In the US, bicycles ride in the lane with the cars. They are not supposed to ride on the sidewalks, and rarely are separate bike paths available. Those paths are usually in parks for recreational riding, not useful for travel from place to place.
I respect the right of the bicycle to share the road, but the system does have its disadvantages. Fellow drivers expect traffic to keep moving along at 55 miles/hour. (88 km/h) Especially when there are several bicyclists, this is a little stressful. I say this as a driver, honestly I’d be afraid to ride a bike in those conditions.
With that explanation out of the way, is it the same in your country?
As a cyclist (and a driver too), I’ll avoid most of those situations if possible - I don’t really go touring so it’s rarely a problem.
Just to clarify for those outside the US – the 55 speed limit is the ‘default’ on most highways. In urban areas, speed limits are lower (and bike lanes slightly more common). Most freeways prohibit bicycles, motorized bicycles, and pedestrians, and can have higher speed limits, although there is expected to be a way for bicycles to travel on alternate (sometimes very alternate) routes.
A full state by state guide to US bicycle laws is found here.
I’ve ridden in a whole bunch of countries and it’s the norm to ride on the road everywhere. Many countries (notably Holland and Denmark) often have really good facilities for bikes, especially in big cities. The town of Stevenage in England has a totally seperate set of bike paths that rarely intersect roads. Other towns have nothing. IIRC, Bogota in Colombia closes the city one Sunday every month to allow bike transport.
In Australia, the same rule applies. Bicycles share the lanes with cars; they’re basically treated the same as motorbikes. Cars are not supposed to be alongside bikes in the same lane, but is okay to have two bicycles/motorbikes sharing the same lane.
Riding on the footpath is forbidden, but in my state there is an exception for children under 12 years of age (plus adults if they are accompanying children on the path).
“Dual-use” pedestrian/bicycle paths are very common in my city. Bicycles can’t travel on the freeway, but dual-use paths line every kilometre of the freeway network. Dual use paths run alongside most major roads, for that matter (i.e. they’re used to commute), as well as recreational areas.
(Bear in mind that this is a sprawling, low-density city–there’s plenty of room to fit bike paths in.)
In the inner city, there’s a few special bike lanes–imagine a lane a metre wide separated from the car lanes by a concrete curb and parallel car parking spaces. Interesting, some of these lanes run “contra” to the traffic flow: bicycles are travel in the reverse direction to cars, which is supposed to give them an advantage in getting around town quickly.
They allow bikes on sidewalks here in Japan. Most cyclists use sidewalks but more experienced ones usually use the road and ride with traffic, which is also allowed. When riding on the road, bikes are required to stay as close as possible to the side of the road, and are prohibited from using right turn lanes (we drive/ride on the left side so right turns cross all lanes). When making a right turn at an intersection, the correct procedure is to stay on the left and cross the road, wait for the light to change (if there is one) and then cross the other road.
I think it’s a bad idea to allow bikes on sidewalks. Reckless cyclilsts are a major danger to pedestrians, sometimes causing fatal accidents. It’s dangerous for cyclists too: bikes on sidewalks are less visible to car drivers, both physically and psychologically (drivers only look at the road). This would be fine on a long stretch of highway, but extremely dangerous at intersections. Also, when cars come out of side streets or parking lots, they tend to straddle the sidewalk and then look out for traffic.
I understand cyclists on the road look dangerous to car drivers, but it does mean drivers notice them and take appropriate actions to avoid hitting them. Rear-end bike/car collisions (overtaking accidents) are very rare. Most accidents occur at intersections, and the best way to prevent such accidents is for bikes to behave as vehicles instead of jumping out of sidewalks at 20mph.
Here in the U.S.A. bicycle laws (which are state-based) are in general not enforced. There are probably some communities that do enforce them here and there. When I was in England I rode a bicycle the wrong way down a one-way street and a 6’5" policeman yelled at me for it - that would never happen here.
In England it is illegal to ride your bike on a Motorway (Freeway) but as the speedlimit there is 70mph I wouldn’t fancy it anyway!
Cycle lanes on other roads are becoming more common but many other road users don’t respect these as they are simply green areas painted on the side of the road. In Amsterdam many of the cycle lanes are seperated from both the road and the pavement (sidewalk) by raised curbs. This is a much better system.
In the UK it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement once you are over a certain age. They are getting stricter on this recently and there are many signs warning you about the possibility of on-the-spot fines.
I totally disagree. Separate bike lanes tend to be hidden behind parked cars. This means that as a cyclist you emerge from out of sight at cross roads and are frequently not seen in time. So you are simply run down by cars turning.
I prefer bikelanes on the road, marked in different colours. If these don’t exist, I ride on the road. There you are in plain sight of the car drivers. You might bother them but at least you are not killed.
I’m spoilt. Milton Keynes* actually has a system of cycle/pedestrian paths (called redways) designed into the town layout (MK is sort of a real Sim City**) mostly where they cross roads they go under them so each major roundabout has a sort of ringroad for bikes around it.
fezpp points out that riding on a motorway would take some intestinal fortitude since forty-ton trucks would be brushing past you at 70+mph. However, you can try it here at MK. The main though road for MK (the A5) is effectively a motorway and has a bike lane. You wont catch me on it.
It’s a long time since I drove to work in London (thank og) but I think that riding through rush hour traffic would be pretty safe as it pretty much moves at walking speed. (Unless Red Ken’s congestion charges are working?)
*it’s in the middle of England.
Some freeways in the US allow bicycles, especially out west where there are no other roads. I went on an organized bike ride in Oregon this past summer and we almost spent one whole day on a freeway. It had a very wide shoulder so I felt perfectly safe.
If this is becoming a question about where bicyclists should be, then here’s my take as a long time bicycle commuter.
The more I ride the more I am convinced that the best way to organize traffic (including cars and bicycles) is to base it on the fact that people don’t usually hit things they can see. And they more often see things when the things are in places the drivers expect.
What this means is that the safest way for bicycles and cars to coexist is for bicycles to be in the flow of traffic with cars, where they can be seen. Not on the other side of parked cars, or coming off of sidewalks to cross driveways and side streets, or on bike lanes to the right of right-turn only lanes or going against the flow of traffic.
By the way, bicycle accident statistics bear this out. Automobiles striking bicyclists from behind make only a very very small proportion of collisions (half of one percent)-- almost all collisions are at intersections, bikes pulling into the road, etc. And most of the from behind collisions involve either darkness and cyclists without lights (illegal for the cyclist in Massachusetts and most states) or drunk/impaired drivers (illegal for the driver).
And damn well he should have yelled at you. The closest calls I’ve had on a bicycle have been with other people riding the wrong way (usually at night without lights).