Cyclist hit by car - Need Advice

[mgwatson]

Hey all,

So, yesterday morning at approx 7:45am, I was hit by a car while riding my bike to work. I'll start with the details of the accident... I was travelling westbound on the bike path that parallels 130th Ave SE and came up to the intersection of 130th Ave and Mount McKenzie Dr (right by the 7-11 for those familiar with the area). When I came up to the intersection, my light was green and the light on Mount McKenzie Dr was red. I proceeded to ride into the crosswalk when I was hit by a car travelling Northbound on Mount McKenzie Dr who was wanting to turn right onto eastbound 130th Ave. We both didn't see each other until it was too late as there was a large fence blocking our line of sight of each other until I was in the crosswalk. So, I proceeded into the crosswalk while riding my bike (I know, that's against the law apparently, I should be technically dismounting and walking across the road, but bear with me) at which point I was t-boned by the motorist and it knocked me off my bike. The results are that I now have a bone contusion and a damaged bike. Her car is fine.

Now, where this gets interesting is that when the policed arrived, they talked to me and the woman (who was in hysterics from hitting a person) and ended up giving just me a traffic violation ticket for failing to obey a traffic device (I.e., I should have got off my bike and walked it across the road). The driver did not receive a ticket for running a red light (the law states that you need to come to a complete stop behind a crosswalk at a red light before making a right hand turn).

So... Here I am now, battered and bruised with a wrecked bike and completely at fault... I think it's ridiculous that this city is pitching bike lanes and riding bikes so aggressively, but when it comes to protecting cyclists, this is how it was handled... I am thinking of calling the constable tomorrow and asking why I was the only person issued a ticket in this accident, because it is making it very difficult to get compensated (either out of her pocket or through her insurance) for the damage done to my bike.

Any ideas guys??? Sorry for the long winded post!

[Wakalimasu]

Either drive on the road like a motor vehicle or walk your bike across the intersection like a pedestrian. Sorry, but no sympathy. Even if the driver came to a complete stop you can't reasonably expect her to have the reaction time to stop again if you are travelling 10-15km/h right through the intersection?

I just did a quick google and the path ends at the intersection so the correct action should of been to be driving on the road in the first place or dismount and walk across the intersection.

[finboy]

You broke the law, it sucks that you got hurt but you need to understand that you are operating on the same field as multi-thousand pound metal tanks operated by mouth breathing soccer mombies. At bare minimum know the rules as they apply to you, but always ride more defensively. Wrong or right, you are the one who will lose in this situation every time.

Per her getting charged, hard to prove the light was red for her, easy to prove you were riding a bike through a cross walk. Don't expect to get any monetary compensation for this, and be glad she isn't suing you for damages to her vehicle. Possibly bike insurance might be worth looking into down the road?

[Star1995]

Also, riding into a blind corner/spot that is behind a fence is not the smartest thing to do. You say you were on the way to work so to me it implies that you are familiar with the area thus you know or should have known about this blind spot. Not sure what that does from a legal standpoint but from a common sense point it doesn't make sense that you would ride through without extra care taken.

I do find it interesting that you post a cycling accident on a car forum looking for advice,

[FraserB]

Why would the cop retract the ticket? Out of kindness to help a nonsense claim against this woman's insurance?

If you hadn't broken the law, you would not be in this spot now.

[ryder_23]

Originally posted by mgwatson

So... Here I am now, battered and bruised with a wrecked bike and completely at fault... I think it's ridiculous that this city is pitching bike lanes and riding bikes so aggressively, but when it comes to protecting cyclists, this is how it was handled... I am thinking of calling the constable tomorrow and asking why I was the only person issued a ticket in this accident, because it is making it very difficult to get compensated (either out of her pocket or through her insurance) for the damage done to my bike.



Protect people not following the rules of the road? I've seen plenty of cyclists think they can do whatever they want. Crosswalks, run reds, turn without signalling, list goes on. If you want us to share the road, start by following the rules. If I took my motorcycle thru a crosswalk, got hit and not expect to get a ticket, why should cyclists be exempt. No different than lane splitting (def don't know rule if cyclists are exempt from this law but I assume not)

Sure, give her a ticket. Both at fault. I call it a wash. If you followed the rules, you would of been able to possibly avoid being injured, have a damage bike and she would of gotten a fail to yield to a pedestrian ticket, which would get you a shiny new bike. Instead you're now out 4-6weeks with hurt feelings and a bone bruise.

[Type_S1]

Wow. This post contains every reason why I can't stand bicycle riders (no you are not a cyclist, Lance Armstrong was a cyclist, you are a bicycle rider). You broke the law. This is a law commonly known among 8 year olds when they learn to ride their bikes. If an 8 year old knows to get off his bike and walk it at an intersection so should you. Instead you feel entitled to live above the law because.....why?

If anything I hope the woman sues you for damages to her vehicle (I'm sure there's a few scratches and dings caused by the bike) and mental hardship from hitting a person. Bicycle riders need to be taught to obey the rules of the road and quit with the entitled attitude that every car needs to bend overy back words to accommodate them.

[suntan]

Just tweet Nenshi, he'll get rid of the ticket for you.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by mgwatson
Hey all,

So, yesterday morning at approx 7:45am, I was hit by a car while riding my bike to work. I'll start with the details of the accident... I was travelling westbound on the bike path that parallels 130th Ave SE and came up to the intersection of 130th Ave and Mount McKenzie Dr (right by the 7-11 for those familiar with the area). When I came up to the intersection, my light was green and the light on Mount McKenzie Dr was red. I proceeded to ride into the crosswalk when I was hit by a car travelling Northbound on Mount McKenzie Dr who was wanting to turn right onto eastbound 130th Ave. We both didn't see each other until it was too late as there was a large fence blocking our line of sight of each other until I was in the crosswalk. So, I proceeded into the crosswalk while riding my bike (I know, that's against the law apparently, I should be technically dismounting and walking across the road, but bear with me) at which point I was t-boned by the motorist and it knocked me off my bike. The results are that I now have a bone contusion and a damaged bike. Her car is fine.

Now, where this gets interesting is that when the policed arrived, they talked to me and the woman (who was in hysterics from hitting a person) and ended up giving just me a traffic violation ticket for failing to obey a traffic device (I.e., I should have got off my bike and walked it across the road). The driver did not receive a ticket for running a red light (the law states that you need to come to a complete stop behind a crosswalk at a red light before making a right hand turn).

So... Here I am now, battered and bruised with a wrecked bike and completely at fault... I think it's ridiculous that this city is pitching bike lanes and riding bikes so aggressively, but when it comes to protecting cyclists, this is how it was handled... I am thinking of calling the constable tomorrow and asking why I was the only person issued a ticket in this accident, because it is making it very difficult to get compensated (either out of her pocket or through her insurance) for the damage done to my bike.

Any ideas guys??? Sorry for the long winded post!

Just because cops issue a ticket doesn't mean the insurance will follow that recommendation. Insurance companies have their own set of common law cases they follow to determine fault.


This applies to motor vehicles and I'm not sure how the rules work for cyclists, so maybe call your own insurance and ask.

[01RedDX]

.

[rage2]

Originally posted by mgwatson
The driver did not receive a ticket for running a red light (the law states that you need to come to a complete stop behind a crosswalk at a red light before making a right hand turn).
How would you know she didn't stop for the red before turning? That fence that blocked both of you from seeing each other would have prevented you from seeing if she made a complete stop before turning right.

There's a reason why the law states that cyclists have to dismount before crossing, it's to prevent incidents like this because even an F1 driver wouldn't have the reaction time to stop for a cyclist riding out of a complete blind spot.

[A790]

I own a townhouse in that complex across from the 7-11 (and beside that light). I've seen a few people get smacked there. It sucks it happens to you, OP.

In terms of getting compensated, you were in the wrong. Period. It sucks to hear, and I'm sure it doesn't feel that way, but the law is the law and was well established before you hopped on the bike.

Hope you're having a better day today!

[benyl]

I love how beyond always complains to what suits them.

When a cyclist dismounts and walks you get: Fuuuug, he is walking so slow fucking up traffic.
When a cyclist rides across you get: Fuuuuug, YOU BROKE THE LAW!

[bjstare]

Originally posted by Type_S1
Wow. This post contains every reason why I can't stand bicycle riders (no you are not a cyclist, Lance Armstrong was a cyclist, you are a bicycle rider). You broke the law. This is a law commonly known among 8 year olds when they learn to ride their bikes. If an 8 year old knows to get off his bike and walk it at an intersection so should you. Instead you feel entitled to live above the law because.....why?

If anything I hope the woman sues you for damages to her vehicle (I'm sure there's a few scratches and dings caused by the bike) and mental hardship from hitting a person. Bicycle riders need to be taught to obey the rules of the road and quit with the entitled attitude that every car needs to bend overy back words to accommodate them.

:werd: So many people on bicycles are entitled dickholes, and OP is a perfect example of that. Great job CPS.


Originally posted by benyl
I love how beyond always complains to what suits them.

When a cyclist dismounts and walks you get: Fuuuug, he is walking so slow fucking up traffic.
When a cyclist rides across you get: Fuuuuug, YOU BROKE THE LAW!

FWIW, I never complain when a cyclist dismounts. I have to wait a whole extra 10s, but they're staying safer for it (as shown by the story above), and obeying the law (which many don't). :dunno:

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Can't say I've ever complained about a slow pedestrian. Just ones that walk late/jaywalk.

[Feruk]

I wish more bikers read this thread... I saw another douche biker almost get smoked riding across a crosswalk this morning. Seriously, cars don't look for you there.

[Thaco]

I unfortunately have to agree with the majority on this, you were partially at fault and deserved the ticket.

HOWEVER, the fact that the driver of the car did not receive a ticket, is simply CPS and their sexist ways... i swear every single encounter i hear of with them, the response is sexist and always favors females. I'm sure its not every officer, but it does seem like its becoming more and more common.

[SOAB]

I live right by that intersection so I know exactly which spot you're talking about.

sounds to me like you approached the intersection while your light was green and just proceeded through and got hit. if you had stopped, then proceeded through, you would've been fine. if you want to ride straight through a green light like a car, you should be on the correct side of the road, on the road and not the sidewalk.

you can't have the laws both ways. either you're a pedestrian or you're a motorist. the cop was right to give you a ticket.

[cyra1ax]

I had one absolutely fly out of the SMART parking lot right in front of me yesterday without even looking for traffic. Then proceeded to pedal at a very leisurely pace, and then change lanes without looking or indicating. On top of all that, she had the helmet not on her head, but around her wrist.

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Originally posted by Thaco
I unfortunately have to agree with the majority on this, you were partially at fault and deserved the ticket.

HOWEVER, the fact that the driver of the car did not receive a ticket, is simply CPS and their sexist ways... i swear every single encounter i hear of with them, the response is sexist and always favors females. I'm sure its not every officer, but it does seem like its becoming more and more common.

Wait, what?

[SOAB]

Originally posted by benyl
I love how beyond always complains to what suits them.

When a cyclist dismounts and walks you get: Fuuuug, he is walking so slow fucking up traffic.
When a cyclist rides across you get: Fuuuuug, YOU BROKE THE LAW!

I think the dismount and walk thing is stupid. why would a cyclist walk their bike when they can ride it and be through that much quicker? but for fuck sake, at least stop before proceeding through.

this is what I'm teaching my kids an intersection, stop and wait for traffic to acknowledge you. get on your bike and get across the street as fast as possible. no point in walking and no point in making people wait longer than necessary.

[nzwasp]

I wonder if there are any cases of cyclists being killed in calgary from riding across the crosswalk.

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

I think the whole dismount thing has more to do with the mentality of being a pedestrian.

Also, there's a bylaw about not riding on sidewalks in Calgary if you're over the age of 14. Pathways are fine, sidewalks are not.

http://www.bikecalgary.org/safety
http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Traffic/Bicycle-safety.aspx


Are cyclists bound by the rules of the road?
Yes, cyclists are bound by the rules of the road. This includes a bylaw that only allows children under 14 years old to ride bikes on the sidewalk.

[lilmira]

Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf


Wait, what?

gender neutral ticket

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Thaco
I unfortunately have to agree with the majority on this, you were partially at fault and deserved the ticket.

HOWEVER, the fact that the driver of the car did not receive a ticket, is simply CPS and their sexist ways... i swear every single encounter i hear of with them, the response is sexist and always favors females. I'm sure its not every officer, but it does seem like its becoming more and more common.
Definitely homophobic, we know for sure the cycle was bi.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[speedog]

OP, I am truly sorry for your injury and damages but what you did is one of my biggest pet peeves about cyclists. I have been an avid cyclist in the past and still do cycle but if I were to use a crosswalk, I always got off of my bicycle and walked it across that crosswalk. I wouldn't start walking and then hop back on or ride it across with one foot on the bike - I walked. As a cyclist, it infuriates me when people stop at intersections to let me go even though they have the right of way and as a motorist, it drives me crazy to see motorists do this.

Learn from this mistake of yours and do the right thing next time and be thankful that you're alive and did not cause any further emotional trauma to the motorist who hit you.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by SOAB
sounds to me like you approached the intersection while your light was green and just proceeded through and got hit. if you had stopped, then proceeded through, you would've been fine. if you want to ride straight through a green light like a car, you should be on the correct side of the road, on the road and not the sidewalk.

/thread

[kertejud2]

A bike path with a pedestrian crossing connecting it and a large noise abatement fence to boot. Classic.

Yes it is unsafe and stupid design. You're right to be upset. You should take your story to your councilor saying how they can justify having bike connectivity that requires dismounts in the first place because of unsafe design.

But, you still managed to be in the wrong. Sucks, but that is the way the system is set up.



Originally posted by Type_S1
(no you are not a cyclist, Lance Armstrong was a cyclist, you are a bicycle rider)

Just like how you aren't a driver, Michael Schumacher was a driver, you're a vehicle operator?

[speedog]

Originally posted by Xtrema


/thread
Can't really be /thread because SOAB goes on in a later post to explain how he does things and is training his kids which is the exact opposite of what most beyond members in this thread are calling for.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by SOAB

sounds to me like you approached the intersection while your light was green and just proceeded through and got hit. if you had stopped, then proceeded through, you would've been fine. if you want to ride straight through a green light like a car, you should be on the correct side of the road, on the road and not the sidewalk.

He was on a "bike path", a path that expects him to become a pedestrian to cross safely. Imagine if a driver was expected to stop at a green light in order to cross safely, how long do you think such a system would be allowed to continue?


you can't have the laws both ways. either you're a pedestrian or you're a motorist. the cop was right to give you a ticket.

Or you can acknowledge that the system is flawed if it is trying to force cyclists to be either a pedestrian or a motorist, when they are clearly neither.

[sneek]

Originally posted by SOAB


I think the dismount and walk thing is stupid. why would a cyclist walk their bike when they can ride it and be through that much quicker? but for fuck sake, at least stop before proceeding through.


:rofl: Isn't this thread exactly the reason why you should dismount off your bike?

When I bike to work I am shocked that there aren't more accidents. So many cyclists run 4 way stops and their excuse is because they are clipped in. I think on the varsity bike path, I have seen less than 5 people come to a complete stop over the last 3 years! Getting off your bike might ruin your stava time, but this is Calgary where drivers are never paying attention.

[Sugarphreak]

....

[Mitsu3000gt]

Cyclists who use the road rules when convenient, and the pedestrian/sidewalk space and rules when convenient are a daily annoyance for me. They don't stop at stop signs, they ride through crosswalks, and the worst is when they don't feel like going to the other side of the road to use the bike lane so they ride on the sidewalk instead on the side of the road they prefer. It sucks you got injured, but if you're on your bike you aren't a pedestrian.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by sneek


:rofl: Isn't this thread exactly the reason why you should dismount off your bike?

When I bike to work I am shocked that there aren't more accidents. So many cyclists run 4 way stops and their excuse is because they are clipped in. I think on the varsity bike path, I have seen less than 5 people come to a complete stop over the last 3 years! Getting off your bike might ruin your stava time, but this is Calgary where drivers are never paying attention.

no, there is a difference between just plowing through an intersection at speed and stopping at a crosswalk and then continuing on through quickly.

if you don't stop before crossing, its your fault regardless of whether your on a bike or walking, imo.

[dirtsniffer]

really should have checked to see if anyone was coming. Driver could have easily stopped, was looking left to ensure oncoming traffic was clear and then proceeded.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by kertejud2


He was on a "bike path", a path that expects him to become a pedestrian to cross safely. Imagine if a driver was expected to stop at a green light in order to cross safely, how long do you think such a system would be allowed to continue?



you just made my argument for me.

as a pedestrian, do you just run across the street without looking for traffic? even at a crosswalk, you should always, always stop and make sure that there is no traffic.

so this "pathway" crosses a major intersection in a community. if you are crossing in a crosswalk, stop then continue when safe. if you want to ride through a green without stopping like a car would, get off the sidewalk and follow the rules of the road.

how hard is it to understand?

[dirtsniffer]

well technically the pathway ends there and becomes sidewalk. Guess there should be 5 or 6 signs there in both directions to remind people.

[austic]

Lucky you didn't damage her car, always wondered how insurance would work if you damage someone's car while biking

[jwslam]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
well technically the pathway ends there and becomes sidewalk. Guess there should be 5 or 6 signs there in both directions to remind people. According to what I see on streetview, the bike path is on the east side of Mount McKenzie Drive. West of it, there is nothing indicative of it being a bike path at all.
Link (https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.9318526,-113.9818423,3a,36.2y,240.59h,77.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJD7K1BgZSiadKZkBtQQM-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

[rage2]

Originally posted by benyl
I love how beyond always complains to what suits them.

When a cyclist dismounts and walks you get: Fuuuug, he is walking so slow fucking up traffic.
When a cyclist rides across you get: Fuuuuug, YOU BROKE THE LAW!

Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf
Can't say I've ever complained about a slow pedestrian. Just ones that walk late/jaywalk.
This. I don't think anyone has ever complained a cyclist is walking across a crosswalk with their bike being too slow. :rofl:


Originally posted by SOAB
I think the dismount and walk thing is stupid. why would a cyclist walk their bike when they can ride it and be through that much quicker? but for fuck sake, at least stop before proceeding through.
It's because we're allowed to turn on red. It takes much faster reaction time for a driver turning right on a red to avoid a bike/skateboard/rollerblader flying into an intersection than a slow walking pedestrian.

[lasimmon]

Be prepared for the insurance company to come after you if the lady gets her car fixed.

Happened to a friend of mine. Got hit by a car, broke his arm, police deemed him at fault. Got a ticket. Then months later a bill for like $4500 from the insurance company.

[rage2]

Originally posted by lasimmon
Be prepared for the insurance company to come after you if the lady gets her car fixed.

Happened to a friend of mine. Got hit by a car, broke his arm, police deemed him at fault. Got a ticket. Then months later a bill for like $4500 from the insurance company.
Would home insurance cover that?

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by rage2

Would home insurance cover that?

I'm not exactly sure.

Some of his buddies are lawyers and I think they are still fighting the insurance company.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by rage2

Would home insurance cover that?

Potentially, yes.

[FraserB]

People who stop or yield to mounted cyclists in crosswalks are just as bad, all they are doing is reinforcing that it is ok to break the law.

I'm required to know the laws to drive, it should apply to cyclists too.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by SOAB


you just made my argument for me.

as a pedestrian, do you just run across the street without looking for traffic? even at a crosswalk, you should always, always stop and make sure that there is no traffic.

If I have a green, why the fuck should I have to stop?


so this "pathway" crosses a major intersection in a community. if you are crossing in a crosswalk, stop then continue when safe. if you want to ride through a green without stopping like a car would, get off the sidewalk and follow the rules of the road.

how hard is it to understand?

Again, imagine if a car was expected to stop at a green light before proceeding through safely, would you allow a system like that to continue? It's classic victim blaming that the fault lies with the most vulnerable because the system isn't set up for them. Roads built for cars, not for people.

[rage2]

Originally posted by kertejud2
If I have a green, why the fuck should I have to stop?

Originally posted by rage2
It's because we're allowed to turn on red. It takes much faster reaction time for a driver turning right on a red to avoid a bike/skateboard/rollerblader flying into an intersection than a slow walking pedestrian.
Because you might die if you don't. Remember, these are sidewalks, not bike paths, where drivers are expecting pedestrians and not bikes flying through a blind spot with zero chance of stopping.


Originally posted by kertejud2
Again, imagine if a car was expected to stop at a green light before proceeding through safely, would you allow a system like that to continue? It's classic victim blaming that the fault lies with the most vulnerable because the system isn't set up for them. Roads built for cars, not for people.
Simple fact of the matter is, car > bike in a collision. Look at the bike paths downtown, they're designed with their own set of lights because it's difficult for drivers in some situations to spot a cyclist so they red light the cyclists to let cars through to ensure safety of cyclists.

In this case, the rules are in place to protect cyclists, skateboarders, anyone that's faster than the worst driver's reaction times. Roads are built for cars and bikes. Unfortunately, the OP wasn't on the road, but was on a sidewalk crossing designed for pedestrians.

If I was driving a smart car on the sidewalk there, I too would have to dismount and walk the smart car across the crosswalk and not simply blow through the green as you implied. :rofl:

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Originally posted by kertejud2


If I have a green, why the fuck should I have to stop?



Again, imagine if a car was expected to stop at a green light before proceeding through safely, would you allow a system like that to continue? It's classic victim blaming that the fault lies with the most vulnerable because the system isn't set up for them. Roads built for cars, not for people.

If you're driving a car, and you see a goddamn 18 wheeler barreling at the intersection about to run a red, you're goddamn right I'll stop at a green light.

Doesn't matter what the law says, Newton says you'll die.

[lilmira]

I wouldn't dart out into traffic even as a pedestrian if I can't see what's coming regardless of what the traffic control device says.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by kertejud2


If I have a green, why the fuck should I have to stop?



Again, imagine if a car was expected to stop at a green light before proceeding through safely, would you allow a system like that to continue? It's classic victim blaming that the fault lies with the most vulnerable because the system isn't set up for them. Roads built for cars, not for people.

because there are different rules for vehicles and pedestrians! how hard is that to understand?!?!?

do you walk across the street without stopping to look? if so, you're going to get hit eventually. even at a crosswalk, you only cross when its safe.

I bet you're probably one of those pedestrians that instantly cross the street when they get to a crosswalk and expects traffic to come to a stop instantly. right of way doesn't mean shit when you're dead.

[austic]

Originally posted by lilmira
I wouldn't dart out into traffic even as a pedestrian if I can't see what's coming regardless of what the traffic control device says.

This!
I wait to make sure cars are stopped/make eye contact and see me before crossing In front of them. Regardless if I am in a crosswalk or not cars win in a collsion. I would rather be alive than correct and dead....

[LadyLuck]

Originally posted by SOAB

I bet you're probably one of those pedestrians that instantly cross the street when they get to a crosswalk and expects traffic to come to a stop instantly. right of way doesn't mean shit when you're dead.

...with their head buried in their cell phone not paying any attention to their surroundings. Those people deserve a little love tap from vehicles.

[max_boost]

Originally posted by SOAB


I think the dismount and walk thing is stupid. why would a cyclist walk their bike when they can ride it and be through that much quicker? but for fuck sake, at least stop before proceeding through.

this is what I'm teaching my kids an intersection, stop and wait for traffic to acknowledge you. get on your bike and get across the street as fast as possible. no point in walking and no point in making people wait longer than necessary.

i don't understand the dismount thing either but i haven't ridden a bike since i got my drivers haha

[zipdoa]

Sounds like the concrete jungle taught you a lesson, you just haven't realized it yet. Riding through a crosswalk is a fucking NO-NO.

I learned that shit when I ditched the training wheels in '91.

That being said, you might get lucky with insurance and settle a claim.

[max_boost]

Go fund me page?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by rage2


Because you might die if you don't. Remember, these are sidewalks, not bike paths, where drivers are expecting pedestrians and not bikes flying through a blind spot with zero chance of stopping.


If there's a blind spot, why are cars allowed to turn right on a red at that particular intersection?


In this case, the rules are in place to protect cyclists, skateboarders, anyone that's faster than the worst driver's reaction times. Roads are built for cars and bikes. Unfortunately, the OP wasn't on the road, but was on a sidewalk crossing designed for pedestrians.

Roads are NOT built for bikes, they're just better for most cyclists to use. There is a massive difference.

The bike path the crosswalk feeds into is built for bikes (that want to share with pedestrians), you're just not allowed to ride your bike to it, apparently. Imagine building a road for cars that cars aren't allowed to actually drive to.


Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf


If you're driving a car, and you see a goddamn 18 wheeler barreling at the intersection about to run a red, you're goddamn right I'll stop at a green light.

Doesn't matter what the law says, Newton says you'll die.

Not what the situation was.

If you don't (or more importantly, can't) see what's down the road do you stop at a green light before proceeding through? Do you stop at every rail crossing, controlled or not?

Why should a design and system that puts the onus of safety on the most vulnerable rather than make it better for the one that can cause the most damage to avoid doing so? In this case a crosswalk that connects a bike path has a large blind spot so they can't see if there way is actually clear before proceeding. If the blind spot can't be mitigated then don't allow a car to turn on a red light if they can't react to people traveling against the green in a good enough amount of time.


Originally posted by SOAB


because there are different rules for vehicles and pedestrians! how hard is that to understand?!?!?

So what is a cyclist? If they're a vehicle then they can't be on pathways, if they're a pedestrian they can't be on the road. It's almost like they're in a not very well defined middle ground that has made it extremely difficult for people to understand what is the best way for them to travel.


do you walk across the street without stopping to look? if so, you're going to get hit eventually. even at a crosswalk, you only cross when its safe.

I bet you're probably one of those pedestrians that instantly cross the street when they get to a crosswalk and expects traffic to come to a stop instantly. right of way doesn't mean shit when you're dead.

I'll ask again. Would you accept stopping at a green light every time before proceeding through? Not 'do you stop when you see something', but stop to make sure you don't see anything?

[zipdoa]

Originally posted by SOAB
this is what I'm teaching my kids an intersection, stop and wait for traffic to acknowledge you. get on your bike and get across the street as fast as possible. no point in walking and no point in making people wait longer than necessary.

Hopefully you'll reconsider this opinion before you accidentally raise a few little darwins


Originally posted by max_boost
i don't understand the dismount thing either but i haven't ridden a bike since i got my drivers haha

Does a car suddenly become a pedestrian just because it's in a crosswalk?

No. Neither does someone riding a bicycle. It's still a vehicle as defined by the law, and aside the very obvious need for consistency when navigating traffic, there are many other important reasons listed above by Rage2 to dismount (bike/skateboard/scooter/whatever) when crossing.

[rage2]

Originally posted by kertejud2
I'll ask again. Would you accept stopping at a green light every time before proceeding through? Not 'do you stop when you see something', but stop to make sure you don't see anything?
If I was driving on the wrong side of the road? Absolutely. Because that's exactly what's happening here.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by rage2

If I was driving on the wrong side of the road? Absolutely. Because that's exactly what's happening here.

What's happening here is that there is a bike path that you aren't allowed to cycle to going westbound, regardless of what side of the road you are on, and that is considered normal and acceptable.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by zipdoa


Hopefully you'll reconsider this opinion before you accidentally raise a few little darwins



why? because I teach them to STOP AND LOOK before crossing? that they shouldn't expect 2 stupid white lines on the road to protect them from cars?

you need to re-read what I posted. they can ride their bikes across the street AFTER they stop, check for traffic, wait for traffic to acknowledge them, then get across the fucking street as quickly as possible. tell me how that is not safe?

[lilmira]

discussion here never disappoints lol

[SOAB]

Originally posted by zipdoa


Does a car suddenly become a pedestrian just because it's in a crosswalk?

No. Neither does someone riding a bicycle. It's still a vehicle as defined by the law, and aside the very obvious need for consistency when navigating traffic, there are many other important reasons listed above by Rage2 to dismount (bike/skateboard/scooter/whatever) when crossing.

A car does not use the crosswalk to cross an intersection either. if you choose to use a pedestrian crosswalk to cross the road, treat yourself like a pedestrian. want to ride across the road without stopping, follow the rules of the road like any other vehicle. motorists can predict your travel better that way.

[suntan]

Originally posted by kertejud2


What's happening here is that there is a bike path that you aren't allowed to cycle to going westbound, regardless of what side of the road you are on, and that is considered normal and acceptable. Wrong. The multi-use path ends at the intersection, and starts up again on the other end of the intersection.

Want a car example? Fine, fuckface: 14 street.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by SOAB


you need to re-read what I posted. they can ride their bikes across the street AFTER they stop, check for traffic, wait for traffic to acknowledge them, then get across the fucking street as quickly as possible. tell me how that is not safe?



Originally posted by SOAB


A car does not use the crosswalk to cross an intersection either. if you choose to use a pedestrian crosswalk to cross the road, treat yourself like a pedestrian. want to ride across the road without stopping, follow the rules of the road like any other vehicle. motorists can predict your travel better that way.

So when you're riding your bicycle, are you a pedestrian or a vehicle? Or is the simple act of stopping and looking what defines you as a pedestrian?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by rage2


This. I don't think anyone has ever complained a cyclist is walking across a crosswalk with their bike being too slow. :rofl:



Yeah, I can't remember ever hearing a complaint about that. If a cyclist dismounts and crosses in front of me, I usually give them a wave as thanks for not blasting into the intersection.

I don't particularly mind cyclists that stop at the crosswalk first, ensure it's safe, and then pedal across. Seems that opinions vary one that one.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by suntan
Wrong. The multi-use path ends at the intersection, and starts up again on the other end of the intersection.

So how was he on the wrong side of the road if he was on a two-way bike path?


Want a car example? Fine, fuckface: 14 street.

Yeah, I hate having to walk my car around Altadore and North Glenmore Park to keep using 14th St.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by kertejud2


So when you're riding your bicycle, are you a pedestrian or a vehicle? Or is the simple act of stopping and looking what defines you as a pedestrian?

the act of stopping and looking defines me as smart.

am I riding on the sidewalk or road? if I'm riding on the sidewalk with my kids, I would consider us pedestrians.

if I'm riding to commute or get somewhere quickly, I would ride on the road and use my fucking common sense and follow the rules of the road. I wouldn't care who has the right of way because as a cyclist, I would lose to a car every fucking time.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by SOAB

am I riding on the sidewalk or road? if I'm riding on the sidewalk with my kids, I would consider us pedestrians.

So why wouldn't the OP be considered a pedestrian for riding in a crosswalk? Why shouldn't a pedestrian feel free to cross a controlled intersection without getting hit by a car?

[SOAB]

Originally posted by kertejud2


So why wouldn't the OP be considered a pedestrian for riding in a crosswalk? Why shouldn't a pedestrian feel free to cross a controlled intersection without getting hit by a car?

he DIDN'T STOP! at the speed he was riding, there is no way a driver could react in time cause he just barreled through the crosswalk! if he had stopped and then proceeded like everyone is saying, he would've been fine.

everybody learns to stop and look both ways before crossing the street, correct? this doesn't change just because you have some lines on the road or traffic lights.

if you want to travel from a pathway onto a crosswalk, stop and look just look a pedestrian would.

[JustinL]

Originally posted by kertejud2

So when you're riding your bicycle, are you a pedestrian or a vehicle? Or is the simple act of stopping and looking what defines you as a pedestrian?

Pretty well defined.

Riding on bicycle: Vehicle.

Walking next to your bike: Pedestrian.

Stopped on the road, one foot on the pedal straddling the bike: Stopped vehicle.

Stopped on sidewalk holding bicycle: Stopped pedestrian.

It's not some weird grey zone of neither, it's either/or. You want to be a pedestrian, walk next to your bike and follow the rules of being a pedestrian. You want to be a vehicle, ride your bike and follow the rules of being a vehicle.

The only greyish zone is bike paths where bikes are allowed to be ridden. If you get to the end of a bike path, guess what, you have to decide to get off and walk the sidewalk, or get on to the road and become a vehicle.

[g-m]

Originally posted by kertejud2


If there's a blind spot, why are cars allowed to turn right on a red at that particular intersection?



Roads are NOT built for bikes, they're just better for most cyclists to use. There is a massive difference.

The bike path the crosswalk feeds into is built for bikes (that want to share with pedestrians), you're just not allowed to ride your bike to it, apparently. Imagine building a road for cars that cars aren't allowed to actually drive to.



Not what the situation was.

If you don't (or more importantly, can't) see what's down the road do you stop at a green light before proceeding through? Do you stop at every rail crossing, controlled or not?

Why should a design and system that puts the onus of safety on the most vulnerable rather than make it better for the one that can cause the most damage to avoid doing so? In this case a crosswalk that connects a bike path has a large blind spot so they can't see if there way is actually clear before proceeding. If the blind spot can't be mitigated then don't allow a car to turn on a red light if they can't react to people traveling against the green in a good enough amount of time.



So what is a cyclist? If they're a vehicle then they can't be on pathways, if they're a pedestrian they can't be on the road. It's almost like they're in a not very well defined middle ground that has made it extremely difficult for people to understand what is the best way for them to travel.



I'll ask again. Would you accept stopping at a green light every time before proceeding through? Not 'do you stop when you see something', but stop to make sure you don't see anything? Jesus take some personal responsibility

[rage2]

Originally posted by kertejud2
So how was he on the wrong side of the road if he was on a two-way bike path?
Because as soon as he rode past the end of the pathway(which doesn't restart until the other side of the road) and onto the crosswalk, he's now driving a vehicle on the wrong side of the road.

Honestly, in all this discussion if there's anyone to blame, it's the city not putting up Cyclist Dismount signs for cyclists that don't know the rules. Someone should 311 that.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by kertejud2


So why wouldn't the OP be considered a pedestrian for riding in a crosswalk? Why shouldn't a pedestrian feel free to cross a controlled intersection without getting hit by a car?

Because, by law, a mounted cyclist is not a pedestrian.

[mgwatson]

Wow fellas - 4 pages of responses in a matter of hours lol. Thanks for the interest, even as "interesting" as some of the responses have been.

Long story short, I was hit by a motorist who failed to stop at a red light before proceeding to turn right at an intersect. Mounted on my bike or not, that is 100% against the law and should have been addressed at the time. I am going to call the constable today and ask why she was not also issued an infraction. We'll see where I get.

Did I learn a lesson yesterday about being more pro-active on my bike, hell yes I did. But that doesn't at all change what happened.

As far as everyone asking why I'm posting a cycling incident on a car forum, well, that's because I'm a car enthusiast way more than I'm a cycling enthusiast. I just know that this forum is very active and I could solicit responses quickly (albeit too quickly... reading through 4 pages of responses, 90% of which were useless, wasn't much help lol).

Cheers

[hurrdurr]

I've always been of the impression that if you're on anything with wheels you should be treated as a motor vehicle.

You can't have it both ways, you don't get the luxury of a cross walk while on a bicycle. Dismount and walk your bike across the street. It takes a couple extra minutes and the risk of an accident is almost completely negated.

Sorry OP for your injuries but it sounds like you are in the wrong.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by mgwatson

Long story short, I was hit by a motorist who failed to stop at a red light before proceeding to turn right at an intersect. Mounted on my bike or not, that is 100% against the law and should have been addressed at the time.

So your original post says this:

Originally posted by mgwatson
When I came up to the intersection, my light was green and the light on Mount McKenzie Dr was red. I proceeded to ride into the crosswalk when I was hit by a car travelling Northbound on Mount McKenzie Dr who was wanting to turn right onto eastbound 130th Ave. We both didn't see each other until it was too late as there was a large fence blocking our line of sight of each other until I was in the crosswalk.
If I was the constable, I would ask you how the fuck you knew she didn't stop if you both couldn't see each other?

[mgwatson]

Originally posted by rage2

Because as soon as he rode past the end of the pathway(which doesn't restart until the other side of the road) and onto the crosswalk, he's now driving a vehicle on the wrong side of the road.

Honestly, in all this discussion if there's anyone to blame, it's the city not putting up Cyclist Dismount signs for cyclists that don't know the rules. Someone should 311 that.
Thanks for one of the few constructive responses.

As far as the crosswalk being treated as "the wrong side of the road", that really doesn't have anything to do with this, and that's actually the first I've heard of this. It was just to do with the fact that I didn't dismount my bike and walk it across.

With the city really pitching cycling lately and to leave me hurt with a damaged bike and completely at fault even though she ran a red light into me, is disgusting. At this point, it's not even the damage to me and my bike that is getting to me, so much as the moral and message this is sending to cyclists in this city... You're not protected.

I'm fully aware that I sound like a typical whiny cyclist, and before I started riding my bike to work everyday for the past 3 months, I was wearing the same hat as most of you were that said "I F*CKING HATE CYCLISTS", but the past 3 months has changed my perspective on things, and some things need to change in this city.

[mgwatson]

Originally posted by hurrdurr
I've always been of the impression that if you're on anything with wheels you should be treated as a motor vehicle.

You can't have it both ways, you don't get the luxury of a cross walk while on a bicycle. Dismount and walk your bike across the street. It takes a couple extra minutes and the risk of an accident is almost completely negated.

Sorry OP for your injuries but it sounds like you are in the wrong.
Agreed, but even as a vehicle, is it okay for her to run a red light and hit another vehicle because she didn't look for on coming traffic? I think not.

[austic]

Originally posted by mgwatson
We both didn't see each other until it was too late as there was a large fence blocking our line of sight of each other until I was in the crosswalk. So, I proceeded into the crosswalk while riding my bike

The responses were not bad, you just don't like the answer.

How did you see she didn't stop at the red if there was a large fence in the way where you said you couldn't see her stop?

Fault is 100% yours, if you were walking your bike aka being a pedestrian in a pedestrian crossing fault would be hers.

[mgwatson]

Originally posted by Disoblige


So your original post says this:

If I was the constable, I would ask you how the fuck you knew she didn't stop if you both couldn't see each other?
Well, that's quite simple... I was hit by her front bumper (I have 3 witnesses in this, all with police statements submitted), which shows that I was already in the intersection when she hit me.

If she stopped like she should have, then entered the crosswalk to proceed to turn right, I would have hit the side of her car and this would be a different case altogether.

[austic]

Originally posted by mgwatson

.

With the city really pitching cycling lately and to leave me hurt with a damaged bike and completely at fault even though she ran a red light into me, is disgusting. At this point, it's not even the damage to me and my bike that is getting to me, so much as the moral and message this is sending to cyclists in this city... You're not protected.

Or maybe follow the rules of cycling instead of doing something stupid and whining about the consequences.

[mgwatson]

Originally posted by austic


Or maybe follow the rules of cycling instead of doing something stupid and whining about the consequences.
Haha, there's the 90% I was referring to. Thanks for the help.

Shelton, can you just delete this thread please?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by mgwatson

Agreed, but even as a vehicle, is it okay for her to run a red light and hit another vehicle because she didn't look for on coming traffic? I think not.

The problem is that you were on the wrong side of the road.

Basically, she checked left, saw it was clear and started her turn to the right. Then, a vehicle travelling on the wrong side of the road entered her path of travel. There is no way in this situation that you had the right to be where you were.

[JustinMCS]

Originally posted by FraserB


The problem is that you were on the wrong side of the road.

Basically, she checked left, saw it was clear and started her turn to the right. Then, a vehicle travelling on the wrong side of the road entered her path of travel. There is no way in this situation that you had the right to be where you were.

x2

[JustinL]

Originally posted by mgwatson

Shelton, can you just delete this thread please?

No way, leave this thread here. This is valuable info for any other cyclists who think it's a good idea to ride out into a crosswalk.

Also, don't just assume that none of us understand. There are lots of cyclists posting here telling you the answer you don't want to hear.

[codetrap]

.

[jwslam]

Originally posted by mgwatson
is it okay for her to hit another vehicle because she didn't look for on coming traffic? I think not.
No; But how many cars come from that direction? ZERO. So should she be expecting something to come at speed?


Originally posted by codetrap
I think it's possible that the driver did stop, just back a bit, looked to the left, then proceeded and still didn't see you until it was too late.

Good luck on your attempt though...
This; you know how many drivers' ed teachers teach that you stop at an intersection such that you can fully see the crosswalk lines?

[mgwatson]

Originally posted by jwslam

No; But how many cars come from that direction? ZERO. So should she be expecting something to come at speed?
It still doesn't matter though, because she was legally supposed to stop behind the crosswalk as she had a red light. Had she done that, I either wouldn't have hit her, or I would have just hit the side of her car, both scenarios are better than what actually happened.

[bcylau]

to the guys saying you have the green.

you don't have the green if you are on the sidewalk and/ or crosswalk as a moving vehicle, ie bike. pedestrians have the green. once you dismount, you have the green.

also, as a moving vehicle, you need to be on the road and not sidewalk.

yes, it is a technicality, but it matters.

[mgwatson]

Originally posted by codetrap
I think it's possible that the driver did stop, just back a bit, looked to the left, then proceeded and still didn't see you until it was too late.

Good luck on your attempt though...

https://goo.gl/maps/GsgwgFrqYJt
Thanks for posting this pic, it shows what fence I'm talking about.

Regardless to say, its a delicate situation where I'm not asking to be completely not at fault, because I was to a certain extent. This is a case where the guilt needs to be 50/50 between the driver that didn't come to a complete stop and the cyclist who didn't dismount his bike. In no world should this be a 100% at-fault for the cyclist.

[mgwatson]

Originally posted by bcylau
to the guys saying you have the green.

you don't have the green if you are on the sidewalk and/ or crosswalk as a moving vehicle, ie bike. pedestrians have the green. once you dismount, you have the green.

also, as a moving vehicle, you need to be on the road and not sidewalk.

yes, it is a technicality, but it matters.
Agreed. And that's why a received my traffic ticket. I'm not arguing that at all. What I am arguing, is the fact that for insurance purposes, I received a ticket and she didn't get anything, so I'm deemed at-fault 100% for this, when in reality, she should have also received a ticket for failing to come to a complete stop before turn right at a red light, then I would actually stand a chance.

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Tickets/officer's don't indicate fault to insurance companies. It's part of their investigation, but is not solely determined by it.

[austic]

Originally posted by mgwatson

Agreed. And that's why a received my traffic ticket. I'm not arguing that at all. What I am arguing, is the fact that for insurance purposes, I received a ticket and she didn't get anything, so I'm deemed at-fault 100% for this, when in reality, she should have also received a ticket for failing to come to a complete stop before turn right at a red light, then I would actually stand a chance.


what if you were 3 seconds slower and she stopped? Would have hit the same spot....

what if you would have stopped dismounted and crossed? she would have seen you and could have stopped and you would not have been hit.

Who is at fault really?

[bcylau]

i would document your injuries and then get a doctor's opinion. then use that as evidence of the other drivers speed of going through the intersection. also document the damage to your bike and such.

you never know if the driver's insurance will come back for damages to the front of their car. at least there is some evidence to show if you want to push for 50/50

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by mgwatson

Haha, there's the 90% I was referring to. Thanks for the help.

Shelton, can you just delete this thread please?

You can delete a thread but you can never delete the bicycle rider ignorance displayed

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by mgwatson

Agreed. And that's why a received my traffic ticket. I'm not arguing that at all. What I am arguing, is the fact that for insurance purposes, I received a ticket and she didn't get anything, so I'm deemed at-fault 100% for this, when in reality, she should have also received a ticket for failing to come to a complete stop before turn right at a red light, then I would actually stand a chance.

How do you know she didn't stop and then proceeded to hit you as she moved through the intersection? You obviously never saw.

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer


How do you know she didn't stop and then proceeded to hit you as she moved through the intersection? You obviously never saw.

Not to mention, after seeing the picture posted of the intersection; if you're bombing out from behind that fence without considering traffic on the road you have a death wish. Presumably there would also be concerns about the rider having blindly crossed a pedestrian sidewalk, at speed, without looking.

[mgwatson]

Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf
Tickets/officer's don't indicate fault to insurance companies. It's part of their investigation, but is not solely determined by it.
Thank you for saying that, because I just got off the phone with her insurance company. She's decided to go through insurance and they basically assured me that I'm not at-fault in this whole thing. The plot thickens..

I was very worried about the fact that I have a ticket and she does not which makes me 100% at-fault but that is not at all the case. Police have nothing to do with determining the guilty party, they are just issuing tickets because it's their "job".

My mind has been put to ease, but let's continue this rather engaging conversation lol.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by mgwatson

Thanks for posting this pic, it shows what fence I'm talking about.

Regardless to say, its a delicate situation where I'm not asking to be completely not at fault, because I was to a certain extent. This is a case where the guilt needs to be 50/50 between the driver that didn't come to a complete stop and the cyclist who didn't dismount his bike. In no world should this be a 100% at-fault for the cyclist.

the thing is you can't be 100% sure that she didn't stop but you, the cop and the driver all agree that you did not stop.