randya

It looks like it crosses the main road at right angles in the photo you posted...

edit - I do note that the cyclists in the photo are not obeying the 'walk bikes' sign, however.



OTOH, do those two cyclists look like they are really that interested in mixing it up on a shared roadway with the motorists? IMO, if it wasn't for the path, they probably wouldn't be on bikes at all.

Paul L.

Well, have a good weekend folks. I am going camping far from any roads that we would need to advocate for. Be excellent to each other and let me know how it turns out! It really is a great opportunity to have Forester here discussing this. Even if we get a little snide at times. At least we aren't driving across the country and kidnapping each other which seems to be the way certain Astronauts handle differences.

(Not that I think we will ever get this put to rest or anyone converted to anyone elses side but hey, at least we are having fun huh?)

kalliergo 

It does, more or less. Forester was referring to angles of vision (for motorists and cyclists), not the angle between sidepath and roadway.

chipcom 

So how many hours/days/months/years of training did you receive, JJ, before Daddy let you out of the yard and took the training wheels off?

Nobody disputes the value of education as a baseline, as I mentioned in earlier response, but we're hardly unleashing the masses to be slaughtered by traffic by not requiring training as a barrier to entry.

bbunk

Okay, I have been reading along until now out of curiosity but I have to ask, which angles in that image are hard to see? I am not seeing any that I think would be a problem.

chipcom 

As well as licensed drivers at intersections or coming out of driveways. You already know what I am going to say...there is no cure for stoopid.

deputyjones

Something like 700 cyclists die per year? That is 700 too many, but statistically that is not very many especially considering a large portion of the cycling community are children, drinking and biking are still legal in most places and there no standards for users such as licensing provides.

chipcom 

I'm kinda surprised that neither you nor HH are participating to a large extent...indeed I wonder where your Dad is...I'd think he'd love this kind of debate.

Helmet Head

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidepath

chipcom 

Those angles become pretty much moot by using the simple act of STOPPING.
Do speed and efficiency outweigh safety in vehicular cycling?

chipcom 

Interesting choice of photos...what do those little signs say - something about stopping and walking the bike when crossing?

Bruce Rosar

IMHO, legal definitions (especially those whose scope is limited to particular jurisdictions) will more likely lead to absurdities when used in ordinary English conversation.

Perhaps we talking about apples and oranges? There are uses which are possible, and then there are uses which are not legal. Two examples to illustrate the difference:

1. Since a bicycle is a land vehicle which travels on wheels, it can literally use any road (although such use is not always legal).
2. Similarly, land-based airplanes (which have wheels in addition to wings) can use roads for taxi, takeoff and landing (although such use is almost never legal, except for special military operations).

randya

Shall I assume that you are quoting yourself here?

randya

I've been to a number of locations, primarily rural, where the local highway is routinely used by private pilots for takeoff and landing.

chipcom 

Just a little more food for thought...the number of fatalities have been decreasing, while the number of facilities have been increasing - many like to equate the reduction to helmets, but there really is no data to support that claim since supposedly the majority of fatalities are helmetless.

I'd love to see some data that breaks down the number of fatalities of cyclists using the road vs. using facilities, even though we pretty much know that the majority are on the road and consist of those who are not following the rules of the road. While this supports the notion the vc is safer when using the road, it does not support the notion that facilities are more dangerous than the road.

Brian Ratliff

Tired... Besides, why would I get in the way of your splendid arguments and the contributions of the many new people who have been drawn into the conversation.

kalliergo 

Well, start by imagining a motorist traveling in the direction opposite the cyclist seen in the photo, approaching the intersection and preparing for a left turn across the sidepath, while a cyclist is simultaneously approaching (traveling in the same direction as our imaginary motorist), intending to continue straight ahead.

If this doesn't do it for you, you might want to consider this:

https://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/faci.../sidecrash.htm

and this:

https://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

I-Like-To-Bike

Might be nice if the individual fess'd up to his actions in secretly reporting on his BF "friends" to his other friend. But he's under no obligation to do so especially if he considers it perfectly appropriate.

Helmet Head

The danger/safety issue of sidepaths has nothing to with vehicular cycling, which applies only to behavior on roads where the vehicular rules of the road apply (sidepaths are governed by pedestrian rules). I suppose there is nothing that prevents one from acting vehicularly on the sidepath (slower traffic keeps left, pass on the right, etc.), except the lack of others acting accordingly. But once you get to the intersection, you really need to go by pedestrian ROW rules (note the crosswalk).

Obviously, if you are extra vigilant, stop at all intersections, and don't go unless you're sure everyone who needs to see you has noticed you, you'll be fine. But many cyclists don't do that at normal street/street intersections. Still, at least there the motorists are likely to see the cyclists, especially if they are riding vehicularly, but even if they're not, and compensate for their errors.

The reason I think sidepaths are dangerous is because those who don't handle the intersections correctly are particularly vulnerable since they are coming from space where drivers are likely to not be paying attention.

deputyjones

Ironically, when searching for the statistics in my above post I found this study done by William Moritz in 1998 showing that streets with "bike lanes" (not mups or sidewalks) were safer than riding in the road and that was from polling League of American Bicyclist members!

Of course Forester attacks Moritz methods on his site here.

I-Like-To-Bike

HH? But this is the real article. But it really isn't that hard to generate verbiage when you cut and paste the same stock responses and answers, no matter what the question, for over 30 years.

kalliergo 

That's what they say. I'm not personally familiar with this sidepath (hurriedly grabbed the image from John Allen), but I think they say that every block, at each intersection with a roadway.

How many cyclists do you suppose would actually dismount and walk across the street,and then remount, only to do it again and again and again? Not the ones in the photo. Almost none in my experience.

chipcom 

Stopping at an intersection isn't exactly a 'vehicular' specific activity...I believe we teach our kids to stop, look and listen before crossing a street as peds? It's plain old common sense, HH, if you can't see what is coming, don't proceed until you can verify that it's safe to do so. This is one instance where 'trust but verify' is indeed applicable. If you gotta stop to verify, thems the breaks...would you rather be on time to your destination or early to the hospital - or morgue?

randya

This actually says that bike lanes are almost twice as safe as a major arterial w/o bike facilities and almost three times as safe as a minor arterial without bike facilities.

And I don't believe sidewalks are the same as sidepaths, there are different design considerations for each; and, I suspect, actual sidepath designs can range from poor to excellent.

chipcom 

Granted...but if they don't obey these signs and get creamed, is it the fault of the sidepath and/or its design, or the fault of the cyclist who considered speed more important than safety? What was that responsibility thing we debated endlessly not long ago?