The Strange Case of Carol M. (Sidewalk Riding)

[JohnBrooking]

Once in a while, the topic of sidewalk riding comes up here or in Commuting. There is currently a thread about it (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=99580) over there now. I've thought about posting this message for some time now, and decided this was the time. However, I'm starting a fresh thread to avoid hijacking that one, and also because it's probably more properly a topic for here. My proposition is that while sidewalk riding is not appropriate for most of us, that rule cannot and should not be extended to every single person in the bicycling community.

My sister-in-law Carol lives in an inner-ring suburb of Cleveland. She is 58 years old and has never learned to drive a car. She gets everywhere she needs to by bus or bicycle. She rides a single-speed bike on the sidewalk, at pedestrian speeds, and gets off the bike to walk it across streets. In all her years of riding, she has only had a few minor wheel-benders, but never any major bodily injury, and has worn out 2 bikes. My wife, her sister (with whose approval I write this :)) says her major safety flaw is that she often does not remember to look for turning cars behind her as she crosses a street (on foot), probably because, having never been a car driver, she tends to forget about them. She is very adverse to change (she probably rides the way she does way because it's how she was taught), and is a fairly timid person, so that she would be far too scared to even think of riding in the street. In my opinion, for her to do so would be much more dangerous to her and those around her than her sidewalk riding is, because she does not do well under pressure.

Others here have written of observing similar people in their areas. A common guideline, with which I think I agree, is that sidewalk riding is probably okay if (1) you are riding at pedestrian speeds, and (2) you walk it across streets. Probably add to that riding more towards the road so you aren't interfering with people entering and exiting buildings. (We're not sure how Carol does in this regard.)

By the way, we think it's probably technically illegal for her to do this where she lives, but she has never had a problem with it. My question here is pretty much apart from the legal question.

I think many of you would agree with me on this. If you do not, let's discuss!

['nother]

I think that's a little bit like saying timid drivers should be allowed to drive on the shoulder all the time, "because they are far to scared to drive on the freeway".

I'm not totally opposed to sidewalk riding, particularly with young children, at or below pedestrian speeds, etc.. But it seems to me that anyone at or above driving age -- whether or not they've been licensed to drive an auto -- should be able to manage the road, perhaps with a little training and/or supervision. It's not that hard, unless you start telling yourself that it is, in which case it becomes borderline impossible. Maybe it's time to grow up a little?

[biodiesel]

I've always figured it this way...

Little kids and old grandparents arn't going to ride fast in traffic,
and racing bikes shouldn't go flying down the sidewalk.

What about speed limits?
If you ride under 10 mph you can ride the sidewalk.
10 or over, the street.

Same thing with rollerblades, scooters etc.
Everyone should be able to use the road, but not everyone want's to.

[Rowan]

Sidewalks can be useful tools with two very strict provisos -- as soon as a bike rider starts on one, s/he becomes a wheeled pedestrian; and provided it is legal.

Sidewalks can give a cyclist an opportunity to make a seamless movement through a precinct when that movement may have been thwarted by a one-way street, for example, or a dead-end. One other case may be when the peak-hour traffic densities and speeds are such that cycling amenity is low to non-existent.

However, several factors come to the fore: Number of pedestrians on the sidewalk, and impediments to riding such as furniture (poles, meters, rubbish tins), number of driveway entrances and their likelihood of being used, width of sidewalk, and entrances to commercial premises.

I'm not condoning footpath riding for all instances, but I'm also not dismissing it. As in all areas of cycling, there are no absolutes.

[Helmet Head]

I voted "no" because I don't believe she really rides at pedestrian speeds and walks across all intersections. If she did, why not walk?

Your sister-in-law is a prime candidate for a Road 1 course.

[phidauex]

I voted "no" because I don't believe she really rides at pedestrian speeds and walks across all intersections. If she did, why not walk?

Walking is lower efficiency, Carol may not be concerned about getting there faster, but may be concerned about getting there without tiring herself out. It isn't always about speed, but also ease.

peace,
sam

[Helmet Head]

Pedestrian speed is 3-4 mph. That's very slow for a bicyclist, actually requires more balance and skill than does faster cycling, and is virtually unheard of (except kids with training wheels!). Sure you can do it for a short stretch, but consistently riding that slow? Theoretically, it's of course not impossible, but, practically speaking, I just don't believe it.

4/18 edit: what I don't believe is that the woman described has the balance and skill required to ride at true pedestrian speeds.

[Rowan]

Pedestrian speed is 3-4 mph. That's very slow for a bicyclist, actually requires more balance and skill than does faster cycling, and is virtually unheard of (except kids with training wheels!). Sure you can do it for a short stretch, but consistently riding that slow? Theoretically, it's of course not impossible, but, practically speaking, I just don't believe it.

Pardon?

[blue_neon]

I think if Carol is fine about riding on the footpath. She feels more comfortable riding on the footpath, and does not speed along then why not? As long as she dosn't speed along and knock pedestrians over then there is nothing wrong with that. Its proabably just the legal factor, and I dont think a cop who see's an old women, riding slowly on a footpath is going to give a warning. Either way I dont see a problem with it. Of course everyone would have their own situation for riding / not riding on the road, but the odd one or two cases are nothing to worry about it. Lets just hope she dosn't start a trend.

[jeff-o]

I think if Carol is fine about riding on the footpath. She feels more comfortable riding on the footpath, and does not speed along then why not? As long as she dosn't speed along and knock pedestrians over then there is nothing wrong with that. Its proabably just the legal factor, and I dont think a cop who see's an old women, riding slowly on a footpath is going to give a warning. Either way I dont see a problem with it. Of course everyone would have their own situation for riding / not riding on the road, but the odd one or two cases are nothing to worry about it. Lets just hope she dosn't start a trend.

Exactly. There's a big difference between an old woman on a single speed riding at a leisurely pace, and a roadie in full garb bombing down the sidewalk at 25mph. The cops aren't going to bother her, and I don't think any peds would really mind either.

[Kokoro]

I would feel sorry for her if she had to ride on sidewalks here because they are cr(substandard)ap. I could imagine the the he(problems)ll that people in wheelchairs would have if they had to use them, Carol would end up doing an endo real quick.

[lilHinault]

My younger sister when we were kids, was apparently riding on the sidewalk and ran smack into some old lady walking out onto the sidewalk from her house, like all the houses there, well-sheltered by hedges and greenery. I remember my younger sister came home scared and hid in the loft afraid the police would come and get her.

[H23]

She's been riding for longer than many of us have been alive and has had no real accidents.

Its hard to argue against that. She is doing something right.

['nother]

Pedestrian speed is 3-4 mph. That's very slow for a bicyclist, actually requires more balance and skill than does faster cycling, and is virtually unheard of (except kids with training wheels!). Sure you can do it for a short stretch, but consistently riding that slow? Theoretically, it's of course not impossible, but, practically speaking, I just don't believe it.
I will attest to this . . . followed my 3 year old on her bike with training wheels the other day . . . and nearly fell over from the lack of speed trying to do so. Finally settled on just pushing the bike along with one foot on the ground, the other on the pedal. 3-4 is indeed very slow on a bike and requires considerably more attention to balance than just zipping along at, say 15 or 20. I don't know too many pedestrians that go more than 3-4 mph; if they do they are running, not walking.

[Rowan]

Pardon?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Pardon?
Second on the "Pardon?" motion

"Pedestrian speed is 3-4 mph. That's very slow for a bicyclist" - So what?

Why is Carol or any other bicyclist limited to "pedestrian speed" (whatever it is) at all times when cycling on the sidewalk, especially when it is apparantly a reasonably safe choice of travel for Carol and whatever pedestrians are involved, and for others in similar circumstances?

[catatonic]

that fits with what I've been saying for a while, which was "You want to ride on the sidewalk? Fine, so long as you mave as fast as peds, give peds right of way, and basically behave exactly like a ped would."

Thing is, you should be adhereing to whatever ruleset of the path you are on, written or not isn't an excuse...we all have been around long enough to know what is right out here :)

[genec]

Here in San Diego we have beach "boardwalk" areas where folks take single speed fat tire bikes and ride along at 8MPH. There are occasional conflicts with pedestrians, but these mostly involve young men trying to zip down the boardwalk or tight groups of pedestrians. Otherwise it works fine.

I also often see several people riding on the sidewalks near a local shoping center. One guy is a fairly grizzeled old fella out smoking cigarettes on his treks. I doubt he could get a bike going much faster than 4-5MPH.

Fat tires make a huge difference in how easily a bike balances at slow speed.

This poll just emphasizes the wide varity of cyclists out there... from the old grandmas to the industrial workers going from one building to another on an adjacent block, to young students riding in the walkways and bike lanes in and around campus, to the hotshot riders zipping down the road at 25MPH or better, to the folks simply commuting to work, in suits. Bicycles serve a very diverse population. Rules and facilities should take this wide population into account.

[genec]

Second on the "Pardon?" motion

"Pedestrian speed is 3-4 mph. That's very slow for a bicyclist" - So what?

Why is Carol or any other bicyclist limited to "pedestrian speed" (whatever it is) at all times when cycling on the sidewalk, especially when it is apparantly a reasonably safe choice of travel for Carol and whatever pedestrians are involved, and for others in similar circumstances?

Exactly... Segways are not limited to "pedestrian speed;" and they are simply another form of transportation.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

that fits with what I've been saying for a while, which was "You want to ride on the sidewalk? Fine, so long as you mave as fast as peds, give peds right of way, and basically behave exactly like a ped would."

Thing is, you should be adhereing to whatever ruleset of the path you are on, written or not isn't an excuse...we all have been around long enough to know what is right out here :)
Certainly seems that in this case, Carol M. has been around long enough and knows what is right FOR HER better than the would-be blanket enforcers of a "Ped Speed Rule" and classroom pedants from elsewhere.

[noisebeam]

Its definintely OK for her or anyone who rides in a manner similar to a pedestrian to use the sidewalk.

Al

['nother]

Pardon?
Pardon?

(stuck 'Pardon?' key?)

[Helmet Head]

There are two issues. One is whether Carol actually rides at pedestrian speeds (3-4 mph), and, assuming she does, whether it's okay for her to ride on sidewalks. Seems to me that most of us agree that if she does actually ride that slow, she'll probably be okay, but she does have to be careful at all potential conflict points with motorists.

I-Like-To-Bike brings up a separate issue... Whether it's okay for her to ride on sidewalks even if she is going faster than ped speeds ( Gene has suggested around 8mph as being reasonable in boardwalk areas).

Specifically, he raises the issue with this good question:



Why is Carol or any other bicyclist limited to "pedestrian speed" (whatever it is) at all times when cycling on the sidewalk, especially when it is apparantly a reasonably safe choice of travel for Carol and whatever pedestrians are involved, and for others in similar circumstances?
The issue is whether the choice is a "reasonable safe choice of travel" for Carol. My concern with respect to her speed of travel is not so much the safety of pedestrians, but her own safety. In particular, we must consider Carol's sister's observation: "her major safety flaw is that she often does not remember to look for turning cars behind her as she crosses a street", and the likely ramifications.
Someone who does not remember to look for turning cars at street crossings, almost certainly does not remember to look for turning cars into driveways and alleys. Since the drivers of those turning cars are expecting pedestrian speeds, she's probably okay at the street crossings (assuming she really does dismount and walk - she should not be any more of a surprise as any other pedestrian). The real danger is at the driveway and alley crossings that she rides across at faster than pedestrian speeds, which are unexpected by turning motorists. At 8 mph she can be twice as far from a potential point of conflict as a pedestrian would have to be, or further, and still be close enough to collide with a turning car. The problem is that it is reasonable for a turning motorist to only look as far as necessary to avoid a conflict with walking-speed pedestrian. A sidewalk devoid of pedestrians can appear to be very safe to ride faster than pedestrian, but it's never safe at points where sooner or later, one of these days, a motorist will be crossing, a motorist who will not be expecting an 8+ mph cyclist on that sidewalk... This is why I suspect it's not reasonable safe for Carol M to be doing what she's doing.

Gene - sure, 8 mph is fine on a path (e.g., a boardwalk) that has virtually no intersections with roadways where drivers are expecting pedestrian speeds on the intersecting path.

[genec]

And how do drivers deal with runners and Segways, both which move at speeds greater than 3-4 MPH. I myself easily run at 6MPH.

Segways move at 12MPH.

The problem is that motorists have long forgotten that they are not entitled to zip around as if they own the road; they must be responsible for their actions. And that responsibility MUST be thrust back onto them.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[Helmet Head]

Drivers must be responsible for their actions, true. Not sure what the relevance of that point is to our discussion. Was anything stated that contradicted this?

Driving is a privilege, not a right, true. Not sure what the relevance of that point is to our discussion. Was anything stated that contradicted this?

Runners and Segway riders are also responsible for making sure that they don't assume a turning motorist will see them in time at driveway and alley crossings. But runners and Segway users can generally stop or evade collisions faster and easier than can cyclists traveling at the same speed. Never-the-less, I think it's unsafe to Segway (is that a legit verb yet?) on sidewalks at 12 mph.

[joeprim]

1) I voted yes
2) There are still safety concerns; driveways...
3) Can you get her to ride elseware somethimes to improve her skills? Is you house rural or near a bike path where all of you can go for a ride?

Joe

[noisebeam]

Firstly, I am a solid VC rider when I am on my own out riding. I've been known to rant and rave about sidewalk riders. I am very aware of the dangers of sidewalk riding.

But it has its place - pedestrian style if you will. I've been known to do it, especially getting about the 50mph multilane street I need to deal with to get groceries, get a coffee or beer. dinner, etc. For running these type of errands, often after dark with my wife or friends, sidewalk is the comfortable place to do it. (I ride this same road everyday in busier traffic on my commute)

Sidewalk riders. just like VC riders learn how to read the traffic/pedestran situations, develop a sense of what is safe and what is not. This is the key, you adjust your style and information processing ways. Put a VC rider on the sidewalk and you feel out of place and at risk because you need to adjust (believe me I've experienced this), same as putting a sidewalk rider in the street.

I think 10mph is perfectly reasonable for a low use sidewalk (a ped every 1-2min at most, only a couple at each intersection). That is running speed - when I run 6min miles I don't run in the street with traffic. Of course when approaching pedestrians and intersections of all kinds you slow down or stop. Busier sidewalks with minimal gaps are an issue and it is not right to ride on the sidewalk, fortunately the very busy sidewalks dont usually run along 50mph multilane or otherwise more cycling challenging roads.

Sure you may walk your bike across a busy intersection, but it would be silly to walk across every driveway and sidestreet - its not hard to look over shoulder, check for right turners, look ahead look for left turners.

Al

[ChezJfrey]

And how do drivers deal with runners and Segways, both which move at speeds greater than 3-4 MPH. I myself easily run at 6MPH.

Segways move at 12MPH.

The problem is that motorists have long forgotten that they are not entitled to zip around as if they own the road; they must be responsible for their actions. And that responsibility MUST be thrust back onto them.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Exactly. I can run at 9mph for up to 5 miles...must I be excluded from sidewalk use and run in the road? I won't ride my bike on the sidewalk, but I'm more likely to use it while running and drivers should be aware enough to account for this.

And just a note: While running, I have actually overtaken people riding bikes on the sidewalk :)

[genec]

Drivers must be responsible for their actions, true. Not sure what the relevance of that point is to our discussion. Was anything stated that contradicted this?

Driving is a privilege, not a right, true. Not sure what the relevance of that point is to our discussion. Was anything stated that contradicted this?

Runners and Segway riders are also responsible for making sure that they don't assume a turning motorist will see them in time at driveway and alley crossings. But runners and Segway users can generally stop or evade collisions faster and easier than can cyclists traveling at the same speed. Never-the-less, I think it's unsafe to Segway (is that a legit verb yet?) on sidewalks at 12 mph.


Why is it unsafe? Is it because motorists are not looking for Segways and runners? How about Skateboarders and roller skaters? How about 6 year olds on training wheels? There are a whole host of sidewalk users that do not travel at 3-4 MPH that a motorist IS responsible to watch for. Is it because motorists just assume that they have the right of way, and do not look for runners, cyclists, Segway riders, et. al. and anything else when turning into driveways? (which does make it relevent to this conversation...).

I have had similar problems with "right on red" motorists who take the "stop and look" part of "right on red" as a joke.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for motorists that do not take the time to really look and really ensure that their paths are clear.

If "Carol" is moving at or near the same pace of pedestrians, then she should have no more fear of her mode of transport than a walker would of theirs.

If motorists are clipping pedestrians (and they do... often, especially at right turns in dense downtown areas) then those motorists are to blame, and should be punished accordingly. Too bad our system of punishment is motorist biased... and tends to look the other way at motorist/cyclist accidents and motorist/pedestrian accidents.

You want something to lobby for... that situation is the real problem... talk to your lawmakers about increasing the penalties for motorist/cyclist accidents and motorist/pedestrian accidents.

While your at it, get rid of the stupid laws that jack up the road speeds on a regular basis.

[webist]

As long as no one is hurt she should be fine. I would caution though that should an accident occur, someone will claim she was recklessly time trialing on the sidewalk in total disregard of everyone else's welfare, probably at speeds in excess of 20 MPH :)

[Helmet Head]

Why is it unsafe? Is it because motorists are not looking for Segways and runners?
Yes!. They are looking for pedestrians.



How about Skateboarders and roller skaters?
Motorists are often not looking for them, of course, so the faster they're going the more dangerous it is.


How about 6 year olds on training wheels?
Now, kids on training wheels do tend to travel at ped speeds.


There are a whole host of sidewalk users that do not travel at 3-4 MPH that a motorist IS responsible to watch for.
Maybe the motorist is technically responsible to look for them, but that doesn't make it safe!


Is it because motorists just assume that they have the right of way, and do not look for runners, cyclists, Segway riders, et. al. and anything else when turning into driveways? (which does make it relevent to this conversation...).
Why is it not relevant to the conversation? We're talking about whether it's reasonably safe to travel at faster than ped speeds across driveways and alleys on sidewalks. Yes, when motorists think the sidewalk is clear, they assume they have the right-of-way.

At 4mph a ped is traveling almost 6 feet per second; 12 feet in 2 seconds. At 8mph a cyclist/skateboarder/Segwayist coverting almost 12 feet per second; 24 feet in a mere 2 seconds. At 12 mph they're covering 35 feet in 2 seconds; 70 feet in 4 seconds. Is it reasonable to assume a motorist will look 70 feet in both directions up and down the sidewalk (assume there are no obstructions that make that impossible) before turning into an alley or driveway during the next 4 seconds? I, for one, am not going to recommend anyone rely on that.


Sorry, I have no sympathy for motorists that do not take the time to really look and really ensure that their paths are clear.
So you recommend to assume they don't exist??? :eek:


If "Carol" is moving at or near the same pace of pedestrians, then she should have no more fear of her mode of transport than a walker would of theirs.
I've already agreed that as long as she really travels at ped speed what she's doing is reasonably safe.


If motorists are clipping pedestrians (and they do... often, especially at right turns in dense downtown areas) then those motorists are to blame, and should be punished accordingly. Too bad our system of punishment is motorist biased... and tends to look the other way at motorist/cyclist accidents and motorist/pedestrian accidents.
You're off on some who should be responsible tangent, rather than addressing whether or not it's safe to ride 12 mph on a sidewalk.


You want something to lobby for... that situation is the real problem... talk to your lawmakers about increasing the penalties for motorist/cyclist accidents and motorist/pedestrian accidents.
Right, Gene, like more incentive than avoiding killing someone is really going to make much of a difference. :rolleyes: Despite all the benefits of exercising and eating less, and all the penalties of sedentary lives and eating like pigs, people still do it. Stiff penalties only go so far in changing behavior.

[genec]

You're off on some who should be responsible tangent, rather than addressing whether or not it's safe to ride 12 mph on a sidewalk.

It should be very safe to ride, run, or segway on a sidewalk at that speed. It is not a tangent, but simply putting the blame back on the motorists that do not take the proper responsibility.



Right, Gene, like more incentive than avoiding killing someone is really going to make much of a difference. :rolleyes: Despite all the benefits of exercising and eating less, and all the penalties of sedentary lives and eating like pigs, people still do it. Stiff penalties only go so far in changing behavior.

Gee. Talk about off on a TANGENT... how does eating pigs follow riding bikes on sidewalks?

As far as stiff penalties... well, that would be a start... since "stiff penalties" do not now exist, there is hardly any motivation for a motorist even to give their behaviour a second thought now is there?

In fact, what is the fine for motorist hitting a pedestrian... not killing, just hitting? What is that? Reckless driving? In Canada (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=99600) recently it was 1000CDN per cyclist.

What is the fine for a motorist caught not wearing a seatbelt? How about the second offence?

How about littering? In California, it is up to $1000 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42001_7.htm)

Anybody know this? Just wondering.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

If "Carol" is moving at or near the same pace of pedestrians, then she should have no more fear of her mode of transport than a walker would of theirs.
If Carol is moving at a pace FASTER than pedestrians, then she should also have no more fear of her mode of transport than any other cyclist would. What CREDIBLE DATA (i.e. not speculation/not theory) indicates that an UNREASONABLE risk is being taken by Carol and EVERY other sidewalk cyclist when exceeding walking speed?

A relatively insignificant increase to an insignificant risk still results in an insignificant risk.

[genec]

If Carol is moving at a pace FASTER than pedestrians, then she should also have no more fear of her mode of transport than any other cyclist would. What CREDIBLE DATA (i.e. not speculation/not theory) indicates that an UNREASONABLE risk is being taken by Carol and EVERY other sidewalk cyclist when exceeding walking speed?

A relatively insignificant increase to an insignificant risk still results in an insignificant risk.

Don't have any data, and I fully believe that if she is at or near pedestrian speeds, then she runs absolutly no more risk than a pedestrian.

Beyond that, I simply believe that idiot motorists (who now run into pedestrians at marked and light controlled crosswalks) may have a greater chance of running into Carol at driveways. I have no data to support that, I only have personal observations of how poorly some motorists handle their road use responsibilities.

I also fully believe that these issues ARE the responsibilty of motorist, whom somehow have been given carte blanch where ever automobiles can pass, which I also believe is wrong. I belive we need to put more teeth back into the laws that govern motorists behaviour on the road, especially with regard to cyclists and pedestrians.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Don't have any data, and I fully believe that if she is at or near pedestrian speeds, then she runs absolutly no more risk than a pedestrian.

Beyond that, I simply believe that idiot motorists (who now run into pedestrians at marked and light controlled crosswalks) may have a greater chance of running into Carol at driveways. I have no data to support that, I only have personal observations of how poorly some motorists handle their road use responsibilities.
Gene, we have no disagreement; my point is that given the appropriate sidewalk conditions, there is no reason to restrict cyclists to walking speed because of unfounded claims of "unreasonable risk."

If would-be enforcers of speed restriction for the "other" cyclists were to have their way, roadway cyclists should be restricted to a speed at intersections that motorists "expect" cyclists to be travelling (say 10mph, tops); any speed faster presents an "unreasonable risk" of being clipped by a less a than observant left turner or motorist pulling out from stop sign.

[Helmet Head]

You're off on some who should be responsible tangent, rather than addressing whether or not it's safe to ride 12 mph on a sidewalk.

It should be very safe to ride, run, or segway on a sidewalk at that speed.
Gene, I agree, it should be safe. But that's not the question. The question isn't SHOULD it be safe, but IS it safe.


It is not a tangent, but simply putting the blame back on the motorists that do not take the proper responsibility.
Blame placement is a tangent to the question of whether it's safe or not.



there is hardly any motivation for a motorist even to give their behaviour a second thought now is there?
Right, Gene, maiming or possibly killing a human being, not to mention messing up your day, is "hardly any motivation". :rolleyes:

Do you really think "stiff penalties" are going to significantly change behavior?

Back in the 60s there were no "stiff penalties" for drunk driving. Now there are. Do you think there have been any significant changes in that behavior? I repeat: Stiff penalties only go so far in changing human behavior. Focusing on relatively ineffective measures takes energy and focus away from potentially more effective measures.

[Helmet Head]

If would-be enforcers of speed restriction for the "other" cyclists were to have their way, roadway cyclists should be restricted to a speed at intersections that motorists "expect" cyclists to be travelling (say 10mph, tops); any speed faster presents an "unreasonable risk" of being clipped by a less a than observant left turner or motorist pulling out from stop sign.

This is nonsense. This issue isn't about speed expectations of cyclists specifically. We're talking about how far motorists look to look for potential conflicts. It is reasonable to scan along roadways as far as is necessary to check for potential conflicts approaching at expected vehicular speeds, regardless of whether they are cars, trucks, motorcycles, or cyclists. Similarly, it is reasonable to scan along pedestrian ways as far as is necessary to check for potential conflicts approaching at pedestrian speeds.

The fact that a motorist may assume a cyclist he does see as traveling at 10 mph even though the cyclist is really traveling at 25 mph is an issue too, but a different one, with different solutions.

[Roody]

Give the lady a break! Unless she is a total moron, she would not continue to do something that is recklessly dangerous for all these years. Also, Segways are pointless and passe.

[chicharron]

I agree. I have an eleven year old daughter that I DO NOT want riding on the street with traffic. She is too timid, does not have enough confidence yet, and is unsure of herself. For her to ride in the street with traffic would be dangerous. Does that mean she cannot ride her bike? Absolutly not! When she is ready, she will ride. Till then, she rides on urban bike trails, and yes, the sidewalk. I did when I was a kidl

[beatle bailey]

I voted yes....old people need love and under standing too. She doesn't drive, so she has to have some kind of transportation....walking isn't for everyone, that's why I ride a trike. I just hope she doesn't get run over at a corner.

[genec]

Gene, we have no disagreement; my point is that given the appropriate sidewalk conditions, there is no reason to restrict cyclists to walking speed because of unfounded claims of "unreasonable risk."

If would-be enforcers of speed restriction for the "other" cyclists were to have their way, roadway cyclists should be restricted to a speed at intersections that motorists "expect" cyclists to be travelling (say 10mph, tops); any speed faster presents an "unreasonable risk" of being clipped by a less a than observant left turner or motorist pulling out from stop sign.

Actually in another long ago thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=79653&highlight=accidents)
there was this one cycling advocate that told me I was going too fast (22MPH), while riding on the street, past an intersection where a driver had a stop sign... and that was why I was involved in an accident. The speed posted for the road I was on was 35MPH.

[Helmet Head]

I was going too fast (22MPH), while riding on the street, past an intersection where a driver had a stop sign...
Right. Slowing down is often the solution for the problem I-Like-To-Bike raised - motorists assuming cyclists are going slower than they really are.

It's the solution for motorcyclists too, not just bicyclists...

[genec]

Back in the 60s there were no "stiff penalties" for drunk driving. Now there are. Do you think there have been any significant changes in that behavior? I repeat: Stiff penalties only go so far in changing human behavior. Focusing on relatively ineffective measures takes energy and focus away from potentially more effective measures.

Gee, let's see... how many folks would have even thought of using a "designated driver" back in the 60's? Sounds like a change in human behavior to me. Guess it IS working.

Tell a driver that hitting a human being either walking or cycling will cost that driver a lot of money and it may make motorists do more than a "quick scan."

BTW the fine for reckless driving (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23103.htm) in CA is only $1000, some folks pay that for a couple monthy payments on their vehicles.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I voted yes....old people need love and under standing too. She doesn't drive, so she has to have some kind of transportation....walking isn't for everyone, that's why I ride a trike. I just hope she doesn't get run over at a corner.
Agreed; ALL cyclists, young or middle aged adults, children or teenagers, car owners or not, are entitled to understanding and empathy (if not love) from those who insist that "safe cycling" must be done their way (the highway), or no way.

What do the so-called safety/legal experts, who voted that it is "NOT OK" for Carol to cycle like she does, think the "Carols," of all ages, will do if they are kicked off the legal/de facto legal sidewalks; sidewalks and paths that they currently use with reasonable safety?

Will they feel compelled to take an "education" course, be convinced of the errors of their former ways and join up with the speed/efficiency über alles crowd? I doubt it!

[Rowan]

Pardon?

(stuck 'Pardon?' key?)

:D

Especially when someone is stuck on the idea that riding at 5mph is not possible for any period. Perhaps they should learn how to ride a bike at that speed and find how useful it can be before making such assertions. It is entirely possible to ride at walking pace for as long you like... ask me -- I do it all the time up long, steep hills.

To me, being able to ride at 3km/h for some distance is a sign of excellent bike-handling skills.

['nother]

:D

Especially when someone is stuck on the idea that riding at 5mph is not possible for any period. Perhaps they should learn how to ride a bike at that speed and find how useful it can be before making such assertions. It is entirely possible to ride at walking pace for as long you like... ask me -- I do it all the time up long, steep hills.

To me, being able to ride at 3km/h for some distance is a sign of excellent bike-handling skills.
Pardon?

I ride at less than 4 up long, steep hills daily. But riding up a hill is quite different from riding down a sidewalk. Perhaps they should learn the difference between hills and sidewalks and find how useful that can be for this discussion :rolleyes:

[Rowan]

Pardon?

I ride at less than 4 up long, steep hills daily. But riding up a hill is quite different from riding down a sidewalk. Perhaps they should learn the difference between hills and sidewalks and find how useful that can be for this discussion :rolleyes:

Is it? Perhaps using the front brake lever helps one to emulate the pressure on the pedals used to go up hills. It has to do with balance, anticipation and judgment.

The original assertion (paraphrased) said that it would impossible to ride for any distance at 5mph. That assertion is incorrect.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Pardon?

I ride at less than 4 up long, steep hills daily. But riding up a hill is quite different from riding down a sidewalk. Perhaps they should learn the difference between hills and sidewalks and find how useful that can be for this discussion

Maybe you might find this observation useful:
I saw scores of old people in Germany going no faster than slow pedestrians everyday in the street in my small town; quite often on the bike route/trail to Heidelberg (often in large groups); and everywhere else I traveled in the country while living there for ten years. It IS quite possible for adults to cycle quite slowly AND to enjoy themselves. As must be frequently be pointed out to those who seem to forget a simple concept, not every "competent" cyclist believes he/she is in a dang race or must be in high performance mode everywhere they go.

Conversely, I ask what is the source for the oft repeated (but never documented) REQUIREMENT/OBLIGATION for sidewalk cyclists to limit their maximum cycling speed at all times, regardless of circumstances, to walking speed?

WHY is it NOT OK for Carol to ride on the sidewalk?

[Helmet Head]

Conversely, I ask what is the source for the oft repeated (but never documented) REQUIREMENT/OBLIGATION for sidewalk cyclists to limit their maximum cycling speed at all times, regardless of circumstances, to walking speed?

WHY is it NOT OK for Carol to ride on the sidewalk?
If she is actually riding at pedestrian speed, then it is okay.
If she is going at faster than pedestrian speed, then it is likely to be too dangerous, depending on how fast she is going.
It might be too dangerous because the faster she is going, the more likely it is that she is within conflict range yet not within the checking range of motorists turning into driveways and alleys that she will be crossing, who are more likely to be checking a range wide enough to encompass pedestrians traveling at ped speeds (2-4 mph) than a cyclist traveling at faster speeds (6, 8, 12). The faster she is going, the more dangerous.

Do I need to draw a picture for you?

[Helmet Head]

The original assertion (paraphrased) said that it would impossible to ride for any distance at 5mph. That assertion is incorrect.
Read it again. That's not what I said.

I, for one, can ride 0 mph (track stand), at least for a short while. And I'm very good at riding very slowly for unlimited distances. But most cyclists, at least most cyclists in the U.S., don't seem to have that ability. I can't speak for the Germans.