Vehicular Cycling (VC) - How to get sidewalk riders to stop???

Here in Oregon, in most places it is legal to ride on the sidewalk. I do so at times, but usually ride either on the roadway (VC) or on bike paths (there are several on my route home from work). I especially take to sidewalks, as I've described in the past, when bad weather (such as ice or fog) makes the roads dangerous to bicycle upon with auto traffic. Very few people seem to walk around here, so pedestrians are rarely a problem. Sometimes, its simply more pleasant to ride on a sidewalk, under the shade of large trees, twenty feet from the road (some of our sidewalks are not right next to the road, but are on the other side of large trees, which shield the pedestrians/bicyclists from traffic) rather than in the bike lane 3 or less feet from the traffic.

I find it interesting that people think the League of American Wheelman started paved roads throughout the USA. Maybe they had some influence on the East Coast, but here, the roads were mostly dirt or gravel into the 1940s. When my grandpa came here, he had a Model-T Ford, which he drove up the Deschutes River road (couldn't call it a "highway" at the time) to Bend, Oregon. I don't think he ever owned a bicycle. You really could not get far on a bicycle here in 1918. He worked and laid out a lot of the logging roads in the Bend area. Here, in Eastern Oregon, it was wheat farming and logging that drove the desire for better roads. Anyway, the LAW had no effect that I know of in building paved roads in Oregon. But WWII did have an effect, especially when lumber became a national priority.

John

I find it interesting that people think the League of American Wheelman started paved roads throughout the USA...I find that interesting, too. It's a great story for bicyclists to tell but I'm skeptical. I think the effect LAW actually had was fairly small. The bicycle boom was very short-lived and the heyday of LAW political power almost certainly was as well.

Local bicyclists did manage to get a separated bicycle path built.

From the book, Forest Park by Caroline Loughlin and Catherine Anderson:

In 1895. a "meeting of wheelmen..." had called the city's attention to potholes and puddles in roads throughout the city. A street department employee agreed that bicycling required "a careful readjustment of old notions about what will do for a road."

An 1896 ordinance required "all persons driving vehicles of any kind" and "all persons riding horses, bicycles or tricycles" in Forest Park to keep to the right of center.

Two years later cyclists had what they wanted--a cinder bicycle path. It opened May 7, 1898...

(and to think, if we were to believe John Forester, bike paths were foisted upon bicyclist by an evil motorists conspiracy of the 1960s :D)

Back to the topic:

There's no practical way to get sidewalk riders to stop. Laws against sidewalk riding are a joke. They're mostly unenforceable. Some are ridiculously based on wheel size, totally ignoring folding bicycles which are made for adults. LEOs are understandably reluctant to stop a bicyclist simply for being on a sidewalk. Draconian punishments (huge fines as in New York City) don't work, either.

Though passed with good intentions in some cases, about the only practical function of anti-sidewalk riding laws is to give cops a law under which they can harass the riff-raff and undersireables as determined by profiling (as if cops even need more laws like that). In that sense, anti-sidewalk riding laws are a lot like mandatory licensing laws. They may seem good on paper but they just don't work in practice.

There's an anti-sidewalk riding law in the City of St. Louis. I'd estimate that about half of the bicyclists I see in the city are riding on the sidewalk. Yea, that's going well. :D

The only way to get sidewalk riders to stop is to give them an attractive alternative.

Or (and this seems more likely) get them to stop riding a bicycle entirely (the epitome of cycling advocacy).

I made the mistake last night of riding the bike path on my way out to the highway. A "cyclist" on a boulevard cruiser was movong along at about 5 MPH near a store with no shirt on and smoking. Without looking he started to the left to turn into the store. I called out to him that I was pasing on the right. I was wrong in assuming he was turning left and he swerved right into my path. I cursed (out loud, I think) and went off the right side on the brakes and went down on the embankment and flipped over. I could hear him apologizing before I even went down, and at least he was profuse in his apologies. Both wheels are majorly out of true, but no injuries. He explained he was deaf in his right ear and didn't hear me until he was in my path. I explained that he was supposed to stay right, and he said he knew he was swerving. Yep, and at about that time I realized that his real problem was that he was drunk. Great! You worry about the DUI driver hitting you from behind, but on the bike path? Another hazard of using a "multi use path".

...Yep, and at about that time I realized that his real problem was that he was drunk. Great! You worry about the DUI driver hitting you from behind, but on the bike path? Another hazard of using a "multi use path".

Is the moral of this anecdote - Stick to the street where cyclists can assume that all the drivers are stone sober, are 100% alert and predictable, and never make mistakes?

Note for your consideration: The cyclist in front of you was going 5mph and swerving, and you did not give him plenty of room while passing on the right? It is possible that the street may not be too safe for you either.

To I-Like-To-Bike

I always consider myself at risk while on the roadway. I still prefer the roadway. I cycle in all weather and at all times of the day and night. The cyclist in this case was 7-8 feet to my left, going off the left side of the trail into a store, AND I called out that I was passing him on the right. He made a right turn directly into my path. I did miss him and went down. As I said in my post, "I was wrong in assuming he was turning left". Having made more than 1500 DUI arrests in 19 years, I know they are out there, 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. Assuming they would not be on a bike path was another mistake.

However, people know of the hazards of the road, but they assume that the bike paths are safe. I use a bike path to get around the local freeway so that I can get to roads I want to ride on. I have had more close calls in the past year on the several hundred miles I have ridden on the bikepath (dogs, joggers three abreast with headphones, a women's cross-country team coming at me noit paying attention, cyclists without lights, several deer) than I have for the several thousand miles I have put in on the highways of Ohio and West Virginia.

So, no, the moral of the anecdote is not "Stick to the street where cyclists can assume that all the drivers are stone sober, are 100% alert and predictable, and never make mistakes". The moral is that when you assume that a bike path (sidewalk or any other place) is "safe", you will be surprised unpleasantly. With my track record of being hit in 1955 (a sidewalk) and 1958 (a sidewalk) and a DUI now on a bike path, it seems that if you ride properly on a road and heed all safety warnings, including assuming all the cars and trucks are out to get you (they are), you just may be safer.

I say "may".

Mike

However, people know of the hazards of the road, but they assume that the bike paths are safe. I use a bike path to get around the local freeway so that I can get to roads I want to ride on. I have had more close calls in the past year on the several hundred miles I have ridden on the bikepath (dogs, joggers three abreast with headphones, a women's cross-country team coming at me noit paying attention, cyclists without lights, several deer) than I have for the several thousand miles I have put in on the highways of Ohio and West Virginia.

So, no, the moral of the anecdote is not "Stick to the street where cyclists can assume that all the drivers are stone sober, are 100% alert and predictable, and never make mistakes". The moral is that when you assume that a bike path (sidewalk or any other place) is "safe", you will be surprised unpleasantly. With my track record of being hit in 1955 (a sidewalk) and 1958 (a sidewalk) and a DUI now on a bike path, it seems that if you ride properly on a road and heed all safety warnings, including assuming all the cars and trucks are out to get you (they are), you just may be safer.



Given your track record and close call experiences on the bikepath, you still assumed that there was no reason to ride as if the bikepath was "safe" from surprises. You are quite correct, you were mistaken by not paying appropriate attention to the conditions where you were riding. Pay appropriate attention, ride appropriately, and the sidewalk and/or bikepath can be quite safe for the alert cyclist, and sometimes safer/less risky than a parallel busy highway.

I rode a full mile and 1/2 on Singer Islands nice widewalks last week.
Might have to make it my regular route. No chopped pavement,
no close passing LeSabres, no manacing BigFeet trucks.........
The more relaxed ride made the acute emasculation / inferiority syndrome
stuff slightly less noticeable.

Sidewalk riding :beer:

I always consider myself at risk while on the roadway. I still prefer the roadway. I cycle in all weather and at all times of the day and night. The cyclist in this case was 7-8 feet to my left, going off the left side of the trail into a store, AND I called out that I was passing him on the right. He made a right turn directly into my path. I did miss him and went down. As I said in my post, "I was wrong in assuming he was turning left". Having made more than 1500 DUI arrests in 19 years, I know they are out there, 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. Assuming they would not be on a bike path was another mistake.

However, people know of the hazards of the road, but they assume that the bike paths are safe. I use a bike path to get around the local freeway so that I can get to roads I want to ride on. I have had more close calls in the past year on the several hundred miles I have ridden on the bikepath (dogs, joggers three abreast with headphones, a women's cross-country team coming at me noit paying attention, cyclists without lights, several deer) than I have for the several thousand miles I have put in on the highways of Ohio and West Virginia.

So, no, the moral of the anecdote is not "Stick to the street where cyclists can assume that all the drivers are stone sober, are 100% alert and predictable, and never make mistakes". The moral is that when you assume that a bike path (sidewalk or any other place) is "safe", you will be surprised unpleasantly. With my track record of being hit in 1955 (a sidewalk) and 1958 (a sidewalk) and a DUI now on a bike path, it seems that if you ride properly on a road and heed all safety warnings, including assuming all the cars and trucks are out to get you (they are), you just may be safer.

I say "may".

Mike

two words: 'slow down'

So how do I get all the sidewalk riders in my part of town to stop riding on the sidewalks? It sets up the expectation of motorists that I am doing it wrong when I ride vehicularly in the street.

Thus the guys riding "wrong" feel they are doing it right, while I get the honks and yelling...

I have passed out fliers at local bike shops and the library, that point to the Bike Expert (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/index.htm) web page... But I doubt that these utility riders and students even go to bike shops.

Certainly I can't stop each and every one and try to convince them to ride correctly...

So I bear the brunt of the motorists opinions that the "other cyclists" are doing it right and I am doing it wrong.

This is one clear case where more butts on saddles does NOT pay off.

BTW for the record, there are no bike lanes involved. These are narrow old streets lined with parked cars.

What do the laws and/or ordinances in your area say about sidewalk bicycle riding? If the laws/ordinances say it is allowed, then you can not stop it or prevent it, so you may as well stop trying. You're fighting a losing battle.

In some towns it is legal to ride bike on the sidewalks in the residential areas but illegal to do so in business and the downtown districts.

What do the laws and/or ordinances in your area say about sidewalk bicycle riding? If the laws/ordinances say it is allowed, then you can not stop it or prevent it, so you may as well stop trying. You're fighting a losing battle.

In some towns it is legal to ride bike on the sidewalks in the residential areas but illegal to do so in business and the downtown districts.

That is the case here, and yeah it would be impossible to stop the sidewalk riders. The real problem is that motorists refuse to accept that cyclists can ride in the streets and have the legal right to take a whole lane.

Side walks are for Slow riders Only......

The real problem is that motorists refuse to accept that cyclists can ride in the streets and have the legal right to take a whole lane.

I would have thought that the "Educators" in your local advocacy groups would have straightened out the local motorists by now. You reported recently that San Diego has the cream of the "Educator" crop available for the task. What's holding up their progress?

That is the case here, and yeah it would be impossible to stop the sidewalk riders. The real problem is that motorists refuse to accept that cyclists can ride in the streets and have the legal right to take a whole lane.

Then why are you complaining about sidewalk riders? Instead of going after sidewalk riders why not work to educate motorists? If the laws/ordinaces state where a cyclist can and can not ride ont eh sidewalk and if the sidewalk riders are obeying the law/ordinances then that is not even a remote part of the problem.

Perhaps you could bring us up to date, in a summarization or with links, as to the progress, if any, that has been made to educate motorists. Also what have you done to help with that effort? If there has been any sort of education, PSA's, billboard, TV and radio station ads, education seminars, etc. done to educate motorists on what to do when encountering a cyclist then what type of study has been done to show whether or not it has worked? Or has a study been done? How long has any type of education program been going on for? What kind of involvment do you currently have with something like this? Or are you just a cyclist who is complaining about and wishing things would be better? Are you involved in any kind of advocacy orgainzation to help with this effort? If not and/or if one does not exist perhaps now is the time to start one in your area. Check out the LAB web site for help on how to do this.

As another person asked, what is holding up the progress?

Keep in mind these things take time, sometimes as much as 5 years or more. It will not happen over night, it will not happen with a day, week, month or even a year.

Also you need to remain diplomatic about it. I am not saying be passive, but you do not want to be agressive either. You do that and you will piss off the wrong people and any effort made thus far to help this or any future effort will go right out the window with nothing to show for it.

If you need any help or tips and hints on how to set up an advocacy organization please feel free to ask. I love helping people with this and have good experience doing so.

Also you need to remain diplomatic about it. I am not saying be passive, but you do not want to be agressive either. You do that and you will piss off the wrong people and any effort made thus far to help this or any future effort will go right out the window with nothing to show for it.

Hmmm, that might explain the problem in regards the lack of effectiveness of the "educators" in the San Diego area in influencing public opinion about cyclists' rights, doncha think, Gene?

Hmmm, that might explain the problem in regards the lack of effectiveness of the "educators" in the San Diego area in influencing public opinion about cyclists' rights, doncha think, Gene?

Has he been too aggressive in his methods? What about any advocacy organization or educators that have tried?

Side walks are for Slow riders Only......
Guilty!:roflmao2: But riders who do not have the experience and/or the confidence to ride appropiately on the road are better off on the sidewalk and aren't doing any of us any favors riding where they don't know what they're doing.

Then why are you complaining about sidewalk riders? Instead of going after sidewalk riders why not work to educate motorists? If the laws/ordinaces state where a cyclist can and can not ride ont eh sidewalk and if the sidewalk riders are obeying the law/ordinances then that is not even a remote part of the problem.

Perhaps you could bring us up to date, in a summarization or with links, as to the progress, if any, that has been made to educate motorists. Also what have you done to help with that effort? If there has been any sort of education, PSA's, billboard, TV and radio station ads, education seminars, etc. done to educate motorists on what to do when encountering a cyclist then what type of study has been done to show whether or not it has worked? Or has a study been done? How long has any type of education program been going on for? What kind of involvment do you currently have with something like this? Or are you just a cyclist who is complaining about and wishing things would be better? Are you involved in any kind of advocacy orgainzation to help with this effort? If not and/or if one does not exist perhaps now is the time to start one in your area. Check out the LAB web site for help on how to do this.

As another person asked, what is holding up the progress?

Keep in mind these things take time, sometimes as much as 5 years or more. It will not happen over night, it will not happen with a day, week, month or even a year.

Also you need to remain diplomatic about it. I am not saying be passive, but you do not want to be agressive either. You do that and you will piss off the wrong people and any effort made thus far to help this or any future effort will go right out the window with nothing to show for it.

If you need any help or tips and hints on how to set up an advocacy organization please feel free to ask. I love helping people with this and have good experience doing so.

What is holding up the progress are a group of Vehicular Cyclists, within the local advocacy group, that feel it is not cyclists' place to "educate motorists."

They feel that cyclists' education is all that is needed, and that by example, other cyclists will jump on the bandwagon and then motorists will catch on. (education by osmosis... eh?)

The reality is that just is not happening. More new cyclists are born daily then are educated annually. The result is that there are far more bad examples on the roads daily... not the alleged good examples. Therefore "the plan" will never succeed.

Has he been too aggressive in his methods? What about any advocacy organization or educators that have tried?

What is holding up the progress are a group of Vehicular Cyclists, within the local advocacy group, that feel it is not cyclists' place to "educate motorists."

They feel that cyclists' education is all that is needed, and that by example, other cyclists will jump on the bandwagon and then motorists will catch on. (education by osmosis... eh?)

The reality is that just is not happening. More new cyclists are born daily then are educated annually. The result is that there are far more bad examples on the roads daily... not the alleged good examples. Therefore "the plan" will never succeed.
I had no intention of calling out our friend Gene, when as I suspected, the "usual suspects" are the likely culprits. In the San Diego sandbox, some of our former BF colleagues are probably playing their usual obstructionist tricks and calling it educating the incompetents about the rights of Real Cyclists.

So Gene, are you a vehicular cyclist? If you are I take it you are not amongst those that are hindering the efforts that others are trying to accomplish. Is there only the one advocacy group? When you say local, do you mean city, county or state? If city, why not contact the state group? Or would they refer you back to the more local one? Has anyone tried to take this to the state group and explained the problem that is happening at the local level? If not maybe they can help.

If I remember correctly I have read about someone named John Forester who I think lives or lived in California. He is or was a huge advocate with some pretty radical ideas on how things should be done with interaction between motorists and cyclists, city, county and state governments, etc. I understand he caused a lot of rifts and burned a lot of bridges but also has a dedicated following as well. From what I understand it was or is thought by him and his group his way was the only way to do things and that was it. Everyone else is or was wrong. I do not know if he is still around or even still alive. I thought I'd heard he passed away or something.

Quite a few years ago I had had the misforutne of reading some of his rhetoric on his web site. When I responded in a diplomatic, respectful but assertive manner he basically insulted me with disrespect.

Is or was he and his followers the ones who are largley responsible for the problems the advocacy group is having with the education?

By the way I do think cyclists should work with educators, motorists groups like AAA, etc. and governments to make roadways better for all. From infrastructure to simply sharing the road between cyclists and motorists. I do not think for one second that only one way is the only way, but a combination of several people and groups all contributing toward the goal.

I had no intention of calling out our friend Gene, when as I suspected, the "usual suspects" are the likely culprits. In the San Diego sandbox, some of our former BF colleagues are probably playing their usual obstructionist tricks and calling it educating the incompetents about the rights of Real Cyclists.

I think the only way they'll have any success in countering Forester is to outlive the old barstool.

So Gene, are you a vehicular cyclist? If you are I take it you are not amongst those that are hindering the efforts that others are trying to accomplish. Is there only the one advocacy group? When you say local, do you mean city, county or state? If city, why not contact the state group? Or would they refer you back to the more local one? Has anyone tried to take this to the state group and explained the problem that is happening at the local level? If not maybe they can help.

If I remember correctly I have read about someone named John Forester who I think lives or lived in California. He is or was a huge advocate with some pretty radical ideas on how things should be done with interaction between motorists and cyclists, city, county and state governments, etc. I understand he caused a lot of rifts and burned a lot of bridges but also has a dedicated following as well. From what I understand it was or is thought by him and his group his way was the only way to do things and that was it. Everyone else is or was wrong. I do not know if he is still around or even still alive. I thought I'd heard he passed away or something.

Quite a few years ago I had had the misforutne of reading some of his rhetoric on his web site. When I responded in a diplomatic, respectful but assertive manner he basically insulted me with disrespect.

Is or was he and his followers the ones who are largley responsible for the problems the advocacy group is having with the education?

By the way I do think cyclists should work with educators, motorists groups like AAA, etc. and governments to make roadways better for all. From infrastructure to simply sharing the road between cyclists and motorists. I do not think for one second that only one way is the only way, but a combination of several people and groups all contributing toward the goal.

J Forester is a member of the local County Advocacy group, and he has a rather vocal following... as ILTB alluded. The chair of the advocacy group constantly works to balance the requests of local cyclists with comments of those with "loud voices."

To answer your first question last... Yes, I am a vehicular cyclist... but without all the politics involved... I have been to a couple European countries (in particular, Finland) and have seen that well designed facilities can do far more for cycling than any form of "trying to act like the driver of a vehicle and hoping to be treated as one."

Forester's concepts are only as good as the motorists that are willing to share the road with you... and his concepts fall apart pretty quickly as motorists hog the road and drive at high speeds. If motorists were willing to obey all the rules that Vehicular Cycling mandates, we would not see 45,000 dead motorists each year. Everyone would use the road in harmony. That is not the case.

Now since our society is largely auto centric, the only current solution for cyclists to survive within that largely auto centric environment is to do so vehicularly. However, that makes vehicular cycling a work-around for cyclists in an auto centric environment.

A better solution is to work to make the environment less auto centric and more people centric. That means facilities, that means education, and as we all know, that means getting more people on bikes. (that last bit has NEVER been the goal of the Vehicular Cyclists.) More people on bikes means more acceptance by the general public of cyclists.

Nowhere has anyone been able to show that strict Vehicular Cycling encourages more people to bike.

Like you, I tend to believe that there are better solutions than simply mixing in with auto traffic. The state of California recently passed a Complete Streets bill... that is a marginal first step in the right direction.

BTW lest you think I am some newbie at this... I have been cycling, touring and commuting for well over 35 years here in the US and have also toured and fun cycled in several foreign countries.

Gene, I never once thought you were a newbie, I was just probing as to what your experience is with this. Obviously very experienced and well versed in what you need to do to work toward psotive change. Kudos to you for using what you know to that end.

While getting more people in bikes is a great idea it is not the only way to work toward that end. I am not saying do not work toward getting more people in bikes, go for it man! More pwoer to you for doing so. But you have probably noticed this is one of the most difficult things to do. You also may know that the direct approach, while the shortest is not the easiest or best way to accomplish something like this. Sometimes you have to take it on from the flank or the rear and before they know it people are out riding bikes when they otherwise would not have. You also probably understand some people will never ride a bike, they either can not or are just plain stubborn and unwilling to even try, whether or not they used to in the past.

When you are working to accomplish these goals just remember one thing. "You can please some people all of the time, all of the people some of the time. but not all of the people all of the time."

I have long since learned that getting sidewalk riders to stop riding on the sidewalk is pretty close to impossible. It's just entrenched in their minds, and that is pretty much it. Some years back, I wrote to my city councilor, (now a state rep. ) suggesting that signs be posted in business districts. The signs would simply read "Bicycle riding prohibited on sidewalk in zoned business districts, per state law."

Sidewalk riding, and riding against traffic, are just things that people are taught as children, usually by well-meaning, but mis-informed adults. The knowledge gets entrenched, and that's that.

Good luck in your quest.

I thought this was a pretty well-balanced local article on the subject, although a few of the comments from both sides are over the top.

http://www.thestar.com/article/515919

Back to the original question, "How to get sidewalk riders to stop???"

It's not your job (unless it's illegal *and* you're a cop). Let it be.

You gotta respect that sort of efficiency. Makes me almost feel like goose-stepping.

I ride under certain circumstances; if something is screwed up with me/my bike, if I'm really near a bike path and about to enter, or if there's road work on the road I'm on.

I ride under certain circumstances; if something is screwed up with me/my bike, if I'm really near a bike path and about to enter, or if there's road work on the road I'm on.

Eh... watch out about the road work excuse... I rode up onto the sidewalk for a second (to avoid a construction sign placed in the bike lane) and a lady right hooked me at the driveway five-feet up.

Eh... watch out about the road work excuse... I rode up onto the sidewalk for a second (to avoid a construction sign placed in the bike lane) and a lady right hooked me at the driveway five-feet up.

When I ride on the sidewalk, I've got both my rear light and my front light strobing. I'd advise using those whenever riding on anything other than an MUP. Besides segregated networks (which render cars moot), visibility is the best way to avoid being hit.

To say no one should ever ride on a sidewalk @ anytime is to broad a statement imho. There are places in my area were the street would be suicide. Imo. One should ride were they feel safe @ that time and let others do the same iam to busy taking care of my own butt out there to worry about what others are. Doing anyway. Were one rides is determined by the area and conditions not a stay off the sidewak no matter what statement I do ride in the stree most of the time and most a the time it is the best place to be. BUT NOT ALWAYS

Sounds like law suit heaven. Bikes on sidewalks where they are illegal? oops, they hit me and now I am going to be rich. Make sure you pick the ones with nice bikes.

you can't.


thread closed

Thanks for playing!