Try League of American Bicyclists. They list courses by state.Quote:
Originally Posted by elk
Printable View
Try League of American Bicyclists. They list courses by state.Quote:
Originally Posted by elk
And that is the crux of the problem. There is this spectrum of road riders from the overly meek and dangerous to the assertive to the overly aggressive and dangerous. Both ends of the spectrum make it hard on the middle ground assertive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
When DH and I first started riding he would freak out when I would pull into the left hand lane to turn. He was of the meek rider end of the spectrum and, I think, thought of me as I do the riders who run red lights. It took a long time to convince him that being assertive and making your intentions obvious to car drivers is not only right, but actually more polite.
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, people who walk as a means of locomotion. Cyclists ride on the street, where they are usually safe from pedestrians.Quote:
Originally Posted by elk
Pedestrians operate without rules, except for a general admonition not to jaywalk. They can change speed or direction (often both) in a single step, on a whim, without notice. Even when the cyclist tries to follow traffic laws on the street, the multi-use trails, bike paths, or even residential sidewalks, he/she/is stymied by the undisciplined hither-and-yon movement of pedestrians.
Mixing cyclists and pedestrians is about the most dangerous thing that traffic engineers can do. When riding in motor traffic, cyclists are generally safe at about the fastest speed the rider can go, but trying to ride among pedestrians is so hazardous that the “safe” speed is about 5 mph.
In most communities, it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks in the downtown areas or business districts for the same reason above. In residential areas it's usually legal, and sidewalk riding is recommended for small children until they're old enough and experienced enough to ride the street.
Bike lanes are a little different matter, intended to separate bikes from faster motorized traffic. In every state, bicyclists are recognized as drivers of vehicles, just the same as motorists, and bicycles are considered as part of "traffic" and normal users of the road. In essence, every traffic lane is also a bicycle lane, and you're entitled to ride there, with the expectation that you will abide by the appropriate traffic laws and regulations.
Cars are big, heavy, fast, and scary to cyclists protected only by their wits and a fraction of a millimeter of lycra fabric. So, many cyclists cling tenaciously to the sidewalks in spite of the pedestrian situation, or they'll ride along the streets only if there's a marked bike lane there.
In reality, bike lanes complicate the traffic situation, and create about as many problems as they attempt to solve - especially at intersections, where motorists turn across them - and at many intersections they encourage the cyclists to slip up on the right hand side where motorists usually aren't looking. In most cases, dedicated bike lanes will terminate some distance away from major intersections. In these cases cyclists are expected to merge into the traffic lane once the bike lane ends, and behave, well, like vehicles.
By and large, bike lanes have not been effective at providing real safety since the crash rates are essentially the same whether a bike lane is present or not. Bike lanes do have an undoubted psychological effect, because people believe they're safer. Both cyclists and motorists regard the solid white line delineating a bike lane as a "wall" between their traffic lanes. Cyclists think that motorists will never cross it to the right, and motorists think cyclists will never cross it to the left. In reality, the painted stripe merely provides the illusion of safety. People will cross that line when necessary, and the danger is that the unprepared motorist or cyclist can be caught unaware.
The division between facilities advocates (bike lane supporters) and vehicular cyclists (who believe cyclists should act and be treated as merely another vehicle on the road) is a fundamental disagreement about human nature. In very broad strokes, on one hand you have one group that tries to influence behavior through engineering, paint, and concrete. The interstate highway system is an excellent example of this approach. On the other hand, you have a separate, sometimes overlapping group that tries to change behavior through education and training. Driver's Ed and the League's Bike Ed programs are examples of this approach. The first group strongly advocates the painting and establishment of bike lanes wherever there’s room; the others acknowledge that under the law, every lane is a bike lane, and that we should teach motorists and cyclists alike to share the available facilities.
Both local advocacy groups and the League of American Bicyclists shamelessly play both sides of this fence, by advocating for bike paths wherever possible for those riders who simply will not venture out into the streets; by providing educational courses, classes, and outreach for those who pursue the vehicular cycling principle; and lobbying/litigating against those who would restrict cyclists’ rights and access to the public roads. It’s not being two-faced… It’s a simple realization that as cyclists we really have the best of both worlds.
Cyclists are unique, because we are the only highway users that have a choice. We can follow drivers’ rules on the roadway, or step to the side of the road and off the bike, and become pedestrians. And after a situation clears, we can check for a safe space in the traffic flow, hop back on the bike, and pedal off again.
Eden pegged my point. Too often bike paths are touted as "the answer," and then they're poorly designed and not maintained, because the planners & executers do "more efficient" things for the rest of the traffic flow, since the bicycle stuff isn't considered as important. This means people don't use the facilities, because they aren't safe, and this means that there still aren't enough bicycle-riders to make it a priority. It's a self-perpetuating cycle unless and until other forces get involved. Be it known that I ride on a sidewalk everyday except when it's snowy (which has been the past month or so), because for that last 200 yards to the campus entrance, it is much safer, and I've seen at most 2 pedestrians on it at the same time. Since I'm making a right turn at the only road it meets, there are no conflicts. "It depends" :D
Most multi-use paths are a bit wider than sidewalks, so there's some room for more of that random pedestrian wandering... but we still had an injury last year when our little Saturday group was on the path and these four 10-year-olds were playing something like tag. They were in their own little world as they pelted at us in a weird Brownian-motion sort of way.
The plain old expense of separate paths is, I think, causing some lean towards "Complete Streets," which I find encouraging. At this point, bicycles as transportation are just perceived as less bizarre than even a few years ago, when bicyclists were supposed to be out meandering with their children (or training for the Tour de France... on some *other* road somewhere...)
The biggest hazard to a cyclist riding on a sidewalk is the cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by PscyclePath
Pedestrians and cyclists don't pose much threat to each other. The problem is when the sidewalk crosses an intersection, the traffic moving through the intersection isn't expecting something moving so fast. At a walk you can easily change direction or stop, anything faster, not so easy.
I have a friend who was jogging on a sidewalk with her dog when she was hit by a car. SHE looked--the driver didn't. Her dog was fine.
Glad I asked. Thank you for your thoughtful responses!
I've been thinking about this for awhile and had the vague feeling that there was a lot more to think about...kind of like when I see someone whose dog is hauling them down the street and I think...Jeepers, train your dog...if you can't do it yourself, get some help...kind of thing. I know what I'm talking about..but they are kind of clueless. That's how I felt at the beginning of ths thread.
to add:
Here in Portland, there was some discussion (bikeportland.org) about whether or not to press for seperated bike lanes....like they have in parts of Europe:
traffic /parked cars / bike lane / sidewalk. instead of
traffic / bike lane / parked cars / sidewalk
I could not think of a single reason NOT to do that...yet there was vociferous objection from the "cycles as vehicles" contingent.
If you/we/us want more people to ride, then it seems to me that there ought to be choices (as PscyclePath said) for riders of all temperements.
I would not want my 72 yr old mom, or my 13 yo niece to HAVE to ride in traffic...Yet I want them to be able to use their bikes as much as possible...
what to do?
But see...here I asked a question and already I'm expressing an opinion:o
Absolutely. People ride the sidewalks because they mistakenly believe that "cars don't go there." The reality is that cars go there all the time -- at every single driveway. And in Arkansas, as well as other states, there's no specific law about sidewalks, so unless there's a city ordinance prohibiting it, you can drive your car on the sidewalk too! Fortunately not too many folks have figured the out yet ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Melalvai
The Bike Path Folks and the Vehicular Cyclists often remain at open war with each other... the VCs claiming that the BP folks are sissy-babies for not taking to the streets, and the BP folks claiming that the VC folks don't want any more dedicated bike lanes established. The VCs tend to be a little more testosterone-laden and outpoken. In fact, at BikeForum.net, the VCs got banished to their own subforum when the arguments got too hot.
Me, I ride VC-style, but like having the opportunity to take advantage of the "best of both worlds" provisions.
One of the major reasons is, again, intersections: fast-moving vehicles (that need to turn) are not expected to be on the right of parked cars. I am afraid that having the cars and bike lane separated by parked cars will make cyclists more invisible to drivers, and increase the number of right-hooks.Quote:
Originally Posted by elk
In European countries where roads are much narrower than ours, cars and bikes share the road nicely. The drivers of cars know that the bicyclists are fellow human beings and treat them as such.
In Seattle, it seems to me that bike numbers are increasing on the roads; this is good, as motorists get used to them, they're not going to react with surprise and anger as much. (crossing fingers)
geez I don't know...We have no sidewalks in my neighborhood and when I am walking the dogs, we have to walk in the street. I deck us out like christmas trees with lights and reflectors...and people look at us and don't slow down AT ALL.
I think that most ppl are SO in their heads that they don't even realize they are in cars...I want as much room as possible between me and them....
The infrastructures & cultures are significantly different in Europe. We're simply not going to turn into Europe by building separate paths... as if I could even *imagine* that being added to our transportation budgets. In Illinois, we don't even *get* what is added ot the budget - most of it never gets distributed and simply gets sent back to the Feds. Somehow they're supposed to send X percent of stuff back, so they take bunches of it from "unimportant" stuff like cycling facilities. (THis year, though, they didn't bother to distribute the funds for Safe Routes to Schools, so there are a few moms upset and of course it doesn't sound nearly as inoccuous as saying "well, we trimmed the budget from these cycling frills" as it is to have not given out the funds awarded to help kids get to school.)
Separate is nice, in theory... but again, unless that separate path doesn't cross other roads and driveways, every conflict is a gamble.
http://www.resourceroom.net/pcc/windsorpath1.htm is the photo essay I did of what's not such a bad path... but I can fully understand why somebody who wants to get *home* would prefer the road. Most of these issues would be just as true with the path on the other side of parked cars.
Here's a great illustration of why it is not necessarily safe to ride on sidewalks
This accident occured yesterday between two bicycles, one was on a multi use trail and crossing the street (legally on the green) the other on the sidewalk and crossed his path perpendicularly.
[q] I was crossing with the green on the crosswalk going westbound to work, upon getting past the street another rider came down the west sidewalk going south, but she didn't stop, and there was a bus waiting on the southbound lane so she just "appeared"[/q]
This can of course happen with cars too! In fact the same intersection where this happend is kind of nasty as many cars do a right on red without stopping (illegal!) and seemingly without looking (stupid!), even though there is a very well known bike path that crosses the street there.
Even though it was at a slow speed (he said about 12mph) the cyclist who wrote about the accident broke the frame of his steel bike! and the other person involved had taco'd wheels and took a trip to the ER.
Never assume that sidewalks or bikepaths are automatically safe!
A big part of this problem is that people on sidewalks seem to think that no stop sign specifically for them means it's o.k. (or even safe) to go - no need to look, no need to peek around a blind corner, etc. Then again, that's assuming the rider on the sidewalk was familiar with the intersection in the first place - Perhaps that rider didn't know the sidewalk was intersecting with a bike path and, therefore, needed a stop and a glance - ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
Sidewalks are just loaded with hazards and they're mainly built for pedestrian traffic which doesn't move very fast. Put a bike on it, the bike goes faster/can't stop as quickly/isn't as likely to be anticipated by car traffic, etc. - the cyclist really has to fend for him/herself. I don't have the answers, but I'll stick to riding on roads that have room for me and where I can ride like a slow car and be predictable to the cars.
Deb
When I choose to ride on a sidewalk, I am always going VERY slow.
I generally ride on sidewalks when there is not much of an alternative; like
going from King street to Jackson Via 6th, that one block is 1 way the wrong way; so I ride the sidewalk and cross Jackson via the crosswalk and from there
I get back onto Jackson into the street.
Right... when comparing to Europe it's important to remember that Europe is older than we are... and their infrastructures less automobile-centric.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, Sue, where I've seen a lot of bicycling in Italy, the roads were VERY narrow, often without shoulders, without those nice little guardrails too.
The difference is NOT the infrastructure, Italy's infrastructure is absolutely impoverished compared to ours.
The difference is in ATTITUDE. The average motorist in Italy has at least one grandparent who rode his bicycle to work, and maybe still does.
Who's want to run over their own grandmother?
That is key. Calgary has bike paths along the rivers, but no bike lanes on streets. There is one street that has a picture of a bike painted on the pavement at the start of each block. When those are visable drivers on that street are quite decent, because they understand that bikes are supposed to be there too. When those are covered in snow then that street is just like any other in town.Quote:
Originally Posted by mimitabby
You know, I think those things are helping in Seattle too (crossing my fingers)Quote:
Originally Posted by kat_h
I know I've said it before, and I'm sorry to constantly repeat myself; but I think the "Bicycle Boulevards" in Berkeley CA are just an amazingly elegant solution. (traffic calmed streets just off the main streets, signage, and sharrows.)
we got Bicycle Boulevards here in Portland...and we're getting bike boxes at 14 intersections!!!!
It's a start!!
I guess I'll throw in my $0.02...
I've only been hit by a car one time in my two years of fairly intensive commuting. Here are all the things I was doing wrong:
1. Riding on the sidewalk in a downtown area (ironically, I was afraid of cars!)
2. Riding against traffic (on the left-hand sidewalk)
3. Riding at night with only a faint blinky light
4. Crossing an intersection without slowing down at all
5. Crossing an intersection without looking for turning cars
Not surprisingly, a driver turning right hit me as I rode the wrong way across the cross walk. He probably didn't see me at all. I walked away unscathed, and my bike was fine, but after that I switched to riding on the road just like a car. I've never been hit again.
I guess I have to admit that, after that experience, I've fallen into the Vehicular Cyclist camp. When I ride, it's always in the road, following traffic laws, and taking the lane when potholes, parked cars, ice, sand dunes, turning cars, or other obstacles make it unsafe to stay near the shoulder. By and large drivers respect that behavior and treat me more like a car, only occasionally edging me out in that nerve-wracking "If I'd twitched I'd be dead" way. I also never "filter through," but always wait in line with the traffic. I've had too many close calls with drivers unexpectedly swerving to the right and almost hitting me. (Once my front wheel touched the side of the car, it was so close. Good thing I was going slow enough to stop on a dime!)
Bike lanes don't make much of an appearance in Metro West Massachusetts. However, my Seattle bicycling experience has made me leery of them: Bike lanes seemed more like shoulders with a bike painted on the road, rather than anything special. The proximity to parked cars and the door zone, in addition to the high glass and grit accumulation in those lanes, made me rather leery of thinking they were all that great. I spent most of my time in the driving lane or the shoulder. Perhaps the issue with bike lanes is they tend to usurp common sense, so a normally cautious rider thinks "I'm safe in this lane," which is no more true than in a regular driving lane. Exercising caution wherever you choose to ride -- even to what feels like an extreme level -- can never hurt.
OK that's more like $2, but there it is.
Ah, here is where I posted about "riders who put tennis balls in the spokes". So I saw one of these riders on the train this morning. Conversation went somethin' like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
Trek: that's an interesting way to carry the tennis balls, do you play?
TBCR (tennis ball carrying rider): a little
Trek: don't you worry at all about throwing the spokes out of true or getting caught in the brake pads?
TBCR: no. I just do this as a conversation starter.
So far this non-scientific study shows these just to be a conversation starter. Maybe chicks dig 'em. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trek420
When we were kids, we put tennis balls in our spokes because it drove our dogs nuts trying to 'fetch' them. :rolleyes: Of course, back then we also rode our bikes on the left, facing traffic because that's what we were told to do. And no one EVER wore a helmet. What did we know?!? :p
and yet we survived to adulthood :rolleyes: :pQuote:
Originally Posted by GLC1968
What a timely discussion...I'm going to a BikeLeague Road I class tomorrow.
I've recently gotten back into cycling after a break from my early 20's to my late 30's - not uncommon on this board it seems. The funny thing is, I remember having seen cyclists "control a lane" on several occasions while driving or riding in a car and thought they were absolutely nuts for being in the middle of traffic. But after reading the pre-class book and other online info about riding in traffic, I can completely understand the thinking behind it now. And it is a fact that we clearly saw those cyclists that I thought were "nuts" for getting right in the middle of the lane.
Funny how far a little education goes. Its not immediately intuitive, but it is totally logical that being assertive and acting like the vehicle you are will get you noticed more and keep you safer than hugging the curb where nobody is looking for opposing traffic.
Now, how do we tell all the people (like myself just weeks ago) called the same person "nuts" that I would now call a smart cyclist riding in traffic???
When I was a little one (I guess 2-4 ish - big enough to sit up on my own, but before I was big enough to ride a bike on my own) my dad used to ride me around in one of those rear mounted kiddie seats, of course without a helmet on my head..... you'd probably get arrested for doing something like that these days. I'm not even sure anyone even sells those kind of seats any more. I guess he never tipped over with me though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trek420
Arrested? Call Child Protective Services :rolleyes: This was on a chicken farm so we weren't going very fast but when I was little the older neighbor kids would drive the old car we used to collect eggs in. This was a '50's car with those huge chrome bumpers we younger kids took turns riding seated on the rear bumper.
I think we knew enough not to sit on the front :o
It's a wonder I'm here today :rolleyes:
I think if you don't have these thoughts as an adult, you didn't have a full childhood!Quote:
Originally Posted by Trek420
Are you supposed to walk you bike in crosswalks? It is really a hassle with clip on shoes to get on and off crossing a highway or road which has "islands" in it. I've waited for cars to yield to me so I could cross, then the decide to go when I'm still crossing. I scream and flip them off and they give me a look like they did nothing wrong. You really have to be on defense. I ride on sidewalks too sometimes and nobody ever uses them because people in Hawaii don't like getting sweaty so they all hide in their AC cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBelle
It totally depends on where you are. You'll have to look up your local laws. In some places you are not allowed to ride on sidewalks period. Some places you have to walk your bike in crosswalks, some places riding is OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by MauiRockHopper
They are considered perfectly safe here - safety tests are done - lots of parents haul their kids with those - but with helmets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
I agree 100%. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kfergos
Great post kfergos! I'd pony up $2 for that. :cool: