- HOT TOPICS:
- The new VeloNews.com (BETA)
The Explainer - Sharing the path, sharing the roads
Dear Readers,
I have to admit that I unknowingly opened a can of worms when I picked Mike Tsai’s letter to answer in last week’s column,”Whose bike path is it anyway?”
Gauging from the large number of letters we received, the vast majority of our readers have staked out a position on the proper etiquette of riding on a bike – or, more accurately, a non-motorized, shared-use – path. We’ve tried to reproduce a number of those in recent editions of the VeloNews.com Mailbag, with a representative sample of our “path wars” letters posted in the October 9 and October 12 editions. There were many more than we were able to post, but between the three of us in charge of the mailbox, we managed to read them all.
Ultimately, the rules governing the use of bike paths – with or without the presence of a specific law, ordinance or regulation – should really boil down to one of courtesy. Whether it’s by riders, runners or anyone else, be polite. One friend, after reading the column, told me of an encounter he’d just had on a bike path in Colorado Springs. Coming around a corner, he had the dubious privilege of watching a local hero of the bike path, resplendent in full time trial gear and with his $5,000 TT bike resting on its side, giving grief to the family of a four-year-old boy for “not keeping the kid out of the way” while the child was learning to ride a bike.
Look, it all comes down to a simple golden rule: When you’re anywhere that requires a bit of human interaction, don’t be a jerk. Apparently, the Colorado Springs resident with the need-for-speed missed out on that class.
Anyway, a few suggested that Mike Tsai’s letter may have been directed not to bike paths, but to bike lanes, those strips of asphalt separated from automobile traffic by a painted white line, usually with the image of a bicycle marking the area. Indeed, I, too, suspected that might be the case and touched on it in my answer. Mike wrote in to clarify that he wasn’t doing his intervals on his local multi-use path, but was out in traffic when he encountered the runner in question:
”One thing that I realized after I read your response was that I was using the terms bike path and bike lane interchangeably. The encounter I described actually happened while I was in the bike lane on a surface street. Not that I'm looking to cause trouble by barreling over a runner anytime soon but am I right in inferring that if there's a sidewalk available, the runners should stay on it? Given the choice between swerving into traffic and colliding with a runner, which would have a higher probability of survival, I'd choose the latter.”
Mike
In Mike’s case, there is a rule in Nevada and it’s quite clear:
"Pedestrians walking along highways where sidewalks are not provided shall walk on the left side of those highways facing the approaching traffic."
Nevada Revised Statutes – 484.331 §2
That same statute requires pedestrians to take advantage of sidewalks when they are provided:
"Where sidewalks are provided, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent highway."
Nevada Revised Statutes – 484.331 §1
Now several of you who are runners raised the point made by reader Patrick Caselli in today’s Mailbag, namely that runners opt not to use sidewalks, simply because concrete produces a greater impact on runners’ joints and that sidewalks are often rife with their own risks, particularly in crowded urban areas.
Either way, it’s worth checking what your local rules and regulations might be and, if you’re running, I would suggest you not do what Mike’s runner did and try to hold your ground. Even if you’re in the right, if the rider doesn’t see you, it’s gonna hurt.
Out on the road
All of the discussion of bike lanes and bike paths, of course, is rooted in the fact that as much as we like to ride, the risks of riding out on the road are often quite high.
That point was underscored Tuesday when I received a letter from a reader in Virginia, who’d lost her partner in what can only be described as a completely pointless accident.
Mr. Pelkey,
I'm not sure why I'm contacting you. I'm a regular reader of VeloNews, more of an armchair cyclist than anything else!I read your article about multi-use paths and thought you might be interested in my case. My partner Kevin Flock was out for his Sunday afternoon ride here in Virginia on May 31st of this year, when he was struck from behind by a recruiter for the National Guard, who was driving a government vehicle at the time.
Kevin was riding on a four-lane divided highway and, according to a witness’ statement, he was on the right hand white line. Kevin was hit on a section of road that was long, flat, and straight. The road was in good condition. If you do the numbers, factoring Kevin's average speed (about 20 mph) and the speed of the vehicle (about 65 mph), the driver had almost a full minute to see and avoid Kevin.
There was no one in the left lane. The witness saw a cloud of dust that I believe was (the Guardsman) driving on the shoulder. Kevin was thrown about 100 feet, and died at the scene. According to the witness, the driver drove on for 1.5 miles before turning around, there was plenty of space on the shoulder to stop, he could have stopped and run back but he didn't, he kept driving. When he arrived back he asked the witness who had stopped "what happened?" despite the fact that his front windshield was smashed.
The line of damage suggests that he was turning towards Kevin at the time. The Commonwealth attorney filed for and got an indictment for involuntary manslaughter but there is talk of a plea bargain down to reckless driving (a misdemeanor).
The upshot of this is that the defense lawyer has filed a motion to dismiss based on a Virginia statute that says military personnel cannot be prosecuted in the performance of their duties. The next hearing is next Monday and we will find out the result of the pretrial motions.
Kevin was doing everything right, I remember watching him ride down the driveway in his bright, bright orange jersey that day, and he was so visible. How could this guy not see him? He had so much time to see him and avoid him. Instead, Kevin is dead, I'm heartbroken, and it looks like no one will be held accountable.
Jo Morrison
As Ms. Morrison mentioned, the motion hearing is scheduled for Monday. Defense attorneys are pointing to Title 44 of the Virginia Code – The Military Laws of Virginia – which notes that members of the National Guard can’t be prosecuted in the course of carrying out their lawful duties. Not having read the brief, I would have to assume that since the recruiter was driving a government vehicle, his attorneys will argue that he was, in fact, carrying out a lawful order – namely driving from Point A to Point B – and he’s therefore exempt from prosecution.
I’m not yet a licensed lawyer, so take what I say with an appropriate (read “hefty”) dose of salt, but I imagine that it’s something of a stretch to think that the Virginia legislature meant to provide blanket immunity to anyone in uniform for the duration of their service. The law is intended, I suspect, to immunize Guardsmen who might commit what, in ordinary circumstances, would be considered to be a criminal act in carrying out a lawfully issued order, particularly during an emergency. That might include the seizure of someone’s property (taking a car or a truck at a roadblock, for example) or damaging property while carrying out a lawful order. It seems to be intended to protect Guardsmen, particularly in the event of an emergency or other crisis. I suspect it doesn’t mean that the uniform doubles as a get-out-of-jail-free card under any and all circumstances.
Indeed, another provision of the Military Laws of Virginia also notes that a member of the state militia cannot be prosecuted both by civil and military authorities for the same offense. In other words, there appeared to an expectation on the part of the Legislature in Virginia that members of the Guard might be prosecuted by civil authorities. Viewed in context, it’s hard to argue that the law would provide blanket immunity from prosecution, nor would it leave the decision to prosecute solely to a military court. It’s tough to imagine that a judge would rule in favor of that defense motion, but we’ll see.
I can’t even imagine what Ms. Morrison and Kevin Flock’s family are going through right now and I can only extend my deepest sympathies and a promise to keep track of the case and do a follow-up. Hopefully, justice will be served in this one.
