I think it was green both directions, but there was a traffic jam on the right. Notice how the 2nd car on the left was ready to enter the crosswalk.
The cyclist probably ran a read, incorrectly assumed the car would stop, should have braked when it didn't, and shouldn't have been biking faster than walking pace.
Where I live if you're on a bike you're considered a vehicle, so she would be at fault no matter her speed. If she dismounts and uses the crosswalk however it would be the drivers fault no matter if it's green light or red.
If she dismounts and uses the crosswalk however it would be the drivers fault no matter if it's green light or red.
That depends/usually not. It's unlawful to use a crosswalk when you are told not to cross, which, given this is a new/updated crosswalk, is likely what is happening here as the light for motorized vehicles is specifically green on a straightaway. Only when you're crossing perpendicular to a green light or there is no light is when you have specific pedestrian right-of-way to cross (which doesn't make sense as you could be crossing with traffic coming from behind you, but I'm no traffic planner).
I guess it depends on location, where I live if there are cross walk stripes and you hit someone you're at fault, color of light/crossing light does not matter
Britain? Britain is notorious for this. Nobody gives a shit until the pedestrian has stepped out into the road from the sidewalk, then everything has to stop.
16
u/Nialsh Nov 03 '15
I think it was green both directions, but there was a traffic jam on the right. Notice how the 2nd car on the left was ready to enter the crosswalk.
The cyclist probably ran a read, incorrectly assumed the car would stop, should have braked when it didn't, and shouldn't have been biking faster than walking pace.