Been ticketed while riding a bike? Join This Crowdsourcing Project

Whoa, zeitgeist intersection -- biking and crowdsourcing.

Bicyclists not following traffic signals and the like are a hazard to others

in a major metropolitan area or likely at all.

I can tell you from my experience in Montreal, that the only rule that cyclists that are worth their salt obey, is the one where you stay alive. The rest are cute ideas by drivers in their steal coffins pissed off that cycling across town is faster by bike than by car. I've demonstrated this to car-driving friends, regularly.

The only ticket I've ever received on a bike was a couple of years ago, by two arrogant cops, in the rain, I might add, while cycling across town. I coasted through a red, and sure, technically I deserved a ticket. The asshats lectured me on bike safety, but I know full well they never put foot on pedal since they were kids.

The very next day I was almost struck (very close call, thanks razor sharp V-brakes!) by a white van running a red light (I had the green) AND THEN LATER a car also running a red light. It was a bit freaky since it was the morning after the ticket, good thing I heard the van's motor reving up.

I stop for lights and stop signs when there is a need to for safety (mine, pedestrians, etc). I'll put my foot down and suck your exhaust when the cops are routinely enforcing the traffic act for motor vehicles and I'm not routinely almost struck or actually struck by useless distracted asshats in their steel boxes who themselves are violating the traffic act in their 4+ tons of metal.

Shitty cyclists are a hazard to themselves (and routinely other cyclists) but don't give me nonsense about a hazard to others, unless you're talking about their broken bodies making scratches on your paint job.

Montreal is a shitty place to bicycle because the cops and drivers think "I didn't see them!" is a valid excuse for killing cyclists and pedestrians. Other than that, it's a beautiful city with the most cyclists per capita in North America (Oregon is second).

cause there is something like automatic, up to $75K liability for drivers striking pedestrians or cyclists from what I understand, so drivers are cautious and polite. (I've travelled as a driver and cyclist a lot, so trust me)

You can spot New Jersey drivers before you look at the plate 'cause they're the ones almost knocking your elbows (just like in Montreal I might add).

Oh, except the NYPD hate cyclists. See the video Still We Ride if you doubt that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNR-SwvzdMA).

These days I am a motorcyclist, in other times bicycles have been my primary means of transportation. I am quite familiar with the invisibility of 2 wheel vehicles.

Validate a bit before you screed....

Guess that proves that all cyclists deserve to get run over. :sarcasm:

I wonder what the "in other times" euphemism is a stand in for. Owning a moto doesn't get you any cyclist/ped street cred with me just cause you got two wheels. You do fulfil the requirement to get my sympathy for the forced off the road, invisible vehicle quotient.

People die all the time from traffic accidents. It's terribly unfortunate how many people die on the roads every year, but try looking up the stats on which side of the inside/outside the car equation for who's winning/losing.

If this is a competition for who's seen the worst shit on the roads, I can't be bothered to play, since it's a sick premise to start with.

And from my office, I watch assholes on bikes blaze through a four-way stop ALL DAY LONG. And yes, they can KILL someone, if they cause a car, that had the right of way, to swerve into a pedestrian, or other vehicle in an attempt to avoid them.

Obey the traffic laws, or pay up. Just like everyone else.

Sure. I've got no problem with that. But the all-those-cyclists-causing-accidents sentiments are lame, and generally from somebody who hasn't been up close and personal with asshats in cars in a very long time. There's just that magic something about being inside a steel cage that makes you believe that the people without cages are causing all the trouble.

> But the all-those-cyclists-causing-accidents sentiments are lame,
> and generally from somebody who hasn't been up close and personal
> with asshats in cars in a very long time.

A lot of the observation of cyclists-causing-accidents comes from
people who also aren't in steel cans - pedestrians.

Cyclists are indeed vulnerable to "asshats in cars".
They also have their own share of "asshats" in turn.

:shrug:

We have a good trail system here, from old gravel mine narrow gauge railways that have been converted, and full gauge train lines no longer in use.

When I need to, I ride on the road, and keep as far right as is safe. I've never once had an automobile come close to hitting me on my bike, by accident, or malicious.


I wish I could say the same about being on foot. Running, I have had people swerve over to 'scare me' (The police can't do shit if someone threatens you with a 5,000lb car, but if they threaten you with a gun, all hell breaks loose: does not compute) and I've been hit at multiple intersections by people making a free right, into a crosswalk.

But never once on my bike. Perhaps I am more visible up high, and-or since I am moving with traffic, it's less of a problem.

I've been hit by bicyclists running red lights (note the plural).


You are either a vehicle or a pedestrian, in either case subject to all the laws, restrictions and rules. Any bicyclist too stupid to abide by that deserves the fate that befalls them. Being on a bike does not make one any more morally correct or less subject to the constraints of a civilized society, and that includes stopping and any and every godamned red light and being required to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk *ALWAYS*

From a cyclist who rides 5,000 miles/year.

Inconsiderate/ignorant/arrogant cyclists make it more dangerous for all of us.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

unless they are fleeing a crime scene and mowing down little old ladies in the process. They have told me as much. They really hate having to investigate fatal car vs cyclist accidents and scrape us up off the pavement, which is exactly what will happen if you try to ride in traffic.

Both on an eebike and a conventional bike.

On the way to our annual "Ride of Silence" in downtown Columbus, Ohio, my wife and I joined about a half dozen Team Trek members on Civic Center Drive. Then we rode up to the Statehouse.

Be sure you have a rear view mirror, or better yet two. One on the end of the left handle bar and one on your helmet or glasses.

Everyone on a bike should ride in the streets, but I'll excuse 7 year old with training wheels.

Unless you're dismounting onto an empty sidewalk, you're part of the problem.
Same goes for shaving pedestrians in or off the roadway.

I can think of no reason not to.

In Columbus, Ohio, and in many other communities it is illegal.

It is dangerous to bike riders, the sidewalks are frequently uneven, and you are much more likely to get hit by a car coming out of an alley.

Much more likely to hit a pedestrian you cannot for some reason see, or to hit a pet.

You are encouraging automobile drivers to think that bikes belong on the sidewalks. They do not. Get off the sidewalks and into the streets!

There are times when I do ride on the sidewalks. 20 yards or so at walking speed, a few miles an hour to get to a shop location is acceptable, kind of like an aircraft taxing to or from a runway. Bike walking my dog is another time, mostly because I don't want her to learn to run in the street, but I live in a quiet residential area and I use alleys as much as possible.

had a problem riding on the sidewalk. It is MUCH safer for all involved.

Granted, not an option in places where it is illegal.

But surface unevenness, visibility, etc, have never been an issue for me on the sidewalk. I get in the road when I have no option, or when I want to go maximum speed, only.

and that's why it's illegal (at least technically) most of the places I can think of.

The other poster pointed out a lot of the good reasons for you not to do it. I'll point of the main ones again.

It's simple mathematics. There are far more intersections on the sidewalk than there are in the street. Every single entrance/exit for any building becomes a potential intersection between you and pedestrians. There is a shorter stopping distance between any vehicle crossing your path to the sidewalk than the street.

Motor vehicle drivers generally do not anticipate the second intersection of their right turn with the sidewalk with consideration to a medium-to-fast moving bicycle.

Plenty of pedestrians are nervous (and rightly so) around cyclists and motor vehicles. The most simple and powerful reason I can think of for not riding on the sidewalk is to be an ambassador of peace towards pedestrians. Walking around by foot should not be a stressful endeavor.

The second most important reason is to have cyclists out in the road, taking their fair share, and breaking the delusional idea of most asshat drivers that cyclists should be on the sidewalk. (I'm not calling most drivers asshats.)

You can't have it both ways, that bicycles are vehicles and should obey vehicle traffic act laws like stopping at red lights and signs, but that bicycles should only be on the sidewalk. (There is no vehicle signalisation on the sidewalk, obviously).

If you're on the sidewalk on a bike (or anything else for that matter) and moving faster than walking speed, you're part of the problem in my opinion.

Road laws are only incumbant upon a bicyclist when ON the road. On the sidewalk there are an entirely separate set of laws. In my state, pretty much only one law, actually: Yield to pedestrians.

I don't ride as fast on the sidewalk as I do in the street. Again, if I want to torque along at max speed, I WILL get in the street, for all the reasons you mentioned about making pedestrians nervous, or stopping distances, etc. I can tool along the sidewalk all day at a lower speed, and allow pedestrians plenty of room, and decelerate for them. It can be a very non-threatening environment, if the bicyclst is paying attention and careful/courteous.

Hell, am I not supposed to use the pedestrian trails that are full of joggers, walkers, and roller-bladers, since my bike is a 'vehicle'? Hell no. I couldn't get to work on my bike in a reasonable time frame if I couldn't use a pedestrian trail.

(We do have some trails clearly designated 'no bicycles')

Most drivers here where I live give bicyclists 3+ feet, and are very courteous. But sometimes the street just isn't wide enough, so cars cannot safely overtake me without entering the oncoming lane. I can't go as fast as the cars legally can on those roads, so I take the sidewalk.

Pittsburgh still has one of the highest rates of Pedestrian travel in the US, do to its compact size AND the mere volume of people. Thus in areas with Good Sidewalks, you see a lot of people walking, and thus makes it dangerous to bike,

The Classic case occurred in the late 1990s, Allegheny County (Pittsburgh is the County Seat of Allegheny County) had put in a bike trail in a County Park known as South Park. State law, at that time, required bicyclist to use a bike trail instead of the road, if a bike trail existed. Thus a high speed bicyclist was on this curvy bike trail used by Pedestrians as well as bicyclists. The result ended in a major accident including the death of a pedestrian. In the Subsequent court case, the Court ruled that it was common for bicyclist to go 25-30 mph and even through the bike trail had NOT been designed for such speeds, the bicyclist had NOT violated any laws and thus no liable for the accident. The County was ruled to be exempt for it was legally part of the State Government and thus exempt under the concept of Sovereign Immunity. Thus the victim had no one to sue.

The biggest problem was the ruling by its nature, would NOT apply to a city or other locally owned bike trail, for such municipalities are NOT viewed as part of the State and Sovereign Immunity does not apply (The restrictions are less then as to the State). This part of the ruling upset local government so that the State Legislature changed the law, dropping the requirement that bicyclist MUST use a bike trail (And for the first time permitted Bikes on sidewalks, except in business districts).

The problem with older cities is the heavily traveled areas have the well maintained sidewalks and do to the number of pedestrians NOT a good place to ride a bike. On the other hand, once away from such business districts, the sidewalks tend NOT to be maintained and thus become hazards not only to Bicyclist but Pedestrians. Many of these sidewalks still have curbs even at intersections (Unlike the business district's sidewalks which tend to have ramps to meet the ADA requirements). Worse, to make room for parked cars, the Sidewalks are narrow, or even worse, have parked cars on them (So the car is not hit by other cars while parked do to the narrowness of the road).

Thus in the older parts of town, I never ride on Sidewalks, there tend to be high volume pedestrian traffic, or sidewalks last maintained when McKinley was president. Under either set of facts, the sidewalks are barely safe for pedestrians let alone bicyclists.

And they WILL ticket you for it, if you don't.