Originally Posted by
degnaw
Ok, so let's say the typical avid runner runs at 7mph. I, when climbing any of the 10 ridges/mountains nearby, ride my bike around 7mph. Most cyclists around here roll on walmart mountain bikes with deflated tires, and ride around 7mph.
So what? Many runners might also slow down to "walking" speed on the same climbs. Should they be required to cross the street? And you can probably hit 30+mph going
down them.
You want some magic speed to determine which side of the street runners/walker move along. That's odd.
The law isn't perfect but
your alternative seems worse.
Drivers also might have difficulty distinguishing a runner from a (fast) walker. They certainly are going to have difficulty determining the precise speed of that person.
It makes more sense to have things that look pretty much the same to be in a standard place on the roadway.
Originally Posted by
degnaw
I understand that runners are more agile than cyclists, and thus would be able to avoid a car they saw coming. I DON'T understand why people seem to be saying it's unreasonably dangerous for a runner to run with traffic - in these scenarios, I'd imagine it's safer to run with traffic than to cycle with traffic because runners can keep a straighter line.
The "unreasonably dangerous" is a straw man (no one (here) is claiming that. (I don't think you
intend to make a straw man argument.)
It could be safer because drivers may not be able to distinguish between walkers and runners. And many runners run slow and some walkers run fast.
Your idea is really based on the
speed of the runner/walker (a speed that is arbitrary and hard for the runner/walker to determine). And it would runners/walkers would be found on both sides of the street!
Vehicles (regardless of speed) go with traffic and pedestrians (regardless of speed) go against traffic.
(A runner required to go with the flow would either have to cross the street or turn around if they decided to walk!)
It seems that the current rule is much simpler and more predictable. (We want rules that are simple and predictable.)
Your suggestion doesn't seem like an improvement.