Joggers want to use bike lanes?!

[oscar]

From the Washington Post, a column on arguments that bicyclists, having fought to get lanes reserved for them rather than cars, should have to share the bike lanes with joggers who want to avoid pedestrian-clogged sidewalks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/09/30/should-people-jog-in-d-c-s-bike-lanes/?wpisrc=nl_buzz

This is a variant on the long-running conflicts on trails between bicyclists and pedestrians.

[SteveG1988]

Just suck it up. The bike lanes can be safetly used by both, just require joggers to wear a reflective belt. I would rather joggers use that lane than have them bump into slower people on the sidewalk.

[myosh_tino]

I see nothing wrong with joggers using bike lanes.

IIRC, joggers are supposed to run against the flow of traffic so there should be plenty of time for cyclists and joggers to see each other approaching to make the pass safely.

[noelbotevera]

Why not just ban joggers altogether? Just put up a sign "Whoever Jogs Will Lose Their Legs". Kidding, but to be honest, bikes really could just have one sweet lane to themselves rather than sharing the road with joggers or cars.

[ekt8750]

I jog on sidewalks all the time without a single problem. You want to avoid walkers? Find a track or a path to run on. Runners seem to have this big inferiority complex towards cyclists for some reason and its quite stupid.

[Pete from Boston]

I've run in the street plenty, not because of pedestrians primarily but rather inconsistent sidewalk grade.  There are fewer trip hazards in the road.

That said, bike lanes are ground zero for being in harm's way.  I would not want to run in them in mixed traffic.  I don't even like biking in them.

[jakeroot]

The speed differential between joggers and cyclists is larger than the differential between joggers and walkers. Therefore, I think joggers should stick to the sidewalk, if only for their safety.

That said, if they feel safer running in the bike lane, by all means they should be permitted to use it. Just prepare for some frowny faces from cyclists.

[Duke87]

Jogging still involves moving at a lower speed than typical bike riding. So it has no business taking place in the bike lane if it can be avoided.

If pedestrians walking at ordinary speed are too much of an obstacle, well, find a less congested route or a less congested time of day to jog.

[Thing 342]

A jogger running into a pedestrian will not cause serious bodily injuries. If cars have to wait behind bikes until they can safely pass, joggers should have wait behind walkers.

[Bruce]

Non-issue. Bike lanes are for bikes, sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads are for wheeled vehicles traveling at a higher-than-walking speed.

Let's get back to the real issues, like building more bike lanes and suitable walking trails.

[roadfro]

My interpretation is that cars and bikes on the roadway are subject to the rules of the road, because bikes are viewed as vehicles in the eyes of the law. Pretty much anything allowed to travel on a roadway is subjected to various rules of the road. A jogger is not a vehicle, but rather a pedestrian, and is not subject to the same laws in that context. Thus, I don't think joggers should be using bike lanes.

[SD Mapman]

At least from what I've seen as both a runner and a cyclist, runners will use the bike lanes anyway, and wherever else they can run safely. I, personally, am used to running and biking on roads with no special lanes whatsoever, but I'm from rural America.

[Eth]

My take on this as a frequent runner:

Yep, I'll use a bike lane if it's available. The asphalt surface is usually better (i.e. more consistent) than the sidewalk. If I see a bicycle coming toward me, guess what I do? I move over to the adjacent sidewalk until they pass, as they have right-of-way. Huh, that was pretty easy.

This assumes, of course, that you're running in the opposite direction of traffic, as is required (so that you can, you know, see cars/bikes that are coming toward you). If you're attempting to run in the same direction as traffic, either stick to the sidewalk or...well, I'll send you a card when you're in the hospital.

[SD Mapman]

My take on this as a frequent runner:

Yep, I'll use a bike lane if it's available. The asphalt surface is usually better (i.e. more consistent) than the sidewalk. If I see a bicycle coming toward me, guess what I do? I move over to the adjacent sidewalk until they pass, as they have right-of-way. Huh, that was pretty easy.

This assumes, of course, that you're running in the opposite direction of traffic, as is required (so that you can, you know, see cars/bikes that are coming toward you). If you're attempting to run in the same direction as traffic, either stick to the sidewalk or...well, I'll send you a card when you're in the hospital.

And that makes perfect sense.

[J N Winkler]

On foot I have gone into the road (even into bike lanes on occasion) to dodge around slower pedestrians--and I am not even a jogger.  I wouldn't consider myself entitled to use the bike lane without yielding to cyclists, however, and I think this is a battle the joggers should not win.  As a cyclist I felt cars were less of a threat than pedestrians, who don't require licenses and are often utterly oblivious to traffic.

AIUI, the requirement to face traffic applies only to pedestrians (and joggers) who are actually walking down the side of the road in the absence of a sidewalk.  I observe this rule faithfully when I am out for a walk and it never fails to amaze me how many pedestrians I find coming at me on the wrong side of the street.

[SectorZ]

As a cyclist, I have to deal with varying speeds of my fellow cyclists in bike lanes, and manage. A jogger should be able to do the same with slower pedestrians on a sidewalk.

[kphoger]

It amazes me this stuff actually requires legislation.

[Duke87]

AIUI, the requirement to face traffic applies only to pedestrians (and joggers) who are actually walking down the side of the road in the absence of a sidewalk.  I observe this rule faithfully when I am out for a walk and it never fails to amaze me how many pedestrians I find coming at me on the wrong side of the street.

That's because what you are doing is extremely counterintuitive. Most people will instinctively stay to the right side of the street when walking since that's what they do when driving and is what all the cars on the road are doing. While there is logic behind "salmoning" while walking so that you can better see cars in your lane, psychologically it feels easier to go with the flow rather than against it.

Also, what sort of streets are we talking about? In my experience with quiet neighborhood streets that lack sidewalks, people will often walk basically in the middle of them and move aside if a car comes. It's only on busier roads that people are forced to pick a side.

[Rothman]

They've tried to drill "Walk left, ride right" into the kids' heads around here.

[algorerhythms]

This was about the bike lanes in roads, but what about bike paths that are separate from roads? There's one near where I work that I sometimes walk along, because the alternatives are walking half a mile out of the way, or crossing a busy 6-lane road twice. I do make sure to stay off to the side so bikers can easily pass me, though.

They've tried to drill "Walk left, ride right" into the kids' heads around here.

When I was in elementary school, we were trained to walk on the right side because "eventually you'll learn to drive on the right side of the road." I'm not sure if they were thinking straight there...

[SD Mapman]

We have very few segregated bike paths here, with many more "mixed use" pathways.  Most people and most cyclists have little problem navigating the challenge of sharing them amicably.  The same occurs more or less when their way is shared on streets.  Very little need to scare folks straight like in the Portland example.

Yeah, it's the same around here.

[J N Winkler]

We have very few segregated bike paths here, with many more "mixed use" pathways.  Most people and most cyclists have little problem navigating the challenge of sharing them amicably.  The same occurs more or less when their way is shared on streets.  Very little need to scare folks straight like in the Portland example.

My experience as a bike commuter in a city with 25% cycling mode share is that neither shared nor segregated bike/pedestrian paths work well at best and tend to fail quite badly when used as major bike commuter routes.  This was on my commute route for a number of years:

Parks Road, Oxford

I generally used the curbside advisory cycle lane rather than the off-road segregated pedestrian/bike path to its left because (1) both pedestrians and bicyclists were oblivious to the signs and stripe and often walked in the lane reserved for the other mode, and (2) visibility at driveways and other crossings was quite poor.  When this path was first built, pedestrians got asphalt while bicyclists got gravel, so the latter often moved to the pedestrian side to take advantage of the better running surface, which aggravated problem (1).  It was eventually addressed by paving the bike side, which should have been done from the beginning.  Problem (2) required the installation of chicanes (which in time developed rutted "bypasses" off to the side) at driveways to manage bike/motor vehicle conflicts.

I suspect part of the motivation for adding a segregated bike path to the footway that originally existed was to accommodate leisure cycling without taking any roadspace away from utility cyclists, but with so many cyclists not obeying the rules and so many pedestrians seemingly oblivious to them, it may have been a net disbenefit to the community at large.

That's because what you are doing is extremely counterintuitive. Most people will instinctively stay to the right side of the street when walking since that's what they do when driving and is what all the cars on the road are doing. While there is logic behind "salmoning" while walking so that you can better see cars in your lane, psychologically it feels easier to go with the flow rather than against it.

There seems to be a generational effect here.  People my age and older don't seem to have any problem walking left in the street; I was taught this by my parents as a basic rule of civilized behavior, and I think it is something that is also covered in driver education (though, in the context of defensive driving, anyone behind the wheel has to be prepared for pedestrians not following the rules).  It is people younger than me who seem more likely not even to realize that there is a particular side of the street one should use when walking.  That may have to do with phase-out of driver instruction in public schools, which occurred in Wichita several years after I graduated from high school, as well as the "school run" replacing walking to school.

Older people who walk on the right tend to have very specific reasons for doing so, generally connected to leashed dogs that they are walking.  I can only guess because I have never actually owned a dog, but I suspect it is because a dog is easier to control when another walker is met and passed than when he or she is walking in the same direction for a more extended period of time and his or her scent is in the dog's nostrils for longer.

There is one older woman in this neighborhood who walks a dog that is pretty close to her own body weight and I often see her coming at me on the right (for her) side of the road.  Encounters of this kind often occur when I am about to cross the road to take a sidewalk, so I have found it eases things if I signal well in advance that I am going to cross her path so that she can simply keep going down the same side of the street.  If I don't do this, we often find ourselves walking toward the same point in the middle of the road, with the result that she has to pause and plant her feet so she will be ready if the dog pulls on the leash.

Also, what sort of streets are we talking about? In my experience with quiet neighborhood streets that lack sidewalks, people will often walk basically in the middle of them and move aside if a car comes. It's only on busier roads that people are forced to pick a side.

These are subdivision roads in postwar middle-income neighborhoods in Wichita, with curbs, a paved width of about 40 ft, and not many cars parked in the street (limiting visibility) because middle income typically means plentiful garage and driveway space.  (Middle-income people, at least in this community, tend to purchase reliability by buying one new or recently used vehicle instead of multiple very old used vehicles to have redundancy in the case one of them breaks down.  Wichita also has an ordinance that bans curbside parking for more than 72 hours and it is quite aggressively enforced in regard to beaters and large vehicles like RVs that create serious visibility problems when parked at the curb.)

[english si]

Parks Road, Oxford

I generally used the curbside advisory cycle lane

Which is saying something about the annoying nature of shared use. Those curbside cycle lanes are so narrow they are nearly 'curb' cycle lanes!

[Pete from Boston]

I'm leery of the bicycle lanes here because they are almost entirely within the radius of car door swing.