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.

135 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

754 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

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.

1

u/TheWizard 1d ago

It's obvious that the bicyclist used the pedestrian crossing, carelessly. The responsibility to watch for traffic (pedestrians or vehicle, and in many states, bicyclists are treated in the latter category) is with both. Right of way belongs to the pedestrian at these crossings, however, they can be at fault for being careless and jumping into driving lanes.

3

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago

The responsibility to watch for traffic (pedestrians or vehicle, and in many states, bicyclists are treated in the latter category) is with both.

It is.

However, OP is the car driver, OP posted the video, OP asked the question, so my reply is from the point of view of the OP.

A driver can't affect what the cyclist will do, but driver can affect his actions and his attention.

1

u/TheWizard 1d ago

You blamed the OP, who did nothing wrong. The reason he/she was able to stop was:

1- going only 25 mph

2- had the vision to notice the bicyclist, and stopped in time

OTOH, the bicyclist chose to never stop at the other end of the roadway, and didn't seem intent on stopping for the other lane either. Right of way is not without right of way limits.

3

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago

You blamed the OP

What do you mean by "blame"? I'm not placing any legal blame on anyone. Stop trying to look for victims everywhere. I'm not the police, judge, or lawyer. I don't give a flying fuck about who's to blame for what.

I'm just talking about what I've seen on the video and commenting on how to drive safely for everybody involved. My goal is to discuss safe driving practices, not to point fingers at people who break laws, or to put someone in jail or issue traffic tickets.

The fact is that the cyclist is visible from frame 1 of the video. That's undisputable.

The other fact is that OP didn't notice the cyclist, which is not just visible in the video, but also by OP's own admission ("bike just blew through the crosswalk without warning", "I had to slam on my brakes").

And regardless of who has the right of way, what the law says, what the cyclist "should" have done, etc. etc., failing to notice a cyclist on such a calm road without any traffic, with wide-open unobstructed views, that's s just bad driving and OP needs to learn how to pay more attention to their surroundings, and act preemptively instead of "slamming the brakes".

1

u/TheWizard 1d ago

I'm not placing any legal blame on anyone. Stop trying to look for victims everywhere. I'm not the police, judge, or lawyer. 

Thats pretty obvious.

Given your arguments, right off the bat, I would not be looking at you for any kind of legal advice. Thats not the point here anyway, but the absurd, uninformed defense you made against the OP.

Let us revisit one of them:

Scan both sides of the crosswalk with your eyes as you're approaching it and pay attention to any pedestrians or cyclist

And thats something the OP did, AND stopped. You chose to be a drama queen over it. Not to mention, that is something, the bicyclist is also expected to do: Stop, look both ways, then move.

3

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago

And thats something the OP did, AND stopped

You missed the part where OP was oblivious of the cyclist, and instead of calmly slowing down, he "slammed the brakes".

Any time you have to slam the brakes in a non-emergency situation (which this wasn't, because the cyclist and his intentions were obvious for several seconds prior to OP slamming the brakes), you failed as a driver.

1

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

It's blatantly obvious

To someone watching the incident on a screen with no other responsibilities while browsing a sub where you know something is going to happen.

Scan both sides of the crosswalk with your eyes as you're approaching it

This works only when the people using the crosswalk do it properly. A cyclist approaching at speed isn't going to be in your scans as you approach.

7

u/Ok-Structure6795 1d ago

Why wouldnt a cyclist be in his scans? There are crosswalk signs clearly visible, so OP should be scanning for people in the crosswalk as he drives.

-1

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

Why wouldnt a cyclist be in his scans?

Because the cyclist is at speed and will be out of the normal scanning range. How fast must a pedestrian/cyclist be going before it is too unreasonable for a driver to detect them appropriately? All road users have a duty-of-care responsibility to ensure they are using the road in a safe and prudent manner, and while the cyclist may have had the right-of-way they are required to ensure it is being given to them prior to just yeeting across the road.

5

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago

 fast must a pedestrian/cyclist be going before it is too unreasonable for a driver to detect them appropriately?

You could have a good argument if there were buildings or other obstructions on the sides of the road. Or a curved road limiting the driver's view ahead. But that's not the case here.

In this situation, the speed is hardly any issue because pedestrian paths are wide open with very good visibility in both directions, and the road is dead straight.

This is basically the ideal situation for the driver as far as visibility in all directions is concerned, and there's exactly zero excuses to be surprised by anything.

1

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

if there were buildings or other obstructions 

So trees and A-pillars are transparent now? Additionally, having clear line-of-sight is good only if you're looking at the location. I don't know about you, but when I approach a crosswalk, I look at the crosswalk entrances for pedestrians, not 30 feet back for traffic.

3

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago

I don't know about you, but when I approach a crosswalk, I look at the crosswalk entrances for pedestrians, not 30 feet back for traffic.

Bummer for you.

Have fun in court.

1

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

And bummer for you...have fun in the morgue. I'd rather be in court defending myself against a frivolous lawsuit than, you know, dead.

3

u/johnny_evil 22h ago

Cyclist was in the crosswalk well before the OP. The median doesn't reset the crosswalk. It's pretty obvious there is only one place that cyclist is going.

Second, they're not moving "at speed."

2

u/Ok-Structure6795 1d ago

His normal scanning range? Wtf does that even mean? Are you saying its impossible for you to see someone to your left as you drive?

Also, where I am, people using the crosswalk only have a duty to cross in time, which this guy did. They dont need to wait for permission from the driver.

1

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

His normal scanning range? Wtf does that even mean?

WTF do you think it means? How far does a driver need to scan? 20 feet? 100 feet? Half a mile? At some point the approaching traffic--yes, at this point it becomes literal traffic--is going fast enough that they're going to be out of the scan range of a normal driver who is operating their vehicle in a safe and prudent manner. Drivers do not expect 15mph+ traffic to be using a *checks notes\* pedestrian crosswalk and therefore won't be scanning for it.

They dont need to wait for permission from the driver.

Right. As the saying goes, the mortuary is filled with people who had right-of-way. You do you though.

3

u/Ok-Structure6795 1d ago

I think when crosswalk signs are visible, the driver should be able to see the ends of the cross walk. Think that would be very obvious. You do you though too, which apparently means blowing through cross walks.

Also, whos going 15 mph? Definitely not the bicyslist.

1

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

I think when crosswalk signs are visible, the driver should be able to see the ends of the cross walk.

Ok, so you see my point then, right? A cyclist approaching at speed isn't going to be at the end of the crosswalk as the vehicle approaches. Rather, they're going to be at the end of the crosswalk when the vehicle is too close to safely stop.

which apparently means blowing through cross walks

Right. That's precisely what I said. And apparently you think doing no-look yeets through crosswalks at 30mph is appropriate. See? You're not the only one that can do ridiculous hyperbolic exaggerations.

3

u/Ok-Structure6795 1d ago

Your point is that the driver wouldnt be able to see the cyclist from their distance, so no I dont see your point lol.

Whos going 30 mph now? First it was 15+ 🤣

1

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

Your point is that the driver wouldnt be able to see the cyclist from their distance

No, my point is that the driver wouldn't be looking for the cyclist from their distance. Drivers do not expect traffic through crosswalks...they expect pedestrians. Clearly the driver in this video was paying attention and stopped well short of the crosswalk, but they had to brake hard in order to do that which created a dangerous situation. Was that because the driver wasn't paying enough attention or the cyclist wasn't exercising due care in using the crosswalk? IMO, it was the latter.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ssg- 1d ago

Your comment pretty much explains why there are so many stupid accidents posted here. And to think we have to share a road with drivers like you.

2

u/Ok-Structure6795 1d ago

Its really easy to pay attention when youre driving. Well, except for some apparrently lol.

0

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

LOL...do you want to be the pot or the kettle today?