Hypothetical scenario: you are riding along a pavement wide enough to accomodate an average van because there is nobody on it for at least a 100 metres. When you catch up to the pedestrian you give them a wide berth and carry on cycling.
Is that pedestrian still entitled to shout “Get off the pavement, you criminal.”, even though in most places, it actually happens to be a by-law that hasn’t been revised since the late 19th century?
In this, town at least, if the pavement is that wide then the council have divided it into a footpath and a cycle lane. The difficulty comes when the pavement is much narrower, but (some) cyclists still insist on riding on it at excessive speed.
I live in the hinterland of NW Manchester, and cycle lanes are not a priority for the council around here. There are some on a very few ‘A’ roads, but on the very busy intersecting roads there is no protection for the cyclist, and if you go on the road you are taking your chances with boy racers, mobile-phone using bus drivers, impatient white-van men and various other hazards.
Or you can ride on pavements that are in most cases at least wide enough to fit two prams abreast( a common encounter!), or at least 3 adults wide. Should the considerate rider be forced to risk their life on the road, just because there are a few inconsiderate cyclists?
The City of Chicago is very strict about enforcing it’s “No bicycles on the sidewalk” law. So strict that my husband’s been ticketed for WALKING next to his bike on the sidewalk.
Sidewalks are the slow lane, and the road is the fast lane, and you get trouble when you put fast things in the slow lane.
I’ve noticed this even when jogging on the sidewalk. Slow things (walking people) are much less predictable than fast things, and I’ve almost run into people repeatedly.
What about the car that backs out of the driveway, after looking far enough up the sidewalk to cover walking speed traffic? After you bounce off the side of the car, will you say “sorry, my bad, I was riding on the sidewalk illegally”?
You can always come up with scenarios that make it safe to ride on the sidewalks in periods on little or no traffic. But the rules are there to prevent the common accidents when people and bikes and cars all interact. The problem is people’s expectations. If you expect foot traffic and you get bike traffic, bad things can happen.
If you are driving a vehicle out of a blind entrance or gateway, you should expect the unexpected anyway. When I’m riding my bicycle, I do, although it is hard to preempt some ass driving you into the kerb or giving you a slight brush from behind, in a fast moving vehicle.
No, it isn’t. There’s no state law prohibiting bicycle operation on sidewalks.
Motor vehicles are specifically restricted in § 21663.
Moreover, various parts refer to bicycle operation on sidewalks (“where … not prohibited by local jurisdiction”), like § 21201.
Local jurisdictions are specifically granted power to prohibit bicycles from sidewalks, in § 21206.
Bicycles are to be treated pretty much the same as vehicles and follow all the laws applicable to vehicles on the roadway, though. The main difference is that if the bike can’t travel at the going speed on the road, it must stay to the right side, except for one-way streets or “substandard” lane widths. They also have to stay in bike lanes, if available.
It doesn’t mean that riding on a sidewalk is a good idea. It almost never is, and can lead to more bike-car accidents since cars are less aware of bikes moving on and off the sidewalk. True, you can avoid this by stopping the bike and walking in a crosswalk, but most people who ride on sidewalks aren’t the type to do so anyway.
Unexpected foot traffic a 3-4 MPH, sure. Unexpected bike traffic at 20 MPH, nope.
Another factor that I haven’t seen mentioned yet: city (not suburban) sidewalks tend to run right up alongside the buildings, which means the doorways of the businesses empty directly onto the sidewalk. Even on an otherwise empty sidewalk a cyclist can be surprised by a person exiting a building directly into their path.
One of my city’s downtown buildings is an old hotel that has been converted to housing for low-income seniors and disabled people. Several years ago an elderly resident was bowled over and seriously injured by a bicyclist as he walked out the front door of the place.
Then the old guy proceeded to write an angry letter about it to the newspaper every month (or maybe more often, but the paper will only publish one letter per month from the same person) for more than a year. He was a bit senile, though, and it was never clear from his letters whether he was repeatedly getting knocked down or if he was simply going on and on about the same incident.
This is true. Before I regained my driver’s license I naturally did a lot of walking. My own natural walking pace is much faster than most people’s, and I always had to be on guard when coming up behind other, slower, pedestrians. A slow-moving pedestrian can turn, swerve, or even come to a complete stop with no warning whatsoever. They’re simply moving so slowly that there is nothing to indicate that they’re about to change direction or stop.
Especially if they’re women. I’ve come to the conclusion that the word “abreast” was coined because it’s women who always walk that way and won’t budge from that formation. These days I do most of my bicycling on the bicycle/foot path that runs through our park system, and I’ll frequently encounter groups of people on foot taking up nearly the entire width of the path because they’re walking four abreast. The pattern of behavior when these groups see me approaching (or, if I’m approaching from behind and call out a warning) is this: If the group is all women they will simply scrunch closer together while remaining 3-4 abreast, leaving the bare minimum amount of space for me to pass. By contrast, a group of men walking 3-4 abreast will, 95% of the time, immediately switch to a single-file formation and give me plenty of room to safely pass. In a mixed group, the women will remain abreast while the men quickly drop behind them in single file.
Not always true- in San Jose, bikes can be ridden on the sidewalk in the downtown area (only) where we have super-wide sidewalks.
Right, except that if the cyclist was in the road, she or she would likely be near the sidewalk anyways, in order to let faster cars pass on the left (in the US and Canada anyways). In which case the extra two feet of distance between the cyclist on the road and where he or she would be if they were on the sidewalk isn’t enough to make the car backing up out of a blind alley behave any different - they should expect 3-4 MPH pedestrian traffic as well as 20 MPH cyclist traffic anyways, because they’ll have to cut through both to get to the 30-60 MPH car lanes. I suppose there’s the argument about expecting the cyclist later if he/she is in the road, but really… IME as a driver, it doesn’t make much practical difference. You still have to be careful and expect the unexpected.
Anyone cycling on a pavement at that speed would deserve to be arrested, at the very least, and if I was a pedestrian and saw one coming towards me at that kind of speed, I’d be very tempted to give them a push as they passed. On a slight tangent, when I see those motorised wheelchairs on the roads, I can’t help but have visions of impending disaster. You can’t even swerve quickly in those things.
Bicyles, sidewalks & the hatred of two wheels.
In a very great many places, a bicyclist would be taking his very life in his hands, if he rode in the street.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=365495&highlight=bike
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=294963&highlight=bike
As a fellow NW Mancunian I have to point out that the prime offenders are posties.
I know, I was that soldier;)
You didn’t have a passing smackhead try to grab your bag off your shoulder, did you? It certainly wouldn’t surprise me, and if I was carrying a satchel of giros, I’d definitely be wary! 
I delivered to a very posh suburb, Bowdon, Cheshire.
The occupants of that particular area don’t even know what a giro is;)
The only Giro they would have been familiar with is the Giro d’Italia, as witnessed from their villa in Tuscany:-
You don’t know how very near to the truth you are.
Substitute Tuscany for any of a dozen other far distant and exotic climes and you’r there.
Oh! and of course their mansion in that hot bed of debauchery and wild Bachannalian orgies…Rochdale;)
I was nearly run over by two bycycle police when I was in Seattle a few years ago.
They came out of a quite narrow alley at speed an nscared the crap out of me.