He's cycling and coming up on her from behind. He gets passed and that cyclist passes her and she jumps in the path of this other guy and gets run over. His fault and he pays her bills. Judy says in a round about way. Doesn't matter what the jogger does. You hit them on a bike you are at fault.

This will probably get appealed to Judge Wapner.

You hit them on a bike you are at fault.

How much? Maybe it's worth it.

Wait. Too many pronouns. I'm having a problem following how it happened.

Can you repost with "jogger" and "cyclist" and somehow it seems like there is a 3rd person...?

Wait. Too many pronouns. I'm having a problem following how it happened.

Can you repost with "jogger" and "cyclist" and somehow it seems like there is a 3rd person...?
2 cyclists, 1 jogger.

Cyclist A gets passed by cyclist B, B also passes Jogger. After being passed by B Jogger jumps infront of A who runs Jogger over. Judge Judy says Cyclist A must pay. Ya dig?

2 cyclists, 1 jogger.

Cyclist A gets passed by cyclist B, B also passes Jogger. After being passed by B Jogger jumps infront of A who runs Jogger over. Judge Judy says Cyclist A must pay. Ya dig?

Oh. Thanks. Why the crap would a jogger jump in front of a cyclist? Lame.

Seems logical to me though. Like hitting a car from behind I guess. And on trails, bikes always yield to peds and horses. I guess it makes sense.

in any vehicle it's your responsibility to not hit anyone, or anything in your path. Applies to cars and to cyclists.

Seems to me the jogger is on the wrong side of the road...or the cyclists were. THAT should be the determining factor....

That is bullshit. Usually cyclists are smart about staying on the right side of the road. It seems the runner would have been on the wrong side, so it would have been there fault. Judge Judy isn't as smart as she seems.

That is bull****. Usually cyclists are smart about staying on the right side of the road. It seems the runner would have been on the wrong side, so it would have been there fault. Judge Judy isn't as smart as she seems.

I believe this was on a multi-use path, both joggers and cyclists on the right except to pass. The first cyclist startled the runner, who stepped/jumped off the path, then came back on without looking, and the second cyclist struck her.

Two things to keep in mind. Cyclists need to be very, very cautious on paths, and cyclists should never take a case to Judge Judy unless they have a very, very strong case. She generally has not been kind to cyclists in runners vs cyclists. She has, however, favored cyclists in dogs vs cyclists.

So were rate just above a dog, Well i feel better now.

Basically pedestrians always win. It is stupid since they are best able to avoid incidents and this policy encourages jaywalking. Especially on a MUT.

I don't see what the problem with the ruling is. The person being overtaken always has the right away.

+1...what he said

I believe this was on a multi-use path, both joggers and cyclists on the right except to pass. The first cyclist startled the runner, who stepped/jumped off the path, then came back on without looking, and the second cyclist struck her.

Two things to keep in mind. Cyclists need to be very, very cautious on paths, and cyclists should never take a case to Judge Judy unless they have a very, very strong case. She generally has not been kind to cyclists in runners vs cyclists. She has, however, favored cyclists in dogs vs cyclists.

There is a problem here, and it begins with your second sentence. How does a runner on an MUT get startled by a cyclist? This is akin to saying a motorist on the highway was startled by a passing motorcycle and simply doesn't make any sense. A passing vehicle should be responded to by maintaining your course steadily, not being startled, swerving off the road/trail, and then coming back on without looking. Pedestrians are frequently startled by me when I yell "on the left" on the MUT, regardless of the signs that say "bikers please announce passing on the left" and regardless of whether I yell it within 50ft. or 20ft.... Why? Because they are using the trail as if they are the only people on it. On the capitol crescent trail there are frequently groups of runners or walkers running four abreast. The local high school cross country team takes up the whole trail when they run, both sides. Frequently these folks have Ipods blaring in their ears... why do they deserve any benefit of the doubt or right of way.

When and if I have a problem on my local MUT I will hopefully not be seriously injured so that I can beat the crap out of the person I hit and teach them a lesson. It is time for some personal accountability in this regard and if the justice system and police won't recognize that the pedestrians are the problem then someone has to take matters into their own hands....

People are just rude. I run a lot, and often on the paths I'll see people walking 2, 3, 4 abreats. I'm coming toward them so they see me. But often times, they won't move and I have to run off the path to pass them. I fail to understand why they won't move when they're blocking the path and they see me coming. There's just no accounting for manners these days I guess. On occasion, I'll run between them which is always amusing.

There is a problem here, and it begins with your second sentence. How does a runner on an MUT get startled by a cyclist? This is akin to saying a motorist on the highway was startled by a passing motorcycle and simply doesn't make any sense. A passing vehicle should be responded to by maintaining your course steadily, not being startled, swerving off the road/trail, and then coming back on without looking. Pedestrians are frequently startled by me when I yell "on the left" on the MUT, regardless of the signs that say "bikers please announce passing on the left" and regardless of whether I yell it within 50ft. or 20ft.... Why? Because they are using the trail as if they are the only people on it. On the capitol crescent trail there are frequently groups of runners or walkers running four abreast. The local high school cross country team takes up the whole trail when they run, both sides. Frequently these folks have Ipods blaring in their ears... why do they deserve any benefit of the doubt or right of way.

When and if I have a problem on my local MUT I will hopefully not be seriously injured so that I can beat the crap out of the person I hit and teach them a lesson. It is time for some personal accountability in this regard and if the justice system and police won't recognize that the pedestrians are the problem then someone has to take matters into their own hands....

+1...what he said

This is a good rule of thumb on a MUT. Rules may vary from state to state.

By the way, I find that a testy-sounding "On Your Left, Tubby" tends to get results with the Joggers/Walkers.

First I said 'on your left'.

Then, I used a bell.

Now I use a refs whistle.

Airhorn next.

First I said 'on your left'.

Then, I used a bell.

Now I use a refs whistle.

Airhorn next.

And YOU can clean up the slippery brown piles that will be left on the trail every time you fire that thing off.

Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of a handlebar mounted tennis ball cannon.

First I said 'on your left'.

Then, I used a bell.

Now I use a refs whistle.

Airhorn next.I don't know if they still make em, but at one point there were these soda bottle powered air horns available. I don't remember how the compressed air got into the soda bottles, but the net effect was that of a 'real' air horn.

Ahhh the good ole days!

M

Quit riding MUTs...
Those are for Mom's with Strollers, dog walkers, and fitness runners anyway...
This is ROAD bike review, not "Crappy People getting in the way when i ride review"...

Quit riding MUTs...
Those are for Mom's with Strollers, dog walkers, and fitness runners anyway...
This is ROAD bike review, not "Crappy People getting in the way when i ride review"...

Sometimes MUTs are a necessary evil - the one near me provides the only sane way for me to commute to work by bike. I'll happily dodge a few joggers if it's the only way to ride my bike to work.

I saw the case, and I (gulp) agreed with the ruling. The guy was traveling too fast and too close for the situation. Part of his defense was that there were cyclist coming the opposite direction that prevented him from moving over to the left. If that was the case that means he was right on the tail of the 2nd cyclist as he passed the jogger with bikes coming the other direction on a MUT. He should have been slowing down way before they crossed paths.

On the street this is a different case. On the MUT she had the right of way, he was in the wrong. You can't ride a MUT like the road. You have to be ready to slow and wait for the safety of everyone.

You can't ride a MUT like the road. You have to be ready to slow and wait for the safety of everyone.

:thumbsup: And I guarantee you that almost every MUT has signs saying pedestrians have the right of way. If only we could remove the snobbery from road cycling these guys wouldn't think simply because they spent thousands of dollars on a bike that they're entitled to ride the MUT like they're in the middle of a time trial.

You can't ride a MUT like the road. You have to be ready to slow and wait for the safety of everyone.

I agree with that, and I do not consider my momentum to be more important than safety. I frequently slow down to walking speed and wait for traffic to pass in the oncoming lane before passing a slower pedestrian in my lane, and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the idea that a pedestrian or runner on these trails are ever "startled" by the call of "on the left" yet I see it everyday regardless of how close I am when I yell and whether I yell once or twice.

Here is a frequent scenario:

I am riding on the above mentioned capitol crescent trail and two older women are walking slowly ahead of me going in the same direction. I yell "on the left" and there is no reaction, I yell it a second time, one of the two ladies looks back and yanks the other one to the right so I can pass. I have already slowed down and usually say thank you.

The question is, have these people not been on the MUT before? How many cyclists have to pass them before the call of "on the left" causes them to simply move right instead of stopping to turn around and see what's coming, then reacting as if a 18 wheeler is approaching? :mad2:

If you can't walk on the MUT and respond properly to routine traffic for the trail, then you have no more business on the MUT than a cyclist with the same disregard for safety. If you are scared to drive on the interstate because of the speed of traffic then you shouldn't be on the road, if you are scared on the MUT when someone behind you yells "on the left" you don't have any business being there either.

The question is, have these people not been on the MUT before? How many cyclists have to pass them before the call of "on the left" causes them to simply move right instead of stopping to turn around and see what's coming, then reacting as if a 18 wheeler is approaching? :mad2:

If you can't walk on the MUT and respond properly to routine traffic for the trail, then you have no more business on the MUT than a cyclist with the same disregard for safety. If you are scared to drive on the interstate because of the speed of traffic then you shouldn't be on the road, if you are scared on the MUT when someone behind you yells "on the left" you don't have any business being there either.

The testimony in this case was that the passing cyclist passed the offending cyclist at a high rate of speed and then the runner with no warning. He did not call out or give warning. The runner was startled, jumped to the right in defense, and then back to her original position (I am sure she partly over-corrected, but I would still say the cyclist should have been ready to avoid her regardless).

I would say that if the offending cyclist were to sue the passing cyclist, he should be held partly responsible for the injuries of the jogger. I would not feel that the jogger should be forced to sue both, but only the one who actually hit her.

If only we could remove the snobbery from road cycling these guys wouldn't think simply because they spent thousands of dollars on a bike that they're entitled to ride the MUT like they're in the middle of a time trial.

Around here, it's not road cyclists. It's crazy ass moutain and urban bikers with handlebars that are like 4 feet wide blasting down the Zilker Park trail at 25mph that scare the crap out of me. I'm just trying to walk my dog which is a legitimate use of this trail.

This thread is useless without pic's of the jogger. Was she hot? If so, who can blame the cyclist for hitting her?

Pedestrians always have the right-of-way over vehicles. This is especially true on muts, sidewalks or any other place where pedestrians frequent. If you ride muts, it's your responsibility to yield to the lesser power, e.g. pedestrians, baby strollers, rollerbladers, wheelchairs, squirrels, chipmunks, worms, etc. If you don't like the rules, don't ride there. If you can't avoid riding on a mut, go back & read the 1st sentence.

I see the same "walkers are rude" crap on MTBR and always laugh. Why are you all in such a hurry? Why can't you realize that getting all hot and bothered over a nano-second delay to your precious flow on a MUT is essentially the same damn thing as drivers getting all hot and bothered, and often putting cyclists in danger, because a cyclist disrupts these drivers' precious commute for a nano-second in time.

These are MUT's. The old folks and others are out trying to have a good time. Put a damn smile on your face, slow down and stop blowing a fuse over a brief delay and minor disruption to your precious bike flow. My god, cyclists are the whinniest group of people I know.

Pedestrians always have the right-of-way over vehicles. This is especially true on muts, sidewalks or any other place where pedestrians frequent. If you ride muts, it's your responsibility to yield to the lesser power, e.g. pedestrians, baby strollers, rollerbladers, wheelchairs, squirrels, chipmunks, worms, etc. If you don't like the rules, don't ride there. If you can't avoid riding on a mut, go back & read the 1st sentence.

These must be the same power boat drivers that cut off sail boats all the time.

ROW?? Huh? dude I have 2 x 300 HP mercs, I go first!!!!

Since you are riding the Capital Crescent Trail, I'll be able to represent you after you beat the snot out of the jogger and get arrested for assault and battery. Seriously, just because Judge Judy makes a possibly stupid ruling doesn't mean that every Judge will, and it surely doesn't mean that you beat the snot out of a jogger.

Without hearing the case in front of Judge Judy, I'll refrain from making any comment. The facts of the case are really important and I don't know all of them.

Regarding the other comments about being liable for hitting somebody in the rear, that is not always the case, even in a car. What if you are legally doing 45 mph and a car pulls out in front of you from a side street but they didn't leave enough room for you to slow down without hitting them and they don't accelerate quick enough to prevent you from hitting them. That wouldn't be your fault, even if you hit them in the rear. I had this exact thing happen to me, but I was doing 55 mph in a 55 mph zone at night when this 74 year old man decided to pull out in front of me. I was hard on the brakes, but I knew I wasn't going to stop in time. So, instead of rear ending him and his two passengers really hard, I tried to use the shoulder and squeeze by him. I tore up the right side of my car and the left side of his. The passenger in the backseat of the car got out and said "Thank God you can drive, because I thought we were going to die when he pulled out." His insurance company paid for the repair of my car.

If only we could remove the snobbery from road cycling these guys wouldn't think simply because they spent thousands of dollars on a bike that they're entitled to ride the MUT like they're in the middle of a time trial.

Actually, I've had to yield to pedestrians in a criterium. Was not so happy about that one. I think that right of way goes out the window in an officially sanctioned race (I have also had to yield to construction traffic during a high school cross country race and almost got run over by a truck in another one. Course marshals would have been nice.)

Pedestrians always have the right-of-way over vehicles. This is especially true on muts, sidewalks or any other place where pedestrians frequent.

While this is true, it is the responsibility of adult pedestrians to walk predictably. If one is going to cross in a crosswalk off the sidewalk, it helps everyone if that individual stops for a moment and clearly establishes that he/she is crossing by looking across the street. I've had to pull some emergency stops on the bike because people are walking like they are going to keep going straight and then swing out into the crosswalk without looking.

http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/BZ409B01-Delta+Airzound+115+Db+Air+Horn.aspx
Air horn that mounts to the handlebars and can be "recharged" with a bike pump.

There is a problem here, and it begins with your second sentence. How does a runner on an MUT get startled by a cyclist? This is akin to saying a motorist on the highway was startled by a passing motorcycle and simply doesn't make any sense. A passing vehicle should be responded to by maintaining your course steadily, not being startled, swerving off the road/trail, and then coming back on without looking. Pedestrians are frequently startled by me when I yell "on the left" on the MUT, regardless of the signs that say "bikers please announce passing on the left" and regardless of whether I yell it within 50ft. or 20ft.... Why? Because they are using the trail as if they are the only people on it. On the capitol crescent trail there are frequently groups of runners or walkers running four abreast. The local high school cross country team takes up the whole trail when they run, both sides. Frequently these folks have Ipods blaring in their ears... why do they deserve any benefit of the doubt or right of way.

When and if I have a problem on my local MUT I will hopefully not be seriously injured so that I can beat the crap out of the person I hit and teach them a lesson. It is time for some personal accountability in this regard and if the justice system and police won't recognize that the pedestrians are the problem then someone has to take matters into their own hands....

In the immortal words of Warren Oates in "Stripes"... Lighten up Francis...

This thread is useless without pic's of the jogger. Was she hot? If so, who can blame the cyclist for hitting her?IF she had been hot, the cyclist would have been hitting on her.

Judge Judy is TELEVISION. It is entertainment. Who cares?

However, if it was on Boston Legal, then i'd believe it.

I had a similar experience a while back riding a MUT. Three walkers were up ahead, two in the left lane traveling in my same direction, and one on my right, on the dirt shoulder. As I approached, I slowed and called out "coming thru." The two on the left looked back and remained in the left lane, the one on the right shoulder continued walking but didn't look back. I proceeded to accelerate through when the person on the right suddenly decided she needed to be over with her friends and stepped out in front of me, without looking back, just as I was passing! I yelled out "NO!", but it was too late. I tried to get around on her right the same time she jumped back and we collided hard. She was scraped up a bit, I was pretty messed up.

Now, even when I call out my intentions, I slow way down when passing pedestrians, mainly for my own safety. BTW, the girl I hit spoke no English.

First I said 'on your left'.

Then, I used a bell.

Now I use a refs whistle.

Airhorn next.

still not loud enough if they're wearing headphones.

should be laws about being distracted on a mut, how are you supposed to hear any warnings wearing phones?

Think of it this way:

Car is to bike on the street
as
bike is to ped on the MUT

If you were riding on the street, and some idiot blasted past you with 10" to spare and blew their horn and scared the crap out of you, then you wobbled and got slammed by another car following the first, the guy in the 2nd car is still at fault for nailing you.

I ride the MUT all the time, both out of necessity on the commute and out of choice sometimes. When there are other people around, you gotta know that you are the bottom of the food chain when it comes to right-of-way.

It also sounds like both bikers were "shooting the gap" between oncoming traffic and the ped. That's a huge no-no. Especially with no warning.

If the second car only gave 10", then the driver might be liable. However, if the second car gave a decent amount of space and the cyclistg swerved into the car's path, the cyclist is at fault, plain and simple. Car's don't have to give the entire lane to the cyclist when passing, but they have to pass with care. Exactly what "care" is would be for the Judge or jury to decide. However, the cyclist also has a duty to ride in a straight line and be somewhat predictable. If a cyclist on the right side of the road all of a sudden makes a left turn in front of a car and the cyclist gets whacked, the driver isn't at fault. The line gets blurred when the cyclist is swerving. How much did the cyclist swerve? If it wasn't for the cyclist swerving, would the driver have given the cyclist a safe passing distance? Did the driver slow down to a reasonable speed before passing the cyclist? All questions for the trier of fact, and hopefully there would be some witnesses to the accident, who would of course all have different recollections of exactly what happened.

IF she had been hot, the cyclist would have been hitting on her.

True, butt when she's approached from behind, she gets startled.

Probably get a warning from the mods for this comment.

These must be the same power boat drivers that cut off sail boats all the time.

ROW?? Huh? dude I have 2 x 300 HP mercs, I go first!!!!
Good analogy.