Advocacy & Safety - Renegade Cycling Nation?

Why do motorists obey the rules of the road? Because if they don't, they might get a ticket and their insurance will go up. There's no such detterrant for bicyclists on bike paths.

Another reason bikes, by law, should share the road with cars and not pedestrians on bike paths, glorified sidewalks.

One time on a fairly wide, unpaved path, which is listed as a city bike path, I had a woman walking towards me who could see me coming well ahead of time deliberately block the path by PUSHING HER BABY IN A STROLLER IN FRONT OF ME. She apparently wanted to force me to stop to initiate some kind of adversarial conversation.

I was on my mountain bike, and passed her little blockade in the ditch. I'm sure I missed a really interesting discussion with her.....

Why do motorists obey the rules of the road

Is this some kind of joke? Or do you really live in a place like this?

Is this some kind of joke? Or do you really live in a place like this?

Sorry....MY BAD!! WHAT WAS I THINKING????!!!

One time on a fairly wide, unpaved path, which is listed as a city bike path

Perhaps this is also part of the problem. Here, in madison, a lot of people come to the city to use its extensive bike paths/trails. The city publishes a number of different bike maps but i have yet to see one that differentiates between a bike path and a MUT. From looking at some maps, many paths are color coded so as to give a new cyclist (or out of town tourist) the impression that the path is devoted exclusivly to bicycle use. --now granted there are signs on most MUTs---but those are proabably hard to read when you are cruising at 25 mph.

Sorry....MY BAD!! WHAT WAS I THINKING????!!!
:roflmao:
There's something about all caps that gets me every time.


America already has the world's most advanced bikeways system. The problem is the price of gas is still too low.
Great sig btw.

Perhaps this is also part of the problem. Here, in madison, a lot of people come to the city to use its extensive bike paths/trails. The city publishes a number of different bike maps but i have yet to see one that differentiates between a bike path and a MUT. From looking at some maps, many paths are color coded so as to give a new cyclist (or out of town tourist) the impression that the path is devoted exclusivly to bicycle use. --now granted there are signs on most MUTs---but those are proabably hard to read when you are cruising at 25 mph.

I didn't know there even was such a thing as a non multiple use bike path. Have you seen such a thing?

No--but I am just saying that the way the maps are coded would lead one to believe so.

Why do motorists obey the rules of the road? Because if they don't, they might get a ticket and their insurance will go up. There's no such detterrant for bicyclists on bike paths.

Another reason bikes, by law, should share the road with cars and not pedestrians on bike paths, glorified sidewalks.

I agree...let's make bikes illegal on bike paths. That way the next time I'm lying in a hospital bed after being hit by a car my mind will be at ease knowing that the driver of that car got a ticket and higher insurance costs and that a pedestrian on the trail wasn't inconvenienced for 20 seconds as they had to move three feet to the right so I could pass them. I can only dream of that day.

If you haven't read the other posts in this forum, I'd recommend it. Everyday cyclists are killed by motorists. I think many people choose to ride on MUPs for the simple fact that they don't have to deal with the risk of riding in traffic. I consider myself pretty savy when it comes to riding in traffic, but that doesn't mean I won't jump at any chance to remove that risk. The city of Columbus decided to expand their trail system to help facilitate cyclists and their saftey when it comes to recreation and commuting. I wonder how many cyclists in this city would never think of riding a bike if they were forced to only ride in traffic.

For a cycling advocacy forum there is sure a lot of anti-bike rhetoric.

There is probably a need to rethink how pedestrians and cyclists share the off-street paths.

Everyday cyclists are killed by motorists. I think many people choose to ride on MUPs for the simple fact that they don't have to deal with the risk of riding in traffic. I consider myself pretty savy when it comes to riding in traffic, but that doesn't mean I won't jump at any chance to remove that risk.

Statistically, riding on the road is something like three times safer than riding on a path. Something like 80% of bicycle accidents requiring hospitalization do not involve a person other than the cyclist. Roads are safer because you're much less likely to crash due to a poor surface or poor visibility, which is a much greater hazard than getting hit by a car.

Statistically, riding on the road is something like three times safer than riding on a path. Something like 80% of bicycle accidents requiring hospitalization do not involve a person other than the cyclist. Roads are safer because you're much less likely to crash due to a poor surface or poor visibility, which is a much greater hazard than getting hit by a car.

The flip side of that is 90-92% of cycling fatalities occur due to collisions with motor vehicles.

I'd also urge you to read the following article in regards to the often cited "2.6 times more dangerous" statistic as far as bike paths go.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/insight/faqs/bicycle_facilities.htm

I just recently rode the bike path near Venice in So Cal. Far and away the most dangerous places were neither the on street sections or the Bike Path. They were the in between and transition areas. The worst 2 are both where the Path goes onto Fiji. Both ways the path meets Fiji at a 90 degree angle, makeing it all but sure that a rider will go too far out into traffic. Going North at least there is the advantage that the merge point is near the dead end of Fiji so most cars will be aware of cyclists. Going South there is nothing to warn a car until some cyclist suddenly appears right in front of them.

The flip side of that is 90-92% of cycling fatalities occur due to collisions with motor vehicles.

I'd also urge you to read the following article in regards to the often cited "2.6 times more dangerous" statistic as far as bike paths go.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/insight/faqs/bicycle_facilities.htm

The problem here is what is the path like... some paths are no more than sidewalks that intersect with driveways... statistically they ARE more dangerous due to the number of intersections. Other paths are isolated bikeways, and frankly the big danger from those is simply over riding the path.

I would much rather fall down on a path due to a bad turn or small animal, than be struck by a car going 30 miles an hour... scrapes verses breaks are a dramatic difference.

1998. Which Potter book was it?

First in the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, I think (oh, the mind is a terrible thing to waste!), but it shows up later in other books.

Koffee

Statistically, riding on the road is something like three times safer than riding on a path. Something like 80% of bicycle accidents requiring hospitalization do not involve a person other than the cyclist. Roads are safer because you're much less likely to crash due to a poor surface or poor visibility, which is a much greater hazard than getting hit by a car.


Not in Chicago. The statistics there (Check with the Chicago Bicycle Federation for confirmation, which they will provide) prove that the majority of bicycle accidents and fatalities in Chicago came from riding the PATH, not the road.

Koffee

Roads are safer because you're much less likely to crash due to a poor surface or poor visibility, which is a much greater hazard than getting hit by a car.The surface condition argument is bogus. By far the worst surface conditions I encounter are on the roads - washboard roads, potholes, sewer grates, manhole covers, cracks in the pavement, broken concrete, etc. On many of the roads I ride on I'm actually more concerned with dodging potholes than I am worried about traffic. One of the advantages of the multi-use paths I ride on is the smooth surface.

Now that I think about it, the visibility on some roads is pretty bad, too.

The danger of the paths is not the surface, not visibility- it's not even other users (although the roller skaters are pretty scary) - it's intersections of the path with roads. Some of these intersections are accidents waiting to happen. Even some of the highly engineered ones with separate signals for the bike path are pretty confusing.

Forgive my ignorance about path rules, but isn't it "ride with traffic/walk against" for a reason. If you're walking, shouldn't you see a rider coming this way?

The flip side of that is 90-92% of cycling fatalities occur due to collisions with motor vehicles.

The two studies I'm aware of are Toronto, where about 75% of fatalities are due to collisions with motor vehicles, and Chicago, where more than half of the fatalities were on paths. Of course, paths intersect roads, so it is still possible to be killed by a car on a path.

The other factor to consider is that there are over a million accidents a year on bikes requiring medical treatment, and about 700 deaths in a typical year. Serious accidents are far more common than fatalities.


I'd also urge you to read the following article in regards to the often cited "2.6 times more dangerous" statistic as far as bike paths go.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/insight/faqs/bicycle_facilities.htm

I read the page twice, to make sure I wasn't missing anything. It's pretty fact-free, but they do have some numbers on the relative safety of bike paths vs. different types of roads. According to their numbers, a bike path is:

1.5 times as dangerous as a minor street with no bike facility.
2.1 times as dangerous as a major street with no bike facility.
2.7 times as dangerous as a signed bike route (no lane).
3.4 times as dangerous as an on-street bike lane.

The only thing a bike path is safer than is a sidewalk.

The surface condition argument is bogus. By far the worst surface conditions I encounter are on the roads - washboard roads, potholes, sewer grates, manhole covers, cracks in the pavement, broken concrete, etc. On many of the roads I ride on I'm actually more concerned with dodging potholes than I am worried about traffic. One of the advantages of the multi-use paths I ride on is the smooth surface.


Around here the paths are worse than the roads. Asphalt needs constant traffic to stay compacted, and our trails are crumbling and rutted, and lifted by tree roots. They are not as well maintained as roads, and prone to standing water, mud, leaves, and snow. They are not as well lit or painted as roads, and thus a lot more difficult to travel at night. But the big thing is that they are just not engineered for traffic above pedestrian speed, so they have "features" like blind corners and routes that go through parking lots.

Around here the paths are worse than the roads.I guess it really depends on the paths and the roads. A recent study showed Missouri had the worst maintained roads in the country. I think St. Louis roads ranked 3rd worst in the country. Kansas City, also in Missouri, was one of only two cities with worse roads. So, yea, I'm comparing the paths I ride on to some pretty lousy roads. I also admit that there are some local bike paths where the surface is pretty bad, but then, nobody rides on those paths.

But surface quality is really just a maintenance and engineering issue, isn't it? I mean it's not impossible to build and maintain a smooth bike path, just as it's not impossible to build and maintain a smooth road.

Forgive my ignorance about path rules, but isn't it "ride with traffic/walk against" for a reason. If you're walking, shouldn't you see a rider coming this way?I'm glad you asked that question.

My personal opinion is that a pedestrian walking on the left side (wrong side) of a MUP is a recipe for disaster. I'd rather encounter 15 peds pushing baby carriages in the right direction than one ped going the wrong way. It drives me nuts.

The rules of some paths do say that pedestrians should walk on the left. Thank God hardly anybody does it because it doesn't work.

If I'm approaching a ped walking the wrong way, my choices are:

pass on the wrong side (now we're driving on the left side of the road) - plus, the ped might suddenly decide to move to the other side of the path, in which case I'd run over them.
pass on the right (off the path where the ped might also decide to go)
stop and possibly go backwards
run over them


Seriously, those are the choices, none of them good.

The ped also doesn't know what to do. If they think a cyclist might run over them, do they move to the right and suddenly become a right-way ped and possibly get run over? Or do they step off the path to the left and also possibly get run over? Notice that, on a road, a ped would never even consider the first option becuase it's almost certain death. On a MUP, you never know what a ped might do.

'Walk on the left' works on roads because there's only one choice for a car, pass to the left of the pedestrian. And only one choice for a ped, step to the left to get out of the way.

Other reasons "walk on the left" works on roads:

the speed difference between a car and a pedestrian is usually 10 to one or more
a pedestrian is only a small fraction of the width of the travel lane of a road
pedestrians walking on the left of a road get out of the way of approching cars, and always to their left

None of these things is true on a multi-use path.

If the pedestrian on a MUP is a jogger, the speed difference is relatively small. A pedestrian effectively takes up the entire lane of a MUP. Pedestrians on MUPs rarely get out of the way of cyclists. They expect cyclists to go around them.

Advocating that pedestrians should walk on the wrong side of a MUP is like advocating that cyclists should ride on the wrong side of roads, maybe worse. It's downright dangerous.

I vote against it. It doesn't work.

Amen to JRA. Nothing bugs me more than pedestrians walking on the left side of the trail. Sometimes I try to learn em, but I usually humbly and quietly pass at a snail's pace. Of course, if I wanted to ride fast I would be any place but the mixed use path, but even so. . . .

1.5 times as dangerous as a minor street with no bike facility.
2.1 times as dangerous as a major street with no bike facility.
2.7 times as dangerous as a signed bike route (no lane).
3.4 times as dangerous as an on-street bike lane.

Those numbers do not tell the true story of the original report. That report can be read here.

http://www.enhancements.org/trb%5C1636-001.pdf

The problem with those numbers is that they look at crash rates per one million kilometers, not by percentage of all crashes within a year (in this case 1996). Yes, paths do have a higher rate of crashes per kilometer, but they still make up a much smaller part of total crashes than those on the streets. The crashes on the bike paths are also significantly less severe. It is statistically more dangerous to ride on a bike trail but the crashes that do occur on them pale in comparison to the amount and severity of those that happen on the roads.

Here is the table from that report with the stats. Basically it tells us that in 1996 68% of all crashes occured riding on the street, while 8% happened on bike trails. 70% of all "serious" crashes also occured on streets, while again only 8% on trails.

The problem with those numbers is that they look at crash rates per one million kilometers, not by percentage of all crashes within a year (in this case 1996). Yes, paths do have a higher rate of crashes per kilometer, but they still make up a much smaller part of total crashes than those on the streets.

You lost me there. Why is percentage of crashes a better measure than crash rate? By that measure, wouldn't the interstate be the safest place to cycle, because it had no reported crashes in the study?

You lost me there. Why is percentage of crashes a better measure than crash rate? By that measure, wouldn't the interstate be the safest place to cycle, because it had no reported crashes in the study?

I think common sense and also the law would stop someone from riding on the interstate or anywhere else obviously unsafe. I may be alone, but if I'm looking to avoid a serious crash or injury, I'm going to look as to where the highest humber occur, not necessarily where the greatest likelyhood of them occuring are. Again, my logic might not be understood, but if I know that an area had say, 60% of all murders in one year, I would avoid that area before I would frquent a location where 8% of murders occured, even if statistically I was told that there was a higher chance of murder there. (Although in all honesty, I would avoid both, but that is not an option in this case)

The differences in the amount bicycle crashes as a percentage of total crashes compared to the "relative risk factor" (nearly 8 times more crashes occur on roads compared to a "relative danger index" of a little over 2.5 times higher for trails) that the percentage trumps the danger index. To me it seems more reasonable to ride on a trail, where I know that much less accidents and serious accidents occur, not to mention fatalities. I guess I'm trying to say that by depending on what statistics you want to base your riding on, you could say that even if trails are considered more dangerous by the kilometer, they yeild far less accidents as a percentage of the whole.

Around here the paths are worse than the roads. Asphalt needs constant traffic to stay compacted,...

You must ride different paths near DC than I do. The W&OD to the west is a fine path in great condition. And the premise that asphalt needs traffic to stay compacted is not true.

No question that heavy trucks beat up the roads. All asphalt is not created equal and the foundation and local conditions probably have more to do with how the road holds up than the traffic. Some of the rail trails are laid down on pretty impressive foundations.

At least at one time in NY the companies providing road building materials to the state didn't want to do too good of a job. The more often the roads had to be replaced the more business for them. They probably wouldn't care if they did a good job for a bike trail since it wouldn't be much business either way.

The "on your left" thing just doesn't work. The bell works. Everybody knows what a bell means. I live in a tourist town and people from other countries understand the bell.

I hate to admit it,but I just had this happen to me this weekend. I was walking on the sidewalk and heard someone say,"on yer left". I actually took a step to the left,realized what I was doing,then quickly moved to the right. The cyclist passed me without incident,but it just goes to show that your brain can lock onto the word 'left' and cause your body to follow. Bells are usually used to draw attention to something and are prolly more likely to make you look for the source than just react.

Pretty funny.... it's already a word. Well actually, it's kind of a word- it's made up in the Harry Potter books. They use that spell to make Muggles forget something when they've seen witchcraft performed.

Mike Straka might have prior art:
http://mikestraka.com/

Love his 'Grrr...' column on Foxnews.com.

I think bells are probably best, nothing else but a bicycle uses a bell, and people in the US (opposite in the UK etc I guess) are conditioned to swerve to the right when walking *or* driving if they hear an ambulance, bike, etc coming up behind. This is probably why the bike shops all seem to have a relatively large assortment of bells.

I would like to thank everyone who responded to my original post--there have been some great comments and some helpful advice. Admittedly, I left out one major group of headaches: the oblivious runners and walkers on these MUPs who are a hazard to everyone.

I scoured through all the replies to date and found a few that merited reponses...

>>why is it that pedestrians insist on walking side-by-side on the path.
As long as they are right of the median line, this should be fine. But if they are blocking the left side, they are in the wrong.

>>And why do they do this while listening to their iPods at full volume???
As far as I know, there is no law against wearing headphones while using the path, cyclists included. But it's not smart. I personally know of someone who was killed by a hit-and-run vehicle while jogging on the shoulder of a country road.

>>Even cars don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign.
Some cars do, some don't. Still it is the law. Just because someone else breaks the law doesn't give you the right to do so.

>>You're talking about a path... do the rules of the road even apply?
Certain rules and laws do apply and are prominently posted (stop signs, yield, etc).

>>I have had several near collisions when a pedestrian jumps into my way when I say on your left or make any noise.
... and ...
>>Calling out 'on your left' is almost as apt to cause them to turn to the left as it is to cause them to move right.
... and ...
>>The "on your left" thing just doesn't work. The bell works. Everybody knows what a bell means. I live in a tourist town and people from other countries understand the bell.
Yep, this is a huge problem and it mostly is with walkers/runners. They don't understand the concept and act inappropriately. I like the suggestions of the bell--that seems to work much better.

>>My favorites are the groups of colleeg kids rollerblading 4 abrest who get suprised
Hit 'em. Knock 'em over. Let Darwinian logic take over, because they are too dumb to be in the gene pool.

>>Most of the signs are for liability issues, not law, imo
Your opinion, unfortunately, doesn't supercede local laws.

>>I can't remember I saw a car come to a full stop either.
I agree that many motorists are just as bad with this law. But I always come to a full stop because I know just that--many others don't. So if 4 cars come to a 4-way intersection at the same time and all 4 roll through, guess what? Also, if you need a reason to come to a full stop, get married and have a baby and see how prone you are to roll through those interesections with another fragile life in your care.

>>If I could see no one was around, I wouldn't dismount. I haven't seen anything like this though, but I could find it believable that some cyclists cross unsafely.
The two parts of the trail in question are both blind approaches. One goes under a bridge and curves, so you can't see the other end until you are actually in the "tunnel". It is barely wide enough for two bodies, and is bracketed by the tunnel wall on one side and a guardrail on the other. The other bridge goes up and over a small creek, and is again a blind approach from both ends, you cannot see the other side until you are on it. There is a wall on one side (the water side) but the other side is wiiiide open...right next to the George Washington Parkway, where cars routinely whip by at 60-70mph. If you are a runner or cyclist and fall off this side, you are probably dead.

>>If there is enough space for me to safely pass a runner, I usually don't say anything.
Again, agreed on how this tends to confuse many novices out there. But an audible signal is required on this trail, so at least ring a bell or hit some cymbals or something. If I am running along at a good clip and suddenly see a rock or doggie doo in my path, I might be prone to quickly side-step, and as such any stealth cyclists or runners coming up behind me will have their path blocked.

>>So, if four people are blocking the entire trail, and won't move out of the way, we should just get off the bike and walk behind them for miles, enjoying it all the way?
Once again, hit 'em. They are too dumb. OK, just kidding. But what I usually do if I encounter this while running or biking is give them 2-3 audible indicators and then, as I pass them, whether on the trail or off, I say "Please stay to the left" or similar.

>>If I come upon a slower motorist, doing 20 miles under the speed limit, and the left lane is clear, I have every right to pass them.
Yes you do. But presumably you make a signal, and then pass when safe to do so. The other motorist should be able to see you and your signal out of their rear-view mirror. My point was that as a runner being approached by a speeding cyclist, many cyclists do not slow to ensure that it is safe to pass, and many do not "signal" as required. As runners, we don't have rear-view mirrors and if someone if coming on us fast enough, we can't hear anything (like gears rolling, etc) until they are right on us. So an advance audible signal is helpful...and required.

>>When instead of going by a set of rules and etiquette that allows both to exist peacefully on the same trail by being aware, curteous and compromising, we decide to turn over all rights to one group, that is wrong.
All rights? Well, then you wouldn't have the right to be on the path in the first place, would you? I think you're exaggerating.

>>Everyday cyclists are killed by motorists. I think many people choose to ride on MUPs for the simple fact that they don't have to deal with the risk of riding in traffic.
Unfortunately, walkers and runners don't really have this option because many areas don't allow them to run/walk "in the road" as cyclists are allowed to do while riding.

>>Nothing bugs me more than pedestrians walking on the left side of the trail.
OK, these folks should clearly be removed from the gene pool.

thanks again for all the constructive comments!

I agree that many motorists are just as bad with this law. But I always come to a full stop because I know just that--many others don't.

I strongly suggest you watch your back if there is a car behind you. I had a near miss not long ago when the car behind me *expected* me to roll the stop sign faster than I did. Don't be a bumper-mounted martyr to these causes