infinity, so your math just doesn’t work.

[Steve O]

@mstone 121286 wrote:

Huh? I’m pretty sure that “slower” is a relative adjective with many values between zero and infinity, so your math just doesn’t work.

What does 90% slower mean, then? If it’s the same as 10 times slower, then your math is odd in that you are claiming that 0.9 = 10.

100% slower is standing still. That’s as slow as you can get. 10 times slower is 1,000% slower, and I don’t know what that means.

Another way to look at it is like this:
If I go twice as fast as you, then you go half as fast as me (50% slower)
If I go ten times as fast as you, then you go 1/10th (10%) as fast as me (90% slower).

[peterw_diy]

Steve O, nobody cares.

[Author]

Posts