Chris0516

Today, While on my ride. I was on a two-lane blacktop, that goes through the olde center of the local city. When I stopped at a traffic light. There was a motorist behind me. He stuck his head out of his car, and pleasantly asked why I was not riding on the sidewalk. I told him about all the legal differences. While he was unaware. I was thinking of how bad the 'inconsistency' in the laws are here.

Dave Cutter

Ever think about how bad the 'inconsistency' of the bicycles themselves are? All the different parts and pieces. Not to mention all the different styles. And manufactures are always coming up with new ideas about how to make bicycles better.

Whether it's bicycles or laws.... everything can be improved. Of course not every change is an improvement. The great thing about regional (state and local) change with laws is that is allows for many different experiments with laws and regulations.

B. Carfree

Is there any place where one is legally forced to ride on the sidewalk instead of the street? I'm kind of missing the inconsistency.

I guess there might be other screwed up places like Oregon that require cyclists to ride on side paths, although even in Oregon that little gem requires that the local traffic engineer has conducted a hearing and then found the side path to be safe. To my knowledge, such a finding has never been made.

canklecat

Education and information would be more effective than creating, changing or enforcing laws. People drive cars and ride bicycles the way they do because they've been conditioned that way. Reconditioning would take time and consistent effort.

Public service announcements on TV, during radio drive-time, signs, etc., in the languages most common to each region, would go a long way toward that reconditioning.

I suspect it will be easier to retrain people riding bicycles than car drivers. There's almost no commercial influence that conditions the way people ride bikes. People ride bicycles the wrong way, facing traffic, or on sidewalks, because of old wives tales and persistent myths. My mom still believes you're supposed to ride against traffic or, preferably, on the sidewalk. She's sure that's what she was taught in school 70something years ago. There are no TV ads from the major bicycle manufacturers encouraging reckless riding. So people ride according to the information they've received.

But we're subjected to a barrage of advertising that encourages selfish, anti-social driving. Ads for performance vehicles, including trucks and SUVs, tend to demonstrate loners driving fast on picturesque roads blissfully free of any competition. If another vehicle is shown, it's for the purpose of the loner to pass while isolated in his/her narcissistic speed/entertainment cocoon. If we need any new laws it would be in the way vehicles are advertised, to encourage or reward ads that feature responsible driving, and discourage selfish, anti-social driving behaviors. But that would be a tough sell in the U.S.

kickstart

On the I-90 bridges between Seattle and Bellevue. So technically yes, but......

Chris0516

The driver was not the problem, nor his lack of knowledge about the inconsistency in the bike laws.

Here:

The state says 'No' to riding on the sidewalk. Then says the counties can, agree, or disagree. The county I live in, disagrees' with the state. Then cities have the right to agree, or disagree. The city closest to me agrees' with the state(no). While city just south of me, agrees' with the county(yes).

The 'situation' is sort of like the saying 'I say tom(a)to, you say tom(ah)to', lets' just call the whole thing off'.

bakes1

Maybe I have reading/comprehension issues but I fail to see any inconsistencies stated or implied in this example.
What gives here?

El Cid

I don't know if that is a perfect comparison. Variety is a good thing with bicycles themselves, but traffic laws are probably better when standardized across a wide area.

catgita

Long Beach does not allow sidewalk riding in "business districts", but elsewhere it is OK. Kids can always ride on sidewalks. California requires bike facilities to be used when available.

Reality is, the "business districts" get the most sidewalk riders because the traffic is scariest and those are the popular destinations and least gentrified. The front doors in these areas open directly to the sidewalk, so collisions are not uncommon. Attitudes in these areas are that vehicles are superior and always have the right of way, including bikes and skateboards over peds.

And the buffered bike lanes elsewhere on relatively quiet streets still see many adults riding on the narrow sidewalk, weaving between many signposts and poles, and people walking dogs and kids.

Chris0516

Even though you missed it. I will repost it.

Riding on the sidewalk:

State: No, But allows counties to disagree.
County(I live in): Yes, But allows cities to agree with county or state
City closest to town I live in: No, Agrees' with state
City just south of town: Yes, Agrees' with county

dedhed

Sort of like those inconsistent vehicle laws? Some places the speed limit is 50 others it's 30, some places I can make a left turn, some I cannot, some only during certain hours of the day, some streets I can only go one way one, some streets I can't drive a truck on. Traffic laws vary according to the make up of the traffic, neighborhood, etc for a reason.

I-Like-To-Bike

Who wudda thunk it, eh? Apparently too difficult for some A&S types to figure out so, what else but, Whaa, Whaa, Whaa!

Chris0516

That is even more of a headache. Around where I live, and northbound of a major east-west arterial, going 5mi. north. Are speed limits ranging in speeds 15-50mph. The state does have a guideline they go by when assigning speed limits. But something must have kept changing.

The major north-south arterial that starts at the DC-MD line and goes to the northern end of the state. Is 30-50mph depending on the area. There is only one east-west arterial in the county, where it is 50mph. Most of the other arterials are 30-40mph. It makes no sense why that arterial should have a speed limit, near(or at), the bottom of the highway speed spectrum. The north-south arterial's posted speed limits make sense. But the one east-west arterial north of my house with a 50mph, when all the rest are 30-45mph. Is stupid on the part of the state DOT.

Dave Cutter

All products.... even products of thought and creativity... are best when produced in a completive environment.

The argument... that simple minded people will never be able to keep-up with the many varying and changing laws... has minimal relevance in todays world when even lawyers and courts can not keep up with all the laws. So maybe it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Heck.... some people think cyclist are supposed to be on the sidewalks!

We don't need standardized laws.... that no one knows OR obeys.... we need far less laws!

bakes1

This.
I hope the OP does not have the same difficulty understanding and obeying the far more complex and relevant motor vehicle laws.

kickstart

The OP can't, and doesn't drive.

B. Carfree

I don't think that's quite right. I believe California has a mandatory bike lane use law for cyclists not travelling at traffic speed (and when the bike lane is clear of hazards, etc), but does not have a mandatory side path law. This can be important as more and more jurisdictions put in side paths with intersection issues.

Chris0516

What makes you think I have difficulty understanding them? Just because I can't(and don't wish to even if I could) drive. Doesn't mean I don't understand the motor vehicle laws.

indyfabz

At certain times of the day, MLK and Kelly Drive in Philadelphia are off limits to bikes. One must use the MUP along side the roadway. Black Hawk, CO banned riding on the street completely. One was forced to walk one's bike on the sidewalk. That ban was overturned by the CO Supreme Court.

I-Like-To-Bike

This alleged "prohibition" in Philadelphia affects no one, as no cyclist, in their right mind would ride a bike on either MLK and Kelly Drive in Philadelphia at any time and especially not during the certain hours (weekday rush hours) when it is prohibited. If in doubt try and find a cyclist familiar with these two roads, who claims that his traveling rights or cycling experience is somehow diminished by this traffic regulation; and I will show you a f'ing imbecile.

jeichelberg87

What is the big deal on riding these roads? What is so particularly demanding about these two two roads that one needs to be classified as an imbecile in order to ride them? Other than certain times of the day, is bicycling absolutely prohibited? If not, ride on...

njkayaker

Sounds like there are a few wierd exceptions rather than a wide-spread inconsistency.

MLK and Kelly drive have a MUP running along side.

njkayaker

Are you talking about inconsistencies in "bike laws" overall or sidewalk laws?

Use of sidewalks by cyclists isn't typical (or desireable) for non-recreational cyclists or children except as an exception.

Answer: "I'm allowed to use the roadway just like you are. Sidewalks have pedestrians and cyclists are practically limited to walking speeds on them if they are even allowed to use them. Sidewalks, are in fact, designed for walking not cycling.".

There are "inconsistencies" in sidewalk laws mostly because sidewalks aren't really considered appropriate places for riding except for children and people riding at pedestrian speeds.

Ajkollme

I highly doubt the motorist was confused about inconsistencies in state vs. county vs. city law. Usually motorists are unaware that cyclists can ride in the street at all, anywhere.

I-Like-To-Bike

Motorists have a hard time driving on them and can seldom stay within their own lane on these narrow lane (maybe 8 or 9 feet wide), no shoulder roads. I rode on the parallel MUPS for years in the seventies, and saw light poles knocked over after every rain storm on these roads, and many times even in good weather. That is the big deal there are parallel MUPS adjacent to these roads. They are two of the only roads in Philadelphia that traffic actually flows at 40 mph for more than a few hundred feet at a time; steady and constant 40 mph traffic winding in and out of lanes. There would be zero chance to safely pass a cyclist during rush hours and few chances at any other time. Only an imbecile would ride a bike on these roads at any time.