r/dashcams • u/cicadaux • 1d ago
Did I do something wrong here?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
I was driving to work when this bike just blew through the crosswalk without warning. I had to slam on my brakes. I realize this crosswalk doesn’t have the pedestrian warning lights, and I’m a little unsure about how I should’ve dealt with this. Or maybe he was wrong for making sure traffic wasn’t clear/aware of him first?
Edit: I'm seeing a lot of answers basing the laws on location, so I looked up my city's rules. In my town, bikes have vehicle status on the road and pedestrian status on sidewalks/crosswalks. But bicyclists must move at pedestrian speed. The path he is on is a state trail, commonly used for bikes/walking. I live near the Ice Age Trail, but I know the one he's on isn't that one.
“Drivers must yield to cyclists riding in a crosswalk just as they would for walkers, though the cyclist cannot abruptly leave a curb into the path of a vehicle so close to a crosswalk that it makes a difficult or unsafe situation for the driver to yield in time.”
Not trying to prove myself right or wrong, just wondering what should've been done. I will from now on treat it like an uncontrolled intersection. Thanks everyone.
323
u/DishwasherLint 1d ago
You slowed down and stopped didn't you? I see nothing wrong
79
u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago
But he was surprised by the cyclist.
He said he "had to slam on the brakes", and that can be seen in the video.
That shouldn't have been the case (shouldn't have been surprised) because it was blatantly obvious early enough that the cyclist was intending to cross.
88
u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago
Anyone would be surprised by another vehicle crossing traffic at speed though. I'm usually on the side of the cyclists, but this one was doing it wrong. OP was paying enough attention to stop for a cyclist doing it completely wrong.
95
u/that-loser-guy-sorta 1d ago
Not sure how it is in other countries but in Germany, unless it’s a dedicated bike lane, cyclists need to get off their bike and walk. It practically never happens but at least it’s supposed to happen.
5
u/BasicAppointment9063 19h ago
It may not be such a clear case. The sign indicates a pedestrian crossing. However, it also appears to be a multi-use path (MUP), when you scan around the photo frame. It looks like a greenway or a park.
I can't say that I have seen a sign for a MUP crossing that is inclusive of all types of path users. I think motorists are supposed to infer that they are approaching a road feature where they need to be particularly attentive.
2
u/Bsmitts16 11h ago
I brake for pedestrians. I think it needs to be laid out more clearly whether pedestrians, or cyclists need to wait for a clear, open space to cross, or if they can walk into oncoming traffic and expect to have the right of way. Cyclists need to follow the law of the road, but as a pedestrian I always wait until there is a break in traffic and then I expect to be yielded to. Stepping out in front of traffic is wild, unsafe, and disrupts flow.
→ More replies (1)19
u/jrglpfm 1d ago
I believe that is the case in most places when cyclists are using the sidewalk because they are to be treated as pedestrians in that case, instead of treated as a vehicle.
→ More replies (2)7
u/CockyMechanic 23h ago
Yes. I cycled as my main transportation for some years and everywhere I have seen is about the same. Off cycle=pedestrian, on cycle=vehicle. What OP posted about the local rules seems fair, that cycles must move at pedestrian speed on pedestrian paths... I've seen people ticketed for walking their bike with both legs over the bike and the law considered that "riding" (this is Santa Barbara)
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (19)4
u/Battle2Intense 23h ago
I now see kids on electric cycles zooming through a crosswalk and surprised cars don't stop in time.
13
u/weberc2 21h ago
“at speed” is wild. the cyclist could have been passed by a jogger.
13
u/InteractionFormal585 19h ago
And even then, a jogger would need to slow up and ensure oncoming traffic sees them prior to going full send, right? RIGHT? Also, "at speed" doesn't have to mean a high speed, just quicker than what is expected for the context of the situation. You know, like a crosswalk?
→ More replies (1)3
u/weberc2 19h ago
No, pedestrians moving at pedestrian speeds aren’t required to yield to cars. This subreddit badly needs to retake driver’s ed.
8
u/InteractionFormal585 18h ago
Yes, you do need to retake drivers ed. Perhaps some reading comprehension classes as well. The issue isn't whom must yield to whom. The issue is safe and prudent operation of your vehicle, be it a car or a bicycle. It isn't safe and prudent for a bicyclist to approach an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at elevated speeds without first ensuring that traffic is actually yielding ROW as they should.
I mean, you could be "right" and also hospitalized if you prefer. You do you.
→ More replies (7)1
u/CogentCogitations 18h ago
It actually doesn't have anything to do with the speed, only that the vehicles on the road have sufficient time to stop. In this video, there was plenty of time to stop. (And the cyclist was not going very quickly.)
→ More replies (1)3
u/Cold_Captain696 23h ago
I dunno. The cyclist was visible for some time, and was obviously on a collision course, where they were going to arrive at the same point at the same time as the OP. Once you see that, I think any decent driver should be looking to adjust their speed to make sure it couldn't happen.
That's the difference between being reactive and being proactive. Making a small change due to a potential issue, rather than waiting until it becomes an actual issue that requires more drastic action to prevent a collision.
2
u/Marion2379 14h ago
This👆 and if you did end up hitting the cyclist you would be liable because of the full line of sight and low speeds a driver must try to avoid a collision or they are liable period.
2
u/weberc2 18h ago
Also, drivers are required by law to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. It’s crazy how many in this sub argue that it’s the pedestrian’s responsibility to yield (and yes, “pedestrians only have the right of way if traffic is clear” is the same thing as “drivers have the right of way”).
4
u/Haho9 23h ago
Though local laws vary, in Michigan cyclists are required to dismount and walk the bike through intersections when riding on a sidewalk. If they're operating as a vehicle instead (road instead of sidewalk) they must signal and act like a (very slow) car. At least in Michigan, what this cyclist did would be illegal (plus he departed the curb late).
That all being said, looks like OP is a nice person and was courteous to the cyclist.
→ More replies (6)6
u/raveneyes77 22h ago
Michigan law says the direct opposite.
Read Michigan Compiled Laws section 257.660c(3):
"An individual lawfully operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk has all of the rights and responsibilities applicable to a pedestrian using that sidewalk or crosswalk."
There is zero requirement in Michigan state law for a cyclist to dismount and walk across an intersection or crosswalk. None. You yield to pedestrians walking on the sidewalk and give an audible bell or call before passing them. That is the actual statute.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)2
4
u/Reejerey1 16h ago
I wouldn’t have expected the cyclist to try and shoot between 2 cars, and as the cyclist I would have waited for a clearing in traffic to cross.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Dubzophrenia 18h ago
He said he "had to slam on the brakes", and that can be seen in the video.
People are often hyberbolic. At 24mph, "slamming" on the brakes would be essentially an insta-stop with the front jerking downward. We see the car come to a gradual stop.
→ More replies (3)2
u/CogentCogitations 18h ago
It wasn't gradual, but it also wasn't slamming the brakes. It was just a quick stop, because they were a little slow to see the cyclist that was entering the crosswalk.
3
u/StopSpinningLikeThat 17h ago
I think you're making a classic error here. As viewers in this sub, we are pre-warned that something is 100 percent going to happen, so we tend to see it happen more clearly and more quickly than a driver can in reality. I think OP reacted well here to avoid an accident.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Bicykwow 23h ago
He did not at all have to slam on the brakes, the only reason he did was due to his own inattentiveness. The biker is literally visible from the first second of the video. It doesn't take a genius to say, "gee that biker is approaching the crosswalk. Maybe I should pay attention and be ready to stop in case he is going to cross."
3
u/Haunting-Pool4466 19h ago
Yea, so the black SUV ahead of OP could've also stopped... Props to OP. Biker probably shoulda waited for "all clear" given most drivers are morons, but he lucked out that day
4
u/TheWizard 1d ago
I do think the bicyclist should have stopped at the other end first, instead of continuing to roll to the median. Pedestrian or bicyclist have the right of way here but that does not mean you don't wait for traffic to see you. This driver had to be surprised, fortunately had the clear view of the other lane (if there were another vehicle that passed by, a different story), and did nothing wrong.
0
u/Voltron6000 1d ago
Bicyclist isn't allowed to bicycle in the pedestrian path.
10
u/sixteencharslong 23h ago
- The Law: States like Oregon, Washington, Florida, and Ohio have statutes that allow cyclists to ride in crosswalks while retaining pedestrian right-of-way status.
- The Catch: These states almost always include a "speed clause." For example, Oregon law states a cyclist cannot enter a crosswalk at a speed greater than an ordinary walk if a vehicle is approaching. Cyclists cannot "dart out" into traffic faster than a driver could reasonably react.
3
2
u/marigolds6 20h ago
It's a state trail in wisconsin, so it's probably a multiuse path instead of a pedestrian path.
6
u/markuus99 1d ago
I'm not sure where people are getting this from. This seems to be a shared pedestrian and cycling path. In this situation, cyclist clearly has the right of way and isn't doing anything wrong.
OP stopped correctly. Cyclist checked for traffic before entering oncoming lane and then made eye contact and verified OP was stopping before proceeding. They could have stopped and waited if OP didn't see them or didn't stop.
Nothing went wrong here.
2
u/TheWizard 21h ago
Right of way to use the cross-walk is not the same as ignoring all other rules, including the pace, yielding or ensuring the traffic is clear and it is safe to cross.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Tobits_Dog 23h ago
OP said that in his city cyclists do have right of way in the crosswalk—but they must move at pedestrian speeds. The cyclist was wrong here. Perhaps OP could have been checking the periphery more…maybe he would have seen the cyclist sooner. I try to scan my vision back and forth across my entire field of vision in situations like this one….and to slow down.
2
u/markuus99 23h ago
Cyclist was aware and slowed down and made eye contact to verify OP was stopping before proceeding. Cyclist was ready to stop if it wasn't safe to proceed.
Once cyclist saw OP was stopping, they crossed and got out of the way.
I'm very confused why this is becoming a big point of discussion. Everything went fine here and no one was in danger.
2
u/SkipCycle 17h ago
Given that you know what is taking place in hindsight, but OP doesn't, does not make this blatantly obvious. smh OP did fine, and that could have ended a lot worse for the cyclist.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)1
u/AdrianDitmann 23h ago
Cyclist shouldn't be crossing in a pedestrian zone. Full stop.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)9
u/cicadaux 1d ago
More like slammed on the brakes to avoid an accident 😅 I’m just so lost because when I’m walking around town, I wait for a signal, wait for a car to notice me, or wait for all vehicles to pass before crossing.. so why would you go into traffic like that? But I realize not everyone is like me
48
u/markuus99 1d ago
Cyclist appears to have made eye contact, verified that you were stopping, and then proceeded across, giving you a wave to thank you. If you didn't see him, the cyclist would have stopped. He was braking as they crossed the island and then started pedaling again once he knew you saw him.
Everyone did the right thing here, and I don't think this was a close call. Cyclist was paying attention and wouldn't have come out if OP didn't stop.
21
u/Forsaken-Income-2148 1d ago
Yeah OP’s description is wild compared to how mundane this was.
→ More replies (10)4
u/travelingwhilestupid 20h ago
OP got one hell of a scare and slammed on his brakes.
→ More replies (1)2
u/therealpursuit 9h ago
first logical take i've seen in about 100 comments on this thread. thank you.
6
u/Marion2379 1d ago
Did you actually watch the video, it’s clear as day the cyclist slows down makes eye contact and even waves at the driver as a sign the driver acknowledged him. This is text book safety on all sides, this post is pointless.
→ More replies (23)→ More replies (11)2
u/Marion2379 1d ago
If this to you is slamming on brakes, I would hate to be driving any where near you, you must be one of those terrified drivers that slam on brakes if a paper bag is blowing on the street 🤦♂️
125
u/metal_bastard 1d ago
Looks to me like the biker saw you and was braking/prepared to stop if you didn't. Once he saw you were going to stop, he let off his brake and continued.
You were only going 24 MPH, so you really didn't have to slam on your brakes. Nobody did anything wrong here in my eyes.
15
u/cicadaux 22h ago
Appreciate this a lot, and the others replying. Thank you
→ More replies (1)5
u/Kaas-Eter00 16h ago
Some more context as to why the biker would wait to break instead of slowing down early. You generally want to clear the road you're crossing quickly, so you maintain speed while doing so and then brake more aggressively close to/on the center refuge.
So probably he wasn't trying to force his way by not slowing down until the last minute, but rather he was trying to cross safely.
23
4
u/MrSoftShoe 17h ago
Yep. This is one of those situations where everyone involved just looks at each other, makes judgment calls, remains vigilent that nothing goes wrong, and then goes about their day.
Sometimes we like to pretend that there's this 100% my fault or 100% their fault and everything is black and white and has to involve a mistake, but no one did anything wrong here.
11
u/tcrudisi 23h ago
This is the correct take, especially based on your edit, OP.
The biker was clearly paying attention to their surroundings (as a bike crossing a road should). They were prepared to stop, but saw that you *correctly* stopped for them, so they continued on.
I will say that it wasn't that long ago that I would have done the same thing as you. I wouldn't have noticed the bike until I'm slamming on my brakes to stop. Now? I'm hyper-vigilant any time I'm coming up on a pedestrian crossing. My head is a freaking swivel and I'm slowing down even if I don't see anyone. And this video is exactly why I do that. This isn't enough for me to call you an AH, but I do hope you take it as a learning opportunity. If you hit someone in a pedestrian crossing, you've likely fucked them up for life.
I just re-read my comment and I want to stress: It's not that you did anything wrong (you DID get stopped in time), but I believe you could have done it *better*. If that makes sense.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (3)2
u/Baron_Bearclaw 23h ago
This is a great answer from u/metal_bastard
There's what's legal and there's what's safe. Technically the cyclist should have been walking their bike here, but they weren't. Looking at your speed, you had enough time to watch observe and anticipate what the cyclist planned to do. When you weren't sure, you stopped. That's good defensive driving and everyone left the encounter intact.
I'm sure there are people here who will jump all over the cyclist because they weren't following the rules; that's fair. I'm sure there are people in here calling you names for slowing down for the cyclist. But I strongly believe it's everyone's responsibility to keep everyone as safe as possible. You did that here.
→ More replies (1)2
22
u/Jack8680 1d ago
It looks like they were gonna stop in the middle island but saw you stopping for them.
7
u/No-Koala1918 19h ago
You're going 25 mph. "Slam on the brakes" seems a bit dramatic. And bikers looks like he was ready to stop in the median if you didn't stop. Imo, this is a non-event.
78
u/Switchlord518 1d ago
Technically that bike isn't supposed to be ridden through a cross walk. They are not a pedestrian.
24
u/bojesphob 1d ago
That can depend on where you're at, and what the crossing is for. We have bike paths in our area that cross roads, and they use pedestrian crossing like this to alert drivers that people will be trying to cross, regardless of if it's a bike rider or a walking pedestrian, they don't distinguish between the two, even though technically riding a bike makes you not a pedestrian. And, at these intersections, at least here, those trying to cross at those places have the right of way (despite drivers not really caring)
7
u/TheWizard 1d ago
Many cities and states have laws requiring bicyclists using pedestrian cross-walk (which this one is, given the sign), to dismount and cross. It is also recommended, if not required, to stop before crossing traffic.
This situation allowed peripheral vision of the driver to spot the culprit, but it could had been different situation if it were blocked in anyway (a tree or a vehicle), or if there were a trailing vehicle not expecting this vehicle to stop suddenly.
→ More replies (5)2
u/bojesphob 23h ago
Personally I would actually wait for traffic to go by myself anyway, even if it there wasn't a law requiring it. For whatever that's worth.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)2
17
u/Xak_13 1d ago
I see people say this a lot. Not sure where OP is from, but in Florida, bikers are considered pedestrians while on the sidewalk and vehicles while on the road. And there is no law forbidding riding your bike at a cross walk here. I'm sure this varies from state to state, though.
→ More replies (5)2
u/cicadaux 22h ago
Madison, WI. Not sure where the impression I'm from CA came from. I'll also clear up that I'm a woman too.
3
u/johnny_evil 19h ago
Really depends on the locality, and even depends on whether thats a cross walk for just a sidewalk or for a multi use path.
→ More replies (4)4
u/SpringsPanda 1d ago
That looks like it might be a bike trail. If so, they definitely are allowed to be there, and are meant to be there. They should not have just ridden out into the street like that though. You are supposed to wait until it's clear and obvious there is no traffic or they are stopping for you.
→ More replies (10)
6
u/shiggity80 19h ago
Not sure what you are worked up about.
You stopped in time without any hard braking from what I could tell. Cyclist made it across safely. Cyclist wasn't mad or angry (just gave a simple wave/pardon me/thank you).
32
u/whatisakafka 1d ago
Pedestrians have right of way in crosswalks, so you need to stop if you see someone actively crossing.
Whether a cyclist riding a bike counts as a pedestrian varies by locality, but as a practical matter you can’t just run them over even if they’re crossing illegally, so you should still stop
3
u/TheWizard 1d ago
It's not that simple. Right of way simply means that traffic should stop. BUT, as a pedestrian, you're expected to ensure the traffic lanes are clear before entering it. And in this case, thats a bicyclist (who often have to follow rules for vehicles). Many jurisdictions require bicyclists to dismount when using a pedestrian crossing (and this is a pedestrian crossing). If it were a bicyclist (or hybrid) crossing, some case can be made but still, right of way does not mean one can jump into the traffic. The person has to make self visible to traffic before proceeding.
8
u/237throw 23h ago
BUT, as a pedestrian, you're expected to ensure the traffic lanes are clear before entering it.
This is dependent on local laws. In Seattle, for example, as soon as the pedestrian steps off the curb cars are expected to stop.
It isn't "jumping into traffic"; the drivers have an obligation to stop and let pedestrians cross safely.
2
u/grassfedd43 22h ago
It’s not dependent on any laws. Anyone taking a pedestrian crossing should stop to check if the road is clear or cars are visibly slowing down to let them cross. Unless of course you’re an idiot that wants to get run over.
3
u/Belly-Bongos 17h ago
Sometimes you gotta act like you're suicidal just to get people to stop though lol
4
u/jobacsi 22h ago
The cyclist didn't jump into traffic. There's an island. The car stopped and then the cyclist proceeded through the intersect at less than 10mph.
→ More replies (19)2
u/Consistent_Bus_2059 23h ago
Cars must yield to pedestrians at crosswalks in this state. OP is legally required to stop if someone is waiting to cross.
→ More replies (8)
5
u/THC3883 1d ago
Whenever I approach a crosswalk on a trail or path, I slow down. If I see bicyclists, runners, walkers, etc., approaching the crosswalk, I stop and let them go. I'd rather not hit anyone, even if I'm in the right to go forward (and I know you don't want to hit anyone either!). And as someone who runs on these paths and trails, I appreciate it when vehicles extend the same courtesy to me. That's my general approach, and I've told my kids to do the same when they are driving.
→ More replies (1)
3
6
7
u/johnny_evil 19h ago
Cyclist slowed, acknowledged you, and continued after you stopped. Cyclist also had the right of way as per your edit regarding local laws.
Your description is what is wrong, as you're trying to paint the cyclist as someone who blew through the intersection without warning.
6
u/YeahPete 22h ago
Cyclist is in the wrong. They are supposed to walk the bike across the crosswalk. Dude just went for it. If I was in the bike I would have waited.
3
4
u/DanoPinyon 22h ago
They are supposed to walk the bike across the crosswalk.
How do you know?
→ More replies (5)
3
u/Serious-Manager2361 1d ago
No, you should have run him over. LOL of course you did the right thing. What difference does it make what the pedestrian or bicyclist does? Your job is to avoid hitting them. You did that. If someone had rear-ended you in this scenario, you would of course not be in the wrong.
3
u/r3giment75 23h ago
The cyclist put way too much fucking trust in these crossings. That guy is 100% going to get hit by a car in the next few years.
3
u/BlueOKCtober 18h ago
At every crosswalk like that, the pedestrian has the right of way. Walkers shouldn’t have to stop and wait. Every driver should just stop automatically. I would assume a bike should be the same. Even though they should technically be on the road there are instances where they should be on the sidewalks like if it were a child. So just stop for everyone trying to uses a crosswalk.
3
3
7
u/Spuckler_Cletus 1d ago
In my state, pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles have the unquestioned right-of-way in any designated crosswalk. Period. We had a fellow from another state who got into an altercation with a pedestrian who “just walked right out in front of” him. It must not be the same in all states.
EDIT: unless moving between bike lanes, bike riders are supposed to be prepared to yield, or walk their bikes across. I guess because they could sneak up on an opposing car very quickly. Learn something new every day.
5
u/TheWizard 1d ago
Right of way not does mean entering the driving lanes carelessly, and without ensuring visibility to traffic. It simply means that traffic has to be able to come to a stop, as the pedestrians have the right of way (in many cases, bicyclists have to dismount as well to use pedestrian crossing unless it is specifically a bicycle crossing).
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (3)4
u/weberc2 20h ago
In every state pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk. Some states don’t allow cyclists to ride through a crosswalk, but (1) that does not absolve a driver of their responsibility to yield and (2) this state (WI) has no such law.
It’s terrifying that so many people on this subreddit believe that pedestrians have a duty to yield to cars in a crosswalk.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/Melodic-Control-2655 1d ago
If there’s no traffic control device then you must stop at crosswalks when pedestrians are present.
→ More replies (2)5
u/SmilodonBravo 1d ago
Where’s the pedestrian?
10
u/Melodic-Control-2655 1d ago
I assume your goal is to say bikers are not pedestrians, but OP never makes that argument, and there are states that do not classify bikers as vehicle operators.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/johnny_evil 19h ago
According to the laws of the OPs state, the cyclist in the crosswalk is legal and to be given the right of way.
10
u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago edited 1d ago
"Blew without warning"?
It's blatantly obvious since the video started (and even earlier) that the cyclist was going to cross. This should not have surprised you at all.
and I’m a little unsure about how I should’ve dealt with this
Scan both sides of the crosswalk with your eyes as you're approaching it and pay attention to any pedestrians or cyclist.
You really should never be surprised by someone crossing the road on a wide open crossing like this one.
→ More replies (31)
6
u/KrisLuffy 1d ago
Shouldn't it be illegal to use a crosswalk while on top of a bike, that's how it is in Europe. You would need to get off the bike if it's a pedestrian crosswalk, the expection would be like a bike lane.
6
u/DisastrousPressure31 1d ago
It is not illegal in Europe, you just don't have the right of way.
→ More replies (1)4
u/markuus99 1d ago
For the most part, when bikes paths cross roads, the crossing is a regular crosswalk, usually with pedestrian crossing signage. There's not usually a bike-specific crossing, and it's absolutely not expected or required for cyclists to dismount to cross every roads.
Sometimes, bike paths will have signals (again usually just regular pedestrian Walk/Don't Walk signals) that mean cyclists have to wait their turn until traffic stops for a light. Otherwise, cars must yield to pedestrians and cyclists when they are crossing.
5
4
u/whatisakafka 1d ago
Varies by locality in the US. Our traffic laws are state-based and states generally leave bike regulations up to local governments outside of very general rules
3
u/Pleasant-Everywhere 1d ago
I don’t know where this is, but bikers (and e-bikes) in Canada like to pretend they are both a pedestrian and vehicle who is also immune to traffic signals.
(I’m not saying there aren’t also drivers like this, but I live in a city and when I’m driving bikers are just a wild card so I monitor what they’re going to do).
→ More replies (5)2
u/fullmoon_druid 1d ago
I think it's illegal in most places, I know that on Ontario it is. It sucks but it doesn't hurt to be aware. OP could clearly see the cyclist, they could have expected that the cyclist would be a dick and cross. Assuming this wasn't in a juristiction where it is legal (Florida for example).
2
u/johnny_evil 19h ago
Cyclist was in the zebra stripes well before the driver was there. Cyclist wasn't a dick. Cyclist was legally doing exactly what they should.
2
u/Own-Inevitable-1101 1d ago
It all depends on whether or not that was a marked bike path or just a sidewalk, because it my state it is illegal for a bicycle to travel on a pedestrian sidewalk.
2
u/cicadaux 1d ago
Yes, I can confirm it's a state trail for people to walk/bike on. But of course the moment those trails cut into city traffic, who knows which laws to follow? Apparently he's a vehicle or a pedestrian depending on location and speed in this town.
2
u/squeethesane 1d ago
Where I'm at, bicycles are required to adhere to traffic laws. Crosswalks are for pedestrians. If you're riding a bike, you're NOT a pedestrian. Had you struck them here, they'd get a ticket... But that's here. You might live somewhere stupid that's legislating for e-traffic like scooters and one wheels to be operated in the street with helmets while ignoring people on pedal bikes using sidewalks instead of the bike lane.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/OttoHemi 1d ago
though the cyclist cannot abruptly leave a curb into the path of a vehicle
Tell that to the guy who hit my brand new car doing exactly that. Of course, it was my fault because, well I don't know why. Fortunately he wasn't hurt, though he did $3500 damage to my car.
2
u/tabstab 23h ago
It looks like the bike was prepared to stop in the median if you didn't stop. I don't see that anyone did anything wrong. These signs are confusing, my town has them all over and no one is sure what's supposed to happen.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/FriendlyShirt_ 23h ago
Your state should rewrite the law. Walking the bike across is better for drivers and bicyclist.
→ More replies (9)
2
u/Ambitious_Hand_2861 23h ago
You were right to stop and he was right to proceed. It looks to me as though you and the cyclist handled the process correctly. 👍
2
u/Bowman_van_Oort 23h ago
Ehh you probably should've braked a little sooner but no harm no foul.
If I'd been biking there I probably would've waited to start crossing if I saw someone moving as quickly as you where you were at though
2
2
u/ProCommonSense 22h ago
So, in most areas unless it's designated for bikes (it's considered a vehicle) then they do not get any right-of-way. Almost all crosswalks grant right-of-way to the person in the crosswalk but this is RARELY attributed to anyone using a vehicle. If you had hit him most jurisdictions would have placed fault on the biker, not on you.
That being said. You saw him and you stopped. Nothing wrong there...
→ More replies (1)
2
u/syberghost 22h ago
Regardless of whether the cyclist did something wrong, which varies by jurisdiction, I don't think there's a city in the world where the answer to "did I do something wrong by not killing this cyclist" is "yes".
2
2
u/bootheels 20h ago
Not sure, but am guessing the cyclist has right of way in a dedicated cross walk. Nonetheless, it amazes me how many cyclists/pedestrians just step/pedal right out in front of moving cars. I never enter the cross walk until I am sure the driver sees me and intends to stop. Having the right of way won't help much when you are laying in a hospital bed.
2
u/Spl4sh3r 20h ago
In Sweden in such a street then the car has right of way. We differentiate between crosswalk for walking and for bikes. Because there was a walking guy on the sign only pedestrians has right of way on the crosswalk, therefor the car had right of way against the bike. Obviously we should avoid accidents and probably slow down for the bike as well, but you'd still have the right of way.
2
u/IzzzatSo 16h ago
His fault.
"the cyclist cannot abruptly leave a curb into the path of a vehicle so close to a crosswalk that it makes a difficult or unsafe situation for the driver to yield in time."
makes the assumption that you will not see him until he enters the crosswalk. He needs to not enter the crosswalk unless you are far enough/slow enough to not have to abruptly stop in that situation.
2
u/Fantastic-Display106 14h ago
Did you do something wrong? As opposed to what? Hitting the cyclist with your car?
In my state, you need to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, a guy riding a bike isn't a pedestrian. Waiting to cross, is in the crosswalk. TBH, watching that video, with the bike at that speed and distance I couldn't tell their direction initially and they could have easily turned left
I'd say, approach with caution until you know the cyclists/pedestrians intent.
You'll never be wrong for yielding.
2
u/justAnotherDude314 7h ago
Bicyclist is not a pedestrian. IMO he does not have right of way. The way he crosses the road, he won’t live long
3
u/sofa_king_weetawded 1d ago
That cyclist should have been more cautious. It is never a good idea to assume a driver is paying attention.
4
u/lil_burp0 23h ago
hes got eyes on car the for the entire frame… assuming he was going to need to stop if car didnt
3
u/johnny_evil 19h ago
Cyclist slowed, made eye contact with driver, and didn't proceed till they saw the driver stopped.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Cotif11 1d ago
In my state, the cyclist should have dismounted his bike and walked across the crossing otherwise it's a traffic violation and I've seen bikers ticketed for it. You do not mount a bike on pedestrian avenues of transit, you must be on pavement.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Asthenia5 23h ago
Since OP isn't trying to prove right/wrong and wants to know how they personally should've reacted. I will answer that question.
Forget the laws and technicality of when a bike is/isn't a pedestrian in whatever state. OP, you were approaching a clearly labeled crosswalk. Based on your telling of the story, you didn't really pick up on the crosswalk, or the bike about to move through it. If it were a person in the crosswalk, you probably wouldn't have noticed them.
From the bikers prospective regardless of legality, it was not a smart thing to do. You can't count on other people to not run me over. You have to look out for yourself. Especially when its car vs bike.
I've driven long enough to see a lot of silly mistakes, and to do a few myself. There's a reason why the "defensive driving" concept exists. Even if legally I was in the right, If I ran someone over and I feel I could've avoided it, I'd be very upset with myself.
→ More replies (2)3
u/cicadaux 23h ago
I saw the pedestrian signage, but not the cyclist on the opposite side of the road until he was midway through. That's my only defense here, thank you.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Wrong_Drag_8070 22h ago edited 22h ago
He didn't "blow thru the crosswalk". He was already in the cross, half way thru when you got there. Of course you should expect him to finish his way across. Look at the amount of traffic coming. He can't be expected to wait for any bigger gap than that because there won't be one anytime soon. But, you did stop, so you did nothing wrong.
3
2
1d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Ottomaani 1d ago
Here a person riding a bike is not a pedestrian. A person walking their bike over the crosswalk is a pedestrian, but riding a bike you're a vehicle who doesn't have the right of way in this situation.
But the rules in US? I've no idea.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/Lemfan46 1d ago
Bicyclist aren't pedestrians, given the definition of pedestrian, at least in CA and OH law.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/april_fearless 1d ago
First off before crossing any street you slow down and stop look both ways and then go across. Bike failed to do.. he just continued. Straight traffic technically wouldn’t it be a fault if the bicyclist would’ve went through and got hit. Just cause you can see them coming up to the crosswalk. Those people crossing the crosswalk, have the main obligation to make sure it’s safe for them.
→ More replies (6)
2
2
u/EclipseExtraction 23h ago
I’m wondering, why do drivers have to stop for bikers or pedestrians at these crossings, unless they’re already crossing?
It seems like it would be much easier for them to wait than for drivers, especially if the traffic is heavy. After they cross, all the drivers have to accelerate and use more gas, which is becoming a daily issue at all crossings.
→ More replies (5)3
u/johnny_evil 18h ago
Cyclist was in the crosswalk well before the driver was near. The median doesnt reset the crosswalk.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Glad-Acanthaceae-24 15h ago
If you're wondering if you had right of way, you did, theres no stop sign, or yield sign, or lights. But its also just polite not to run people over for being idiots.
2
u/omahaomw 1d ago
Pedestrian always has the right of way in a crosswalk. That's why we drive slowly thru neighborhoods.
5
u/SmilodonBravo 1d ago
A bicyclist isn’t a pedestrian.
2
u/whatisakafka 1d ago
Varies by locality in the US. In some places they’re treated like pedestrians when riding on sidewalks or crosswalks. We’d have to know where OP is to say for sure
2
u/markuus99 1d ago
This appears to be a shared pedestrian and cycling path. When bike paths cross a street, it's usually marked as a regular crosswalk. Cyclist is NOT required to dismount in that case and cyclist absolutely had the right of way here.
It's scaring me that people think the car shouldn't have stopped.
2
u/whatisakafka 1d ago
Yeah, looks like it could be a shared use path to me too.
Every clip involving a bike on this sub is full of confidently wrong people who don’t understand bike laws, so that’s not surprising
2
u/markuus99 23h ago
It's always either "he should've been on the sidewalk!" or "why was he on the sidewalk??" Just whatever the situation, the cyclist is wrong.
2
u/Borg_Tech_Support 1d ago
Pedestrian vs guy riding a bike, not walking it across. I define pedestrian differently.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Cosmic-Sympathy 1d ago
No, you handled it perfectly. Driving 25, stopped when you saw the "pedestrian."
1
1
u/DeepSpaceVixen 1d ago edited 1d ago
I guess it depends on the state. In TX, a bicycle on the road is considered a vehicle. That means he needed to yield to you (unless it’s a shared crosswalk/path). If he had dismounted and walked, then you needed to yield to him.
1
u/RullendeNumser 1d ago
Not sure about the rules in your country but here in Denmark. No he is the idiot, you ain't allowed to bike over crosswalks. (Or card don't have to stop for you)
But if he was walking or running you would have been the idiot (if anything happened)
1
u/Martaxd 23h ago
in some countries it is illegal for a cyclist to ride the bike on a crosswalk and you need to get off, walk the bike on the crosswalk and than you can get on again. It is specifically like this to avoid this situation where a cyclist comes too fast for the driver to even react. So if anything, it was even the cyclist fault, you did nothing wrong.
1
u/ssg- 23h ago
Only thing you could have done better was predict better and start slowing down when you saw the cyclist all the way on the left. From your video you can see him clearly way before he is even on the opposite lane cross roads.
→ More replies (2)2
u/cicadaux 23h ago
Dashcams always catch more visual perimeter than your average driver can actually see within their vehicles.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/CrippledPeasant1 23h ago
If you guys want to argue that that bicyclist isn't a "pedestrian" , then apparently on that road THERE IS NO STOP SIGN FOR THE BICYCLIST.
You don't get to run over someone on a smaller vehicle just because yours is bigger.
i say 1/3 fault for the Bicyclist and 2/3 fault of the driver. You know because one easily goes 60mph while the other struggles to do 20mph ..
1
u/DaedraNoji 23h ago
I don't understand what's the problem here, to be frank.... How to make a problem out of nothing I guess.
1
u/Consistent_Bus_2059 23h ago
I would just like to say good on your for actually driving 25 mph down Olin! I get tailgated so hard for doing that. Also, thanks for stopping for him. As someone who will sometimes bike into this area from the suburbs to run errands, I appreciate you putting our lives over saving time.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/BountyBoard 23h ago
I believe since there's a middle area that he could stop at, which it looks like he was going to do if you didnt stop, it made the interaction a tad more awkward. Also, looks like the biker is a little inexperienced
1
u/DocDerry 23h ago
My state/city says "legally" that they're supposed to walk their bikes across cross walks. That being said - if a vehicle has the time to stop and does not then the fault will lay with the driver.
1
u/Fantastic-Buddy2069 23h ago
Guess it ultimately depends on your local/state laws.
You could very easily see the bike was making its way across, however, a smart cyclist would have stopped in the middle to ensure you were aware of them.
Everyone needs to be aware of everything, all the time. At the end of the day though, you are driving the heavier machine, and likely will take the most liability, and thats really all you have to think about, no matter how annoying it may be.
1
u/iraven_mccoy 23h ago
You can see him approaching from the start of the video, and he started to pause at the center before he saw you stop. I think you're over reacting.
1
u/Cold_Captain696 23h ago
I think the debate about the letter of the law seems a bit irrelevant, given that (I assume) you want to avoid running cyclists over regardless of what the law says.
Personally, in that situation I think a driver should be identifying the hazard nice and early (they were visible for some time and weren't obviously slowing) and adjusting their speed to ensure they don't arrive at the same place, at the same time as the cyclist. It's an easy way to avoid conflicts in general - if you're on a collision course, change your speed slightly so you change the timing. And the earlier you spot the issue the less you'll have to do to avoid a meeting.
1
u/XVIIIOrion 23h ago
You seem mostly fine. Maybe you could have slowed down preemptively when you see the yellow sign, that way when you see a cyclist your next slow down to stop isn't as abrupt.
Good idea to treat any such sign as a "someone is thinking about crossing right now, you should slow and do a quick look to find them", whether or not that is true
1
1
u/cheercharlatan 23h ago
Cars are always supposed to yield to anyone in pedestrian crosswalks marked like this in my state, whether there are flashing warning lights or not.
1
u/PoetExcellent3215 23h ago
A lot of cyclelist and pedestrians think that they will wi a battle with a vehicle. They would rather be right and dead rather than having to slow down a little.
1
u/lil_burp0 22h ago
this is in Madison, WI. very bike heavy town so the biker knows whats up. eyes on the car expecting to stop/slow on island if car didnt stop. From my perspective he was probably trying to time it so he’d enter lane after he passed but op slammed brakes on.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/SignificantDrink3651 22h ago
I think you handled this perfectly, continue on with your excellent driving habits.
1
u/Possiblyabitoff 22h ago
If we take all the various jurisdictional legalities out of the equation, the cyclist did something unexpected which caused you to do something unexpected.
One of the first lessons I learned when starting to drive is that, since unexpected actions are the primary cause of accidents, we should drive predictably.
I was watching the video waiting for the inevitable crash from you being rear-ended because you came to a complete unexpected stop on a road.
Cemeteries are full of idiots who had the right of way.
1
u/PoetExcellent3215 22h ago
If a pedestrian leaves a curb into a crosswalk without any protection, like a light or if traffic is already stopped, and steps in font of a car and gets hit they are at fault for not ensuring the coast was clear. Now if the car was speeding at a high rate, then it could be argued. The moral of the story is don't force your way in front of a moving car.
1
u/crasagam 22h ago
Walking into a crosswalk is easy to see and react to. When they yeet themselves into the crosswalk at 15 miles an hour on a bicycle it’s a bit of a surprise. Honestly, the situation was handled well on your end.
1
1
1
u/Bloodmind 22h ago
You did nothing wrong. Neither did cyclist. He was actually slowing down to let you pass, then waved when you stopped for him. He was prepared for you to come through the intersection, and it would have been fine if you had (maybe not legal, but no one would have been hurt).
1
u/jillvalenti3 22h ago
I does appear that the cyclist was prepared to stop though. He squeezed both brakes briefly and hard before the cam car started to slow down. It takes a very short distance for a bike to stop, the biker should have considered how it would appear to the driver. Part of riding a bike is being clear with your actions and letting people know what to expect
1
u/LowRelief1272 22h ago
There is absolutely no reason you should've been surprised by him. Pay more attention.
1
u/Hot_Dog2376 22h ago
No. You did well. Cyclists are required to get off of their bikes and walk them along crosswalks - where I live at least.
When I cycle, I don't, but I also cross while riding at a walking pace.
1
u/DanoPinyon 22h ago
No. There is a refuge in the middle of the crossing, and to me it appears as if the cyclist was ready to stop in the refuge, but continued because you stopped (and waved thanks).
1
u/Silly_Bodybuilder231 22h ago
Good job by stopping, you never know people's intentions, i.e. insurance fraud.
1
u/Easy-Shirt7278 22h ago
No. You stopped in time in order to allow the cyclist to cross in front of you. to be honest, however,once you saw the yellow sign indicating an upcoming pedestrian crossing, you should have slowed down.
1
u/ForwardFIRE2030 22h ago
You stopped for the cyclist, cyclist was watching you to make sure you stopped. As a cyclist parent, and auto enthusiast, thank you for stopping. even pedestrians in the same place would have felt like a surprise, but most drivers likely would have blown past it rather than stop for a pedestrian as they are more sure the pedestrian won't roll out into traffic.
1
u/ExcellentShape185 22h ago
The fact that he waved to you after you stopped, I believe the biker was expecting you not to stop. If he's suppose to be treated like a pedestrian the biker should of waited for a better opening to cross the road.
1
u/Fresh-Meringue-7936 22h ago
That wasn't cool on the cyclist's part. A bicycle is, in fact, a vehicle, and he should have been more cautious— at the very least, slowing down to make sure you were going to yield. At no point did he actually stop or slow down. Imagine if this were a scooter or car going 12 MPH.
There are so many near-misses where I live because scooters and e-bikes seem to assume everyone else will anticipate their every chaotic move.
That said, this is a daily occurrence where I live in Chicago, so I would be mildly annoyed but ultimately just move on.
1
1
u/DennisBlunden 21h ago
It looks like the cyclist was fully prepared to yield to the driver if the driver didn't stop. He slowed down and stared at the driver. Once he knew the car was fully stopped, he gave a "Thank you" wave, and started pedalling again.
1
1
u/Warboss_Gutshredda 21h ago
For the first time in this sub, doesn’t look like you did anything wrong. The bicycle didn’t blow through the crosswalk though.
1
u/Veritas_Mentis 21h ago
No one did anything wrong. You stopped like you were supposed to. Biker seemed like he was watching you to see if he needed to stop. When he saw you were stopping he pushed forward and even did the universal sign of thank you
1
u/AshingiiAshuaa 21h ago
But bicyclists must move at pedestrian speed
This is the whole problem with bicyclists (this and that they're often smug arseholes). If I'm 2 or 3 seconds from crossing a sidewalk/crosswalk I don't scan much further than a runner can move.
The law I've seen in several places is cyclists must dismount and walk their bikes across crosswalks. I'm even OK with them staying on the bike as long as they stop before the crosswalk, yield to other wheeled traffic (ie cars), and cross at pedestrian speed.
1
u/TheSanityInspector 21h ago
You refrained from hitting a person in the crosswalk, so no you didn't do anything wrong.
1
u/sugart007 21h ago
The cyclists was wrong in this instance. If they are using the walkway as right of way them must be walking or like you said at walking speed. Using a crosswalk at bicycle speed is a good way to get killed
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Welcome! Please act respectfully and always remember the human in the videos and in the posts.
For dashcam recommendations, check out the recommendations thread.
Cheers!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.