Bicycle question: Street or sidewalk?

[Jamicat]

when I rode a bike…the rules were…

“road busy” = use sidewalk…

“sidewalk busy” = use road…

“both busy” = take the bus…

…or cut through whatever houses, vacant lots and parks you know, to get from point A to point B.

[lazybratsche]

Google just found me a small but goodstudy. In short, it shows that it’s a bit safer to ride on the road with traffic, as compared to riding on the sidewalk, but really really dumb to ride against traffic.

Bicyclists traveling against the direction of traffic, whether on the roadway or on the sidewalk, and regardless of age or sex, incur much greater risk than those traveling with traffic (on average 3.6 times as great), at an overwhelmingly high level of significance. This finding implies that vigorous enforcement of the laws against wrong-way bicycling on the roadway, for both adults and children, can substantially reduce the number of bicycle-motor vehicle collisions, and should receive high priority in any bicycle program.

Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence of wrong-way travel.

Bicycling on the roadway in the same direction as adjacent traffic, whether or not bicycle lanes are designated, is not associated with increased accident risk for any group. In fact, Table 5 shows that every group of bicyclists riding with traffic on the roadway, with one insignificant exception, incurs a risk equal to or less than the study average (by definition 1). If all bicyclists in the study had been riding with traffic on the roadway, there would have been about 67 intersection accidents instead of 89. the roadway, there would have been about 67 intersection accidents instead of 89.

[Rick]

You can also ride straight through the intersection and stop on the other side. then get off your bike walk a couple of feet point your bike 90 degrees to its prior direction of travel, get back on and wait for the light to change and ride across in the right lane of the cross street.
I do this for one particularly hairy intersection on my weekend ride.

[Aspidistra]

@Rick

You can also ride straight through the intersection and stop on the other side. then get off your bike walk a couple of feet point your bike 90 degrees to its prior direction of travel, get back on and wait for the light to change and ride across in the right lane of the cross street.
I do this for one particularly hairy intersection on my weekend ride.

A version of this called the “hook turn” is written into the vehicle code here (Victoria, not the whole of Australia) and useable by bikes anywhere, and cars at certain intersections in central Melbourne.

Basically, like what Rick said, but you don’t have to get off your bike, just ride forward following the gutter, stop just before the other gutter and wait, pointed the same way, till the lights change and you can turn and continue on. On intersections where cars can do it, you can generally get three queued up behind each other - of course this blocks the cross traffic but that’s ok because when the lights change the hook turners go first.

It’s by far the safest turning method (of course, here it’s a right turn method) and I use it all the time.

[Dag_Otto]

@mhendo

IME most cyclists do exactly that.

Remember, “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway” refers to what is practicable and safe for the cyclist, not to what happens to be convenient for impatient drivers. There are plenty of times, especially where there are cars parked by the side of the road, where “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway” is actually smack in the middle of the lane.

In fact, the Vehicle Code very specifically states that cyclists don’t have to ride all the way over to the right in cases where doing so would be unsafe.

Not only that, there is the definition of the ‘roadway’. Here in New Mexico, the shoulder of the road is NOT part of the roadway. There are certainly places where a good shoulder is perfectly good for riding (and most cyclists will use it) but quite a few shoulders are actually shit to ride on for various reasons (glass and debris, potholes or broken pavement, storm drains, etc.) that are not obvious to drivers. And it makes sense, since cars are not allowed to travel on shoulders, why would other traffic be allowed?

[Busy_Scissors]

@Aspidistra

A version of this called the “hook turn” is written into the vehicle code here (Victoria, not the whole of Australia) and useable by bikes anywhere, and cars at certain intersections in central Melbourne.

Basically, like what Rick said, but you don’t have to get off your bike, just ride forward following the gutter, stop just before the other gutter and wait, pointed the same way, till the lights change and you can turn and continue on. On intersections where cars can do it, you can generally get three queued up behind each other - of course this blocks the cross traffic but that’s ok because when the lights change the hook turners go first.

It’s by far the safest turning method (of course, here it’s a right turn method) and I use it all the time.

I was travelling in Australia recently (NSW) and saw that bikes can use the hard shoulder of the motorways. I didn’t see anybody out riding, but saw the signs at junctions where the cyclist would have to cross the exit lane. Surprised to see this allowed tbh, but that’s just because I’m from the UK where bikes are strictly forbidden on the motorways. Maybe that’s the Aussie secret of producing a GC rider for Le Tour!

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Sage_Rat

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.

I’m not aware of any country where that’s even allowed. Over here in the Netherlands, where bicycling is a really common form of transport, it’s definitely illegal to ride on the sidewalk. When you’ve got a country full of people used to bikes, it’s much safer to ride on the road than dodging pedestrians, but we’ve also got a lot of bike lanes.

[ivan_astikov]

@mhendo

But a bike should not have to dodge a car in the first place. Car drivers should know that the law permits bicycles to be on the road, and should accord bicycles the proper respect and courtesy. Also, in the vast majority of cases, roads are considerably wider than sidewalks, allowing plenty of room for bikes and cars to share the road. There are plenty of sidewalks in my neighborhood narrow enough to make pedestrian/bike sharing completely impracticable, and downright dangerous.

Luckily, the people who make the laws about this sort of stuff have recognized, for quite a long time now, that your “reasoning” is spurious. Here’s an excerpt from a 1995 article in Environs - Environmental Law and Policy Journal. The article is called "Bicycles and the Law: The Case of California."Note particularly the bolded section, on the issue of safety.

Noted the bold section. Any driver coming out of a blind intersection fast enough to cause harm to a cyclist, could just as easily do it to a pedestrian. If I’m cycling on an 8 ft wide sidewalk and a car is coming out of its driveway, the chances of serious injury should be fairly minimal. I’ll take that chance, rather than go on roads where, no matter how safe I ride, it only takes one arsehole less than one second on his mobile phone, or distracted by a pretty lady, to end my life.

[Aspidistra]

@Busy_Scissors

I was travelling in Australia recently (NSW) and saw that bikes can use the hard shoulder of the motorways. I didn’t see anybody out riding, but saw the signs at junctions where the cyclist would have to cross the exit lane. Surprised to see this allowed tbh, but that’s just because I’m from the UK where bikes are strictly forbidden on the motorways. Maybe that’s the Aussie secret of producing a GC rider for Le Tour!

Those “cyclists use left shoulder” signs are always good for a laugh (a bit like the one about playing the piano by ear). I think our lower traffic density helps us to get away with it. Also, do some of your motorways have those multi-lane roundabouts on them? Those things are murder for cyclists.

[Busy_Scissors]

No adult should ride on the pavement in the UK ivan. There are risks to cycling on the road, but with experience they become minimal, in the same ball park with the risks inherent to driving your car. That is my experience in the UK, at least.

Riding on the pavement is bollox, in any case. You’d never get anywhere - you’d need to go v slow, be constantly stopping and starting going down the kerb for roads and other obstacles, angering pedestrians etc etc. Getting on the road and riding defensively is the way to do things.

ETA Pavement = sidewalk in the UK

[DSYoungEsq]

@scr4

About 25% of California’s freeways allow bicycles.

Other than rare exceptions like the 101 north of Ventura, name me a California freeway that allows bicycles to use it. Now name me this mythical 25%. :dubious:

[Teacake]

I know it’s one case and you could cite hundreds or thousands of cases where cyclists get killed by cars, but it is certainly possible for very bad things to happen to pedestrians struck by cyclists. Note that the cyclist’s estimated speed was only “up to 17mph” when he hit the girl. Family of teenager killed by cyclist call for change in law

Here in London, we have a big problem with cyclists not obeying the law, e.g. riding through red lights, riding across pedestrian crossings in front of cars, overtaking on the wrong side, ignoring cars’ indicators, etc. I know it’s only my own experience, but I’ve been driving in London for 6 or 7 years now, and have lived here for much longer, and every accident I’ve seen involving a bike was the fault of the bike rider. Cyclists on the pavement also tend to be pushy, aggressive and intimidating. They belong on the road, they are a vehicle, not a pedestrian. If they don’t want to be involved in accidents, they need to make sure they ride in as safe a way as possible, i.e. obeying the law and making themselves visible. You would not believe the number of people who ride on busy London streets after dark with no lights or reflective clothing.

[seosamh]

May I use this board to encourage all UK Dopers who encounter a cyclist on the pavement to adopt the practice of shouting “Get off the pavement, you TWAT” at them? Apparently, this is compulsory under the newest version of the Highway Code…

Back in 2004, I did that to a bloke cycling along the pavement on Chancery Lane - there were no cars in the road at the time, either - and the git followed me and threatened me with violence. The cheek!

Don’t get me wrong: I ride a bike myself.

[Rick]

@DSYoungEsq

Other than rare exceptions like the 101 north of Ventura, name me a California freeway that allows bicycles to use it. Now name me this mythical 25%.

Don’t forget that a freeway is a particular subset of divided highway. All freeways are divided highways, but not all divided highways are freeways.
Further North from Ventura 101 is a divided highway, but not a freeway. (There are left turn lanes in the center divider, hence not a freeway)

[Teacake]

I do have a tendency to shout, “it’s one way (or a red light, or whatever) for you as well, fuckwit!” at them. I’ve also been threatened with violence, oddly enough! These cyclists… so touchy.

[Snnipe_70E]

@YogSosoth

Its been over a decade since I owned a bike or rode one. When I was a kid, I used to ride it on the sidewalks if there was no bike lane

However, since then, I’ve seen, and all of these examples are professional-looking bikers in their spandex shorts and aerodynamic helmets, I’ve noticed that some bikes, when there are no bike lanes, use the middle of the street like a car. They’ve even used the left turn lane!

Are non-motor powered bikes allowed to do that? I always thought they counted as pedestrians and should stick to the sidewalk. If they are, what about scooters and roller blades, aren’t those essentially the same thing? I kind of feel that bikes should stick to the sidewalks and leave the streets to the motorized vehicles that can actually hit 40mph without breaking a sweat

I live in CA, by the way

Bikes come under most of the laws in the vehicle code. They are required by law to obey all stop signs, and stop lights. They are required to ride on the right side. And if making a left turn from the left lane or go through the intersection and when they get to the other side cross again, if that means waiting for two lights or stopping twice because of stop signs. As a slower vehicle they are normally required to use the right lane.

Side walks are for people. Ridding a bike 20 MPH around pedestrains is a dangerous position. A bike ridder on their bike has no right of way in a crosswalk. If you must ride on a sidewalk then when you come to an intersection then when comming to an intersection as we were instructed as a child, stop get off the bike and walk it across.

A few years ago I commuted 5 miles to work daily on my bike. I would watch the other bike ridders to see how many were obeying the traffic laws. Normally 90% rode like they did not apply. I believe because bike ridders do not ride and act like they should car drivers do not know where they are going to be so they do not look for them. Bike ridders are the greatest danger to bike ridders.

If you want to say because bikes are smaller therefore they should be able to ride as they want, my reply is motorcycles are smaller so…

As a side note while I was hit by a car that pulled out in front of me at an intersection while I was ridding legally. If you are going to ride wear all the safety gear, have the necessary lights, and learn how to watch others.

[Snnipe_70E]

@Teacake

I know it’s one case and you could cite hundreds or thousands of cases where cyclists get killed by cars, but it is certainly possible for very bad things to happen to pedestrians struck by cyclists. Note that the cyclist’s estimated speed was only “up to 17mph” when he hit the girl. Family of teenager killed by cyclist call for change in law

Here in London, we have a big problem with cyclists not obeying the law, e.g. riding through red lights, riding across pedestrian crossings in front of cars, overtaking on the wrong side, ignoring cars’ indicators, etc. I know it’s only my own experience, but I’ve been driving in London for 6 or 7 years now, and have lived here for much longer, and every accident I’ve seen involving a bike was the fault of the bike rider. Cyclists on the pavement also tend to be pushy, aggressive and intimidating. They belong on the road, they are a vehicle, not a pedestrian. If they don’t want to be involved in accidents, they need to make sure they ride in as safe a way as possible, i.e. obeying the law and making themselves visible. You would not believe the number of people who ride on busy London streets after dark with no lights or reflective clothing.

As stated above in San Jose Ca it is in the range of 90% do not obey the traffic laws.

[Snnipe_70E]

@Derleth

Except for the pedestrian, of course.

I wonder if your opinion would change if someone on a bike plowed into you at 40 mph.

My son would agree. A bike ridder plowed into him. He had to have several stiches in his head and lost work time because of it. Cost him plenty and the bike ridder rode of with “sorry”.

[scr4]

@DSYoungEsq

Other than rare exceptions like the 101 north of Ventura, name me a California freeway that allows bicycles to use it. Now name me this mythical 25%. :dubious:

I’m afraid all I can do is refer to this CA DOT page which states this fact, but does not list where the 1000 miles of bicycle-legal freeways are. They should be mostly in rural areas though, where there are no parallel non-freeway roads.

[scr4]

@ivan_astikov

Any driver coming out of a blind intersection fast enough to cause harm to a cyclist, could just as easily do it to a pedestrian.

Not true at all. The big risk here is a car coming out of a blind intersection (or more commonly, a driveway or side street) in front of the cyclist, causing the cyclist to hit the car. It’s hard to imagine a pedestrian bumping into a car and hurting himself/herself. A bicycle has a much larger stopping distance, so it’s much harder for the cyclist to avoid a car that suddenly appeared in front. And running into a stationary car at 20 mph can easily cause injury. It’s also possible for a cyclist to try to swerve around the car (because they can’t stop in time), not quite make it and get run over.

And of course riding on the sidewalk is far more likely to get you into this type of accident. Cars are supposed to stop before crossing/straddling the sidewalk and check both ways, but most drivers don’t bother to do this - especially in areas where there are few cyclists. And even if they did stop to check, they often can’t see far enough down the sidewalk.