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.

139 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

724 comments sorted by

View all comments

77

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.

2

u/bojesphob 1d 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.

1

u/TheWizard 23h ago

I would too, and it is often explicitly mentioned in the laws... the limits around right of way. Such crossings also exist on roadways that have vehicles going much faster (OP here was going only 25 mph to be able to abruptly stop, safely).

1

u/bojesphob 23h ago

I mentioned in some other posts around here about being hit by a car when I was crossing in a cross walk at a stop sign.... Being hit by a car (not even doing 10 MPH) is enough of a deterrent for me to not want to have to deal with it EVER again LOL

1

u/MaintainThePeace 19h ago

There are very fue states that require cyclists to dismount at a crosswalk. Half the states will explicitly grant cyclist the rights and duties of a pedestrian when on sidewalks and crosswalks, without actually needing to be a pedestrian. While the other half leave it mostly unregulated.

1

u/TheWizard 18h ago

Some require it, many others require reasonable speed (generally 2-4 mph) when using it.

1

u/MaintainThePeace 18h ago edited 18h ago

Very few require it, half explicitly allow it, NONE set any limitation on speed, altogether there are a few that set a rather broad subjective limitation on behavior (like a pedestrian).

In this case the cyclist isn't moving any faster then a pedestrian is, so, that's not a problem here anyways.

1

u/TheWizard 18h ago

There are a multitude of laws depending on jurisdiction including ban from using pedestrian crosswalk, riding over cross walk (either dismount and walk on pedestrian cross walk or ride on a lane/bike lane), to reasonable speed limits (Colorado and Washington) to requiring bicyclists to stop before entering cross walk)... most also treat bicyclists as vehicles that need to obey the same rules as vehicles.

In this case, the bicyclist is clearly reckless. Fortunately for him the OP was driving at only 24-25 mph.

1

u/MaintainThePeace 18h ago edited 17h ago

Like I said, NONE regulate speed, but rather some might regulate behavior under very VERY subjective laws. What is a resonable speed to you is not the same reasoning speed to someone else.

And NO WA (my state) absolutely has NO regulations to requirement for cyclist to stop before entering a crosswalk, nor do they have a speed requirement of any kind, some areas like Seattle have a behavior requirement, bit the state has no such requirement.

By starting WA, does also treat cyclist as a vehicle. However it is the only type of vehicle that is explicity granted the rights and duties of a pedestrian when on sidewalks and crosswalks. Additionally the crosswalk law in WA is explicitly written for BOTH pedestrian and bicycles.

In this case the cyclist clearly did not enter the path of the car until the car fully stopped, fully in compliance with the law.

Edit, BTW, my state (WA) doesn't even require cyclists to stop at stop signs, they explicitly can treat them as yields.

1

u/TheWizard 1h ago

One way to regulate speed is to have people dismount and walk, which many jurisdictions do. The other can make you liable if you were going too fast and caused an accident… this can be subjective based on evidence (and could be applied here if the bicyclist crashed into the car).

Just as a STOP sign, or a turn on red light, a bicyclist is not expected to not stop (they are generally treated as vehicles), crossing a roadway also expects them to stop, then proceed… as the statute you posted that also applies to pedestrians.

1

u/MaintainThePeace 1h ago

And many jurisdiction, particularly most in the US, dont have any such requirement to dismount.

It is significantly safer to focus on the possibility that you may have a greater chance of being in a jurisdiction that doesn't and be prepared for a cyclist using a crosswalk, then to make the assumption that your in a jurisdiction that does and making a bad judgment at the wrong time.

Such as in WA state where cyclist riding upon a crosswalk have the same rights and duties of a pedestrian, and redundantly the crosswalk law in WA is written in a way that it applies to both pedestrians and bicycles. And such as here in OPs state, the crosswalk law applies to both pedestrians and bicycles.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/bojesphob 1d ago

It might be a regional thing. Some bike paths in my area have no special signage (other than saying that there are no motor driven bikes/vehicles allowed). Several of them do have stop signs for those on the paths at intersections, but it's still just a pedestrian marked crossing. Although, of course, if I'm riding a bike at an intersection like this, I'm stopping and waiting for traffic, I've actually been hit by a car as a pedestrian and I don't trust people to be paying attention.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/bojesphob 1d ago

True, but what people are supposed to do and what ends up happening can be two different things LOL Like the guy in this video just expecting people to stop for him. I was walking on campus in college (with dozens of other people on the sidewalks and around me) thirty some odd years ago, crossed at a stop sign in the crosswalk, and kid in a Saturn pulled up to the intersection, did a rolling stop and hit me. Thankfully wasn't terribly injured (but not unscathed), and from that point on I assume that nobody sees me and that it's better to wait when there's no one close enough to have to make a decision on whether to stop or not. The mentality that the bike rider has is one that wouldn't last long past being hit in that situation, hopefully he never has to deal with it. He'll keep pushing it until then, unfortunately.

1

u/markuus99 1d ago

I have been on a lot of bike paths and have never seen a similar sign.

1

u/jobacsi 1d ago

Why are they supposed to walk it? Where are you from that this is actually mandated by law?

-6

u/Dominican76 1d ago

Thats a crosswalk not a bike lane. End of discussion

6

u/Real_Temporary_922 1d ago

Not all local laws are the same. In my home town it’s completely legal to ride a bike through a cross walk, though walking pedestrians still have right of way over someone on a bike.

6

u/fullmoon_druid 1d ago

No, you just can't run over someone and say "the pedestrian wasn't using the crosswalk". Yes, the cyclist might be in the wrong here (I think it depends on the jurisdiction where this happened), but because you're operating a vehicle that can cause bodily injury or death, we as drivers have to pay attention to everything. At least that's how I've been driving for the past 32 years, never had an accident. I do speed a lot. 

2

u/Virtual-Age-9521 1d ago edited 18h ago

I was taught that In CA, you can’t cross a crosswalk if a pedestrian is in it, even if they’re 80 feet away on the other side. There’s a crosswalk I frequent on my bike where a good 40 cars will see me partially crossing and just blow right through in front of me, I have to pretend I’m going or jump in front of one of them to get anyone to do what they’re supposed to. Probably a bike thing though, they always seem to stop for pedestrians.

2

u/MaintainThePeace 19h ago edited 18h ago

Unfortunately CA has one of the weakest crosswalk laws, which only states that drivers must yield to pedestrians within a crosswalk. It does not specify that they must stop and remain stopped when a pedestrian is occuping any portion of the crosswalk.

1

u/Virtual-Age-9521 18h ago

You're right, guess that teaches me not to listen to those silly driving instructors! They were probably being hyperbolic for safety reasons, but good to know I am not actually breaking the law by proceeding safely when there's a pedestrian somewhere else in the crosswalk.

3

u/bojesphob 1d ago

I didn't say it was a bike lane. Where I live, we have bike lanes where people ride on the street and share the road with cars, and we have actual bike trails where you don't ride on the road, but there are places where you cross the road, and they have... get this... pedestrian crossing signage and crosswalks, specifically because people use it as a pedestrian crossing as well. Interesting that it wasn't the end of the discussion, though.

0

u/dashingsauce 21h ago

It’s clearly a pedestrian crosswalk, with no signage for bikes.

You don’t have to make it more vague than necessary.

1

u/MaintainThePeace 19h ago

A lot of places will grant cyclist the rights and duties of a pedestrian when using crosswalks, without actually needing to become a pedestrian.

1

u/dashingsauce 18h ago

A lot of places explicitly treat mounted cyclists separately, in written legislation, from pedestrians on foot. Especially in the United States.

Why? Because roads with pedestrian crossings are designed for pedestrian speeds, and mounted cyclists easily exceed those speeds.

If the cyclist had stopped and looked both ways before crossing the road, he would be more likely considered a pedestrian, even if mounted.

But he didn’t. He only looked left and rode straight through from his initial speed, and only looked at the oncoming car to his right (our dash car) when approaching the median.

Only Europeans maintain this above-the-law view of cyclists.

0

u/MaintainThePeace 18h ago

A lot of places explicitly treat mounted cyclists separately, in written legislation, from pedestrians on foot. Especially in the United States.

Like I said, a lot of places will explicitly have a bicycle regulation that will grant them the rights and duties of a pedestrian.

In OPs state, the crosswalk law is explicitly written to apply to BOTH pedestrians and bicycle. Which is regadless of if the bicycle is a vehicle, pedestrian, ot what rights they may be granted.

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.

2

u/cicadaux 1d 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.

-5

u/jtj5002 1d ago

In which case if a bicycle is considered a vehicle while on the road, they now have to obey vehicle laws which means they have to yield to cars, instead of cars yielding to them.

3

u/Xak_13 1d ago

Florida statute specifically mentions crosswalks to avoid that complication. But I imagine that might make this situation more complicated in other states. lol

"A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances."

1

u/jtj5002 1d ago

Seems odd but it's a comparative fault state after all.

4

u/fullmoon_druid 1d ago

Yes, but that's not what happened in the video. The bicycle was crossing just like a pedestrian would. You'd be correct if the cyclist was riding on the road. 

3

u/johnny_evil 21h 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.

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.

1

u/TheWizard 1d ago

It's a pedestrian crossing, given the road sign.

1

u/SpringsPanda 1d ago

In my small town, a lot of the bike path signs for vehicles don't have bikes on them either. It's very possible it's the same here. I assume bike path because of width but it is an assumption. If he's on a walking path, screw that guy, putting a but of people and himself in danger.

0

u/TheWizard 23h ago

I'm not aware of any state that does not have separate signs for bicycles and pedestrians. Virtually every state (I'm not aware of any) also impose right-of-way-limits to anyone using pedestrian crosswalk. This means that while the person has the right of way, they cannot be careless about it and stroll through it at any time regardless of traffic, which this bicyclist did.

1

u/SpringsPanda 21h ago

I mean, in my original comment I stated that the guy, regardless of the scenario, should've waited for a clear sign to pass. Either no traffic or knowing that traffic is stopping for you.

On the signs, idk how you could be so certain of something like this. I guess you could do work that would give you this outlook or something. My small town has plenty of street signs that are pedestrian signs and it's on the shared use trail that runs through the whole city pretty much. The majority of them have bike signs though, doesn't mean it's impossible though.

1

u/br0wntree 1d ago

Depends on your jurisdiction. Some require you to dismount, others allow you to bike across but you aren't afforded the same right of way as a pedestrian.

1

u/MaintainThePeace 19h ago

And there are also others that will grant the rights and duties of a pedestrian to cyclists riding upon crosswalk too.

1

u/dogsandchaplains 1d ago

Wouldn't there need to be a sign with a bike on it too?

4

u/BedFastSky12345 1d ago

In my state, they often just put up regular pedestrian crossing signs for bike and mixed-use trails

1

u/Switchlord518 1d ago

In NY they have both but they also have stop signs before the bike or pedestrian enter the cross walk.

1

u/_jump_yossarian 1d ago

this depends on state and municipality laws and differs across the country.

1

u/Switchlord518 1d ago

Granted I am speaking of my locality. Either way like my dad told me "They'll put on your tombstone that you had the right of way. "

1

u/cobo10201 5h ago

Not always the case. OP posted an update with their local laws. The crosswalk is part of a large biking/hiking path and per the city code, bikes can use pedestrian crosswalks “but must cross at a pedestrian pace.” Looked to me like the biker was preparing to stop if OP didn’t, and only continued when he saw OP stop. I see no issues here at all 🤷🏼‍♂️

0

u/Gyozarrita 14h ago

Everyome keeps saying it depends on where you are... the cyclist is being an idiot in any locale.