Advocacy & Safety - Invisible bike lane

Lately, I have noticed an "invisible bike lane."

No matter where I look on the road, there it is. It's about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the car lane, on the rightmost side.

Whew! I'm so glad I can see it, now! (Before, I couldn't see it, so I wasn't sure if I fit in...)

;)

Anybody know what's the deal with riding on the sidewalk? Here in Jax, FL we have SOME bicycle lanes, but I gotta tell ya, they don't exactly instill too much comfort considering that they are only about 3 feet wide, right next to a road where people usually drive about 20 over the speed limit. I'm a little wary of having my back facing 60mph SUV's that are passing me by about 3 feet.

Now, I am a newbie so maybe it's not as bad as I make it out to be but I'm a little worried about being forced to ride in that itty bitty lane in a city that's not exactly bike-oriented. Any suggestions? Are there major fees associated with riding on the sidewalk?

Originally posted by Pballingal
Anybody know what's the deal with riding on the sidewalk?

For me, I personally find it more dangerous than riding on the road and I refuse to do it. I could care less about the fees or anything else.

Chris, why do you find the sidewalk more dangerous?

There are a number of problems riding on sidewalks.
1:you have to yield at every junction. Riding across the junction, you are open to collision from right-turning motorists.

2: there are dogs and pedestrians on the sidewalk, both known for their unpredictable behaviour.

3: You are vulnerable to cars exiting and entering driveways.

4: It is usually illegal

A competant and assertive rider is safer on the road. There are well known techniques for controlling the traffic around you, by the position you take in the road.
A knowledge of the most common forms of collision can help you to predict potential conflicts and avoid them. The most highly feared rear-end collision accounds for a tiny proportion of crashes.

Have a look for books or courses on "Effective Cycling"

Originally posted by MichaelW
There are a number of problems riding on sidewalks.
1:you have to yield at every junction. Riding across the junction, you are open to collision from right-turning motorists.

2: there are dogs and pedestrians on the sidewalk, both known for their unpredictable behaviour.

3: You are vulnerable to cars exiting and entering driveways.
And all the above things count for bikepaths along the sidewalk as well. :mad:

I'm personally terrified of rideing on the sidewalk. I even avoid it when the sigh says I'm allowed. Sidewalks are slow and dangerous. What screws me up the most is when the sidewalk/bicycle path end and you have to somehow make the merge back into traffic. If I was on the road the whole time, most of the drivers will have known I'm there. Leaving the sidewalk and joining traffic has got to startle those already half panicked motorists a little more. At least that's my safety perspective.
Mostly, sidewalks are just annoyingly bumpy on my roadie tires and someone is always in the way whether it's dumbass minivan or dumass ped with headphones cranked.

I have met some cyclists (MTB'ers) that insist on riding against traffic when on the road. They claim they'd rather see the cars coming. I would think that a head-on collision would be a bad thing, but when we're talkin' about a car travelling at high speed, does it really matter whether the wreck is head-on or not? I'm gonna stick with the flow of traffic myself.

Statistically, the majority of bike-car collisions are associated with wrong way travel, a very scary fact when some states are trying to make it the law.

The crash that wrong-way cyclists risk is not a head on crash, but one with a car turing out of a junction. They are looking for traffic approaching from the correct direction, not yours.

Again, if you understand the dynamics of crashes, you can move to reduce the risk. Most bike crashes follow a few patterns. Once you reduce the probability of these occuring, you are left with the weird, unpredictable ones to deal with.

Originally posted by Pballingal
Now, I am a newbie so maybe it's not as bad as I make it out to be but I'm a little worried about being forced to ride in that itty bitty lane in a city that's not exactly bike-oriented. Any suggestions? Are there major fees associated with riding on the sidewalk?
First of all, welcome to the Forums--here's hoping we will see you here a lot.

I can only speak for Kansas City, but I guarantee that KC is VERY un-bike-oriented, and yet after a little practice it isn't scary to ride on the street.

As far as I know the police do not enforce the law against riding on the sidewalks. Last time I checked, it was illegal for anybody over the age of 12 to do it. But even the cops on bikes do it! (Which I think is setting a bad example.) I see as many bikes on the sidewalks as on the streets, and the riders are definitely over 12 years of age. I don't think anybody under 18 rides a bike in Kansas City; all the little kids have SUV's now.

I consider riding on the sidewalk a dangerous and rude practice and never ever do it. The street is not dangerous if you're assertive (not aggressive), obey the traffic laws, use common sense, and remain alert all the time.

What's the rule of thumb for riding down a street with no bike lane? i.e.-just hug the right side as much as possible, just stay in the right lane....?

Just curious

Originally posted by Pballingal
What's the rule of thumb for riding down a street with no bike lane? i.e.-just hug the right side as much as possible, just stay in the right lane....?

Just curious

Its pretty much accepted by cyclists that cars will pass you with the same clearance you give the curb. Hug the curb, and cars will shave past you. Ride more assetively, about 2-3ft wide, and cars will give you a wider berth. The faster you go, the wider you ride. If there is not sufficient room to overtake you, you can take the whole lane by riding in the middle. You have to control the traffic around you.
Curbs are dangerous places, they are full of broken glass and drainage features. Cars turning into your road are looking for vehicles in the middle of the lane, not the edge. Pedestrians stepping off the curb are not looking at you. When you pass parked cars, you have to swerve out into the traffic, and risk getting hit by opening car doors.

All of this apparently arcane knowledge is distilled into the Effective Cycling course and book by John Forrester. To us experienced cyclists, EC is just plain common sense, but for newbies, there is nothing common about it. Read the book, do the course.

Re: Michael W's post: Hear, hear.

Most jurisdictions have a law that reads along the lines of: "Bicycles shall be ridden as far to the right as possible consistent with safety." It's the last three words that are the magic key to the whole thing. It is NOT consistent with safety to ride into a storm drain grating that captures your front wheel and causes you to be killed. So a cyclist has every right (and in fact, probably the duty) to ride far enough left to avoid nasty things like that (and likewise broken glass, etc.)

The same applies for car doors: the cyclist can and should ride far enough left to clear suddenly opened doors.

Pedestrians are among the most horrifying hazards a cyclist faces. So many of them seem to be DRUGGED. Maybe they are. :(

I had a woman walk right into the path of my bike one day and had to swerve wildly to miss her (which could have thrown me into the path of an oncoming car, but luckily didn't). I slowed down and said, "You could really get hurt that way!" I didn't mention the fact that I could more easily get killed.

She just laughed.

:crash:

Originally posted by JonR
I had a woman walk right into the path of my bike one day and had to swerve wildly to miss her (which could have thrown me into the path of an oncoming car, but luckily didn't). I slowed down and said, "You could really get hurt that way!" I didn't mention the fact that I could more easily get killed.

She just laughed.
A classic... I once ”chased” the cyclist in front of me (meaning we were biking fast) when he crashed with a woman moving from the sidewalk to her parked car. Many bike-paths in Stockholm look like the one on the pic, which is quite dangerous when you come fast. I stopped to check that they were all right (looked quite messy) and to speak up for the biker if needed, but then I realized they were having a sort of intimate moment so I left... :rolleyes:

Anyway, that’s the kind of stuff that makes me avoid bike-paths and bike on the streets with the cars instead.

http://www.karlsplanet.com/pics/cykelbana.gif

Highly recommended reading: the three cycling Gospels of John:
1) John Forester [Californa], "Effective Cycling"
2) John Franklin [U.K.], "Cyclecraft"
3) John S. Allen [Massachusetts], "Street Smarts"

If in doubt, take an Effective Cycling course. Always ride WITH the flow of traffic, assume and hold a consistent position on the road, far enough toward the center to avoid being "doored" by a parked car, and to give you a little emergency maneuvering room. Wear bright colours and use lights at night. Where possible, plan your route to avoid fast, narrow streets with high-speed diverges and merges. Stay alert and always have an escape or collision avoidance plan. Seek the counsel of local experienced cyclists and try to get one to ride with you to share a few pointers.

Yes, traveling on streets with motor vehicles is dangerous, but so are motoring and walking. The casualty statistics for lawful vehicular cyclists are comparable to those of motorists, even though the general cycling death and injury rate is far higher.

As usual, sensible advice from Michael W. Pballingal, there are a number of reasons riding on the footpath/sidewalk is more dangerous. For one thing, only about 3% of bike/car collisions are caused by cyclist being hit from behind. The biggest danger comes at intersections. This is multiplied on the footpath because drivers are less likely to watch the footpath as they come out of their driveway (as a pedestrian, I know).

I usually ride as far to the left (the right for those in the US) as is safely possible. Sometimes I take the lane if I want to avoid broken glass or something, at which point I make a handsignal in advance of my intentions.

I would like to add that side-streets are sometimes more hazardous than heavier-traveled ones, because people are backing out of driveways, children run unpredictably into the street to retrieve toys, etc. Which is not to say side-streets don't make a pleasant change of pace, or provide welcome alternate routes, but it is necessary to be even more vigilant on them.

Originally posted by MichaelW


Its pretty much accepted by cyclists that cars will pass you with the same clearance you give the curb. Hug the curb, and cars will shave past you. Ride more assetively, about 2-3ft wide, and cars will give you a wider berth. The faster you go, the wider you ride. If there is not sufficient room to overtake you, you can take the whole lane by riding in the middle. You have to control the traffic around you.
Curbs are dangerous places, they are full of broken glass and drainage features. Cars turning into your road are looking for vehicles in the middle of the lane, not the edge. Pedestrians stepping off the curb are not looking at you. When you pass parked cars, you have to swerve out into the traffic, and risk getting hit by opening car doors.

All of this apparently arcane knowledge is distilled into the Effective Cycling course and book by John Forrester. To us experienced cyclists, EC is just plain common sense, but for newbies, there is nothing common about it. Read the book, do the course.

Spot on as usual Michael, and that's the way I hope I ride.

(Some motorists get annoyed at it though, but it's assertiveness rather than aggression I try to exhibit and I think they just misinterpret.)

Originally posted by chewa
(Some motorists get annoyed at it though, but it's assertiveness rather than aggression I try to exhibit and I think they just misinterpret.)
My theory is, if motorists get annoyed at me, it's better than being ignored.

If I'm ignored, they may not see me at all. If they are annoyed, at least I know they see me!

Re safety, I confess that I broke my thumb popping up onto a sidewalk, a little bump threw me. I was barely moving.

Originally posted by Palafo
Re safety, I confess that I broke my thumb popping up onto a sidewalk, a little bump threw me. I was barely moving.
I agree that the safest place (in general) is a smooth, straight line which allows you to be seen. This is the way planners build roads for cars; this is what bicycles need, even more so, because they are far more sensitive to rough pavement.

I believe that the only way to get equal treatment is to use the same roads.

Where I live, there is a "bike route" that looks really great on the map. But it hasn't been resurfaced in about 200 years. Even if I take the center of the curbside lane, I am forced to weave constantly around potholes and bumpy areas.

Obviously, this "bike route" was designed by Goofy on Mickey Mouse's day off.

i pretty much agree with most of the comments here...

as far as i know, in most states in the US
1) you're required to ride to the right of the roadway - this only means as far right as is safe - if way right so that cars have enough room to pass w/o crossing the lane line is not possible, then cars must wait until a safe time to pass as they would for a slow car or a farm tractor
2) you're not allowed to ride on the sidewalk although this is rarely enforced excpet in downtown pedestrian-zones
3) if there is a bike lane next to the road, you are **required** to use it - actually i believe this is why a lot of bike lanes get built: to force bikes off the road to 'make room' for cars...

Riding on the Sidewalk is quite often very dangerous unless you ride really slowly (more the pace of a pedestrian - under 5mph):
1) cars don't expect anything but slow-moving pedestrians that basically are link stationary objects relative to a car - so they do not look for an approaching bike when turning on to antother street or into or out of a parking lot- very dangerous
2) the sidewalk is mainly for pedestrians so they don't expect bike and can act unpredictably moving in your path unexpectedly

basically, a bicycle is too fast for the sidewalk and it creates conflicts with pedestrians and is dangerous because motorists don't expect it... and riding more than 15mph on the sidewalk is usually extremely dangerous - it's just a question of WHEN you will be in an accident

Germany, as far as i understand is similar with the exception that there are in generla more bike lanes, and many bike lines are on the outer edge of the sidewalk next to the pedestrian sidewalk instead of the car lanes (instead of next to the car lanes to the right and left of parked cars) - so that you have from left to right:: car lanes, parallel parking, maybe space (grass or trees), then bike path most often immediately adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk. From what i remeber of Holland, it is also this way, but even more separated such that in the cities almost no bikes ride in the street - only cars.

the problem is that since the bike lane is separated from the roadway by parked cars, visibility is greatly reduced..

Now in Germany the cars are required to yeild to the bikes in the bike lane when turning on or off the street and when compared to the US do a great job of looking out for bikes, but it is still a huge problem with cars not looking (or expecting a bike travelling 10mph instead of 25mph) or blocking the bike lane while turning onto a street...

riding fast (more than 15mph/24kmh) in a bike lane next to the pedestrian sidewalk is often very dangerous - i have had more near accidents with both pedestrians and cars in the city in Germany than in the US --- despite the fact that European drivers actually look out for bikes (it's a major part of the very long, serious and expensive driver training here - costs upwards of $600 to get a driver's license) -- although it's still in general more pleasant to ride here compared to the US b/c cars are a little more tamed... and then outside of the city riding on rural roads is much safer here b/c people are aware of cyclists.

unless it is a very high speed road (over 45mph) with no shoulder then riding in the right of the raodway is usually the safest b/c cars can see you

then the biggest problems come from when motorists make a 'lazy' look only looking for large car-like objects and miss bikes (and motorcycles too as a previous motorcycle rider for 4 years).

and then the other big car mistake is underestimating the speed of a cyclist, making a pass and then turning right right in front of the cyclist, assuming that the 'slow' cyclist must be well behind...

Originally posted by nathank
i pretty much agree with most of the comments here...

as far as i know, in most states in the US
3) if there is a bike lane next to the road, you are **required** to use it - actually i believe this is why a lot of bike lanes get built: to force bikes off the road to 'make room' for cars...


Actually, this is NOT true in California, which has no mandatory sidepath law for bicycles. However, we do have a mandatory sidepath law for pedestrians, who routinely violate it by jogging in the softer asphalt bike lane instead of on the harder concrete sidewalk.

Originally posted by John E


Actually, this is NOT true in California, which has no mandatory sidepath law for bicycles. However, we do have a mandatory sidepath law for pedestrians, who routinely violate it by jogging in the softer asphalt bike lane instead of on the harder concrete sidewalk.
There is a similar law here in Aus. but there is a clear distinction between bikeLANES to which the law applies, and bikePATHS which it doesn't. Bikelanes are part of the roadway, bikepaths aren't. The upshot of this is that if there is a bike path running adjacent to a road you are NOT legally required to ride on it and can take the road if you so choose.

Unfortunately, many numbnuts in cars aren't aware of this, and even if the road is plenty safe for cycling, if there's a bikepath (or even what they mistakenly believe to be a bikepath - the Story Bridge being a case in point) anywhere nearby, the volume and frequency of abuse is increases exponentially compared to a similar road without nearby bikepaths.

Originally posted by swekarl
... but then I realized they were having a sort of intimate moment so I left... :rolleyes:

So the rumours about Sweden ARE true.