Advocacy & Safety - Sidewalk bicycling

Why then are you comfortable with these cars coming by you at 55 mph, and 2-5 feet off your elbow?Generally, because driving vehicles (whether pedal or motor powered) according to the rules for the movement of vehicles within the traveled way (that portion of the public way intended for vehicular travel) is the most effective means of transportation between my destinations.

Specifically, because drivers on high-speed roads (such as our local Rt. 64) almost always give me room enough so that I feel comfortable when they pass me (sometimes at speeds which I estimate to be 55+ mph). I do feel less comfortable on the rare occasion when a driver passes me with less room than I prefer.

During daylight hours, I find that a rear view mirror helps to maintain my comfort level by reducing the "pucker factor" of a surprise pass (in the dark, the glow from their headlight provides the notification). Another practice that improves my comfort is keeping some usable pavement to the outside of my line of travel (for those once in a decade occasions when a passing driver goofs and returns to their original path before they're clear of my vehicle).

I've been cycling regularly both for transportation and for enjoyment for nearly 50 years. Me too!
I've ridden on roads of virtually every description, on sidewalks, sidepaths, trails and just about everywhere else. Same here.
What I'd like to know is what scientific or semi-scientific basis there is (if any) for believing that sidewalk riding is dangerous.Sidewalk Bicycling Safety Issues (http://www.enhancements.org/trb%5C1636-011.pdf)
Lisa Aultman-Hall and M. F. Adams, Jr.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1636, Paper No. 98-0645

The use of sidewalks by bicyclists is a contentious issue. On the one hand, researchers have repeatedly found that incident rates are higher on sidewalks (1–3). However, on the other hand, the subjective perception of many bicyclists and nonbicyclists is that cycling away from traffic is safer (4,5). For this and other reasons, many cyclists choose to bicycle on the sidewalk.
...
Bicycle route and safety data sets for 2,963 commuter cyclists in Ottawa and Toronto, Canada, containing cyclist characteristics, collision and fall history, and regular commute route, are used for this analysis. Previous analyses found sidewalk collisions and fall and injury rates significantly higher on sidewalks than on roads or paths.

Of the 52 events reported on sidewalks, none were reported to police and would, therefore, not be found in a police accident database. These events did result in injuries, and in two cases major injuries.
...
Sidewalk cyclists reported proportionally more near misses with bicycles in the previous month. A relatively large number of sidewalk collisions are with other bicycles. The most significant result of the analysis is that sidewalk cyclists have higher event rates on roads than nonsidewalk cyclists.

Sidewalk Bicycling Safety Issues
Lisa Aultman-Hall and M. F. Adams, Jr.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1636, Paper No. 98-0645
Thanks for posting that. It confirms what I've suspected. The biggest hazard is other cyclists.

Seriously, some interesting conclusions:

"It is possible, based on the results in Table 4, that sidewalk cycling is not inherently more dangerous, but that those who use sidewalks are less skilled cyclists. Further investigation is required..."

"It is reasonable to suggest that more experienced cyclists are more comfortable with vehicular traffic or have learned by experience where the hazards exist. Whatever the reasons, sidewalk cyclists should not simply be taught that sidewalk cycling is dangerous and should, therefore, be discontinued. Attempts to teach cyclists effective cycling skills should be considered."

I don't care what your scientific reasoning is. The fact remains - If I ride in the street going down Ames Blvd, I am going to get hit. There is no two ways about it. Since there are only two or three intersecting streets on that long, narrow, hazardous boulevard, it is incredibly safer for me to take the sidewalk. The same applies for Lapalco blvd. Most other streets are safer on the shoulder of the road or in the road itself, but every street is different and your "scientific" studies are obviously not taking that into account.

I don't care what your scientific reasoning is. The fact remains - If I ride in the street going down Ames Blvd, I am going to get hit. There is no two ways about it. Since there are only two or three intersecting streets on that long, narrow, hazardous boulevard, it is incredibly safer for me to take the sidewalk. The same applies for Lapalco blvd. Most other streets are safer on the shoulder of the road or in the road itself, but every street is different and your "scientific" studies are obviously not taking that into account.

Some busy roads with long distances between junctions (including driveways) and narrow outside lanes can be quite unpleasant for cycling. I believe these roads would be better for cycling with wider outside lanes, so that drivers would have an easier time passing safely. Wider pavement in the form of shoulders or bike lanes accomplish the same thing, but tend to accumulate debris.

I encounter some busy narrow roads like these, but I don't ride on the sidewalks. If I am going to avoid such sections of roadway, I prefer to avoid the corridor altogether. I find that when I start using sidewalks for any reason, I encounter greater frustration and annoyances than if I remained on the roadway or took a different road. And I certainly don't want the government trying to force me to use the sidewalk.

Transportation consultants for our city estimated that about 85% of the cycling miles here were cycled by self-described "avid" road cyclists who stick to the roadways. We don't know what percentage of the remaining 15% were cycled on sidewalks, but we do know that sidewalk cycling in general is way overrepresented in the car-bike crash data, with contra-flow sidewalk cycling being the major culprit. Yes, it's possible for a skilled cyclist to ride reasonably safely on a sidewalk, but I find this task to be so frustrating, inconvenient, and slow, in order to compensate for all of the hazards, that I won't do it.

-Steve Goodridge

Here is an interesting quote from page 92 of the Georgia Driver's Manual, 2003:

"In Georgia, as in other states, most accidents occur during daylight hours on straight, dry roads, typically near intersections or driveways."

Since sidewalks complicate intersections and create many, many more intersections with driveways, it's not suprising sidewalk cycling produces more crashes.

Since I'm a pedestrian today, will you sidewalk riders please tell me to get the heck out of your way when you're coming?

In turn, I'll be glad to tell you where to go.

I know that the sidewalk is a pedestrian's domain. I ride on the sidewalk only on low-pedestrian-traffic streets. On the off chance there is someone walking (or more often, riding their bike) on the sidewalk and I need to pass them, I take the grass and let them have the pavement until I pass them.

It's not a matter of whether you should ride on the sidewalk or not. It's knowing WHERE to ride, under WHICH circumstances to ride, and HOW to ride in any given situation. More often than not I'm in the street, following vehicular traffic laws. But on certain avenues (ones without many intersections, driveways, or pedestrians where the street is hazardous but an alternative route is impractical) it just makes more sense to take the sidewalk, and that is what I do.

Since I'm a pedestrian today, will you sidewalk riders please tell me to get the heck out of your way when you're coming?

In turn, I'll be glad to tell you where to go.

:)

ditto for cars vs bikers

"Since I'm a pedestrian today, will you sidewalk riders please tell me to get the heck out of your way when you're coming?"

In turn, I'll be glad to tell you where to go.


ditto for cars vs bikers
Same sentiment, different context.
Cyclists have the same right to the roadways as do car drivers.
Cyclists do not have the same right to the sidewalk as do pedestrians.

Cyclists belong on the roads.
Cyclists do not belong on the sidewalks.

I will ride on a sidewalk vs using a narrow road with no shoulder that has lots of 35 to 55 mph traffic, if the total distance is relatively short and if the alternative of "taking" the lane leads to issues with the semi-trucks, etc...

Unfortunately, with commuting - your road options can be limited.

I do slow down on the sidewalk and realize that the danger is high....

If the danger of a sidewalk is the obstacles (cited earlier), then mountain biking should be banned for obstacles on trails ;). If the problem with riding on sidewalks is that there are more conflict potentials with cars, then caution is advised. Let's face it, if you want to ride like a maniac, you will find problem on either roads (with or without lanes) or sidewalks. So far as bicycles not "belonging" on the sidewalk because pedestrians have ROW, perhaps we could encourage more people to become pedestrians to make this a reality where I live. Here, people drive everywhere. At noon we have some people walking, but not very many (half a dozen or so). Today, because of weather, the sidewalks were empty (which is normally the case). So saying that bicycles don't "belong" on a sidewalk sometimes is not valid either. I look at miles of empty sidewalks, and say, why not use them when appropriate. Today was one of those days (steady rain, cars in a hurry, limited visibility because of rain and mist on the road). I rode my route four times today, and the last one I rode slightly different, using a back road and sidewalk to avoid autos.

John

If the problem with riding on sidewalks is that there are more conflict potentials with cars, then caution is advised. Let's face it, if you want to ride like a maniac, you will find problem on either roads (with or without lanes) or sidewalks.
Yes, the problem with riding on sidewalks is that there are more conflict potentials with cars.
Caution is good advise, and I don't have a problem with cautious sidewalk cycling where pedestrian use is low to none. But cautious sidewalk cycling is very slow, and hardly useful for trips of any significant distances.

It's not about riding like a maniac. Cruising at 15-25 mph on the roadways is perfectly safe and not maniacal at all; the top-end for cautious sidewalk cycling is probably around 8 mph, and must be significantly lower in many places (like driveway, alley and major intersection crossings).

Serge

But cautious sidewalk cycling is very slow, and hardly useful for trips of any significant distances.This is true but, for some cyclists, it's irrelevant. Riding at low speeds is plenty useful for their purposes because they only want to go short distances.

I'm thinking specifically of college students that I see riding on sidewalks. The choice for some of them is not between riding on the sidewalk or riding in the street; the choice is between riding on the sidewalk and not riding at all.

On the sidewalks I'm thinking about there aren't many driveways so that's irrelevant, too. About the only pedestrians they're likely to encounter are their apartment mates or neighbors who are making the same trip they are. Most of the apartments are pretty close to the school so the trips are short.

One of these sidewalks is along a road that was part of my commute for many years. I always rode in the road but I certainly understood why students appeared to prefer riding on the sidewalk. In fact, I think it's a good choice for them. I doubt that putting those same cyclists on the road without first educating them would make them any safer. And I doubt that many of them would have much interest in education. They have limited goals - like getting from their apartment to class without walking. Riding on the sidewalk is effective for them. Even at low speeds, riding a bicycle is more effective than walking.

Education is likely to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. These riders are quite content riding at low speeds. All that preventing them from riding on the sidewalk is likely to do is to get them to stop riding entirely.

This is true but, for some cyclists, it's irrelevant. Riding at low speeds is plenty useful for their purposes because they only want to go short distances.

I'm thinking specifically of college students that I see riding on sidewalks. The choice for some of them is not between riding on the sidewalk or riding in the street; the choice is between riding on the sidewalk and not riding at all.

On the sidewalks I'm thinking about there aren't many driveways so that's irrelevant, too. About the only pedestrians they're likely to encounter are their apartment mates or neighbors who are making the same trip they are. Most of the apartments are pretty close to the school so the trips are short.

One of these sidewalks is along a road that was part of my commute for many years. I always rode in the road but I certainly understood why students appeared to prefer riding on the sidewalk. In fact, I think it's a good choice for them. I doubt that putting those same cyclists on the road without first educating them would make them any safer. And I doubt that many of them would have much interest in education. They have limited goals - like getting from their apartment to class without walking. Riding on the sidewalk is effective for them. Even at low speeds, riding a bicycle is more effective than walking.

Education is likely to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. These riders are quite content riding at low speeds. All that preventing them from riding on the sidewalk is likely to do is to get them to stop riding entirely.

Sounds good to me.

Vehicular cycling works for just about any one, but is particularly useful for cyclists who make trips of significant length. For short trips such as you describe, the advantage of VC over sidewalk cycling becomes negligble.

Serge

I used to be much against sidewalk riding and much for sharing the lane if it's wide enough or taking the lane if it's not.

However, I have recently been corrected and found out it is illegal in Florida for a vehicle to pass another vehicle in the same lane. This makes "white lining" or "filtering" illegal no matter how wide the lane, but under state law a bicycle can travel on the sidewalk as a pedestrian. So, what I do now, when I come on an intersection controlled by a light and I'm going to have to wait more than one light cycle if I take the lane, is I get on the sidewalk and ride through the intersection as a pedestrian, then get back on the road as a vehicle. A completely legal maneuver under state law, as long as there is no local ordinance barring sidewalk riding.

Share the road, not the lane. :)

Are you certain about that? In Louisiana there is a similar law, but it says that you must dismount the bike and walk on the sidewalk to be considered pedestrian. Nobody around here enforces bicycle laws anyway, unless you inconvenience a car some way or another.

Yes, I'm sure. This is from just one applicable chapter.

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
316.2065 Bicycle regulations.--

(10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

(11) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0316/ch0316.htm

Pretty interesting site. Covers all the state ordinances. :)

While sidewalk riding is not a great idea, there are times when it seems like the safer option, e.g. when there is heavy auto traffic and no bike lane or there is a bike lane but its blocked by construction. In Livermore in front of the Enterprise Rent-A-Car on 3569 lst Street, where the sidewalk meets a wide commercial driveway, there exists perhaps the worst sidewalk defect I have ever seen. There are two sidewalk panels separated by an expansion joint that have tented up into a V, at a sharp enough angle to launch a cyclist into outer space. Half of this tented sidewalk is badly cracked. In Sept. 04 a fellow riding a mountain bike on a dry, clear and sunny day at 10 mph against traffic on the sidewalk was heading towards it, but did not see it because it was not marked off by paint, and probably looked flat from a distance. As he got closer, he arguably should have seen it, but he got distracted by something -- maybe he was scanning for cars exiting the driveway from his left, or entering it from his right. What we do know is that he rode over the defect unawares without slowing or bracing, got launched and landed on his right side, fracturing his skull, collarbone, ribs and other bones and severely damaging his brain. He has amnesia for a period of time including the fall, so he can't remember exactly how the incident occurred. He was found face down off his bike on the other side of the defect. He claims he had no choice to ride against traffic on the sidewalk, because the bike lane on the other side of the road terminated at the highway overpass, and it was too dangerous to ride with the cars on the overpass. The Livermore police blamed him competely for not slowing as he approached the sidewalk defect, and noted in the report "no unusual conditions." Yet, isn't Livermore to blame for allowing the sidewalk to become incredibly dangerous, leaving it that way for what must have been a very long time and not bothering to buy a $2 can of high visibility marker paint? Livermore will argue "yes, the sidewalk was dangerous, but the defect was open and obvious, and you shouldn't have been riding there anyway." I checked the bike laws of various cities on the web, and it turns out Livermore bans bikes from sidewalks in commerical areas and tells cyclists never to ride against traffic on a sidewalk. Does this absolve Livermore, or any other city, from ignoring dangerous sidewalk defects? What if 3 or 5 or 10 shop owners bording the lot behind Enterprise complained to Livermore and asked them to fix the sidewalk before this man got so horribly and irreversibly injured? What if 3 or 5 or 10 residents of nearby homes did? If we had a jury of 12 cyclists, how would they split the fault -- would it be 100/0, 90/10, 80/20, 70/30, 60/40 or 50/50? This case raises some tough legal issues, but also some policy questions. Can a city legally prohibit cyclists from using their sidewalks, even if they don't provide a safe bike lane on the opposite side of the road? Is a city immune, or vitually immune, from liability for practically killing a cyclist, when he gets hurt encountering an "open and obvious" sidewalk defect that has sat there for a long time and never been repaired, marked off or attended to by the city? I'm very curious as to what other cyclists think?

this is kidna wierd cause on 164th in vancouver the bike path is the side walk there is no bike lane or anything on the road and the far right lane is always a turn lane... on this stretch i always use the cross walk single and stop at every intersection... i dont like it but they dont have anything better to ride as this is a very busy street and not about to ride my bike in the middle lane i would die liek in 5 mins of riding out there

While sidewalk riding is not a great idea, there are times when it seems like the safer option, e.g. when there is heavy auto traffic and no bike lane or there is a bike lane but its blocked by construction. In Livermore in front of the Enterprise Rent-A-Car on 3569 lst Street, where the sidewalk meets a wide commercial driveway, there exists perhaps the worst sidewalk defect I have ever seen. There are two sidewalk panels separated by an expansion joint that have tented up into a V, at a sharp enough angle to launch a cyclist into outer space. Half of this tented sidewalk is badly cracked. In Sept. 04 a fellow riding a mountain bike on a dry, clear and sunny day at 10 mph against traffic on the sidewalk was heading towards it, but did not see it because it was not marked off by paint, and probably looked flat from a distance. As he got closer, he arguably should have seen it, but he got distracted by something -- maybe he was scanning for cars exiting the driveway from his left, or entering it from his right. What we do know is that he rode over the defect unawares without slowing or bracing, got launched and landed on his right side, fracturing his skull, collarbone, ribs and other bones and severely damaging his brain. He has amnesia for a period of time including the fall, so he can't remember exactly how the incident occurred. He was found face down off his bike on the other side of the defect. He claims he had no choice to ride against traffic on the sidewalk, because the bike lane on the other side of the road terminated at the highway overpass, and it was too dangerous to ride with the cars on the overpass. The Livermore police blamed him competely for not slowing as he approached the sidewalk defect, and noted in the report "no unusual conditions." Yet, isn't Livermore to blame for allowing the sidewalk to become incredibly dangerous, leaving it that way for what must have been a very long time and not bothering to buy a $2 can of high visibility marker paint? Livermore will argue "yes, the sidewalk was dangerous, but the defect was open and obvious, and you shouldn't have been riding there anyway." I checked the bike laws of various cities on the web, and it turns out Livermore bans bikes from sidewalks in commerical areas and tells cyclists never to ride against traffic on a sidewalk. Does this absolve Livermore, or any other city, from ignoring dangerous sidewalk defects? What if 3 or 5 or 10 shop owners bording the lot behind Enterprise complained to Livermore and asked them to fix the sidewalk before this man got so horribly and irreversibly injured? What if 3 or 5 or 10 residents of nearby homes did? If we had a jury of 12 cyclists, how would they split the fault -- would it be 100/0, 90/10, 80/20, 70/30, 60/40 or 50/50? This case raises some tough legal issues, but also some policy questions. Can a city legally prohibit cyclists from using their sidewalks, even if they don't provide a safe bike lane on the opposite side of the road? Is a city immune, or vitually immune, from liability for practically killing a cyclist, when he gets hurt encountering an "open and obvious" sidewalk defect that has sat there for a long time and never been repaired, marked off or attended to by the city? I'm very curious as to what other cyclists think?


thats wierd somethign like this happend to my mom she fell by triping on a sidewalk. It looked like she got the crap beat out of her in the end she sued the city for the sidewalk being like that and won like 10k or something but after lawyer fees and taxes she got abotu 4k but hey it still paid for the medical bills and such... and she got some extra money.. it think this guy should sue what the police say and what happens in a civil court is kinda 2 diffrent things last time i rember its up to a judge or jury to let u know whos fault it is not some cop...

I don't know anything about Law over there, but in the U.S. Litigation in Civil Court against the city would definitely be the way to go.

"NJ law states that bicycles are vehicles and have both the rights and responsibilities of any other vehicle on the road. Bicyclists must respect the laws as they apply to the rules of the road, and motorists must respect their right to be there."

This, though off topic, was worth the search for me too, since I've been wondering about it due to the recent bike lane threads:

"While they should keep to the right, cyclists are not required to use shoulders or bike lanes at all times. They may use any portion of the roadway, particularly if they need to turn."



The rules are roughly the same in Massachusetts, I have believed but do not know, that this prohibits the use of bicycles on the sidewalk, since other forms of vehicles, mini-bikes, go karts etc. are prohibited. It is also true that Dean Kamen had to get the state legislature in most of the 50 states to specifically allow the use of the Segway on the sidewalk since most of the states prohibited the use of "vehicles" on the sidewalk.

Regarding the danger or lack of same of riding a bike on the sidewalk, many of the posters have debated the statistics the risk analysis etc. but in order to truly compare studies the type of cycling needs to be evaluated. Clearly if the bike is operating at near pedestrian speeds then the risk would probably approach that of a jogger. If you like it fast and furious then I'm with the folks on the street. I'm in the second crowd.

I'm beginning to think there no more truth in the idea that riding on the sidewalk is dangerous than there is in the opposite accepted wisdom - that riding in traffic is dangerous. There are potential hazards in riding either place but, personally, I don't think riding a bicycle either place is anywhere near as dangerous as some people would have us believe.

This is part of my daily commute.

http://www.westendimprovements.com/images/0304mtg/pdf/existing.pdf

Going to work I deal with a 4 lane traffic circle, complete with tunnels and oddly angled intersections. Problem here is that the circle is very poorly designed for cars, and bikes and peds. Leaving work -- I cannot compete safely with cars going on 19 to west carson, so I go from south street to 60, cross at the west side of the bridge and walk down 90 feet of steps.

I can use the ramp on the way to work, if I wait I will get a 1.5 minute break in traffic that allows me to spin up the 130 yard ramp. The plan flor improvement looks better to a point. But there still looks like there will be steps involved. If I go the road way I am trapped in by 2 narrow lanes of killing speed traffic.

Another point in my ride I have a 1.5 mile section where I ride a cemetary sidewalk with only 2 driveways. I know that the stats say to look out for sidewalk riding--but I say look out for the driveways and cars.

I did see a bike get hit in boston. He was riding on the sidewalk and a delivery truck came from behind and turned in front of him. He should have been in the street.

During daylight hours, I find that a rear view mirror helps to maintain my comfort level by reducing the "pucker factor" of a surprise pass (in the dark, the glow from their headlight provides the notification). Another practice that improves my comfort is keeping some usable pavement to the outside of my line of travel (for those once in a decade occasions when a passing driver goofs and returns to their original path before they're clear of my vehicle).

"Goofs" . . . whoops, sorry, you're dead.

This is part of my daily commute.

http://www.westendimprovements.com/images/0304mtg/pdf/existing.pdf

Going to work I deal with a 4 lane traffic circle, complete with tunnels and oddly angled intersections. Problem here is that the circle is very poorly designed for cars, and bikes and peds. Leaving work -- I cannot compete safely with cars going on 19 to west carson, so I go from south street to 60, cross at the west side of the bridge and walk down 90 feet of steps.

I can use the ramp on the way to work, if I wait I will get a 1.5 minute break in traffic that allows me to spin up the 130 yard ramp. The plan flor improvement looks better to a point. But there still looks like there will be steps involved. If I go the road way I am trapped in by 2 narrow lanes of killing speed traffic.

Another point in my ride I have a 1.5 mile section where I ride a cemetary sidewalk with only 2 driveways. I know that the stats say to look out for sidewalk riding--but I say look out for the driveways and cars.

I did see a bike get hit in boston. He was riding on the sidewalk and a delivery truck came from behind and turned in front of him. He should have been in the street.

Just noticed this thread. Thank you. This is exactly what I'm arguing in the "attitude" thread. Namely, that sometimes riding off the street is the best vehicular option for a bicycle. Not as a rule, but as an exception. And we as vehicular cyclists need to make full use of the exceptions.

Same sentiment, different context.
Cyclists have the same right to the roadways as do car drivers.
Cyclists do not have the same right to the sidewalk as do pedestrians.

Cyclists belong on the roads.
Cyclists do not belong on the sidewalks.

Yet Missouri law provides for cycling on sidewalks not in a business district.

Missouri law also provides for men wearing bras, yet bras do not belong on men.

If I go the road way I am trapped in by 2 narrow lanes of killing speed traffic.

Trapped? Are you familiar with the negotiation techniques that vehicular cyclists use to merge left across multiple lanes of fast and busy traffic?

Serge

Missouri law also provides for men wearing bras, yet bras do not belong on men.

Evidently, you have not been to Missouri in awhile. There are some men who could use a bra. :eek:

Trapped? Are you familiar with the negotiation techniques that vehicular cyclists use to merge left across multiple lanes of fast and busy traffic?

Serge
If I was unfamiliar with the area and found myself in this situation I could get through it. Question is which is safer-- road or sidewalk-- and in this area though both suck, the sidewalk is safer. Not just because the roadway is high speed, but also there is bad site distance, and much road debris and rubble litters the narrow lanes. It's not just about technique or physical strength but about the features of the road.

In this area I choose to not compete with the cars,while dodging potholes, stormgrates, road rubble, and assorted stuff. The sidewalk in the area is no charmer. In order to use it you have to actually walk down 90 feet of steel steps from the bridge level to the ground!

http://bikepittsburgh.com/photos/cpp2003/09-29-03%20Hal%20Bill%20Paul%20WE%20Bridge%20steps360.jpg

Unlike the folks in the picture, I can spin to 22 mph in a few seconds and ride like that for the ramp distance + a few miles.

There are areas on the "sidewalk route" where gaurdrails lay on the ground and the bent ibeams that used to support them are pointing towards you like metal spikes.

Note that I use a moutain bike with front suspension and 1.5 street tires to deal with the potholes and curb jumping and stuff. My oneway commute includes 2 miles of single track, 5 miles on rode, 6 miles on bike path and about 2.2 miles on the sidewalk, including this the "west end circle" hell.

You did not answer my question. Are you familiar with the negotiation techniques that vehicular cyclists use to merge left across multiple lanes of fast and busy traffic?

However, given your lack of a direct answer, plus the implied attitude that views the need to negotiate with faster traffic as "competing" with cars, I'm going to have to assume the answer is "no".

FYI, the negotiation techniques that vehicular cyclists use to merge left across multiple lanes of fast and busy traffic are based on cooperative concepts, not competition. In particular, vehicular cyclists recognize and respect that faster traffic has the ROW in the lanes they wish to cross, and, in order to get across, they must coax them to yield the ROW to the cyclist.

As with many complex problems, a useful approach is often to break it down into smaller more manageable problems. In this case, we break down the problem of merging across multiple lanes of fast/busy traffic into N individual problems, where N is the number of lanes we must cross.

For each lane we must cross, starting with the rightmost lane of which we are presumably initially traveling along the right edge, we:


issue a request for someone to yield the ROW to us within that lane.
wait for someone to yield the ROW to us.
claim the ROW within that lane by merging into it and establishing a position near the left edge of the lane.


We repeat those three steps, one lane at a time, until we are in the left turn lane.

Many cyclists are hesitant to try this technique because they envision themselves "stuck" out in the middle of the road with traffic passing them on both sides and no one yielding the right of way to them to get out of there. This is an understable fear, which can only be overcome by working on this technique on smaller roads and building up to fast/busy multilane roads.

Experienced vehicular cyclists know that the most difficult merge is the first one, because motorists are most hesitant to yield to a cyclist who is where he is "supposed to be"... at the right side. Once you're out of that position, motorists are surprisingly accomodating to help you get across.

So, the first step, issue a request for someone to yield the ROW to us further left in the rightmost lane, is perhaps the trickiest. Turns out that this is pretty easy too. Simply looking back over your left shoulder, while maintaining a straight course (practice this somewhere where there is NO traffic!), is about all it takes. Sometimes, particularly to get out of that right side of the rightmost lane, you have to do a bit more, like extend your left arm out. Inevitably, someone will slow for you to let you in. I rarely have to wait for more than one or two cars, especially once I'm out of that right edge.

The beauty of the technique is that you are never riding in front of anyone who has not explicitly slowed down for you and let you in. At that point they typically behave as if they feel an obligation to see it through, and stay behind you traveling at your speed, blocking for you so to speak, until you successfully execute your merge into the next lane (now covered by someone else who has volunteered to slow down, let you in, and block for you).

So for all this to work, you must have the right attitude (see the "attitude" thread for more on this topic). In particular, if you view it as competing with cars, it's not going to work. You must view it as cooperating with motorists, as one vehicle driver working with other vehicle drivers.

Serge

The study is probably correct, however, the final figures are an agglomeration of everyone who rides a bicycle, on or off the sidewalk. The risks do not change for individual riders no matter where they ride. This is how the insurance companies spread risk.

It doesn't take credentials to conduct a study, perhaps a good background in statistics.

You did not answer my question. Are you familiar with the negotiation techniques that vehicular cyclists use to merge left across multiple lanes of fast and busy traffic?

However, given your lack of a direct answer, plus the implied attitude that views the need to negotiate with faster traffic as "competing" with cars, I'm going to have to assume the answer is "no".

...
For each lane we must cross, starting with the rightmost lane of which we are presumably initially traveling along the right edge, we:


issue a request for someone to yield the ROW to us within that lane.
wait for someone to yield the ROW to us.
claim the ROW within that lane by merging into it and establishing a position near the left edge of the lane.


We repeat those three steps, one lane at a time, until we are in the left turn lane.
....
So for all this to work, you must have the right attitude (see the "attitude" thread for more on this topic). In particular, if you view it as competing with cars, it's not going to work. You must view it as cooperating with motorists, as one vehicle driver working with other vehicle drivers.

Serge


How condescending of you to assume that slagjumper doesn't know how to negotiate a left turn. You then patronize us with your "N problems" description. Are you familiar with that mess of roads, signals, ramps, bridges and cars he is referring to? I think not. I am. I rode it myself many times. It is not a flat california "mister rogers neighborhood" type of situation.

Although what you described works in most situations, there are intersections where such behavior will cause alarm, disruption and stress. Not to mention the fact that you may not have enough distance to make your N lane changes before the intersection when traffic is heavy.

Again, you insist on cyclists having the right "attitude". Baloney. Motorists don't give a damn about your attitude. Behavior is all that counts.

I explained why I assumed what I did. I asked a question, and he didn't answer it. Why? Whether this technique actually works in the area he's talking about is irrelevant, though I would like to understand why it would cause "alarm and stress" to an extent that's worthy of consideration here more than at other places. Disruption? Of course. Any slowing relative to other vehicle causes disruption. But such disruption is normal in traffic, even on freeways (when they're crowded). Causing slowing disruption is no sin, and is nothing worth avoiding. As to whether such disruption causes alarm... please. Stress? Stress because, God forbid, you have to slow down because others are slowing down? Come on.

As to behavior and attitude, they are closely related.
A cyclist's attitude affects his behavior.
A cyclist's behavior affects the attitude of motorists around him.
Motorist's attitudes affect their behavior, including their behavior towards cyclists.

I find that an attitude of thinking and feeling like a vehicle driver allows me to behave like a vehicle driver; that behaving like a vehicle driver seems to impress motorists who act much more respectfully towards me than when I don't act like a vehicle driver.

I explained why I assumed what I did. I asked a question, and he didn't answer it. Why? Whether this technique actually works in the area he's talking about is irrelevant, though I would like to understand why it would cause "alarm and stress" to an extent that's worthy of consideration here more than at other places. Disruption? Of course. Any slowing relative to other vehicle causes disruption. But such disruption is normal in traffic, even on freeways (when they're crowded). Causing slowing disruption is no sin, and is nothing worth avoiding. As to whether such disruption causes alarm... please. Stress? Stress because, God forbid, you have to slow down because others are slowing down? Come on.

As to behavior and attitude, they are closely related.
A cyclist's attitude affects his behavior.
A cyclist's behavior affects the attitude of motorists around him.
Motorist's attitudes affect their behavior, including their behavior towards cyclists.

I find that an attitude of thinking and feeling like a vehicle driver allows me to behave like a vehicle driver; that behaving like a vehicle driver seems to impress motorists who act much more respectfully towards me than when I don't act like a vehicle driver.



By "stress", I mean the cyclist's stress.

It is not enjoyable to ride in certain places. This particular area is a bottleneck considing of ramps, a bridge w/high-speed traffic to/from a valley and multiple intersections. slagjumper even posted a pic. While you might enjoy "asserting VC" during rush hour at this intersection, I can guarantee it won't be pleasant and that it will require your white-knuckled full attention and the full attention of motorists to ensure your safety, as well as a considerable sprint effort. Hiking around this mess (and others like it) is a completely understandable and wise option for anyone.

You did not answer my question. Are you familiar with the negotiation techniques that vehicular cyclists use to merge left across multiple lanes of fast and busy traffic?

However, given your lack of a direct answer, plus the implied attitude that views the need to negotiate with faster traffic as "competing" with cars, I'm going to have to assume the answer is "no".

FYI, the negotiation techniques that vehicular cyclists use to merge left across multiple lanes of fast and busy traffic are based on cooperative concepts, not competition. In particular, vehicular cyclists recognize and respect that faster traffic has the ROW in the lanes they wish to cross, and, in order to get across, they must coax them to yield the ROW to the cyclist.
Serge

I think that in general that is a fine method of getting across, but sometimes it is better to ride the sidewalk.

There is a stoplight before the troubling section, then a blind curve, next down 300 foot ramp, and it becomes 2 lanes at that point. If I where biking this way, I would just pull infront of the first car, who then is constrained (hopefully) by the law to not rear-end me.

No need to actually merge left for a mile and a half. But then I am on a pothole ridden roadway going about 24 mph with an anxious driver 50 feet behind me. Next I want to get over to the left but cars are now passing that car +25mph, so I "issue a request" then look back hoping that I dont hit road debris and look for a sign--like sudden deceleration. At 30 - 50 fps faster, there really can't be any eye contact so I would not call it negotiation.

If you look at the pdf, I am talking about the point where 19 joins 837 towards the bottom of the map. I think that if the first car let me go at the light or not, most other drivers who saw that a bike was ahead would just try to speed up and get ahead of the "mess". Trouble with this area is that the car drivers hate it, are often confused about what they should be doing, which lane should I be in to get to x, are of course talking on the phone, thinking about the spouse-- I dont like trusting them. I would much rather keep an eye on the few driveways that cross the sidewalk in this area.

I have heard this dogmatic attitude about staying off of the sidewalks before-- by a person who was cut off on the street and injured and now he does not ride. Of course that is adectdotal evidence, but I think that most reasonable bikers would say-- "well yeah maybe there are some places/times settings where you should get off of the road and ride the sidewalk." Trouble with saying, never is that it only takes one good contradiction to force a change in philosophy.

Did I express a dogmatic attitude about staying off of the sidewalks? Where?

Here's a satellite view of your intersection:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=pittsburgh,+pa&ll=40.443962,-80.028448&spn=0.006748,0.009978&t=k&hl=en

I dont like trusting them. I would much rather keep an eye on the few driveways that cross the sidewalk in this area.
There are three main factors to consider in traffic cycling:


Attitude.
Attitude.
Attitude.

...
As with many complex problems, a useful approach is often to break it down into smaller more manageable problems. In this case, we break down the problem of merging across multiple lanes of fast/busy traffic into N individual problems, where N is the number of lanes we must cross.

For each lane we must cross, starting with the rightmost lane of which we are presumably initially traveling along the right edge, we:


issue a request for someone to yield the ROW to us within that lane.
wait for someone to yield the ROW to us.
claim the ROW within that lane by merging into it and establishing a position near the left edge of the lane.


We repeat those three steps, one lane at a time, until we are in the left turn lane.
...



I hate to belabor this argument, but since you have been so hard-nosed about these matters, I thought you should know that you got it wrong. You misunderstood your own beloved John Forester and his book "Effective Cycling" and you are offering incorrect advice.

I dusted off my copy of "Effective Cycling" because your instructions seemed suspect, even from a VC point of view. Looking at the end of chapter 31, in the section "Changing lanes in High Speed Traffic" he specifically states that its not possible to "negotiate" a lane change when traffic is moving 15+ mph faster than you are. The recommendation is to iteratively "sneak" across lanes using your position as the "signal", looking backwards for a gap every time before crossing or entering a lane. The motorist is not to be expected to yield R.O.W. For even heavier and/or faster traffic, Forester recommends pulling to the right side until a gap opens and using the crosswalk if not.

So, if you are going to offer up VC advice at every available opportunity at least get the details right, especially if you are going to be pushy and patronizing about it.

I'm very well aware of what Forester writes, on this topic in particular, and I disagree with it. In fact, I can assure you that it's NOT "impossible" to negotiate with traffic "moving more than 15 mph faster". Actually, I'm not sure he agrees with his own writing on this point any more. I'll ask him.

Serge

Serge,

Attitude has long been used in safety circles, from the 1940s to about 1980 or so. After that, behavioral psychology has pretty much taken over. From this safety professional's point of view, when you say,

There are three main factors to consider in traffic cycling:

1. Attitude.
2. Attitude.
3. Attitude.


you are quite simply wrong. An accident is caused by human error. Attitude can affect that, but it is the specific behavior(s) that drive the actual causes (most accidents have multiple causes, and factors, that come together at one place in time and space to cause the accident).

In short, it makes no difference if you think of yourself as a vehicular cyclist if you put your bicycle in front of a car doing 25-30 mph more than you, and the driver of that vehicle doesn't have the reaction time to affect a change in his or her vehicle to avoid a collision. 99% or more of the time vehicular cycling will work just fine. It is that small percentage of the time that it won't that concerns me. If the behavior of the vehicular cyclist and and the behavior of the vehicular driver conflict, then the cyclist looses. We cannot depend upon the driver to be rational, to be coherent, to realize the consequences of not giving ROW, to be paying attention, to not be in a hurry, to not himself have a road rage problem...the list could go on. In certain situations, the sidewalk is a good alternative to a dangerous condition--a roadway made hazardous to cyclists.

John

Of course behavior is the direct cause, but attitude determines behavior. That's my point.

The kinds of collisions you are concerned about makes about as much sense as a southern CA surfer being concerned with shark attacks. Sure, the sharks are out there, but the odds of attack are extremely low, and the only thing you can do to avoid it is stay out of the water.

By the way, any cyclist who puts his bicycle in front of a car doing 25-30 mph more than the cyclist, and the driver does not have the reaction time to avoid a collision, is not a vehicular cyclist.

You seem to have a very rigid idea of what vehicular cycling is, like it is equivalent to riding in the center of the lane or something. If so, you're missing the point, entirely.

Serge

Trapped? Are you familiar with the negotiation techniques that vehicular cyclists use to merge left across multiple lanes of fast and busy traffic?

Serge
I drove the section that I avoid biking the other day and I noticed--

In the area where I avoid riding on the road, the ramp would dump me into the left, not the right lane. Also the ramp is 1 1/2 lanes wide, (but only marked for 1), so motorists will try to pass. Of course the cars are passing like crazy on the right even though that is a against the law.

Of course behavior is the direct cause, but attitude determines behavior. That's my point.
...


Well, different attitudes can determine the same behavior and the same attitude can determine different behaviors depending on who you are talking about.

You are taking the very simplistic and impractical position that everyone should have the same viewpoint as you-- and that "correct" behavior is not enough.

It really is pointless to talk very much about attitude. Not everyone can or should be a cranky old curmudgeon in traffic.

I will comment based on actual experience. I live in a high-powered urban area where bicyclist get little or no respect. My mother would always tell me to ride on the sidewalk in order to keep me safe from those crazy cars. Guess what? The only 2 times I was hit or very nearly hit by a car was on a "safe" sidewalk. I avoid the sidewalk now. The only time I use a sidewalk is when no drive up ramp is available for the car driver to use and cross in front of me and the traffic is very thick and very fast. I told my mother to leave bike riding safety issues for the people who actually ride a bike (like me)!

H23 - I agree different attitudes can produce the same or similar behaviors, and that's what is ultimately important.

I just don't believe that an attitude obsessed with fear produces desireable behavior in most (not all) contexts, including cycling in traffic.

Serge

Let's just say I would not expect to find advice ecouraging a "be afraid" attitude (like Hurst conveys throughout his book) in good and effective teaching manuals for pilots, divers, race car drivers, rock climbers or surfers. For the same reasons it does not belong there, despite all the risks involved in those activities, it does not belong in a book on traffic cycling.

I will comment based on actual experience. I live in a high-powered urban area where bicyclist get little or no respect. My mother would always tell me to ride on the sidewalk in order to keep me safe from those crazy cars. Guess what? The only 2 times I was hit or very nearly hit by a car was on a "safe" sidewalk. I avoid the sidewalk now. The only time I use a sidewalk is when no drive up ramp is available for the car driver to use and cross in front of me and the traffic is very thick and very fast. I told my mother to leave bike riding safety issues for the people who actually ride a bike (like me)!
The school of hard knocks works, but it can take a long time to learn everything you need to learn to be safe. In the mean time, you could be killed. Learning the dangers of sidewalks and why they should be avoided is a good start.

You might consider accelerating your education by studying a book like Effective Cycling or Cyclecraft (I would study both).

Serge

Okay, this will be my last post for awhile, but I'll give you some food for thought. In behavioral safety, the practitioners teach that if we monitor safe verses unsafe behaviors, and try to increase the number of safe behaviors, we will influence accident rates for the positive. Attitudes don't count, as they cannot be quantified. But behaviors can be quantified. We can see them, write them down, and show a pattern for behaviors.

For any given behavior, there are factors which influence whether it will be repeated. These factors are the outcomes (consequences, in the behaviorist's terms). A given behavior's outcome (consequence) can be seen as:

--positive or negative
--occur sooner or later
--be certain or uncertain

The behaviors that tend to be repeated are those whose outcomes (consequences) are positive, occur sooner, and are certain. Behaviors that are negative, occur later (especially days, or weeks, later), and are uncertain are usually not repeated. Those that are negative, and that occurs sooner, and are certain to occur, surely will not be repeated.

It's like a friend who told me of a horse which found how to get through his fence. He couldn't figure it out, because surely the horse did not jump the fence. But he watched one day, and saw the horse put first one foot through, then its head, then the other front foot, then each of its back feet, until about fifteen seconds later it was through the fence. Positive effect, occuring sooner, and sure; and a perplexed owner until he observed what was happening. Then, the owner threw the switch on the electric fence (with high voltages). The hores was zapped as soon as it tried the next time to go through; negative effect, soon and certain. The horse never again went near the fence.

Concerning the above description of Vehicular Cycling, which discusses a stretch of highway with heavy traffic, narrowed, and hurried, where do you think the outcomes (consequences) fit within this paradigm? Would the consequences of riding in this traffic, with the congestion and potholes, be positive or negative? Would they occur sooner or later? Would they be certain or uncertain?

So if you want to influence a bicyclist's safety, give behaviors with outcomes that are positive, occure immediately, and are certain to occur. To a large extent, this is what the vehicular cyclists are trying to do when they cooperate with the traffic, and the traffic cooperates with the vehicular cyclist. But, even when most of the traffic does give a positive experience, it is uncertain that all the traffic will do this. Every day I ride on my extended route, which is a vehicular cycling route, I get someone who either cuts me off, yells at me to get off the road (happened twice yesterday), or an auto does something it ought not do (pass too close, for instance).

When I ride the sidewalk, to get away from a congested road (usually on a Thursday, when people are more rushed--I don't ride Fridays), I get a more positive experience. Cars, which are noisy, are further away. No one is yelling at me. The sidewalks are mostly deserted. It is slower, but I'm not in a hurry either. I can get to a path easier, and stay away from the traffic. Bicycling is fun again, and I don't have to negotiate with countless other, much more massive, vehicles who know that they "own" the road (they don't, but some think they do). In short, the riding on a sidewalk is positive, and those positive consequences occur immediately, and are sure. (The sidewalks I choose have few, if any, conflicting driveways or roads in the short distances I take them.)


John