« Cyclists testify against mandatory helmet bill | Main | Wednesday Evening Commute- Unhappy Grover »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I suppose sidewalk cycling means that there is less incentive for DOTs to provide on-road infrastructure - a bad unintended consequence.

I'd support opposition to removing prohibitions on sidewalk cycling.


Nevermind, even I'm not sure if I meant what I just said - you decide:

Allowing bicycles on the sidewalk can be an inadequate substitute for building more effective bicycle facilities. It's a shortcut that could allow municipal transportation interests to claim a huge increase in "bikeable miles" without actually doing anything.

And assuming most people see the world the way I do, the continuum goes [Separated Exclusive Bikeways] > [Separated multi-use ways] > [on-road protected cycletracks] > [...] > [sidewalks] > [bike prohibition].

So, if anyone goes for allowing bicycles on sidewalks before they've adequately demonstrated that they will build out (engineer, educate, enforce, and so on) things like sharrows, BMUFL signage, bike-positive traffic regulation, etcetera, the otherwise reasonable step of ending prohibition of bicycles on sidewalks feels an awful lot like appeasement intended to stop bikes from becoming everyone's primary mode.

It's not a WABA position.

4) Profit!

That BBC article is a must-read. So much so that I think my new talisman will have to be an antelope jawbone.

Allowing sidewalk cycling should depend on local conditions, and as such should be in the control of local govts. They should be able to ban it or allow it as they see fit. While in general sidewalk biking is not good, there are places where the road conditions are not suitable/attractive for most cylcists, and where there are not yet suitable bike lanes/bike paths. And often these are places where pedestrian traffic light (yes there are other dangers, but generally not so much as to warrant requiring cyclists to refrain from sidewalk cycling)

One of the two routes I had for my old commute was Mass Ave above the Western Ave circle. Going down the hill was no prob,coming up I used the sidewalk. There were just too many people not going anywhere near the speed limit,the hill was too steep to have any real speed,and the curb was too tall to hop if I had to bail.

The problem with local control of sidewalk cycling is how on earth is a cyclist to know what the local ordinance is? Cycling advocates have long fought against patchwork laws that essentially assume that anyone riding a bike is also a psychic.

Ohio is particularly notorious for every town having its own laws, for some background see here: http://bikelaws.org/neo-bikelaws.htm

Sidewalk cycling is a bad idea. It makes bad drivers feel that they are even more entitled to the road if they feel that we should be on the sidewalks. Not to mention, some sidewalks and sidepaths are not maintained very well.

Sidewalk cycling is a bad idea.

Except when it isn't. A ban on sidewalk cycling ignores this.

It makes bad drivers feel that they are even more entitled to the road if they feel that we should be on the sidewalks.

The ones who feel entitled feel we should be on the sidewalks anyway. Unless they're walking.

My position in opposing sidewalk riding:

Greg's position in support:

Greg stated my own position better than I think I could have. Best line by far "Look, riding on a sidewalk can be dangerous, but so can riding in the dark." Brilliant.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader