That's OK then.

Sidewalk cycling is legal in DC except downtown. I find it acceptable if there isn't a good alternative, but far less preferable than safe street riding. For example, I live on 17th Street, which is one-way in the south direction. If I'm going north I will use the sidewalk, because 16th Street is too busy with cars and buses to be safe, and 18th Street has a nasty, unsafe intersection with Connecticut Avenue that is best avoided. The alleys, unfortunately, are perpendicular. The generally wide sidewalk on 17th is the safest place for me to be, provided I slow down and give peds the right-of-way.

What about main streets that allow parking...

On one hand we know that cars wouldn't be driving in those lanes but then there are those unexpected doors opening on you and stuff.

^ I ride on main streets with parallel parking all the time.. the trick is to ride out from the parked cars enough that you have some clearance if someone swings their door open quickly. It helps if you can ride with the flow of traffic (IE when it's congested and I'm travelling the same pace as cars, I ride right smack in the cente of the lane)

I find main streets with side parking (ie: 4 lanes but the 2 curb lanes have parking) are far better to bike on. Getting doored is always a concern, but one I feel is considerably overplayed. You need to keep your wits about you and not be afraid to ride near the edge of the lane.

For example, the east-west road I often (Dundas St W) has street parking for most of its length and I've never had any problems. On a few occasions I've ridden on King St W twhich prohibits street parking to allow for a full 4 lanes of traffic. It's far more dangerous having speeding cars / trucks right beside you than looking out for the odd door.

This just happened in San Antonio the other day.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc..._with_car.html

Interesting that it says "cyclist collides with car" rather than "driver of car collides with bike". From the (very) brief description, it sounds like the woman driving the car didn't look before she turned, which would make it her fault.

Anyway, if you are biking in the street and there isn't a bike lane (marked or unmarked), it is definitely safer to be in the middle of the lane. If there isn't enough room for a car to pass safely, it shouldn't pass at all.

It wasn't her fault though. The idiot was riding a bicycle on the sidewalk with an engine on it that can go up to 35 mph. That is exactly the reason why riding bikes on sidewalks is a bad idea. It's not her fault. She wasn't looking on the sidewalk for a person riding a bike, because that's not where they belong. Especially not when they're able to go as fast as cars do. I'm familiar with that stretch of road. It's 4 lanes of traffic, plus a turning lane, with speed limits around 40 to 45 mph mph. Those are acceptable conditions for a bicycle with an engine.

Do you have more information than is in that article? If not, you are jumping to all sorts of pro-car/anti-cyclist conclusions.

1. It doesn't matter whether they were cyclists or not. They could have been pedestrians. It doesn't make any difference if the driver pulled in without looking to see if anyone was on the sidewalk.

2. Just because a bike has a motor does not mean the person is using the motor. A motorized bike is not the same as a motorcycle, nor even a scooter. Many people who have them leave the motor turned off except when they need a special boost (like when going up hills). It's possible the bike rider was using his motor inappropriately, but that information is not in the article.

I have 11 bicycles and ride every day, so I'm not anti-cyclist. :) I'm actually anti-car, I'm just saying the guy shouldn't have been on the sidewalk. I'll admit, that I haven't rode a bike on that street, so I'm not sure what it's like on a bicycle, and I might even be inclined to take to the sidewalks if it wasn't good for bike riding. But if I had a motorized bicycle (I badly want one actually), then I would definitely ride it on the street, not the sidewalk. That stretch of road is also relatively level with few, if any hills. So maintaining a reasonable speed shouldn't be a big deal.

Dooring is the #1 cause of cyclist injury-accidents. Here in California, dooring is *always* the motorist's fault, even if done by a passenger. That's why cabbies don't want you entering/exiting on the left, and won't unlock the back doors until all is clear.

We don't really have bike lanes in San Francisco--there are a few here and there, but the NIMBYs have prevented their installation for years and years now and motorists block them where they do exist--so we don't face the bike lane/door zone conundrum as often as riders in more progressive cities. California law allows cyclists full use of the lane when riding to the side is unsafe, and dooring is certainly a danger, so you'll see cyclists a bit farther out on most SF streets.

And Kevin--11 bikes? What a junkie!

I'm not sure what this is in response to? This is the same municipal code I referenced before posting, I just didn't feel it necessary to copy and paste the whole thing into this thread. Also why did you bold those parts?

Also don't forget that it is usually crawling with ambulances and firetrucks that drive around picking up all the elderly that drop dead or are otherwise incapacitated. Delivery trucks also seem to think its super cool to just stop in the right lane and block traffic. Sheridan is the street from hell, I don't see why all those people in the highrises are against extending LSD around them to Evanston, it would radically change the nature of the street they live on and make it a vastly more pleasant place to live. As far as property values go, one needs look no further than where I live just south of Hollywood where Sheridan is nice and quiet to see that property values are much higher when the street you live on is completely messed up and you have a huge park with beaches in your back yard.

So Chicago guys (well, and anyone else in a transit-oriented city), I've got a question.

First an explanation: my cycling friends and I have noticed certain SF neighborhoods and districts we once considered remote or hard to access via public transit are now easily accessible. Biking has reordered our mental maps of the city's geography, and shaken up which areas/bars/parks/stores etc. are easy to get to. Has cycling altered your impression of your own city like that?

I've read your posts before about the Nimbys, but gosh, I never would have guessed San Francisco would be so hard on bikes. Bike riding must be a test of your endurance and nerve anyway in that city with the hills. So I would have thought bike lanes would be encouraged to keep them out of the lanes.

We're getting a few nice things here. There are bike lanes on select streets all around town, even in the suburban areas. Of course, not all of the streets have them, and some of those streets are nearly impossible to ride on because of killer hills and higher speed limits, say above 35 miles an hour. Bikes are accepted on the streets here, since not all of them have bike lanes. From my house going into downtown, there's only one major street with bike lanes to downtown. So that's the one I take. There are 3 other streets that lead either into downtown, or near it. Those three don't have bike lanes, but two of those allow bicyclists to ride in the street and even take the full lane. The third street is pretty much off limits to bikes since the terrain goes up and down like a roller coaster. So we have bike lanes, bikes are allowed to take the full lane on at least some streets (where it's safe), and we're even getting some bike boulevards in downtown.


Yeah. Of course that's counting everything, including a frame of a 1968 Schwinn Collegiate that I'm wanting to put together, a 1985? GT Performer (BMX) bike that I rode when I was a teen, and a junkie Roadmaster I found that I use for late night trips to the convenience store. I only spent 5 dollars on it, getting the tubes replaced, it's a real piece of junk, so if it gets swiped I won't be crushed. 4 of them aren't quite ridable yet.

Because you made a legal conclusion that is not in fact what the code says...any how enough about that

Most definitely......I am an avid cyclists from mid/ late MArch - November.....not the winter Rambo that Steely is. One of the greatest things about cycling around the city is seeing things / new places etc that I otherwise would blow by in a car at 40mph also I often take meandering routes where I "discover" places I never knew existed despite having been in those areas before.
\
Also one thing.....cycling has shown me how far the northside has come and how far parts of the southside and westsides need to go......god if we could just get those parts of the city as health as much of the northside Chicago would be really something else

Yes, in fact. They will actually arrest you if you don't have some sort of ID. I'd know - I was pulled over and given a ticket about a year ago for making a California-stop, right-on-red on my bicycle. In Portland. On a bike.

$242 for failure to obey a traffic control device.

I knew a guy in Portland who was tackled by multiple PPD officers for not having a front bike light:

http://bikeportland.org/2008/06/11/m...rtland-police/

=========================

As for not being able to ride a bike and being well dressed? Seriously?!?!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3364/...383c509685.jpg

Picture courtesy of larsdaniel on flickr
Via www.copenhagencyclechic.com

Check out this:

http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/s...0in%20a%20suit

http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...01/tweed11.jpg
Picture courtesy of bikeportland.org

I was threatened with a ticket last summer at North and Damen by a bike cop.....bike cops are almost 100% pricks on wheels.....for not having a front light.....it was late afternoon / early eve in summer 6ish or a little later.....sunset that day was after 8pm ;
according to the chicago muni code you need a light at night.....not during daylight....nonetheless he threatened me with a ticket unless I accepted a free light that was being passed out by some bike ambassador....fcukin brown shirts don't even know the law

9-52-080 Headlamps, reflectors and brakes.

(a) Every bicycle when in use at nighttime shall be equipped with a head lamp which shall emit a white light visible from a minimum distance of 500 feet from the front and with a rear red reflector capable of reflecting the head lamp beams of an approaching motor vehicle back to the operator of such vehicle at distances up to 200 feet or a rear lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of at least 200 feet from the rear.


--Correction to above....I should have said twilight, not dusk, and twilight would begin at sunset

I got doored at ashland and foster here in chicago this fall...broke my hand in multiple places, broke my ribs in multiple places, cracked my head, seriously bruised my hip....still feel it, bike was screwed up......lucky I am alicve given traffic level on ahsland

^^^ Ouch! Did you sue the crap out of the person that doored you? That's why I never ride on Ashland (not the dooring, but the traffic as you mention), especially not up in that area, people treat the segment between Lawrence and Clark like a freaking freeway. That attitude continues on up Ridge/Peterson and Clark for quite a ways too.

I actually came within inches of destroying some moron on his bike with my car at the corner of Ridge and Clark because he completely blew a red light. He was going North on Clark and I was going NW on Ridge so he was coming at me from 45 degrees back and to my left so it was even harder to see him. He blew the light so badly that I had already begun accelerating into the green and had moved about 10 feet forward when he came tearing in front of the van in the left lane and I. That guy was a complete moron and will probably be dead within 6 months if he keeps riding like that, especially in intersections like Ridge and Clark.

Re: Posting the entire code, it doesn't take a lawyer to look up and read the Municipal code. But anyhow, the mistake I made was reading the section on Bike Messengers and seeing that they have to have an ID on them and not noticing it was in a subsection re: bike Messengers.

Portland does this:

http://la.streetsblog.org/wp-content...cletrack_1.jpg

http://www.treehugger.com/portland-cycle-track-lane.jpg

http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...ckbrochure.jpg

In the third picture, as you can see, a special green painted box exists to allow bicycles to turn left across traffic when the light crosses pedestrians.

IMO, this is the best way to do bike lanes. The parked cars provide a nice buffer with traffic and there's enough room to stay out of door range. The biggest problem as pointed out in the news story posted a bit ago, is that you're riding in a spot where cars turning right won't notice you if they aren't used to the street and paying good attention.

cycling has definitely opened up crap loads more of my city to me, well, really more of my entire metro area, thanks to chicagoland's forest preserve system and our awesome commuter rail system that allows bicycles on the trains.

as one example, my sister lives WAY the hell out in the exburban boondock wastelands of lake county illinois, but i can ride my bike from my downtown home out to her house with all but about 10 of those 65 miles on off street bike paths. how freaking cool is that?

as for bars, i still use public transit and cabs for bar nights because riding a bike when i'm black-out drunk is just downright dangerous.

I can agree with that, often times when I am turning where this style of bike lane is I have found it to be hard to fully see if there were any bikes coming. I have never had an issue yet, but I can see where one would come from. Which I think it is the bikers responsibility to pay attention to their surroundings when coming up on these intersections.

This is actually a test, the other test street is Oak and Stark, where we reduced the lanes by one to create a bike lane that sits in between parked cars and moving cars. This idea also has its pluses and minuses, it is easier to see people on bikes, but you also have idiots who dont pay attention to paint and think their car can drive anywhere they want. Also you get an issue with people swerving into the bike lane to try to get a street parking spot. There is also an issue of cars using the bike lane as a turn lane, which is also wrong of car drivers.

The Sharrow


March 28, 2010

http://media.signonsandiego.com/e2/s.../sosd_logo.png

Read More: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...cks-geraniums/




http://media.signonsandiego.com/img/...95d379f58af1c4

A few months ago some idiot, by himself, got my city to change a plan for bike lanes on just one block of street to sharrows so that he could park his car in front of his house on the street instead of in the driveway behind the house.

Bicycles are a form of transportation that is best combined with Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, like golf carts, etc.

Most other motorized vehicles are not human-scaled. They generate air and noise pollution. And, they are unsafe because they weigh several tons and can travel at high speeds. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, conversely, are able to provide short-range transportation for those users who are, otherwise, opposed to bicycles.

The ideal is for privately-owned vehicles, like bicycles and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, to be combined with: walkable mixed-use development; high-quality transit (everything from high-speed trains to local circulators); and clean-energy car and bike sharing (subscription-based rentals of cars and bikes, as well as Neighborhood Electric Vehicles).

US Transportation Secretary pushes bike reform


6 Apr 2010

By Kirsten Frattini

Read More: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...-reform--25643




A 'complete street' has provisions for motorized and non-motorized users.

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/...6r0-798-75.jpg

Brooklyn Welcomes Bike-Friendly Policy


04-14-2010

By Joan Lowy & Raanan Geberer

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/images/bde_logo.gif

Read More: http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categor...id=31&id=34786

my dad has a truck he uses for recreational purposes... hmmmmm i wonder what John Cook would think about that.

So is the horse. So what?

My bike is one of my main modes of transportation, even in this incredibly un bike friendly town I live in. I ride it everywhere, and almost everyday I get yelled at by some rednecks and almost get run over by douches in big trucks. Yeah, for most people a bike isnt their main mode of transportation but for a few of us it is. I could drive my car everywhere but thats wasteful and you get fat. Id rather bike and stay in shape and save money instead of buying gas.

I was also a bike messenger in downtown Houston for a summer, that was awesome. I nearly got doored one time but now whenever there are parked cars I always make sure to ride a good distance so that wont ever happen to me. I love my bikes, dont know what I would do without em.

I think... that... was kind of his point. :shrug:

New inventions don't retroactively invalidate the classification of their predecessors. A transportation device that is used less or ceases to be used is nevertheless... a transportation device!

A bike is not a transportation device when a city starts posting up signs everywhere which say, "bikes not allowed." Signs, signs, everywhere are signs, don't do this, don't that, can't you read the signs?

Well, still... it's a transportation device... that you're not allowed to use. :P

One of those signs would look sweet on my wall...next to my bike.

Where are these signs? I wanna steal one.

http://www.ecovelo.info/images/no-bikes-allowed.jpg
http://www.ecovelo.info/2008/09/25/no-bicycles-allowed/

So...everything I wrote. Is it your contention there's no controversy about the lack of sufficient bike infrastructure on American streets? Or that bikes and horses are equally used in American cities for transportation? What point are you trying to make?

I totally agree, there are nowhere near enough stables in our cities anymore. maybe we could turn bike sharing stations into hybrid bike sharing/horse stables?

What we know about bike infrastructure: people want it


April 26, 2010

Read More: http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/04/what...e-want-it.html




http://usdotblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00...b675970b-500wi

A National Network Of Bike Trails? It Could Happen


April 25, 2010

http://media.npr.org/chrome/news/nprlogo_138x46.gif

Read More: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=126263488




http://media.npr.org/assets/news/201...1272230494&s=4

I thought the US already had a nationwide bike trail system?

Bicycles and the ‘Immigrant Effect’


April 25, 2010

By Elisabeth Best

http://www.miller-mccune.com/wp-cont...-LOGO_0416.gif

Read More: http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/...-effect-14744/

BOY! This dude needs to get out more! :yuck: With about 2/3 of the world using bikes as personal & commercial transportation this dude is a brick shy of a full load. :rolleyes:

Well, don't let the politicians see this. Quickest way to kill funding for something is to point out that immigrants are using it.

Americans Sick and Tired of Motorized Transportation, Transportation Secretary Says


May 03, 2010

By Christopher Neefus

Read More: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65068

Yes and no. We have a nationwide national trail system in which most of the trails are multi-purpose trails (but not, for example, the Appalachian Trail), and local trail networks of varying extents and planned extents in the major metros, but no real cohesive national explicitly multi-use trail system.

Although I would bet that, just as the Interstates were built around the extant parkways and turnpikes (like the New York State Thruway and the Pennsylvania Turnpike), the bike trail system will be built around the extant and under-construction trails already in place (e.g. the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal/Great Allegheny Passage system from D.C. to Pittsburgh or the East Coast Greenway).

P.S. According to this page, the Great Allegheny Passage also provides a bike bypass of central Pittsburgh, via its south and west, as well as a way to get there. Pretty cool.

P.P.S. It would be cool to be a systematized bike-trail-numbering scheme, like the U.S. Highways or Interstates. It would also easily show how the extant network would fit into the eventual system.

America's Top 50 Bike-Friendly Cities


http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6...1901-1,00.html

Interactive Map & Details


1. Minneapolis
2. Portland, OR
3. Boulder, CO
4. Seattle
5. Eugene, OR
6. San Francisco
7. Madison, WI
8. New York City
9. Tucson, AZ
10. Chicago
11. Austin, TX
12. Denver, CO
13. Washington, DC
14. Ann Arbor, MI
15. Phoenix/Tempe, AZ
16. Gainesville, FL
17. Albuquerque, NM
18. Colorado Springs, CO
19. Salem, OR
20. Scottsdale, AZ
21. Louisville, KY
22. Chattanooga, TN
23. Long Beach, CA
24. Cary, NC
25. Milwaukee
26. Boston
27. Philadelphia
28. Pittsburgh
29. Charleston, SC
30. Arlington, VA
31. Sioux Falls, SD
32. Boise, ID
33. Kansas City, MO
34. Columbus, OH
35. Tulsa, OK
36. Grand Rapids, MI
37. Billings, MT
38. St. Louis
39. Cleveland
40. Greensboro, NC
41. Lexington-Fayette, KY
42. Omaha, NE
43. Salt Lake City
44. Miami
45. Indianapolis
46. Fargo, ND
47. Anchorage, AK
48. Baltimore
49. Little Rock, AR
50. Rochester, NY

To prepare this list, we referenced the Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2010 Benchmarking Report, prepared by the Alliance for Biking and Walking; the League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly America project; data from Mediamark Research, Inc., Dun & Bradstreet and The Nielsen Company; and advice from national and local bike advocates.

There's already a thread about this

I think they should get moving on this if only to have more scenes like the one above. Girls on bicycles. :tup: