"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.

[Geonz]

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"

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...)

[Melalvai]

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

The biggest hazard to a cyclist riding on a sidewalk is the cars.

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.

[elk]

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

[Grog]

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.

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.

[mimitabby]

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)

[elk]

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....

[Geonz]

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.

[kat_h]

The drivers of cars know that the bicyclists are fellow human beings and treat them as such.

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.

[mimitabby]

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.

You know, I think those things are helping in Seattle too (crossing my fingers)

[PscyclePath]

The biggest hazard to a cyclist riding on a sidewalk is the cars.

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.

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 ;-)

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.