Do bicyclists belong on the roads or on the sidewalks?

[Hashime]

The cars that swerved into the other lane were driven by retarded drivers who were not paying attention to the road.

Fffffuuuuuuuuuuuu.......

Not paying attention to the road? The only reason we WERE swerving is because we were paying VERY good attention to the road. We HAD to swerve and risk our own lives so we could preserve the life of one inconsiderate jackass who was rude enough to be riding in the middle of my lane on a goddamn BRIDGE! Where the hell else were we supposed to go hmm? It was either into the other lane, over the top of him, or off the rails and plummet into the water, so if you'd like to come up with a solution for that I'd love to fucking hear it.

It's bloody dangerous and you shouldnt be doing it just because the law says you can, theres absolutely no excuse for being that fucking stupid.

Or you could have slowed down, as you stated you were coming up to a red light.

 

[Hashime]

Bikes should be on the road, and when available in their own lane.

Sure drivers can be irrational, but not nearly as much as a pedestrian...if you don't think that's the case just wait till you ride your bike down the sidewalk, at a pedestrian who sees you (makes eye-contact), and yet still sidesteps right in front of you.

Plus,unless you're exceptionally slow on your bike you're much more likely to be going closer to a cars speed than a person walking.

I can't wait for the snow to melt here, being a pedestrian sucks bawls, and I cannot wait to get back on my bike.

Why not ride in the winter? It is easy. I did a post about ice biking a while back, take a look in off topic discussion. The main issue that comes from riding in the winter is the need for daily maintenance, otherwise it is not any different than on season riding.

 

[Gentleman_Reptile]

The cars that swerved into the other lane were driven by retarded drivers who were not paying attention to the road.

Fffffuuuuuuuuuuuu.......

Not paying attention to the road? The only reason we WERE swerving is because we were paying VERY good attention to the road. We HAD to swerve and risk our own lives so we could preserve the life of one inconsiderate jackass who was rude enough to be riding in the middle of my lane on a goddamn BRIDGE! Where the hell else were we supposed to go hmm? It was either into the other lane, over the top of him, or off the rails and plummet into the water, so if you'd like to come up with a solution for that I'd love to fucking hear it.

It's bloody dangerous and you shouldnt be doing it just because the law says you can, theres absolutely no excuse for being that fucking stupid.

Or you could have slowed down, as you stated you were coming up to a red light.

The red light was after the bridge, and until you saw the car infront of you dart out to the right to avoid the dipshit on his bike, you didnt have any reason to slow down.

 

[FamoFunk]

I wouldn't mind them being on the road with me, if they paid insurance just like me.
Why does my insurance claim get punished because some asshole cannot ride a bike properly and into me?

But then, when I'm walking I don't want another asshole on a bike riding into me.


I think you should do tests, like with driving, to be able to get a licence and 'drive' on the road.

 

[Vrach]

50 MPH on a bike? Are you nuts, that is 80km/h. It has been done, but that is way faster than 99% of cyclists are capable of going.

You realise that's from the guy I was quoting right and my point was exactly the same as yours? Exactly why I said saying a biker can go 50 mph is like saying a car can go 200 mph, it's a ridiculous argument.

Also, not all cars need to slow down, if the driver is intelligent they will leave a meter for the cyclist and drive past. Unlike a cyclist slowing down it does not take significant effort to accelerate back to cruising speed in a car.

Those two statements don't make much sense together... first you say you don't need to slow down then you say slowing down isn't an issue. Not sure what was your point between the two :\

A bike on a sidewalk is not reasonable. I bike to get to school and on occasion to work. It is my main transport and I can tell you if I took the sidewalk (which is illegal) it would almost double my transport time.

Not illegal here, drive past cops all the time, never got told off or anything. Hell, one came out of a corner today while I was moving downhill, backed up a bit from the surprise, waited till I passed then kept going.

As for the "it takes longer if you're on the sidewalk"... I feel it's a lot safer and prefer that safety over speed, at least for when I'm going to uni (20 minutes or so, not far). I hit the roads a few times too and the time it took me to get there wasn't a lot more impressive (not a lot of room for it to be, especially considering the whole way there is uphill).

There's also the slight fact that the drivers here are cunts.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Well, reading that there are no bike lanes in your town, that changes the argument a bit.

I still feel they shouldbe on the road, but on the lane that you pull off into to get off the road. Simply cause there's more liability in the sidewalk, where as on the road people are in their cars and should (theoretically) be spaced out decently.

 

[hurfdurp]

Wow I was unaware of this. I always ride on the sidewalk, otherwise they'd go to waste . Whenever I've seen cyclists on the road, every car around them is in a frenzy, because cyclists just can't keep up with the traffic. It seems far more risky than using the sidewalk.

 

[Hashime]

50 MPH on a bike? Are you nuts, that is 80km/h. It has been done, but that is way faster than 99% of cyclists are capable of going.

You realise that's from the guy I was quoting right and my point was exactly the same as yours? Exactly why I said saying a biker can go 50 mph is like saying a car can go 200 mph, it's a ridiculous argument.

There's also the slight fact that the drivers here are cunts.

I was drawing attention to the fact you did not look at the units I used in my first response. I stated 50km/h which you read as 50MPH. 50km/h is a reasonable speed for those on road bikes.
You missed the units, it was not an argument.
50 km/h is still 10 times faster than average walking speed. Not safe to be on the sidewalk. Anyways, it is obvious your mind is set on the matter.

 

[Marowit]

Bikes should be on the road, and when available in their own lane.

Sure drivers can be irrational, but not nearly as much as a pedestrian...if you don't think that's the case just wait till you ride your bike down the sidewalk, at a pedestrian who sees you (makes eye-contact), and yet still sidesteps right in front of you.

Plus,unless you're exceptionally slow on your bike you're much more likely to be going closer to a cars speed than a person walking.

I can't wait for the snow to melt here, being a pedestrian sucks bawls, and I cannot wait to get back on my bike.

Why not ride in the winter? It is easy. I did a post about ice biking a while back, take a look in off topic discussion. The main issue that comes from riding in the winter is the need for daily maintenance, otherwise it is not any different than on season riding.

Well, my commute is mostly done on hills, and there is usually quite a bit of ice along the sides of the roads. I don't have a trash bike, we get a ton of salting and I don't to ruin a bike b/c of corrosion, I can put spiked tires on. Our roads narrow down substantially because of the volume of snow we get. Those are my top concerns with commuting in the winter, and not to worry I walk when I can't ride. I purposefully don't get a parking spot at work so I can't cheat on those lazy-days.

So, yeah, it's definitely doable, but for the 10mins it saves me vs. walking, during the winter, I usually just save it for my spring, summer, and fall commutes. If I end up moving to some place that is flatter and or gets less snow (I live in No. VT), I'd probably do it, but falling on ice hurts bad enough walking...falling while on a bike turning would be really shitty.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I have no interest in you sharing my space.

That's alright, we don't want you on the curb either.

Anyway.

Cyclists should go wherever is least likely to end up with them embedded in a car or with a pedestrian embedded in them. There isn't a right answer to this one.

Do you tell the kid going to school at 5mph to get on the three lane? Or is Mr Triathlon going head down maxxing the rpms safest on the pavement? Of course not, you pick the best option, better to ignore the rules and do the sensible thing than follow them right under the wheels of a truck.

 

[Hashime]

Bikes should be on the road, and when available in their own lane.

Sure drivers can be irrational, but not nearly as much as a pedestrian...if you don't think that's the case just wait till you ride your bike down the sidewalk, at a pedestrian who sees you (makes eye-contact), and yet still sidesteps right in front of you.

Plus,unless you're exceptionally slow on your bike you're much more likely to be going closer to a cars speed than a person walking.

I can't wait for the snow to melt here, being a pedestrian sucks bawls, and I cannot wait to get back on my bike.

Why not ride in the winter? It is easy. I did a post about ice biking a while back, take a look in off topic discussion. The main issue that comes from riding in the winter is the need for daily maintenance, otherwise it is not any different than on season riding.

Well, my commute is mostly done on hills, and there is usually quite a bit of ice along the sides of the roads. I don't have a trash bike, we get a ton of salting and I don't to ruin a bike b/c of corrosion, I can put spiked tires on. Our roads narrow down substantially because of the volume of snow we get. Those are my top concerns with commuting in the winter, and not to worry I walk when I can't ride. I purposefully don't get a parking spot at work so I can't cheat on those lazy-days.

So, yeah, it's definitely doable, but for the 10mins it saves me vs. walking, during the winter, I usually just save it for my spring, summer, and fall commutes. If I end up moving to some place that is flatter and or gets less snow (I live in No. VT), I'd probably do it, but falling on ice hurts bad enough walking...falling while on a bike turning would be really shitty.

Salt is hell on a chain. I understand your point, I am a total die hard who enjoys ice, so that is not an issue for me (I prefer not using studded tires so that I can slide) but to some one who has not done winter riding for years I can understand not wanting to. We get hit hard here with snow as well (ontario, in snow belt) but unless the snow is deeper than my bottom bracket I can keep up a good pace (around 25 depending on density).

 

[Vrach]

50 MPH on a bike? Are you nuts, that is 80km/h. It has been done, but that is way faster than 99% of cyclists are capable of going.

You realise that's from the guy I was quoting right and my point was exactly the same as yours? Exactly why I said saying a biker can go 50 mph is like saying a car can go 200 mph, it's a ridiculous argument.

There's also the slight fact that the drivers here are cunts.

I was drawing attention to the fact you did not look at the units I used in my first response. I stated 50km/h which you read as 50MPH. 50km/h is a reasonable speed for those on road bikes.
You missed the units, it was not an argument.
50 km/h is still 10 times faster than average walking speed. Not safe to be on the sidewalk. Anyways, it is obvious your mind is set on the matter.

Aaah, I getcha now, sorry, didn't see the unit you used there, yeah that makes a hell of a lot more sense

My mind isn't really set... I mean I use both to tell you the truth. It just depends on a lot of factors which one I use when (downhill when I can hit some 40 km/h? You bet I'll be on the road). I'm just saying, unless I can develop some decent speed, I'm gonna stick to the sidewalk a lot. And if I see a red light, I'm generally going to go right for the sidewalk and wait for a green light there cause I really hate being that pain in the ass everyone's waiting for.

 

[Lord Kloo]

Well bikes belong on the road and its probably a good idea that they stay there..

Trouble is you have a ton of motorists who don't actually know its their duty to work around cyclists, not just ignore them.. in essence drivers are idiots and its a wonder how half of them pass their tests when dealing with bike riders.

 

[Marowit]

I wouldn't mind them being on the road with me, if they paid insurance just like me.
Why does my insurance claim get punished because some asshole cannot ride a bike properly and into me?

But then, when I'm walking I don't want another asshole on a bike riding into me.


I think you should do tests, like with driving, to be able to get a licence and 'drive' on the road.

Do pedestrians have to pay insurance too? They cross the streets, and dart out between cars when there's no one coming. I know they often walk down the streets here when the sidewalks aren't plowed.

I can just imagine it now. I bump into someone on the sidewalk, and we stop to share insurance info, hahaha.

Seriously though, it's a pretty silly to think that's the case. Most of what car insurance does is pay for repairs to autos, most of what health insurance does is pay for exactly what happens to those dumb bikers (and their rates also go up).

 

[^=ash=^]

I stick to the roads when I'm going around town .. it seems far too easy to clip pedestrians on the footpath.

xxx

 

[drwow]

As somebody who works for the city and has to take care of bicyclists.
Stay on the fucking sidewalk, you do nothing but cause problems for the drivers and you don't know when you're holding up traffic and do nothing but get in the way.

 

[Hashime]

50 MPH on a bike? Are you nuts, that is 80km/h. It has been done, but that is way faster than 99% of cyclists are capable of going.

You realise that's from the guy I was quoting right and my point was exactly the same as yours? Exactly why I said saying a biker can go 50 mph is like saying a car can go 200 mph, it's a ridiculous argument.

There's also the slight fact that the drivers here are cunts.

I was drawing attention to the fact you did not look at the units I used in my first response. I stated 50km/h which you read as 50MPH. 50km/h is a reasonable speed for those on road bikes.
You missed the units, it was not an argument.
50 km/h is still 10 times faster than average walking speed. Not safe to be on the sidewalk. Anyways, it is obvious your mind is set on the matter.

Aaah, I getcha now, sorry, didn't see the unit you used there, yeah that makes a hell of a lot more sense

My mind isn't really set... I mean I use both to tell you the truth. It just depends on a lot of factors which one I use when (downhill when I can hit some 40 km/h? You bet I'll be on the road). I'm just saying, unless I can develop some decent speed, I'm gonna stick to the sidewalk a lot. And if I see a red light, I'm generally going to go right for the sidewalk and wait for a green light there cause I really hate being that pain in the ass everyone's waiting for.

40km/h is slow depending on the bike you use. I get you though, I sometimes jump off the side to let a car turn right, but in general I accelerate faster than the cars do. On my road bike I cruise at 40 and have hit 80 going down steep hills, though that is not advisable. I a just finished a helmet mount for my tiny video camera, I am going to cruise around town a bit and post the videos on youtube.

 

[Nietz]

I'd say that you should go with the walkways, but ride slow and carefully. Not having bike-lanes in your city is pure and utter bullsh*t.

We do have bike-lanes where I live, but not that many. And whenever I have to choose between road or walkway, I always go for walkway. See kids, I work on a bicycle all day, every day. And during my career I've been hit by cars four times, three of which required a visit to the hospital, and one of which has given me permanent damage. So, simply put: it's not worth it getting hit by a car. Especially when the f*cker in the car just drives of and leaves you bleeding in the road... Yeah, I am a bit bitter.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

There is this little thing called a "Bicycle lane" that works out pretty well in many Danish and Dutch cities... So much that with the project in New York they call it "Copenhagen Lanes."

Sidewalk? No, that's annoying.
Road? No, that's dangerous.
Bicycle Lane? Yes. Also, we Danes and Dutch are almost Nazi-like in out enforcement of Side-walk/Bicycle-Lane/Road distinction.

 

[FamoFunk]

I wouldn't mind them being on the road with me, if they paid insurance just like me.
Why does my insurance claim get punished because some asshole cannot ride a bike properly and into me?

But then, when I'm walking I don't want another asshole on a bike riding into me.


I think you should do tests, like with driving, to be able to get a licence and 'drive' on the road.

Do pedestrians have to pay insurance too? They cross the streets, and dart out between cars when there's no one coming. I know they often walk down the streets here when the sidewalks aren't plowed.

I can just imagine it now. I bump into someone on the sidewalk, and we stop to share insurance info, hahaha.

Seriously though, it's a pretty silly to think that's the case. Most of what car insurance does is pay for repairs to autos, most of what health insurance does is pay for exactly what happens to those dumb bikers (and their rates also go up).

So why should I have to pay and my insurance get bumped up because an idiot on a bike cause me to crash into another car? Why should that guy on the bike also be aloud to claim from me when he caused the accident?

As for pedestrians, walk on the road like an idiot at your own risk by all means, if I hit you, it's you fault.
There's such things as pedestrian crossings. Use them.