Pedestrian Follows Google Map, Gets Run Over, Sues

Hugh Pickens writes "The Toronto Star reports that a Utah woman is suing Google for more than $100,000 in damages, claiming its maps function gave her walking directions that led her onto a major highway, where she was struck by a car. Lauren Rosenberg sought directions between two addresses in Utah about 3 kilometers apart and the top result suggested that she follow a busy rural highway for several hundred meters. The highway did not have sidewalks or any other pedestrian-friendly amenities, and Rosenberg was struck by a car. Rosenberg filed suit against both the driver of the car that struck her and Google, claiming both carried responsibility in her injury. Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk. Google has pointed out that the directions Rosenberg sought come with a warning of caution for pedestrians, but Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning."

Comments

For serious?

[millennial]

People walk on busy highways without sidewalks and think they're going to be perfectly safe? Why on earth would a thinking person even consider going by that route?

Re:For serious?

[snowraver1]

I would take that route if is saved me time. I would also be cautious and watch for traffic. People walk along highways all the time without incident, she was either inattentive or unlucky.

Should google have to write warnings for all dangers? WARNING: You are about to cross the road. Our records show that this intersection has a crosswalk. Please wiat until the red hand turns into a white funny-looking guy before proceeding. Be sure to check both ways for traffic before stepping onto the road. Be aware that there may be other pedestrians crossing the road. Be sure not to collide with them. Caution! Be aware that there may be open manholes! DO NOT step on a manhole that has it's cover removed. For a full list of applicable warnings, please go to www.google.ca/pleasetiemyshoes/

Re:For serious?

[timeOday]

Yes, it's absurd. But remember, she hasn't won anything yet, just filed a suit. And anybody can file a suit claiming almost anything. I think I will save my vitriol for the legal system until/if she wins.

Re:For serious?

[GrumblyStuff]

It'd be interesting to see if that was the only available route bar some huge detour. I've been around parts of town where the only roads are four lane, 45 MPH with few, if any, lights. Maybe she should sue the city/county/state for not providing pedestrian-safe routes?

Upon RTFA, they have a link to the route she took. I was hesitant to jump on the "stupid bitch" bandwagon but there's multiple roads running parallel. Stupid bitch needs to use her god damn brain.

Re:For serious?

[Spatial]

Warning: Breathe regularly to prevent asphyxiation.

Caution: If you are undergoing fluid immersion, avoid breathing temporarily to avoid drowning.

Re:For serious?

[Hognoxious]

It's irrelevant whether she wins. The defendant has already lost - legal fees will cost them double the damages claimed if they fight the case.

Re:For serious?

[sjames]

The absurd part is that Google is now obligated to expend resources to answer this groundless suit. Even in winning, they'll lose.

Re:For serious?

[X0563511]

I don't think Google has any fault here... however she was on a highway as a pedestrian (which is almost always prohibited... for a reason).

The motorist though... they might. It depends on a lot of things. Was she in the shoulder (was there one?)? Unless it was an emergency, the driver should NOT have been in that shoulder. If there was none, then she was in the right of way. Whether the driver has any fault now depends on a lot of things.

Re:For serious?

[fustakrakich]

Spare no vitriol for the judge if he/she doesn't immediately dismiss this as frivolous, and fines the bitch a few grand for wasting the court's time.

Re:For serious?

[Like2Byte]

blockquote)Should google have to write warnings for all dangers? WARNING: You are about to cross the road. Our records show that this intersection has a crosswalk. Please wiat until the red hand turns into a white funny-looking guy before proceeding. Be sure to check both ways for traffic before stepping onto the road. Be aware that there may be other pedestrians crossing the road. Be sure not to collide with them. Caution! Be aware that there may be open manholes! DO NOT step on a manhole that has it's cover removed. For a full list of applicable warnings, please go to www.google.ca/pleasetiemyshoes//blockquote)

That's even worse. Providing such explicit instructions would be cannon fodder for a attorney. The mantra "Less is more" comes to mind.

Simply saying something to the effect 'These directions are provided as a courtesy. The user is fully responsible for their personal safety while using said directions. By using the directions you absolve yadda, yadda, yadda....

In short, this woman, in my humble opinion, should remove herself from the gene-pool.

Re:For serious?

[LifesABeach]

Wouldn't a reasonable, and prudent person be careful around moving cars? I'm thinking that the Plaintiff ignored the Pedestrian Walkway, why? I've used Google's maps and directions, I have never read anywhere that my other choices could not be considered. Couldn't a Cross Complaint be filed? And another question that keeps popping up in my mind is the plaintiffs attorney. Sometimes the restituion does not go to the plaintiff, but to someone else.

But I think my concerns with Google and their "corporate culture" with respect to Age, is going to be illuminating in the future.

Re:For serious?

[CohibaVancouver]

Compared to Europe, sidewalk/walkway consistency and layout in America is atrocious as it is

Are you joking? I just got back from a holiday that included a few days pushing a stroller & my toddler around the sidewalks of Paris. In no particular order you've got to struggle with cars parked on the sidewalk (and/or agressively driving up in front of you on the sidewalk), unmarked random sidewalk construction sites, odd mixtures of cobblestones, randomness of curb ramps, sidewalks that slope towards the street at such an angle that you feel you're perpetually pushing the stroller uphill and sidewalks that are so narrow two people that can barely pass. By contrast, sidewalks in a city like Chicago are a breeze...

Re:For serious?

[Sponge Bath]

Breathe regularly to prevent asphyxiation.

Now you tell me. -- David Carradine

Re:For serious?

[g4b]

I beg to differ.

The computer would have told her to keep alert.
She however trusted in her phone.
Never trust your phone telling you what to do, even if it is supposed to be smart.
Criminal little nasties, waiting for the jailbreak.

Re:For serious?

[jopsen]

Can't a lawsuit be dismissed on basis of being... well... absurd ?

Re:For serious?

[Cwix]

whoosh

Re:For serious?

[TooMuchToDo]

Not in this case. Since the defendant (Google) most likely has a well-staffed legal department, it's sunk cost. They'll have to shell out for the court fees, but the people are already paid for (unlike smaller defendants, who would have to shell out for a lawyer or two for their case).

Re:For serious?

[Angst Badger]

But remember, she hasn't won anything yet, just filed a suit.

True indeed. And I hope it's rapidly laughed out of the courts before it becomes a prop for opportunistic politicians pursuing tort "reform".

Stuff like this drives me nuts because, out of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of lawsuits filed every year, most involve legitimate grievances (or are quickly dismissed), and most of them are settled out of court for reasonable amounts. A tiny proportion -- the handful we hear about every year -- involve ridiculous claims accompanied by ridiculous awards, usually delivered by a jury of idiots, and then reduced to more reasonable levels on appeal once the journalists have moved on to the next spectacle. The exceptions are generally giant awards that are completely proportionate to the giant misdeeds of enormous corporations, which always leads to lobbyists for those corporations handing large campaign contributions to unscrupulous politicians who conflate the two extremes.

Re:For serious?

[cob666]

On the page with the directions, if you click on the bicycling icon you get different directions that avoid that road.

Re:For serious?

[CronoCloud]

Paris has a disadvantage compared to Chicago...history. Paris was a city when Chicago was a marsh full of wild onions.

Re:For serious?

[LordLimecat]

Google DOES warn of dangers. The defendant claims...

Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning.

Which is utter bull, I have google maps 3.2.1 on my blackberry and it certainly DOES warn you of dangers while following their directions. You also have to agree to a EULA when you launch it for the first time, which I imagine disclaims any liability.

Re:For serious?

[DarkOx]

Right and what do you do when you have bad directions? You turn around and go another way. Yea it sucks that Google produced a bad route. She approached this highway on foot though, she expects us to accept she could not take a look at the situation and decide if it was safe?

My gosh whatever happened to personal responsibility; if Google had told here jump on a bridge would she have done it? Why do people feel entitled to go about not thinking in our society? Last I checked there was a large lump of gray tissue in everyone head which has the primary function of keeping them alive; maybe they should um use it!

Re:For serious?

[PaulBu]

if Google had told her jump on a bridge...

So, *this* is why they removed "Swim across the Atlantic Ocean -- 3462 miles" as part of the route to go from Boston, MA to London, UK! ;-)

Paul B.

Re:For serious?

[buchner.johannes]

Paris has a disadvantage compared to Chicago...history. Paris was a city when Chicago was a marsh full of wild onions.

And all the 1300 years before that too.

Chicago got its name 1800. Paris got a capital city in 508.

Re:For serious?

[CohibaVancouver]

Exactly my point. To say "Europe has great sidewalks and the USA doesn't" is a gross generalization bordering on ridiculous...

Re:For serious?

[TheRaven64]

When you close the browser window it should simply say:

WARNING: Leaving the computer may cause you to encounter the real world (beta). This contains myriad dangers. If you are unsure how to proceed, please go to bed and hide under your duvet.

Re:For serious?

[Cryacin]

You left out be neutered to prevent procreation.

Re:For serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still there for Australia to US (via Japan and Hawaii).

Re:For serious?

[cyn1c77]

It's irrelevant whether she wins. The defendant has already lost - legal fees will cost them double the damages claimed if they fight the case.

Actually, who wins will be quite relevant. Even if Google spends $1M winning this case, they will have precedent that they do not need an idiot warning at the start of their Google Maps app. This will keep other morons from suing them for similar mental failures.

Re:For serious?

[Kitkoan]

if Google had told her jump on a bridge...

So, *this* is why they removed "Swim across the Atlantic Ocean -- 3462 miles" as part of the route to go from Boston, MA to London, UK! ;-)

Paul B.

Yeah, but you still get to kayak 5404km across the Pacific Ocean when going from Toyko to Sidney. (step number 48)

Re:For serious?

[drew30319]

In cases like this defendants sometimes file a motion for summary judgment stating that there is no cause of action.

Wikipedia has an article that goes into greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment

Re:For serious?

[Hognoxious]

In the UK it's at the judges discretion - I believe that's the case in the US also.

But you're right in the sense that very very light grey is white, and very very dark grey is black, for practical purposes.

Re:For serious?

[Hognoxious]

She didnt happen to be overrun by a Toyota by any chance, did she?

Yes. It skidded on BP's spilled oil.

Re:For serious?

[sycodon]

Too bad she didn't die. It would have contributed to the health of the gene pool.

Re:For serious?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

That defense needs to win more often.

Re:For serious?

[zippthorne]

Paris was a city when Chicago was a marsh full of wild onions.

It's good to know that Paris was a city this year, but what does that have to do with Paris's history?

Re:For serious?

[LBt1st]

They're not there to save lives. They're there to save money from lawsuits like this one.

What we need is a better legal system so stupid warning labels won't be necessary for either reason.

Re:For serious?

[c6gunner]

It's irrelevant whether she wins. The defendant has already lost - legal fees will cost them double the damages claimed if they fight the case.

The suit is silly enough that they could just hire a temp for $8 an hour, buy him a suit, and sent him to sit in the courtroom and wait until the case is dismissed.

Re:For serious?

[drinkypoo]

And we're not just talking about cities, either. Imagine I want to go from one town to another (I live in Germany) without taking either a car or a train - let's say I want to take a bike (or perhaps walk, although obviously, that'll only work if the two towns aren't that far from each other in the first place). I can do that; I can't follow the Autobahn, of course, but all "regular" federal/state/county roads have paved sidewalks for pedestrians and bikers (separated from the actual road by a green strip). The only exceptions are the tiniest rural roads, the kind that only have one lane for both directions where you can't go faster than 20 mph at most anyway and where you'll probably never encounter another car, but there, you can bike or walk on the road, anyway.

I don't know what it's like in the USA, of course.

Of course. And the reality is that only Germans and other rich white Europeans REALLY care about roads on a deep fundamental level. It is probably safe to assume that other countries populated mostly by relatively wealthy (ask anybody in Africa) and racially-advantaged people have similar benefits, but my lady who grew up in various parts of Europe tells me that many of the roads are narrow lanes with barely enough room for two Minis to pass. So this is going to depend very much on where you are. The same is true of the USA; in bumfuck nowhere, there are no sidewalks. Where I live (Kelseyville, CA) many of the streets are dirt: You can literally turn off the highway and directly onto a dirt street, which connects through four or five other dirt streets before you see pavement again. A small handful of the largest roads have sidewalks, but for the most part, they are absent. Then again, so is the pavement. Where I'm from (Santa Cruz) almost all of the roads have sidewalks, and they're usually in pretty good repair, though they were trashed from 1989 to about 1999 due to quake damage from the Loma Prieta event. A 7.1 has a way of re-settling concrete and tarmac alike.

In much of Europe, there's no room for sidewalks; in much of the US, there's no inclination. Keep in mind that we have more cars than people in our most populous state (California) which also tends to be where people have to drive the furthest to get places, outside of Texas.

I've been there once, and found that I couldn't walk from the house of the friend I visited to the Target supermarket that was literally two hundred meters away - there were no sidewalks, no pedestrian crossings to cross the busy road separating the two, no pedestrian bridges, no pedestrian tunnels, nothing. We had to take the car. We ended up going on a trip through three states (Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio), too, and I noticed a distinct lack of sidewalks everywhere.

Most of those places, you don't need one, because we have so much more room here. The USA literally has three states which are over 60% managed by the bureau of land management, which manages places nobody wants to live. Mostly people rent the right to graze cattle there but there's also some (probably illegal) oil and gas wells, and plenty of periodic timber harvesting (read: clear-cutting) A friend of mine lives on a highway and has no other vehicular path out of her house, but she can WALK to the back of the property, pass the fence, and get to another road. If you live across a freeway (no pedestrian access) from where you want to go, sure, you might have to legally go the long way around. But given our low population densities there's no point to building foot bridges. They have 'em over the Interamericano in Panama, by way of comparison: But practically everyone there is on public transportation, and they have them next to bus stops, so there's actually people to use them.

Long story short, your friend lived someplace unsuitable for a human. Only businesses belong right on freeways. Freeways are something of an abomination, but that's what you get when you give your auto companies free rein to buy and terminate profitable public transportation concessions.

Um.

[Shikaku]

Who's fault is it when you're walking on a highway?

Re:Um.

[nospam007]

In my opinion she has the right to be refunded all the money she paid for using google maps.

Re:Um.

[Monkeedude1212]

Exactly. How is this any different than Google suggesting I use a crosswalk and getting hit?

The driver is the only one at fault. Highway driving or not, you are supposed to be watching out for pedestrians (hikers, cyclists, etc).

However, she should lose the case for either stupidity or greed, whichever is driving her to sue the big company.

Re:Um.

[Interoperable]

Looks to me like it's RIM's fault.

Rosenberg claims that she accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it did not include the warning.

I'd say it's time to fire the lawyers who forgot to sue RIM and then use new lawyers to sue the lawyers whose mistake it was.

Re:Um.

[lorenlal]

I'm not willing to say that the driver is the only one at fault. If she's absent minded enough to follow her blackberry for walking directions onto a highway and realize there's an increased risk for doing so after the fact... I don't doubt she could have taken a few steps right in front of the car at the wrong time either.

But, in all likelihood, yes... The driver wasn't paying attention. This should be an insurance + local law enforcement matter. Google shouldn't be involved whatsoever.

So....

[DarkKnightRadick]

No personal responsibility at all involved here? I can see how the driver is liable, but Google? Psht.

Re:So....

[frozentier]

IS the driver liable if she's just walking aimlessly down a highway? Where I'm from, it's actually illegal to walk down a highway with no sidewalk.

Re:So....

[Vinegar Joe]

Her father is the one responsible. He pulled out too late.

Re:So....

[Jeremy Erwin]

I hope that your locale actually builds sidewalks.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I am the major highways only run to areas that are far enough apart that you couldn't really walk along a highway to any meaningful destination. It is very much illegal to walk or ride a bike on them.

Re:So....

[couchslug]

"Please, kids, don't use the pull-out method -- there's a reason it's called the Vietnam of contraception."

Good.

I'll call the result "Peace With Honor" and run away!

Nobody's perfect

[frozentier]

Nobody's perfect, lady, including Google. Maybe Google should sue you for not having the sense to stay out of the road.

good thing

[ionix5891]

she didnt press "im feeling lucky" button so

And I'm Going to Sue Darwin

[ClippyHater]

If he'd have done his job we wouldn't have to suffer through this kind of crap.

not a darwin award winner

[v1]

but sooo close. maybe next time. Please try again!

My mom taught me not to walk/play in traffic when I was four. Maybe this gal should sue her parents too?

Re:not a darwin award winner

[v1]

unless there are undead lawyers.

They're called Estate Lawyers

They're the complement to "ambulance chaser", they're more of a "hearse chaser".

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Woman needs to learn how to walk down the road. I'm a college student. I'm poor. I walk down major highways all the time and voila, I don't get hit by a car. I see people do it all the time, and voila, they don't get hit by a car.

I think this woman was just stupid and wanted someone to blame for her own ignorance.

stupid people

[meerling]

They're everywhere, and not enough of them are getting Darwin Awards even when they deserve them.

Now I'll admit it's terrible that she got hurt, but let's face it, how stupid could she be to blindly follow a map into traffic?
What if a fire had engulfed the area, would she have walked into that just because a map shows that as a viable route?
I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid getting in the way of high speed multi-ton solid objects, I understand about inertia and kinetic impacts.

Guess she should sue her parents for neglecting to teach her not to walk on roads with traffic. Or perhaps for not making sure her, as an adult, didn't do something so stupid, and then have the audacity to blame someone else for her death-wish activities.

Obligatory quote time

[zill]

The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

Empathy

[Unoti]

My thoughts on this article were influenced by my low empathy score.

Oh Ya...

[MightyMartian]

Seriously and probably incurably retarded person gets injured through own sheer stupidity and wants others to pay. Lawyers will make a bundle. News at 11.

Re:Oh Ya...

[MightyMartian]

There's a saying in my motherland that goes something like "Fucking retards deserve what they get."

sheeshhh

[grub]

What the fuck is the world coming to?

.

This story is made up

[rudy_wayne]

Lauren Rosenberg sought directions between two addresses in Utah about 3 kilometers apart and the top result suggested that she follow a busy rural highway for several hundred meters.

There are no kilometers in Utah.

Re:This story is made up

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Woooooooooooooosh...

Re:This story is made up

[cardpuncher]

There are no kilometers in Utah.

There may, however, be a kill-o-meter in Mountain View...

Whatever happened to common sense?

[illumnatLA]

Really... jeeze... What ever happened to common sense. If it looks dangerous... it probably is. If her Blackberry told her to insert her arm into an industrial shredder would she have done that as well?

Take a look at this... this is the road in question... There was plenty of room on the left side of the street to walk without being anywhere near the road.

I really hope this gets thrown out of court. People need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[kfz-versicherung]

LOL! What a greedy AND stupid bitch.

Quick someone text her instructions on how to breath water - you'll do the world a big favor.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[binkzz]

Really... jeeze... What ever happened to common sense.

It got overridden by greed and narcissism.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[siloko]

let's suggest the head instead of an arm.

She'll have to get it out of her ass first!

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Take a look at this... this is the road in question... [google.com] There was plenty of room on the left side of the street to walk without being anywhere near the road."

It's much worse than that. There's a walking/cycling trail that parallels most of her route, if the route indicated on the map is correct. Take a look. In many cases it was only a few steps from the road. She could SEE a safe, non-car route paralleling hers, but did not avail herself of it. From the described route, she walked right past the entrance to the trail and stayed on the road. She took the "industrial shredder" option by following the blue line instead. Maybe you could fault Google for not pointing out the trail, but it was RIGHT THERE in plain sight. No, I'll stay on the busy road with no sidewalk.

I'm sure the locals and the municipality are saying "Why the !#%!%$! did we build these stupid trails if people aren't going to use them?"

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[vlm]

LOL! What a greedy AND stupid bitch.

Its important to determine if SHE filed suit or if her medical insurer filed suit on her behalf to recover costs.

I have never personally filed a lawsuit against anyone, but both my wife and I have, in separate accidents, had our cars hit by uninsured drivers (thankfully no injuries) and both times the insurance company filed suit on our behalf to recover the money they paid to repair / replace our cars using our collision policy. For the accident 7 years ago, it took like 3 years but they finally recovered all their costs and reimbursed us our deductible, and the other accident a couple months ago is still ongoing. I would expect automotive medical claims to work the same way...

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[Reece400]

Yup, calling that a highway is generous, I walk on roads like that regularly and haven't had any issues. Maybe she was reading the directions off the blackberry and walked in to traffic? I'm surprised she's not suing RIM as well.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[sco08y]

I'm sure the locals and the municipality are saying "Why the !#%!%$! did we build these stupid trails if people aren't going to use them?"

I know this taxpayer is saying, "why can't our idiot local governments publish their routes so Google, Garmin, etc. can include them in their databases?"

xkcd?

[kav2k]

Obligatory reference.

Kayaking to Japan

[garompeta]

I will sue Google because I almost drowned myself kayaking to Japan.
(See the directions from the US to Japan in Google Maps)

Re:Kayaking to Japan

[hack slash]

I'm tempted to click the "Report a problem" link at the bottom of the directions, saying "Help! I lost my paddle!"

She didn't get hit enough.

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Seriously. Where's a speeding, out-of-control Michael Bay-style 18-wheeler loaded with gasoline and hand grenades that's already on fire when you need one? I think Google's entire response should be a photocopy of an enormous erect penis that just says "suck it" at the bottom.

Link at article more useful with StreetView

[Anonymous Coward]

The link with the StreetView images make the situation all the more plain: she's an idiot. For A) deciding to walk along a busy highway that in satellite images and StreetView clearly did not have sidewalks, which would have been obvious on the ground too, B) apparently being too clueless to stay on what narrow, non-sidewalk area did exist adjacent to the asphalt -- it looks wide enough to me that if you valued your life there would be room to stay off the road, and C) apparently too clueless to realize that there is indeed a walking/biking trail running parallel along Deer Valley Drive that she walked right past along her route (the entrance at the corner of Iron Horse Drive and Bonanza Drive). note the cyclist. The path was a few steps off the road, and it even has a tunnel under the highway to avoid crossing at the busy intersection. The trail is used frequently enough that you can clearly see people walking/riding all along it in the satellite images.

Re:We're breeding stupidity

[zerro]

Mike Judge was mostly correct about this subject. The only part he got wrong was the date, as it is taking alot less than 500 years to get to that point.

I blame the driver

[fustakrakich]

clearly he wasn't driving fast enough, and apparently his aim isn't so good either..

Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious?

[Sebilrazen]

No, the post you're replying to is correct, pedestrians walk against traffic, bicyclists ride with traffic.

Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious?

[pnewhook]

No. You are supposed to walk so that you face oncoming traffic.

Re:I'm sorry but...

[baboo_jackal]

but she did feel safe thanks to the lack of warning on the google directions.

I totally sympathize with her. I was looking up walking directions from Seattle to Brisbane, Australia and when the Google Maps turn #10 ended up being "Kayak across the Pacific Ocean," for 2,756 miles at first I was like, "No way I can kayak that far." But then I realized that Google Maps wouldn't tell me to do something that wasn't perfectly safe so I went ahead and did it.

Sooo... Long story short, do you think Omaha Steaks delivers to GPS coordinates in the ocean? Also, do they carry sunblock?

--Sent from my Blackberry wireless device

Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious?

[RealGrouchy]

If you are a bicyclist going 15 mph and you suffer a collision with a motor vehicle going 35 mph, there is a very significant difference in the amount of force exerted by the impact depending on whether you are going against traffic (50 mph) or with traffic (20 mph).

The difference for a pedestrian is negligible, and therefore it is preferable to be facing traffic, in order to potentially foresee a collision and move to avoid it.

- RG>

Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious?

[eh2o]

Facing oncoming traffic is safer because you have better visibility of the vehicles that are in close proximity. However, it is more dangerous for a bicyclist to ride against traffic because cars entering and leaving the roadway don't anticipate an approaching bicycle on that side of the road (drivers tend to only look "upstream" when turning). Unlike bicyclists, pedestrians have an effective speed of zero and are also expected to stop and wait for safe conditions at every intersection, so they can safely employ the "wrong" side of the road and get some advantages from the better visibility.

Re:Oncoming Traffic Re:For serious?

[cynyr]

at least in my state(MN, USA) it's not that "bicyclists ride with traffic", it's "bicyclists are traffic, except where prohibited"(highways and such, they have signs at every entrance)

Re:I'm sorry but...

[Aranykai]

See, thats why blackberry is great. An iPhone wouldn't get signal in the middle of the Pacific.

From Los Angeles, Walking down center of road.

[anotheryak]

In this CBS News link, it is reported that Rosenberg--like almost everyone else in Park City--is actually fron Los Angeles. This is also covered in the complaint filing. CBS news writes that she was walking down the middle of the road when she was hit. This is a VERY busy multi-lane road, with a lot of SUVs full of Californians rushing to Deer Valley driving well over the posted speed limit. Does anyone else find it ironic that the person filing a lawsuit under what is basically the Nuermberg Defense is Jewish? Or at least has a Jewish name....