# Riding bicycle on sidewalks



## Rambo (May 11, 2010)

I live in New York State and you are not allowed to ride bicycles on sidewalks. However a lot of people do it all the time. If a bicycle rider is involved in any accident (with a pedestrian or vehicle) when they are riding on a sidewalk they are in trouble because they were not supposed to be on the sidewalk in the first place.

However if a bicycle rider feels a certain section of roadway is dangerous, I think they are permitted to ride on a sidewalk to avoid the dangers.

So, with so many drivers illegally driving with cell phones held up to their ear and also people texting, it seems increasingly dangerous riding on the roadways. I used to be concerned with getting hit by a drunk driver, but these distracted cell phone users are dangerous also.

Whenever I do ride down a sidewalk, I am extra cautious, keep the speed way down, and often dismount and walk the bike when approaching pedestrains on the sidewalk.


----------



## Brownsville Brooklyn (May 11, 2010)

Rambo said:


> I live in New York State and you are not allowed to ride bicycles on sidewalks. However a lot of people do it all the time. If a bicycle rider is involved in any accident (with a pedestrian or vehicle) when they are riding on a sidewalk they are in trouble because they were not supposed to be on the sidewalk in the first place.
> 
> However if a bicycle rider feels a certain section of roadway is dangerous, I think they are permitted to ride on a sidewalk to avoid the dangers.
> 
> ...



i have 4 bicycles & ride them on sidewalks all the time in my beloved village in nys


----------



## Brownsville Brooklyn (May 11, 2010)

Rambo said:


> I live in New York State and you are not allowed to ride bicycles on sidewalks. However a lot of people do it all the time. If a bicycle rider is involved in any accident (with a pedestrian or vehicle) when they are riding on a sidewalk they are in trouble because they were not supposed to be on the sidewalk in the first place.
> 
> However if a bicycle rider feels a certain section of roadway is dangerous, I think they are permitted to ride on a sidewalk to avoid the dangers.
> 
> ...



my father took a class for seniors on driving. the instructor said a distracted driver on a phone or pda device is more dangerous than a drunk driver....i stopped pedaling in the streets in 1992 when i went to inline skates....


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

Mmmm... I'd doubt as though an exception would be made for dangerous roadways. You'd certainly be allowed to walk your bike on the sidewalk to bypass dangerous sections of road, but I doubt riding would be kosher, regardless.  I don't know the specific wording in New York laws though.  I know it's a no-no in Mass, regardless.

In dangerous places I'll often take the whole lane, but whenever I do, I keep a very close eye on my 6, for the reasons you mentioned.  I never ride on the sidewalk though.


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> Mmmm... I'd doubt as though an exception would be made for dangerous roadways. You'd certainly be allowed to walk your bike on the sidewalk to bypass dangerous sections of road, but I doubt riding would be kosher, regardless.  I don't know the specific wording in New York laws though.  I know it's a no-no in Mass, regardless.
> 
> In dangerous places I'll often take the whole lane, but whenever I do, I keep a very close eye on my 6, for the reasons you mentioned.  I never ride on the sidewalk though.



This may be a stupid question, but not being a roadie I don't know.  Do you use mirrors on your road bike?


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

bvibert said:


> This may be a stupid question, but not being a roadie I don't know.  Do you use mirrors on your road bike?



Some people do, I don't.  I would probably consider it if I lived in a more urban setting and had to deal with traffic from behind and parked cars constantly, but with the type of riding I do, I can often afford to look back quickly without getting into trouble.


----------



## o3jeff (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> Mmmm... I'd doubt as though an exception would be made for dangerous roadways. You'd certainly be allowed to walk your bike on the sidewalk to bypass dangerous sections of road, but I doubt riding would be kosher, regardless.  I don't know the specific wording in New York laws though.  I know it's a no-no in Mass, regardless.
> 
> In dangerous places I'll often take the whole lane, but whenever I do, *I keep a very close eye on my 6*, for the reasons you mentioned.  I never ride on the sidewalk though.



Do I dare ask what that is?


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> Some people do, I don't.  I would probably consider it if I lived in a more urban setting and had to deal with traffic from behind and parked cars constantly, but with the type of riding I do, I can often afford to look back quickly without getting into trouble.



I was just wondering since you said you keep a close eye behind you in dangerous spots.  Seems like in a dangerous spot constantly turning around to watch your back would make it even more dangerous.  But what do I know, I just ride in the woods, occasionally into random trees...


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> Do I dare ask what that is?



6 o'clock.  As in the area behind my ass.  An area where I hope to never ever see you.


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

bvibert said:


> I was just wondering since you said you keep a close eye behind you in dangerous spots.  Seems like in a dangerous spot constantly turning around to watch your back would make it even more dangerous.  But what do I know, I just ride in the woods, occasionally into random trees...



In dangerous spots I take the whole lane, making them less dangerous.  Unless you don't watch behind you.  Then they're still dangerous.  The idea behind taking the lane is to prevent cars behind you attempting to pass where it's too narrow to do so safely.  Usually it's in an area where they're not going to be going all that fast anyway, like approaching a crowded intersection or down a busy main street.  If I'm taking the whole lane, it's not that dangerous to check behind me frequently.


----------



## marcski (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> In dangerous spots I take the whole lane, making them less dangerous.  Unless you don't watch behind you.  Then they're still dangerous.  The idea behind taking the lane is to prevent cars behind you attempting to pass where it's too narrow to do so safely.  Usually it's in an area where they're not going to be going all that fast anyway, like approaching a crowded intersection or down a busy main street.  If I'm taking the whole lane, it's not that dangerous to check behind me frequently.



I agree. It's only normal.... once you're on the road, you're just like any vehicle on the road.  There are a few big hills where I take the lane.  The area is only a 30 or 35 mph speed limit and there is a pretty big curve at the bottom of the hill and about another 1/4 mile down the road I make a left turn. So, I usually take the lane torwards the top of the hill....as my speeds going down usually approach 35-40 and keep the lane all the way down the hill...and at that point if there is a car behind me I'll single that I'm making the left turn.  Oh, when on the road, I also use a clip on mirror ..clips onto the arm of my glasses.  I find its great...most of my road riding is on very quiet roads...but there is about a mile or 2 where I'm on more traveled roads.  But I find it's great to just be able to glance up slightly and have a whole field of vision behind you.  It's not "cool" to use one when you're a racer or stuff....hence Marc's non-use.


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

Yeah, seems like a mirror would be invaluable in some cases.  I'm not very hip though.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 11, 2010)

You have to get in and mix it up with the traffic. Be aware of what's going on around you and never assume a driver sees you. I used to ride my bike in and around downtown Boston and Cambridge all the time. Keep your speed up and stay with the flow. It's definitely not a leisurely ride.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> In dangerous spots I take the whole lane, making them less dangerous.  Unless you don't watch behind you.  Then they're still dangerous.  The idea behind taking the lane is to prevent cars behind you attempting to pass where it's too narrow to do so safely.  Usually it's in an area where they're not going to be going all that fast anyway, like approaching a crowded intersection or down a busy main street.  If I'm taking the whole lane, it's not that dangerous to check behind me frequently.



okay, I'm probably going to get bombed here from the biking crew.

To me, this is not 'sharing' the road.  I'm of the opinion that if a bicylcist is holding up traffic, they should pull over.  Mind you, I also feel the same way about cars.

Around me in rural NH, I run into bicyclist on 'back' roads taking up the whole lane in 45 mph zones and often riding side by side in pairs.  

I do not feel that cars should be required to slow down to bike speeds in the spirit of 'sharing'.


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> okay, I'm probably going to get bombed here from the biking crew.
> 
> To me, this is not 'sharing' the road.  I'm of the opinion that if a bicylcist is holding up traffic, they should pull over.  Mind you, I also feel the same way about cars.
> 
> ...



Notice how I said "in dangerous spots"?

Reading is fundamental.

Who you're describing are assholes.  And yes, assholes ride bikes as well as drive cars.  Don't turn this into a bike v car thread.  There are enough of those idiot contests elsewhere on the web.

PS - in most states it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to take the lane if in his or her judgement would comprimise the cyclists safety to do otherwise.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2010)

Well, not the nuke I was expecting, but still a grenade.  

I won't turn this into a bike vs car thing.  Guess I'm just a tad sensitive to this subject having spent the majority of my adult life in rural areas of VT, OH, WV, MD and NH being stuck behind a-hole road cyclists.  

Perhaps I'd have more sympathy if I was a bicylcist myself, but I'm not, so eff em'.  :razz:


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Well, not the nuke I was expecting, but still a grenade.
> 
> I won't turn this into a bike vs car thing.  Guess I'm just a tad sensitive to this subject having spent the majority of my adult life in rural areas of VT, OH, WV, MD and NH being stuck behind a-hole road cyclists.
> 
> Perhaps I'd have more sympathy if I was a bicylcist myself, but I'm not, so eff em'.  :razz:



Dude, if you've spent the majority of your life being stuck behind a-hole cyclists then you're doing something wrong.


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Well, not the nuke I was expecting, but still a grenade.
> 
> I won't turn this into a bike vs car thing.  Guess I'm just a tad sensitive to this subject having spent the majority of my adult life in rural areas of VT, OH, WV, MD and NH being stuck behind a-hole road cyclists.
> 
> Perhaps I'd have more sympathy if I was a bicylcist myself, but I'm not, so eff em'.  :razz:



So you think criticizing me (et al) for a manuever that I've clearly explained is done only when necesary for my own safety by elegantly and swiftly introducing a strawman (bad cyclists practicing the tactic when not necessary) was a good idea?  Particularly as a moderator?  I thought you were smarter than that.

As long as you're throwing out strawmen, and making incorrect inferences about my riding, I'll just go ahead an infer you're one of those road rage prone maniacs clipping my elbow around blind hills and corners as I'm an inch from the curb, with no respect for the fact he's piloting a 1 to 2 ton piece of heavy steel machinery around pedestrians and other vehicles that offer little to no protection.  Way to go crazy man.  I'm surprised you haven't killed anyone yet.

Isn't bad debating fun?


----------



## wa-loaf (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> Isn't bad debating fun?



I hear crickets ...


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> I hear crickets ...



Sorry, that's just my lunch.  Waiting for the chocolate to melt.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> So you think criticizing me (et al) for a manuever that I've clearly explained is done only when necesary for my own safety by elegantly and swiftly introducing a strawman (bad cyclists practicing the tactic when not necessary) was a good idea?  Particularly as a moderator?  I thought you were smarter than that.
> 
> As long as you're throwing out strawmen, and making incorrect inferences about my riding, I'll just go ahead an infer you're one of those road rage prone maniacs clipping my elbow around blind hills and corners as I'm an inch from the curb, with no respect for the fact he's piloting a 1 to 2 ton piece of heavy steel machinery around pedestrians and other vehicles that offer little to no protection.  Way to go crazy man.  I'm surprised you haven't killed anyone yet.
> 
> Isn't bad debating fun?



I think hyper-sensitivity is more fun actually.  

I was also more speaking in regards to 'A hole' cyclists out there (which you agreed there are), not 'you' specifically.  And if you want to get into 'reading is fundamental' jabs......where in my response which you quoted did I say anything about 'you' as an individual.  

I'm sure you're a fine and respectful cyclist.  I can assure I am a respectful driver......even towards the a - holes.

Ultimately, I was more busting balls than anything else.  But way to take it personally.  Relax Marc, you're overeacting.


----------



## marcski (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I think hyper-sensitivity is more fun actually.
> 
> I was also more speaking in regards to 'A hole' cyclists out there (which you agreed there are), not 'you' specifically.  And if you want to get into 'reading is fundamental' jabs......where in my response which you quoted did I say anything about 'you' as an individual.
> 
> ...



Why did Greg ever change the color around here?  :roll::roll:


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I think hyper-sensitivity is more fun actually.
> 
> I was also more speaking in regards to 'A hole' cyclists out there (which you agreed there are), not 'you' specifically.  And if you want to get into 'reading is fundamental' jabs......*where in my response which you quoted did I say anything about 'you' as an individual.  *



Well, you quoted what I posted about taking a lane for safety, and without qualifiers immediately wrote this:



deadheadskier said:


> okay, I'm probably going to get bombed here from the biking crew.
> 
> To me, this is not 'sharing' the road. [etc.]



Is there any other reasonable way to interperet this post other than you addressing my post (and therefore my actions) directly?  When you say "To me, *this is*..." you must have been referring to something else, and not my post you just quoted?  That makes sense.  

Are you just drawing attention away from your first bad post by making a second one as ridiculous as the first?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Well, not the nuke I was expecting, but still a grenade.
> 
> I won't turn this into a bike vs car thing.  Guess I'm just a tad sensitive to this subject having spent the majority of my adult life in rural areas of VT, OH, WV, MD and NH being stuck behind a-hole road cyclists.
> 
> Perhaps I'd have more sympathy if I was a bicylcist myself, but I'm not, so eff em'.  :razz:



I thought this clarified that I was referring to A-holes who do clog the lanes when it's unnecessary - not you personally.



Marc said:


> Well, you quoted what I posted about taking a lane for safety, and without qualifiers immediately wrote this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



or are you just drawing attention away from my second quote when I made no mention of 'you', even put in that handy little smilie :razz: and then proceeded to jump down my throat and call me a crazy driver?

You really are over-reacting.  I'm sorry you took it personally as me calling you an asshole cyclist.  That was not my intent at all.

What more do you want?


----------



## Paul (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> What more do you want?



I'd like a pastrami on rye, as long as we're asking...


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2010)

If ever in Montreal or Quebec City, get the smoked meat instead of Pastrami........trust me.  It's like Pastrami on steroids. Had some last week up there.


----------



## dmc (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> If ever in Montreal or Quebec City, get the smoked meat instead of Pastrami........trust me.  It's like Pastrami on steroids. Had some last week up there.



thats some goooooooood stuff!


----------



## Brownsville Brooklyn (May 11, 2010)

*you guys are starting to annoy me with this thread lol*

please go into manhattan isle on any weekday that its not raining & u watch the messengers ride then u come back to me lol....


----------



## Brownsville Brooklyn (May 11, 2010)

Paul said:


> I'd like a pastrami on rye, as long as we're asking...



Smolenski's Deli on 65th street in bensonhurst just off bay pkwy....every sunday my father walked down there for deli until 7/7/71 when we said goodbye to our beloved brooklyn....


----------



## wa-loaf (May 11, 2010)

Brownsville Brooklyn said:


> please go into manhattan isle on any weekday that its not raining & u watch the messengers ride then u come back to me lol....



If you don't like it don't read it. And Boston's messengers could ride circles around Manhattan's. Our streets are narrower and not straight. Oh and they ride in the rain and snow.


----------



## severine (May 11, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> If you don't like it don't read it. And Boston's messengers could ride circles around Manhattan's. Our streets are narrower and not straight. Oh and they ride in the rain and snow.


Not to mention they make no sense. Not logically laid out like NYC's.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 11, 2010)

severine said:


> Not to mention they make no sense. Not logically laid out like NYC's.



That's what happens when you just pave over the cow paths ...


----------



## wa-loaf (May 11, 2010)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/11/bicycle.wars/index.html?hpt=C2


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I thought this clarified that I was referring to A-holes who do clog the lanes when it's unnecessary - not you personally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can tell that you've clearly never spent any time on cycling forums.  This topic is more heated than most anything that's ever been discussed on AZ.  There's nothing more to do than to walk away..


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2010)

bvibert said:


> There's nothing more to do than to walk away..



or buy a car with the steering wheel on the right hand side.


----------



## dmc (May 11, 2010)

severine said:


> Not to mention they make no sense. Not logically laid out like NYC's.



Go to lower Manhattan..  Streets make no sense...

NYC was lucky that someone planned ahead and put down the grid north of the old city..  Before any buildings were even built..


----------



## severine (May 11, 2010)

dmc said:


> Go to lower Manhattan..  Streets make no sense...
> 
> NYC was lucky that someone planned ahead and put down the grid north of the old city..  Before any buildings were even built..



I've pretty much stuck to the area around Grand Central Station; haven't seen that section. What's funny is that when I bring people in with me, though, they seem to think I'm some sort of expert. I just pay attention to the numbers; makes it easy to navigate. :lol: We've walked all the way up to the Empire State Building, down to Central Park, and over to ... I forget which. Theatre district area for a few off-Broadway plays.

On the other hand, my father, who is a route salesman so he drives for a living, got pretty lost in Boston taking me up there to look at Northeastern in high school. I still remember that. :lol: I can't for the life of me remember exactly where we walked when I visited my cousin at Tufts or when we went up there this past Fall for my History class. Navigation just isn't as memorable.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2010)

Timing is everything 

just noticed this on CNN from today  :lol:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/11/bicycle.wars/index.html?hpt=Sbin


----------



## Brownsville Brooklyn (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> Notice how I said "in dangerous spots"?
> 
> Reading is fundamental.
> 
> ...



come bicycle with me little people in my beloved village....i have two chopper bicycles....


----------



## Paul (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Timing is everything
> 
> just noticed this on CNN from today  :lol:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/11/bicycle.wars/index.html?hpt=Sbin



Huh... me too...

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showpost.php?p=535988&postcount=33


----------



## Paul (May 11, 2010)

Brownsville Brooklyn said:


> come bicycle with me little people in my beloved village....i have two chopper bicycles....



Is Darby O'Gill beloved to you?


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

I'd like to add that I farking hate Critical Mass.


----------



## riverc0il (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> okay, I'm probably going to get bombed here from the biking crew.
> 
> To me, this is not 'sharing' the road.  I'm of the opinion that if a bicylcist is holding up traffic, they should pull over.  Mind you, I also feel the same way about cars.
> 
> ...


You won't get bombed by me. Just before I got home and jumped on my bike and hit the road, I was swearing bloody murder at two roadies going double down the road. Roadies not keeping up with traffic should hug as close to the shoulder as safe to do so and let traffic pass. But, sometimes for everyone's sake, roadies do need to assert their space in difficult places, especially when they are keeping pace with traffic. Technically, a road biker has to follow the same rules of the road as a car, so if keeping pace, there is nothing wrong with getting into the lane.

That said, to the OP's topic, if a roadie needs to get up on the sidewalk, I think they had poor route selection. Time to get off the bike and walk or turn around and find another route. Even when I biked in MA in cities (Haverhill, Lawrence, Lowell, etc.), I knew what places were "safe" biking roads and which roads to avoid. I never went up on the sidewalk. Definitely not safe for walkers to have a biker riding up there.

As to mirrors, I could seeing using them if I was a city commuter. But just checking your 6 is a quick look when nothing is in front of you... that really is not dangerous and does not need to be done often unless you are in a high traffic area and playing dodgems with obstructions and pot holes.


----------



## Paul (May 11, 2010)

marc said:


> i'd like to add that i farking hate critical mass.



this


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> I'd like to add that I farking hate Critical Mass.



Oh come on they seem like such a sensible group...


----------



## abc (May 27, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> okay, I'm probably going to get bombed here from the biking crew.
> 
> To me, this is not 'sharing' the road.  I'm of the opinion that if a bicylcist is holding up traffic, they should pull over.  Mind you, *I also feel the same way about cars*.
> 
> Around me in rural NH, I run into bicyclist on 'back' roads taking up the whole lane in 45 mph zones and often riding side by side in pairs.


That's right, the same applies to a tractor or horse trailer on the road. Or leaf-peepers in the fall driving 15mph on a 45 zone. 

So what do you expect a horse trailer to do? Pull over as soon as they see you coming up from behind? They'll be pulling over every 3 min. and won't get very far in an hour! What will YOU do if you were the one driving the horse trailer?



> I do not feel that cars should be required to slow down to bike speeds in the spirit of 'sharing'


Cars are not "required" to slow down to bike speeds. They're allow to pass at a spot that's safe! 

But if there's no safe spot to pass, yes, slow down and drive 5mph behind a student driver, a tractor, a mop, or a cyclist!:smash:


----------



## riverc0il (May 27, 2010)

Equating farm equipment to bikes is not a good comparison. Farm equipment by its very nature has to take up a full lane and then some whereas bikes can generally hug the shoulder. It _should_ be a lot easier to pass a bike than a tractor, by default.

Yes, cars should slow down a bit and pass when it is safe to do so but passing a cyclist should be a LOT easier than passing a tractor in which a driver needs to pass in the on coming traffic lane! As a cyclist myself, I am extremely diligent to never be "that roadie" who impedes traffic in any way not absolutely required for safety. If cyclists are constantly making cars slow down and drive 5 MPH, they need to either hug the shoulder more, not cycle two abreast, or pick a different route if it is constantly happening.


----------



## marcski (May 27, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> If cyclists are constantly making cars slow down and drive 5 MPH, they need to either hug the shoulder more, not cycle two abreast, or pick a different route if it is constantly happening.



Or ride more so they can ride faster than 5 mph.  

I basically agree....I only "take the lane" when I'm at or over the posted speed limit (ie. when I'm on downhills that have curves) and/or when I have to for safety purposes due to road conditions.


----------

