Joy Beeson wrote:

Now and again you see a sign telling you that it's legal to ride your
bike on a sidewalk. It may even be a special sidewalk on which curbs
and steps have been replaced with ramps.

I'm pretty emphatic on the idea that as a vehicle, a bicycle has all the
rights *and* responsibilities of any other vehicle, including following
the traffic code. A bicycle is not a pedestrian.


It's still a sidewalk. When you ride on a sidewalk, you are totally
and all by yourself responsible for avoiding collisions at
intersections, because the drivers of cars don't see you. Hardly
anybody checks the sidewalk for moving vehicles, and even if you are
seen, you won't be noticed -- a person on a sidewalk is nothing
unusual or relevant to car-driving. His eyes won't linger on you long
enough to notice that you aren't moving like a pedestrian.

Yep. I nearly hit a guy a few weeks ago. I was pulling out of a
driveway of a shopping center, and there was a guy (probably teenager)
on a small BMX bike. I was making a right turn, and he was coming from
my right, on the sidewalk, and against the traffic. Plus, it was night,
and he had no light.

For me, as a motorist, if I'm making a right turn, I'm looking to my
left, to look for oncoming traffic, and I'm not looking right, at at the
sidewalk, for a bicycle that's going several times the speed of a
pedestrian. There was no collision, but he clearly was upset that I had
pulled in front of him.


As if that weren't enough, every driveway and alley that crosses the
sidewalk is an intersection. On a street, a driver will stop short of
the crosswalk before creeping across the walkway to look for traffic,
but when he is emerging from a driveway or alley, he will pull out to
where he can see the street with almost no attention to the sidewalk.

Yep.


---------------------

City planners often see no reason not to direct bicycles up the wrong
way of a one-way street. A white stripe may help in the middle of the
block, but at the intersection, someone turning into the one-way
street is NOT going to be prepared to see someone coming toward him.

Depends on where you are. I live near a major university, and on some of
the major boulevards near campus, on the backs of street signs that
designate bike lanes, the backs have signs with the familiar red-slashed
circle in front of a bicycle, and underneath, "wrong way". I don't
remember for sure, but I think the "wrong way" signs are yellow
background, rather than white background.

One of the things we also have at some intersections around here is that
if there's a designated right turn lane, and a motorist has to cross the
bicycle lane to get to the right turn lane, the marking for the bike
lane becomes a dashed line, and does a good job of communicating to the
motorist that the bike lane continues, and that to get into the right
turn lane, it requires crossing the bike lane.

It wasn't until I'd seen this one a few times, that I realized one of
the fundamental rules, regarding road striping (at least in the US --
I've never completely figured out all the striping in the UK). That one
is that if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well.

A lot of motorists tend not to know this one.

Thus, it's not just handling of bike lanes, but other things, as well,
including entering intersections, places where there's stop-and-go
traffic, such as toll plazas and inspection stations, and in some
places, diamond carpool lanes. I was just in Southern California a
couple of weeks ago, and their carpool lanes are set up where there's a
solid line (in this case, double-yellow) that separates the carpool lane
from the next lane of traffic, and there are breaks only every couple of
miles. When I drive there, I've rarely seen a motorist move in or out of
a diamond lane by crossing over the double line, but waiting until the
designated break spot.


---------------------

The powers that be get a big thrill out of building multi-user
pathways and putting up signs that say "Bikeway".

Somewhere in the world, there is a bikeway. It has sidewalks.

A multi-user path is a walkway on which people are permitted to play
with wheel toys. When you ride on one, you must use all the
precautions that you would use when riding on a sidewalk.

One of the things that often escapes urban planners (and for that
matter, the public in general) is that there's more than one kind of
"cyclist". For many, they tend to project their own experiences on a
bicycle, either as a child, or as casual/occasional adult rider, where
the speed of the rider is expected to be consistent with a pedestrian,
and where the bicycle often is regarded as a "toy". From the perspective
of the motorist, this kind of rider is essentially a standing object,
and for policy purposes, something that should be isolated from motor
traffic, as much as possible.

And yes, this is where most of the expectation of design of "bike
lanes", "bikeways", etc. Not only urban bikeways that are magnets for
non-cyclists (walkers, runners, people on rollerblades, people pushing
strollers, skate boarders, etc.), but also spaces around schools, where
the "cyclists" are mostly children (with varying riding skills) that are
going to and from school.

A separate class of cyclist are the riders who really ride -- commuters,
fast fitness riders etc., who are often going at considerably faster
speeds, and longer distances than the casual riders. And far better
skills at handling the bike, as well as riding in traffic.

Not too far from where I live, there's an urban bikeway, and close by, a
major arterial boulevard. The boulevard is three lanes of traffic in
each direction, and I believe that the posted speed limit is 50 MPH, and
there's no marking for bike lines, although there's adequate space for
bicycles. It's pretty clear that the urban planners expect all bicycle
traffic to use the bikeway.

However, the bikeway is the typical magnet for foot traffic. Personally,
I'm quite content to go out there on my rollerblades, but if I'm on my
bike, I'm sticking to the street, because my activity (and speed) is far
more consistent with motor vehicle traffic, than it is in trying to
dodge the foot traffic that accumulates on the bikeway. For a cyclist,
riding the bikeway is analogous to a motorist driving in a school zone
-- it may get you to where you want to go, but expect frequent stops to
allow for slower traffic.

I should note that this for this particular situation, I'm not
advocating that all cyclists use the street. It's one that takes
experience, of good bike handling skills, and good skills in riding in
traffic -- and where the cyclist knows that he/she is following all the
rules of the Motor Vehicle Code, including red lights and stop signs. I
know plenty of casual riders that have no business on that particular
street, and should be using the bikeway.


Bend over backward to avoid causing annoyance or alarm to pedestrians;
dismount if you have to. Speak before you overtake. Watch for dog
leashes stretched across the path. And, no matter how
lightly-traveled the pathway is, never, never put your head down and
sprint. You might run down a toddler or crash into a gate. If you
must sprint, at least watch where you are going.

Absolutely, but at the same time, stay away from the sidewalks. The
relationship between the bicycle and the sidewalk should perpendicular,
where the bike is on a sidewalk only for crossing it, and access to a
driveway. For the bikeways, if you need to be there, the bike is at the
top of the figurative food chain, the fastest and most aggressive that
is there. Thus, that means that you have to assume that *you* have a
speed limit.

Smith