Jogger-Cyclist collision and lawsuit

[lordofthemark]

I think the clincher was this

“In all my years of running, I have stayed focused on looking ahead and listening for what is coming from behind,” Bundy wrote. “I do not feel the need to keep looking behind during a run.”

If you are headed straight, as a walker, jogger, or slow rider on a MUT, your obligation, IIUC, is only to use your ears. But if you are actually turning across the trail, it is not reasonable to not also look. I think that is fair trail etiquette, and seems to be part of why the court found as it did.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 123840 wrote:

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

Me too, the first time I looked at it. It’s strange to see a MUP immediately adjacent to the left side of a one-way single-lane road that isn’t any wider than the MUP. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. I just managed not to post any comments that would give away my confusion

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 123841 wrote:

I think the clincher was this

“In all my years of running, I have stayed focused on looking ahead and listening for what is coming from behind,” Bundy wrote. “I do not feel the need to keep looking behind during a run.”

If you are headed straight, as a walker, jogger, or slow rider on a MUT, your obligation, IIUC, is only to use your ears. But if you are actually turning across the trail, it is not reasonable to not also look. I think that is fair trail etiquette, and seems to be part of why the court found as it did.

Yes. This same etiquette should apply to streets as well. I’ve had to yell at far too many pedestrians failing to look up from their smartphones as they step out into a roadway either jaywalking or violating a signal. I can only assume that they figure it’s safe as long as they don’t hear an engine approaching. Glad I don’t drive a Prius!

[lordofthemark]

@scoot 123843 wrote:

Yes. This same etiquette should apply to streets as well. I’ve had to yell at far too many pedestrians failing to look up from their smartphones as they step out into a roadway either jaywalking or violating a signal. I can only assume that they figure it’s safe as long as they don’t hear an engine approaching. Glad I don’t drive a Prius!

Yeah, my Civic is definitely loud enough for them to hear. Unfortunately my Dew is (usually) not. Not even sure my bell is, from the reaction (or lack of it) I get.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 123837 wrote:

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”.

I’m confused about your confusion. The post I replied to said this:

Quote:

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.

That is, too many cyclists pass within the lane (with only inches of clearance) and they shouldn’t do that. He suggested that joggers not hug the right edge, to discourage three deep passing/encourage cyclists to fully change lanes. I agreed: I see the “third lane” pass all the time and it drives me nuts that there are so many cyclists exhibiting so little concern about other trail users. It’s really not hard to look ahead and change speed to ensure a safe pass when the trail is clear, and move over a couple of feet instead of a couple of inches. If the trail is severely substandard (it can’t be less than about six feet since it seems to be same width as the car lane, but that’s pretty tight) then a cyclist needs to really slow down to pass because it isn’t possible to leave enough clearance when passing. What needs clarification?

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 123840 wrote:

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

Honestly, my first thought was “wow, they have such a luxuriously wide trail that it’s a divided highway”. Then I looked closer and decided “that’s poorly designed–not enough room for two lanes on each side”.

[DismalScientist]

Furthermore, the speed limit on the one way road is 15mph. If going that way, it’s probably safer to ride on the road.

If they could keep the car speeds down, it would probably be better to not have a physical barrier and encourage bicycles going the correct direction to ride with traffic. There does not seem to be much traffic on the street anyways. I’m not sure what to do with pedestrians going in the same direction as the car traffic.

The washcycle article said that the trail width was 10′.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 123858 wrote:

Furthermore, the speed limit on the one way road is 15mph. If going that way, it’s probably safer to ride on the road.

If they could keep the car speeds down, it would probably be better to not have a physical barrier and encourage bicycles going the correct direction to ride with traffic. There does not seem to be much traffic on the street anyways. I’m not sure what to do with pedestrians going in the same direction as the car traffic.

The washcycle article said that the trail width was 10′.

Yeah, if that was the case for the entire length, sure. But IIUC this really is an offroad MUP, that happens to run so close to the road because they decided to save money and just build the one bridge. Which means you will get walkers, runners, and less confident cyclists. Some of whom cannot legally travel in the road (15MPH being a tad too fast for a legal woonerf, though in some residential areas people walk in the street in similar conditions) and some of whom will not. The analogy in our region would be, I suppose, the part of the W&OD adjacent to Virginia Lane, or some of the trails on the bridges across the Potomac (key and memorial, at least)

In all those cases more confident cyclists will take the road, but many cyclists will not, walkers certainly cannot (legally) , and some runners will not. Difference here is that the road is only 15MPH.

Edit: Actually looking on google maps, the relationship of the trail to the road is more complex than I stated above – sometimes it is completely separate, sometimes moderately separate, and in quite a few places adjacent.

Edit: of course on a road with no sidepath, pedestrians can legally walk in the road, staying to the edge. A woonerf is different in that they need not stay to edge, IIUC. I would suggest though that staying to edge to be passed by auto traffic, though useable for transportation walking, would severely degrade the pedestrian experience of a greenway, which has a large recreational walking component.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 123858 wrote:

Furthermore, the speed limit on the one way road is 15mph. If going that way, it’s probably safer to ride on the road.

One more note, that the comparisons of riding on a sidepath to to riding in the lane, that demonstrate the superior safety of taking the lane, usually focus on, well, safety. Research from the NL suggests that dangers from air pollution to cyclists are as important, in terms of life expectancy, as dangers from accidents (well, at least in the NL) And even a few feet of separation from traffic (such as on a MUT like this) make a big difference. Even I have spent enough time on my bike behind someone’s tailpipe to be concerned. Now if only everyone drove electric cars.

[Steve O]

@DismalScientist 123858 wrote:

Furthermore, the speed limit on the one way road is 15mph. If going that way, it’s probably safer to ride on the road.

If they could keep the car speeds down, it would probably be better to not have a physical barrier and encourage bicycles going the correct direction to ride with traffic. There does not seem to be much traffic on the street anyways. I’m not sure what to do with pedestrians going in the same direction as the car traffic.

The washcycle article said that the trail width was 10′.

I am guessing this used to be a road for cars and 1/2 was given over to the trail. The bridge ahead constrains the width at that point. This section of trail separated from road by barrier is only a short part of the entire trail–about a 1/2 mile section between two river crossings.
I respectfully disagree with Dismal that we should mix traffic here. I suspect drivers (even with the 15mph limit) would attempt to pass people on bikes, putting them against oncoming trail traffic.
Ten feet is the width of much of the W&OD and wider than the MVT. That said, there is no “shy space” on the near side, which makes it effectively a little narrower.

From this angle, the path appears to be wider than the road and plenty wide enough for attentive and predictable trail users to share and pass without incident.

[BTC_DC]

@mstone 123854 wrote:

I see the “third lane” pass all the time and it drives me nuts that there are so many cyclists exhibiting so little concern about other trail users.

Yes, and the other week I even had one of these “third lane” passers extend out his arm to try and force me deeper into my lane so that he could complete his pass. Somewhat dangerous as I was had just come down the north bridge by national airport and was carrying speed. The odd thing is that he only initiated his after seeing me coming in the opposite direction.

[DismalScientist]

The road is split like this for its entire 1 mile length. Clearly the road existed before the trail, which they carved out of the road by putting a curb down the middle and restricting traffic to one way. The only traffic on the road seems just to access the parking lots in the park. A closer analogy would be if they put a curb down the middle of Four Mile Run Drive between Madison and the end of the cul de sac to protect trail users on the Four Mile Run trail.

A woonerf is not a legal concept in this country. Cyclists and pedestrians are legally allowed in any (non high speed) road without sidewalks. Cyclists who will not ride on a flat street with little traffic and a 15 mph speed limit should not be on a busy trail.

[JimF22003]

Here’s the story in the local paper from a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke/cyclist-who-collided-with-runner-on-roanoke-greenway-wins-civil/article_06cee958-8513-58d7-9cce-e30ebef81155.html

As usual, you really, really, don’t want to read the comments…

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 123865 wrote:

The road is split like this for its entire 1 mile length. Clearly the road existed before the trail, which they carved out of the road by putting a curb down the middle and restricting traffic to one way. The only traffic on the road seems just to access the parking lots in the park. A closer analogy would be if they put a curb down the middle of Four Mile Run Drive between Madison and the end of the cul de sac to protect trail users on the Four Mile Run trail.

A woonerf is not a legal concept in this country. Cyclists and pedestrians are legally allowed in any (non high speed) road without sidewalks. Cyclists who will not ride on a flat street with little traffic and a 15 mph speed limit should not be on a busy trail.

The full greenway is 5.1 miles – the one mile section is not the entire greenway.

This article shows a woonerf in Provincetown, Ma. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/automobiles/where-share-the-road-is-taken-literally.html At one point Alexandria considered one for the foot of King Street. Here is one in Kirkland, Washington http://www.kirklandreporter.com/news/306326231.html There are also places where they exist on private property. They are under consideration in quite a few places. Here is guidance from NACTO on creating them, in a residential context
http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/residential-shared-street/
Pedestrians are allowed on to walk on the edge of any road without sidewalks. In general that does not provide the same desirable pedestrian experience as either a MUT or a woonerf. Note that on residential back streets, in addition to low speed limits and light traffic, there is an expectation that most motorists are one’s own neighbors and will behave as such. Note also whle there are people who choose sidewalkless neighborhoods with the expectation of walking in the street, there are others who choose neighborhoods with sidewalks. Recreational MUTs must accommodate walkers with both attitudes.

There are people riding on the MVT, W&OD and other trails who would not be comfortable on a road with a 15MPH limit. There are children riding on training wheels. We can be unhappy with that, but I think our odds of getting NPS, NVRPA, etc to agree are minimal. While speeds may be no higher on the road than what cyclists can manage on the MUT, cyclists have much lower mass than cars (and a fortiori, than the much larger motor vehicles that are common).

[DismalScientist]

The whole Greenway may be 5 miles long, with the rest looking like a standard MUT, but to put a curb for 1 mile down the middle of a lightly used street to provide a protected lane is, in my opinion, extremely poor design that likely contributed to this incident. It would seem the easiest and safest to just route the trail along the street without any trail-specific infrastructure.

Another example in this area would be Van Buren Street, which effective connects two separate, although unofficial, segments of the W&OD.

[Author]

Posts