Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Interesting discussion.
http://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/bikers-vs-joggers-whos-got-right-of-way/447/
Q: I log a ton of miles jogging on area roadways. Therefore, I do a lot of thinking. As a jogger, I know that I am technically a “walker” on the roadways and therefore should always be facing traffic. Meaning, that I jog toward the cars coming at me, not with them, to allow me to see the traffic coming my way.
My question is in regard to bicyclists. If runners and walkers are directed to face traffic and bikers are to bike and travel with traffic, what does a runner do when he or she meets up with a biker on the roadway? Does the jogger move to off the road and allow the biker to pass, so the biker does not have to go around the jogger into the roadway or should the biker yield to the jogger?
I know that this is a silly question, but this has happened to me many, many, many times. (Again, I jog a lot!). Normally, either the biker pulls over and allows me to pass, or I pull over and allow the biker to pass, or the biker or I go around each other by going into the roadway (which is unsafe).
Who has the right of way and who should yield? I’ve always wondered what is the appropriate protocol?
A: We are always grateful here at Getting There for a different kind of question. We’ve had inquiries about driving, biking, horse wagons, motorcycling and even boating. So we’re glad to add a jogging question to the mix. We don’t think your question is silly. (But personally we only run if someone is chasing us, and that hasn’t happened in many a year.)
As to your question, we’re pleased to take a two-wheeled approach to answering it. First we turned to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. (We recognize that neither you nor the bicyclists you encounter are in any way motorized, but the DMV folks are the experts on the rules of the road.)
“The state Vehicle and Traffic Law does not specifically define the right of way in this instance,” said DMV spokesman Ken Brown. “However, section 1234 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law does state that riders should prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. One of those conditions to be taken into consideration is a pedestrian, as well as animals or other potential hazards. So the rider has the discretion to safely move from the shoulder to avoid a potentially unsafe condition, in this case a pedestrian. The bottom line is riders and pedestrians both should use common sense and be courteous when they encounter each other to ensure the safety of all roadway users.”
Then we decided to get the view of Lorenz Worden from the Albany Bicycle Coalition.
Worden said he is no expert but he turned to vehicle and traffic law.
“Both pedestrians and bicyclists are subject to this law, as are all road users,” he said.
The law defines a pedestrian as “any person afoot or in a wheelchair,” which certainly includes joggers, Worden said. “The law instructs bicyclists that when there is no suitable bicycle lane, a bicycle “shall be driven (sic.) … near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder . . . except . . . when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would be unsafe.”
The section describes conditions to be taken into consideration to include “fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards.”
Most roads developed from 'rights of way' originally used by pedestrians. Motor vehicles (and their drivers) need a licence to use these rights of way so legally, people on foot or horseback and I guess latterly on a bike have a right to pass along the road. As far as I am aware this is still the case in law.
This doesn't stop the pedestrian doing something stupid, however doing something stupid gives you no right to run him over.
The Road Traffic Act says, in relation to careless, and inconsiderate, cycling:
"If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence."
I don't know if anyone knows the A82 road leaving Tarbet up along Loch Lomondside - very narrow, winding road with barely enough room for the traffic. It gets pretty tight when there are buses and motor homes, which are both frequent. On one side is a wall, on another is the loch. It's not a good road.
Now, it may be legal, but the most dangerous running I ever saw was on this road when we came around a tight bend and some lunatic was running towards us. Only by the grace of God were we able to swerve to avoid him and thankfully there was no oncoming traffic or we would surely have hit them.
I'm sure most people are sensible but I think this guy should have been held accountable if there had been an accident. I suppose my point is that the legality of it shouldn't preclude the common sense bit and if you're a danger to yourself or others perhaps running should be disallowed on certain roads.
It is common sense. There is probably no law saying... do not run down the center line of the road... but common sense would say keep to the side of the road...
This guy was on the side of the road. It's just the road is very narrow, very twisty and very busy. Not a clever move.
I regularly run on back roads and single track roads and usually just move onto whatever verge there might be if I hear a car approaching. I'm not saying nobody should run on roads, just that not all roads are suitable for running, legal or not. I know being on here is preaching to the choir, though.
Personally, I don't see the future in running on busy main roads or dual carriageways. Your nerves would be shredded!
I agree rubbishrunner. You need to pick your roads carefully...
RubbishRunner - out of interest what would you have done had it been a car, rather than a runner, approaching? I assume if its that narrow you would have had an accident?
Its not a road I would run. A runner coming towards you on a blind bend isn't what you'd expect - I'd have thought he'd have crossed over ?
Or a couple of sheep. If it was a tight and presumably blind bend, shouldn't you have been going quite slowly?
I'm no expert but that's what I thought was the case i.e. I could walk down the middle of the road as a pendestrian and cars have to give way to me due to my vulnerability. OK, its not recommended as most drives wouldnt think this way but I still this this is the legal position.
As I said, your posts are great value Colin!
I suggest you read up on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Berating someone for writing nonsense when you do not know the law yourself!! Priceless!!
You are technically right TheDrunkenBakers a motorist is obliged to drive at a speed that allows them to stop in the distance they can see ahead (half if it is a single track road). Of course you will die horribly if you expect the average moronic motorist to do so. Not forgetting that he would be unlucky even to get a small fine for causing your death! Who would be a traffic officer!
Yup, we were, which is why we didn't hit him. You can't drive quickly on that road but even hitting him at 20-30mph would still have damaged him somewhat, I think! Cougie is right - you really wouldn't expect to meet a runner on a blind bend like that. He'd have had to cross the road every minute or so to avoid the blind bends, which is maybe why he didn't bother after a while.
What Tall-Paul says is correct Colin;
The offence of common assault is committed when a person 'intentionally or recklessly' causes another to apprehend violence.
The relevant legislation being Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39
However this is a common law offence defined by case law; a good case would be Logdon v DPP Crim LR 121 where a man threatened a woman with an imitation gun 'as a joke'. So he did not necessarily have the 'mens rea' (guilty mind) but was considered reckless as to whether harm would be apprehended. The question being, how would a reasonable person interpret the persons actions?
If as in Logdon a reasonable person would interpret their actions as a threat then the offence is committed with just the actus reus (guilty act).
I would suggest you study 'offences against the person' in general. But first you need a fairly good grasp of 'law', the Open University do some great courses. Alternatively get one of the many books on the subject.
What he said.
Trust me CM, you're wrong
but please continue to amuse us with your vitriolic posts.
W100 Rules, rights and justice: an introduction to law. Open University
http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/w100.htm
Great course; it would teach you about primary and secondary sources of law, how not to interpret the law to suit your argument and in short give you, "a pretty good grasp of the law"!
you are not an idiot, you are a COCK!
Can someone get Colin a cup of tea?
"It's rather stupid to pretend that road users are setting out to intimidate people simply by daring to travel along roads in accordance with their rights of way, and asserting those rights of way robustly" and "I have a pretty good grasp of the law"
Which law stipulates that motorists have a right over pedestrians and cyclists over pedestrians?
I agree that pedestrians should act responsibly, that is more a matter of common sense as far as I'm aware.
Does the same right of way apply if this was a country lane (i.e. no pavement?)
Repeated in case Colin missed it: The Road Traffic Act says, in relation to careless, and inconsiderate cycling:
"If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence."
Colin, as has been said, a pedestrian, once they set foot in the road has right of way, irrespective of your opinion as to whether they should be in the road or not, that is the law. It really is as simple as that.
Whether it's safe or not is a different story and irrelevant to whether or not you were in the right (you weren't).
Personally I run in the roads as much as possible, as I live in suburbia and doing high mileage on pavements with sloping driveway entries is asking for trouble. If the roads are quiet I expect oncoming traffic to leave me ample room to continue to run in the road. If it's rush-hour or a busy road I revert to the pavement. However I could, if I wished, legally continue to run in the road, even in busy traffic.
Anyway, surely as a cyclist you should be using the pavements like all other cyclists? Or is that just by me?
The law I applied was:
Can you reference any of these 'legal facts' to for instance the Road Traffic Act (a primary source of law) or any other statute? Or even 'The Highway Code' (which is not a primary source of law and so not law). Where 'The Highway Code' states must it provides a reference to the relevant Act (or other instrument) where it says should this is only advisory.
I don't need a law course, thank you very much.
I think you would really enjoy one! I find it absolutely fascinating!