Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Commuting
Reload this Page >

"Salmon-ing" on a Sidewalk?

Notices
Commuting Bicycle commuting is easier than you think, before you know it, you'll be hooked. Learn the tips, hints, equipment, safety requirements for safely riding your bike to work.

"Salmon-ing" on a Sidewalk?

Old 04-09-19, 06:50 AM
  #101  
Skipjacks
Senior Member
 
Skipjacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Mid Atlantic / USA
Posts: 2,115

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Crosstrail / 2013 Trek Crossrip Elite

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked 237 Times in 155 Posts
Originally Posted by parkbrav
Thanks for all the replies, really top-quality stuff. I must express some disappointment, however, with some of the responses. In my opinion, some of these responses are raising the "straw-man fallacy." I interpret that phrase to mean that you are 1) conveniently ignoring the specific fact pattern set out in thorough detail above, much of which undermines your position and 2) knocking down arguments that haven't been raised by anybody, and then 3) declaring total victory because you can't be changed from your own set of facts.
So people don't agree with your opinions (and they are opinions, not laws consistent everywhere) and you're disappointed in us?

Again, the fact pattern that I raised at the beginning of this thread sets out that it is a very wide street that accommodates motorists and cyclists such that it doesn't seem necessary for a bicycle to operate illegally on a sidewalk.
The topic has changed somewhat since then. This is normal for any conversation, and practically required of an internet conversation. It will continue to morph into other scenarios in the future.

The salmon-ing BSO will confuse motorists not expecting to see BSO heading north in the south-bound lane. The other problem is that creates a situation (as described) where there are two bicycles heading north on opposite parts of the road. Motorists in either direction seeing two bicycles will likely be confused in what way to give the requisite 3 feet.
As a motorist, I have yet to be confused by anything happening on the sidewalk. If you are paying attention to the sidewalk while driving on the road, you shouldn't be driving a car. Period.

And what does the 3 foot passing rule have to do with anyone on the sidewalk?

I personally detour-ed myself by at least 2.5 miles every day for a month last November in order to avoid several obstacles posed by a highway interchange that cuts through my municipality. We all do what we can to be safe.
Good for you. Others of us found other safe ways to avoid being killed that don't involve going miles out of our way. Because we are doing what we can to be safe. If going 2.5 miles out of your way is the safest option, you should do it. In the alternate scenarios presented that wasn't an option.

Have you checked out the Advocacy and Safety forum here? I think you'd like it. It's full of lively discussions about what the rules should be and most everyone agrees with each other.
Skipjacks is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 06:53 AM
  #102  
Skipjacks
Senior Member
 
Skipjacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Mid Atlantic / USA
Posts: 2,115

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Crosstrail / 2013 Trek Crossrip Elite

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked 237 Times in 155 Posts
Originally Posted by parkbrav
Well the same could be said about operating a motor vehicle on a sidewalk, obviously that's also an illegal act.
Right....because that's the same thing.

A 3000 pound car that is physically 2 times wider than the sidewalk is the same thing as a 20 lb bike that can easily and safely pass a pedestrian with ample clearance at a walking pace on a sidewalk.

Facepalm.
Skipjacks is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 06:58 AM
  #103  
parkbrav
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked 114 Times in 97 Posts
So people don't agree with your opinions (and they are opinions, not laws consistent everywhere) and you're disappointed in us?
I don't appreciate the snark this morning. I feel like you're yelling at me for participating in my own thread, and I don't appreciate that. I'm making a point, yes, that there are some fallacious arguments in this thread.

The topic has changed somewhat since then.
Correct. I'm not stopping you from starting a new thread. I created this thread to discuss the specific facts of this case. As far as I'm concerned the issue in my mind is resolved, so a new thread seems appropriate. At this point, in opinion, post #103 is beating a dead horse
parkbrav is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 07:00 AM
  #104  
parkbrav
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked 114 Times in 97 Posts
Facepalm.
I didn't appreciate that snark. You seem to be taking this thread way too personally, why?
parkbrav is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 07:24 AM
  #105  
parkbrav
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked 114 Times in 97 Posts
(and they are opinions, not laws consistent everywhere) and you're disappointed in us?
I've said now now a hundred times, the municipality in question has an ordinance against vehicles (including bicycles) on the sidewalk. That was discussed mid-way through the first week of this thread. I'm not talking about some other municipality, or even your municipality, but MY municipality.

The first time you reacted to this you said law abiding was for chumps.

It's so much better to have absolute rules designed for the average be applied to the extremes and enforced with draconian authority. That makes for a much happier free society. (Massive sarcasm alert)
When you drive 56mph on a 55mph zone you to self report your scofflaw behavior to the police and demand to be ticketed?
The second time you said that you were too experienced to follow the law.

Originally Posted by RubeRad
or knowing better and not caring. A lot of 'experienced' cyclists think their skill makes them above the law
This! This, my god, this!!!
It's amazing how paying attention and keeping your speed in check with the specific conditions (pedestrians, visibility, etc) can virtually eliminate any and all problems.
The third time you said that you perceived there to be some sort of mitigation in your personal circumstances. Now what's your response?


The topic has changed somewhat since then. This is normal for any conversation, and practically required of an internet conversation. It will continue to morph into other scenarios in the future.
That's a polite way of admitting that you have hi-jacked this thread and have prolonged this thread unnecessarily for weeks.

As a motorist, I have yet to be confused by anything happening on the sidewalk. If you are paying attention to the sidewalk while driving on the road, you shouldn't be driving a car. Period.

And what does the 3 foot passing rule have to do with anyone on the sidewalk?
As I have said before, if there are two bicycles both heading north, the car knows to swerve to the left to give three feet to the bicycles. If there are two bicycles, one heading north, one heading south, and the motorist is heading south, which way should the motorist swerve to steer clear of the bicycles? If they don't swerve, they risk hitting a bicycle. If they do swerve, they risk hitting the other bicycle. If they merge to the middle, they risk hitting an on-coming car.

At the very least the motorist will have to stop and think, which causes delay, which could lead to an accident

Last edited by parkbrav; 04-09-19 at 07:47 AM.
parkbrav is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 08:03 AM
  #106  
Skipjacks
Senior Member
 
Skipjacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Mid Atlantic / USA
Posts: 2,115

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Crosstrail / 2013 Trek Crossrip Elite

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked 237 Times in 155 Posts
Originally Posted by parkbrav
The first time you reacted to this you said law abiding was for chumps.
Quote me saying law abiding was for chumps.

I'll wait.

The third time you said that you perceived there to be some sort of mitigation in your personal circumstances. Now what's your response?
I literally could not have been more thorough on this already.


That's a polite way of admitting that you have hi-jacked this thread and have prolonged this thread unnecessarily for weeks.
No. That's how conversation works. It morphed into slightly different circumstances, as the result of many people morphing it. That's what happens on an internet forum. You don't get to control who talks about what in a thread.

This is an interesting conversation that people are engaged in constructively. Your original scenario was talked out. The conversation morphed into alternate scenarios. People are having an interesting discussion about it. Not everyone is going to agree with you that this kind of riding is always bad and always wrong and always dangerous. And people who don't agree with you are not forbidden from posting that disagreement, even in 'your' thread.
Skipjacks is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 08:08 AM
  #107  
parkbrav
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked 114 Times in 97 Posts
Quote me saying law abiding was for chumps.

I'll wait.
It's so much better to have absolute rules designed for the average be applied to the extremes and enforced with draconian authority. That makes for a much happier free society. (Massive sarcasm alert)
When you drive 56mph on a 55mph zone you to self report your scofflaw behavior to the police and demand to be ticketed?

I know you're dying to have the last word, so I'll let you have it, perhaps finally we can leave it there, with the poor horse being beaten
parkbrav is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 08:12 AM
  #108  
StanSeven
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,569

Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1102 Post(s)
Liked 2,136 Times in 1,441 Posts
Okay, let’s keep discussions civil. The OP got an answer, the thread drifted, and the topic changed some. Please recognize that and respect differing opinions without taking offense.
StanSeven is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 08:14 AM
  #109  
parkbrav
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked 114 Times in 97 Posts
Your original scenario was talked out.
Ah, perhaps now I understand your misunderstanding. This was never a conversation about salmoning in general, it was a topic about this specific case of salmoning and that got resolved - before you parachuted into this conversation a week later. And it still seems obvious to me that you haven't read the conversation prior to your hi-jacking of the thread a week later. That annoys me, because I've had to repeat myself to you personally several times.

Last edited by parkbrav; 04-09-19 at 08:17 AM.
parkbrav is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 08:37 AM
  #110  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,238

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Krampus

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked 3,400 Times in 2,511 Posts
Originally Posted by parkbrav
In my opinion, some of these responses are raising the "straw-man fallacy."
Absolutely.
Q. What do you guys think of riding a bit of sidewalk on the left side of the street?
A. LANCE ARMSTRONG SHOULD NOT INSTALL RAZOR BLADES ON HIS RACE BIKE AND PLOW DOWN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN TRYING TO GET TO CHURCH YOU BELONG IN HELL!!!!
Q. Wait, what?

However, in the OP, you cryptically hint that this other cyclist is doing other things wrong. Maybe it's time to wrap this thread up and go start another thread where we can all agree this other guy is a jerk
RubeRad is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 08:46 AM
  #111  
Skipjacks
Senior Member
 
Skipjacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Mid Atlantic / USA
Posts: 2,115

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Crosstrail / 2013 Trek Crossrip Elite

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked 237 Times in 155 Posts
Originally Posted by RubeRad
Absolutely.
Q. What do you guys think of riding a bit of sidewalk on the left side of the street?
A. LANCE ARMSTRONG SHOULD NOT INSTALL RAZOR BLADES ON HIS RACE BIKE AND PLOW DOWN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN TRYING TO GET TO CHURCH YOU BELONG IN HELL!!!!
Q. Wait, what?
Dude....stop....I'm crying...people just came into my office to ask why I'm laughing so loudly.

Dammit, Lance Armstrong! Why you gotta be like that!?
Skipjacks is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 08:47 AM
  #112  
madpogue 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Madison, WI USA
Posts: 6,876
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2350 Post(s)
Liked 1,728 Times in 1,180 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
WRONG,... TOTALY wrong, Yes, pedestrian's, or 6 year old bicyclists can go either way.... NO, problem. BUT, when an , adult bicyclist starts to/and are riding at lets say 3 X, 4X, maybe even 5X the speed of pedestrians or said 6 year old's… Things can go wrong, wrong real fast, when combined with motor vehicle traffic… JMO as I see it...
What exactly is "wrong"? So pedestrian traffic is NOT two-way? No one said anything about going anywhere near that fast. Five times the speed of pedestrian traffic is approaching highway speed*, which is beyond absurd. Once again, direction of travel is irrelevant wrt this point.

More to the point, car drivers entering a road from a driveway MUST be ready for pedestrian traffic at any speed that anyone would normally use a sidewalk*, from BOTH directions, BEFORE even looking for car traffic.




* (Hint - not all pedestrians walk, and not all pedestrians travel at walking speed. ) **




** (Okay, hint for the hint, if you haven't gotten it already. Wheelchair users routinely travel sidewalks at 6-8 MPH. If you're going even that fast on a bicycle on a sidewalk, well, DON'T! In either direction.)
madpogue is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 08:50 AM
  #113  
madpogue 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Madison, WI USA
Posts: 6,876
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2350 Post(s)
Liked 1,728 Times in 1,180 Posts
Originally Posted by RubeRad
Absolutely.
Q. What do you guys think of riding a bit of sidewalk on the left side of the street?
A. LANCE ARMSTRONG SHOULD NOT INSTALL RAZOR BLADES ON HIS RACE BIKE AND PLOW DOWN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN TRYING TO GET TO CHURCH YOU BELONG IN HELL!!!!
Q. Wait, what?

However, in the OP, you cryptically hint that this other cyclist is doing other things wrong. Maybe it's time to wrap this thread up and go start another thread where we can all agree this other guy is a jerk
Before or after doping?
madpogue is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 09:00 AM
  #114  
Skipjacks
Senior Member
 
Skipjacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Mid Atlantic / USA
Posts: 2,115

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Crosstrail / 2013 Trek Crossrip Elite

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked 237 Times in 155 Posts
Originally Posted by madpogue
Before or after doping?
He was just doing a little steroids between friends....next thing you know he's cutting school children to pieces with razor blades.

Roidrage. The struggle is real.
Skipjacks is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 09:01 AM
  #115  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by parkbrav
As I have said before, if there are two bicycles both heading north, the car knows to swerve to the left to give three feet to the bicycles. If there are two bicycles, one heading north, one heading south, and the motorist is heading south, which way should the motorist swerve to steer clear of the bicycles? If they don't swerve, they risk hitting a bicycle. If they do swerve, they risk hitting the other bicycle. If they merge to the middle, they risk hitting an on-coming car.

At the very least the motorist will have to stop and think, which causes delay, which could lead to an accident
I don't understand why the motorist needs to do much of anything in response to either cyclist. If it is, as you stated, a 'very wide street' and you're riding on the side of the road there should be room for the driver to pass without any swerving. As for the cyclist going the other way on the other side of the street with a full lane between him and the driver, I'm missing where the confusion could arise.
gregf83 is offline  
Old 04-09-19, 10:58 AM
  #116  
StanSeven
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,569

Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1102 Post(s)
Liked 2,136 Times in 1,441 Posts
Ok, enough. The OP also requested the thread be closed
StanSeven is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Matariki
Advocacy & Safety
20
10-06-14 09:58 AM
Zaneluke
Advocacy & Safety
83
06-19-12 11:05 AM
Cyclomania
General Cycling Discussion
14
07-29-11 09:54 AM
oilman_15106
Fifty Plus (50+)
7
06-01-10 07:11 PM
sunnyvale
Advocacy & Safety
3
03-25-10 05:39 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.