Jogger-Cyclist collision and lawsuit

[DrP]

What bothers me about this is the jogger’s attitude of “I can do whatever I want and they all have to yield to me.” Doesn’t he feel even the slightest bit responsible for his own safety? (he admitted to turning at a flower pot that is a set distance from his starting point and having bad hearing, but somehow he is sure he hears everything on the trail). Clearly not and neither do many others on the trails. Sigh.

[bobco85]

From the article:

Bundy (the runner) believes there is nothing he could’ve done to prevent the collision from happening

(sigh)

At the very least, I found a good description of good trail running for our 2 legged friends on the Road Runners Club of America site http://www.rrca.org/education-advocacy/etiquette-for-runners/ which has the following on its etiquette list for runners:

If you are running an out-and-back route, don’t just make a sudden u-turn at your turn around point. Stop, step to the right to allow oncoming traffic the opportunity to pass. Ensure the road or trail is clear of oncoming traffic (runners, cyclists, in-line skaters, etc.) then make your u-turn. Making a sudden u-turn without looking over your shoulder is a good way to get hit.

[BTC_DC]

I think part of the problem is that the runner says he runs “on the extreme right hand side of the trail.” Rather, similar to a cyclist on the road, runners need to stay far enough into the lane to force those who are passing, whether cars, cyclists, or other runners, to move into the the opposite travel lane. Otherwise, those attempting a pass sometimes try and stay within the lane to squeeze between oncoming traffic and the person they are trying to overtake.

While we do not want people to be running down the very middle of the path, it is important to take enough enough control of the lane such that people do not try to pass within the lane. Regardless of whether there is oncoming traffic or not, passes should always be done in the opposite lane. If not possible, whether because of oncoming traffic or blind corners, the pass should wait until a safe place.

I run along the MVT a lot, and cannot even count the number of times those passing me remain in the lane even when there is no oncoming traffic. I now “take the lane” even when running, to avoid such situations, just like I do when cycling on the road.

So this runner seems to have committed two big mistakes leading to the collision: (i) being too far off to the side of the trail and inviting close passes (ii) while being so unpredictable and negligent that even those attempting a safe pass would have difficulty doing so.

[mstone]

@BTC_DC 123786 wrote:

I think part of the problem is that the runner says he runs “on the extreme right hand side of the trail.” Rather, similar to a cyclist on the road, runners need to stay far enough into the lane to force those who are passing, whether cars, cyclists, or other runners, to move into the the opposite travel lane.[/quote]

Did you miss the raised divider here? The trail in question does not seem to have been designed for your preferred mode of operation.

That said, it drives me nuts how many cyclists feel that it’s ok to blow between two people passing in opposite directions on our local trails. Slow the f— down and wait until you can safely change lanes to pass.

[sjclaeys]

@mstone 123810 wrote:

That said, it drives me nuts how many cyclists feel that it’s ok to blow between two people passing in opposite directions on our local trails. Slow the f— down and wait until you can safely change lanes to pass.

OK, but what has that to do with the facts at issue in this thread?

[sjclaeys]

@mstone 123810 wrote:

That said, it drives me nuts how many cyclists feel that it’s ok to blow between two people passing in opposite directions on our local trails. Slow the f— down and wait until you can safely change lanes to pass.

OK, but what has that to do with the facts at issue in this thread?

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 123810 wrote:

Did you miss the raised divider here? The trail in question does not seem to have been designed for your preferred mode of operation.

Why would someone build a raised divider like that?

[Raymo853]

@sjclaeys 123815 wrote:

OK, but what has that to do with the facts at issue in this thread?

I think Gaby Diaz on SYTYCD is using steroids based on how much neck muscle growth she has shown this season.

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 123819 wrote:

Why would someone build a raised divider like that?

For the same reason one would want a “protected bike lane.”:rolleyes:

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 123824 wrote:

For the same reason one would want a “protected bike lane.”:rolleyes:

Yayayaya. :p

Seriously, there are no cars there. The only thing it would protect you from would be a head on. Since jogger-jogger head ons are not a serious issue, and the odds of a cyclist – jogger head on are dwarfed by the cyclist – jogger conflicts created by the design, the only real advantage is minimizing cyclist-cyclist head ons. While the folks who pass dangerously (yet across the yellow line) on our local trails do sometimes give me scares, my sense is that cyclist cyclist head ons are still uncommon, and ones with really bad outcomes are rare.

Which, I am guessing is why I have never seen a design like that – I have seen directional separation on trails only on bridges (presumably to make the construction less costly) or where the need to site a power line support or similar in the middle of the trail trumps something as inconsequential as the safety needs of trail users. But this looks like it was a deliberate separation like a highway median.

[Steve O]

@lordofthemark 123819 wrote:

Why would someone build a raised divider like that?

The raised median separates the trail, which is on the left, from the road, which is on the right (note car traveling on right side). It does not separate opposite directions of travel along the trail.

[DismalScientist]

The problem with physical barriers is that they make potential evasive maneuvers difficult, if not impossible. I personally think this is potentially more dangerous than encroachment by automobiles. It is essentially the same issue as bollards.

[mstone]

@sjclaeys 123814 wrote:

OK, but what has that to do with the facts at issue in this thread?

well, it was a direct response (agreement) with the sentiment raised in the post I replied to, to indicate that while I thought the raised divider precluded the suggested behavior in this case, I think it’s a good idea in general.

Further posts clarified that the divider wasn’t on the midline of the trail, so I retract that part. As far as the facts of this case, it would be nice if there were some–we have one cyclist saying that they always signal, and one runner saying they always look before turning around and always listen for a signal. Someone screwed up, but I honestly don’t know who or to what degree. Passing with more clearance does give a bit more margin of error than passing close, but if someone executes a dramatic enough course change close enough, there’s nothing you can do.

[lordofthemark]

@Steve O 123830 wrote:

The raised median separates the trail, which is on the left, from the road, which is on the right (note car traveling on right side). It does not separate opposite directions of travel along the trail.

Ah, thanks I was not clear that was a motor vehicle.

But then MStone’s response to BTC no longer makes sense to me. That trail on the left is in fact a two way trail. Though for some reason there is no painted center stripe on it, of the type that is routine on major trails around here. Ergo there was a place for the jogger to stay on the right side of the trail, and the cyclist to pass on the left. OTOH the width of the trail is not clear to me from the pic. Is there no center yellow line because the trail is unusually narrow. That would raise the question of why such a narrow two way trail is considered a “greenway”.

If this is a particularly narrow spot close to the bridge, perhaps there needs to be a no passing zone sign.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 123835 wrote:

well, it was a direct response (agreement) with the sentiment raised in the post I replied to, to indicate that while I thought the raised divider precluded the suggested behavior in this case, I think it’s a good idea in general.

Further posts clarified that the divider wasn’t on the midline of the trail, so I retract that part. As far as the facts of this case, it would be nice if there were some–we have one cyclist saying that they always signal, and one runner saying they always look before turning around and always listen for a signal. Someone screwed up, but I honestly don’t know who or to what degree. Passing with more clearance does give a bit more margin of error than passing close, but if someone executes a dramatic enough course change close enough, there’s nothing you can do.

So it seems we both misinterpreted the picture the same way? Wow.

[Author]

Posts