Cyclist who collided with runner on Roanoke greenway wins $300,000 civil verdict

As a competitive cyclist and a runner, I have learned to avoid multi-use paths as much as possible. First of all, the speed limit on most trails in my area is a little too low for anything but an easy recovery pace on the bike. Then you add dogs (Unleashed and long-leashed), 3-wide walkers, earphoned joggers, speeding swerving "cyclists," sharp turns, etc. and it's occasionally dangerous, but always annoying. For cycling I'll stick to road and for running I'll stick to soft surfaces when I can.

For this particular case I'm not sure how they decided to award any more than the $88,500 in expenses and lost wages. While the runner was certainly at fault for the accident, it sounds like the cyclist should have been able to avoid it easily. They should ban both parties from the greenway for a year or so.

unreal and SAD wrote:

This is the key phrase that makes this whole suit completely bullshit:

"undisputed evidence that the plaintiff had seven feet of unobstructed greenway on which to avoid a collision with the defendant, who never heard the plaintiff announce herself as she approached"

So she had 7 feet of unobstructed trail, and (sounds like) she never announced that she was approaching (retrograde amnesia... RIIIIIGHT), but somehow its still not her fault? If you have that much unobstructed space, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING PASSING THAT CLOSE?

Highways have 50 feet of unobstructed greenway that a driver can use to avoid collision. People still wreck. Depending on how close the cyclist was when the runner turned, I can see how the events could have unfolded quickly enough that the cyclist didn't have time to swerve off the path and into the grass.

And why would someone not pass close because of the green space? Is a cyclist supposed to leave the paved path and ride onto the grass every time they pass to maximize passing distance?

Completely agree with the verdict. If for no other reason, perhaps it will serve as a lesson to all the walkers/joggers/runners, etc. who choose to amble along multi-use paths while remaining blissfully unaware of their surroundings.

I am both a competitive runner and recreational cyclist, and nothing ticks me off more than the morons who selfishly operate in their own little cocoon and completely ignore the fact that others are in their midst. (i.e. Pedestrians - often on their cell phones or wearing headphones - who weave all over the place or hog the whole path by going 3- or 4-abreast. People with baby-strollers and/or leashed dogs who won't make the effort NOT to become obstacles. Groups of people who think the middle of the trail is an appropriate gathering place for chit-chat and coffee.) Screw all these idiots.

jjjjjj wrote:

absurd. she has no recollection of what she did and there are no other witnesses??? He is out $300,000 for turning around?? If that was a woman jogger/male cyclist, I'm betting there would be no award.

^this

One more reason I'm happy not to live in the United States, where thousands of dollars in court time and judges' expertise are used to sort out arguments between morons, and decisions like this bankrupt normal people for doing normal things.

The cyclist could have been in the process of passing on the left (within the 7 feet of space). The runner then could have turned 90 degrees to get to the other side of the path to turn the other direction.

Seen it happen this way.

Runners on greenways need to use the same hand signals that cyclists use when changing speed or direction. Stopping, turning, taking a space when passing someone, etc.

The amount of lost wages seems to indicate this lawsuit was a substitute for actually working.

greenway runner wrote:

The cyclist could have been in the process of passing on the left (within the 7 feet of space). The runner then could have turned 90 degrees to get to the other side of the path to turn the other direction.

Seen it happen this way.

Runners on greenways need to use the same hand signals that cyclists use when changing speed or direction. Stopping, turning, taking a space when passing someone, etc.

No they don't, they just need to look over their shoulder as a courtesy before they do any of those things.

And for Chrissakes, ban headphones, not just for runners, FOR EVERYONE!

Running Biker wrote:

Completely agree with the verdict. If for no other reason, perhaps it will serve as a lesson to all the walkers/joggers/runners, etc. who choose to amble along multi-use paths while remaining blissfully unaware of their surroundings.

I am both a competitive runner and recreational cyclist, and nothing ticks me off more than the morons who selfishly operate in their own little cocoon and completely ignore the fact that others are in their midst. (i.e. Pedestrians - often on their cell phones or wearing headphones - who weave all over the place or hog the whole path by going 3- or 4-abreast. People with baby-strollers and/or leashed dogs who won't make the effort NOT to become obstacles. Groups of people who think the middle of the trail is an appropriate gathering place for chit-chat and coffee.) Screw all these idiots.

You just described Austin Town Lake.

For those of you siding with the runner, he cut directly ACROSS the multi-use pathway without looking....no way she could have avoided him irrespective of the speed cyclist was riding. There is also the written rule in most places - Keep to the right. If this had occurred on a street, you wouldn't be siding with the runner. If a motorist had pulled this stunt, you wouldn't be defending.

Runners aren't always demigods.

I have run on trails I didn't feel safe running in the same direction as cyclists. Like running in traffic, I want to see what is coming at me so I can get out of the way. I had a cyclist yell at me even though I had already moved off the trail. A great solution would be to have a dirt path along the side that would be more runner friendly.

As for riding a bike on the roads, that is just a death wish with everybody texting or talking on their phones.

We live in a have to blame somebody society. No such thing as an accident anymore.

Canada eh wrote:

One more reason I'm happy not to live in the United States, where thousands of dollars in court time and judges' expertise are used to sort out arguments between morons, and decisions like this bankrupt normal people for doing normal things.

+ .5. Regardless of whether the verdict was appropriate, I could not agree more with this statement (with the exception that I am very happy to live here and I seriously doubt this problem ceases to exist when you cross over into Canada). Too many f'ng lawsuits over stupid s--t! No one ever wants to chalk things up to being no one's fault and simply bad timing. He should've been more aware . . . she should've looked longer before she turned . . . blah, blah, blah. Stop already and get on with life, which is worth living when people pull the self-implanted sticks out of their a$$es, grin and bear it. Everyone wants to point fingers and allocate blame; usually away from themselves. End of rant.

There's a shared responsibility here that neither person lived up to.

If you're passing someone on a bike, especially at a high speed, you need to alert people. Can't tell you how many times I've stepped a foot or 2 to my left or right to avoid a pothole in the bikepath and almost been flattened by some knucklehead who was passing too close and couldn't be bothered to give me a heads up. I always check for traffic before crossing from one side of the path to the other, but it's not my responsibility to look behind every time I shift a couple feet in either direction.

That said, the amount of clueless runners (usually hobby joggers) on any given bikepath is also astonishing. They're either plugged into their headphones or lost in their own world. they have no awareness of their surroundings, and show no concern for other people who are sharing that space. Drives me crazy.

Randy Oldman wrote:

greenway runner wrote:

The cyclist could have been in the process of passing on the left (within the 7 feet of space). The runner then could have turned 90 degrees to get to the other side of the path to turn the other direction.

Seen it happen this way.

Runners on greenways need to use the same hand signals that cyclists use when changing speed or direction. Stopping, turning, taking a space when passing someone, etc.

No they don't, they just need to look over their shoulder as a courtesy before they do any of those things.

I disagree. Hand signals (like turn signals when driving a car) indicate to everyone what your intent is. Sure, you can look over your shoulder too, but hand signals among us experienced runners is something we do whenever running in a group or around cars or cyclists. The hobby joggers should take note. It could have saved this guy a lot of money.

another g'way runner wrote:

[quote]Randy Oldman wrote:

[quote]greenway runner wrote:

The cyclist could have been in the process of passing on the left (within the 7 feet of space). The runner then could have turned 90 degrees to get to the other side of the path to turn the other direction.

Nope. I posted this earlier - and it's detailed this way in the article. The runner was not just turned, but turned around. There's a major difference there. Read people, read...

The cyclist makes it sound like the runner had enough time to get turned completely around. (Otherwise it would have simply stated that the runner darted to the side...)

How long does turning completely around take the most sprightly among us? A few seconds. If you can't grab your brake in a few seconds time as this develops in front of you, you were either not paying attention and/or you were travelling at far too high a rate for the area. Not to mention, there was, "undisputed evidence that the plaintiff had seven feet of unobstructed greenway on which to avoid a collision with the defendant..."

I would countersue the S*** out of this jerk. Not even for the money, just to make the cyclist suffer.

Remember that your account comes from a short newspaper article. The judge read/heard more.

It blows my freaking mind that ANYONE is siding with the cyclist on this lawsuit.

Out of all types of 'traffic' (motorists, ATV-riders, cyclists, runners, dog-walkers, and just plain walkers), BY FAR the most inconsiderate that I've encountered are cyclists. I see it all the time on the road -- cyclists NEVER looking behind them, never signaling when turning, not riding in the designated bike-lane if there is one, and most annoying of all, riding several feet into the car lane of a major state or U.S. highway when the road has 4 feet of paved shoulder and 1 to 3 feet of unpaved shoulder beyond that. Ridiculous. Furthermore, I NEVER see them slow down for potential collisions. If I'm running on a path that crosses a road, I have to stop my run temporarily to look both ways and perhaps wait for traffic. If a motorist is passing a child at play, that motorist slows down. But if a cyclist is passing or riding into the space of ANYTHING (such as a runner), do they slow down? Nope, never seen it.

But let's just say that I live in a bubble where cyclists behave differently than all other parts of the United States. IT'S STILL THE CYCLIST'S FAULT, as the CYCLIST has the more-powerful, faster-moving vehicle, and is carrying more momentum. It's up to the cyclist to properly control her vehicle. The cyclist rode into the space around the runner, not the other way around.

I also think it's absurd that some people think the cyclist should never have to move off of the paved surface. If it's a narrow path, somebody's gotta move. Just as the runner sometimes has to jump out of the way, or a guy on a 4-wheeler moves wide to avoid a potential issue, so too should the cyclist. In this particular case, the distance cited is 7 feet. That's nothing. The cyclist should have anticipated FAR more than that, or slowed down if the total of paved & unpaved path was too narrow to get more than the 7 feet away. I don't care if it was 7 feet from directly behind or 7 feet on a diagonal as she was passing, the point is anything can happen. What if the running KNOWS you're coming, but accidentally trips and falls? Is it still the runner's fault? No, it's the cyclist's fault, as the cyclist needs to anticipate freak occurrences like that when passing. Why? BECAUSE THE CYCLIST HAS THE MORE-POWERFUL, FASTER-MOVING VEHICLE CARRYING MORE MOMENTUM RELATIVE TO THE RUNNER!!!

A further absurdity is the complete destruction of a person's life for this incident. For everyone who's siding with the cyclist, do YOU have $300,000 in available cash to throw at a frivolous lawsuit against you? Let's say you're walking down the street with a coffee, realize you forgot something at a previous location, and turn around suddenly to get it, thereby accidentally dumping your coffee on someone walking behind you, who sues you successfully for $300,000. Gee, I guess you should have looked to make sure no one was coming into your path. You don't like having the rest of your life ruined because of happenstance? Sorry, too bad. That's what's going on here, and it makes me sick. This and all other suits like it should have been thrown out IMMEDIATELY by the judge.

Agreed. The cyclist, being the faster and more potentially destructive force, is most responsible to avoid collisions with pedestrians. But the runner is partially responsible here. I'd say it's 66/33 against the cyclist.

Canada eh wrote:

One more reason I'm happy not to live in the United States, where thousands of dollars in court time and judges' expertise are used to sort out arguments between morons, and decisions like this bankrupt normal people for doing normal things.

Don't pretend this kind of stuff doesn't happen in Canada. Only in 3rd world countries where there are no valid judicial systems would this NOT go to court.