Oh and Scylla, you might find this part interesting:
As far as I am concerned anyone running in the street when there is a perfectly good sidewalk is obviously confused, so I blow them some cool jazz, in accordance with the law.
If there is no sidewalk, sure. If there is a sidewalk, stay off the shoulder as well.
This one ain’t ambiguous. The shoulder is fine.
Not when there is a sidewalk. Not in Illinois.
“ROADWAYS: Pedestrians must not walk on a roadway unless there is no sidewalk or shoulder next to it. Under these conditions, pedestrians should always walk as close to the outside edge of the road as possible. In two-way traffic, pedestrians should walk facing oncoming traffic.”
Do you not see where the differentiate between shoulder and roadway? Shoulder and sidewalk are being equated in the first sentence (and differentiated from roadway). This is very clear.
That’s not what the law says, and if you are still quoting that link on the IL Secretary of State’s website, I will say the official statute trumps any safety advisories posted elsewhere. You can walk on the the shoulder only if there is no sidewalk.
Careful what you itch for. 
What city has shoulders alongside its streets? The only places I’ve ever seen a shoulder are along interstates and other major roads. Is there some other definition of shoulder besides the extra gravel lane that motorist can pull into in order to get out of traffic when mechanically distressed?
Oh C’mon! If it weren’t fun, I would have stopped two days ago!
That IS what the law says:
(a) Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.
(b) Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.
The word “practicable” is left intentionally vague and not defined anywhere. But, if we look at dictionary.com, we get:
“Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible. See Synonyms at possible.
Usable for a specified purpose: a practicable way of entry.”
The sidewalk, as has been attested here, is not usable for the specific purpose of running for any number of reasons already discussed. You yourself have acknowledged this much when you suggested that if it isn’t feasible to run, we should simply not run. Your conclusion was wrong, but I forgive you.
Thus we jump to b. I can use the shoulder to my heart’s content if I’m in Illinois.
And that is why I labeled you an elitist; the law applies to everyone else but you.
Well, me and the Illinois Secretary of State.
Only in your mind, Grasshopper. Even in that cite, the law is clear; when there is a sidewalk, it is to be used exclusively. The shoulder may only be used in the absence of a sidewalk. There is no equating the sidewalk with the shoulder.
So you are alone on this one. Pretty much the definition of elitist.
Runners are elitist??? Taking advantage of and showing off the fact that they have legs? And feet? And lungs? Unlike everybody else?
Damn!
Well, I do run with a glass of Chardonay, a platter of fine cheeses and some shrimp cocktail. And I do tend to spit the shrimp shells out on the non-jogging plebeians. But, I don’t think that makes me elitist. I mean, if that’s wrong, then I don’t want to be right.
Well… no. As it turns out, you are full of shit. Look again at your cites. They mention walking.
We are talking about running. You are assuming that the laws pertaining to walking are identical to those pertaining to running.
Not the same. Running is much faster.
Concerning honking, it appears to me that the law is clear that the honking is to be used appropriately to warn runners of danger, an impending accident. What you are doing is creating a danger and putting other people at risk.
Let us be frank. Getting behind the wheel of a large automobile and feeling and acting upon feelings of hostility towards pedestrians is the mark of a man compensating for his inadequacies. Grow up.
It’s good thing I know you are being facetious, I might actually waste time and energy rebutting a laughable distinction.
Right back atcha, Nike Breath.
And insisting on running in the street in flagrant disregard of the law is the sign of what, Scylla? Does the law not apply to you? Are you above the law?
For the record, I agree completely with the OP.
I am not opposed to joggers being in the street when there is no sidewalk. I have walked and jogged on enough streets without sidewalks (or even roadsides!) that I am perfectly willing to yield to joggers and walkers in the same situation.
I am also not opposed to joggers/walkers who jog along the left edge of streets where there is a sidewalk, and who are kind enough to get off the road (or as close to the edge as possible) when they see my car coming.
I am opposed to joggers/walkers who either insist on jogging in the center of the car lane (especially when there is a sidewalk available for their use) or who jog/walk on their right side of the street, and therefore cannot always see or hear cars approaching in their lane.
By the laws of every state I’ve lived in, foot traffic is supposed to travel in the opposite lane of vehicle traffic, if only so that pedestrians can see cars who may not see them. In addition, sidewalks are for pedestrians when they are available, and the street is for vehicles. If a pedestrian chooses to use the road when a sidewalk is available, they should at least have the courtesy to yield to the traffic that has the right-of-way.
I am not in the least bit facetious. You should examine one of your local New Hampshire Road Runner’s clubs which operate with the full sanction and cooperation of law. Running on the roads is legal. You have cites saying that walking on roads is illegal in some circumstances. Running and walking are different things. Running is three to four times faster and presents unique challenges and hazards to runners, pedestrians and traffic which need to be dealt with differently than regular pedestrian traffic.
You have failed to read the law correctly. Show me a cite where running on the roads is illegal, and not only will I conceed the point, I will report all the New Hampshire Road Runners Clubs to the local authorities.
I
Btw, you do have my sympathy for any inconsiderate and impolite runners you encounter. I think its wrong for them not to make every effort not to impede traffic.
The problem though is that you encounter an assholish jogger and he maybe annoys you or adds two seconds to your drive. I encounter an assholish drive and I end up dead or bleeding in a ditch.
Do you see the difference here?
The consequences of driving like an asshole for outweigh the consequences of being a running asshole. Therefore it is morally encumbent upon the driver to exercise an extreme measure of discretion.
Would you disagree?