"Women who ride"... on the sidewalk...

[PscyclePath]

I fear i've stumbled upon that place where I don't know what it is I don't know...

Can I gather from this thread that bikes belong on the road...not on sidewalks... bit not on mixed use paths either?

And I sense an impatience with those who venture out into the road without boldness.

I want to be "enlightened"......

And is this related to the argument about whether or not there should be dedicated bike lanes vs cyclists should gain the skills to claim rights to the same road as cars?

Sidewalks are for pedestrians, people who walk as a means of locomotion. Cyclists ride on the street, where they are usually safe from pedestrians.

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.