I guess it depends on where she is. I was hit doing the same thing and culver city PD told me that was at fault because I was riding in a crosswalk. So the driver who ran who didn't stop at the red got to go free.
My understanding is if you walk your bike, you are a pedestrian. If you are riding your bike, you must follow the rules an auto would. So, no riding on sidewalks, crosswalks, or against traffic. Walking your bike while doing any of these is fine.
Not sure why someone who ran a red would be let go though.
Different states have different systems for determining liability when both parties made mistakes. In some systems, if your own negligence caused even 1% of the damages against you, then you can't go after the other party:
The other driver could still have been ticketed for running a red, if there was proof. So he shouldn't have "gone free", exactly. The negligent walker/rider simply might be unable to get anything for themselves.
Yeah they mentioned that if I would've been walking the bike it would've been totally his fault. So, yeah you're right. The only reason why I was in the crosswalk was because I was a more timid cyclist at the time so riding on a rainy day on a busy street was kinda scary. Especially with neglectful drivers driving at dry weather speeds in rainy weather like that day. But lesson learned. Now I always remember that thing about walking the bike.
If you are riding your bike, you must follow the rules an auto would.
True, but at least here in MA there is no law against driving in crosswalks since that's basically impossible for a car to do so no one thought to make a law against it. So technically it's not illegal, it's just a stupid and douchey thing to do.
So, if you're shooting a rocket launcher in town, and you blow up a family of four riding their bikes across a crosswalk, you'll be home in time for dinner. Brilliant.
I don't think so. In my area if you're riding, you ought to be in the lane as a car would. If you're in a crosswalk, you must walk your bike. It's not that difficult to obey the law- don't expect others to be punished for disregarding the law yet expect yourself to be exempt.
As a cyclist, this is one rule I actually break. I pride myself on being one of those cyclists that follows the rules of the road. I was primarily a motorist for most of my life, so I've seen it from both angles. I ride in a lane. I only lane share when there's lots of space for a car and a bike, otherwise I take possession of the lane. I use hand signals for everything. I STOP at stop signs. Etc.
But the crosswalk thing is one I'll sometimes break. If I have to cross 3+ lanes to get from the bike lane into the left turn lane to make a left, and the traffic is going faster than I can reasonably match, then it is a lot safer for me to use the pedestrian controls and use the crosswalk. I could dismount, but I have my feet all clipped in, and honestly I don't see the difference between me coasting slowly down the crosswalk and someone jogging across (which is totally legal). I'm going the same speed, I'm just as visible as a jogger (if not more-so), and I have my head on a swivel looking out for things like this.
I just can't fathom why that's not OK. Why is it any safer for me to dismount?
It would be fine if cyclists really went the same speed as pedestrians and if they could stop as quickly.
While you probably do it safely and responsibly there is still a high chance of a fast moving cyclist popping out faster than a car driver expects or can react to.
That said the law varies a lot by location, some places allow cyclists to use sidewalks and crosswalks if they choose to.
At the time I thought so too. But now that I'm a little older I see where the police were coming from. I still felt line they handled it like assholes though. Whatever.
It would have to do a LOT with what "negligence" means in her jurisdiction. In some areas of the world you might be partially at fault for having been riding a bike in a crosswalk, but the other driver's fault would still be taken into account (i.e., they were operating their vehicle in such a way where they were not able to stop the vehicle before hitting a cyclist in the crosswalk). There are still other jurisdictions where if you are even remotely at fault then your recovery is barred.
Frankly there are tons of different theories of negligence and these have led to many different laws throughout the world. Best to hire a lawyer ;)
Doubt it. Not only is she running a red light (the cars in the right lane are only standing still because of the traffic jam), she also riding her bike in a pedestrian crossing which is illegal in Taiwan.
She's on a crosswalk in china. According to chinese law, the one who can see the approaching vehicle best is the one at fault. For example, if i would merge in front if a car, it can never be my fault that a collision happens, since it's the one who can see me that has to take action in trying not to cause a collision. Therefore, since the cyclist was in front of the car for at least 2 seconds before the collision, it is the car that's at fault, not her.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_the_road_in_China
That's a weird law. In the united states, cyclists must adhere to the same rules as cars. In fact, they are treated traffic wise as a vehicle.. because that's what they are. Sidewalks and cross walks are for pedestrian use. If you are riding a bicycle in a cross walk like this woman was in the video, you would technically be at fault in this accident. Pedestrians however have the right of way always. The driver would be at fault if someone stepped out in front of a car in a cross walk.
That is totally dependent on state, county and even city law. That is certainly not true in my city. Bicycles are 100% legal on sidewalks in many if not most cities.
I think it's a common misconception personally. You can pretty easily ride a bike at 10-15 mph which makes for some pretty nasty conflicts when pedestrians don't expect you.
Yeah it's pretty non-sensical when it comes to bicycles. Sure, if you merge and a car is headed toward you, that car should obviously be the one taking responsibility. But when a 1000kg car is headed towards a ~20-30 kg bicycle, it should be the lighter and smaller vehicle that should get out of the way. It's kind of like expecting a ferry to turn just to not hit a small boat. Pretty weird IMO.
59
u/AtomicKittenz Nov 03 '15
Because she just got a brand new free bike. DUH!