runners vs. cyclist

[Eden]

Our laws in Washington seem pretty clear
If there is a sidewalk (bike lanes are considered to be road, not sidewalk) as a pedestrian you must use it. If there is no sidewalk you are supposed to walk/run on the left, facing traffic.
I do however think that if a cyclist and a jogger were to collide the cyclist stands the greater risk of injury, as they were likely moving faster and have farther to fall.
And as far as Smilingcat's example goes - in this state, she as a vehicle is obligated to pass the pedestrians on the left and not move back right until she has safely passed them, so if she were here they would have been encouraging her to pass on the incorrect side.
RCW 46.61.250
Pedestrians on roadways.
(1) Where sidewalks are provided it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway. Where sidewalks are provided but wheelchair access is not available, disabled persons who require such access may walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway until they reach an access point in the sidewalk.

(2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking or otherwise moving along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk or move only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction and upon meeting an oncoming vehicle shall move clear of the roadway.

[onimity]

In Colorado the law for pedestrians is:

"As a pedestrian, you should avoid walking on the traveled
portion of a road. When there is no sidewalk, you should
walk on the outside of a curb or painted edge strip, if either
exists. When walking along a road, you should walk on
the side facing traffic."

I assume that bike-specific lanes are a part of the 'traveled portion of the road' whereas the shoulder would not be.

Our rules for bicycles get more specific, though:

"Any person riding a bicycle shall ride in the right-hand
lane. When being overtaken by another vehicle, ride as
close to the right-hand side as practicable. Where a paved
shoulder suitable for bicycle riding is present, ride on the
paved shoulder. These requirements shall apply, except
under any of the following situations:
• When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
• When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into
a private road or driveway.
• When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous
conditions, including but not limited to, fixed or moving
objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians,
animals or surface hazards."

So pedestrians are classified as 'hazardous conditions'?!?

In summary I'd say that our law states that a bike (a vehicle) should pass other vehicles on the left but should keep as far to the right as possible while still avoiding the 'hazardous conditions' running on the shoulder.

I've never seen a pedestrian in an on-road bike lane. That would make me pretty mad and I suspect that anyone that has tried that here has encountered some degree of hostility, just as you'd expect that running down the center of a traditional lane. We do have several paths that are marked as bike-only, divided by direction. These tend to be in areas where there is fast-moving bike traffic and a separate path is provided a few feet away for pedestrians. For some reason, though, pedestrians of all sorts seem to prefer the bike path. The ped path is always empty, the bike path is constantly filled with people walking the same direction in both lanes, or worse, stopped and chatting up a storm while their dogs run loose. I really don't get it. Maybe I am the ignorant equivalent of a guy yelling to a bike 'get on the sidewalk!' but I don't understand why the ped-specific path isn't a better choice for them. It is far less crowded & dangerous, it is 5 feet away, and it goes to exactly the same place...

Smilingcat, that's really odd that the runner motioned you to pass on the incorrect side. I suppose that they were just trying to be helpful, to let you have 'your' lane without properly understanding the rules of the road? But talk about making things confusing!

Anne

[SadieKate]

Ok, I see where you say passing to the left of the runner is correct, but I still can't see having to move out into heavy traffic for the runners who refuse to move to their left. Fortunately, this is by far a teeny-tiny minority that are usually the iPod wearers or yakkers any way. Heaven forbid anyone interrupt their conversation for safety. Oh wait, I hear them saying an equal number of cyclists that do the same thing to them.

[Eden]

Ok, I see where you say passing to the left of the runner is correct, but I still can't see having to move out into heavy traffic for the runners who refuse to move to their left. Fortunately, this is by far a teeny-tiny minority that are usually the iPod wearers or yakkers any way. Heaven forbid anyone interrupt their conversation for safety. Oh wait, I hear them saying an equal number of cyclists that do the same thing to them.

ah, but our WA laws do say that pedestrians have to "move clear of the roadway" when a vehicle is approaching them.... I would say that means that joggers are actually supposed to step off the pavement when approached by bicycles (which by WA law are vehicles) rather than expect the bicycles to move out into traffic to avoid them.... while I highly doubt I'd ever see that happen, it is a very good argument that at the least cyclists should expect that joggers will go single file and move as far to the side of the road as possible.....

[trickytiger]

Sifting through this discussion is pretty funny in a way- the way some cyclists talk about runners sounds on par with how some drivers talk about cyclists! (dangerous, unpredictable, don't stay where they should, etc). As a runner (who also bikes, but not nearly as much as runs), I pretty much go where it's safest for me. I do know the rules of the road- but often, the road conditions are not safe enough for me to follow the rules. I do it like this- when possible, I run facing traffic- it allows me to see cars and allows me to pro-actively react to any perceived danger- I am not just relying on the car to go around me, I can also take action (oh, and eye contact, too). This works, except when I will be turning left, and don't wish to cross the street (crossing being more dangerous than running for a short time on the side going WITH traffic).

I have never had a problem with bikes. Usually, we make eye contact and I make room if possible- well in advance so the biker knows my intentions. If we're going the same direction, it's a little harder, but if I can't move over, it's the biker's responsibility to pass me safely- just like it's the car's responsibility not to run a slower-moving bike over. (we do not have a lot of sidewalks here, but there is usually shoulder room). If I've got the dog with me, I shorten the leash, visibly, well in advance so the biker or car or whoever it is gets a visual cue that I'm aware of the situation. In general, runners face most of the same problems that bikers do- and on a bike, I've never had an issue with peds EXCEPT on a multi-use trail, where they walk 5 abreast or don't keep a close eye on the wandering, meandering, oblivious kids/dogs.

[Eden]

I can't say I've ever really had a problem with joggers in bike lanes. Yeah, pedestrians on MUPs can be a real danger (not just joggers either...), a good reason to avoid MUP's, but for the most part joggers on the road are quite polite, even when being passed by a group of 20 or more women on bikes (I think it is because they can see us coming, unlike on a trail where you come up behind a jogger and sometimes they totally freak out cause they've got their ears plugged and they can't hear you....) though we don't see them all that often - mostly just on Mercer Island, where we both have to share the shoulder of the road as there is no bike lane and no sidewalk.
The only place I've ever seen someone jogging down the bike lane when they likely should have been using the sidewalk was on West Lake Sammamish, in a place that there is a sidewalk.
In any case it is good to know just what the laws are even if you choose to bend them at times.

[SadieKate]

MUPs are by far the greater problem but it's not just the pedestrians. It the whole mix of different speeds and uses of the MUP -- along with the plugged ears.

I generally don't have many problems on the road but Davis has a very high number of runners and cyclists per capita and every once in a while you get faced with something odd. I've been mulling over where and when I suddenly decided that I just had to hold my line and I think it was probably one too many instances of two abreast baby carriages with the yakking oblivious moms. I guess baby carriages just can't be operated single file.

As I was perusing all the running club sites with their "rules of the road" it was interesting to see that almost all stated that runners should not use iPods, at least the lone ones. I probably ride or walk up behind at least one young woman a week wearing an iPod who hasn't a clue I'm there (even at night!). Lucky for her I have no nefarious goals.

[rapid cycler]

I generally don't have many problems on the road but Davis has a very high number of runners and cyclists per capita….

I *heart* Davis. It has such a great vibe, and isn't it actually officially nicknamed "The Bicycle City" or some such?

For the record, I too generally find those who are runners by lifestyle to be very courteous and even deferent to peds, cyclists, and the like. As with cyclists, it's more often the weekend warriors who can be almost as dangerously unpredictable as dogs on flexy leashes.