Laws for sidewalk cycling

[Tricia Kovacs]

Dear BicycleDriving,
I'm doing a study of bike/car crashes in Columbus for the year 2011. The
sad news is that about 25% of the crashes involve cyclists in the
sidewalk or crosswalk. Columbus does have a city-wide ban on sidewalk
cycling (except for kids), but lots of people do it anyway.

I'd like to ask your opinion on something. Let's assume we're talking
about a city that allows sidewalk cycling (e.g. in residential
neighborhoods). If a cyclist is riding on a sidewalk on a major street
and crosses in a crosswalk past a minor side street where the side
street has a stop sign, is the cyclist required to stop before crossing
the street? The street that the cyclist is on does not have a stop sign.

Another scenario would be a cyclist riding in the sidewalk and a
motorist driving on the roadway in the same direction on the same
street. The motorist turns into a side street, hitting the cyclist as he
crosses the crosswalk. This is sort of a right hook, but the cyclist is
in the crosswalk.Was the cyclist required to stop before entering the
crosswalk to look for traffic overtaking, oncoming or on either side?
Again, there is no stop sign on the street that the cyclist is traveling.
Note: I know that is what I teach kids to do, but is it the law to stop
and look?

Here's the reason I'm asking. If a motorist hits a cyclist who is in a
crosswalk, but the cyclist has the right of way (no stop sign),
shouldn't the motorist be at fault for failure to yield? In a city that
allows sidewalk cycling, I think that the motorist should be entirely at
fault. In a city that prohibits sidewalk cycling, I think that both the
motorist and the cyclist should be at fault. I don't know how courts
decide percentage of liability, but I think they should both be equally
at fault. Problem is, in most crashes here in Columbus, the cyclist is
cited (unless it's a child) but not the motorist.

Is my understanding correct?
Tricia Kovacs

[Hokan]

Hi Tricia,

I don't have a direct answer to your question, but I'll give you this:

Here in Minnesota, the pedestrian (or cyclist on the sidewalk) must
obey traffic signals and must give the motorist a chance to see and
react to them.

"No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety
and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it
is impossible for the driver to yield. "

It's my view that a cyclist coming into a crosswalk at faster than
walking speed isn't giving drivers a reasonable chance to see and react
to them.

[John Forester]

The preferred rule for sidewalk cycling is that the cyclist on the
sidewalk and in crosswalks has to operate according to pedestrian rules
(rights and duties of pedestrians). That's been in the Uniform Vehicle
Code since 1976. (I got it there.) It appears from your statement that
Columbus has a city-wide prohibition of sidewalk cycling (except for kids).

Your questions assume that the city allows sidewalk cycling except in
business districts (the common rule). Does any other statute apply to
that movement? Most such statutes require cyclists to yield to
pedestrians, but often nothing more. It would be nice if the UVC rule
applied, to make the law clear. But if it does not, then one needs to be
a bit creative.

Your basic issue concerns the time that a cyclist is leaving the
sidewalk to use the crosswalk. If the cyclist has the rights and duties
of pedestrians, then he is obliged to yield to traffic approaching so
close as to constitute a danger. If, on the other hand, there is no such
statute in effect, then the cyclist is entering the roadway, just as if
he were exiting a driveway, in which case he is also required to yield
to traffic approaching so close as to constitute a danger. So, the
cyclist about to use a crosswalk is obliged to yield to all traffic
approaching so close as to constitute a danger.

However, once the cyclist has lawfully entered the crosswalk, under the
pedestrian statute he has the right of way. If no such statute, and if
the "entering the roadway" statute governs, then if he gets hit then it
is obvious that he has not yielded to all traffic approaching so close
as to constitute a danger. But that means that the cyclist using a
crosswalk is obliged to yield to all traffic that might come along
during the whole time he is using the crosswalk. This seems an undue
obligation. The pedestrian rights would give him the right of way once
he has safely entered the crosswalk, which seems to be the preferable
situation.

The stop-sign issue is irrelevant. All traffic on the sidewalk has to
yield to approaching traffic, regardless of the presence or absence of a
stop sign. It just happens to be true that the cyclist about to leave
the sidewalk to enter the stop sign has to pay attention to traffic from
his right, from ahead that is turning left, from his left, and from
behind that is turning right. But in each case, under the pedestrian
statute he doesn't have to look very far, because then, once safely in
the crosswalk, he has the right of way.

--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com

[Bruce Kulik]

This very question is one that I brought up regarding the cycle track
proposed for Beacon Street in Somerville, MA (Boston Area).
Massachusetts law does not define most bicycle infrastructure, and
specifically does not define a cycle track. The proposed design has the
track to the right of parked cars, at the same level as the sidewalk, or
3 inches below with a small curb. As I see it, it is essentially a
sidewalk, and legally one would be riding on the sidewalk.

I have been in touch with my state legislators about this problem, and
they are interested in exploring it further for just the reasons you
cite. My point regarding the cycle tracks is that the liability is
unclear in the case of collisions. At a public meeting about this
project, I pointed out that it is not a question of there being a
collision, only a question of when.

Massachusetts law make only a few points about bicycle and sidewalks.
+ Bicycle riding on sidewalks is prohibited in business districts.
+ Bicycle riding on sidewalks is permitted outside of business
districts unless further restricted by city/town ordinance.
+ Bicycle operators must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks (and shared
use paths).

The law goes on to state that:
+ Motorists must yield to pedestrians already in a crosswalk.
+ Pedestrians must not step into the way of traffic constituting an
immediate hazard.

The law is silent regarding extending the responsibilities of
pedestrians to cyclists operating on the sidewalk. Massachusetts
generally interprets the lack of explicit restriction to mean that an
activity is allowed.

Unfortunately I don't have answers for you, only that your concern
resonates with mine.

Bruce Kulik

[John S. Allen]

Generally, the same rules apply as for pedestrians -- the motorist is
required to yield, but the cyclist must not enter the crosswalk so
suddenly that the motorist is unable to yield.

Your pals at OBF have reviewed the Uniform Vehicle Code wording about
this and could provide further input.

John S. Allen
7 University Park
Waltham, MA 02453-1523 USA
781 891-9307
jsa...@bikexprt.com
http://bikexprt.com

[Peter James]

Rules vary between jurisdictions. In Ontario, practice is that
straight-travelling "traffic" on a major road has priority over vehicles
turning into a side street and vehicles entering from a side street. I
use "traffic" in its widest sense - pedestrians using sidewalks along
the major road clearly have, and receive, priority over turning and
entering vehicles. It's rare that a turning motorist would attempt to
"jump" a straight-travelling pedestrian. In principle,
parallel-travelling sidewalk cyclists would have that same priority -
except that we have a law that forbids cyclists from using crosswalks.

Unfortunately it's not uncommon for parallel off-road bicycle paths to
discharge onto crosswalks at side roads...

Peter James

[Robert Cooper]

A little humor.

Apologies to all who have seen this NYC ad campaign about cyclists being "jerks."

http://youtu.be/Bqmn1Cc8bx0

Bob

[Trevor Bourget]

I don't think you have a correct understanding of how sidewalk traffic
and the roadway are related.

Motorists crossing the sidewalk (for example entering/exiting a
driveway cutout) are legally required to yield to any traffic on the
sidewalk. Motorists driving across a crosswalk (marked or unmarked)
are legally required to yield to any traffic already in the crosswalk,
but not to traffic not yet in the roadway.

You and I both know that what you want to take to court and how you
want to ride aren't the same. Bicyclists should never perform a
ride-out from a curb cut (thank ADA for many of those bicycle crashes
you mention), and should always slow and check (including head turn
where necessary) before crossing a driveway.

I would be surprised at, and recommend against, prohibiting everyone
from riding a bicycle on a sidewalk. But sidewalk riding should have
its own instructions, and its own laws. Here are some:

1. Basic speed law (probably about 8mph maximum in practice), exactly
like motor code
2. Always yield at intersections; dismount and remount if necessary to
safely enter the roadway/crosswalk.
3. Always travel on the right side (same direction as roadway traffic)
in case sidewalk disappears or becomes impassable.
4. Don't travel on sidewalks where ped traffic is already dense (such
as business district)
5. Travel toward the right edge of the sidewalk, but not too close to
the edge, etc just like roadway cautions. Pass on the left.
6. Audible (preferably verbal) warning before passing.

You didn't mention that many of the crosswalk crashes might have been
far-right road riders who think they should move over into the
crosswalk to go through intersections. Please give details on that
percentage if you can. Those people are the best ones to start
training, because you may entice them back into the road where they
belong. Some sidewalk riders will never be swayed from their opinion,
and honestly many of them seem to know how to do it safely and at a
proper speed.

-- trevor

[Kat Iverson]

Everyone else already said it all, mosty. Pedestrians don't have to
stop if no traffic is close. They don't have to stop just for the sake
of stopping. Neither do sidewalk cyclists. Even on a side street,
crossing a main street, a pedestrian doesn't have to stop if the main
road is clear enough of traffic at the time. I suppose a sidewalk
cyclist doesn't either, though a roadway one does.

In Oregon we have what I think is a reasonable, though stupidly written,
law. The cyclist must travel at pedestrian speed when approaching an
intersection when there is traffic on the road. That condition is the
stupid part. Pedestrian speed is required only if a vehicle is
approaching the interesection. Therefore a cyclist can fly through an
empty intersection and never get a ticket because he isn't breaking the
law. However, if he gets hit by a car, he has no hope of collecting
damages, because the presence of the car means that on that occasion, he
was breaking the law.

It's a good law because it protects motorists (and other road users)
from liability if a sidewalk cyclist flies into the road from a sidewalk
with poor sight distance. There are plenty of those because sidewalks
are not designed for 10mph traffic.

A couple of years ago there was a proposal (by the state's big bicycling
organization) to repeal that speed restriction. It failed.

Kat Iverson,
Hillsboro, OR

[Tricia Kovacs]

Dear group,
Thanks for the feedback on my question about bicycle laws on sidewalks. Yes, Ohio does have pedestrian law which states that pedestrians should not suddenly leave a curb into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Ohio also allows sidewalk riding, but our sidewalk code does not include the UVC provision that cyclists have the same rights and duties as a pedestrian when using the sidewalk. I would like to get that added to our code, if I can convince my colleagues in OBF.

I want to make sure I understand what you're all saying. I drew a picture of the scenarios. And for now, let's assume I'm asking about a city that allows sidewalk cycling in residential neighborhoods (like my city, Gahanna).



The cyclist is riding on the sidewalk and is entering the crosswalk where a motorist A has the stop sign. Let's say the motorist is approaching the stop sign. Can the cyclist assume that the motorist is going to obey the stop sign and not have to stop? The stop sign law says that a driver shall stop at the stop line, or if none, before entering the crosswalk, or if none then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway. The problem with Ohio code is that it's so car-centric, that our stop sign law doesn't explicitly state that drivers must yield to pedestrians in the associated crosswalk. But we do have a crosswalk law, so I hope the part about stopping at the crosswalk implies that drivers yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Another scenario is the motorist is already stopped at the stop sign, waiting for traffic on the major road to clear, and the cyclist arrives at the crosswalk. Can the cyclist ride across the crosswalk without stopping? The car is not approaching, it is stopped.

Another potential conflict is the motorist B who is turning right into the side street or motorist C who is turning left into the side street. In my picture, I indicated that the two cars had their turn signals on. Does the cyclist need to yield to the motorists turning into the side street? I always thought the crosswalk law required the motorist to look for pedestrians before turning.

If I understand John Forester's answers, then the cyclist does have to stop for all these cases. All I can say is that really stinks.

Somebody asked about my study of bike/car crashes in Columbus. If you're interested in seeing my results, they are on this YayBikes! forum post:
http://forums.yaybikes.com/groups/close-encounters/forum/topic/columbus-bikecar-crashes-in-2011/
I looked at 134 crash reports for the year 2011. I read the descriptions and looked at the diagrams to determine the cause of the crash and who was primarily at fault. But my opinion was that if a motorist had a stop sign or red light, that it was the motorists fault, and if the cyclist was an adult in the sidewalk/crosswalk, then the cyclist was also at fault. I think I've posted on this forum before that we really need to get the crash report guidelines updated so that "manner of collision" is not always "not a collision between two vehicles in transport" when a cyclist is involved. The only way to really figure out what types of car/bike crashes are happening is to read every blasted crash report.

But to go back to my original question about who's at fault. If there is a crash between the cyclist and any of the cars (A at the stop sign, B turning right or C turning left), would the motorist also be at fault? In the case of a traffic signal, if a motorist turns right on red or turns into a cyclist crossing on a green light or WALK signal, I think the motorist should be at fault, and an adult cyclist should also be at fault if the jurisdiction has a sidewalk cycling ban. I think that the only time the motorist should not be at fault in this case is if the cyclist is unlit at night.

I don't condone sidewalk cycling. But since lots of people do it, I want to understand how the law should be applied.
Tricia

[Bob Sutterfield]

Whatever the legality, here's a discussion of the practical issues sidewalk cyclists face:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2011/07/23/sidewalk-riders-accept-the-risk/

I suspect few sidewalk cyclists recognize the risks to which they're exposing themselves.

[Willie Hunt]

What amazing is some peoples idea that cyclists should always be on the sidewalk.  One day last year I was on my way to work in my Quest Velomobile.  I went down the Bake Pkwy (Lake Forest, CA) hill near my house like I always do and control the right lane when I get going over 30 MPH.  A motorist behind me was trying to pass, but heavy traffic in the left lane prevent him from moving over until I was already up to 50 MPH.  The motorist passed at over 60 MPH, as I was approaching 60 MPH,  He then got caught at a Trabuco light in the left lane (of 3 there).  I passed him back up in the right lane, and came to a stop at Toledo on the left side of the right lane.  He pulled up next to me on the right in the bike lane (he was turning right), rolls down his window and yelled out "You should ride that thing on the sidewalk!"

This is not a video of that day, but my movement and speed is basically the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOrStD2fp8s

Have you ever gone 60 MPH on a sidewalk??

Willie

[John Forester]

This is in reply to both Tricia's message and that of Bob Sutterfield that refers to Keri's message on bike Orlando website.

Tricia, yielding to traffic does not mean stopping. Stopping is required only when the yielding action requires no further forward motion. However, yielding requires traveling so slowly that you have the ability to stop before entering the collision zone. So it requires slow cycling in most cases.

The car-bike collision dangers of sidewalk or sidepath cycling have been known for decades. Back about 1972, when Palo Alto declared that the sidewalks of its main streets were bike lanes and prohibited cyclists from the adjacent roadways, I cycled my regular commuting route on those sidewalks, using commuting speed and assuming the roadway's right-of-way. Of course, I was not naive: I recognized that this would be very dangerous, but I figured that, with my traffic knowledge telling me what to look for and my skill at bike handling enabling me to avoid the collisions I recognized, I would manage. I also assumed that motorists approaching a stop sign would use the California stop, rolling slowly up to the point at which they could see the approaching motor traffic. In total, I cycled several miles of sidewalks in that mode, encountering situations in which most cyclists would have been in car-bike collisions averaging every 1/3 of a mile, but through fore-knowledge and bike-handling skill I could avoid them. But then, an attempt to make a left turn ended up with me with no other choice than to steer head-on into a two-lane platoon of approaching cars. After maneuvering myself through that platoon of opposite-direction cars out to the safety of the center line of the road, I decided that this test was too dangerous even for me. This test has long been notorious and ridiculed by bicycle and bikeway advocates, but in their responses they admitted that sidewalk and sidepath cycling has to be done slowly to be safe (except in those cases where there are very few intersections and driveways). That is, operating at pedestrian speeds and with pedestrian rights and duties.

My instructions to cyclists, right from those early years of useful traffic training, was that, wherever they stopped for the stop sign, which action generally was unimportant, they had to then roll forward slowly up to the point where they could see traffic approaching, going so slowly that they could stop if they see traffic approaching, which is the action of yielding.

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Trevor Bourget]

>> Can the cyclist assume that the motorist is going to obey the stop sign and not have to stop?

Even if the motorist comes to a complete stop, which they are unlikely to do if they see no other traffic, they will immediately proceed. If they did stop, they will use acceleration to overcome the useless lost seconds from that stop.
The question is whether the bicycle rider on the sidewalk can assume they have been seen and will be yielded to as they enter the crosswalk. The answer is no and no, and that is a legal behavior.

>> The stop sign law says that a driver shall stop at the stop line, or if none, before entering the crosswalk, or if none then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway. The problem with Ohio code is that it's so car-centric, that our stop sign law doesn't explicitly state that drivers must yield to pedestrians in the associated crosswalk. But we do have a crosswalk law, so I hope the part about stopping at the crosswalk implies that drivers yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Even if your law, which should be changed, did explicitly require stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk, it will not and should not say that motorists should yield to pedestrians entering or about enter the crosswalk. That is not a practical law. It demands behavior which is not practicably achievable.

>> Another scenario is the motorist is already stopped at the stop sign, waiting for traffic on the major road to clear, and the cyclist arrives at the crosswalk. Can the cyclist ride across the crosswalk without stopping? The car is not approaching, it is stopped.

Why would a motorist be stopped except they are confused about which action they should take next, maybe consulting a map that is exactly the moment they realize they should be making a right turn or cross the intersection. Again, they would accelerate to make up for their delay.

>> Another potential conflict is the motorist B who is turning right into the side street or motorist C who is turning left into the side street. In my picture, I indicated that the two cars had their turn signals on. Does the cyclist need to yield to the motorists turning into the side street? I always thought the crosswalk law required the motorist to look for pedestrians before turning.

No, motorists do not have to look for pedestrians who are not in the crosswalk. It only demands the obvious, that you don't run over somebody who is in front of you. But the bicycle rider on the sidewalk was invisible, and now enters the roadway at a speed unlike pedestrians, at exactly the moment when the motorist (already stopped) is preparing to go.

>> If I understand John Forester's answers, then the cyclist does have to stop for all these cases. All I can say is that really stinks.

Riding on the sidewalk stinks. I've done it, and John has told his story of how he did it. I don't do it anymore, and in fact will take longer rode routes in order to avoid doing so.

People who choose to ride there should be advised that it isn't the fastest way to travel, but if they think it is safer then they should not plan on averaging much more than twice walking speed. If you ride a bike because you want to go fast, there is only one safe place to do so. It is in the roadway, where surfaces and laws are designed for safety at higher speeds.

-- trevor