wheel

https://www.abc15.com/media/lib/88/c/...8/Original.jpg

image may be graphic.

In Tempe you have the right way, and the wrong way.
The two pedacyclists even have the right of way, crossing a driveway. The other pedacyclist is another story.

Yes I am aware people can't buy a flashlight and affix it their bikes. One thing at a time.

https://www.abc15.com/content/news/so...xkYmBmKhw.cspx
story


TEMPE, AZ -- A fire department official said a bicyclist suffered critical injuries when he was hit by a vehicle and trapped underneath Thursday night.

The 18-year-old was struck near Broadway Road and McClintock Drive in Tempe around 6:15 p.m.

According to Tempe Police Officer Aaron Colombe, when officers arrived they found the bicyclist's legs pinned under the car.

Colombe said several officers and firefighters lifted the car off the man.

He was reportedly conscious when transported from the scene.

Colombe said the bicyclist was riding on the sidewalk eastbound, against the flow of traffic, when he was hit by a car coming out of an apartment complex.

He said the bicyclist could be cited because it is against city ordinance to be riding against the flow of traffic.
Copyright 2009 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

randya

unlike the roads, sidewalks are bidirectional

wheel

Did you even read the article?

Joe_Mo

But he's right.

its only going against the flow of traffic if you are going the opposite way in a bike lane.

side walks are bidirectional.

wheel

City code which allows sidewalk riding.

Sec. 7-52. Riding on sidewalks or bicycle lanes.

(a) The city traffic engineer is authorized to erect or place signs on any sidewalk or roadway, prohibiting the riding of bicycle thereon by any person; and when such signs are in place no person shall disobey same.

(b) Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and should give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.

(c) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle in any direction except that permitted by vehicular traffic on the same side of the roadway where the sidewalk or bicycle lane exists; provided, that bicycles may proceed either way where signs or pavement markings on the sidewalk, bikeway or bicycle lane appear designating two-way traffic.

(d) Any person riding a bicycle on a bikeway, sidewalk or bicycle path that is about to enter or cross a roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic on such roadway. (Ord. No. 87.24, 1-14-88)

wheeldeal

Sidewalks are bidirectional.

Digital_Cowboy

If you read what was posted before you it sounds as if bicycle traffic on sidewalks is the same direction as the traffic on the street itself. And that it's only pedestrian traffic that is bidirectional.

wheeldeal

To be honest, that's the dumbest law ever. First level of stupidity is to allow bikes on a sidewalk. I can't wait until some nut job rides 25mph and runs over a dog or a little kid.

The second level of stupidity....if you're going to allow bikes on the sidewalk, why mandate which direction they should go? It makes no difference for pedestrians. It makes no difference for cars coming out from driveways (they have to look both ways for pedestrians).

rando

Holy crap, this is close to my house!

genec

The nut job that rides a bike 25MPH on a sidewalk is the same nut job that drives 50MPH in a 35 zone. It always comes down to appropriate speed for the conditions... NOT the posted speed LIMIT, nor whatever LIMITS you can take the vehicle to. The responsibility of the operator of ANY vehicle is to operate in a safe manner.

BTW the Tempe law posted did not say sidewalk riding was mandatory, it stated that it was lawful, unless otherwise posted. It also clearly stated that a cyclist must give way to pedestrians... thus that 25MPH cyclist better be watching out for peds. And if they have any sense what so ever... they should also watch out for motorists.

Now here is the other half of that coin. Motorists have the responsibility to not run over cyclists that share the road. We know how well that works. And how often a motorist is actually cited should such a collision occur.

BTW, yeah motorists do have to look both ways... they rarely do. Right turning motorists tend to focus on what is arriving on the left, not on the right. And again the wheels of justice really suck on this too.

lineinthewater

That is why it DOES matter that their sidewalk law specifies the direction of bike travel on sidewalks.

But one could see how a driver that knows this law might be even more likely NOT to look right - perhaps a negative consequence.

I know someone that occasionally rides on the sidewalk, because heavy traffic and narrow lanes make them very nervous. In all honesty, I would say they are safer on the sidewalk (at this point) because their confidence level on the road is not sufficient yet. I'm trying to help them out in being more assertive on the road, and they are becoming more confident. But this type of accident, biker on sidewalk and car coming out of driveway, is one of my biggest fears. I warn my friend ALL THE TIME about looking and slowing at every xstreet or driveway if they are choosing the sidewalk.

rando

This is actually the same street, about a block away, where I had MY wrong-way sidewalk accident... luckily, I wasn't pinned under the car, but ran into it as it was pulling out. I was cited, so was he. I was riding faster than I ride now on the sidewalk. I no longer ride the wrong way! but plenty others do. they need to put some signage up on Broadway.

randya

The article is kind of vague, I'm assuming it's against city ordinance to be riding against the flow of traffic in the street, and/or the cop doesn't know what he's talking about, which is pretty typical.

The driver is required to look both ways for peds, isn't he, or are peds only allowed to walk one way too? Is the sidewalk there classified as a bikeway? Does it have directional markings for cyclists?

cydisc

Yeah. I'm going to throw my 5 year old out in the street to ride her bike.

On your second point, I don't understand. First it's stupid to have bikes on the sidewalk, but if they're going to be allowed, it might as well be a free-for-all? It makes sense to only allow vehicles (read: bicycles) to travel in one, predictable direction, following the inherent flow of traffic for that side of the street.

Digital_Cowboy

I believe that in a lot but not all jurisdictions that there is a cut off age for riding on the sidewalks. I have no problems with children say 10 and younger being required to ride on the sidewalk as they are still learning how to operate their bike. Then say from 10 to 16 riding on the sidewalk being an option, and anyone 16 and over having to operate on the roads.

Of course it should go without saying that children should be supervised by a parent or guardian while they are learning how to operate their bicycles.

njkayaker

It's actually fairly easy to figure out why that requirement makes some sense. (The key thing is that bicyclists tend to move much faster than pedestrians.)
Note too that cars have to look both ways before enntering traffic. Hopefully, you don't think that means cars should be able to drive in both directions in the right hand lane!

wheeldeal

Sorry. Makes no sense to mandate bicycle direction on a sidewalk.

Let me first start off my saying I've never been to Temple and don't know the environment. If a car in NYC (where I live) pulls out from a driveway, he'll have to come to a complete stop and wait for the 20 pedestrians in front of him to stop before slowly inching forward at 2mph before reaching the curb.

He'll have to stop again and wait for a hole in motor vehicle traffic before entering the road.

Makes no sense to mandate a bicycle's direction of travel on a sidewalk.

wheeldeal

I want to see your 5 year old riding on the sidewalk. When she turns around to come back to you, I'm going to stop her and make her go around the block because she's breaking the law. I'll remind her that she's only allowed to ride in one direction on her little bicycle.

rando

where this happened is a huge apartment complex called "The Haven" North of Broadway between McClintock and Rural. I rode by it on my way to work today. It has three entrances and exits, with an 8-10 ft sidewalk in front of it. I see people riding the wrong way on this stretch all the time! City of Tempe needs Signage to tell these guys they are going the wrong way.

San Rensho 

What many cyclists fail to realize is that a bicycle is many vehicles in one, and that you have to "change vehicles" depending on what situation you are in.

When bicycling in the street with car traffic, acting like a car is the safest thing to do.

When you're riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, then you have to become a pedestrian and ride your bicycle so that you would fit in with pedestrian traffic. You have to go slowly, at a walking pace.

So I'm going to engage in the time-honored A&S tradition of engaging in complete speculation and state that this guy probably was going fairly fast on the sidewalk, and he didn't have time to avoid the car and the car didn't have time to avoid him. If he had been riding his bicycle at a walking pace, this accident would likely not have happened.

noisebeam

The article might be, but the law as posted earlier in this thread is not. In the city of Tempe it is illegal to ride on a sidewalk against vehicular traffic flow on the same side of the road.

Tempe police tend to be quite cyclist aware and know the laws well. I have only had good experiences with them.

Twice a year (at start of school year/semester) there are reminders in the newspapers about this law and and law prohibiting sidewalk cycling in the core downtown areas.

wheeldeal

Why? What danger do these "wrong way" cyclist pose to themselves or others?

If anything, I think they should mandate a law that lowers the speed limit to 6mph (a 10 minute mile jogger's pace)

cydisc

I guess we both have a point.

I, for one, can't wait until we all travel by tube.

wheel

cycling I thought was the topic by default.

Well first off the state law prohibits, but allows cities to enforce unto themselves.
Tucson Arizona you get a $25 fine the irony here is in some places you have what they call "sidewalk area". (a dirt patch) Instead of a concrete sidewalk.

1.Tempe has very large sidewalks.
2.Tempe has a very large sidewalk cycling population. 4 percent ride there bikes to work not including college students. I can go weeks with out ever seeing anyone cycling on the main roads.
4. Many driveways cross the sidewalk.
5. Buses drop passengers off on the sidewalk.
3. Pedestrian will try go against the traffic flow to see cycles and road traffic right turning.

It has a lot to do with traffic control and safety for everyone.


Personally I have seen people ride on the sidewalk with bike lanes in place. People who I talk with have this deep seeded need to ride on the sidewalk. Yet most won't wear a safety vest, bring a light, use a rear view mirror, or stop speeding on the sidewalk.

I'll be over here on the road if you need me.

noisebeam

^^^ agree with most of you observation except the part about not seeing cyclists on the main roads (I assume you mean arterial roads like rural, university, apache, mcclintock, guadalupe). I see multiple cyclist daily on the main roads. Even those that don't fit either the roadie or safety-gear commuter stereotypical look. Just everyday clothing.