Minor accident today

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 9681 wrote:

The MUTCD is irrelevant. It is not motor vehicle or pedetrian law. It is guidebook for road design and markings. It is no more applicable than book you buy in the bike shop on biker’s responsibility..

I guess VDOT’s is irrelevant too. http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Marked_20Crosswalks_20Final_20Guidelines_2012-14-05.pdf

Not to mention: Section §46.2-924B of VA law states: “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in
disregard of approaching traffic.” which means that you can’t just arbitrarily assume that you can step out and have the right of way.

There have been several attempts to change 46.2-924 to make vehicles STOP vs yield, as judicial leanings have determined that the “yield” is subject to driver interpretation.

I’m not making up law. You refuse to admit that your intrepretation of a crosswalk is flawed. The curb is not legally the crosswalk. Feel free to cite legal prescedent.

I suggest you look at 46.2-100 for the definition of crosswalk before you get carried away.

“Crosswalk” means that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; or any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface

[acc]

Thanks for letting us know how you are progressing. Sounds like everything is going as well as can be expected. I’m sorry about your head, glad you sought medical attention. You are pretty darn tough.

Happy riding,
ann

[americancyclo]

@WillStewart 9699 wrote:

I am a bit sore and achy, but was ready to get back in the saddle today

Glad you’re on the mend!

[baiskeli]

@rcannon100 9552 wrote:

I had a dayglo jacket, flashing LED lights, and a dayglo orange helmet. The cop, who was very nice, said “yeah, in motorcycle training, they train us that drivers never see you. Even when they are looking at you, they are actually just looking through you.”

Yep. Saw this TV show recently:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/brain-games/

Episode 2 – “Pay Attention” – was about how our brains screen out all kinds of information, especially visual information. A driver may literally not process you in his/her brain even if his/her eyes do.

Essential to know if you’re a cyclist.

[MCL1981]

The law says AT the crosswalk, not IN the crosswalk. And the enforcement by police on the matter backs up my points. If someone is standing at the curb waiting to cross, vehicle traffic must yield. End of story. You can go on and on all your want. Your interpretation is still incorrect and not in line with precedent either. And your entire interpretation of what happened in this incident remains to be incorrect.

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 9718 wrote:

The law says AT the crosswalk, not IN the crosswalk. And the enforcement by police on the matter backs up my points. If someone is standing at the curb waiting to cross, vehicle traffic must yield. End of story. You can go on and on all your want. Your interpretation is still incorrect and not in line with precedent either. And your entire interpretation of what happened in this incident remains to be incorrect.

§ 46.2-904.
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

You are on the curb: You are on a SIDEWALK. Cars do not have to stop or yield.
Step off the curb: You are on a CROSSWALK. Proviided you did not disobey a traffic control device and you were already IN the crosswalk when a car arrived the law applies.

Trail is controlled by a stop sign. Road only has an informative “Yield to Peds IN crosswalk” which is the law anyway. You go through the stop in front of a car and it’s paramount to running a red light, whether the cars are stopped or not. Many here can tell you that the cops enforce that. That’s the letter of the law. Step out and get into the inteersection before a car comes, and yes they have to stop.

Now, the spirit of the law can be construed differently, and barring you posting case law that says the letter of the law is wrong then this horse is dead.

[dasgeh]

@WillStewart – I’m so glad you’re healing up well.

@CCrew – The actions of the driver in this accident (per the facts we’ve been told) were unlawful. First, our dear injured friend was IN the road, so clearly on the crosswalk, at the time of the accident, so he clearly had the rights of a ped. Second, the section of VA Code that applies to how a driver should behave isn’t governed by 46.2-904, but by 46.2-924. The pertinent part of that section reads “A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway: 1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;”. Third, the driver in question was in an interior lane (not next to the curb), and was stopped when WillStewart entered the intersection.

So to recap – cyclist in the road, clearly on the crosswalk, clearly a pedestrian crossing a highway at a clearly marked crosswalk; driver goes from stopped to moving, clearly not yielding the right of way.

@ Everyone else — I’m starting to get the impression that CCrew is alone in his resistance to logical interpretation of the law. I don’t like arguing with brick walls, especially if everyone agrees that the brick wall is wrong on this point. So unless someone speaks up in CCrew’s defense, I think I’m going to let all of the very good arguments and links to Va Code stand on their own. I’m also going to hope that if I’m injured in a crash, CCrew isn’t the only one nearby to help talk to the witnesses/cops.

[CCrew]

Will, let me say, that the discussion here wasn’t in regard to pinning blame on you, just as an interpretation of the applicable laws. I hope that you’re well, and that you and the bike are back riding soon.

[CCrew]

@dasgeh 9730 wrote:

@ Everyone else — I’m starting to get the impression that CCrew is alone in his resistance to logical interpretation of the law. I don’t like arguing with brick walls, especially if everyone agrees that the brick wall is wrong on this point. So unless someone speaks up in CCrew’s defense, I think I’m going to let all of the very good arguments and links to Va Code stand on their own. I’m also going to hope that if I’m injured in a crash, CCrew isn’t the only one nearby to help talk to the witnesses/cops.

Or that no one else wants to get piled on like I have. :p

Funny though, I have 1/2 a floor of lawyers here at my disposal. They agreed that by the letter of the law I am correct. The *spirit* of the law however it could go either way in a courtroom. One of the problems with many cyclists though is that they interpret the law to their best advantage.

And considering I put 40k miles a year on a car and 13k so far this year on a bike without being dead (or having a collision with other than deer) I didn’t just fall out of the back of the turnip truck.

[WillStewart]

CCrew, several here, including myself, can’t understand why you are beating a dead horse. “Yield to Peds IN crosswalk” describes exactly the situation I was in. The stopped car should not have begun moving forward, penetrating the crosswalk when a pedestrian was already in the crosswalk.

Since neither you nor the rest of us are lawyers (or judges), I think we’ve aired our opinions to the point of saturation.

[baiskeli]

As I understand it, the law basically follows common sense anyway.

“A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian CROSSING such highway:

1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;…

No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.”

And a bike using a crosswalk is a pedestrian, legally.

So, if you’re about to cross at a crosswalk, you wait until it’s safe – so a car won’t run you down because it didn’t have time to stop. If you’re already in the crosswalk, cars must yield – and not run you down.

So cars have the right of way until a pedestrian is in a crosswalk, and then the pedestrian does. And both must use proper judgment to protect themselves and the other party.

If, like in this case, a car doesn’t appear to be moving or moving fast enough to be a hazard, you can cross and then it must yield.

But I’m no expert.

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart Of course it is beating a dead horse. Just like we are doing in the other thread.:rolleyes: BTW, glad to hear you are healing well.

I think baiskeli has summarized this correctly. When I (rarely) drive, I often slow and sometimes stop at such crosswalks because my experience as a bicyclist leads me to conclude some of my “colleagues” are sometimes reckless. I worry that this might be misinterpreted as a courtesy stop, leading to potential collisions with other drivers if the cyclist/pedestrian crosses. What do you suggest is appropriate driver etiquette in this situation?

[dasgeh]

@WillStewart 9733 wrote:

Since neither you nor the rest of us are lawyers (or judges), I think we’ve aired our opinions to the point of saturation.

Actually, I am a lawyer. Just padding my post count…

[mstone]

@CCrew 9701 wrote:

Not to mention: Section §46.2-924B of VA law states: “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in
disregard of approaching traffic.” which means that you can’t just arbitrarily assume that you can step out and have the right of way.
[/quote]

You seem to misinterpret “disregard of approaching traffic” to mean that you can’t cross if a car is present. If the pedestrian notes that the car is stopped at the crosswalk, he has fulfilled his duty to exercise care and may reasonably assume that the car will remain stopped while he is in the intersection. Please refer to PHILLIPS v. STEWART 148 S.E.2d 784 (1966) which holds that even if the car is merely slowing the pedestrian may assume that the car is properly yielding the right of way.

Quote:

I’m not making up law. You refuse to admit that your intrepretation of a crosswalk is flawed. The curb is not legally the crosswalk. Feel free to cite legal prescedent.

You’re not making up law, you’re making up fact. The pedestrian was in the intersection when the stopped vehicle started moving. The curb has absolutely nothing to do with this.

[mstone]

@CCrew 9732 wrote:

Funny though, I have 1/2 a floor of lawyers here at my disposal. They agreed that by the letter of the law I am correct. The *spirit* of the law however it could go either way in a courtroom. One of the problems with many cyclists though is that they interpret the law to their best advantage.

Since we don’t have access to those lawyers and we don’t have any idea what you actually asked or how you presented it, that line of argument is somewhat akin to “I know I’m right because I got a message from god telling me I was”.

[Author]

Posts