 | Addicted to Oil and Drunk on Ethanol | The Oil Drum: Local | Breaking News: Major Oil Deposit Found Beneath Manhattan |  |
79 comments on The Case for Physically Separated Bike Lanes
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
79 comments on The Case for Physically Separated Bike Lanes
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
This depends entirely on the sidewalk and the amount of walking traffic. When I biked to work in Charlotte, NC I used the sidewalks religiously, where they existed. The only roads that are not cul-de-sac housing developments are insanely crowded, suicidal for bikes and with very fast moving traffic and lots of blind curves and no shoulders. In the two years I biked, I maybe saw pedestrians on the sidewalks twice, and they were waiting for the bus at bus stop signs. I would have endangered myself extremely by biking exclusively on the roadway.
Roadways have to conform to engineering codes and the important one in this case is visibilty. For sidewalks anything goes. Unfortunately bike paths are also usually anything goes.
If you want to claim that you have a spot where there's an exception to the rule be my guest. I break rules too. Just be aware that behind every tree and fence and shrub there is unpredictable and random interference and that your available reaction time is one small fraction of what it might be in a more standard right of way. I call sidewalk riders ER admissions.
As far as I know, roadways do not have to conform to any standards regarding bicycle traffic. Sidewalks that are straight and unobstructed by any of the things you describe are vastly safer for the bicyclist than the high traffic roads that I am referring to. Obviously a level of care is needed wherever one rides. I have been bicycling for over 40 years without ever colliding with a pedestrian and the only serious accident I ever had was misjudging some railroad tracks. The choice for sidewalk riding in the case I describe was more than obvious to me, maybe it would have been different to you. My point is that it is inappropriate to cast moral aspersions on a bicyclist who judges it better to 'hit the sidewalks' especially without knowing anything at all about the context.
Moral aspersions? I don't think we are talking morality here, but rather what is safe and appropriate. I agree with "Old Hippie", that sidewalk cycling is not nearly as safe as many people suppose it to be. But I'm sure you're right, ET, to point out that conditions vary from place to place. Fortunately I live in a town where cyclists have asserted their right to be on the road. So, I would never consider using the sidewalk.
Okay, you guys come to my city and ride the four lane to my workplace where speeds exceed 50 mph on a daily basis and tell me how 'safe' that is.
Nuff said.
What city is it? If it's close, I might. I bike on five lane arterials every day. Everybody who doesn't bike in traffic thinks their roads are too dangerous for it.