Cyclist Hit at Commerce and East College Last Thursday Survives
Decatur Metro | July 22, 2013Gina wrote in late last week…
On Thursday evening on our way home we saw a bicyclist lying in the road on College Ave at the Commerce/Columbia intersection (In front of what was Citgo)
People were around him and calling for help… It looked pretty bad but I think it had just happened moments before.
This was approximately 8:45. I’m curious to know if the guy was alright. I have googled various phrases. What is interesting is that the intersections of College / Candler etc turn up as very dangerous to cyclists. As your blog has often hosted discussions around bicycle lanes, and safety for cyclists… I also think its interesting that we only hear about those individuals who unfortunately don’t make it and may not be seeing all the incidents of injury to cyclists.
We followed up with DPD. Sgt. Ross reported back…
There was a vehicle/cyclist accident at East College Avenue at Commerce Drive Thursday evening. The cyclist received non-life threatening injuries and was treated at a local hospital. The driver was cited for failure to yield while turning left.
Latest from Decaturish
Here’s a half-baked thought for DMers to bring up to temp: I feel like the rules of the road, as we apply them today, are based on the diminishing notion that streets are for cars, and cars only. Thus, they presume a relatively fair fight so, if you’re in your car and you screw up and hit another car, failure to yield seems like a reasonable charge for your offense. But if you’re in your car and your screw up has the very likely outcome of maiming or killing a cyclist or pedestrian, failure to yield seems woefully insufficient.
Not sure where I’m going with this. Any thoughts?
Although this legal doctine is all but dead in today’s hyper-litigious world where the concept of personal accountability is all but extinct, I am going to disagree based on assumption of risk. All the driver allegedly did was fail to yield. Absent malice or intent, why should the driver bear additional consequences because the cyclist chose to ride a bike on the road?
But bikes are for roads. Most city/county ordinances require that bikes ride on the road. Legislation considers them vehicles.
I am a motorist and a ride a bicycle. There are bad types of both. I understand the intent of the question above – laws disregarded by cars in interaction with bicycles have worse potential consequences than car vs. car. But the same could be said about cars vs. pedestrians. I don’t know that you can up the charge based the mode of conveyance (unless it involves manslaughter etc.).
I also use the sidewalks a lot (or what constitutes sidewalks in some areas around here). And bikes using sidewalks frustrate me. But I understand some cyclists’ use of them given the options on some of our roads.
“All the driver allegedly did was fail to yield. Absent malice or intent, why should the driver bear additional consequences because the cyclist chose to ride a bike on the road?”
____________________________
But the driver does risk additional consequences in the form of tort liability. Failure to yield is negligence, and the driver will be responsible for whatever injuries his failure to yield may have caused. In some cases the damages could be very substantial, vastly exceeding the limits of your typical auto insurance policy.
Which is why the state minimum requirement of $25K liability is a freaking joke. And which is also why anyone with any assets should make sure that they have enough liability coverage to protect those assets (and to compensate anyone they hurt in an accident). Even more importantly, EVERYBODY should make sure that they have adequate Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage in case they become a victim of someone else who is underinsured. $25K (minus attorney fees and costs) are not going to compensate you for anything above a few chiropractic adjustments.
I also recommend an umbrella policy with at least $1M in coverage. Costs less than $300 per year.
+1. An umbrella policy also will help cover the cost of defense, which can be substantial, even if you do not ultimately have liability on the underlying claim.
I think that, generally, umbrella policies make you have a much greater underlying liability limit than the minimum. A good idea just the same, because it covers auto and home liability.
Wow, the limit is just $25k? I don’t know whay I thought it was $100k, but I did. $25k is a joke.
Umbrella policies are pretty dang cheap. Totally worth the security and peace of mind they provide.
You want to be even more appalled? There are still at least a handful of states with a $15K minimum and I think Florida is still at $10K. The HIGHEST minimum in any state is only $50K. This means that wherever you drive in this country, anyone driving with even the legally required minimum coverage is effectively an uninsured time bomb. I’ve argued for a few years that $250K should be required as a matter of public policy and safety. But the force is strong with the insurance lobby.
OK, so what do you do when the cyclist is the offending party? I understand who was cited in this case, but the rules of the road are for everyone and I continue to see cyclists violate them on a daily basis far more often than motorists.
Steve you keep saying things like that, but it is simply impossible for it to be true. Cars outnumber bikes by a massive margin, so from the perspective of sheer numbers, there is no way for anyone to observe “far more” violations by cyclists than drivers, unless drivers as a class are almost never committing traffic violations. But of course we know that just about every car on certain roads, including Ponce, is speeding.
I said that was my observation and I’m holding to that statement.
I continue to see motorists speeding and following to close on S. Columbia, Candler, N Decatur, Scott, Clairemont, Church, Ponce….. I continue to see pedestrians jaywalk. I continue to see cyclists yield at stop signs and red lights. In most cases the offending party is the one held accountable for the rules of the road when an accident does happen.
The bottom line is it takes an accident or being caught violating the rule to impact the compliance of the rule for all parties (motorists, cyclists, pedestrians).
how many rules of the road do you see cyclists break every day compared to drivers? when’s the last time you saw a car come to a complete stop at a stop sign? how many drivers do you see on typing on or reading their smartphones while driving?
enough with the ‘cyclists are always breaking the rules of the road’ crap. everybody does. cyclists in general are way more careful out there, since it’s their skin on the line, as opposed to the driver’s crumple zones.
I was out for 45 minutes today and saw no motorists committing violations but observed 2 cyclists run a red light. To her credit, one cyclist did wait for the light.
I challenge you to drive the posted speed limit. Especially on 4 lane roads. The number of people who pass you are violating the speed limit rule.
“I was out for 45 minutes today and saw no motorists committing violations but observed 2 cyclists run a red light.”
Really? I was on Scott Boulevard for 2 minutes and saw 45 motorists speeding!
That’s not speeding, that’s civil disobedience.
you must have not seen any motorists.
+1
On Sycamore, I’ve never witnessed a car run a stop sign. However, I’ve never seen a cyclist stop for one.
ever seen a cyclist speeding on that road?
You’re not on my part of Sycamore where the 4 way stop is run regularly.
I live by a 4 way on Sycamore and used to play games with my kids teaching them to count, and easily counted 100+ cars in a row not stopping, except for when a right-of-way situation with two cars required a stop
Unfortunately, our laws treat bicycles just like cars when it’s really unnecessary and unrealistic to expect bikes to come to a complete stop at all stop signs.
To address this reality Idaho amended their stop-sign laws back in the 80s to allow cyclists a rolling stop, effectively treating a stop sign as a yield. We need such a law on the books here in GA!
There has been more than one attempt to pass such a law in Georgia, but they have thus far failed.
Yep. I realize it’s an unformed notion that’s based more on some underlying sense of unfairness and not on any rational consideration of law. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the law itself and how it represents our (present) priorities which, for now, are all about getting cars from point A to point B. Kind of like how the crime of jaywalking didn’t exist until well into the 20th century. Prior to then, streets were for people — on foot, on bike, in wagons, in cars, in trolleys — and no one user was given formal priority. So where did jaywalking come from? The auto industry lobbied for it.
So I don’t really disagree on the points of intent or malice. Just wondering if we’ll ever see the day again when public space is divvied up more equitably. (That’s probably a politically-charged phrasing, which is not really what I’m getting at.)
Synergy! Mention the invention of jaywalking and a couple hours later this appears online:
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/the-invention-of-jaywalking-was-a-massive-shaming-campa-858926923
I wonder how long before bike-shaming efforts begin. If they haven’t already.
Drove across Decatur the other day to my vet’s office. Total trip was probably 15 minutes. In that short trip, I had to dodge 3 jaywalkers and 1 bicycle rider running a red light. If I had hit any of the little darlings, my life would have been forever changed. Perhaps the road is for cars and not whoever else decides to wander across its surface.
I think there are rules of the road and then there are “rules” of the road.
I’ve heard many motorists complain about cyclists riding in the road, as if they were violating the law. Same is true for cyclists who ride on sidewalks to the detriment of pedestrians.
I had a few “who knew?” moments from a recent DM post on when pedestrians have the right-of-way.
The not so easy answer is education. But that is sooooo boring…
In reply to the post below. Hit wrong reply button.
Did you know that some of the downtown stoplights are triggered by the weight of a car? A cyclist either needs to go on the sidewalk and press the pedestrian cross button (not practical and technically against the rules) or wait for a clear shot. If it was clear, what he did was fine and in fact necessary in my book.
Cars outnumber bikes on the road, and both continue to make moving violations, but I watched a father lead his wife and 3 children on bicycles across Ponce on N. Candler through a red light. I just can’t help but be flabbergasted. No cars were immediately coming, but the lesson should be to stop at red lights, because whether you’re in a car or on a bike, red light means stop.
I agree that bikes should follow the rules, and that is what I tell my daughter when we ride around town. BUT – as RSH notes some light just DO NOT CHANGE unless there is a car around. The worst offender is the light next to Ice House lofts. It’s on the PATH but even with pushing the button, it just won’t change. I’ve run it after waiting almost 5 minutes, but hate to do b/c it’s so dangerous with the cars coming up from the Commerce underpass.
Also, I have my daughter use the side walk on Ponce/Commerce/Sycamore, as the road gets very narrow near downtown. I don’t mind braving the road, but I’m not going to put my daughter in danger, just because the sidewalk is off-limits.
It’s not that I have an issue with your specific offenses as I might make the same choices, especially if I perceived something as dangerous for my children. But, should cars also be allowed to pick and choose which rules they follow? There isn’t a driver amongst us who hasn’t wanted to run a red light b/c we have been sitting there for “too long”. The point is that drivers and cyclists alike assume cars and bikes will or won’t be in a certain place at a certain time (i.e. if they have the green light, they assume the coast is clear), and they (usually) act accordinly. If we all start picking and choosing which rules apply to us, the situation will become much more dangerous. If you have a problem with a particular traffic signal, you should (1) contact the city and (2) choose a different route until the issue is resolved.
As an aside, it amazes me how many cyclists will openly admit and even explain their justification as to why they choose to break so many traffic laws, and simultaneoulsy take the moral high road and blame drivers for every single accident involvig a cyclist. You simply can’t have it both ways.
I don’t know any cyclists who would claim that every accident is the fault of the driver. You say you know many so I will believe you. But I honestly don’t think cyclists think that way.
I think most drivers, myself included, knowingly break some laws. Speeding on the freeway is the obvious. I almost always drive about 10 mph over on the freeway if there is light traffic. What I am trying to say above is that the rules that cyclists bend/break are just different than the ones cars break because they are different vehicles. So a bike rider generally does not have to be concerned with speeding, while car drivers do it all the time. And cars won’t be taking advantage of a berm or the curb to scoot by cars to turn right, because they can’t do that.
Bike riders do not take advantage of scooting by cars at a traffic light simply to turn right. Sometimes he goes straight, forcing the line of cars who just passed him to be behind him yet again (as Dekalb Ave Commuter states below). Scooting by to turn right is one thing and by all means go right ahead, but leaping to the front of the line to be right at the intersection so all the cars have the displeasure of having to maneuver around you again, why?
Not that I’m accusing you of this directly, RSH. If you don’t do that, just ignore my rant.
DawgFan – I do pick and choose when in a car as well.
I cannot stand “stupid” lights that never change how they are timed. I believe a lot of lights after a certain time should revert to flashing reds. Why have a car idle for 3-4 minutes when no one is at the intersection except for that one car.
So yes, I’ve been known to stop, look and go through an intersection.
To me, that’s akin to speeding – against the law, but really a minor infraction if done safely.
But I think what many of us are saying, is that there IS a difference between a cyclist and a car–a few thousand pounds in weight, the maximum speed at which each can travel, as well as how quickly each can accelerate and decelerate, and change directions. I agree with Scott–there should be different legal consequences to laws violated that end in cyclist or pedestrian accident or injury, because the actual consequences are different.
When I am on a bike, I will break the law *if I feel that my safety is at risk.* That might mean riding on the sidewalk on College Avenue or another busy street with no shoulder or emergency or bike lane. It might mean riding in the center of the street instead of to the right when there is debris, parked cars, or oncoming traffic that may not see me.
And who would sit at an intersection with a light that will not turn green, after pressing the walk button repeatedly–car, pedestrian, or cyclist? It might mean a creative crossing on a red light of turning right on red, immediate left, then right again, such as on Commerce and Sycamore, or it might mean a very careful looking both ways before heading into the intersection.
You suggest taking a different route if the light does not turn red for a bike, but let’s really think about that–there are many of these in Decatur and elsewhere, some even on streets where there are bike lanes, and it is simply not practical. Choosing a different route often means choosing a street without bike lanes or suitable place to ride a bike over a designated bike path, such as the crossing at Commerce and Sycamore.
Although I am a defensive driver all the time, I am hyper-defensive when on a bike, and sometimes that means breaking the law. If it means keeping me visible to cars, or just out of their way, I will do what it takes. Until the playing field is leveled, and there is more respect for bikers on the roads, I will continue to do so. I think that is how many bikers feel. I see a lot of anger towards bikers, a lack of patience when trying to pass a biker on the road, to the point of endangering the biker’s safety (ie, not giving 3 feet) and safety of oncoming traffic, and just general lack of awareness of the presence and rights of bikers.
While there are some bikers who blatantly break the law–blazing through stop signs or red lights without stopping, passing cars stopped at an intersection when NOT turning right (but if you ask me, I think passing on the right at intersections is extremely dangerous and should be illegal altogether)–most cyclists just want to get to where they are going as safely as possible and most of us obey the law, with few well-thought exceptions.
I wish I knew the answer to improving cyclist-motorist misunderstanding and frustration.
RSH, you have a good point, and I can’t say that I blame you especially when it is late in the evening and there wont be a car coming anytime soon to force the light change. However, my point was this father lead his family through a busy intersection in the middle of the afternoon. I think that regardless if the coast is clear, or “it’s clear, but hurry hurry”, it’s not teaching safe riding practices to children, and it puts the family in harm’s way.
I’ll let that dad choose how to teach. My guess is that he’s doing just fine.
Drivers and cyclists break rules all the time. I agree with what Scott said in that cyclists tend to be criticized out of that sense of unfairness. The types of rules we cyclists break sometimes seem blatant and unfair. A good example is rolling through an empty four way stop. I will do that 100% of the time if I have a clear view in all directions (I do not do that in a car). In many cases, I do things that are technically against the rules, but are for the common good of everyone. Who wants to be behind a cyclist at a 10 deep stop light on an uphill? If there is a clear way around it, maybe even a quick hop on an empty sidewalk, I will do that. How about when I move over into a turn lane to allow cars to pass me on a narrow road. Technically, against the law and rules, but it only makes sense. I have never been in an accident involving a car and my only close calls were when drivers were not paying attention. Truth is, it may seem like cyclists are crazy madmen, but I think most of us are extremely keen to what’s going on around us. I do see cyclists cross the line of what I think is safe or rude. But when I break a rule, it is not impeding anyone or causing an unsafe situation. I will be honest and say that one of the advantages of riding a bike is having the ability to get places faster than in a car because we can be a little creative and use options that are not available to drivers.
A cyclist’s best defense against this type of collision is to move away from the curb towards the centerline when meeting oncoming traffic in an intersection. This gives oncoming traffic a better chance to see the cyclist if she is behind another vehicle and it cuts off the opportunity for an oncoming driver to begin their turn…once begun very few drivers will yield to oncoming traffic.
Left-hook collisions as these are called by cyclists are often compounded by the sun blinding drivers…if a cyclist sees sun visors turned down she can be pretty certain that an oncoming driver will not see her.
Also, it would be considerate if fellow vehicles would desist from attempting to overtake bicyclists when approaching intersections. There is a lot going on and we don’t need the hazard of a vehicle passing us as we make decisions as we approach intersections.
Be safe out there.
And then there is the cyclist passing me on the right (coming up from behind in my blind spot) while riding in the gutter along the curb – inches from my vehicle, who proceeds to flip me off for honking at them after having to slam on brakes to avoid driving over them….
All I can conclude is that the cyclist had a suicide wish and I ruined his attempt.
If you are stopped for a light, that’s legal. If you are moving, it’s not.
REALLY?! It’s legal for cyclists to pass stopped cars in the gutter?! I was under the impression that bicycles were vehicles and, therefore, had to follow rules of the road (aka- no passing on the right, no passing in the shoulder, no driving in-between lanes, etc.).
If it is legal, that law needs to be changed ASAP. It causes hugely dangerous conditions when a cyclist passes in the gutter and in-between lanes (mostly for the cyclist- rarely is traffic completely dead-stopped….). Not to mention, it is completely infuriating when you give a lot of courtesy to a bicyclist in traffic, take the time to pass him/her safely (often, not an easy thing to do with cars whizzing around you at warp speed because you’re going 10mph behind a bicycle), and then, after you’ve managed to pass, that bicyclist leap frogs you at a traffic light and you’re stuck behind him/her ALL OVER AGAIN.
REALLY?! It’s legal for cyclists to pass stopped cars in the gutter?!
> Yes, if the cyclist can safely move past the vehicle.
Isn’t “safely” kind of subjective? who determines what is safe in those situations? There might be room for you to move past him, but if you’re in his blind spot and he’s about to turn right, that’s not safe at all.
The cyclist, and no, not really. There’s a blind spot issue with cars in general that could apply to other care in the adjoining lanes also.
If people are uncomfortable navigating the roads with a car and it’s blind spot, I’d advise them to take public transportation.
Everyone, cars, motorcycles, and bikes need to operate their vehicle with responsibility and care any time they hit the road or they should not be on the road. If everyone is courteous and looks out for each other we can all be much safer. If people choose to operate their vehicle in an unsafe manner there will at times be unfortunate consequences.
“The cyclist, and no, not really”
Is that the law or is that your opinion? Seems rather convenient. Plus, if I recall correctly, there must also be a bike lane or the lane must be wide enough to accomodate a vehicle and a bike. If you are riding on the curbing, that falls outside the definition. Plus, cyclists can’t use right turn lanes except to turn right.
It’s the law. Look for yourself. Please.
http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/docs/gabicyclelawenforcementguide.pdf
When Overtaking and Passing
on the Right is Permitted
[§40-6-43]
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
• When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn; or
• Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lanes of moving vehicles in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle [§40-6-43(a)(1,2)].
If otherwise authorized, the driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway [§40-6-43 (b)].
(A cyclist traveling in a bicycle lane, or in a lane wide enough for motor vehicles and bicycles to share (see roadway position above) may pass motor vehicles on the right, but must still take
care to avoid turning vehicles. This is allowed since in these cases there is either provision of a lane or sufficient width for two lines of moving traffic; one of which is bicycle traffic.)
My interpretation of what you’ve posted is exactly as DawgFan summarized, riding on the curbing falls outside of the definition. The relevant passage:
“(A cyclist traveling in a bicycle lane, or in a lane wide enough for motor vehicles and bicycles to share (see roadway position above) may pass motor vehicles on the right…”
So if there’s not a bicycle lane, the lane must be wide enough so that there could be one.
Riding in the curb well does not fall outside the law because, as I understand it, when curbs are present, the law defines roadway in terms of curb to curb. It doesn’t matter if a foot at the edge changes from asphalt to concrete.
Lawyers or other legal aficionados?
Even assuming you are right, that still doesn’t account for the question of whether you should. If you are passing in the curb to turn right, that is one thing. But, if you are passing simply to break in line and force the cars to navigate around you yet again after passing through the intersection, that is completely unacceptable.
If you go to Taqueria every weekend night and walk to the front of the line, how long before you get your ass kicked? And no, that is not a threat – honest question – how would you expect those who have been standing in line (sometimes for an hour) to react?
Scott is correct, and relax DawgsFan nobody is trying to beat you to Taqueria, bike riders are just trying to get where they’re going too on the road that was made for everyone to use.
The key part is that there must be enough room for two lanes of *moving* traffic. Being able to squeeze by on the curb when traffic is stopped doesn’t qualify. On page 7 of the above cited booklet it states:
“(A cyclist should maintain at least 18 to 24 inches of
clearance from a curb or pavement edge [Georgia
DOT, Georgia Bike Sense Guide]…”
mrblonde > Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. Nobody is talking about hotdogging on the curb.
Oh, in that case I’m confused because further up you said it was legal for cyclists to pass stopped cars by going in the gutter. I guess we’re all in agreement that it’s not legal unless there’s a good five or six feet between the side of the car and the edge of the street. Cool.
mrblonde – Try again. with your “logic” a car would never have room to pass a bike. I’m out. No point in arguing with you folks about just being respectful to each other.
John, I think there is some confusion here. Passing on the right, according to the laws quoted above, should be legal for bikers *only* when there is sufficient space for both cars and bikes to be moving, or 18″-24″, or a bike lane.
Which means, and to every driver’s frustration (including mine, and I ride a bike often), if a car had to drive across the center line in order to pass a cyclist, then when sitting at the red light, it is illegal for said cyclist to then pass the car to the right *because there was not sufficient room for two lanes of moving traffic (cyclist and motorist)*. It is only “safe”/possible at the intersection because cars are stopped, and the biker can navigate around them. If traffic were moving, then the biker would not be able to pass unless they were incredibly foolish (and fast). This does not include the obviously unsafe and illegal practice of curbing it.
The law is not clear. After reading it several times, I think I understand now. Thoughts?
Ok, I didn’t think the argument was about being respectful to each other, I thought we were trying to clarify for each other what the rules are. Also, not my “logic”, again from the link you posted:
Since the recommended minimum clearance for
passing a bicyclist (at moderate speed) is 3 feet
[Governor’s Office of Highway Safety and Georgia
DOT, Georgia Bike Sense Guide] and the total width
of larger motor vehicles (with extending mirrors) is
commonly 8 feet or more, a lane with less than 14
feet of usable width is usually too narrow for motor
traffic to pass.
Which means that there’s usually not enough room to make the pass on the right hand side, at least not on city streets.
Hi John,
I am plenty comfortable with the blind spot inherent in my vehicle and am quite happy to navigate the highways and byways and lanes in Decatur with it. You seem to advocate that the gutter is a bike lane on which a cyclist should choose to overtake me on the right (since I stopped for the stop sign and the cyclist did not – no surprise there).
Fine, if that is how you choose to ride, please do so. If you choose to flip me off for honking at your silly, self destructive, and unsafe behavior, please do so.
Please also know that the next time you do this, I may not be so quick to notice you or so quick to hit the brakes to avoid you so I hope you are equally understanding as you go under the wheels of my truck.
(BTW, I have no idea WHO the cyclist that I encountered was, and I am only directing this reply towards you as you seem to be advocating the riding behavior of that cyclist.)
Skeptic,
I find your anger towards cyclists very unsettling, and your threat of running over a cyclist and killing them to be unconscionable in a public forum and hope that someone that moderates the board takes note. It’s disgusting.
Sorry, you misinterpret my remarks.
No threat whatsoever. I am amazed that a cyclist would ride up on me from the right (as I turn right) after having signaled a right turn, surprising me at how closely he came to being a pancake on the road. Only not being flattened due entirely to my reaction time and ability to slam on brakes to avoid running him over.
What is galling is your defense of such behavior and calling me out due to my recognition that the next time this occurs, my attention may not be as quick.
threats of physical harm. awesome. just awesome.
Wow, after years of both driving and sporadic cycling, I never knew this was legal. It does seem dangerous. There’s the blind spot issue. And on congested urban streets (not Decatur) where cars are parallel parked along the side, there’s the danger of a parked car’s door opening and slamming you between two cars.
Passing on the right can only legally happen when traffic is not moving and the passer must stop at the intersection so I don’t understand the concern with blind spots and turning etc.
Once traffic starts moving again the passer must move back into the travel lane.
Yes, opening a door into oncoming traffic (on either side of the car) is a code violation and dangerous.
BTW: moving one’s car up against the curb specifically to block a cyclist coming up from behind is a third degree misdemeanor. Not a traffic violation, a criminal violation. I know some drivers are fond of this move.
I’m glad to hear it’s legal because I know so many cyclists do it, especially those on bike group rides. But it still seems dangerous to me. You have to trust drivers to know the law and not move again once stopped at intersections nor open their parked car doors into you. As someone who once spent a summer in Boston with only a bicycle for transportation and no money for public transportation, I remember the constant risk of car doors opening into my path.
I think in Skeptic’s case, he/she was turning right. After looking to the left to avoid oncoming traffic, he/she was surprised to find a bike was now occupying the corner of the intersection he/she was ready to pull through.
Yes, you have it right, Pierce.
What are the rules for a Stop sign? I stopped, the cyclist did not.
“What are the rules for a Stop sign?”
1) Slow down and look, and if you think you can make it and you don’t see a po-po, proceed with caution.
2) If you are on a bicycle, just blow through the intersection and assume the cars are folliwng the above.
It is only legal if certain conditions (i.e. the presence of a bike lane) are met. A link to a site spelling out the rules of when it is permissible has been posted here before. But, on a “normal” roadway with a very small gap b/t the cars and sidewalk, it is not legal.
Yep, riding motorcycles taught me this- get way over into that lane in intersections.
So relieved the cyclist was not more seriously hurt. Scary.
I wish supermarket shoppers would understand that the lined area in front of the store entrance is generally a fire lane/no standing zone, not a license to push a shopping cart in front of oncoming traffic.
Actually, it is my understanding that this striped zone in front of store entrances is a designated walkway & cars should yield to pedestrians in these areas. It is also a no-parking zone to prevent cars from parking & waiting on customers to come out.
Exactly. What I don’t understand is why some drivers even use that area. Unless you are handicapped, I can’t see why anyone would want to fight all the cart traffic in front of a grocery. And even if you do, then yes, you need to yield to the carts.
Now you’ve got me wondering. I always assumed it was for pedestrians as Kathy says. Are we wrong?
Which stiped areas? There is often a striped area running parallel to the sidewalk which is a fire zone. The striped area crossing the drive in front of the entrance to the store is a walkway, or at least I have always treated it as such (although I am not condoning the idiotic practice of pushing your cart into the roadway without bothering to look and/or assuming that a moving vehicle will stop if it is even able to).
If the cyclist was doing something reckless or illegal, there’s blame to share. I assume most cyclists support designing or retrofitting roads to accomodate them, while recognizing that being the smallest vehicle on the road requires caution and common sense regardless of the rules of the road – stated or unstated. Same approach as when I drive my sedan among trucks and SUVs on 75.
As a driver I support bike lanes etc. because I’d rather not choose between crossing the center line to pass a bike or riding up his a** while traffic stacks up behind me. Especially if I’m trying to send an important email.
got a kick out of reading this and typing my reply while changing lanes and eating fries on 285.
Were you farthing as well?
not sure.
are you referring to what happens when i ask my son to pull my index finger?
if yes, no.
If you’re not female, it’s not likely you were.
Your comment about bike lanes brings up a question I think has been answered here before, but here goes: why would ANYONE ride in the street on Howard Ave when there is a perfectly nice, and usually wide open, bike path *right there*??? I live off Howard, and pull out of my neighborhood onto Howard multiple times a day. I see this *all the time* most especially, and mind-bogglingly, at afternoon rush hour. Traffic is crazy on Howard and westbound drivers are blinded by the sun in the afternoon. It just seems insane to me. As well, there are multiple driveways and side streets on the north side of Howard and a lot of them have overgrown shrubbery. Where I pull out, I have to inch forward a bit at a time to see to my left past some shrubs; I could easily hit a cyclist while I am trying to pull far forward enough to see if traffic is clear.
I might be mistaken, but I think it is the law that if there is a designated bike path, it is illegal to be in the street. Legal or not, I can’t imaging WHY anyone would do something that seems to be so stupid and risky.
It’s perfectly legal to NOT ride on the PATH. I can tell you why some cyclists prefer the road. It’s becuase the PATH tends to have a lot of leisure cyclists and walkers. For a cyclist trying to get home from work, the road offers a much faster and (honestly) less stressful ride. There’s some parts of the PATH that can slow a cyclist down. Like at the funky intersection of Howard and Adair/Atlanta. Most of the time, there are cars stopped at the tracks and a cyclist on the PATH needs to carefully navigate through that intersection. But if on Howard, they can just zip right on through the light (assuming it’s green) without having to cross Adair.
Also, though you may not believe it, a cyclist moving at a good pace will feel safer on Howard than on the PATH and I would argue it’s true. As I said in another post, cyclists are much more keen to their environment than most non-cyclists think.
I’m sure the serious cyclists will jump in with knowledgeable answers but here’s what I see as problems:
1) The bike path doesn’t have entry/exit ramps at key intersections. So it doesn’t work for many trip routes. For example, when I used to bike with little kids south on Commerce, I’d be stuck once I got to Howard. To cross, you have to race across the street before the light changes and then get up a steep curb to get onto the bike path. If you decide instead to use the pedestrian crossing to walk your bikes across, I believe it is on the left side of Commerce and you’d have to first cross Commerce which is awkward and confusing to cars. So we’d ride on the uneven sidewalk down to the Atlanta Ave crossing where there finally is a break in the curb in order to get onto the bike path. Not fun. Maybe this has been fixed since my kids stopped being willing to bike with me?
2) The bike path is not a bike lane but is a multi-use path with pedestrians, dog-walkers, skaters, skateboarders, etc. So serious commuting cyclists cannot go along at their usual cruising speeds, unless it happens to be empty.
This is very like the problem with the fine path system along Ponce de Leon (Deepdene Park) connecting the Va/Hi PATH with access to the Ponce bike lanes entering City of Decatur. I want to love this path and use it several times a week, but the need to cross Ponce at two unsignaled intersections is troubling to say the least. Decatur Active Living has expressed an interest in resolving this issue but we are not there yet.
like with a lot of other things, people that do not ride bikes tend to see a lot of things cyclists do as odd, or wrong, or stupid, or whatever. i think a lot of the animosity between the two groups comes from a lack of understanding. and most of the time it is the motorists not understanding the cyclists. and i don’t mean that from a high horse/those damn drivers point of view. it’s just that most cyclists are also motorists, which is not the case the other way around. a similar thing with bike lanes. while in theory they’re a great idea, in practice, i don’t like them one bit. they are usually covered in debris, cars use them as parking… i much prefer wider lanes with sharrows. bike paths can be similarly treacherous/impractical if driveways intersect them. you have to slow down and make sure no car is coming every 100 feet, as opposed to just riding on the road and paying attention ahead and behind you while being able to maintain your chosen speed.
Good point about debris on bike paths and in bike lanes. You don’t have as much problem on the open road because all the big motorized vehicles have either shmushed it flat or cleared it out of the way.
One of the reasons I hate going to YDFM is that I prefer to park at the far end and I have to run a gauntlet of insane pedestrians to get there. I especially love the ones who cross diagonally in order to prolong the amount of time they are blocking traffic.
I would love to see Georgia adopt the “rolling stop” law that other states have passed for bicycles. It doesn’t make sense for a bicyclist to sit at a red light with nobody coming.
(1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping… may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution…
It doesn’t make sense for anyone to sit at a red light with nobody coming.
I would be satisfied for all vehicles to treat empty intersections as four-way stops. But the roads are crowded with too many people who use poor judgment when driving to do this.
Just to poke the bear a little more let me tell you about what I saw today.
I was in my car at the Scott/N.Decatur intersection heading north. (I was the first car in a long line of cars.) To my surprise I hear a rumble/high pitched motorcycle noise getting closer and closer. I looked around and saw nothing and figured this person would eventually come up on my left to the turn lane. Nope, instead he split the lane and came up right in the middle of the two lanes. Meanwhile one of Decatur’s finest is conducting what appears to be crossing guard training diagonally across the street to my left. The cop looks up and wags their finger and shake their head at the motorcycle guy. When our light turns green he accelerates quickly and moves on. I pass him again before the next green light because he is caught up in traffic again.
Oh and then on S. Columbia I had a women step out in the road as I was approaching with 4 children to cross over to the Marta stop. I was driving well below the speed limit and there was no one behind me. Luckily I saw the situation ahead of me and knew what to expect because I see this ALL the time. I still felt the need to swerve because it was way too close for comfort and when kids are involved no one can predict what they are going to do. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen a mother with a stroller and a toddler in hand sprinting across S. Columbia to reach this bus stop.
Any how, the point is motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, runners, walkers, and motorcyclists (I have been all of these at some point) are capable of breaking the law and making very risky decisions. Accidents will happen and I do my best to avoid/prevent/reduce my risk of being involved in an accident. I hope everyone else does the same. However, I never expect everyone will so I have to be ready to respond appropriately at all times.