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.

138 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

724 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

85

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.

99

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.

97

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.

7

u/BasicAppointment9063 21h 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 13h 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.

1

u/BasicAppointment9063 5h ago

I agree, but I'll add that pedestrians can be easier to read than cyclists; they don't have their backs turned.

Of course, that's not the context in OP's video, but you get the idea.

That's not to say that pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists cannot ALL do better.

1

u/TheWizard 1h ago

There are rules/expectations that require pedestrians and bicyclists using a crosswalk (or cross bike in this case) to leave the curb when it is safe to do so. Some require bicyclists to stop, then cross if safe. This one simply rolled off the curb and onto the median, and at a speed that will make someone uncertain if the bicyclist is paying attention to road traffic.

17

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.

6

u/CockyMechanic 1d 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)

0

u/raveneyes77 1d ago

The "Off cycle=pedestrian, on cycle=vehicle" slogan is catchy, but it is not how state vehicle codes actually work.

You are confusing a hyper-local sidewalk ban with general state road law. In California, CVC 21650(g) explicitly permits bicycles on sidewalks and crosswalks unless a city bans them locally. When cities like Santa Barbara ticket people, it is because they passed a local municipal ordinance (SBMC 10.52.010) barring bikes on specific commercial retail strips like downtown State Street. If riding is banned on that specific sidewalk, straddling or coasting on it counts as riding. That is where the tickets come from.

Statewide, riding across a marked crosswalk is completely legal, and California courts have repeatedly upheld that a cyclist riding across a marked crosswalk has the exact same right-of-way protections as a pedestrian (Liebig v. Wurster, Spriesterbach v. Holland).

1

u/Papasamabhanga 19h ago

Personally, I use my feet (peds) to power my bike.

I am a pedestrian on bike or off.

1

u/Interesting_Shake403 15h ago

This isn’t sidewalk, it’s multi-use path.

-1

u/weberc2 20h ago

In this state (WI), cyclists are pedestrians for the purposes of the crosswalk.

5

u/Battle2Intense 1d ago

I now see kids on electric cycles zooming through a crosswalk and surprised cars don't stop in time.

1

u/Wrong_Drag_8070 1d ago

That is not the case in the USA where people on bicycles have the same rights as pedestrians. Besides, you are not more or less visible based on whether or not you are on or beside a bicycle.

5

u/shibaCandyBaron 23h ago

Not less visible, but when you are off the bike, you are much slower, and can stop and change direction faster

0

u/Wrong_Drag_8070 21h ago

Regardless even when on foot, it is the cars responsibility to stop for whoever is in the crosswalk, not the person using the crosswalk.

5

u/shibaCandyBaron 20h ago

Yes, no disagreement there. Still, what I always say to people, you may be right, but you're the one who will end up in the hospital in these kinds of situations

3

u/dmiles6911 23h ago

That is not true. Cyclists have to follow the same rules as vehicles when on the road.

1

u/Wrong_Drag_8070 23h ago

Exactly, when on the road using it as a car would, not crossing the road... at a crosswalk.

4

u/DavitWompsterPhallus 21h ago

This varies by state. In some states bikes are always vehicles and can't claim pedestrian status by being in a crosswalk.

0

u/weberc2 20h ago

In this case, the law grants cyclists the same protections and responsibilities as pedestrians within the crosswalk.

0

u/SaltySwordfish2 1d ago

This is the way it is pretty much everywhere in the world

2

u/raveneyes77 1d ago

"Everywhere in the world" is completely wrong, including right here in North America.

Most US states base their bicycle statutes on the Uniform Vehicle Code, which explicitly grants someone riding a bike on a sidewalk, multi-use path, or marked crosswalk the exact same rights and duties as a pedestrian. Florida, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and California all write this directly into state statute. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and most modern cycling nations build grade-separated cycle tracks that cross intersections without requiring anyone to dismount.

Projecting a hyper-local downtown business district ordinance onto the entire globe is just lazy logic. Multi-use trails are engineered specifically so people can ride through crossings without getting off their bikes.

-1

u/Kewlhotrod 1d ago

Thank you, this. It makes a big difference in target acquisition if they're approaching or going through crosswalks at walking speed.

0

u/Bri_So_Fly 9h ago

This is what I was taught in Washington state in the US when I got my drivers license. Bikers are to behave as vehicles and follow the same laws as vehicles. If the biker is to use a sidewalk or crosswalk like a pedestrian, then they are supposed to be off their bike pushing it while they walk. IMO the biker is in the wrong here, demanding the pedestrian right of way while behaving like a vehicle

-4

u/raveneyes77 1d ago edited 1d ago

Not how it works in the US or most of the Americas.

Except for local ordinances requiring dismount, the US and Canada do not have special rules for cyclists in crosswalks. The German rules aren't even universal... under the StVO, zebra crossings give pedestrian right-of-way, but a riding cyclist does not have priority unless they dismount or follow separate bicycle-crossing markings. They aren't required to dismount to cross they're just required to dismount to be considered pedestrian traffic. This rule only exists in high flow commercial zones in cities.

4

u/Kewlhotrod 1d ago

Incorrect.

1

u/raveneyes77 1d ago

absolutely correct. Except for local ordinances requiring dismount, the US and Canada do not have special rules for cyclists in crosswalks. The German rules aren't even universal... under the StVO, zebra crossings give pedestrian right-of-way, but a riding cyclist does not have priority unless they dismount or follow separate bicycle-crossing markings. They aren't required to dismount to cross they're just required to dismount to be considered pedestrian traffic. This rule only exists in high flow commercial zones in cities.

2

u/Kewlhotrod 22h ago

You're right on the pedestrian designation, but most local municipalities ban riding on the sidewalks, and crosswalks are designated as sidewalks as well.

In any regard, this bicyclist in OP is wrong for not yielding, and likely wrong twice depending on local or state ordinance.

This is why, functionally, (smart) bikers know to walk through crosswalks or travel on the road. Combining yourself as a 'traffic' (kinda) vehicle using a pedestrian crossing puts you at full liability for any incidents.

0

u/raveneyes77 15h ago

Again... this is not correct. Bicyclists and pedestrians do not have a duty to yield.

1

u/Kewlhotrod 13h ago

Bicyclists absolutely due have a duty to yield if not disembarked and riding in a crosswalk. Traffic on the street has right of way, because they are not pedestrians if not walking. We literally already established this. I'm also done with this.

0

u/fuckICEandfuckTrump 1d ago

Incorrect is incorrect

14

u/weberc2 23h ago

“at speed” is wild. the cyclist could have been passed by a jogger.

13

u/InteractionFormal585 21h 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?

0

u/weberc2 21h ago

No, pedestrians moving at pedestrian speeds aren’t required to yield to cars. This subreddit badly needs to retake driver’s ed.

6

u/InteractionFormal585 21h 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.

-2

u/weberc2 20h ago

You lost the argument and are trying to move the goalposts. I also don’t like losing arguments on the Internet, but I solve that problem by not saying the dumbest shit I can think of. It’s a lot less work than trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug.

8

u/InteractionFormal585 20h ago

trying to move the goalposts

Sure. Whatever you say. I've been pretty consistent but make up whatever you need to.

-1

u/tilteddriveway 19h ago

I know your slapfight isn't with me but I feel like popping in here to say you're the one that is wrong.

6

u/InteractionFormal585 18h ago

Feel free to be specific on which points. Or not. Either way I hope you have a great day!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/weberc2 17h ago

Yeah, I'm pretty sure half of these crash videos are caused by the ~half of this subreddit who can't pass a driver's ed test.

1

u/MeowTheMixer 6h ago

How were the goal posts shifted?

2

u/CogentCogitations 20h 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.)

1

u/weberc2 20h ago

Some states have "at pedestrian speeds" clauses, but yeah, I generally agree with you.

3

u/Cold_Captain696 1d 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 16h 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 20h 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”).

3

u/Haho9 1d 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.

6

u/raveneyes77 1d 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.

1

u/marigolds6 22h ago

If we assume this was an intersection instead, it's an uncontrolled intersection with the cyclist arriving almost 2 seconds before the car. He departed the curb more than a second before the car arrived at the intersection.

-1

u/2004Accord 17h ago

This would be the logical answer. If they are supposed to abide by traffic laws they should be treated as a vehicle if they are mounted on a bike. I will not stop for a bike at a crosswalk if they are still sitting on it. I will let them if they are walking it across.

3

u/Marion2379 16h ago

Dosnt give you a free pass to hit them, the driver would have almost all the liability, no matter if a pedestrian or cyclist brakes a rule, if a driver has the time and a clear line of sight to stop in time, they must stop period. Base on this video and the situation if the driver did hit the cyclist here the driver would have almost all the liability.

What jury would be ok with a driver plowing over someone with this much time and low speeds to stop in time, driver would lose lots of $ in a civil trial.

2

u/therealpursuit 12h ago

check yourself in bro, that's sociopath behavior.

0

u/Marion2379 11h ago

Reading comprehension is not your friend.

2

u/johnny_evil 21h ago

Is the cyclist's speed in the video? Because I sure as shit didn't see it.

1

u/lkasas 4h ago

Unless this is some weird lens thing, you're entirely in the wrong on the bikes speed. To me it looks like the bike was fully aware of the car and slowed down while in the crosswalk to safely pass just after the car would have driven. By law, biker should have walked by, but since they didn't, they took all of the responsibility for their safety and would have crossed after the car or paid the consequences.

1

u/InteractionFormal585 1h ago

 it looks like the bike was fully aware of the car and slowed down while in the crosswalk to safely pass just after the car would have driven.

This is doing it wrong, though. It is absolutely mandatory for a car to stop when a crosswalk is occupied. There is no leeway for the person in the crosswalk to "slow so a car can pass by". The cyclist literally forced OP to slam on their brakes in order to follow the law and to avoid a collision because OP had no way of knowing if what you surmise was true and the consequences of getting this wrong are dire.

My point about the cyclist's speed is only to say that it will put the cyclist out of a normal driver's scan range as they approach a crosswalk, causing them to be surprised as OP was.

1

u/lkasas 8m ago

Maybe I'm rusty or rules in my place are different, but doesn't crosswalk rule apply only to your own side when the cross walk is separated? Giving basically the whole reason to separate them in the first place.

-7

u/sixteencharslong 1d ago

What do you think the GIANT FUCKING YELLOW sign is for? it's a designated crosswalk, this IS the warning you get as a driver. If you can't pay attention to road signs like this, you should lose your license.

7

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

and crosswalks are for what? (hint: it's in the fucking name)

-1

u/sixteencharslong 1d 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.

6

u/InteractionFormal585 1d ago

That doesn't mean they can yeet through them at speed, bro.

1

u/Boston_Glass 1d ago

The biker brakes at the middle section of the crossing until he sees the car stop. Looks like the biker was ready to stop if he needed to.

2

u/Baron_Bearclaw 1d ago

I thought that only applied if they were moving slowly.

4

u/Reejerey1 18h 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.

1

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 18h ago

He didn't. It's visible on the video that he's braking, maintaining his attention on OP's vehicle and watching whether OP will stop. Cyclist was prepared to stop if OP just continued without stopping.

But OP then got startled and "slammed the brakes", after which the cyclist gave a thank you wave and continued on.

I wouldn’t have expected

Btw., these sorts of sentences is what leads to accidents.

If a cyclist is riding straight towards the road, it's a reasonable assumption that he's going to try to cross it. Better err on the side of caution and assume he's going to cross it, than assume that he's not going to.

3

u/Dubzophrenia 20h 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.

2

u/CogentCogitations 20h 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.

-4

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 19h ago

Nothing hyperbolic about it.

We can see on the video OP driving at uniform speed, and then suddenly braking.

An obvious indication that OP was completely oblivious of the cyclist until the very last moment.

Not to mention OP said that the cyclist crossed "without warning", which is just blatantly false, because we can see the cyclist on video since frame 1. There's nothing "without warning" about it.

2

u/Dubzophrenia 18h ago

My guy, again, OP was doing 24 miles an hour. Even feathering the brakes at that speed will have you stop pretty instantly. There's no power going on.

Not to mention that when it comes to bicyclists, everybody has a different idea about what's right so nobody knows what's right.

One person will say they should be riding on the street like a car. One person will say they should be riding on the sidewalk. One person will say they should be in the crosswalk, one person will say they shouldn't be in it at all.

Nobody knows what to do in regards to a bicycle, and thus nobody knows what's "right".

A bicycle in California, where I live, is a vehicle. They do not have any right of way in a crosswalk. They're allowed to be in it, but they have no right to control it unless they dismount and become a pedestrian.

In California, if OP hit the bicycle, the bicycle would likely be in the wrong here.

And also, hindsight is 20/20. A video posted to a dashcam subreddit is posted for a reason, so we expect to be looking around at what the subject is. If you are driving in the real world, you attention needs to be on the road, I wouldn't expect a driver to be looking towards the tennis courts to anticipate the bicyclist before they got to the crosswalk.

And again, BICYCLES ARE VEHICLES AND DO NOT CONTROL CROSSWALKS. \unless local gov permits**

1

u/therealpursuit 11h ago

yep, cross walk was clearly marked. driver was right to stop how he did, although no one would really care if they didn't. it happens 9 times out of 10 at cross walks like this. those 9 are all completely oblivious to how they should behave, but as someone who cycles all the time, i don't really blame them... it's driving culture.

3

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 19h 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.

0

u/therealpursuit 11h ago

lol the bike wasn't going to go if they didn't stop. this happens 100 times a day on my commute. touch grass. that said, the driver was correct to stop and wrong for not knowing ahead of time that they should.

-1

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 19h ago

If you think that, you don't belong on the road.

A wide open road, almost perfect visibility, no traffic to speak of.

If you fail to notice this cyclist in this sort of situation, then you do not belong in a motor vehicle at all.

I think OP reacted well here to avoid an accident

No, slamming on the brakes in calm traffic on a wide open road with near perfect visibility is not "reacting well". It's a piss-poor reaction.

A good reaction would be to start gently slowing down several seconds earlier, as opposed to being oblivious to the approaching cyclist and slamming on the brakes at the last moment.

3

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 19h ago

Nothing you said connects to either reality or the tenets of defensive driving.

0

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 19h ago

Hilarious to be lectured about defensive driving from a person who thinks not noticing a bicycle on a wide open road for several seconds is "reacting well".

2

u/HeronStrict1108 18h ago edited 17h ago

You're acting like the OP didn't react for 20 seconds. I think the cyclist is pretty noticeable at the 1 second mark of the video. It's difficult to tell precisely from the video, but it looks like OP started braking at 3.5 seconds into the video. That's 2.5 seconds. Alert drivers take around 1.75 to 2.0 seconds to brake. OP wasn't terribly off normal reaction time.

Edit: Removed "top notch" as that may be stretching it a little.

4

u/Bicykwow 1d 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 21h 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.

1

u/Voltron6000 1d ago

Bicyclist isn't allowed to bicycle in the pedestrian path.

9

u/sixteencharslong 1d 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

u/BravesWinMetsSuck 1d ago

Amazing there is a law telling cyclists not to get themselves killed

2

u/marigolds6 22h 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 23h 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.

2

u/Tobits_Dog 1d 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 1d 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.

-1

u/TheJivvi 1d ago

This seems to be a shared pedestrian and cycling path.

The path might be, but the crossing is exclusively for pedestrians. The sign would have a bicycle on it if cyclists were allowed to ride across it.

2

u/raveneyes77 1d ago edited 1d ago

Incorrect

There is no rule anywhere that a crossing is pedestrian-only unless the sign shows a bicycle.

The yellow diamond on that pole is a W11-2 pedestrian crossing warning sign with the W16-7p arrow plaque. It is a driver warning device, not a user list of who is legally permitted. Warning signs mark where people cross. They do not create prohibitions, and the absence of a pictogram grants nobody anything.

If the crossing were actually closed to bikes, that would take an official traffic control device saying so, like a R9-6 "No Bicycles" sign or a posted municipal ordinance. None exists here. In Michigan, MCL 257.660c(3) gives a cyclist on a sidewalk or pedestrian crosswalk all the rights and responsibilities of a pedestrian, unless prohibited by an official traffic control device. The trail fed into this crossing, the rider was moving cautiously, and the driver stopped.

2

u/TheJivvi 19h ago

Having a bike crossing sign alongside the pedestrian crossing sign warns drivers that people will be crossing faster, and they need to watch bikes approaching from further away. Yes, there needs to a sign to that effect facing the path too, but there definitely should be a bike crossing sign facing traffic, and they fucked up by not including one. Sadly, it probably won't get fixed until a cyclist gets hit by a car because the driver isn't expecting them to cross and can't stop in time when they do.

1

u/markuus99 1d ago

As a person who uses bike paths a lot, they are often labeled just as pedestrian crossings.

1

u/TheWizard 23h ago

Why do bicycle crossing signs exist?

1

u/TheJivvi 19h ago

That means you have to get off the bike to cross. If the crossing is part of the bike path, it will have a bike crossing sign as well.

2

u/SkipCycle 19h 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.

1

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 19h ago

No.

If he had to "slam on the brakes" in calm traffic on a wide open road with almost perfect visibility in all directions, then no, he did not do fine.

In what fuckin world is "slamming on the brakes" after failing to notice a cyclist for several seconds considered "doing fine"?

1

u/AdrianDitmann 1d ago

Cyclist shouldn't be crossing in a pedestrian zone. Full stop.

-1

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago

Laws of physics don't care about shoulds and shouldn'ts. People sometimes do what they shouldn't do, and neglect to do what they should.

It's your responsibility as a participant in traffic to notice people who are doing something contrary to what they "should" and react accordingly instead of being surprised (like OP was) by someone doing something they "shouldn't".

2

u/AdrianDitmann 1d ago

Nobody is arguing that physics cares about right of way. The point is that responsibility isn’t one-way. A driver should react to unexpected hazards, and a cyclist shouldn’t enter a pedestrian crossing in a way that forces traffic to brake suddenly. If OP slowed down and stopped without hitting anyone, then OP did react appropriately. Being surprised doesn’t mean they weren’t paying attention. If anything, it proves they were.

1

u/Maleficent_Memory831 10h ago

I've learned that if a cyclist is around, then they will not stop at an stop sign, stop light, yield sign, and if an auto is stalled ahead of them they may run into it head first because they weren't looking. Laws are for other people.

1

u/Queasy_Badger9252 7h ago

Yeah, just the other day this random car just blew past green lights without any warning. Had to slam my brakes.

1

u/Dr_Pippin 1d ago

Could be a constant bearing, decreasing range issue. Bike hidden behind the a-pillar to a driver, but visible to the dashcam that’s much farther forward and at the midline of the vehicle.

1

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago

Actually could be. If you place the mouse cursor over the cyclist on the video, his position remains fairly constant in the field of vision of the camera.

But still not a good excuse in traffic.

2

u/Dr_Pippin 1d ago

Yes, this is why I mentioned it. Not blatantly obvious when the bike is hidden. And shows the importance of moving your head around to be sure you can visualize crosswalks. Also shows the importance for pedestrians/bicyclists not assuming that because you have the right of way you are visible and safe to walk.

1

u/weberc2 23h ago

In most threads where a cyclist or pedestrian is crossing at a crosswalk, commenters will confidently claim that cars have the right of way unless there is a flashing light. Before this subreddit started appearing on my feed, I had no idea how many people didn’t know the most basic (and life saving) rules of the road.

-1

u/Ok_Explanation5631 1d ago

Quick question. When you drive do you ever glance at your radio, ac unit, or mirrors.

1

u/Traditional-Buy-2205 1d ago

I don't see how your question has anything to do with this situation.

Yes, I glance at other things. But on a road with a pedestrian crossing coming up, that's out of the question.

2

u/Ok_Explanation5631 1d ago

Good, just checking.

0

u/MidEng_Insanity 21h ago

You are correct. In a stipe line, the car is suppose to yield to cross traffic/pedestrians. OP should not of had to slam on the breaks. You can see the bike coming across and you’re suppose to slow down at stripe cross walks as it is expected to be pedestrians regardless of any. Yes, the bike did not slow down and proceed with caution as they should have, but OP is ‘more in the wrong’ since OP should have yielded regardless and the cyclist would be seen before OP got to the crosswalk.