tungsten

Is it legal to ride on sidewalks?

livedarklions

10 seconds of Google--SF Ordinance:
SEC. 1007. BICYCLE RIDING ON SIDEWALKS.
Bicycling riding on any sidewalk is prohibited except that children under the age of 13 may ride a bicycle on any sidewalk except as otherwise posted.


Even if it was legal, I'd be pissed at him for putting pedestrians at risk by doing that crap on a sidewalk. That's no different than driving that fast on a sidewalk.

BTW, he actually crashed in the road.

SurferRosa

Age discrimination!

Roughstuff

"I left my bike......
in SAN FRANCISCO......
high on a hill,
she calls to me......."

PhilFo 

Idiots.
Ignorance of the law does not mean it does not apply.
Kicking bicycle advocacy back a ways.

greatbasin

Scofflaws!

Is running legal on sidewalks? What about on rooftops? Is there a video for that?

tungsten

I outted him to his sponser. And the folks at SeaOtter. PR they hopefully won't appreciate.

tungsten

Pretty sure MacAskill's productions shoot with an entire crew w/spotters and municipality permissions.

Remy was just poaching and should know better. I spent 25yrs in the industry and saw sh*t like this go on all the time back in the day. It's astonishing the minders of these kids still don't give a f*ck. Guess they figure the benefits outweigh the risks.

rumrunn6

what could possibly go wrong?

FBinNY 

My dots don't connect, am I missing something?

The OP asked a question without providing any more info. But early on people seem to be referring to a specific incident(s). If this is about a specific example other than the the Danny M. video, which was almost certainly filmed under controlled conditions, I'd love to know.

tungsten

But I did. The video in which the prep and his accomplice were manualing down a steep S.F. sidewalk by peeps doorways and down stairways while old women were climbing up them.

I e-mailed a complaint to this kids sponser and to the Sea Otter festival that he had the stupidity to mention in the vid. Let's hope message Remy gets the message.
Here he is riding in the correct environment.....

FBinNY 

OK, so I've looked at the video, and still don't see an issue. I might have missed something, but it seems to be shot under controlled conditions and/or at dawn because both traffic and pedestrian counts are zero, or close.

I understand that far too many people are riding for tictok, or YouTube, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.

FWIW I'm a "No harm, no foul" kind of guy, so am by nature less inclined to get worked up over stuff like this.

tungsten

All it takes is just one person to step out of one of those doorways....

It's bull sh*t. The industry needs to grow up and mandate that peeps associated with their brand act responsibly.

JoeyBike

It's A&S remember? Those of us who find it entertaining watching ppl clutching their pearls over nothing are far outnumbered by those doing the clutching. Also, it is really difficult to offend me as a rule. So the bar is very high.

livedarklions

I call BS on this. First the thumbnail has the word "poaching" in big letters, making it clear there was no effort to control. Then, 10 seconds into the video is the first fast close pass of a doorway and a garage door. Yes, it's obviously dawn, but that is absolutely no guarantee that someone isn't about to open either of those, and they are the first of many, many such doors passed in this manner. People live in those buildings and they exit them in a manner you can neither predict or "control". The "no harm" here is just a matter of luck, and this is an unacceptable he's putting other people to without their consent for literally the stupidest reason I can think of. 2:30, scares the crap out of a couple of pedestrians on the stairs, and 3:30 just zips right by a bunch of front doors on the sidewalk. Again, there is absolutely no way to control that block. TBH, I was too bored to watch beyond that point, this is, after all a glorified bike commercial.

This from the guy who's been scolding cyclists for taking absurd chances jut riding in traffic for the last few years? You've been the chief pearl clutcher of this forum far too long to get away with that crappy comment.

I don't like cyclists who decide to put pedestrians just stepping out of their homes at risk for the clicks. .

JoeyBike

On the list of this world's problems I'd say skilled cyclists acting the fool (POSSIBLY endangering people) wouldn't even make the top 1000 list. Just sayin'.

I have scolded no one. My claim to fame is remarking about how "surprised" people get every time some cyclists riding on busy highways get hozed. As if it has only happened ONCE since the dawn of time instead of once a month for the past 20 years.

FBinNY 

You and I clearly live in different [philosophical] worlds. As I said in the post you called out, I live by "no harm, no foul". For me there's a vast ocean between what I support and what I don't, and most things are floating somewhere in the middle. I rarely find it necessary to fret over the actions of others.

You, OTOH, are comfortable faulting others for things you find objectionable, which is OK if it works for you. However you also go farther by calling out those whose only offense is failing to find the same things objectionable as you do.

In any case this is a forum, we each get to post opinions, and it might be better if we focused on saying what we have to say rather than objecting to what others say.

livedarklions

First of all, calling what you said " bs" is not "calling you out" any more than your first paragraph attempting to refute the OP's premise was calling out the OP. You made a set of factual assertions about what was in the video, and I refuted them rather clearly in my opinion.

I don't get the "no harm, no foul" principle here at all, actually I do fundamentally disagree with it because you can use this to justify completely reckless behavior of all sorts. As someone who has pushed a baby stroller on some of the sidewalks in the video, I don't think what they're doing is any less harmful than driving cars down those sidewalks at speed. They also posted it as a video which, come on, we all know invites imitation. There's a rash of these videos where Alley Cat cyclists and their like are essentially terrorizing pedestrians, and I don't think this video genre of malpractice on city streets and sidewalks is harmless on a lot of levels.

My calling out somebody personally was aimed squarely at Joey and his personal attack of calling people "pearl clutchers". You may think it's ok for him to do that, but I don't see how you can do so and honestly think it's not ok to respond to it.

And no, based on this video, I don't like the cyclists depicted therein. OP is calling out the sponsorship and posting of this video, and I agree with that.
​​​​​​

livedarklions

Skilled or not, people doing this stuff in dense urban areas have hit and seriously injured pedestrians. Posting it as a video obviously invites imitation by people perhaps less skilled, and just because you make up a number about the "list" doesn't make it "pearl clutching" to call out posting a video. Especially one sponsored by a corporation.

​​​​As to your posting history, nuh-uh. You've posted way too much about the "war zone" to accuse anyone else of pearl clutching.

I'm not doing another round with you, suffice it to say that you can't make a campaign of telling people how risky what they're doing is just being on the road, and then chiding them for complaining when someone posts a video proudly proclaiming they're doing extremely risky stunts in a place that inherently endangers bystanders.

JoeyBike

Cycling on a busy highway with high speed vehicles overtaking by the hundreds is a risky stunt where doing nothing wrong can get you smashed. Doing "risky" stunts that depends 100% on the cyclists skill level without cars whizzing past a couple feet away ain't all that risky. You have a good point about endangering pedestrians. I don't see the cyclists as taking any personal risks given their skill level. If they eat **** it's their own fault.

Clyde1820

It's Cali, and San Fran. I'm sure it's criminalized. Given the opportunity, many municipalities would (and do).

Generally speaking ...

Fact is, there's always the "basic speed law" and always the responsibility as an occupant of a road/lane/path/MUP to responsibly transit such places. Which includes presenting unreasonable threats to others in proximity. Irrespective of whether there's ink on some paper somewhere.

And, fact is, there's often good reason for simple safety reasons to be on a sidewalk, despite being on two wheels. No ink on paper changes that. (Assuming a person doesn't present a threat to others, same as with any other action.)

A quick search of the San Francisco ordinances:

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/code...atest/overview

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/code...on/0-0-0-53682

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/code...on/0-0-0-51615

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/code...on/0-0-0-51618

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/code...ce/0-0-0-50654

and I'm sure there are a few more such ordinances that'll apply to people, in San Francisco.

FBinNY 

As I said, we live in different worlds. This isn't a value judgement, it's simply an acknowledgement of our different worldviews.

In my earlier post, I specifically added a fererence to "No harm, no foul" so folks could weigh my opinion accordingly.

I earlier tried to explain how and why I don't get worked over this kind of stuff, but it seems to be list in translation. So, let's see if focusing on one detail can explain better.

You see the possibility of injury should someone step out their door as a serious cause of concern. OTOH, I see the likelihood of someone stepping out at a critical moment as low enough to not be bothered over.

So, we have the same thing viewed from different perspectives, resulting in different conclusions.

As I said, different worlds.

curbtender

Welcome to the bay area where if you you don't get caught then it's not illegal. It's hilarious listening to the excuses when they do.

livedarklions

One of the "worlds" I lived in was San Francisco, and I think your probability calculations are absurd. Like I said, I stopped watching out of sheer boredom at the 3:30 mark, but at that point, they were rapidly close-passing several front doors of people's homes. I also think the cost/benefit calculation of imposing this risk on other people just so you can have a clickbait background for a bike commercial is rather lopsided on the "oh hell no" side.

I don't think anyone on this forum would be rationalizing this if it were any other kind of vehicle operating this fast on a sidewalk.

If the odds are that low, btw, would you be in favor of people driving their cars down the sidewalk? Long as they don't hit anything, no harm no foul, right?

livedarklions

I don't care if they break their own necks, frankly. I do, however, resent very much using pedestrians as meat pylons. According to you, that makes me a pearl clutcher.