Actually the only runners/joggers that I have a problem with are the ones who as have been mentioned are running/jogging in the bike lane and act as if the cyclist is the one who is doing something wrong.

And for the record I do NOT, make joggers "dive for cover, or the sidewalk." That being said though I'm not going to be upset if one does have to "dive for cover, or the sidewalk" if they encounter a cyclist. Nor am I going to endanger my life to pass them. As if it's a choice between getting hit by a car, or hitting a runner/jogger. I hope you can guess which would be the logical choice to make.

And given that if I'm not mistaken, that in most cities, counties, states it's the law that if there is a sidewalk present that pedestrians (and that includes runners/joggers) are legally required to use it.

If people want some place to run then they should either petition their elected officials modify sidewalks so as to be more runner/jogger friendly or to install dedicated tracks for running/jogging on.

As I've said I've got at least one bicycle lane that has signage that indicate that it is for bicycles only. So why shouldn't cyclists get upset when they find pedestrians in "their" space?

Or as has been said before roads are for all vehicles, bike lanes are for bicycles, and sidewalks are for pedestrians (unless one is "lucky" enough to live in an area where cyclists are allowed on the sidewalk).

Actually kind of related, a couple of months ago I had a couple in a car operating under the mistaken impression that because the city had recently widened the sidewalk along a long stretch of 1st St. N. turning it into a MUP, that bicycles were under some sort of obligation to use it.

I don't know about blindfolds, but in the civil engineering study that I cited above, they used something called a Berkovich indenter.

Agreed, it's like the theory that putting rice in the salt shaker to keep it from clumping because the rise "absorbs" the moisture in the air. If that were true then wouldn't all of the rice in all of the bags swell up from the moisture in the air?

What actually happens (IIRC) from Alton Brown is that the rice actually serves to prevent the clumping by keeping the grains of salt separate.

And given that cars/trucks are considerably heavier then bikes/pedestrians, and that bikes are heavier than pedestrians you make a very valid point, why don't they/we sink into the asphalt?

Also agreed, if there is something about the sidewalk that would make it dangerous to use then of course they shouldn't use it. But they need to know that if they move into the bike lane or the roadway that they're now the one's who have to yield the right of way. And of course as always the doctrine of last clear chance always applies.

Its a long debate the runner cyclist problem. Similar it is on the bike trails I go to where they do not care to leave space for bicyclists to pass by.

A bike trail the size of a car lane and four or five joggers line up side by side and do not care to move out until one is nearby and slow down. The grass is pretty flat so I shift gear and pass them outside the lane over the grass, anyway I could keep goin on and on... Very sensitive subject for me, lol.

I hear you about the bike lanes etc, but if one hits them regardless if they are even running in the middle of the street, pedestrians always have the right of way unfortunately. The worst part where I live is ecuestrians are allowed to use the clearly labeled bike trail, and ecuestrians have priority over pedestrians and cyclists, and pedestrians over cyclists. Once again it is a bike trail, but ecuestrians have priority over all others, nice...

I don't know what to say. Numerous posters who are runners as well as cyclists have offered their anecdotal evidence that asphalt is softer than concrete. They know this, literally, in their bones. Santaria and I have each cited engineering studies which showed that concrete is harder than asphalt by a factor of 10.

But I guess that can't quite overcome "Gosh, it sure feels hard" + "We don't sink in it" + Alton Brown's rice and salt (!).

So, acknowledging the pointlessness of continuing this discussion, I unsubscribe from this thread. Good evening, gentlemen.

Difference in hardness, even by a factor of 10 means nothing if the softer material is still hard enough not to compress under a joggers foot. There is "anecdotal evidence" for all sorts of ideas that make no sense.

Don in Austin

Ummmmm...Dude....... it's pretty obvious. Go run a few blocks. Just because you don't understand the science behind the reason, doesn't mean it isn't so. You're disputing something that everybody in the running world has known for a very long time. Heck, I'm not really even part of the running world. I just jog on occasion, but find the difference to be immediately noticeable. I had to look it up on the Internet one day, to find the reason why my shin bones were so soar after jogging on concrete.

I'm quite surprised by the lack of tolerance shown by cyclists here. After years of trying to make car drivers show tolerance for us, it seems very hypocritical of us to not show some tolerance for joggers. In creating bicycle lanes, we have unwittingly displaced the joggers, without giving them an appropriate replacement. The joggers were there long before our precious bike lanes.

You may want to consider joggers to be the same as other pedestrians, to somehow justify your right to a small patch of road, but that does not make it so. Joggers achieve speeds greater than other pedestrians, and need to maintain that speed for as long as practical. They just can't get that from a sidewalk, no matter what it's made of. The fact that sidewalks are made of something harmful to joggers just makes this discussion even more ridiculous.

Not a runner anymore, but, when I used to be (way back in the mists of time when I ran in high school), I easily could tell in my joints what surface I was running on. In the end, I ran on a lot of country roads that didn't have sidewalks a lot more than I ran on city roads and it became a toss up which surface I would have preferred, the hardness of the concrete sidewalks that were relatively flat, or the harshness of the heavily crowned country roads and the effects of that angle on my ankles after miles and miles. And that didn't take into account the country bumpkins and slack jawed yokels (most of whom I knew and went to school with) who would swerve at me even though I'd get off the road onto the unpaved shoulders whenever I saw someone coming.
No, but having to scroll through a massive signature that takes up a third of the page over and over and over gets really tedious.

Seriously? Oh well. I don't see a problem here.

I wasn't talking about you. I just find some huge signatures annoying and seeing them more often than necessary more annoying. At least this forum doesn't allow the flashing gif signatures I've seen elsewhere. I've stopped going to some useful forums because my eyes couldn't handle that anymore.

In your account settings under "General Settings/Thread Display Options" you can choose whether to see peoples' signatures or not:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...224/nosigs.jpg

All this discussion about running on concrete vs asphalt doesn't take into consideration running shoes. A pair of good cushioned shoes completely absorbs th eimpact of landing, whether you land on dirt, concrete, or black top. It doesn't make a difference unless you run without shoes or shos that don't have cushioning left in them

I like seeing people's signatures. Unfortunately, some people take them to a absurd level, where viewing via smart phone becomes a real chore.

Most of page 4 of this thread is taken up by Digital_Cowboy's signature. A case of mostly fluff, and almost zero actual content.

If you move out of the bike lane into a regular traffic lane (which is perfactly leagal) for any reason and do so UNSAFELY resulting in a motor vehicle hitting you, then yes, you are at fault. Just as if you made a lane change in your car or motorcycle unsafely. If you made a safe lane change and the car that hits you were doing something wrong, then it's their fault. This is all really, really easy stuff, by and large.

There are many runners who would say that heavily cushioned running shoes do more harm than good to your feet. And if you have a very pronounced heal strike, no amount of cushion is going to help you on concrete.

So are a lot of posts within a thread... :lol:

However, I do wish there was a free smart phone app for this forum.

Joggers, walkers, jaywalkers, parked cars, delivery trucks, hoboes pushing carts are not going to get off the bike lane. Like it or not, legal or not they are a hazard we have to deal with. What irritates me just as much are the tricycle riding hot dog/fast food vendors taking the whole sidewalk.

BTW: Concrete vs. asphalt. IDK, but joggers believe it. Go to a running forum. Discuss it with them and see what you get.

When I went googling for actual data on the topic, I found lots of threads on running forums where runners were arguing with each other, with one side calling it a myth.

I have yet to see actual scientific evidence that a human can tell the difference between asphalt and concrete. The anecdotes are all from runners. Not really unbiased. If I saw machine-measured shock data simulating a running 100+ pound human being, I'd be more inclined to believe it, so I'm open-minded but skeptical.

Somebody call Mythbusters!

My own theory is that what's really going on is sidewalks aren't nearly as level as a street, with the slabs of concrete pitching in various subtle directions and having uneven joints. That will affect a runner in a negative way.

As for joggers in the bike lane, if it's actually "bikes only", then the peds shouldn't be there.

Some people believe in a god, some in God, some in Buddha, some in cthulhu. Where do you draw the line? I can point out 50 things a day where someone knowingly goes against scientific understanding because their "instinct" tells them otherwise. Some of these people die because they were wrong.

I still don't understand the confusion. Energy that is absorbed doesn't end because you can't measure it through perception, so asphalt still absorbs energy, even if you simply drop a penny on it. This is exactly why math is a failed subject in the United States. I know, people argue this fact too.

Shoe production was not designed to benefit runners, it was designed to make cool kids buy their product. Running shoe manufacturers fall under the same general guideline. Look up barefoot running, read all the info then try it. For some people it works, for others it does not. Clearly, this proves that barefoot running is simply a fad, right? Or is there something more here than can be defined by what one person thinks versus another?

For the record I don't get that worked up about joggers in the bike lane if they are courteous and yield. If the sidewalk consists of sandstone slabs or concrete in a state of upheaval I totally understand why that is not a jogger-friendly environment. What I have trouble with is the claim that asphalt is soft enough to compress under a jogger's shoe. If it is not, then level asphalt will treat the jogger the same as level concrete. And even if the asphalt yielded a tiny bit, this is nothing compared with the compression of the jogger's shoe. Anecdotal evidence and "everybody knows" is rampant in every field and total nonsense more often than not.

Don in Austin

when I ran a lot, I didn't like running on the sidewalk either, but I really do think it has to do with the general quality of sidewalks. I used to run on a brand new sidewalk next to a new roadway, and it was fine, I wasn't tempted to run on the road at all.

I don't see why any jogger wouldn't get up on the sidewalk to let a cyclist pass, though, I think that's just common courtesy

I think they should stay the HELL out of the bike lanes, but there's not much more you can do about it. You can always yell a bit as you go by. Or maybe look up the laws/rules of the bike path, and have cards printed and hand them out. Kind of a friendly crusade.

Yes, asphault is softer than concrete, but compare to our legs and soft-cushioned running shoes, it is not worth taking into consideration. I have a jogger buddy at work, and he runs on gravel trails. These are notably softer than concrete. So is grass. If you're that concerned about the impact on your legs and back, you probably shouldn't be jogging in the first place. ;)

I agree. In fact, on my commute this is what pretty much all of the joggers do when I encounter them in the bike lane.

Reading between the lines in a lot of the posts it seems in some areas, runners have much different attitudes about the whole thing.

I have commuted from North Jersey to Brooklyn for 22 years. I've come to expect no consideration from pedestrians, motorists and mostly other cyclists. I have accepted the fact that I cannot change their behavior. Because of this revelation which only occurred after suffering many years of righteous indignation I am happier during my commute. Since I am already expecting the worst I just deal with any inconvenience. And I am occasionally rewarded with a glimmer of hope for the human race when someone is actually considerate of others.

However, I am still regularly surprised by the extent of human selfishness and plain stupidity. Just last week a woman smoking a cigarette and talking on a cell phone pushed her baby stroller off the curb into the bike lane without so much as a glance for traffic. As I skidded to a stop (I've learned you can be seriously killed by swerving unexpectedly in Manhattan traffic) she finally looked but just kept crossing the street. Makes you wonder how some people make it through the day.