1nterceptor

"At a news conference at City Hall on Friday to announce other biking initiatives, Cranley said he thought bicyclists could use the sidewalk alongside the road, at one point referring to it as a “highway.” Cranley said he didn’t see any reason why bicyclists couldn’t use the sidewalk along Central Parkway in the same way."

Read the full article:
Cranley: Want to bike on Central Parkway? Use the sidewalk - Cincinnati Business Courier

prathmann

The place he refers to "highway" is:
"I drove it yesterday, and I noticed that the sidewalk all the way down the highway is a beautiful sidewalk that is not used because it’s on the highway side of the road. My gut instinct is that you’ve got this amazing sidewalk all the way along the highway side of Central Parkway ..."

I-75 parallels part of the Central Parkway and that's the "highway" to which he's referring in "the highway side of Central Parkway."

rydabent

Usually it is really fat out of shape b'crats that make statements like that.

RonanP77

Over here (Ireland) we don't call it a sidewalk, it's a footpath. Cyclists aren't on foot so have no business being on it. The law (I'm sure you guys have totaly differet laws to us) states that we aren't actualy alowed to cycle on them and we have to use the road.

genec

Not necessarily to support the mayors suggestion... but quite often sidewalks ARE an underused resource.

Of course that is a very location dependent statement... around here sidewalks are full of "furniture," sign posts, light poles and control boxes.

But in some locations, sidewalks are wide and vacant.

Maybe the mayor should re-designate the sidewalk as a bike path, and post signs telling peds to keep right.

Chris516

Ditto!!

I made the mistake of riding on the sidewalk, several years ago. I crashed because, the county DOT had moved a traffic light, without removing the concrete base. Without having to sue them, I held them accountable by taking pictures of the old concrete base and sending them the evidence. They reimbursed me for the repairs on my bike.

seeker333

This is also the case in most locations of the USA - bicycling is not permitted on the footpaths/sidewalks. There is a usually a state or local statute specifying something to the effect of "bicycling not permitted on sidewalk". Still politicians, policemen and other citizens ignorant of these laws sometimes suggest/order bicyclists to "get off the road, get on the sidewalk".

howsteepisit

Sidewalks would be great, if we could just get rid of the skaters, skateboarders, walkers, joggers, and dog walkers from them.

kickstart

I sometimes use sidewalks, not often, but they can be the best option in some particular locations. They are typically in as good or better condition as the road they are adjacent to, have few pedestrians, and its legal.

I see nothing wrong with having options. A wide, smooth, vacant sidewalk vs. a congested high speed road seems like a no brainer to me.

Sullalto

And move the sidewalk inwards enough where it isn't a constant up&down or riding on a slanted surface.

genec

And what about the areas where none of the above exist.. I know this may be hard to grasp, but there are areas with wide sidewalks that don't have driveways, nor other folks using them. Frankly they shouldn't even be side WALKs as no one on foot goes by that way...

Now I don't blanket encourage the use of sidewalks... but I do want to inform folks that there are places where riding on sidewalks makes sense. I have seen such places along long stretches of arterial road... and if the choice is to "share the lane" on a 50MPH arterial road or ride an empty sidewalk... well, you decide.

howsteepisit

I got no argument with unused sidewalks being used for cycling at all. In fact I occasionally ride on MUPs , but the riding there has to be very slow and cautious. I was just noting that a mayoral suggestion what cyclists get off the road and use sidewalks may present danger to cyclists, walkers, joggers, skaters, skateboarders, and any other users.

genec

Wow, again the situation varies... and one just can't make blanket statements... in my area there are some very useful MUPs that one can easily take at full speed... I have done so many times and found these paths to be quite useful. So your mileage may vary.

Here is a pic of one such MUP:



Here is a pic of another area on the same MUP. Hardly an area that requires one to be slow and cautious.

keyven

I used to mostly ride on sidewalks but I it was getting tiresome negotiating cracks and obstacles and potholes instead of riding hard and fast down a straight road. It was fun when the streets were new and exciting on a bike - now it's just same-old, same-old.

I still pay a lot of attention to vehicles overtaking me but I can't go back to sidewalks unless I plan to take it slow.

genec

And yet again... not all sidewalks are the same...

rydabent

Actually I ride sidewalks, Mups, and the streets and hiways. Which ever is the only path, or the path of least resistance.

CbadRider

I would be happy if runners and joggers would stay on the sidewalks. Here they tend to run in the bike lanes because they think the adjacent sidewalk concrete is to hard of a surface for running.

runner pat

That's because it is. Asphalt is noticeably softer and the surface is more even. Think root and frost heaves, poor maintenance and even no sidewalk at all. Also, all the poor visibility to traffic that a bike has on a sidewalk.

dpeters11

Cranley has been confusing me a bit. He wants to give $1.1 million to the Bike Share program starting up and says he wants Cincinnati to be one of the best cycling cities in the country. Several on council ride bikes, including the Vice Mayor.

The cycletrack, at least the compromise version, will likely win out. The original plan was passed by the previous council. We're lucky to have a local advocacy group that works with the city on cycling programs.

I ride on Central Parkway as part of a group, at that point in the evening it's not too bad. I did see a comment on a local news site asking if they'd looked into using the old subway tunnel under that road for bikes. Cool idea, but completely impracticable.

Null66

Why would subway be impracticable?
They convert railroad tunnels?

dpeters11

The tunnels were never put into use, construction started and ended in the 20s. I have yet to get down there, they have one tour a year. I know at least one tunnel has a 52" water main going through it (which I understand they actually shut off during the tour). It would need major renovations to be viable for anything dealing with public use.

Null66

Bummer...

spivonious

It sounds like the new sidewalk will be more of a shared use path, and that since the road doesn't have much pedestrian traffic, bicyclists would find riding on the new path preferable to riding on the (presumably) high-speed road.

As far as subway riding, it would be neat, but what if you're only riding a few blocks?

Chris516

I have a balance issue. So, Going fast actually helps me keep my balance. About a year ago, I was on the sidewalk coming home from an appointment. I was having to go so slow because of the condition of the sidewalk that, I lost my balance falling off the sidewalk, into PM-Rush traffic and nearly got killed.

tandempower

The mayor should definitely go out and cycle on various types of paths and surfaces to experience the difference directly. When people ask me why I don't ride on the sidewalk I tell them that I do when I am going @5mph and don't mind the bumps, seams, and gutters when crossing roads. When I'm actually traveling on a time budget, a long smooth surface is preferable. It doesn't matter too much if it is a road where motorists are allowed or a bike road or a bike lane on the shoulder of a road where motorists are allowed. Obviously the further you can bike from motor-traffic, the more pleasant but the bumpiness of sidewalks and winding detours of bike paths/MUPs can make riding with motor-traffic a reasonable alternative.

Generally I am glad cyclists are recognized as both pedestrians and vehicles. Some people seem to hate this designation as it simply doesn't corner cycling enough into a regulatory corner but it is logical since a person on a bike really isn't much bigger than a walking pedestrian and most cyclists can operate a bicycle as carefully at walking speeds as they can walk or jog. On the other hand, when you're going 15+mph, you should be allowed to go on the road and you should also obey relevant traffic rules like proper lane-change signaling.

I do, however, think that slightly different rules should apply to many aspects of cycling relative to driving, such as rolling stops and proceeding with caution through red lights at empty intersections. I say this because cyclists can stop faster than a car and make 'rolling stops' at speeds much slower than motorists would if they were allowed to do so. It bothers me when motorists vocalize a will to throw the book at cyclists simply because they feel that cycling isn't regulated as stringently as driving. This is just bitterness and envy and such people fail to acknowledge that a bicycle is a light vehicle with different handling characteristics, which poses much less danger in all types of accidents than motor-vehicles, even motorcycles and scooters.

Now, as for cycling 10+mph on a sidewalk without slowing down to pass pedestrians and other slower traffic, that might be something to ticket. Still, it's offensive when public outcries for 'cracking down' on cycling violations are based on nothing more than bitterness that no one should be exempt from the authoritarian regime in which motorists must operate simply because there are so many and so many that drive aggressively up to whatever limit is set for them by law enforcement.