But a driver coming out of some blind intersection is far more likely to see the pedestrian in time to stop, and the pedestrian also has a lot more reaction time. When I back out of a driveway, I can probably see less than thirty feet of any crossing sidewalk. A cyclist will travel that faster than I can react.
I am shocked that anyone would ride their bike on the freeway, frankly. I mean - don’t freeways go way more than 40 mph? Or maybe I just have the definition of freeway wrong.
Around here riding on the sidewalk is a no-go. It’s been a while since I read the NYS laws but I’m 99% positive it’s against the law…but no highways/freeways.
Sidewalk riding is right out, too. They have been working to make our area a more pedestrian-friendly place, and it’s working (which I like). But that just means more people to hit if you tried. Plus there’s bus services everywhere so you have people waiting for the bus too.
I think people are using the term freeway incorrectly. It usually means mean limited access highway, which typically forbid bicycles. I regularly drive on rural roads, even divided roads, where the speed limit is 50MPH, but those aren’t limited access highways.
I generally stick to biking as far to the side of the street as possible. But I will occasionally use a sidewalk as a shortcut or if the road looks treacherous (like a huge city bus coming behind me). But if there is a pedestrian on the sidewalk I usually dismount, go very slowly, or try to get back on the street asap.
Ok, I looked it up:
We don’t have too many freeways in upstate NY that I know of off-hand. I can picture them and I have mostly seen them around bigger cities. I suppose I-787 would be a freeway, though.
However they are off-limits for bikes. And highways, absolutely. I wonder if people are using the term freeway to mean “divided road” with lights…freeways don’t have any lights and as such I think it would be foolish to ride on one!
And if I was riding in a manner likely to be hazardous, ie. recklessly, you’d be within your rights. If I wasn’t, I’d ask you what your problem was, and I’d expect a better answer than “It’s against the law.”. If you wanted to fight me over the issue, I’d oblige you.
I thought I and others have already explained why riding on the sidewalk is hazardous. To reiterate:
[ul]
[li]Car drivers do not expect 10+ mph traffic on sidewalks, and therefore less likely to notice a cyclist on a sidewalk.[/li][li]Sidewalks are not designed for fast traffic, and often don’t have the visibility to allow safe travel at 10+ mph.[/li][li]Risk to pedestrians. There have been incidents where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist and killed.[/li][/ul]
A majority of bicycle accidents happen at intersections, and that’s where sidewalks are dangerous. A driver at an intersection is looking at all traffic lanes, and for people about to step off the sidewalk. A driver is not expecting a bicycle to shoot out of a sidewalk.
I’d be pissed, sure, but let say an accident “was in the cards” (just for the sake of argument), and the biker was on the road, and a car ploughed into him at 40 mph… this biker’s dead.
Now obviously, if I was hurt enough to draw blood, I’d sure as hell hope the biker would do more than ride off with a quick “sorry”. So that’s an altogether different situation.
On the topic of bikers not following the rules of the road - if you run a stop sign and plough into a car, I have every right to laugh at you before making my way over to see if you’re alright.
I am at all times within my rights to inform you that you’re breaking the law, whether you are at that moment a direct hazard to me or not. Would you like people not to report or try to prevent other crimes which don’t directly affect them too? If something is against the law, then it is against the law. It is the opinion of the law-makers, and in this case I for once agree with them, that to ride on the pavement is in itself “hazardous, i.e. reckless”.
You’ve kind of proved my point about people who ride on the pavement being pushy, aggressive and intimidating, so thanks for that. If you assault me because I’ve pointed out that you’re already breaking the law, I will do anything I can to ensure that you don’t get away with it; as opposed to you just, I don’t know, maybe not breaking the law to begin with?
Here’s the scenario. It’s broad daylight, you are walking down an 8ft wide footpath and a cyclist is coming towards you(psst, it’s me!) - or even from behind you - and goes by you clearly without interfering with you or anyone else in any way. You then call me a twat and I come back to ask you to elaborate. If you want to attack me because I’ve done that, then I’ll assault you.
Oh, OK. No, I’m not going to attack you; as I’m sure you observed upthread, it was the cyclist in each situation who threatened me and seosamh. Glad to hear you’re not one of them! But I will keep on asserting my right to a pavement free of illegality (yes, by calling riders twats!) until they give in and start licensing bicycles, making the riders properly accountable for their law-breaking ways. To be completely honest, I don’t think I tend to just shout at cyclists when they’re not being a hazard. It tends to be when they’ve almost run me down, or splashed mud all down me, or ridden through a turd and spread it across the pavement. I hate that. Ugh.
These are valid objections.
I don’t want to repeat stuff I’ve banged on about elsewhere, but you’re welcome to follow me across! 
Another good summary of some studies is this one that I keep bookmarked. Riding on the sidewalk is almost as dangerous as riding the wrong way on the street for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread.
True, but relevant to my question how? 
Gotta be the I-5 through the Central Valley, then. Probably the I-15, the I-10, the I-8 and the I-40 through the desert as well. :eek:
As noted earlier, a number of actual limited-access freeways are open to bicyclists in California. I have ridden on the short stretch of Interstate 280 on the San Francisco peninsula, and ridden on US 101 the 10-mile stretch between Bradley and San Miguel just north of Paso Robles, and ridden on 101 for about 55 miles between Gaviota Pass and Ventura.
It’s not the most scenic and pleasant way, but sometimes, just as in a car (taking 5 instead of 101 or 1, e.g.), the quicker way is called for.
The stretches open for cyclists usually have wide shoulders, so it’s not like you’re four feet away from the 70mph traffic.
I knew a man who liked to bike on I-5, on the stretch that is called the Grapevine. Yeah, that’s right. The part where the freeway goes up from the valley floor into the mountains. Crazy man. Not that this proves that it’s legal to ride there, but it looks that way.
Whoa there, no need to stick me with the “quote” marks. You may disagree with my reasoning but it doesn’t mean it has no merit. As I’ve said, in my town, cars far outnumber pedestrians and our streets are narrow and clogged. There is a bike lane, but it only goes a little distance before hitting the main boulevards. Test your luck if you want, but if I rode the bike in my town, I’d stick to the sidewalks where its safe. I’d be hard pressed to ride fast enough to kill someone on the sidewalk, but I’ve seen some pretty close calls with bikes on the street
It seems then that the easiest way to control for the kind of accidents people are saying will happen is to slow the biker down. I realize some of you ride for fun and some for work, but if cars are not expecting 10+mpg traffice on sidewalks then maybe trying going 10mph? Unless there’s a bike lane, I wouldn’t expect to be yielded to and I would hope that I’m just as attentive as a driver in a car. Why should it always be the car that watches out for the biker and the pedestrian watching out for the biker? If you guys went slower on the sidewalks, maybe you can be the one to dodge a pedestrian instead of the other way around
Dont shoot out of a sidewalk. Understand that cars won’t be expecting you guys. I would expect all people using the roads to obey basic safety tips, if not for others’ sake then for themselves. If you’re a biker on a sidewalk, then slow down at every intersection or blind turn, its not that hard. If you feel that’s too much of a hit to your enjoyment of biking, then may I suggest going to places where bikes frequent and have designated paths instead of trying to turn every street into your personal lane?
So bikes should not only stay off the roads, according to you, but they should also slow down to a lower speed than they normally travel. Nice way to discourage people from using bikes as transport.
It shouldn’t, and it isn’t.
Cyclists, when on the road, are obliged to obey traffic laws and watch out for cars. It’s not a one-way thing. The thing is, though, that cyclists are generally VERY watchful when on the road, because they know their life is at stake; many car drivers, on the other hand, pay little attention to cyclists. Cyclists are not arguing that they should be absolved from any responsibility; they are simply asking that drivers pay attention to ALL the traffic that has a right to be on the road.
Again, why should a cyclist ride slowly on the sidewalk when there’s a perfectly good road that the cyclist is allowed, by law, to make use of? And where the cyclist can ride pretty much as fast as he or she wants.
But the thing you can’t seem to get through your skull is that bicycles have as much legal right to that lane as any car. It’s not their “personal lane,” but neither is it the “personal lane” of car drivers. It’s a road lane for cars and for bikes. And when a bike is occupying that lane, then it IS that person’s right to be there, no many how many whiny bitch car drivers don’t like it.
As an anecdote, my father was riding his bike when he was hit by a car here in New Orleans. He came out okay (was wearing helmet and got a few scratches, banged up his knee), however, HE was the one who was ticketed because he had been riding the wrong way down a one-way street. Goofball.
As a current cyclist, whenever I am driving a car and see a cyclist, I make sure I extend every courtesy and right to them as I would like from other drivers.