Great post!

It depends.

I find it annoying when people are apparently doing that for a few miles.

But, if I'm on the left side of a 4-lane road and planning to make a left turn, or go to a business on the left within about 5 blocks, then I'll do the Sidewalk Salmon.

We also have a local bike path that ends at traffic light with no buttons or sensors to cross the road to the right side. So, one ends up doing some sort of salmon until either traffic clears, or one gets a half block down to the next light with a button.

Sorry I wasn't clear, this on a .75 mile stretch of road that is quite wide enough to accommodate cyclists in the flow of traffic. The salmon-ing in this case didn't strike me as necessary

Exactly... The 3 cyclist's that almost T-boned me as I was pulling out onto the main road from a stop were riding way too fast and coming from a direction not expected...

I do this regularly all the time

It's none of your business to tell other people how or where they should or shouldn't ride their bicycle. Just ignore it and don't say anything.

Hey, I'm generally in the "mind your own business" camp, but there are times when it's not a terrible idea to say something.

For example, there are a lot of dudes in the city that like to fly through red lights, including some close passes between the pedestrians that are crossing at the lights. If I happen to catch up to them later on (because they generally aren't very fast when simply riding), I usually let them know that they are simply breeding resentment for all riders. Or, as more common phrased, they are making the rest of us look like a-holes too...

I decided to go down the "say nothing" road this morning - literally - as I chose the alternate route in to work

Write down "bikeforums.net/commuting" and hand it to the cyclist.

Say, "I noticed we both bike to work. Here's a website I found that has helped make my bike commute safer and more fun."

The "salmon" part is still confusing / meaningless. Sidewalk traffic is two-way. Is it a sidewalk next to a one-way street, and he's therefore avoiding circling a large block by using the sidewalk? If not, I still don't see where "salmon" comes in.

What's the local ordinance there wrt. bicycles and sidewalks? Is the person yielding to pedestrians, and riding in a manner consistent with that of a pedestrian? There's usu. language to that effect in the ordinance. Some ordinances prohibit bicycling on a sidewalk where a building directly abuts the sidewalk (safety for the cyclist and others).

Thanks for the reply. I thought we already agreed not to cavil about the semantics?

I'm pretty sure I've clarified this, the BSO was cycling up a sidewalk against traffic on a two lane road. The road was wide enough that it doesn't make sense to be cycling against traffic at all. in fact, it turns out that it's illegal to operate any vehicle on the sidewalks in municipality. It turns out, a close reading of the municipal's ordinance expressly includes bicycles in the definition of the ordinance's definition of "vehicle." I think you will just have to take my word on that.

I would politely suggest starting a new thread somewhere if you continue to desire discussing this. I'm satisfied with the responses already on my topic and don't require any further input. Thanks!

Really…??? WOW...

If they are on a sidewalk then it's likely 100% legal. Sidewalks are never one way so no such thing as "salmoning" on the sidewalk. Only legal issue would be places that don't allow riding on the sidewalk.

Is this creating an unsafe situation? Or does it just bother you because he's not following what you think should be a rule?

I do this for a quarter mile every time I ride to work. It's on a sidewalk that has zero pedestrian traffic (through an industrial area with nothing to walk to) because my destination is on that side of the road. And the road is a major 4 lane artery with no lights to assist in crossing. (I approach the road from the west going east, then make a turn south onto the sidewalk of this road, go 1/4 mile, and turn west to go back away from the road. I have to use this road because it's a bridge across a river that I can't cross any other way)

So rather than cross the super dangerous road with no traffic light to assist twice and ride on it with no shoulder and a 50 mph speed limit in a quarter mile stretch I stay on the sidewalk against traffic for that quarter mile and arrive alive.

It is important to look at things from the other guy's perspective. Where you think he shouldn't be doing something because there is some rule somewhere that was written without considering this specific situation, he might be trying to not die.

It's creating an unsafe situation and it's violating a city ordinance.

It's unsafe because there are now two cyclists approaching the north on opposite ends of the road as motorists driving south, confusing the motorists

It's against the municipal ordinance, as already discussed, for all "vehicles," cycles included, to be on the side walk.

If you want more detail, might I suggest reviewing the thread again, the conversation has significantly advanced.

Oh no...not against an ordinance. Anything but that.

In my situation, I don't care if it's against an ordinance. I'm not going to risk life and limb crossing a highway twice and riding on a shoulderless highway at 20% of the traffic speed when I don't have to. Now I wouldn't create danger for other people to protect myself. That's a major AH move. But I'm an adult. I've looked at the situation. This is the safest course of action for everyone involved.

Someone on the other side of the road who never really looked at it from my perspective would just see someone 'breaking an ordinance' and be all huffy about it. But it's worth the time to look at the whole thing through the other rider's perspective. Where he approaches from, why he's on that side, how far he's riding, etc. You might find a lot more common ground on a desire to be safe than you think.

It sounds a little bit like you just can't stand the idea that you feel compelled to follow a rule while someone else doesn't. I get it. Every time I see a see a car run a red light I wish I was a cop who could race up and ticket them because it cheeses me off. But this situation isn't that. This situation seems more like you are labeling it a dangerous situation when it's really not to give yourself justification to complain about it. I mean the confusing cars thing is a real reach. I drive a car. I see this all the time and it's not even a little bit confusing.

Ultimately either confront the guy in real life or don't. Complaining about it online does nothing.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I've said yesterday I've gotten what I need from this conversation. Thanks anyway

It sounds like your situation is quite a bit different than this situation.

These ordinances exist because reasonable people agreed upon on an objective set of rules that everyone can refer to, and they usually exist for a good reason

1. People can't just stop being dicks cold turkey.

2. Thanks for the linkage. I learned something.

3. If you have linkage to help me address #1 , I'll be forever grateful.

ok but I would appreciate it if you would just carry on in another thread.

Slightly off topic...but you're kinda bossy.

You've told people how to act in this thread, not to name call, to go to other threads.

It's been a whole theme.

It's the main reason why I jumped to the conclusion that the other cyclist in your scenario wasn't really doing anything unsafe. You come across as someone who just wants to control everyone else.

If you're not actually this way, please take this as honest constructive criticism of how you come across online, said only to help.

Ok, well, I suggested that you read the thread before you jump in, because many of the points you had raised have already been addressed. I am at work and I don't appreciate having to repeat myself three or four times as I've done here. I asked for suggestions, I got suggestions, I followed the suggestions. Then the usefulness of the thread to me expired. Then you resurrected the thread. I don't know what else I can do to suggest that the thread is over.

Since I am the thread starter, I assume that I have a role here as a bit of a host, and I'm trying to steer away the name calling, yes, I think that's appropriate too, in the absence of the forum moderator.

HAHA
thanks for the laugh!

You can stop assuming and/or suggesting that the thread is over, because you lost interest in the discussion; you are NOT the host of anything here.

Well you just have yourself a super day, friend.

Well, sometimes they exist for these reasons. Often though ordinances exist because people don't like something and simply want to restrict it without a valid reason outside of personnel preference (as in unreasonable). Like in my city riding a bicycle in the street around our convention center during an event will result in a fine, even though speeds then are so slow as to make riding in the street safer than nearly anywhere else in the city. Never assume an ordinance was enacted for good reason. Always look into them and question them. Especially when they restrict bicycles given the anti bicycle attitude in most north american cities.

i "salmon" on a sidewalk for about 700' every morning because the street that gets me to the start of the MUP that i ride is one-way the wrong way in the morning.

i see that short stretch of sidewalk almost as an extension of the MUP even though it's technically sidewalk. IMO, it's the city's fault for making the street to get to the MUP one-way.

sidewalk riding is illegal in chicago for anyone over the age of 12, but i've been doing this little sidewalk maneuver for years without issue. <breaking the law.... breaking the law....>

it helps that the sidewalk in question passes by a sewage pumping station and hardly ever has anyone on it (and on the off chance there is a pedestrian, i respectfully slow way down).