I’d say it’s debatable whether a cyclist’s right “edge” needs to be further left than a car’s.
But what I’m mostly thinking of is cyclists who ride side-by-side instead of single file - seems to be increasingly common.
Riding two abreast is legal in many places, and sometimes that’s the safest way for two cyclists to ride. If a lane is so narrow that one bike can’t share it with a car, it doesn’t make much difference if there’s two abreast or one behind the other. Two bikes side by side is more visible, and it can be quicker for a car to pass them.
Here in Boston, I’ll ride in the center of the lane except on the widest of roads. There are almost always cars parked on the right, and if I want to be outside of the door range I have to be pretty far away from the right edge. Drivers opening their doors will watch out mostly for cars, which are more visible. If a car hits an open door, it might lose a headlight. For a cyclist, that’s a guaranteed ER visit. Much greater risk for the cyclist, which to me pretty clearly justifies a greater margin of safety.
Also, if I’m in the center of the lane, cars won’t be tempted to squeeze past me where they really don’t have the room to do so safely. And cars in the left lane will be more likely to see me, and less likely to try to merge into my lane (intentionally or accidentally).
If there’s plenty of space, I’ll hang out on the right. I do avoid situations where I’m blocking lots of traffic, and I’ll move over if cars can’t easily pass me. In the heavier traffic on city roads, speeds are slow enough that I can keep up with cars around me anyways.
Part of the debate probably has to do with different conceptions of what a sidewalk is. In suburbia, this is what people think of, and there are rarely any pedestrians on it. I think it’s reasonable to ride at slow speeds (less than 10 mph), though extra caution is required since there are lots of low-visibility potential obstacles. Most of the sidewalks in a city look like this, where it’s impossible to ride at anything faster than a walking speed anyways, due to the pedestrians and other assorted obstacles.
Though it’s hard to see how this complies with the California Vehicle Code quoted upthread.
If “open door range” extends near the center of the travel lane, you are indeed talking about very narrow roads.
For perspective, in the UK it is illegal for bicycles to use the pavement. The must cycle alongside the pavement, on the road.
They are, of course, not allowed on the motorway.
It’s not quite that narrow. But he open door range, plus a few foot safety margin, puts me close enough to the center of a lane that there’s not enough room to share the lane with a car. If a car wanted to pass me in such a case, they’d have to enter the left lane anyways, so I might as well claim the whole lane for the other reasons I mention. Here’s a pretty typical example via google street view of one of the major roads around here.
Actually, that’s a great example, because if you go to the link, and then close the Street View (so you just get the satellite view), you can actually see a bicycle on the road, traveling north, behind the green bus. In order to leave a decent space for opening car doors, that cyclist has to be pretty much smack in the middle of the lane.
To anyone who thinks that cyclists should use the sidewalk or move over to the right so far that they put themselves in danger, I suggest you purchase a bike, and ride on a moderately busy 30-35 mph road with 1’ shoulders. See how your thinking changes after having to deal with all the crap on that edge of the road that you can’t even imagine being an issue when in a car, with cars buzzing by you with 6" of clearance.
I firmly believed bikes should be on the sidewalk until I started cycling. I’m slowly learning to exert my right to the road, and ride in the middle of the lane when the right side is not safe - either by debris on the road, potholes, or simply lack of clearance.
Being on the other side of the situation can certainly change ones’ opinion. It did mine.
I said it’s legal in many places. Not everywhere. (Though the CA code quoted above seems to say riding single file is required only on “narrow or busy” roads?)
Except for the pedestrian, of course.
I wonder if your opinion would change if someone on a bike plowed into you at 40 mph.
well first off left exits on California freeways are very rare. About the only thing more rare than an honest to OG left freeway exit (other than a ramp to another freeway) is a California freeway where it is legal for a bicycle to ride on it.
Bicycles are only legal on a freeway when there is no alternate route they could take. The 101 freeway North of Ventura is one such freeway. There is no other road that travels along the coast. I would note that as soon as you get to where there are alternate non-freeway roads there is a big sign that says “Bicycles must exit”.
Storm drain grates leap to mind. You know those grates in the street that have bars running parallel to the direction of travel about 1.5" apart? A car can drive on them just fine, but they will throw off a bicyclist off. Or a set of railroad / trolley tracks that run parallel to the direction of travel. A bicyclist must cross these at a fair angle, or their wheels will get stuck in the groove and they will be unable to steer.
Also broken / bad pavement, or where some asshole broke a bottle on the pavement.
There are lots of things that a car driver would never notice, but a bicyclist must pay attention to.
We’re supposed to use the left turn lane? Aaaghghghgh, my life is flashing before my eyes and I’m not even on a bike right now. Where I ride, I use the bike lane (except on my college campus where there is none–they built a building over it, grumble). And I use the crosswalks to turn left, pushing the crosswalk signal (cross the street first, then turn left). Because I bike on a busy road with a speed limit of 55. I’d be a pancake in 1.5 seconds if I went for the left turn lane. I don’t want to be roadkill.
Funny thing about sidewalks. As I mentioned, I go on sidewalks on campus sometimes because there’s no bike lane. I dawdle on campus. I’m barely faster than pedestrians. I did run into a girl once, though. She was on one side of the sidewalk, and I was coming up behind her. She looked behind her, saw me coming, and side-stepped directly into my path when I was about 2 feet away. I braked, but it wasn’t enough. I bumped her calf. I probably got her pants a little dirty from the tire. Apologized and went on.
Then one time someone yelled at me from a bus to “get off the road.” I was in the bike lane. Just can’t please everybody, can you?
In countries where bicycling is a common mode of commuting, you generally ride on the sidewalk, slowing down to pedestrian speed where necessary, but never going all that fast to begin with.
But so far as I’m aware, the US requires you to use streets based on the expectation that you’ll generally be going 25+ mph and that would be unwise to have on sidewalks.
Personally, I think they should split it up by, for instance, the number of gears a bike has. Three gears or lower and you can ride on the sidewalk, not wearing a helmet. Four or more and you should be on the street, wearing a helmet. But there is no rule like that.
Amen. I had my knee stuffed by some waste of deodorant that decided that he’d prefer to ride on the footpath. Fortunately he apologised when I threw his bike into the road and started punching him in the face.
While I’m not suggesting that… Hmm.
While some might take it as an overreaction that piano wire should be strung across footpaths slightly above the head height of pedestrians, anyone with more than half a brain will agree that those who prefer to ride on the footpath should be removed from the gene pool in the quickest, surest yet most painful way possible.
And that this should be televised.
If they’re a bike courier, we’ll also need to take out their parents and all siblings to be on the safe side.
For those who are about to be run over by a bicycle, I’ve found it effective to jump as high as you can in the air, turn side-on and brace for impact by bringing your knees into your chest. I speak from experience when I say that the rider managed to absorb most of my impact, although my feet still clipped the handlebars.
Well a bike would generally travel at maybe 4-6 (or more) times the speed of a pedestrian, whereas a car will only travel at 2-3 times the speed of a bike.
Also a road is governed by rules of behaviour and expectation - a sidewalk is not, so a road (presumably) has more predictability.
On the sidewalk there are much bigger blindspots and less possibility to spot something going the speed of a bike.
For all of the above it is better that a bike rides on the road.
But for the love of OG, if you must ride on the sidewalk, PLEASE slow way the fuck down for pedestrian crossings and the like. When I am turning in my car I am looking far enough down the sidewalk to spot a pedestrian, not far enough to spot a cyclist (in many cases because of roadside bushes I actually can’t see far enough to spot a bike) If you come whizzing from the sidewalk into my path on your bike you are liable to get run over… :mad:
In my experience, riding on the footpath is generally crap for a cyclist. The main reason is that you are far more likely to have a collision with a car exiting their driveway when you are riding on the footpath than you are to have a collision with any car when riding on the road. Also, riding on the footpath necessitates frequent stops for cross-roads, driveways, pedestrians etc. It is difficult to get into a good rhythm riding on the footpath.
I’ve only seen that in Japan. Streets in Europe (or bike paths, if available) are populated by cyclists, many of them riding at modest speeds. And based on what I’ve seen on TV and photos, in other countries in Asia (e.g. China), the roads (not the sidewalks) are full of bicycles.
Strictly speaking, there are two legal ways to turn left at an intersection: (1) continue to behave as a vehicle and use the left-turn lane, or (2) hop off the bike, which turns you into a pedestrian, and push the bike across the crosswalk.
In reality, at least in the US it’s highly unlikely that you’d be ticketed for riding on the sidewalk and riding across the crosswalk. But it’s often dangerous, as you’d be using these at higher speeds than people have a right to expect.
That’s kind of a bogus comparison. It’s not a ratio of speeds that matters, but the absolute difference. A car could be going 20-30 mph faster than the bike on a major road, or maybe 5-15 mph faster on a slower city road. On a sidewalk, the bike might be going 5-10 mph faster than a pedestrian (and if they go any faster, they’re a damn fool).
If you want to be even more accurate, you’d consider the difference in momentum (and kinetic energy), which considers the mass of each as well. A 3000 lb car moving in the same direction at 45 mph has 27 times the momentum and 60 times the energy than the 250 lb bike + rider moving at 20 mph. That same bike moving at a more pedestrian-friendly 10 mph has only 6 times the momentum and 19 times the energy as the 150 lb pedestrian moving at 3 mph.
It’s pretty clear that, in case of an accident, there’s a much bigger risk to the cyclist hit by a car than the pedestrian hit by a bike. Now, as to the chance of accidents…
… The rest of that I totally agree with.
That makes sense; thanks. I’d much prefer to get off and walk through the crosswalk than attempt the left turn lane on that street.