runners vs. cyclist

[Jiffer]

Changing the subject slightly ... but not really ... my sister and her Dh have a blind friend who runs. My brother-in-law runs with him and is his guide. They basically have a system down as to what BIL (brother-in-law) says when the blind friend needs to avoid something. They were running with a group along a trail one day. They went down a hill and hit a flat section that was half covered with mud. The runners moved to the dry section to run around the mud. Just as BIL and blind friend were in that section, a cyclist came screaming down the hill in front of them. BIL yelled for his friend to move a specific direction to miss both the cyclist and the mud. It was opposite of what he normally says, but on purpose. Blind guy was confused did the opposite and collided right into the cyclist. The cyclist started yelling obscenities until he realized the guy he hit was blind, then was all apologetic.

Blind guy got up, brushed off the road rash crud and said, "Let's go!" (This guy actually runs marathons. Amazing.)

I'm not sure how this relates to this thread except that it's for sure a very interesting "cyclist vs. runner" story to say the least!!!

[smilingcat]

So you and the runners are facing each other? And you move to your left out into traffic?

I'm trying to picture your example.

Yes, they are running toward me. If I'm heading south on right hand side of the road, they are heading north on my side of the road. going against the traffic. They would be running toward the oncoming cars.

They are not running with the traffic but running against the traffic.

Make sense??
Smilingcat

[SadieKate]

If you read my posts, you'll know that I would stay to the right since in the US we stay to the right in most 2-way situations - passing each other in the hallway, on the sidewalk, whenever. I'm guessing the runners expected this.

Faster traffic passes on the left when going the same direction. We pass on the right when going opposite directions.

Anyone else? Deanna, did you research find anything?

This topic has made me look at running clubs to see what they recommend.

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/...1914-0,00.html
http://www.rrca.org/programs/education/safety.pdf
http://www.rrca.org/news/index.php?article=2176

[smilingcat]

If you read my posts, you'll know that I would stay to the right since in the US we stay to the right in most 2-way situations - passing each other in the hallway, on the sidewalk, whenever. I'm guessing the runners expected this.

Faster traffic passes on the left when going the same direction. We pass on the right when going opposite directions.

Anyone else? Deanna, did you research find anything?

This topic has made me look at running clubs to see what they recommend.

http://www.rrca.org/programs/education/safety.pdf
http://www.rrca.org/news/index.php?article=2176

Hi SK,

Typically, I would agree with you. but as Deanna pointed out, California vehicle code considers runners as pedestrians. And pedestrians are limited to sidewalk except in crosswalk or where there are no sidewalks. I'm considered a vehicle under California law. Runners are in violation for running on the street (bike lanes included) Me as a vehicle did the right thing by going to my left and let the runners go by my right, just as any vehicle would. I can get a ticket for running a stop sign/traffic light and I can even get a speeding ticket. And the violations SHOWS UP ON YOUR DRIVER LICENSE!!!

But I agree runners and cyclists do need to know the rules of the road so that we don't have near misses or accidents.

Smilingcat

[singletrackmind]

So what am I supposed to do in the following situation? Happend to me on numerous occasion.

Several runners running toward me (going the opposite direction of traffic) in the bike lane.
Smilingcat

If they are making themselves clear I do what they ask and thank them. It may not be the right way but they can see whether traffic is behind me and I can appreciate they are trying to be kind. It'd be nice if people were universal in their reactions to each other, then we wouldn't have these sorts of conundrums.

[SadieKate]

This is where I think we all get confused. Yes, we are supposed to yield to pedestrians but I can't find out what that means when the pedestrian is in the street running towards you. Instinctively, I think we all would move to our right.

I mean, yielding could be slowing to a stop but you aren't going to slow to a stop in the middle of the road.

[Cyclo Kitty]

I wish they knew the rules of the road here--runners, cyclists, walkers, drivers.

The iPod-wearers are the most nerve-wracking, with the iPod-wearing people walking in the direction of traffic with a dog the most frightening of all. And I have seen most of the examples, all one sunny Saturday

The thing that gets me is the joggers running in the street (with or against traffic) on the boulevard where the nice, flat, maintained trail in the middle of the wide grassy parkway is pedestrian/jogger ONLY, no wheels except for strollers. It's not cement, it's soft, fine gravelly stuff. I can see not wanting to dodge strollers/dogs, but some won't use it ever, even in the early morning when hardly anyone is out. It is both scary and irritating (childish, I know).

I've had enough encounters with dogs to be very wary of them. People seem to ignore the leash law (there is one, I looked) and consider that their dog has the right of way, even in no dog posted areas.

All of these things are why I do not ride on the bike path, and instead ride outside of town on country roads, or on urban streets. In the country, I meet a few walkers, but they're usually walking against traffic and return greetings. And I always slow down for the horses.

[Deanna]

Anyone else? Deanna, did you research find anything?

No, the section I found dealt specifically with what is allowed in bike lanes. I have not looked into passing vs overtaking. But when passing a pedestrian walking on a "country road" (ie no sidewalks or bike lanes) you certainly stay to the left of them whether or not they are facing traffic--I think it would be the same for a bike lane encounter.

[HappyAnika]

For me it depends on the road. If its further out of town, two lane country road type of thing, I'm fine with the runners going against traffic. You can see them from far away and generally have plenty of time to look back and check for traffic to make sure it's safe to pull out around them. However if its closer to, or in town where there is a designated bike lane, it really irritates me when I see anything other than a bike in the bike lane. (Or a bike coming in the wrong direction, but that was another thread). It is a BIKE lane. See, right there, the little picture of the guy on a bike, right there on the road? There is not a picture of a runner, please do not run in the bike lane! Or if you must, please move out of the way since it is much easier for you to move, being that you're travelling slowly on two feet which allow you to move laterally very easily.

Smilingcat- I look at that situation as "bikes are vehicles". If the runners saw a car coming, would they move out in the middle and expect the car to pass on the right of the road? NO! Duh! That scene would have had me shouting some serious expletives.

[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.