Cycling accident? Who's right? Who's wrong?

Question

I saw this on Judge Judy.

There's Bicycle A and Female Jogger in a bike/jogging lane. Female Jogger is on the left side 15 feet in front of Bicycle A on the right. They're both moving, and Bicycle A is catching up to pass her.

Bicycle B comes behind the Female Jogger very fast, and because of this the female jogger jumps out of the way into the right side and crashes into Bicycle A.

Bicycle B speeds off. Bicycle A stops short, hits Female jogger-Bicycle A Rider goes flying off Bicycle A and breaks his leg and Bicycle A.

Female jogger gets hit by bike, falls, and scrapes her elbows, hands and knees.

Judge Judy grants that cyclist A must pay Female jogger $2,000. Because, Bicycle A is supposed to stay a certain distance from a jogger.

NOW first off wtf? In my opinion. He was obviously not planning to hit her. Cyclist B split. And Female Jogger A really should have dodged to the left..Obviously if she had enough sense to move it should have been out of danger. And Cyclist A can't get anything for his broken leg!

And how are you supposed to stay a certain distance from a jogger when a bicycle typically moves faster than the average jogger. That's like if someone pulls out of their driveway while a car is coming down the street and gets smashed it's the guy driving down the street's fault. So If I go jogging tommorrow and run into a bike or car like an idiot..? And get a scrape on my knee I can get thousands of dollars.

Answer 1

It all boils down to this: On a multi-use path,  pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way over bikes. No matter what. End of story.

Answer 2

The jogger is at fault she shouldn't have been jogging in a cycle lane anyway you never jog,walk or run in the same direction as the traffic you should always face the traffic as you can move out the way if there is something big coming along

I don't like Judge Judy I think she is a trumped up too bossy female and is so rude to people and lets people off that should be locked up as for the $2000 I would appeal and have the case in another court and have a drawing of what went on that day and mention about the direction she was going when jogging and moving to the wrong side when a cyclist was approaching

Wjat the cyclist could do is counter sue and make her pay for her mistakes

Answer 3

Excuse my language, but from the episodes I've been unfortunate to see, Judge Judy is a F***ing tool.

She's useless - She doesn't use precedent and basically just awards damages to who she likes the most out of the claimant and defendant all you have to do is be polite and co-operative with her and you've basically won.

I know it's only a TV show and isn't really supposed to represent a typical civil court case, but she annoys me...

Answer 4

Being I didn't see this show, I'll just make a few comments.

Judge Judy does a poor job of explaining her verdict. She might get the judgment correct but does a terrible job giving the reason. My first question is did either cyclist make their presence known? If they did not they are at fault irregardless of what the jogger does. If the jogger was aware of the cyclists and jumped in the way, the jogger is at fault. I had checked in to this subject a few years ago when a fellow cyclist was knocked down by a women and her dog. The rider slowed and had a handlebar bell he rang. She looked up and saw him but chased her dog, that was supposed to be on a leash, and hit his handlebar sending him to the ground. He took it to court and won, she had to pay for the med. bills and bike repair, along with a fine for not having the dog on a leash.

Answer 5

Edit: I'm assuming all three were traveling in the same direction, although the questioner is a little vague about this.   Even if they weren't most of my answer still applies.  

------

Cyclist A has the responsibility to pass safely, regardless of jogger's stupidity.  

Jogger should have been running on the right side to begin with.    (Unless there were wierd and counterintuitive rules in place on that particular path).  

If I were cyclist B (as I often am),  I would have called out "on your left" beginning as far as 100ft back to give the two mopes a chance to sort themselves out.   Obviously, they didn't.  Perhaps cyclist B didn't announce, perhaps they didn't hear him.  Perhaps one or both were listening to ipods and not paying attention.   In any case, I'd have recognized physical incompetence, and slowed down, because anyone clueless enough to run on the wrong side is also likely to make an unpredictable jump.    

As with motor vehicles,  the overtaker is responsible, and pedestrians are generally granted right of way.    All three contributed to the incident, but I suppose Judge Judy ruled correctly in a legal sense, even though this was probably laughed out of "real" court.

-------

Moral of the story, and there are several:

1.  Ride, run, walk right, pass left.  If you absolutely must go side by side and take up the whole path, be aware of what's happening in front of and behind you.  

2.  Lose the ipod.  If you absolutely must use it, have the discipline to stay right and hold your line.   Don't u-turn or change lanes without looking.  

3.  If you're not coordinated enough to ride or run in public, stay home, get a treadmill or a stationary bike.   More than once, my "on your left" has so startled the oblivious that they've freaked and dumped it, or run into each other.   You're not the only one out there.  Pay attention.

---

Note to Virgoen: Wrong.   Walking on the left only increases closing speed and confuses the issue.  The only possible exception to this is walking on the shoulder of a highway.   All the paths I'm familiar with (Illinois, Wisconsin) have signs posted instructing everyone to stay right, pass left.