Today it was a pedestrian that yelled at me instead of a driver. Bonus points, she was wrong, AND then broke the law herself, twice in a row.
Posted by DIYuntilDawn@reddit | ebikes | View on Reddit | 42 comments
I stop at a cross walk near my work because this particular 4-way intersection not only crosses a highway that is 6 lanes in one way and 3 in the other, but also ha a train track along one side, and just to highlight how dangerous it is, the balloons marking the memorial site of the last person who died from getting run over have not even stopped floating yet.
While waiting for the crosswalk this old lady (who looks like a burlap sack and and old leather hand bag had a baby together, let it start smoking at age five, and is now in her late 70s) walks up behind me, yells at me that it is illegal to ride my ebike through the crosswalk, then proceeds to jaywalk through the red crosswalk while cars have to slam on their brakes to not hit her. She crosses the street one way over 6 lanes, then does it again to cross the other way.
BTW, she is wrong.
wturber@reddit
I guess some people must enjoy getting guff from people. I see so many of them posting about these inconsequential slights from others. I just don't get starting a conversation over something so trivial.
Both_Cranberry_1699@reddit
As a bike rider that had to bunny hop from the bike into the curb/side walk twice this morning on my daily ride in because both drivers weren't paying attention (Cellphones in hand and occupying their attention in hands free only state) I'll follow every one of the laws when my safety isn't threatened.
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
I believe the law in my state says something along the lines of it is recommended to ride in the bike lane unless it is "unsafe" to do so, but it never states what exactly it means by unsafe.
fishling@reddit
The lack of specificity of "unsafe" is a feature of this particular legal system, so that the meaning of "unsafe" is defined over time by case law rather than legislation, so that context of real-life scenarios is considered.
If you think about it, it would be pretty hard to try come up with an exhaustive list of every "unsafe" vs "safe" situation up front, especially when many factors (e.g., traffic, construction, detours, pedestrians, other cyclists, lighting/reflectors, road surface conditions, weather, time of day, etc) might come together.
The downside is that people actually have to get ticketed/charged and defend themselves in order for this to happen.
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
While it is true that sighting previous legal presentence does make it more likely to be able to prove a point in court, every previous use of it is based on the very first time the argument was used (successfully). And while I am not going to spend the time right now to search for previous similar cases, even if there was not any prior uses of that argument, it doesn't mean that it could not still be used (even for the first time) and be a successful argument for the meaning of "Unsafe". Even if it has to be backed up by unique circumstances. Like in this situation, even if there was a bike lane, the fact that there is a recent traffic accident at that intersection that involved a car hitting and killing a pedestrian would lend support to the argument that being in the road or bike lane (if it had one) would be more dangerous than the sidewalk at that location.
fishling@reddit
Well no, if the circumstances are different, then they won't be compared, unless the prior case law actually resulted in a framework/standard that tried to define "unsafe". Even then, one could still argue that your circumstances were exceptional or not considered.
Also, "citing" legal "precedence" is the phrasing you wanted.
No idea what the rest of your response is about. Nothing in my response was specific to your situation. I'm only trying to explain why the law doesn't say what "unsafe" means since this seemed to be something you were complaining about in that comment. Not every reply is a disagreement. :-)
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
A. You are commenting in this post I made about my situation ,that kinda means that yes, you are commenting about my situation. Unless you comment totally random off the wall things in posts all the time. Like if you had come in here and commented about the migration habits of sea birds just out of the blue, then yes, that would not be commenting about my situation. But since your comment was about the possibility that I might not have had the legal right to ride on the sidewalk due to the legal definition of what is or is not "unsafe" which is something that is directly related to the title and contents of my original post. The yes, you are commenting about my specific situation, or a fictional alternative of my situation where one of the factors is different.
B. Who said I was arguing, I was adding onto your comment (about my situation) where you were talking about what the legal definition of "unsafe" could or could not be defined as. Your comment about how it is not defined because it is to difficult to write into law the complete list of possible situations where if might be considered "unsafe" is valid. Which is why I was explaining in more detail about how my situation (which is what we are both commenting about) could possibly fit a hypothetical legal definition of "unsafe". Adding onto a comment with additional information is not arguing. It is having a conversation about a specific topic. Simply because you proposed one possibility and I clarified why that is not the case and then gave an additional probable alternative situation does not mean I am arguing with you.
fishling@reddit
If you read the words I wrote (I know, crazy thought) and the comment I replied to, you can see that it's quite possible to make a relevant comment that is not, in fact, about your specific situation, but is about something you said about the law, specifically: "it never states what exactly it means by unsafe", and me discussing why this is the case in our legal system.
Not me, given that I didn't use the word. Again, read the words I wrote.
It doesn't become right just because you repeat it often.
I'm eager to hear what one possibility you think I proposed. Direct quotes, please.
Surely you didn't think that non-exhaustive list of brainstormed possible considerations of "unsafe" was somehow a comment on your case, when many of those considerations were obviously not relevant, because that would be another indictment of your reading comprehension.
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
In case you didn't know, argument and disagreement (which is a word you did say) are symptoms and can be used in place of one another. Perhaps you should pick up (and read) a thesaurus the next time you work on your reading comprehension, because it seems like you don't even know what a synonym is when your can't comprehend when someone uses one. Maybe that's why you are asking me to give you direct quotes, because you are having so much difficulty comprehending the conversation. So when you say disagreement and I say argue, they are the referring to the same thing. Kind of like how when you mention a thing I said and write an entire comment about it, that you are in fact directly referring to a part of my exact situation, and therefore you are and always have been commenting about my exact situation. And to help you out with your reading comprehension that you definitely need a lot of help with, your commented stated IF there was a bike lane. The word IF means that the following comment you made was a proposal based on my exact situation with a conditional change.
I suggest taking your own advice and reading the previous comments we have had during our conversation, maybe read through them a few times, and feel free to use that thesaurus and maybe a dictionary if you have trouble with the bigger words. You can also as a teacher, parent, or other adult to help you if you are still struggling.
reddittiswierd@reddit
Interesting. In my state, bikes are given the same rights as vehicles and are specifically not a pedestrian unless you are walking alongside your bike. I have to admit, I prefer my states laws.
alistair1537@reddit
Think of a cyclist as a pedestrian on wheels. When they're travelling on the roads at reasonable speeds for a bicycle, they are cyclists. When they are crossing on a crosswalk at pedestrian speeds, they are pedestrians.
Think of motorists as dangerous, entitled, impatient and ignorant drivers of machines that can easily kill pedestrians and cyclists alike. Now imagine they're looking at their mobile instead of the road as they drive slightly over the speed limits...
This is why you should worry less about what cyclists are doing and more about what drivers are doing.
reddittiswierd@reddit
Now think of cyclists as motorists. Because they are on two wheels. Now give them an electric throttle and think of them as an electric motorcycle. Or ebike. Or e-scooter. Now give them some entitlement that they can bend rules to fit them because they are entitled. Now put my kids on the walking path that goes 20 miles throughout my city and let those on their throttled ebikes fly through this walking path at 25 miles per hour telling my kids to watch out because they don’t want to slow down on a walking path. Now put a stop sign on this walking path as it crosses over a residential street which has very poor visibility and imagine said 25 mph biker decided to just fly across the crosswalk without stopping and runs smack into you trying to cross. Is the biker a pedestrian traveling 25-28 mph or is the biker a vehicle that didn’t obey a traffic sign because they believe they are above traffic signals?
alistair1537@reddit
Get off your phone and go for a cycle.
EpiJade@reddit
I understand both sides of this but this person DOES have a point. I spent most of my adult life as purely a pedestrian/transit taker and I can also think of many times when I had situations like the above person. I do think the motorbike style ebikes should not be treated like a bike with pedal assist and shouldn’t be on walking paths and that all cyclists have a responsibility to act like they have some part of social contract to uphold ESPECIALLY when it comes to pedestrians and making sure they are behaving in a way that is predictable to both drivers, pedestrians, and other cyclists.
Dazzling-Crab-75@reddit
Here most intersections where there is no dedicated bike lane, especially those where bike paths cross busy roads, are marked with signs that say "bicycles may use crosswalk," and "bicycles yield to pedestrians."
EpiJade@reddit
I am new to biking and this has been very eye opening. I went on some errands yesterday. Before going I checked to see if the suburb I was passing through had anything about bikes on their website to judge how bike friendly they were because this would be my longest ride yet (about 12 miles round trip). They had a big section on their website about how bike friendly they are. I kept seeing signs for “bike paths” and thinking I just missed them but no, they were calling the busy fucking street with no bike lane a bike path. It was honestly a scary ride at times so I just ended up sticking to the sidewalk.
reddittiswierd@reddit
Understandable if it’s designated by a sign or known law.
Ok-Yogurt-42@reddit
The "Copenhagen Left" is common practice in many places.
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
In my state it is more like bikes are a vehicle when you ride on the road and a pedestrian when you ride on the sidewalk or walking trails, unless it is specifically in some areas like state parks.
Capnleonidas@reddit
That’s how it was in my state. There were a lot of deaths of bicyclists vs automobiles. The bicyclists would change from sidewalk rules to street rules whenever it suited them or was more advantageous so the cars never know what they are going to do. It’s a complete mess.
No_Psychology_9458@reddit
That is more of an issue of the cyclist not actually following ALL of the laws. My state does also have laws that actually states it is illegal to jump the curb while riding a bike, meaning you either have to transition to\from the sidewalk or bike lane at a designated area like at an intersection or crossing. Or you would have to literally stop riding, get off the bike, walk it from the bike lane\sidewalk to the other, then get back on and continue riding. Same goes for going from the bike lane onto the road, you have to follow the laws about how to merge from one lane into another, including giving the correct hand signals or using turnsignals\lights if you have them, and giving sufficient time between signalling and merging.
So if someone if jumping between a sidewalk, bike lane, and the road and expecting it to be an instant transition both physically and legally, then they are doing it wrong. Some exceptions can be made for things like a sudden obstacle (like a parked car opening a door into the bike lane and you are forced to swerve into the road) but without a good reason, it should not be a sudden transition from one to the other.
And when you do switch to riding in a place where you are using the same set of rules as a pedestrian, you should ride accordingly. Meaning if you do have to be on the sidewalk because there is no bike lane and riding on the road is too dangerous because your options are either ride in the road at under 30mph (to still legally be an ebike is usually under 28mph or 20-15mph in some places) where the speed limit if 50mph and risk getting run over, or ride on a sidewalk, then you can ride on the sidewalk, but you also you should not be doing 28mph while on the sidewalk either and should slow down to maybe the speed of a jogger at most.
Being able to follow the rules for either a car or a pedestrian is not an excuse to be able to cherry pick which law you do or don't want to follow wherever you are, it is more like it should be a responsibility to follow ALL of the laws based on where you are riding and which set of rules you should be following. If you don't think of it that way, and act the way you should, then you are doing it wrong, and bad things are going to happen (statistics more often than if everyone did follow all the rules).
InviteStriking1427@reddit
Let's be real here, by suited you mean safer, riding a bike among traffic especially gridlock is an easy way to die, and if there is not at the very least a bike gutter than the sidewalk is is really the only safe option. Goimg back and fourth can be dangerous, but sometimes that's just the only way to actually get to where you are going without dying.
Capnleonidas@reddit
I understand that reasoning, but I can also see that a lot of bicyclists are dying and it’s often difficult to predict which set of laws they are going to choose to follow. The unpredictability of the system is the problem, not the choices of the bicyclists who are trying to choose the safest option at the time. As a bicyclist, I understand why they would choose to change which set of rules to follow given any situation. As a driver I can’t always come to the same conclusion the bicyclist is going to come to at any given moment.
reddittiswierd@reddit
I’m with you. I love bikes and I don’t mind bikers but bikers that think they get the benefit of also being a pedestrian is annoying. And let’s just face it, some bikers would rather be dead and right than alive.
Capnleonidas@reddit
I just want everyone involved to live. It’s horrendous seeing news that another bicyclist has died. If everyone is on the same page and knows what rules to follow and knows what to expect from other drivers and riders, it’s safer for everyone
NewKitchenFixtures@reddit
That seems like really awful state laws.
highlander666666@reddit
HAHA ya I was taught as kid to stop get off bike walk it cross street at crosswalks. But I usually push button and ride bike cross , What's the big deal , I use to bike to work on way home most every day at same place the same old lady would honk and yell at me get out of middle of street!!! It was A busy intersection in A school area speed is 20MPH. 4 lanes . I needed to cross. i d ride on the yellow line(plenty of room for cars coming both ways) When I saw opening I d cross street . I made A fast left turn,,, There was A crossing guard there and sometimes even cop car parked no one going fast.. they old lady drove A car that used to gave seniors rides. Was kind off funny..
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
Ya, I think that's why my state changed that law a few years back. it was because it was one of those things that was a law on paper, but no one really paid attention to it, the people on bikes would still just ride across, and the cops never enforced it, so they just changed it to say it is legal to ride a bike through a crosswalk the same as if it was a pedestrian walking through the same crossing.
Relative-Display-676@reddit
should have told her that when she was your age bikes didn't even exist yet.
IG11assassindroid@reddit
You can’t ride any bike through a crosswalk. You are supposed to walk the bike.
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
You might want to click the link in the post before you say something that has already been proven to be wrong.
IG11assassindroid@reddit
Well, depending on where you are E bikes are not allowed on Oregon sidewalks currently if you continue reading down and if there was an available bike lane, you are required by law to use that so you’re in the wrong if you were on the sidewalk getting into the crosswalk.
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
There was not a bike lane. So yes, yes I am legally allowed to ride on the sidewalk. And even if there is a bike lane, Oregon law does NOT force ebikes to use it. They can use the road like a regular bike and are treated like a regular bike when they do, with some additional laws that are mostly about the legal definition of an e-bike vs an electric motorcycle. And the law about using the bike lane has a big loophole in it by stating it should be used if available unless it is either obstructed or unsafe to do so, yet the law does not clearly define what the conditions of "unsafe" are. And the argument could be made that just because there are previous events where a car has accidentally, or intentionally hit a cyclist who was in the bike lane and that those events are far more common than a car hitting someone on the sidewalk, then it is actually for safety sake that you avoid the bike lane. Thus the ambiguous language of the law means that even if there was a bike lane, that it would be unsafe to use it (when compared to the level of safety from the sidewalk) then it becomes legal to ride on the sidewalk. But again, there is no bike lane on that road, so yes, yes I was legally allowed to be on the sidewalk, and no, I do not have to get off the e-bike and walk it across the crosswalk. And also yes, she was breaking the the law by crossing the street (twice) while the crosswalk was red.
ComradeWeebelo@reddit
In my municipality, it's part of the ordinance covering ebikes that we have to walk ebikes across the crosswalk.
Not a state law or even at the county level.
Local police don't really enforce it though.
ComradeWeebelo@reddit
Your description of this old lady should be taught to middle schoolers when covering descriptive writing.
Dazzling-Crab-75@reddit
There was a temporary detour on our bike path during construction a while back. Part of it took over a small side road parallel to the main drag. It was two ways, clearly marked as a bicycle-only path. On the opposite side from the main road was a perfectly adequate sidewalk.
A little old lady and a younger woman pushing a baby carriage were ambling along in the bike lane. I came up behind them and explained that they were walking in the wrong spot. The older one whirled around and snarled "you're supposed to yield to pedestrians!" 😳🙄 I just pointed to the sidewalk and rode past them.
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
I once had a guy yell at me, point to the bike lane and told me to ride in the bike lane, while he was standing next to the big 5'x5' bright orange sign that was in the bike lane and said "road construction ahead, bike lane closed". He had just walked past the construction himself.
Dazzling-Crab-75@reddit
People are entitled idiots
Robotnik1918@reddit
Give her a break, before 2011 she'd have been right. And don't be so ageist.
stormdelta@reddit
Even if she would've been technically right about the law, it still would've been wrong from a safety POV.
A lot of laws, especially older ones, around cycling and pedestrians were designed to favor cars in the US too.
DIYuntilDawn@reddit (OP)
But being wrong for the last 14 years still makes her wrong.
And I'm pretty sure you can go back to when the laws about pedestrian cross walks were first written and it will probably say it has always been against the law to just walk out into a 6 lane highway into traffic while the cross walk is on the red DO NOT CROSS light. Plus I know there are all sorts of extra laws for crossings that also are within a certain distance of railroad tracks. And even IF it was not illegal, it is still a phenomenally dumb thing to do.
boncros@reddit
Ignore old bitties