[SDCBC] Joggers in the Bike Lane - WTF

[A.A. Abulifia]

CVC �21966 states in pertinant part: 

No pedestrian shall proceed along a bicycle path or lane where there is an adjacent adequate pedestrian facility.

There are sidewalks on both sides of the Bake Parkway.   According the newspaper item, clearly, the ped was in the wrong.   She was running in the bike lane when she should have been on the adjacent sidewalk.  Regardless of whether or not she preferred the "soft" macadam.  Regardless of how beneficial joggers believe macadam to be, the ped in this story was comparatively negligent.   End of story.



---- trevorspoke at cox.net wrote: 
> > http://www.ocregister.com/news/bake-parkway-1991108
> 
> In California, at least, the law is that peds must use any suitable adjacent pedestrian facility. Most joggers would reasonably be expected to agree with each other that the concrete sidewalk is not suitable for jogging.
> 
> The jogger was proceeding in the proper direction, facing vehicular traffic. In California, peds in the bike lane must yield to all vehicular traffic (for example, cyclists). Being in a bike lane, where the motorist is not allowed to drive, the ped is forgiven for not yielding to the motorist by getting out of the roadway.
> 
> I hate the use of the word "veer" in news articles, because mostly it is used as a synonym for "drifted" when in fact it is a much more abrupt change of position. However, a ped facing motor traffic should be able to hop onto the curb before being run over, I'd think, unless the driver actually did perform an extreme and sudden swerve.
> 
> -- Trevor
> 
>