I think this brings us back to the beginning. If a jogger is running such that cars have to swerve to avoid them, then they are selfish. I’ve had only the one incident with a car alluded to earlier. I’ve never been yelled at by a driver or swerved around. Plus, I live (for another two weeks!) in Manhattan. It’s not just not practicable to run on the sidewalk, it’s not possible. I run about a mile on the street to get to a path where I do most of my run, and then the mile home. People in Manhattan don’t have cars, and I have to get to the path somehow.
Let me use an example of why it is safer in the street. When cars pull out of driveways, or out of parking lots, they inevitably turn on the engine and back out across the sidewalk, stopping only when they reach the actual road. They stop there because they are looking for vehicular traffic. No one (myself included) stops before they get to the sidewalk, passes over it, and stops again.
Two joggers, one on the sidewalk, one on the shoulder. The one on the shoulder is protected by the fact that the car pulling out is looking for other cars. The one on the sidewalk has a better chance of being hit (albeit at a hopefullylow speed).
I’m not just running on the street because I can, and I’m flaunting it to those bastard drivers. I’m doing it in the interest of safety and efficacy.
Dictionary.com has a similar definition. If the sidewalk is impassible (construction) then you’re in the clear. If the sidewalk is damaged, uneven or congested with traffic, you might get that argument to work, but it’ll be a fight. Difficult or inconvenient to do isn’t the same thing as can’t do. If you just don’t like concrete on your knees, or think that the road is more convenient, I don’t think the argument is going to fly at all.
I didn’t mean the dictionary definition. I think we can both argue either side of this from the dictionary definition (see my post above). I meant how it was being applied legally. They are not defining the word “practicable” in the law, that I can find.
And the states where “roadway” is defined, the issue becomes even clearer.
By the way, for my (and maybe others’) benefit, could we clear something up?
I have the strong feeling that the “runner” the OP referred to was not running on the shoulder or along the side of the flow of traffic, but was instead actually in the road (main traffic artery) itself, blocking the flow of traffic.
For those of you who are saying it is legal to run “on the road,” are you stating that it is fine to run down a highway or other road on the actual part of the road where cars most routinely travel?
So it is entirely a convenience thing. Why not walk on the sidewalk until you get to your preferred running path?
Based on the many posts about how much easier asphault is to run on (“asphault is 8 times softer than concrete”), yes, they are talking about demanding the right to share the same surface cars drive on.
No sensible person is talking about running in the lane. If that is in fact what the OP was talking about, then rant away because that’s idiotic.
The lane closest to the side of the road is generally three or four feet wider than a car. I am only about two feet (?) wide. What we are talking about is me taking up two feet of that lane on the extreme side of the road. If a road were too narrow that there is not this 3-4 foot leeway, I would only run on it if it were absolutely required to get to my home, and would stay on the sidewalk if there were one. Otherwise, I wouldn’t run on it at all.
The cite I provided was from here which is an online law dictionary. Throw “murder” or “chair” in there and you’ll see how much it deviates from Websters.
Each state may have it’s own definition, I know they define certain terms, but without any evidence to the contrary, I’d at least think this is a reasonable place to start.
I am not comfortable passing a runner with only 12 inches of leeway. The law says drivers must exercise due care in passing you, even though you are in violation of the law. Time and time again, I have seen drivers fade away from a runner and over the centerline. They violate the law for your safety, so that you can have the convenience of running to and from you jogging path. That is selfishness of the highest order.
Sorry, should have been clearer. Even the law definition is widely open to interpretation. So, it is getting its definition at the level of application.
I understand your argument (though we still completely disagree on the whole “violation of the law” bit), and I think that it is actually the driver that is getting pissed off (and taking some sort of twisted glee) that is being selfish. Though, you might be one of only a few, because I haven’t encountered such road rage in response to joggers. Most people seem to be able to coexist quite nicely.
Fading over the centerline when there is no oncoming traffic to avoid people is not a violation of law. I just took my California driver’s test, and actually perused the book!
You still haven’t answered my question: Why don’t you walk to your preferred jogging path? Why is your convenience more important than the public safety?
Yes. It does make a difference. The first question is reasonable, and I’d be glad to answer it. The second is bullshit, and shows that you are not open to a reasonable answer to the first.
It’s like a debate on abortion, and the person asks: Why do you feel you have the right to terminate a pregancy? Why is your right more important that murdering a baby? The first question asks a legitimate question and the second reveals an unwillingness to consider the answer.
Actually, nowadays I run on Country roads without sidewalks for the majority of my runs. However, yes, I do tend to stay on the shoulder on my Sunday runs during one section that contains a sidewalk near Shippensburg University.
The sidewalk is very old, and there are very large trees and the vision is obstructed both to me and to drivers so that they can’t see me if they are turning or going in and out of driveways. The sidewalk is also broken and uneven due to roots.
Once I turn into the University, it’s a straight shot on a clear good sidewalk (which I stay on,) down to the rails for trails.
When I lived in New York, I ran in Central Park. In Jersey I staid off the sidewalk because the condition of it was bad and vision was bad.
So, I use my judgement to make the best decision depending on circumstances.
Yes he did. Whenever he sees joggers he leans on the horn so they "jump out of their skins.
Heh. In a courtroom, I’ll take the lawyer. On the street, I don’t think I’d argue statutes with cops. I’d say “Yes, Officer” and do as I’m told.
Ok.
No. No sidewalk. Country road with little traffic. Just happened that myself, a truck and another car crossing the center line all had their spacetime coordinates coincident.
The law in New Hampshire requires that drivers shall give pedestrians in the roadway an audible signal when necessary; when a runner is endangering the public and himself by illegally running in the roadway, it is my civic duty to warn him of the potential hazard. I always exercise due care to avoid them, in accordance with the law.
Since you are back, I would like to comment on this argument:
If this were organized races, sponsored by a running club, they were in all likelihood covered by a permit from the local government, in which case they are entirely legal, the same a parade. However, running in a sanctioned race with a permit, and going out for your morning jog are two entirely different things. Unless you have a permit; do you have a permit? I didn’t think so.