Cyclists want Columbus to allow bikes on sidewalks/inclusion in road upgrades

[TempoNick]

Sharrows are a pet peeve of mine. I think it's stupid bicycles on congested roadways. The bike nazis vehemently disagree with this. They think they are entitled to be on the road, but it makes more sense to me to route them differently, including the use of sidewalks.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2024/02/06/columbus-council-asked-to-consider-allowing-bikes-on-some-sidewalks-along-dangerous-roadways/72456131007/

[jeffandnicole]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

[SEWIGuy]

Sharrows are a pet peeve of mine. I think it's stupid bicycles on congested roadways. The bike nazis vehemently disagree with this. They think they are entitled to be on the road, but it makes more sense to me to route them differently, including the use of sidewalks.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2024/02/06/columbus-council-asked-to-consider-allowing-bikes-on-some-sidewalks-along-dangerous-roadways/72456131007/

Well, in many places, they ARE entitled to be on most roads.

But a lot of cities put in extra wide sidewalks in certain cases like these to allow for both bike and pedestrian traffic.

[mgk920]

Sharrows are a pet peeve of mine. I think it's stupid bicycles on congested roadways. The bike nazis vehemently disagree with this. They think they are entitled to be on the road, but it makes more sense to me to route them differently, including the use of sidewalks.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2024/02/06/columbus-council-asked-to-consider-allowing-bikes-on-some-sidewalks-along-dangerous-roadways/72456131007/

Well, in many places, they ARE entitled to be on most roads.

But a lot of cities put in extra wide sidewalks in certain cases like these to allow for both bike and pedestrian traffic.

The downtown main street here in Appleton, WI (College Ave) was created with a wide ROW at the very beginning (1840s, IIRC', looong before ICE cars were part of anyone's dreams) so that teamsters of the day could U-turn animal-drawn carts within the curbs of the street.  Otherwise they would have had to use side streets and go around the block to do that.  Riding bicycles has always been prohibited on the resulting very wide sidewalks.

Mike

[TempoNick]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Meh, okay, only make it legal at a slow pace. I ride my bike on sidewalks on congested streets whether it's legal or not. I'm smart enough to know not to race down those sidewalks at a high speed.

[jeffandnicole]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Meh, okay, only make it legal at a slow pace. I ride my bike on sidewalks on congested streets whether it's legal or not. I'm smart enough to know not to race down those sidewalks at a high speed.

OK, but that's you. Its very apparent many bicyclists don't agree. In 2008, bicyclists in Columbus argued against riding on sidewalks, claiming it was unsafe, specifically referencing crashes with pedestrians. Did the stats change over the years? https://columbusunderground.com/bicyclists-oppose-lifting-sidewalk-ban-in-columbus/

[algorerhythms]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?

[kalvado]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?

There is no good answer. Redesign of streets for 3 separate flows instead of 2 would be great if there were enough ROW.
Best suggestion I saw so far is converting some parallel streets into bike/ local auto no through traffic. But again, city must have adequate parallel streets for that.

[Rothman]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?

Make bikes illegal.

[TempoNick]

Best suggestion I saw so far is converting some parallel streets into bike/ local auto no through traffic. But again, city must have adequate parallel streets for that.

That is your answer. From downtown, I used to take the surface streets to Bryden, then to Main. Then I would wind my way further east by going through various residential neighborhoods between there and Hamilton Road. Once I got to Hamilton, I hit a dead end because I have to go further east. I took the bus to get to my destination. Once, I walked back with the bike, but I don't like the idea of a pedestrian (or bicyclist) on a clover-leaf freeway overpass. (Broad Street and I-270).

Bikes should be routed this way. Where there are cul de sacs or other obstructions, seems like there could be some kind of workaround. Better than those stupid sharrows.

[kphoger]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?

low speed/not congested road

[1995hoo]

.... Where there are cul de sacs or other obstructions, seems like there could be some kind of workaround. Better than those stupid sharrows.

When I was growing up, it was somewhat common here in Fairfax County that in neighborhoods near schools, there would be an "access sidewalk" to the school property running between two lots. See this example—the sidewalk running between those two fences provides access to Mantua Elementary. Or here is another example with no fences—the sidewalk between those houses runs through to the old Pine Ridge Elementary, which closed in 1982 but the sidewalk is still there. It seems like that sort of thing could become part of the planning required for new construction to provide pedestrian or cyclist access from cul-de-sacs or other "no outlet" type neighborhoods. Of course I recognize why some homeowners wouldn't necessarily love the idea of making their neighborhoods more easily accessible to people who don't live there (or, viewed differently, of providing another route for a thief or similar to escape), but for the most part such people can get away easily enough even without such sidewalks or paths.

[kalvado]

.... Where there are cul de sacs or other obstructions, seems like there could be some kind of workaround. Better than those stupid sharrows.

When I was growing up, it was somewhat common here in Fairfax County that in neighborhoods near schools, there would be an "access sidewalk" to the school property running between two lots. See this example—the sidewalk running between those two fences provides access to Mantua Elementary. Or here is another example with no fences—the sidewalk between those houses runs through to the old Pine Ridge Elementary, which closed in 1982 but the sidewalk is still there. It seems like that sort of thing could become part of the planning required for new construction to provide pedestrian or cyclist access from cul-de-sacs or other "no outlet" type neighborhoods. Of course I recognize why some homeowners wouldn't necessarily love the idea of making their neighborhoods more easily accessible to people who don't live there (or, viewed differently, of providing another route for a thief or similar to escape), but for the most part such people can get away easily enough even without such sidewalks or paths.

I, for one, isn't very happy that there are no outlets from our cul-de-sac. Of course, having some water and tiny ravines on 3 sides  doesn't make things easier.
But it felt not great  when the street was flooded during heavy rain.

[algorerhythms]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?

low speed/not congested road

What about places where there isn't a low speed or not congested road? Many suburban areas are deliberately designed so the low speed streets don't connect, so you can't get anywhere on them.

Plus, if your destination is on the high speed/congested route, then the low speed street doesn't actually get you to where you're trying to go.

[kphoger]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?

low speed/not congested road

What about places where there isn't a low speed or not congested road? Many suburban areas are deliberately designed so the low speed streets don't connect, so you can't get anywhere on them.

road diets

Plus, if your destination is on the high speed/congested route, then the low speed street doesn't actually get you to where you're trying to go.

Well, actually, my tongue was pretty far into my cheek.  Of course I know it's not a satisfactory answer.  You just seemed to miss an obvious solution in some situations:  slowing vehicular traffic down.

[The Ghostbuster]

Is there any space within the city of Columbus to possibly add bike paths for cyclists instead of bike lanes? Here in Madison, there are bike paths within the city limits, as well as some outside of the city.

[algorerhythms]

Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.

Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?

low speed/not congested road

What about places where there isn't a low speed or not congested road? Many suburban areas are deliberately designed so the low speed streets don't connect, so you can't get anywhere on them.

road diets

Plus, if your destination is on the high speed/congested route, then the low speed street doesn't actually get you to where you're trying to go.

Well, actually, my tongue was pretty far into my cheek.  Of course I know it's not a satisfactory answer.  You just seemed to miss an obvious solution in some situations:  slowing vehicular traffic down.

This is, of course, the solution, but it's amazing how much people freak out if you suggest this as a solution...

[SectorZ]

Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.

All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.

[kphoger]

Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.

All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.

and NOT this:

[SectorZ]

Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.

All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.

and NOT this:

Of course in that case they put one in that just can't be turned 90 degrees. Imagine arguing with a town where they can turn it but they just choose not to. You really don't see rain gutters like that in the Northeast, outside of some parts of Connecticut I can think of. They probably don't play well with loads of snow.

[Rothman]

Unfortunately, around here, cycling advocacy groups say shoulders of any kind are inadequate and unsafe due to the rocks, debris and whatever else that end up in them.

[SectorZ]

Unfortunately, around here, cycling advocacy groups say shoulders of any kind are inadequate and unsafe due to the rocks, debris and whatever else that end up in them.

Funny that I don't have that problem with shoulders in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, etc.

I do have that problem with segregated lanes that can't be cleaned by street sweepers, especially in places like Cambridge and Somerville.

[Rothman]

Unfortunately, around here, cycling advocacy groups say shoulders of any kind are inadequate and unsafe due to the rocks, debris and whatever else that end up in them.

Funny that I don't have that problem with shoulders in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, etc.

I do have that problem with segregated lanes that can't be cleaned by street sweepers, especially in places like Cambridge and Somerville.

I agree with you, but they do not agree with us.

[algorerhythms]

Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.

All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.

This is a circular argument. You argue that most cyclists are okay with a narrow bike lane, but that usually in the real world means a maybe 1 meter wide lane, next to traffic that's likely going upwards of 60 km/h (basically, this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/urzKDFSEFjGRMmHp6). And, speaking as someone who knows physics, there is no way I want to be that close to cars going that fast. So, sure, if that is the only option, then most cyclists will be okay with that option, because the people who are aware of physics won't be cyclists if that's the way cyclists are expected to get around. But it would be nicer if people who are not into lycra could ride a bike to places without having to worry that the driver of the pickup truck going by at 70 km/h is looking at their cell phone.

[SectorZ]

Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.

All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.

This is a circular argument. You argue that most cyclists are okay with a narrow bike lane, but that usually in the real world means a maybe 1 meter wide lane, next to traffic that's likely going upwards of 60 km/h (basically, this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/urzKDFSEFjGRMmHp6). And, speaking as someone who knows physics, there is no way I want to be that close to cars going that fast. So, sure, if that is the only option, then most cyclists will be okay with that option, because the people who are aware of physics won't be cyclists if that's the way cyclists are expected to get around. But it would be nicer if people who are not into lycra could ride a bike to places without having to worry that the driver of the pickup truck going by at 70 km/h is looking at their cell phone.

Translation of this missive: SectorZ is too stupid to understand the risk of being hit by a vehicle. SectorZ wears stupid clothing and should have rampant anxiety but is a weirdo because he can co-exist with other traffic.