Yeah, I realized *your* post was tongue-in-cheek. It's just that some people took it at face value though, from what I can see.

Then what's to keep them from running in the actual lane of vehicle traffic? Huh? oh, because that's not what it's meant for! Go run around the local highschool track or find your MUP, and hope it's asphalt.

Go ride your bike on MUP. Get off the road. It's meant for cars.

Nothing. I have often run in the actual lane of vehicle traffic where there's no shoulder. I just don't see what's such a big deal about this. If the runner doesn't hop up on to the sidewalk, then just go around them like any other obstruction in the bike lane.

You sound like so many impatient drivers. Sometimes I run around the track. Often I run from my office to my house (run-commuting, if you will) because I'm a working dad who's always looking for ways to maximize my limited time for fitness. I would be thrilled if the city laid out a crushed granite running path from downtown to my neighborhood, but since the likelihood of that is zero, I'll use city streets for now.

Joggers I'm fine with. But only when they're moving towards me. Most states statutes say that if a pedestrian is in the road, they are to travel against the flow of traffic. Certainly what I was taught in school. Bikes go with traffic, pedestrians go against it. I loathe coming up behind a jogger or walker with their headphones on, or who don't understand the concept of "on your left". That's annoying. Wrong way cyclists bug me. Seriously, riding against traffic seems stupid and dangerous. And what the heck was up with the guy this morning on some sort of skis complete with poles. That wasn't easy to get around, and of course he couldn't hear me.

If they are running courteously (i.e., not hogging an unnecessary amount of space and not swerving unpredictably), I see no problem with that. Pass that person the same way you pass a slower cyclist. I must say I personally prefer to encounter joggers running with the traffic flow, even if they should be doing the opposite, technically. More time for me to react and figure out the best way to safely go around him/her (I must admit to being kind of spooked once when I encounter a couple of opposite-direction joggers in a bike lane around a blind corner - I go slowly enogh around blind corners to be able to stop in the distance I can see, but if someone else is moving fast in the opposite direction, I can't avoid colliding with them even if I am nearly stationary). In fact, I don't understand the need for "on your left" when everyone is moving predictably. Do car drivers yell "on your left" whenever they pass you?

Why is that?
Wouldn't it be better if we all traveled the same direction?

This was always my take on that rule (which I do follow):

Since pedestrians are generally going much slower that bike or auto traffic, this makes the pedestrian much more aware traffic that would impact them and give them a greater chance to move out of the flow of traffic or to take evasive action as needed.

A 25mph car or bike will come up on a 5mph walker very quickly, compared to a 20mph cycle. Likewise, a 20mph cycle can blend with traffic much better...

They are correct. Running against traffic is safer than running with it; biking with traffic is safer than biking against it. It's a pain in the parts when they do this, but they're not doing it to be jerks -- they want a better surface to run on (sidewalk concrete can really destroy you if you run on it) and/or one where they won't constantly have to dodge/stop/slow for slower traffic.

They're jealous and pretending to be riding

No, actually, runners think cyclists are lazy wimps.

Haven't we heard wrong-way-bike-riders say the same thing?
What was the counter argument against them(i forget the specifics)... and would that apply to joggers as well?

I hardly ever see anyone jogging the right or "wrong way" in the bike lanes here. I do see rollerbladers in the bike lanes but they are usually following the same direction as traffic and cyclists. I usually just pass them (sometimes they pass me ). I don't feel they are causing me a problem and neither would a jogger. I see a lot of runners/joggers on the MUP though. We have 100's of kilometers of ashphalt bike/multi-use paths here so there is really no need for someone to go running in bike lanes downtown.

No, it would not. They are different situations.

Does it really need to be explained in detail why a bicycle traveling 25mph and a jogger traveling 5mph are different? Does it need to be explained to you that, when threatened by too-close oncoming traffic, a person on foot can usually make a quicker and safer exit from the roadway than a cyclist can?

Joggers can move sideways, step over curbs and other obstacles, and stop on a dime.

At first glance the parallel in the conflict between the driver vs. cyclist and cyclist vs jogger is obvious, but if you look a little closer there is a difference. Both driver and cyclist righteous attitudes come from an idea that they are entitled to use the space in question but the other person is not.

Righteous drivers are thinking bicycles are slow toys and have no right to be on the roadway. They are mistaken, as bicycles are vehicles, and drivers are legally required to share the road.

Cyclists are not mistaken that the bike lanes are intended only for bikes, and other forms of traffic have no place there. Joggers in bike lanes are technically jaywalking and should always jump up onto the sidewalk (ubiquitous facility designed solely for their use as pedestrians!) whenever a legal road user is approaching.

Usually joggers/pedestrians are fairly courteous in the bike path, which here in MA is open to everyone except motorized vehicles. It's the people with double and triple strollers with 2+ dogs that are all over the path can be bothersome.

Sure could have fooled me,
they sure don't seem to take advantage of this magical ability when the oncoming traffic is me on my bike.





So, by that logic... if this manuvering ability is what makes counterflow advantagous for them; then a jogger who doesn't or refuses to manuver, is actually better off going with flow.

Not only am I vocal member of this community, an avid SS rider, tour/radon rider and wannabe mountain biker, I'm also a marathon runner.

I run in your MUP. Multi. Use. Path.

The first genius that tried to play chicken with me while I was out RUNNING (jogging is a disease) would get punched in the throat for trying to attack me.

We want cars to respect us, but when we have to share our space we want to threaten to run into them on a bike? Seriously, show the same consideration you think you've merited on the roads and stop being asshats.

First of all, this is about conflicts in the bike lane, not the MUP.
Second, its about jogging not running.
So relax, this isn't against you.

OMG. There's this one middle-aged Don Juan wannabe rollerblader on my local MUP who skates like an Olympic speedskater, with the wide arm swings and everything. Down the middle. And NEVER moves over.

Until he sees an attractive woman between the ages of 18 and 80, whereupon he slows down and has even reversed direction to try to chat them up. He's hilarious. And annoying.

That last sentence made no sense at all to me.

I think you're confusing two issues here:

1)should joggers run in the bike lane?

2)is it safer for a pedestrian, when sharing a way with vehicular traffic, to go with the flow or against it?

The comment you were referring to addresses point 2), dealing with practical matters of safety. You seem to want to discuss point 1), dealing with the oughts and ought-nots of sharing a bike lane. Nothing wrong with that, just be aware that if you mix the two, you'll get nonsense.

Um, why would jogging vs. running make the least insignificant bit of difference?

Joggers don't bother me, if given enough maneuvering time, I'll just move out of the bike lane into the roadway and pass them like I would a cyclist or anything else in the bike lane.

Absolutely nothing to me, but Santaria mentioned the point when he was trying to bait us, so I figured I'd better shoot it down for completeness sake.