Speed Limits on bike paths

[kphoger]

the worst is when people walk three abreast.  I will not step off the sidewalk for your oh-so-important conversation. 

Amen!  And that goes for malls, too!

(is it just me, or is it always slow-moving, heavyset people who insist on walking three abreast?)

[Brandon]

the worst is when people walk three abreast.  I will not step off the sidewalk for your oh-so-important conversation. 

Amen!  And that goes for malls, too!

(is it just me, or is it always slow-moving, heavyset people who insist on walking three abreast?)

I usually find that it's a gaggle of girls that insist on walking three abreast or more.

[ET21]

Outside of the racing bicyclists, I didn't think they would need speed limits on the bike paths

So only certain people should be regulated?

That's not what I meant. I just find it interesting that there are actual speed limits set for bicycles.

[sdmichael]

My bicycle has a speedometer/odometer. I regularly go anywhere from 15-20mph, sometimes keeping a bit higher than 20mph under certain conditions. In California, bicyclists can receive citations, but they don't go onto your record. How could they? You don't need a license to ride. Also don't start the "make them get a license" crap. Licensing hasn't really solved our traffic woes.

[seicer]

I totally agree (referring to the bikers that have the fuck you attitude) that needs to stop

have fun with your newly stamped misdemeanor, asshole.

Yikes. If we could only prohibit automobile drivers from doing a lazy stop at a stop-sign, or speeding on a residential street, or disregarding other traffic laws. No need to be dicks about it.

That said, the bike paths that I have been on tend to be capped at 15 to 20 MPH, depending on its use. If a path becomes so congested that pedestrians crowd out any free flowing cyclists, then a secondary path should be constructed just for pedestrians - such as what New York City has done with its West Side Highway. But even when I biked on that path in New York City, I was constantly having to shout "BIKE LEFT" (etc.) to the pedestrians who were walking in the marked and signed bike-only lane.

Over on the Little Miami Trail in Ohio, the pavement is about 10' and it can get congested near Loveland and in other small towns. I tend to go about 10-15 MPH, and when I pass pedestrians - usually one or two wide, I shout "BIKE LEFT" as required and necessary. The only time I had any trouble in the years I've biked it is when a group of Amish were blocking the *entire* bike path four wide walking and had no idea what to do when a cyclist approached. People were yelling and shouting since no one could walk through, much less bike through. I had to motion them off into the right side and explain to them the laws and rules. Just be nice and it'll be fine.

I do understand the frustrations with some of the faster cyclists. I (used) to race, so I could easily get my speed on a straight stretch up to 25 MPH easy, but when you have pedestrians and other cyclists to deal with, many of whom just don't have the skill set as a racer, then you create a dangerous situation. Much like dealing with speeding drivers on a freeway - 80 MPH drivers in a 55 MPH zone, it can cause serious issues and injuries. No one wants that. I don't go fast on those bike paths for that reason alone - and reserve my speeds for roadways.

[froggie]

Some of the comments I've seen here are nothing new..."cyclists do this" or "pedestrians do that" and "drivers do all the the above"...etc etc.  The bottom line is that EACH mode (driving, cycling, pedestrian) has more than its fair share of users that break the law.  You can't say one mode needs to do this or that without including the other two modes.

Another factor is the relative severity of crashes involving the modes.  In this aspect, the pedestrian is the most vulnerable, the car driver least vulnerable.

Thirdly, for those states I'm familiar with, laws governing cyclists depend on whether the cyclist is riding in the street/road or on the sidewalk/off-street-path.  If the cyclist is in the street, he/she is considered a "motor vehicle" regarding traffic laws.  However, if he/she is on the sidewalk, an off-street path, or in a crosswalk, they're considered a "pedestrian" as far as the law is concerned.

What muddies the waters in the specific case of the W&OD is that, while there are stop signs on the trail where it crosses streets that the cyclists are by law supposed to stop at, cyclists who are in the crosswalk are legally considered pedestrians, where they legally have right-of-way over approaching vehicles (a fact often lost on drivers, including and in particular the Loudoun County police)...the exceptions to this being the few places (Lee Hwy in Falls Church, Gallows Rd and I think one or two crossings in Vienna) where the crossing is signal-controlled.

[agentsteel53]

Yikes. If we could only prohibit automobile drivers from doing a lazy stop at a stop-sign, or speeding on a residential street, or disregarding other traffic laws. No need to be dicks about it.

fair enough.

but I do maintain that the proportion of bicycle assholes who engage in truly unpredictable behavior (completely blowing a stop sign at 20-30mph, riding opposite the flow of traffic, etc) is much higher than that of motor vehicle assholes. 

I do understand the frustrations with some of the faster cyclists. I (used) to race, so I could easily get my speed on a straight stretch up to 25 MPH easy, but when you have pedestrians and other cyclists to deal with, many of whom just don't have the skill set as a racer, then you create a dangerous situation. Much like dealing with speeding drivers on a freeway - 80 MPH drivers in a 55 MPH zone, it can cause serious issues and injuries. No one wants that. I don't go fast on those bike paths for that reason alone - and reserve my speeds for roadways.

80 in a 55 is much, much, much less dangerous than 25 through a stop sign.  I cannot stress this enough.

[NE2]

80 in a 55 is much, much, much less dangerous than 25 through a stop sign.  I cannot stress this enough.

Depends. Does someone crossing your path think there's enough time because you should be going 55, but you end up having to slam on the brakes?

[agentsteel53]

Depends. Does someone crossing your path think there's enough time because you should be going 55, but you end up having to slam on the brakes?

normalized as a fraction of total number of encounters... I've had a lot more bikes blatantly run a stop and veer into my path than I've had vehicles cut me off to the point where I've had to react instantly.

[SSOWorld]

the worst is when people walk three abreast.  I will not step off the sidewalk for your oh-so-important conversation. 

Amen!  And that goes for malls, too!

(is it just me, or is it always slow-moving, heavyset people who insist on walking three abreast?)

I usually find that it's a gaggle of girls that insist on walking three abreast or more.

isn't that 6-a-breast?

(sorry - had to say it)

[Brian556]

I think a simple solution is to paint a stripe down the middle, and arrows every so often in the lanes.  Most people will abide by that.  Much harder to remember to keep right when the path looks basically like a plain old sidewalk.

Users of these trails are far to complacent about basic safety. They feel a false sense of safety due to the lack of motor vehicles. Both cyclists and peds need to treat these trails as if they were roads.

Where I live , peds are rather good about getting out of the way of cyclists, once they are aware of their persence.

The biggest safety gripe I have is trail users (both bike and ped) not having lights at night. I ride my bike on these trails at night (with head and tail light, of course) I have nearly hit several peds because they are so stupid that thay think that people can see them walking in pitch dark with no lights whatsoever.

[NE2]

Depends. Does someone crossing your path think there's enough time because you should be going 55, but you end up having to slam on the brakes?

normalized as a fraction of total number of encounters... I've had a lot more bikes blatantly run a stop and veer into my path than I've had vehicles cut me off to the point where I've had to react instantly.

Just so we're clear on this... Jake's looking at both situations from his perspective, though he's on opposite sides of each. I assume this is a deliberate attempt to confuse us.

[kphoger]

Some of the comments I've seen here are nothing new..."cyclists do this" or "pedestrians do that" and "drivers do all the the above"...etc etc.  The bottom line is that EACH mode (driving, cycling, pedestrian) has more than its fair share of users that break the law.  You can't say one mode needs to do this or that without including the other two modes.

Another false assumption is that breaking a law always equals dangerous; likewise, that all infractions by all persons in all situations on all mode of transportation are equally dangerous.

If the cyclist is in the street, he/she is considered a "motor vehicle" regarding traffic laws.  However, if he/she is on the sidewalk, an off-street path, or in a crosswalk, they're considered a "pedestrian" as far as the law is concerned.

AFAIK, a cyclist is only considered a pedestrian  in a crosswalk if he's dismounted and is actually walking his bicycle across the street–in which case he is simply a pedestrian who happens to be wheeling a bicycle along with him.  Driving on a sidewalk doesn't make a motorist a pedestrian; bicycling on a sidewalk doesn't make a cyclist a pedestrian.  Correct me if I'm wrong; your state might have wacky laws about this that I'm not taking into account.

What muddies the waters in the specific case of the W&OD is that, while there are stop signs on the trail where it crosses streets that the cyclists are by law supposed to stop at, cyclists who are in the crosswalk are legally considered pedestrians, where they legally have right-of-way over approaching vehicles (a fact often lost on drivers, including and in particular the Loudoun County police)...the exceptions to this being the few places (Lee Hwy in Falls Church, Gallows Rd and I think one or two crossings in Vienna) where the crossing is signal-controlled.

Again, a cyclist does not have the right of way facing a STOP sign unless he has dismounted and become a pedestrian.  If still on his bicycle, he is obliged to come to a full stop just like any motorized vehicle.

Depends. Does someone crossing your path think there's enough time because you should be going 55, but you end up having to slam on the brakes?

normalized as a fraction of total number of encounters... I've had a lot more bikes blatantly run a stop and veer into my path than I've had vehicles cut me off to the point where I've had to react instantly.

I can't think of a single time when a cyclist or pedestrian has caused imminent danger to me, no matter how bad the behavior.  As I said up-post, the danger inherent in an infraction by a cyclist is not necessarily equal to the danger inherent in a similar infraction by a motorist.

[froggie]

AFAIK, a cyclist is only considered a pedestrian  in a crosswalk if he's dismounted and is actually walking his bicycle across the street

A misconception of your own.  They may do things differently in Kansas, but in the states I'm familiar with, cyclists may ride across the crosswalk and are still legally considered pedestrians regarding traffic laws.  That is why I mentioned the specific case of the W&OD and the conflicting situation there.

That said, the National Park Service tends to take the same viewpoint as you:  that cyclists must dismount to cross a crosswalk, even if said crosswalk is across a ramp that has been blocked off for years...

[kphoger]

Reference to any applicable laws?

[froggie]

Can't get to them while I'm out at sea.  Yes, I tried...it's a wonder I can even get to this forum (have to turn off a lot of stuff to do so).

[NE2]

Florida law (probably UVC):

A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/316.2065

[1995hoo]

....

What muddies the waters in the specific case of the W&OD is that, while there are stop signs on the trail where it crosses streets that the cyclists are by law supposed to stop at, cyclists who are in the crosswalk are legally considered pedestrians, where they legally have right-of-way over approaching vehicles (a fact often lost on drivers, including and in particular the Loudoun County police)...the exceptions to this being the few places (Lee Hwy in Falls Church, Gallows Rd and I think one or two crossings in Vienna) where the crossing is signal-controlled.

Let me give an example of one of the places I was thinking of. Here is a Street View image: http://goo.gl/maps/N9gNR  This is the corner of Virginia Lane and Shreve Road in Falls Church, Virginia. I work with a guy who lives around the corner from there. Notice the two stop signs on the trail (the one on the far side as seen in this image has a "REQUIRED BY LAW" placard underneath in the place where an "ALL-WAY" placard or the like might appear if the stop sign were on a road). If I come up Shreve Road and I'm preparing to turn right, and I see a cyclist coming down the hill in the distance, I don't necessarily plan to stop for him if I see I should beat him there. The onus is on him to stop. Yet many cyclists fly into an absolute RAGE if a motorist doesn't stop when they're coming down the hill. My colleague has noted that many cyclists go fairly fast down that hill, too.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not about to hit the cyclist if I can avoid it, both because it's wrong to do that and because I don't want to damage my car. I broadsided a car on my bike when I was in college (the driver pulled something akin to the "right hook" when turning into a parking space on McCormick Road at UVA); it was no fun for me and it left a scratch on her door. Cyclists coming down that hill in the Street View are often going a lot faster than I was on McCormick Road, so a collision would be bad news all around. But at the same time, the cyclist has to take some responsibility for his own safety and obey the applicable rules.

My point in my prior comment was simply this: If you're on a bike and you're approaching a stop sign (I emphasize the word "approaching"), and an approaching car is not subject to a stop sign, you have no business blowing through the stop sign on your bike and expecting the car driver to stop for you. When I ride a bike, I stop at red lights and at stop signs. People look at me like I'm a freak for doing it. But wouldn't it be more than a bit hypocritical for me to ignore them when I chastise others for that sort of thing?

Now, to relate this back to the original point of the thread, what I was saying before is that setting speed limits for cyclists isn't really the solution when the problem on many multi-use trails stems from a mutual lack of courtesy and common sense among trail users. In fact I think generalized speed limits for cyclists would probably cause the same problem of overall disregard of such things that we already see on the highways due to generalized under-posting of speed limits. If, on the other hand, either a speed limit or a "SLOW–CONGESTED AREA" type of sign were posted for cyclists in an area where it's truly appropriate, I think it might be more likely to catch cyclists' eye–in other words, keep it RARE and post it only where it's truly an issue instead of trying to make it a blanket rule. (Similar, I suppose, to when you go skiing and the big orange "SLOW" (or "LENTEMENT" in Quebec) signs are normally posted only near the base area or areas where the ski school conducts beginner lessons."

[kphoger]

Florida law (probably UVC):

A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/316.2065

Wow, that's incredible!  So, since the continuation of the curb line at an intersection with no sidewalks is condsidered an unmarked crosswalk, then the following hypothetcial situation arises:

* A cyclist is riding along a street with no sidewalks;
* He approaches an intersection with STOP signs for the street he's on, but not the cross street;
* He keeps as far right as possible;
* Cross traffic is obligated to yield to him, even though he has a STOP sign and they don't.

What kind of crazy world is this?

[deathtopumpkins]

I can't think of a single time when a cyclist or pedestrian has caused imminent danger to me, no matter how bad the behavior.  As I said up-post, the danger inherent in an infraction by a cyclist is not necessarily equal to the danger inherent in a similar infraction by a motorist.

You've never had a pedestrian or cyclist cut out right in front of you, causing you to brake hard, with a car behind you that might rear end you? Bikes and pedestrians can give you just as many reasons to swerve or brake as other vehicles can. Maybe it's because I've been rear-ended (though because the car approaching behind me failed to notice that I was stopped at a red light, not because of a pedestrian or cyclist), but I'm constantly concerned about the possibility of another car hitting me because I have to avoid someone.



On another note, a few years ago I actually hit a cyclist with my car (he was fine, it was slow speed, walked away after I made sure he was okay) because he blasted out into a street from a mixed-use path right in front of me. It was a similar setup to what 1995hoo describes, but there was a tall (at least 8 ft) row of boxwoods that ran along the path right up to the intersection. I was on the side street, making a right turn after having stopped when the cyclist came barreling out from behind the hedge and right into my front bumper.

[NE2]

The threat of rear-ending is not imminent danger if you're in a car. It's imminent annoyance.

[agentsteel53]

The threat of rear-ending is not imminent danger if you're in a car. It's imminent annoyance.

the cyclist is in imminent danger to himself if he bolts out in front of a car which is expecting him to stop at the stop sign.

you're right, to me it is imminent annoyance, having to scrape the fucker off my grille.  cyclist lives are worthless.

[kphoger]

You've never had a pedestrian or cyclist cut out right in front of you, causing you to brake hard, with a car behind you that might rear end you?

Nope.

The threat of rear-ending is not imminent danger if you're in a car. It's imminent annoyance.

Yep.

cyclist lives are worthless.

Nope.

[sdmichael]

The threat of rear-ending is not imminent danger if you're in a car. It's imminent annoyance.

the cyclist is in imminent danger to himself if he bolts out in front of a car which is expecting him to stop at the stop sign.

you're right, to me it is imminent annoyance, having to scrape the fucker off my grille.  cyclist lives are worthless.

I'm a cyclist. You still sure about that statement?

[agentsteel53]

I'm a cyclist. You still sure about that statement?

oh, right.  second Monday of the month.  internet sarcasm propagation turned off.

I was attempting to counter those that were splitting hairs between "danger" and "annoyance".  I'm firmly in the camp of wanting to avoid all accidents.