Cyclist Breaks Imaginary Law, Durango Police Let Him (And The Driver Who Hit Him) Off The Hook
After a skidding jeep slammed into 21 year-old Joshua Clark, sending him to the hospital with a possible head injury, the Durango, Colorado police indicated that they would probably not issue a ticket to Clark, who they determined to be at fault, explaining that “he’s going to have some tremendous hospital bills.”
Without a doubt, the Durango Police thought they were doing the injured cyclist a favor. And if Clark had been breaking the law, they would undoubtedly be doing him a favor. But was he breaking the law?
I have my doubts.
As the Jeep driver and a couple of other independent witnesses explained, on the evening of April 23rd, Clark “came up to the pedestrian crosswalk paused, then for whatever reason, rode his bike into the crosswalk and oncoming traffic.”
According to the police, this was illegal:
“Because he was riding his bicycle in the crosswalk instead of walking, he’s at fault for failing to yield,” [Sgt. John] Ball, the patrol supervisor, said about Clark. “We probably won’t cite him because he’s going to have some tremendous hospital bills. If he had dismounted and walked, he would have been entitled to all the privileges of a pedestrian, but when you ride in a crosswalk, you’re at fault.”
So, according to the police, if Clark had dismounted and walked across, he would have had the right of way, and the approaching drivers would have been required to yield to Clark. It was only because he rode across the intersection in the crosswalk that police alleged that he was at fault for failing to yield. And thus, because Clark failed to yield, and “rode his bike into the crosswalk and oncoming traffic,” the approaching Jeep skidded 50 feet before slamming into Clark in the crosswalk.
Call me a skeptic. I thought I’d take a look at Colorado law to see if it’s really true that cyclists have to dismount and walk in the crosswalk. And what do you think I found? There is no such requirement in Colorado law. In fact, the law allows cyclists to ride in the crosswalk unless local law or an official traffic control device prohibits it.
Well, OK, I thought, maybe it’s against the law in Durango to ride in the crosswalk.
Nope.
Completely legal, unless an official traffic control device prohibits it.
So I took a look at the intersection, courtesy of Google Street View. Maybe, I thought, there’s a posted sign requiring cyclists to dismount and walk across the intersection.
Again, no.
But there are posted signs requiring drivers to yield to persons in the crosswalk.
And yet police decided that the cyclist was at fault for violating a law that doesn’t exist—and then gave him a break by not giving him a ticket.
Of course, what we’ve heard so far is the driver’s account. And that’s all we’re likely to hear. As Sgt. Ball explained, “the bicycle rider got his noggin thumped and didn’t remember what had happened.”
But there’s one more interesting analysis that might help to shed some light on what happened. Commenting on the collision, a Durango Herald reader who identifies himself as a former automotive engineer claims that the skid mark indicates that the driver was “doing closer to 50mph than 35mph,” and argues that the Durango Police need to investigate the skid mark more thoroughly. “If they can't produce a 50 foot skid from a Jeep doing the 35mph speed limit, then the driver should be cited for excessive speed,” the reader asserts. “No cyclist intentionally endangers their own life by pulling in front of a speeding car,” he continues. “[The driver would] have to be significantly over the limit for a cyclist to so badly misjudge the time available to cross.”
This is exactly right. But before the Durango Police can conduct a proper analysis of what happened, they first have to stop clinging to a law that doesn’t exist.
Hey, Durango PD, do us ALL a favor, and LEARN YOUR JOB!
Yes, the driver may have been speeding also, but the police are not so wrong as you suggest. In this situation, the bicyclist should have stopped and waited for the driver to stop or pass by. I also suggest indicating intent to cross by pointing.
When driving, I look ahead at crosswalks to make sure that I'm not endangering someone's life - it's easy, takes no additional time (in the scheme of things, I'm bound to reach the same stop or light anyway). What most drivers don't realize is that going 30 rather than 20 in an urban environment will rarely yield them any benefit.
But do the police allege that he entered the crosswalk in violation of that law? No. In fact, the police state that if he had been on foot, he would have been entitled to all the privileges of a pedestrian. This implies that in the view of the police, the driver would have been required to stop and yield. But even if that is not quite what the police meant, at a minimum, it means that police would have conducted an investigation to determine whether the driver or the pedestrian was in violation of the law.
And that is as it should be.
What should not happenbut unfortunately, did happen in this caseis for the police to take down the drivers account, allege that the cyclist violated an imaginary law, and end the investigation there.
I think the facts of the case warrant much more in the way of investigation.
First, the cyclist entered the crosswalk. Was he legally in the crosswalk? This is not only a legitimate question for the investigation, it is a necessary question. But the question isnt whether he was riding or walking; the question is whether he had the legal right of way when he entered the crosswalk. Was the approaching traffic so close that it constituted an immediate hazard? If approaching traffic was too close, then he had no right to enter the crosswalk. If approaching traffic was not too close, then he was legally entitled to enter the crosswalk, and the driver was required to stop and yield.
Second, was the driver observing the speed limit? This has a bearing on the investigation, because a driver who is far enough from the crosswalk so as not to constitute an immediate hazard, AND who is observing the speed limit, is capable of stopping and yielding. On the other hand, a driver who is far enough from the crosswalk, but is NOT observing the speed limit, may not be capable of stopping and yielding. Furthermore, what constitutes a safe distance can be deceptive to the pedestrian when the driver is speeding.
Now what seems more likely? That the cyclist saw that approaching traffic was so close that entering the crosswalk would be suicidal, but entered the crosswalk anyway? Or that the cyclist saw what looked like a vehicle at a safe distance, but was deceived by the drivers speed?
And likelihoods aside, how would we know which was the case?
By an investigationthe kind that should have been conducted, but for the imaginary law that the police relied upon to pre-determine fault.
The cyclist did not enter the crosswalk without stopping. Even the witnesses agree that he stopped, paused, and then entered the crosswalk.
According to the former automotive engineer, the type of skid mark left indicates that (1) the Jeep has ABS brakes; (2) the brakes were strongly applied in a panic stop; and (3) the combination of one tire alternating between skidding and rolling and three tires rolling means that "the the car should have stopped in far less than 50' provided it was ''only'' doing 35mph."
Given that this contradicts what you are saying, the question then becomes whether Stannard is referring to a 50 foot skid by a car with ABS brakes, or conventional brakes.
And even if Stannard is referring to a car with ABS brakes, rather than conventional brakes, consider what would happen at trial, where both parties are entitled to present their own experts. It is common for one expert to contradict another.
Of course, this can cut both ways, but my point is that a chart may or may not help us get to the truth of what happened. One has to ask questions about the data, and the analysis, to get to what we think the truth might be.
Really!? I have seen them riding on the wrong side of the street, in the dark jetting out in front of vehicles, of course the bicycles have no lights on them. I really believe pedumbstrians and cyclists put there own self in danger on purpose.
To clarify the pedumbstrian comment above, I call the those ones that endanger there own life because they don't look bothways before stepping in a roadway, or have cellphones out, or headphones on, or can't be bothered to stop and look when jogging, just plain careless behavior. They go above and beyond on educating the motor vehicle operators, but they just tell these careless pedumbstrians to just do as you please, you have the right of way! NO you don't! Not completely, they need to re-educate pedumbstrians to be pedestrians again and learn how to cross a street properly as it is not a play area!
Yes we all maybe one at some point, but that shouldn't excuse bad behavior pedumbstrians exhibit.
Also I have seen very dangerous motor vehicle operating too, so its a problem with all 3 groups across the board.