Poll: Cycling on the pavement / sidewalk

[Stryc9]

If cyclists would what they're supposed to and ride on the right side of the white line in the same direction as traffic then I would have less of a problem with them. It really pisses me off to no end when when they ride right down the center of the lane at well under the speed limit and then get all pissy when someone honks at them or tells them to get the fuck off the street.

It also pisses me off when one of them gets plowed under a car or bus while doing something they shouldn't have been doing, like crossing the street when it wasn't their turn, or running a red light or stop sign, which they are required to stop for just like any other vehicle on the road and the "cycling community" comes together and and has these massive "protests" because those evil car drivers should all get the fuck off the streets and let cyclists have their way. It happens in the Seattle area at least once or twice a month from around May through August.

I'm all for licensing bicycles and requiring them to carry some sort of insurance if they're going to ride on the streets.

 

[Alakaizer]

All bad manners aside and douchebaggery that may follow, simple physics dictates that the bicycle should be used on the sidewalk. The reasoning is such:

In a worst case scenario there is a collision. Assume averages of 50 lbs a bike, 150 lb a person, and 3000 lb a car. And that is a light car.

Would you rather be:
a) a 150 lb person hit by a 200 lb person + bike combination
or
b) a 200 lb bike + person hit by a 3150 lb person + car combination

I actually don't care what the law says, I always ride on the sidewalk because of safety. And for those who argue there are disrespectful riders on the sidewalk, there are equally disrespectful motorists on the road. And they're quite a bit more dangerous.

Traffic laws exist for the safety of EVERYONE, and if we all followed them, we'd all be safe. It's not fair to pass the danger to the pedestrians just because you feel a bit iffy about getting too close to a few cars. I've been a 300-lb man getting hit by a 3,000-lb. vehicle. Twice. Neither time was pleasant, but I'm OK. Most cyclists I see in my area just zoom down sidewalks without a damned care. A few of them do go into the bike lane (which are everywhere in my town) when they come close to a pedestrian, but many of them just tear on by, and the next one that does that to me is leaving the sidewalk like I'm an Aerial Faith Plate out of Portal 2. Of course, the cyclists that use the sidewalks around here are idiots because these sidewalks are in dire need of repair, and some moron thought it would be artful to make the stupid sidewalks curve back and forth as they go down a straight street.

My main point being, there's nowhere for us pedestrians to go with cyclists in our space, and we shouldn't have to since cyclists have their own space.

~snip~

OT: I voted no. The problem is that cyclists on sidewalks are already ignoring traffic laws, so they probably won't follow your restrictions anyways. A much better solution, as has already been stated, is to get more bike lanes in your area, and maybe try to incentivize using them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Spoiler

All bad manners aside and douchebaggery that may follow, simple physics dictates that the bicycle should be used on the sidewalk. The reasoning is such:

In a worst case scenario there is a collision. Assume averages of 50 lbs a bike, 150 lb a person, and 3000 lb a car. And that is a light car.

Would you rather be:
a) a 150 lb person hit by a 200 lb person + bike combination
or
b) a 200 lb bike + person hit by a 3150 lb person + car combination

I actually don't care what the law says, I always ride on the sidewalk because of safety. And for those who argue there are disrespectful riders on the sidewalk, there are equally disrespectful motorists on the road. And they're quite a bit more dangerous.

Traffic laws exist for the safety of EVERYONE, and if we all followed them, we'd all be safe. It's not fair to pass the danger to the pedestrians just because you feel a bit iffy about getting too close to a few cars. I've been a 300-lb man getting hit by a 3,000-lb. vehicle. Twice. Neither time was pleasant, but I'm OK. Most cyclists I see in my area just zoom down sidewalks without a damned care. A few of them do go into the bike lane (which are everywhere in my town) when they come close to a pedestrian, but many of them just tear on by, and the next one that does that to me is leaving the sidewalk like I'm an Aerial Faith Plate out of Portal 2. Of course, the cyclists that use the sidewalks around here are idiots because these sidewalks are in dire need of repair, and some moron thought it would be artful to make the stupid sidewalks curve back and forth as they go down a straight street.

My main point being, there's nowhere for us pedestrians to go with cyclists in our space, and we shouldn't have to since cyclists have their own space.

A few things...

1. You state that "Traffic laws exist for the safety of EVERYONE, and if we all followed them, we'd all be safe." I bolded the important problem with your statement. People don't follow them. I'm not willing to risk my life for someone's flawed logic and flawed assumptions.

2. You say it isn't fair to pass the danger on to pedestrians because I don't trust the drivers. Why should I be in danger instead of a pedestrian? How is that fair? It's an arbitrary decision. My life isn't arbitrary to me and I won't put it in danger because of ill-conceived rules.

3. Your main point states that "there's nowhere for us pedestrians to go with cyclists in our space, and we shouldn't have to since cyclists have their own space."

This is another fallacy. Cyclists don't have their own space. They (sometimes, and very rarely) have an allocation of space on a road created for a motored vehicle. Usually they are told to use the side of the road. Hardly safe.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

And as I got tutted at today,

You got what now?

*Looks up "tutted"*
Tutting is the name given to a contemporary abstract interpretive street dance style that exploits the body's ability to create...

Someone danced at you?

snip

that is most definitely a British word if i have ever seen one, i have never heard of the term "tutting", but i do believe i know of the sound you are referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_click

^if you go to the page there is a sound clip to the right side, if i'm understanding what you are getting at.

 

[farscythe]

I'm all for licensing bicycles and requiring them to carry some sort of insurance if they're going to ride on the streets.

im with you on that. im fully insured (have to be here by law) and at least over here the schools have cycling proviciancy tests... it aint a license but its a step in the right direction.

it wouldnt hurt to have a proper license for cycling.
course..going by car drivers..a license does not a good driver make.

 

[halfeclipse]

Yea, city I live in has mostly non existent bike lanes and most of the east-west corridors are 60-75 Km/h. In the meantime most of those same streets have 4 foot wide sidewalk, another 3-4 for feet of grass/asphalt/etc where the streetlights go and low pedestrian traffic away from intersections. Like fuck I'm going anywheres near the streets.


Speaking as a reasonable human being (fuck being a cyclist for the moment), someone needs to introduce your skull to pavement. "knocking someone off their bike" is a good way to kill or cripple someone and if you actually think that's remotely acceptable, please exit society.

 

[Stryc9]

I'm all for licensing bicycles and requiring them to carry some sort of insurance if they're going to ride on the streets.

im with you on that. im fully insured (have to be here by law) and at least over here the schools have cycling proviciancy tests... it aint a license but its a step in the right direction.

it wouldnt hurt to have a proper license for cycling.
course..going by car drivers..a license does not a good driver make.

No, it doesn't but if they're licensed and insured at least it's easier to hold them responsible when the accident is their fault. There is no "I didn't know I couldn't do that." or well the car should have stopped for me excuse when someone has been through the process of getting a license. On top of that, with Washington being cash strapped as we are right now making all the uppity cyclists twats we have in this state pay their fair share might help out with the roads a bit.

It wasn't that long ago they were bitching about how all the grates in certain parts of the city were aligned so that the slots ran parallel to the road and their tires would get caught in them and they'd fall off their bikes and get hurt. They wanted the city to fix it but when someone asked them if they were willing to pay at least part of the cost for the repairs they got all whiny and wanted to know why the road tax wouldn't cover it, which as people who ride bicycles everywhere all the time they pay no road tax at all. Road tax in this state is collected from licensing fees and gas taxes.

I'm not saying that everyone that uses a bicycle is an uppity twat but a lot of the ones that I encounter are.

 

[farscythe]

snip snip snip

i do hate those grates though.. but not the point i think mandatory insurance would solve most issues.
granted licensing or atleast some basic road safety courses would probably help too . i think mostly making cyclists have to be insured so they're covered for damages they caused will fix a big chunk of the problem.
(especially as the first$350 of damages caused here come out of your own pocket..insurance picks up the rest)

basically what im saying is...if their behaviour has the potential to hit em in the wallet they'll start behaving better.



[edit] also...i wouldnt object to road tax for bicicles...ill concider it fair change for bike lanes

 

[Alakaizer]

A few things...

1. You state that "Traffic laws exist for the safety of EVERYONE, and if we all followed them, we'd all be safe." I bolded the important problem with your statement. People don't follow them. I'm not willing to risk my life for someone's flawed logic and flawed assumptions.

There's nothing wrong with my statement. Traffic laws (at least the ones here) take into account everybody. If drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike all actually obeyed the laws, there wouldn't be any of these problems. I know that's never going to happen, that's why I said "if."

2. You say it isn't fair to pass the danger on to pedestrians because I don't trust the drivers. Why should I be in danger instead of a pedestrian? How is that fair? It's an arbitrary decision. My life isn't arbitrary to me and I won't put it in danger because of ill-conceived rules.

By manipulating any sort of vehicle, you are acknowledging the risks inherent to the use of that vehicle. That's just, y'know, the way things are. It's not fair for cars to endanger bikes, and it's not fair for bikes to endanger pedestrians.

3. Your main point states that "there's nowhere for us pedestrians to go with cyclists in our space, and we shouldn't have to since cyclists have their own space."

This is another fallacy. Cyclists don't have their own space. They (sometimes, and very rarely) have an allocation of space on a road created for a motored vehicle. Usually they are told to use the side of the road. Hardly safe.

...Do you think to proofread before you post? You claim cyclists get no space, then acknowledge that they are (sometimes) allocated space. Also, maybe it's just where I live, but bike lanes aren't rare.

One other thing that I didn't mention in my last post is that I loathe everybody on the streets. I see people jaywalking and having nothing happen to them, bad drivers endangering everyone within a city block of them, and, yes, cyclists that nearly run down pedestrians. I feel that drivers need to retake the driving test every time they renew their drivers' licenses, change Driver's Ed-type-classes into general Traffic Safety-type-classes so that people might have more knowledge rattling around their heads.

 

[doomspore98]

As a person who bikes/cycles/whatever to most places I see two options. Lets take or example, going to buy food. I can either take the incredible small bike path along the road, where I have been swerved at, yelled at, and almost hit. Or I can take the sidewalk, where there are few walkers and I don't get hit by cars. I'd take the sidewalk, but I still go on the road as much as possible.

 

[Sansha]

Near where I live, there was a cyclist - whose name I never learned - who was notorious for his dangerous riding and arrogance. He'd fly out into roundabouts, zip along pavements and literally hold up traffic by riding on the road. Smug, self-centered prick, decked in Lycra dipshit, and despite numerous citations he'd continue his behavior.

A few years ago, he did his usual shtick of riding out into a roundabout, and was promptly hit by a garbage truck going 50kph (30mph) - the speed limit. The impact on the truck shattered his helmet, the road shattered his skull. There was a smudge of fucking grey matter on the road for three weeks. His horrible death was a surprise to nobody.

I've had cyclists cut me off, force me to drive below the speed limit, even hit my car - and they just ***** me out and ride off. They tried putting in cycle lanes but, amazingly, they're rarely used. Moreso are helmets - it boggles my fucking mind that there are people who ride bicycles without using helmets.

I cut them off right back. Couple of weeks ago one cut me off at an intersection, so when I caught up, I swerved at him and it scared him so much he crashed into a stormwater grate and bent his front wheel. Shit was jokes.

Putting them on the pavement is dangerous. They speed and weave like lunatics. The only way to solve the problem of cars vs bicycles is to get people to fucking behave themselves. If there was a practical way to license, register and insure cyclists, I'd be all aboard that.

 

[Adventurer2626]

Yea go for it, just don't hit people or wipe out from going to fast. And don't hold up road traffic. Also careful on hills and sections of roads with low visibility.

 

[Idlemessiah]

I'm all for it. I ride on the road where it is safe to do so, but I have a major roundabout to contend with, which also has traffic lights and no-stop boxes as well as misleading lane markings. I don't care if it's illegal to ride on the pavement. I'd rather get fined than chewed to pieces by the underside of a people carrier.

And pedestrians cannot claim sainthood over cyclists. I can't count how many times I've nearly run somebody down on a pedestrian crossing when the little man is RED but they decide to cross the road anyway. Don't even get me started on people who pull out of junctions without looking...

 

[Kinitawowi]

See, I said "no" flat out, but the more I think about my reasons for it the more I realise that my real answer is "okay, as long as you're not doing it in order to circumvent the rules of the road".

Cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement. That's the long and the short of it. There isn't space and you simply cannot anticipate how any given pedestrian is going to act, and you certainly can't react in time. Roads aren't perfectly safe, of course, and there will always be some twat who cuts across at the wrong time causing everyone else to jump on their brakes, but for the most part cars driven by responsible drivers tend to remain in fairly predictable paths; they stay in lane, they have indicators and brake lights, they move out at junctions so you can see what they're planning to do. Pedestrians do none of the above. They can barely stay out of each other's way a lot of the time; they really don't need a bike in the mix as well.

But. Obviously there are exceptions, when things are quieter and the pavement is less busy, and then it seems less of an issue. But more often than not the roads are quiet at those times too, so what's the issue? And then we hit my real issue - cyclists using the pavement in order to circumvent red lights or one-way systems. Road or not, pedestrian crossings are NEVER for cyclists. Ever. I've seen pedestrians have to dive out of the way so that cyclists can shoot along two pedestrian crossings, rather than waiting for the lights to change so that they can turn right legally. I've seen cyclists flat-out ignore red lights at pedestrian crossings, or think they can get away with sneaking across slowly. If you run a red light at 1mph, you're still running a red light. Deal with it. I've seen cyclists flying up pavements on one-way streets because cycling the wrong way up that road would be illegal. I've seen cyclists fly up one-way streets the wrong way anyway, and still expect pedestrians to clear the way for them if they're crossing.

Yes, there should be more cycle routes, and regulation, and training; it's staggering that it's possible to take a vehicle capable of doing 30mph onto the streets with no education and no protective equipment. But until then, get on the road.

 

[Stryc9]

If there was a practical way to license, register and insure cyclists, I'd be all aboard that.

There is, you pass laws stating that if they're going to ride the bikes on public roadways they'll have to get a little plate just like on a motorcycle and they'll have got pay a yearly license for it. Failure to do this will result in a first time fine of X amount of money. Failure to comply after that will result in the police impounding your bicycle for 30 the first time and 60 the second on so on until you get the message.

[EDIT] Oh and of course, ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAWS ONCE THEY'RE ON THE BOOKS!!!!

 

[Sansha]

If there was a practical way to license, register and insure cyclists, I'd be all aboard that.

There is, you pass laws stating that if they're going to ride the bikes on public roadways they'll have to get a little plate just like on a motorcycle and they'll have got pay a yearly license for it. Failure to do this will result in a first time fine of X amount of money. Failure to comply after that will result in the police impounding your bicycle for 30 the first time and 60 the second on so on until you get the message.

[EDIT] Oh and of course, ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAWS ONCE THEY'RE ON THE BOOKS!!!!

Being caught riding without a helmet should result in immediate and permanent confiscation of one's bicycle.

Seven or so years ago I was hit by a speeding car off my bike, and my helmet shattered on the pavement and knocked me out. I was concussed for two days. If I wasn't wearing a helmet, I'd have been killed.

 

[Stryc9]

Being caught riding without a helmet should result in immediate and permanent confiscation of one's bicycle.

Seven or so years ago I was hit by a speeding car off my bike, and my helmet shattered on the pavement and knocked me out. I was concussed for two days. If I wasn't wearing a helmet, I'd have been killed.

Fine by me, it'd get a lot of the cyclists in my area off the streets rather quickly.

 

[SecondPrize]

When cyclists can prove, as a group, that they are capable of respecting the rules of the road, then we can allow them on the sidewalks.
This will never happen.