It is really a conundrum
 

When cyclist ride in the streets, drivers yell for them to get on the sidewalks. Yet most cities have laws against riding on the sidewalks. Those laws were passed by all the drivers that yell get off the road. Do drivers really know what they want?

Some drivers get a charge from yelling at cyclists; some people get a charge yelling at clouds; both groups obtain the same result.

Laws prohibiting bicycles on the sidewalk precede the automobile.

No conundrum about it. They didn't pass the laws. If they happened to vote, then possibly where a cyclist should ride their bike wasn't a big part of the platform that their elected representative spoke about to get elected.

Besides, those laws were probably passed long before you and I as well as our parents were even around.

Good point about keeping bike off the sidewalks might be really old. But at that time what cars that were around were not much faster than bike. Better to mix 5 mph walkers with 15 mph bikes, than 15mph bikes with 50 mph cars.

So what's the point? I'm not sure that any two of us as cyclist can agree completely on what we want?

Last time some driver shouted at me was because I'd shot them the bird. And that was three two or three years ago. And with the majority of cars not seeming to mind my presence on the road it seems silly to think of one irate driver as being all drivers.

Bikes should stay off the sidewalks and the crosswalks, they are for pedestrians, bikes are vehicles. When people yell at me to get off the roads, it only strengthens my resolve to exercise my Right to the roads.



.

In the last 10 years, I have not once been yelled at by a motorist. However, I have been yelled at by a fisherman to get out of his part of the lake.

Got yelled at by a county cop in Ventura CA for not riding the sidewalk which was marked as a bike path but IMO unsafe compared to the road. I don't think it's drivers who complain about sidewalk riding.

scott s.
.

In my city (Albuquerque, New Mexico USA) the law allows for riding on the sidewalk if there is not room in the street to ride safely. Obviously that is very much open to interpretation. Of course, if there is a bike lane or wide shoulder, you'd have trouble arguing you needed to ride on the sidewalk. I've never heard of anyone getting stopped for that here. The police have WAY more important things to worry about. Of course if some little old lady gets knocked over by a cyclist while walking on a sidewalk, the issue would get some attention.

As for crosswalks, we have some designated bike paths that require the use of crosswalks, so it's certainly not a thing that bikes shouldn't use them. We have a few places where a MUP crosses a major street and some of those are also marked as crosswalks. So, again, cyclists are expected to use those crosswalks.

I don't think it's as simple as a bike is a vehicle and therefore should never use a cross walk. I'm sure this all varies from location to location. Though I suspect it is nearly universal that cyclist must yield to pedestrians.

In 3-4 years of riding, I've only had one driver yell at me for being in the road. Sure was brazen of me to be in the middle of the traffic lane at a stop sign so I could make a left turn. Guy goes around me to the left of me, then turns right, cutting across me, and yells at me that I'm the idiot. But that was one out of thousands of encounters with drivers. And certainly hundreds (if not thousands) of times drivers had to accommodate me in some way by moving left to pass, slowing down to fall in behind me, wait for me to clear the intersection etc.

Heck, I've probably been honked or yelled at more while driving than riding my bike. And I put more miles on my bike than my pickup in a year.

It is a bit of a conundrum. But "speed kills" (or, can kill), as they say.

And so, there are absolutely good reasons why, on some roadways at least, it's safer for a cyclist to not be in a lane with motor vehicles. Overtaking/passing speeds notwithstanding, on some roads it's deadly dangerous. (There are several where I live, and a fair percentage of "strikes" as well as hit-and-runs occur on those roads.)

As such, along a route where there simply is no other way, it should not be an infraction for a cyclist to be on a sidewalk. A "lesser of two evils" choice, IOW.

On certain roads that are too darned dangerous, in my area, I'll go another route or I'll travel along at a much slower pace on the sidewalk. It's all well and good to say it's "only for pedestrians." But, at least IMO, the unsafe nature of the alternative makes it okay. One is still responsible for "driving" safely, of course; which, on a sidewalk, necessitates vastly slower speeds in order to avoid meandering-pedestrian issues.

Best solution, IMO: properly designed roadways that crisscross a larger town or city ... ones that are accommodating for pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. Until then, until that day, occasionally riding safely on a sidewalk (when necessary) simply isn't as bad as the nay-sayers declare.

It's also legal to ride on the sidewalk in most areas where I live, but you do see the occasional sign on sidewalks around shopping centers that say, “No bikes, skateboards...”

I don't know of any State laws that prohibit bikes on sidewalks, but there are plenty of city ordinances that do and for good reason, because people on bikes tend to ride in an unsafe manner, by going too fast for the conditions.

As for the crosswalk issue, I know of the crosswalks that accompany MUPs, that's different than the crosswalks in a city landscape and they're usually marked something like the below image.

I've seen cyclists, in an attempt to ride without slowing down, jump from street to crosswalk, to sidewalk, back to street. This is dangerous and it's why many cities have ordinances to keep bikes off sidewalks.

However, if they are permitted on sidewalks/crosswalks, they are given the same responsibilities as pedestrians, meaning they cannot just zoom down the sidewalks and crosswalks, but that's what most cyclists I've seen do, just blindly ride thru a crosswalk, thinking they have the absolute right of way – they do not.


https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/...gn-k2-0085.png

I didn't mean to imply that I get yelled at a lot from motorists. It is very rare. Especially when you consider how many motorists pass you every time you're out on a ride, it's a hell of a lot, especially when added up day-after-day. So the number of times I've been yelled at is an extreme minority of motorists.

The easiest way to see vitriol towards cyclists is to read comments in news articles and other places when the issue of cyclists is raised. But just like when I get yelled at, those comments only strengthens my resolve to exercise my Right to the roads.



.

No, drivers don't know what they want. When bike lanes are built (for the benefit of motorists because they relocate the cyclist to the side) , they complain that bike lanes slow them down.

In the last couple of days, I was honked at while riding into or out of parks that lead to my regular trail. In parks, drivers are supposed to be slow because there are people walking in and out of them. So while the police is ticketing cyclists in Toronto's High Park, drivers are complaining I'm too slow at my local park.

bicyclers should always ride where they interfere the least amount with autos or pedestrians because to 90+% of the people bicyclers are the bottom class citizens of the road so ride where you are the least obtrusive and if that don't satisfy them just dismount and walk it home :)

NH: RSA 265:26-a Driving Upon Sidewalk. – No person shall drive any vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area except when a permanent or authorized temporary driveway crosses the sidewalk area.

"Vehicle" includes bicycles by definition in NH.

I disagree with your characterization of "nay-sayers" here. I think there' way more exaggeration of the safety of sidewalk riding, and a general tendency to incorrectly minimize its dangers. And from the pedestrian's viewpoint, it's definitely awful.

Good on New Hampshire:beer:

:)

Not always. Houston has a business-district no-sidewalk law that is so arcane that almost everyone perceives it as something different than what it actually is. It is a legacy law that is ignored by everyone. And it won’t be a priority to change until an event occurs, which hopefully never happens.

There is value in sunsetting.

The vast majority of people have never passed a law in their life.

I passed law school. Does that count?

Were you on your way to drug store?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

What can be said is, really, the danger rests in the hands of ridiculous, mindless, and/or inattentive drivers or riders. Those who occupy a lane safely, and who remain attentive to other occupants and conscious of overtaking speeds and proximity, aren't the problem.

One irrefutable fact, though, is that the speeds and mass differentials that exist on a vehicle roadway far outstrip any sidewalk or path with a person on a bike. True, in any situation where someone strikes another blindly, injury or even death is possible. But, depending on the situation, there's no getting around the fact of risk ... whenever traveling with others around.

Myself, I choose to avoid a handful of truly ugly and deadly-dangerous spots in the town where I live. Wherever possible, in those zones, I head off-pavement to a sidewalk or an alternative nearby route. And it's decidedly safer, at least from the standpoint of avoidance of a 4000+ pound vehicle impact and avoidance of tangling with a pedestrian (given my cautious overtaking speeds). But on roadways where car drivers are mindful of the fact others exist in such lanes along with them, I'm completely willing to occupy such lanes per design.

People should decide for themselves, situation dependent. The threat isn't from the average lane occupant (path or roadway); it's from the ones who drive or ride wantonly. Laws criminalizing any and all use of safer routes are misplaced. Again, situation dependent, as clearly not all paths are safe for cyclists to use at all times and situations. Would be insanity to attempt it in NYC at, say, lunch hour. By comparison, it's reasonable and commonplace at some spots near where I live, given the relative lack of alternatives and relative rarity of pedestrians or others on such paths.

I ride my bike wherever it is safer. My preference is the road, but on narrow, busy roads I'll ride on the sidewalk or MUP's if available, legal or not. I put my personal safety WAY above the law. That said I respect the law for its intended purpose, So on a sidewalk, pedestrians always get the right of way. I'll approach and pass them at speeds that will not endanger either of us.

It should be noted that there are very few pedestrians on the sidewalks i ride on.

I absolutely disagree with a lot of this--you don't take account of sight lines in any of this, and you can't just lump in paths with sidewalks. They're absolutely not equivalent.

I don't make blanket statements about sidewalk vs. road safety because local conditions can vary, but I think there's little or no reason to assume that you're less likely to get hit by a car if you're sidewalk riding despite what our intuitions might be. Despite what you say about weight differential being "irrefutable", the notion that you aren't likely to encounter motor vehicles while sidewalk riding is ludicrous. Simply put, you cross driveways and intersections whether or not you're primarily on a road, and in an urban environment (which is where there is likely to be a sidewalk to ride on), those crossings are by far the places where you are most likely to get hit by a motor vehicle, Where I live, being on a sidewalk most likely puts the cyclist at a point of the driveway exit that's worse for visibility than in the street, and that's certainly the case for intersections where I'd be much less visible to a car turning right.


Again, I'm not making a blanket statement about never riding on sidewalk, I'm just saying that your characterization of people who consider these factors as "nay-sayers" is inappropriate and highly misleading.