Going Nuts with Bike/Ped at the expense of roads

[english si]

So what are everyone's opinions here on bike lanes? Personally I like them, but I know a large number of hard-core cyclists don't. I haven't figured out if they have a valid reason for not liking them other than the fact that some cycling-activists would rather ride in traffic and smugly slow down cars.

1)They are often too narrow
2)Cars give less of a wide berth, feeling they can get as close to the line as they want, which coupled with point 1 makes it not very pleasant - because of this, 99% of cycle-only lanes are too narrow
3)the gutter is normally taken as part of the width, so a large amount of the path is useless for anything other than a buffer to the kerb, which when you don't have enough space on the road side for safe passing isn't great.
4)they often have cars parked in them or are sited in the door space of parked cars

Done well, cycle lanes are great, done badly and they have negative benefits. Done really badly, they'll end up here

I find on-sidewalk cycle lanes worse than on-road ones, and shared-use pedestrian/cycle paths are even worse, especially when there's lots of pedestrians.

The first is that when motorists see that there is a bike lane or a side path or whatever, they assume that cyclists must use it and they get angry at cyclists who don't.

Indeed, I once had a motorist irate with me and a friend as we were cycling two abreast, taking up half the traffic lane and the driver didn't want to cross over the centre line to overtake us (there was nothing coming, and we couldn't hear his engine, so it scared the life out of us when he honked his horn and started hurling abuse that we shouldn't be in the middle of the road and that we had to let him pass - which we don't - we should, but don't have to. We weren't even going slowly).

it forces motorists to observe and wait for a safe opportunity to pass rather than buzzing by someone in the bike lane.  There's nothing smug about it, and any cyclist who appears to be blocking traffic from passing is usually doing so because they know passing would be unsafe.

Or doesn't know that there's a car behind them, or needs to be in that lane to turn. I normally let cars past by slowing slightly and moving towards the side of the road - I won't do that if I need to be near the middle of the road to make a right turn.

And the amount of times I've pulled over slowed right down and waved the person to go past me only for them to refuse to do it for no reason and prefer to sit on my tail. Often they get annoyed about the slow pace I'm going, which I'm doing for them. Normally after they refuse, I pull out into the middle of the lane and accelerate - partially to stop them being 4ft behind me creeping quietly (never works), partially as I don't want to go slowly, partially out of not wanting to hold them up, even though they seemingly want to.

[J N Winkler]

I mean zooming through a red light at a standard X intersection.

Yup, I figured that was the scenario you had in mind, but I thought it was worth pointing out other cases.  I'm also used to the viewpoint (which personally I think is wrong-headed) that cyclists shouldn't be doing things motorists cannot legally do because it is unfair to motorists.

Look at it from his point of view:  he has no way of knowing if he will catch up with you at a stoplight or stop sign, thus starting the passing tag all over again.  As a general rule, this situation doesn't lend itself to mutually beneficial tit-for-tat.

by about the fourth encounter, he should have some understanding of what is going on - and he should quickly figure out that it's his scofflaw attitude that is 100% responsible for the problem.

Not necessarily--there are plenty of scenarios that can lead to repeated overtakes even when both cyclist and motorist are following the law (e.g., closely spaced stoplights, bus making frequent stops to pick up or drop off passengers, etc.).

As a general rule, I think cycling on the sidewalk should be either banned or effectively discouraged except for young children or novice cyclists

I sense a flaw with that reasoning.  What if I were to propose that novice drivers be permitted to drive the wrong way down a one-way street?

The two situations are not analogous since child cyclists tend to be slower and less confident, while a novice driver has access to the same horsepower as an experienced driver.

I would not argue that an exception for child cyclists be created where the existing situation is that all cyclists are banned from sidewalks.  On the other hand, if all cyclists are allowed to use the sidewalk (as is, I understand, the case in many American cities where local ordinances allow cyclists to use sidewalks), I would focus more on banning the adult cyclists.  Adult cyclists have the speed, mass and musculature to do maximum damage to pedestrians in pedestrian/cycle collisions, and there are tradeoffs in taking away a place where children can learn to cycle proficiently while protected from traffic.

[agentsteel53]

Done well, cycle lanes are great, done badly and they have negative benefits. Done really badly, they'll end up here

I'm not sure if I understand the logistics of that.  Is the bicyclist supposed to jump a diagonal curb and ride between the red, white, and black pylons?  And then plow into the back of the parked car?  What is the optimal path the bicyclist is supposed to take?

[agentsteel53]

Not necessarily--there are plenty of scenarios that can lead to repeated overtakes even when both cyclist and motorist are following the law (e.g., closely spaced stoplights, bus making frequent stops to pick up or drop off passengers, etc.).

in that case it's a legitimate concern.  I just distinctly remember a bicyclist and I passing each other about 11 or 12 times because he breezed through every four-way stop and red light, while I did not get a single green light.

(yes, I probably should've chosen a better route to take, but it's tough to look for old US-201 signs while not actually driving the old alignment.)

[realjd]

Cyclists on the sidewalk are a major nuisance, especially on typical American suburban sidewalks which tend to be narrow (I think the standard width in Wichita is 3' or 4').  It doesn't really matter whether the cyclist is moving head-on or in the same direction.  As a general rule, I think cycling on the sidewalk should be either banned or effectively discouraged except for young children or novice cyclists, exceptions being limited to sidewalks where an engineering evaluation has showed that shared use can be safely accommodated.  In Britain pavement cycling is flat-out illegal except on certain tracks which are explicitly signed as being open to cyclists.
evident.

In Florida, sidewalk riding is legal (unless banned locally). At least here in Palm Bay, they usually make the sidewalks wide like a multi-use path would be to accommodate. The law says a bicycle on a sidewalk must yield to pedestrians on foot and is considered legally a pedestrian instead of a motor vehicle so they must follow crosswalk laws and such.

When I bike to work, I usually ride down the sidewalk. Foot traffic is low, the sidewalks are wide, and I feel more comfortable riding separate from traffic. I do have to be more cautious though at driveways and cross streets on the sidewalk than I would in the striped bike lane in the road.

oh, I had meant salmoning on the sidewalk.  If there is a specific contraflow bike lane, then I'll assume there's a good reason for it and wont begrudge your right to use it. 

Can you salmon on a sidewalk? I thought they were bidirectional. Walking on the road you are supposed to walk against traffic. Do sidewalks then go with or against traffic?

[froggie]

In most states it IS illegal to ride on the sidewalk anyway, at least for people older than 16.  Bicycles are considered vehicles, and it's illegal to operate a vehicle on sidewalks.

This is actually a misnomer.  As a general rule, state bike laws specify that (following example taken from Mississippi Section 63-3-207) bicyclists riding on a highway shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.  Such doesn't apply when bikes are ridden on the sidewalk.  In fact, Florida for example goes as far as to specify (Section 316.2065) that anyone riding a bike on the sidewalk has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.  Washington State (Section 46.61.261) specifies that drivers must yield to bicycles (and of course peds) on the sidewalk.

Going through some of the state statutes, the only state I found that explicitly prohibits bicycle riding on the sidewalk is Wisconsin...but even they allow local jursidictions to reverse that and allow bicyclists to use the sidewalk (Section 346.94).  Most of the states I checked allow bicycle riding on the sidewalk unless specifically prohibited by local/county ordinance.  In every case, though, bicyclists using the sidewalk must yield right-of-way to pedestrians.

[agentsteel53]

Can you salmon on a sidewalk? I thought they were bidirectional. Walking on the road you are supposed to walk against traffic. Do sidewalks then go with or against traffic?

well, whether it is considered salmoning or not, sneaking up behind a pedestrian and then nearly blowing them off the road as you pass doing 15mph makes you an asshole.

[agentsteel53]

In every case, though, bicyclists using the sidewalk must yield right-of-way to pedestrians.

good luck with that.  no one yields right of way to pedestrians.  the other day I was nearly totalled by someone flooring it off a four-way stop, despite the fact that I had already walked halfway across the intersection by the time he arrived at his stop line. 

[realjd]

Can you salmon on a sidewalk? I thought they were bidirectional. Walking on the road you are supposed to walk against traffic. Do sidewalks then go with or against traffic?

well, whether it is considered salmoning or not, sneaking up behind a pedestrian and then nearly blowing them off the road as you pass doing 15mph makes you an asshole.

Most bikers around here will yell "on the left" or otherwise make themselves known as they're getting ready to pass. Personally, I'll stop or pull around them in the grass if I can't get enough clearance on the sidewalk itself.

There's a guy in my neighborhood who rides his vespa down the sidewalks. And God help you if you're a pedestrian in his path! I saw him bitch at one guy walking his dog who didn't vacate the sidewalk quick enough for his tastes.

[agentsteel53]

There's a guy in my neighborhood who rides his vespa down the sidewalks. And God help you if you're a pedestrian in his path! I saw him bitch at one guy walking his dog who didn't vacate the sidewalk quick enough for his tastes.

isn't that blatantly illegal?  Someone needs to throw a garbage can in his path and claim self-defense.

[realjd]

There's a guy in my neighborhood who rides his vespa down the sidewalks. And God help you if you're a pedestrian in his path! I saw him bitch at one guy walking his dog who didn't vacate the sidewalk quick enough for his tastes.

isn't that blatantly illegal?  Someone needs to throw a garbage can in his path and claim self-defense.

Garbage can? This is Florida. We're all armed!

But yes. They're very illegal to ride on the sidewalk. It wasn't even a real scooter. He was riding one of those "DUI-mobiles" that people can get here due to a technicality in the law if they lose their license. He's clearly a winner at life.

[agentsteel53]

Garbage can? This is Florida. We're all armed!

clearly this loser does not understand the implications of blowing the wrong guy off the sidewalk.