Sorry, pal. You are right - there is no shortage of self-absorbed assholes anywhere - especially the road. However, I am fit. I bike and lift rather than run. Jealousy has nothing to do with it. There are a minority of joggers during my morning commute who seem to “street jog” unsafely. That’s all.
You notice this too?
It seems that Illinois law allows for street jogging.
I guess I’ll learn to share and not let the few neuticles taint my opinion of the rest.
I’m gonna need a cite showing that joggers in the roadway are illegal where you are. The only law you provided was a vaguely worded New Hampshire law which refers to other provisions in the chapter not cited and contains the following:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.”
So, your own cite provides that pedestrians can be in the roadway but must yield right of way. Well, duh. If someone is turning right at a corner, and I’m running straight, I yield right of way to the car.
It ain’t illegal. Not got caught? Ok. I’ll throw this out there. Anyone ever have a run in with the law for jogging on the street? Yeah, joggers are such a bunch of desperados, above the law and flaunting it! Look at them with their shorts and expensive shoes! Bunch of thugs!
Again, if you can’t stay in your lane and still avoid a runner, then you are a pretty awful driver. Most lanes provide more than two feet of leeway.
And your “Don’t run” argument is just the best. Because the obvious retort is, you don’t have a god given right to drive, so, just Don’t drive!. My running, as cited, increases my lifespan. I do, in fact, have a right to run.
You seem to have some deep loathing of runners that stems from something other than jogging on the street.
Nice selective reading. Try again:
II. Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a way shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway. Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a way shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway.
Now that we got all three provisions out there… Though curiously we don’t have the chapters referred to here:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway” which seems to indicate that NH law has provisions not only for allowing pedestrians in the street, but for allowing them to have the right of way over cars.
A sidewalk is not available if it is constantly blocked by slow moving pedestrians. Ergo, we are back to the Grelbys premise that:
“3: Pedestrians are obligated to use available sidewalks or other facilities provided for pedestrian traffic, so long as it is practicable to do so. Examples of factors involved in the practicability of sidewalk use are safety and available safe. It is unsafe for a fast-moving jogger to be on a crowded sidewalk - probably less safe than it is to be in the street.”
So, do you know anyone who was arrested or ticketed under the law as you read it? How about next time you see a jogger, call the cops, and see if they read the law that way. That’s a pretty good experiment to see who is right on the reading of the cited NH law.
Fortunately, most of the laws, as cited for Illinois above, are not ambiguous at all, and joggers are allowed on the street.
Bullshit. How you can read “shall yield the right of way to all vehicles” to mean that runners have the right of way is ridiculous.
More elitist baloney. Just because you can’t keep your heart rate up on the sidewalks doesn’t give you any right to run on the roads.
You are straining credulity with your silly parsing of this unambiguous law. If there are sidewalks, you can’t run in the street. Go somewhere else, or don’t run. Or get a ticket; it’s your choice.
I can read it that way, cause you left out half the sentence. “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter…”. Except as otherwise provided you are not allowed to kill people means that there are provided situations where killing someone is allowed.
Where do you get “elitist”? That’s just the strangest word to describe joggers. “Boy, I sure am better than you because I jog” is a thought that never crossed my mind, but here it is being attributed to me.
And this is my point. I’ve never gotten a ticket. I know no one who has ever gotten a ticket. I’m asking anyone here if they’ve ever gotten a ticket. If no one has ever gotten a ticket, perhaps my silly parsing is not incorrect. If you think it is illegal, call the cops. See what happens. If you are right, the jogger will be ticketed. If you are wrong, he won’t. Even if I were to give you NH law (which I don’t) there are 49 other states. Illinois, with more people and probably more sidewalks than NH, is quite clearly pretty cool with joggers in the street as cited unambiguously above.
You just have a bug up your ass about joggers in general. You were even complaining about them being on the path earlier in this thread, if I remember correctly. If you think they are rude by not talking to you, and have somehow read that as elitist, try talking to one when he isn’t running. I don’t consider motorists elitist because they don’t stop and chat with me when I wave as they’re driving by.
I’m not exactly as vehement as Fear Itself on this, but I doubt this sort of reasoning would hold up in a court of law.
“Your Honor, the sidewalk wasn’t available, there were a bunch of people walking on it.”
Here is the entire Chapter 265 (Rules of the Road) for the State of New Hampshire. If you can find any section that gives pedestrians the right to use the roadway when sidewalks are provided, I will gladly and humbly cede the point to you. In the absence of this phantom cite, the law I provided stands: If there are sidewalks, you can’t run in the street.
Maybe, but that quote would have to be preceded by the following unlikely quote:
“Sir, you’re under arrest for jogging on the side of the road.”
It doesn’t need to be an arrest, necessarily. You could be in civil court trying to get damages for being struck by a car while jogging. The driver can point to the law that says you were supposed to be in the sidewalk, and you’d be out of luck.
Why doesn’t all of this apply to pedestrians, too? I think joggers are easier to see because they offer more activity in our field of view. I often notice joggers in my peripheral vision where I’d never notice a slower moving pedestrian.
And whatever happened to “look both ways before you cross the street”, anyway?
I don’t recall ever seeing DC joggers on the streets, perhaps because of the large amount of parallel parking.
Well, again, at least in Maine, Stephen King won in court against the guy who hit him, I believe.
I’d be lying if I said I was up on my case citations for pedestrian law in NH, and would be interested in seeing if this has actually been tested. I’d be very surprised to see a case where a pedestrian, on the shoulder of the road was hit and lost a civil case, but if you can find a cite, I’d be happy to concede that in NH joggers can’t be on the road.
But, the guy in Illinois would quite clearly win this civil case.
The validity of this law is beyond dispute. Your logic, that the law is somehow nullified if I can’t produce evidence that someone was cited under it, escapes me.
From that Illinois link
If there is a sidewalk, you’re supposed to be on the sidewalk. That’s what the OP was complaining about, that’s what Fear Itself has been arguing too.
I don’t believe Stephen King was on a road with a sidewalk, therefore his only choice for walking/jogging was the shoulder, and I don’t think people generally have a problem with that. It’s when you start ignoring laws that say you should be on the sidewalk (because the jogging is better on the road) that I start to get pissy.
“or shoulder”. You can run on the shoulder. They seem to be defining the “roadway” as other than the shoulder. If someone is running in the middle of the lane, by all means, run them down (kidding).
Well, well, well, look what I found:
(625 ILCS 5/) Illinois Vehicle Code.
It appears that you are a criminal in Illinois as well as New Hampshire, Fiveyearlurker
“ROADWAYS: Pedestrians must not walk on a roadway unless there is no sidewalk or shoulder next to it.”
Again, the shoulder is not the roadway in Illinois. Is that a stupid definition? Yup. Complain to the Illinois legislature.
I have no complaint about the law. Just stay the hell off the pavement.
Or on the shoulder, right?