Except that you violated the law by failing to come to a stop, which would put your attentiveness in question, so you would be help partly liable.
What you are supposed to do is either ride your bicycle on the roadway, or walk your bicycle on the sidewalk, not ride you bicycle on the sidewalk be it with or without stopping at each driveway.
Let’s repeat that, for you don’t seem to be catching on to the concept. You are specifically prohibited from riding your bicycle on the sidewalk.
That law that you so blithely ignore is there for a good reason: to prevent reduce the frequency of collisions like the one you just had.
The same can be said for people who make rolling stops, as the truck driver did. The law that mandates stopping prior to entering a highway (including the sidewalk) is there for a good reason: to reduce the frequency of collisions like the one you just had.
It sounds like the truck driver learned his lesson. Did you? Doesn’t seem like it.
Go back and read post #67 again. Seems pretty clear to me.
This does seem like one of those cases where a small claims judge would decide that person a is #% at fault and person b is #% at fault and award a portion of the claims accordingly.
Yes it does. Got it. So the OP should have been in the street instead of on the sidewalk.
That still doesn’t excuse the driver for not looking where he was going. What if, instead of an illegal cyclist, it had been a little old lady using a walker? Or a baby? Or a freakin’ pteradactyl for that matter.
-
Look where you are going
-
Don’t hit stuff
It doesn’t matter what that stuff is. It could be an illegal alien carrying a bag of smack and a wallet full of counterfit money. Rule 2 still applies.
There’s nothing “fuzzy” about it at all.
Yes, the law differs from one jurisdiction to another, but that doesn’t mean that it’s “fuzzy.” It just means that you have to make sure that you know what the law is in the jurisdiction you’re in. If you’re riding in a jurisdiction where bicycles are required by law to ride in the street, it’s irrelevant that bicycles in some other jurisdiction are allowed to ride on the sidewalk.
There are plenty of different types of behavior that are regulated differently in different jurisdictions. If i am allowed to carry a handgun in Texas, it doesn’t mean that i can take my gun to Washington, D.C. I can make a right turn on red in San Francisco, but not in New York City. Two guys can get married in Iowa, but not in Indiana. If you walk away from an underwater mortgage in Georgia, the bank can sue you for the difference between what you owe and what the house is worth; in Arizona, the bank can only take the house. In Mississippi, you can record your phone conversation without getting the other party’s consent; in Massachusetts, you can’t.
And If I am walking across a busy intersection and some impatient driver starts nudging his car into the pedestrian crossing the street are we using common sense for not letting him bully us?
If I am cross a street and a car starts making a right on red and is not looking at the ped crossing, but at the oncoming traffic that has the light, i am not going to sit and wait all day for him to turn his head back (he won’t) I am going to cross the street and if he starts to move he’s going either get his hood slapped or I am going to jump on his hood and crease it nicely if he’s moving too fast.
What’s the point of being dead right if your dead?
I’ll sit all day.
Trust.
Hitler.
Puppies.
I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to run into stuff everywhere.
Apparently it gives him the right to vandalize other people’s cars with impunity.
Its not vandalism when you hit me.
You’re clearly not interested in rational discussion on this issue. I’m done with your content-free blather.
It’s vandalism when you jump on someone’s hood.
Huh? It’s very rational and full of relevant content. The driver was looking to his left and not paying attention to where he was going. How is that not part of a rational discussion?
Like I told the guy who was making the illegal turn into me (on whose hood I jumped as there was really no option given his acceleration): Go tell the police, see if they agree with you.
I wasn’t going to ask him to lie because there was, in fact, noticeable frame damage
Not even a little.
Oh I know this too. But keep in mind that it wasn’t my idea to do it this way.
This is what I keep trying to say in the thread. I get that it seems by the letter of the law I was technically in the wrong, and that’s great if you’re Judge Dredd, but the overarching principle of the matter is a truck hit a pedestrian. I don’t care if I was on my bike or walking or riding a damn horse, I am a pedestrian. Regardless if it’s correct to say it’s my fault and I’m technically on my own with a bike it’s not right to say that. I could have called the police, and did the insurance thing, and gotten witness statements (there were a bunch) and wasted 3 hours and done all that crap, but I didn’t because I assumed he would do the right thing and just get me a new bike and call it a day…
…which he just did. I’m eating lunch and got a call that basically said “It would just be easier to get you a new bike, meet me at Wal-Mart”. So we did. He grabbed a $150 that looked like mine, I went to a $130 dollar one that I wanted and said let’s do this one cuz it’s cooler. We did. I went home. I have a new bike and can put the matter behind me.
Given that you were willing to take a Wally World special, it probably was cheaper for him by far.
Awesome.
I can imagine Homer Simpson saying this, after getting caught doing something wrong.
A person riding a bike is not a pedestrian.