Bicyclist using crosswalk killed in multiple threat crash
Bob Shanteau
This year, SB 734 <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_734_bill_20091011_chaptered.pdf> added a provision to the Vehicle Code effective January 1, 2010, that will permit bicycling in a crosswalk that is part of a bike path. The new law fails to address the rights and duties of bicyclists in such crosswalks, however.
The crosswalk where the fatality occurred is addressed in the Morgan Hill Bikeways Master Plan Update <http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2718>:
***
Class I shared use paths were constructed along Butterfield Linear Park between Central and San Pedro, and West Little Llagas Creek between Edes Court and Edmundson Avenue and further south to La Crosse Circle. An Edmundson Avenue crossing with median refuge provides a trail connection across Edmundson.
***
Here is the location of the crosswalk on Google: <http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.112715,-121.644195&spn=0.001377,0.00221&t=k&z=19>. Notice that the path has no center line. Also notice the Yield triangles in the travel lanes along with the Stop Here for Pedestrians sign and Pedestrian Crossing warning sign.
This accident was a type that traffic engineers call a "multiple threat", where a driver in the near lane stops but the driver in the far lane does not. This is addressed in the Vehicle Code:
***
21951. Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
***
But a bicyclist in a crosswalk is not a pedestrian, so CVC 21951 would not appear to apply:
***
467. (a) A “pedestrian” is a person who is afoot or who is using any of the following:
(1) A means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle.
(2) An electric personal assistive mobility device.
(b) “Pedestrian” includes a person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian, as specified in subdivision (a).
***
Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations
Robert M. Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Voice: (831) 394-9420
Cell: (831) 917-0248
FAX: (831) 394-6045
***
Published Wednesday, November 4, 2009, by the San Jose Mercury News
Morgan Hill bicyclist dies from injuries after being hit in crosswalk
By Mark Gomez <mgo...@mercurynews.com>
A 22-year-old man who was struck while riding his bicycle through a crosswalk in Morgan Hill has died from his injuries, according to police.
Rory Tomasello of Morgan Hill was riding in a crosswalk located west of Monterey Road and Edmundson Avenue on Oct. 23 when he was struck by a 2004 Cadillac, according to Morgan Hill police. The first officers to arrive found Tomasello conscious and lying in the road. Officers said he appeared disoriented and complained of pain to his leg. He was taken to Regional Medical Center of San Jose, according to police.
On Monday, police learned that Tomasello had died from his injuries.
Tomasello was crossing Edmundson in a marked crosswalk and was halfway across the street when he stopped to wait for oncoming traffic, according to police Sgt. Jerry Neumayer. The driver in the lane closest to Tomasello stopped to allow him to cross, Neumayer said.
As Tomasello proceeded to cross the street, he collided with the Cadillac, which was driven by a 66-year-old woman, police said. "We're assuming the other driver did not see him and they collided," Neumayer said.
Witnesses told police that Tomasello was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
No one was cited at the time of the accident, which remains under investigation. Once the investigation is complete, Morgan Hill police will submit the case to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office for review of any possible criminal charges.
Anyone with information regarding this accident is encouraged to contact Morgan Hill police at (408) 779-2101 or the anonymous tip line at (408) 947-STOP (7867).
Contact Mark Gomez at 408-920-5869
***
Bob Shanteau
>
> But it sounds like he was walking his bike. Does that make him a ped?
>
It would, but the article says otherwise:
***
Rory Tomasello of Morgan Hill was *riding* in a crosswalk located west
of Monterey Road and Edmundson Avenue on Oct. 23 when he was struck by
a 2004 Cadillac, according to Morgan Hill police.
***
Bob Shanteau
ron
Interesting information and analysis Bob.
However wouldn’t the better solution be to delete “...permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway...” from 21951 ?
In the real world, the driver of the passing vehicle will very rarely know the reason for the other vehicle to have stopped. In most cases the pedestrian, cyclist, or whoever will be hidden from the approaching passing driver by the stopped vehicle.
For safety purposes, all that is important is that the approaching vehicle stop.
Dealing with it in any other way seems to give the driver in question an ‘out’ on a technical basis that is really irrelevant to the essential purpose of the provision.
Would the approach that you refer to (prohibiting bicycling in a crosswalk) open up a defence of “but I thought it was a bicyclist” to an accused driver? And certainly violation by a cyclist of a ‘crosswalk’ provision should not equate to a death sentence. Nor a situation where a driver who injures or kills such a bicyclist should be seen as ‘innocent’ of any offence.
I suppose as currently written, at least tricyclists are protected/not excluded by the law.
My thoughts, in any event.
Ron Richings
__________ NOD32 4577 (20091105) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Bob Shanteau
> However wouldn’t the better solution be to delete “...permit a
> pedestrian to cross the roadway...” from 21951 ?
That still does not address the rights and duties of bicyclists in
crosswalks. Here are the rights and duties of pedestrians in crosswalks
(marked or unmarked):
***
21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a
pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within
any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided
in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using
due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb
or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that
is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may
unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked
or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the
speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation
of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty
of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any
marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
***
In other words, a pedestrian must first declare his/her intention to
cross by being "within" the crosswalk (which presumably means stepping
off the curb). Second, the pedestrian must yield to any vehicle that is
"so close as to constitute an immediate hazard". Third, the pedestrian
may start walking in the crosswalk, during which time the driver of any
other approaching vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to that pedestrian.
Note that a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked crosswalk may cause
drivers to slow down or stop, which a pedestrian outside a marked or
unmarked crosswalk is not allowed to do.
Bicyclists in crosswalks are clearly neither operators of vehicles nor
pedestrians. Perhaps what you seek is for bicyclists in crosswalks to
have the rights and duties of pedestrians. I understand that Boulder,
Co, takes this approach, with the proviso that it only applies to
bicyclists who are traveling at pedestrian speeds. Bicyclists entering
crosswalks at typical bicycle speeds do so at their own risk.
Bob Shanteau
Richard Masoner
> . I understand that Boulder, Co, takes
> this approach, with the proviso that it only applies to bicyclists who are
> traveling at pedestrian speeds.
Bob,
It's the entire state of Colorado. As of about five years ago, a
cyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk is legally a pedestrian. If
the cyclist were in Monument, CO instead of Morgan Hill, CA, here's
the part that would apply:
"No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety
and ride a bicycle, walk, or run into the path of a moving vehicle
which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."
I'm guessing Rory probably didn't jump into traffic since the article
said he was waiting for that first vehicle.
Richard Masoner
Alan Wachtel
Until now, California law has been ambiguous on whether it's legal to bicycle on sidewalks and in crosswalks. On one hand, vehicles on the highway must travel on the right half of the roadway, and bicyclists are subject to the same provision. The sidewalk and crosswalk are not part of the roadway. On the other hand, the Vehicle Code authorizes cities and counties to regulate bicycling on sidewalks and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which makes no sense if it's already prohibited.
As Bob explained, legislative history from the '70s makes it clear that the second interpretation is correct, and most cities do interpret the law that way. But other cities, such as Berkeley, have regularly cited cyclists for riding in crosswalks, or even across streets that intersect designated bike paths. In Los Angeles, the city attorney went so far as to say that the city couldn't enact an ordinance permitting cyclists to cross a street on a bike path.
This legislation, sponsored by the City of Los Angeles, was meant to resolve these ambiguities. It wasn't intended to address the safety or desirability of bicycling on sidewalks and in crosswalks or to take a position for or against regulating it locally. Nor does it establish traffic rules or assign right-of-way at intersections, which are non-trivial questions. For that purpose, it might be desirable to follow the model of Oregon Revised Statutes Section 814.410 (http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/814.html), which requires bicyclists on a sidewalk to:
--Not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
--Give an audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
--Yield the right of way to all pedestrians.
--Not operate in a careless manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.
--Travel at a speed no greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk, approaching or crossing a driveway, or crossing a curb cut or pedestrian ramp, when a motor vehicle is approaching.
Certainly something like this should be done before giving cyclists the protection accorded pedestrians at crosswalks (as the Uniform Vehicle Code does). However, it was a protracted and contentious process for L.A.'s Department of Transportation to get all the internal approvals it needed to move forward with the legislative proposal as it stands, and the city's bike coordinator didn't want to start over again with additional provisions.
Under current law, bicycling across a roadway between intersections, including from a shared-use path that isn't designated as a bike path, is regulated only by section 21804, which requires yielding when entering or crossing a highway from public or private property. The new law does not change this.
It isn't clear yet what the facts were in this tragic crash, or how the law would apply to them.
Alan Wachtel
Palo Alto
Wac...@aol.com
D. Whiteman
231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.
A person on a MOTORIZED tricycle, because he is disabled, is a pedestrian.
467. (a) A “pedestrian” is a person who is afoot or who is using any of the following:
(1) A means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle.
(2) An electric personal assistive mobility device.
(b) “Pedestrian” includes a person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian, as specified in subdivision (a).
I suppose as currently written, at least tricyclists are protected/not excluded by the law.
My thoughts, in any event.
Ron Richings
--~------~--~---
Richard C. Moeur, PE
the offset yield line - which seems to have been installed here. It's
not clear as to whether the other vehicle stopped at the yield line or
at the crosswalk.
The HAWK beacon showed nearly 100% compliance in locations such as
this (but is more considerably expensive than just signs). What is the
latest on CTCDC vs the HAWK?
--
Richard C. Moeur, P.E., L.C.I., WC7RCM
Practicing Traffic Engineer (I'll get it right someday...)
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
"Life is just one W1-5 after another, until the W14-1"
The opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by
any organization with which I may be associated. :)
Websites:
http://www.richardcmoeur.com
http://www.trafficsign.us
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
trevor bourget
> such crosswalks, however.
The only proper approach is to adapt roadway law that already works to
the rest of the highway:
1. No person shall travel on a pedestrian facility faster than is safe
and reasonable for the conditions at that time and place.
2. The operator of a bicycle, when using a pedestrian facility, has all
the rights and the same responsibilities as a pedestrian.
Note this would not remove the right of a local jurisdiction to regulate
riding a bike in a crosswalk or on a sidewalk. The paranoid ones might
just pass an ordinance forbidding riding of a bicycle in a crosswalk,
although theoretically they could do that today.
-- trevor