[CCrew]

@jrenaut 10360 wrote:

Since there’s so many different opinions on what light is or isn’t appropriate, it seems that the proper response would have been to calmly discuss the issue rather than “chew him out”. I think a little civility could have cleared that right up.

Or the old “pump in the spokes” trick

[CCrew]

@Dirt 10226 wrote:

Well the trails are closed from sunset to sunrise too… but the only person they tend to hammer about that is CCREW, if I recall correctly.

Oh yeah. It’s my sworn civic duty to break in the newbie cops. Why do they always seem to be Vienna ones though? I look so much like I’m ninja’ing these days with 1k lumens worth of lights and an orange ANSI3 jacket they just have to see wassup!.

Pretty explicit signage about “no motorized vehicles” I agree, but I’ve never seen it enforced. First kid that gets mowed down by a speeding ebike I’m sure that’ll change though.

[CCrew]

@OneEighth 10195 wrote:

On a related subject, does anyone know of insurance companies who will cover cycling?

As in liability/collision/medical, etc? None that I’m aware of. As far as theft is concerned, most will cover theft under homeowners/renters insurance but you’ll need to ask about your particular policy with your carrier. Some require a separate rider under the policy.

[CCrew]

[CCrew]

@Roscoe 10029 wrote:

So you just continue to create the strawman argument…that I am trying to assert that there is NEVER the need for a cyclist to take the entire lane.

I would say that Clarendon Blvd in the several blocks before Lynn flies in the face of that statement. I ride it every morning, and trying to make that left onto Lynn pretty much requires that you assert your right to the lane. The left turn lanes onto L street coming out of Georgetown is another

I think that there’s something lost here in this argument though. There’s a huge difference between recreational cycling, and what’s generally referred to as vehicular cycling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

I’m with you in the fact that many recreational cyclists have an arrogant bent as to their rights without consideration of other traffic; not to put a damper on your argument, but as a rider with a large amount of miles there are indeed places (albeit limited) where fully asserting your right is the prudent and safer course. I’m sure others can supply other examples.

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 10024 wrote:

Both of which are also nothing at all even closely similar to the OP’s accident.

Nobody said they were. They were just examples as to how contributory negligence plays out.

[CCrew]

And another where a cyclist ran into a minivan and the driver of the minivan won on contributory negligence and it was subsequently overturned:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1090193.pdf

Clearly it can go in a lot of directions when it goes to court. What we’ve not seen in any of these cases however is what was the ultimate outcome when tried again by the lower courts.

[CCrew]

@Arlingtonrider 10012 wrote:

Can anyone provide any general insight as to how contributory negligence is applied in Virginia and/or DC, as a practical matter? (Recognizing that every case is different, not a legal opinion, etc.)

From Nolo:
“contributory negligence
A doctrine of common law that if a person’s own negligence contributes to causing an accident in which that person is injured, the injured party can’t collect any damages (money) from another party who caused the accident. Because this doctrine often ended in unfair results (where a person only slightly negligent was prohibited from recovering damages from a person who was much more so), most states now use a comparative negligence test instead, in which the relative percentages of negligence by each person are used to determine how much the injured person recovers.”

VA, MD and the District by law use contributory negligence vs the less stringent (and more realistic) relative negligence benchmark. In essence, if it can be proven that you in any way didn’t do something correctly even 1% it negates your ability to win a tort claim. And that “prove” part is abnormally broad reaching.

Generally how it’s handled:

http://www.contributorynegligence.net/

[CCrew]

@Mark Blacknell 10003 wrote:

The certainty in this thread is quite something.

Amen. Especially given previous threads about how “contributory negligence” works.

I was just certain someone wouldn’t be able to read that and would use it to justify their own preconcieved notion. I was right

Not that I really have any skin in the game anyway. I come through that area at 3:00am and blow every stop at about 20mph :p Every time I cross a crosswalk I do hear the angels sing and even the rabbits stop for me.

[CCrew]

Looks to me that it was a case that was remanded to the lower court on appeal due to a faulty jury instruction. Will be interesting to see how people claim that it bolsters their argument here..Because until it got remanded, the cyclist had been found negligent.

And considering it was a Supreme Court of VA decision remanding it he got found negligent at several lower levels to boot.

[CCrew]

Congrats on the new bike! Trek did get it right with their WSD designs.
-R

[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.

[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]

@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.

[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

[Author]

Posts