Cyclist riding in crosswalk

Leo Lichtman said:

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
marked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

It depends on local rules and regulations. In Seattle (and I believe
all of Washington), cyclists are treated just like pedestrians at
crosswalks. And yes, it's perfectly legitimate to cycle across the
crosswalk (assuming you're not being a jerk and trying to plow through a
crowd of pedestrians).

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
"Sleeping alone, except under doctor's orders, does much harm. Children
will tell you how lonely it is sleeping alone. If possible, you should
always sleep with someone you love. You both recharge your mutual
batteries free of charge. " --Marlene Dietrich, Marlene Dietrich's ABC, 1962

Leo Lichtman said:

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
marked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

Here in Colorado it is legal to bicycle on the sidewalk (unless
prohibited by local ordinance) and to bicycle through a crosswalk. A
bicyclist on the sidewalk is considered a pedestrian with the rights and
obligations of a pedestrian. It is also legal to bicycle on a roadway
(unless prohibited by signs, as on an urban Interstate), in which case
the bicycle is a vehicle with the rights and obligations of a vehicle
operator. So in Colorado you would be breaking the law by not stopping
for the cyclist in question.

Colorado law was recently changed, sidewalk cyclists were previously
required to walk their bicycles through crosswalks. My own opinion is
that anyone who lacks the skills to ride in the roadway should get off
and walk through crosswalks.

mark

mark said:

Here in Colorado it is legal to bicycle on the sidewalk (unless
prohibited by local ordinance) and to bicycle through a crosswalk. A
bicyclist on the sidewalk is considered a pedestrian with the rights and
obligations of a pedestrian.

Can you cite a statute for that?

Wayne

"Leo Lichtman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is
CLEARLY marked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and,
clearly, he intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I
did not. Had he been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My
reasoning is, he does not deserve better treatment just because he is
doing what he ain't sposta. (I don't blame him. He was waiting patiently
for traffic to clear.)

What if it was a kid on skates, or a person in a wheelchair?

jb

Wayne Pein said:

mark said:

Here in Colorado it is legal to bicycle on the sidewalk (unless
prohibited by local ordinance) and to bicycle through a crosswalk. A
bicyclist on the sidewalk is considered a pedestrian with the rights
and obligations of a pedestrian.

Can you cite a statute for that?

Wayne

Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1412. Paragraph (1) refers to bicycles
operated on a roadway, paragraph (10) refers to bicycles on a sidewalk.

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d2d/64ea2/64ea4/65ee0/65fb7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=bicycles&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Leo Lichtman said:

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
marked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

In Washington, you could be ticketed for failing to yield. How likely
it is varies by jurisdiction -- Seattle has a habit of running
occasional crosswalk-enforcement campaigns, ticketing lots of drivers
for failing to yield at crosswalks. Other towns seem not to know they
have crosswalks on their streets.

Quoted message said:

It depends on local rules and regulations. In Seattle (and I believe
all of Washington), cyclists are treated just like pedestrians at
crosswalks. And yes, it's perfectly legitimate to cycle across the
crosswalk (assuming you're not being a jerk and trying to plow through a
crowd of pedestrians).

Correct, this is a Washington State law.

It's still illegal to enter the crosswalk if approaching traffic
(whether a motorist or a bicycle on the roadway) is too close to stop
for you, so if you're going to ride through the crosswalk you should
still be approaching at a pedestrian pace and be prepared to stop.

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

mark said:

Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1412. Paragraph (1) refers to bicycles
operated on a roadway, paragraph (10) refers to bicycles on a sidewalk.

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d2d/64ea2/64ea4/65ee0/65fb7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=bicycles&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1

That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist
rides, road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that
facility.

Wayne

Jim Boyer said:

"Leo Lichtman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is
CLEARLY marked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and,
clearly, he intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I
did not. Had he been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My
reasoning is, he does not deserve better treatment just because he is
doing what he ain't sposta. (I don't blame him. He was waiting patiently
for traffic to clear.)

Quoted message said:

What if it was a kid on skates, or a person in a wheelchair?

Exactly. Appropriate speed is the issue, not whether one is walking or
rolling. So I have no problem with it either, or sidewalk riding, as long
as the cyclist is traveling at pedestrian speed -- as with young children,
timid casual cyclists, etc.

About whether one should stop for a someone, anyone, in a crosswalk:

Positive people look for opportunities to extend courtesies, deserved or
not.

Negative people are concerned with what they should or shouldn't "hafta"
do.

Matt O.

"Jim Boyer" wrote: What if it was a kid on skates, or a person in a
wheelchair?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A person in a wheelchair is clearly to be treated as a pedestrian--I would
stop. A kid on skates--legally I would say it depends on whether skating is
allowed on that walkway. As a practical matter, I would stop, because we
make allowances for kids. And because they should be taught courtesy by
example. For the same reason, I would stop for a kid on a bike. I would
also stop for a mother pushing a stroller.

Leo Lichtman said:

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
marked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

If he was stopped while you were not it seems pretty clear to me that
you both did the right thing. "Yield to pedestrians" doesn't mean come
to a stop because there are pedestrians *approaching* the crosswalk.
It's more of a reminder to not run them over if they are *in* the
crosswalk. It's too bad there are some (not you, Leo) that need that
kind of reminder.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Leo Lichtman said:

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is CLEARLY
marked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had he
been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta. (I
don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

I had to look up Pedestrian to be sure, Merriam-Webster says "a
person going on foot". Now I'm even more confused, can on foot mean
moving going about on the power of foot, or physcally was do you need
to be on your feet?

Did the biker have his foot down on the ground, because that seems to
make him 'on foot' and you might be in the wrong.

later,

tom @ www.NoCostAds.com

"Tom The Great" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Leo Lichtman said:

This question will probably evoke as much disagreement as Xtowers on
sidewalk riding. I was driving, and I came to a crosswalk which is
CLEARLY
marked : "Yield to Pedestrians." A cyclist was waiting, and, clearly, he
intended to ride across. Should I have stopped for him? I did not. Had
he
been pushing the bike, I would have stopped. My reasoning is, he does not
deserve better treatment just because he is doing what he ain't sposta.
(I
don't blame him. He was waiting patiently for traffic to clear.)

I had to look up Pedestrian to be sure, Merriam-Webster says "a
person going on foot". Now I'm even more confused, can on foot mean
moving going about on the power of foot, or physcally was do you need
to be on your feet?

Did the biker have his foot down on the ground, because that seems to
make him 'on foot' and you might be in the wrong.

The dictionary has no validity in this discussion. Local laws decide what
is appropriate. In Washington a cyclist has the same rights as a pedestrian
in a crosswalk.

Wayne Pein said:

mark said:

Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1412. Paragraph (1) refers to bicycles
operated on a roadway, paragraph (10) refers to bicycles on a sidewalk.

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d2d/64ea2/64ea4/65ee0/65fb7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=bicycles&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1

That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist
rides, road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that
facility.

Wayne

How is the cyclist a second class user?

mark

"Wayne Pein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

mark said:

Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1412. Paragraph (1) refers to bicycles
operated on a roadway, paragraph (10) refers to bicycles on a sidewalk.

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/63d2d/64ea2/64ea4/65ee0/65fb7?f=templates&fn=fs-main-doc.htm&q=bicycles&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1

That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist rides,
road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that facility.

Wayne

I don't see anything wrong with the way that the LAW treats Bicyclists. It
appears that CRS 42-4-1412 is well written and we are adding it to the
"Emergency Kit" for our Low Speed Electric Bicycles to be carried in a pouch
on the bike itself.

"Wayne Pein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

mark said:

Wayne Pein said:

That's amazing. Really bad stuff in CO. No matter where a bicyclist
rides, road or sidewalk, the bicyclist is a second class user on that
facility.

Wayne

How is the cyclist a second class user?

mark

"5) Any person riding a bicycle shall ride in the right-hand lane."

What if the bicyclist is traveling the speed limit?

And the motorist must give you adequate room as well. You must be one of
the ones that don't ride in the far right. We'll be reading your obits one
of these days.

Quoted message said:

"When being overtaken by another vehicle, such person shall ride as close
to the right-hand side as practicable."

This shows no concern that it is the bicyclist's lane or any concern for
the bicyclist's safety. The only concern is that motorist convenience is
more important.

And you aren't showing any concern for both the motorist (3500 lbs at least)
and the Bicyclist (200 apprx lbs). Care to bet which one wins?

Quoted message said:

"Where a paved shoulder suitable for bicycle riding is present, persons
operating bicycles shall ride on the paved shoulder."

Apparently the authorities don't recognize that a shoulder is for the
purpose of preventing run-off-road collisions and providing a buffer from
roadside elements. It is not intended for vehicular travel. Making
shoulder use mandatory is clearly demoting bicyclists to second class road
users.

Paved Shoulder. Read it. And newsflash: A bicycle is NOT a Motorized
Vehicle and can be barred from even going on any stretch of hiway. Play by
the rules and we keep "Motoring". Don't and we walk.

Quoted message said:

"These provisions shall apply, except under any of the following
situations:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
the same direction;

(b) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
road or driveway;

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions, including,
but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards."

Bicyclists have to justify how they ride.

The options are.......

Quoted message said:

"(6) (a) Persons operating bicycles on roadways shall ride single file;
except that riding no more than two abreast is permitted in the following
circumstances:

(I) When riding two abreast will not impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic; or"

Allowing motorists to drive abreast of bicyclists in the bicyclist's lane
is more important than bicyclists' right to use the road as they see fit.

As we see fit? Now, that really makes sense. (sarcasm)

Quoted message said:

"(7) A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the
handlebars at all times."

Nanny state.

It's the same with a Motorcycle. And I suggest, when you are operating that
4 wheeled bemamoth that you have at least one hand on the steering wheel as
well.

Quoted message said:

"(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be
given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled
by the bicycle before turning and shall be given while the bicycle is
stopped waiting to turn. A signal by hand and arm need not be given
continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the
bicycle."

Stick your arm out while stopped? What [censored] is going to do that?

It's the law even for 4 wheelers. And your point is? Be retarded and get
to use your bike. Don't be retarded and ride the bus.

Quoted message said:

"(10) (a) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway
or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the
right-of-way to any pedestrian...."

How does a bicyclist yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian?

Crosswalks are for Pedestrians. Bikes are allowed there as a courtesy. You
yield to the pedestrian who is ill equipped to jump out of your
inconsiderate way in time.

Quoted message said:

"(c) A person riding or walking a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or
pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the
rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances,
including, but not limited to, the rights and duties granted and required
by section 42-4-802."

Yet they are required to yield to pedestrians? Further, it is a bad idea
to consider a wheeled vehicle user a pedestrian just because he is
operating on a sidewalk.

Do you have a reading problem? (c) is not for someone riding a Bike. They
are walking their bike and ARE pedestrians.

Quoted message said:

Wayne

Daryl Hunt said:

Quoted message said:

"5) Any person riding a bicycle shall ride in the right-hand lane."

What if the bicyclist is traveling the speed limit?

And the motorist must give you adequate room as well. You must be one of
the ones that don't ride in the far right. We'll be reading your obits one
of these days.

You obviously have little knowledge of the typical mechanism of
bicycling collisions. Read more about it and get back to us. And quit
with the fear mongering.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"When being overtaken by another vehicle, such person shall ride as close
to the right-hand side as practicable."

This shows no concern that it is the bicyclist's lane or any concern for
the bicyclist's safety. The only concern is that motorist convenience is
more important.

And you aren't showing any concern for both the motorist (3500 lbs at least)
and the Bicyclist (200 apprx lbs). Care to bet which one wins?

Irrelevant fear mongering. Traffic law is not based on weight and speed.
Are operating laws for small cars and heavy trucks different?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Where a paved shoulder suitable for bicycle riding is present, persons
operating bicycles shall ride on the paved shoulder."

Apparently the authorities don't recognize that a shoulder is for the
purpose of preventing run-off-road collisions and providing a buffer from
roadside elements. It is not intended for vehicular travel. Making
shoulder use mandatory is clearly demoting bicyclists to second class road
users.

Paved Shoulder. Read it. And newsflash: A bicycle is NOT a Motorized
Vehicle and can be barred from even going on any stretch of hiway. Play by
the rules and we keep "Motoring". Don't and we walk.

I did read. You apparently do not understand what a shoulder is for. And
more fear mongering.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"These provisions shall apply, except under any of the following
situations:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
the same direction;

(b) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
road or driveway;

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions, including,
but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
pedestrians, animals, or surface hazards."

Bicyclists have to justify how they ride.

The options are.......

Uh, to not have to justify their position because the discriminatory
laws are not in place.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"(6) (a) Persons operating bicycles on roadways shall ride single file;
except that riding no more than two abreast is permitted in the following
circumstances:

(I) When riding two abreast will not impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic; or"

Allowing motorists to drive abreast of bicyclists in the bicyclist's lane
is more important than bicyclists' right to use the road as they see fit.

As we see fit? Now, that really makes sense. (sarcasm)

Listen Bub, motorist lateral position is not micromanaged to the extent
bicyclists' is. That's discrimination. If you like it, keep doing it. If
you don't, then work to change it. But apparently you like it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"(7) A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the
handlebars at all times."

Nanny state.

It's the same with a Motorcycle. And I suggest, when you are operating that
4 wheeled bemamoth that you have at least one hand on the steering wheel as
well.

Nanny. Fortunately, you don't write the rules.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be
given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled
by the bicycle before turning and shall be given while the bicycle is
stopped waiting to turn. A signal by hand and arm need not be given
continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the
bicycle."

Stick your arm out while stopped? What [censored] is going to do that?

It's the law even for 4 wheelers. And your point is? Be retarded and get
to use your bike. Don't be retarded and ride the bus.

I didn't know 4 wheelers had to stick their arm out when stopped.

And more fear mongering.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"(10) (a) A person riding a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or pathway
or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall yield the
right-of-way to any pedestrian...."

How does a bicyclist yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian?

Crosswalks are for Pedestrians. Bikes are allowed there as a courtesy. You
yield to the pedestrian who is ill equipped to jump out of your
inconsiderate way in time.

That doesn't explain how to yield to pedestrians. Try again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"(c) A person riding or walking a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or
pathway or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the
rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances,
including, but not limited to, the rights and duties granted and required
by section 42-4-802."

Yet they are required to yield to pedestrians? Further, it is a bad idea
to consider a wheeled vehicle user a pedestrian just because he is
operating on a sidewalk.

Do you have a reading problem? (c) is not for someone riding a Bike. They
are walking their bike and ARE pedestrians.

YOU can't read. It says, "A person riding....." Get it?

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:

<snip>

Colorado is pure hell on earth for cyclists.
Seriously, it's a wonder how anybody rides here while
getting ground into the dirt by the steel-toed boot
of The Man.

Stay strong, my brothers!

Robert

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein wrote:

<snip>

Colorado is pure hell on earth for cyclists.
Seriously, it's a wonder how anybody rides here while
getting ground into the dirt by the steel-toed boot
of The Man.

Stay strong, my brothers!

Robert

CO may be a nice place to ride a bike IN SPITE of it's crappy laws. Note
that some states are even crappier.

- Mandatory shoulder use if usable. Who decides if it is usable?
- Mandatory right lane use and side of road use irrespective of
bicyclist speed.
- Single file requirement unless poor motorists aren't impeded
- Nuisance laws of keeping one hand on bar and signaling continuously
- Bad law that considers bicyclists on sidewalks as pedestrians.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein wrote:

<snip>

Colorado is pure hell on earth for cyclists.
Seriously, it's a wonder how anybody rides here while
getting ground into the dirt by the steel-toed boot
of The Man.

Stay strong, my brothers!

Robert

CO may be a nice place to ride a bike IN SPITE of it's crappy laws. Note
that some states are even crappier.

- Mandatory shoulder use if usable. Who decides if it is usable?
- Mandatory right lane use and side of road use irrespective of
bicyclist speed.
- Single file requirement unless poor motorists aren't impeded
- Nuisance laws of keeping one hand on bar and signaling continuously
- Bad law that considers bicyclists on sidewalks as pedestrians.

Wayne

So you think you are better than Farm Tractor, Comrade? ;-)