Madison Bike Lane Proposal

[Gary Rice]

I'm glad that Tim weighed in here, and his concerns remain pretty much my own.

Bike lanes, to me, are a confusing, anachronistic, and dangerous throwback to the days when it was unclear as to how much road that bikes were "allowed" to use. With present laws, as far as I've been able to discern, bikes can now use the non-high speed public roadways just as cars and trucks do. Bike lanes may seem trendy to some, but those outmoded and dangerous lanes are just not a good idea, at least to my eyes, and for reasons already well expressed, by both Tim and me.

In looking at some more info yesterday, by the way, I've discovered that bikes can still supposedly use sidewalks, although from what I've also read and heard, sidewalks are statistically much more dangerous than roads, due again to multiple hazards, not the least of which, in our city, would be the issue of visibility safety.

I'm in complete agreement with Jim that Lakewood's tendency to want to build brick buildings all the way out to the sidewalks, particularly at intersections. have not helped sidewalk safety in this congested little city of ours. On the road or on the walks, visibility is vital, and there's far too little traffic visibility in our city.

Keeping Lakewood as a "streetcar suburb" town, when streetcars haven't been seen around here since the early 1950's, makes about as much sense to me as asking residents to keep horses and buggies in their yards, as a tribute to Lakewood's origins.

Times do change.

Last thought for this post: Sidewalks, in my honest opinion, are for pedestrians and children's vehicles. If you want to ride a grown-up bike, please use the street, if at all possible, and for all of our sakes, ride WITH the traffic and observe all traffic laws. I think that there are way too many cyclists (and to be fair, other drivers too) who seem to think that the street is a place of anarchy.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Back to the banjo.

Clarification- In a previous post, I did say that I liked bike lanes, but as indicated, it depends on the time, place, and circumstances involved. Safety is always my bottom-line concern.

[michael gill]

Thanks for your concerns, Gary. I don't know what we'd do without you.

And thanks for joining, Tim. Now it feels like a real discussion.

Thanks, also, for mentioning our friend Erika Durham, Great Lakes Courier associate editor, bike commuter, and keeper of the Bike Lakewood flame, and Bryan Rybak, who sells me tubes and cables and so on and so forth, but who has not yet jumped his bike over me or my daughter.

Finally, both of us forgot to mention Madison Avenue businessman and Beer Engine proprietor Robert Wright, who was present at the meeting. The Beer Engine, as most of us know, was a pioneer in the installation of bicycle parking, and has long offered beer and burger bargains for people who arrive by bike.

But back to the subject of lanes:

I completely reject the argument about the door zones as a reason not to install bike lanes. Door zones exist whether there are lanes or not. Anyone who rides a bicycle along Detroit has experienced this. Without bike lanes, if you ride in the path of the right-side wheels of a car in the traffic lane--which is where cyclists belong--you are in the door zone. To be safe, you have to watch the driver's side seats of each car you pass to make sure there's not someone sitting inside who might throw the door open in your path.

That is true whether the road has a bike lane left of parking, or not.

If you don't have a bike lane, you still have to swerve left, farther into traffic, to avoid an open door.

Bike lanes have no effect on that situation whatsoever, and therefore this door zone argument is irrelevant.

Be careful of the door zone, whether you are in a bike lane or not.

*

Next, I'd say that the same most common causes and locations of accidents apply to car v. car accidents as car v. bike accidents.

That is, they happen mostly at intersections when someone fails to notice someone else and therefore turns across their path, or fails to stop. This is true whether cars are sharing the road with each other or with bikes, and whether there are bike lanes or not.

Just like with bikes, it is very rare that one car in traffic hits another car from behind while passing. It is common that they have accidents at intersections when equally sharing the road.

Therefore, be careful when approaching an intersection, whether you've got a bike lane or not, because someone in a car might not see you.

*

Left turns are obviously not made more difficult by bike lanes.

Whether you are in a bike lane or not, to make a left turn you have to look to your left and behind you to make sure no cars are approaching from the rear. If you see that it's safe, you signal and move to the left, take whatever lane is correct for a vehicular left turn under the circumstances, and make your turn. A bike lane has no effect on making a left turn.

*

On Detroit, we sacrificed a traffic lane to create a parking lane. Detroit has more traffic than Madison.

Additionally, that stretch of Detroit in Cleveland where the bike lanes will be interrupted by sharrows is a stretch where the street narrows significantly and simply does not permit bike lanes. Madison Avenue does not have that problem.

*

I believe the most important thing is this: Something in the realm of one percent of households in this area commute by bike.

The opposition to bike lanes comes from a small fraction of that one-percent: it's a small fraction comprised of some of the most accomplished bike commuters whose confidence in traffic is won after lots of miles mingling with cars. They feel like they own the road just as much as anyone else.

Those people –and I'm one of them--have no need for bike lanes.

But there are lots of other cyclists out there.

And there are lots of people who might become cyclists if they felt like they had space on the roads. Those people—once they've tried it—will outgrow bike lanes as their confidence grows, and they will then ride wherever they want, with or without bike lanes.

If we believe the layout of Lakewood has appeal to people who like the first ring suburban lifestyle, people who'd like to get some day-to-day exercise with their errands rather than sit in a car, people who'd like to burn a little less gas, but people who haven't yet overcome their fears, we can do something substantial to appeal to them by installing a bike lane on Madison.

[Gary Rice]

To me, all of this boils down to a question of relative safety, and perhaps a little bit of logical thinking.

There are arguments that both sidewalks and bike lanes could be potentially more dangerous for bikers than riding out there on the street. I don't know whether those arguments are true or not. Perhaps someone has statistics about such things out there?

But following that premise for a moment here...

It HAS been argued by some, for example, that sidewalk bicycle riding is more hazardous than road riding, due to factors ranging from uneven walks, to hidden drives, to curbs, to the obvious pedestrian hazards- and yet...

...that's where most of our LEAST experienced riders probably ride.

Then when you have bike lanes, where you can have the open car door issue, the confusion by motorists as to where bikes belong on that street, (and along with that, the seemingly inherent increased risk for experienced cyclists who "dare" to use the whole street in the presence of a bike lane), the debris issue, etc...

...that's where the NEXT-TO-LEAST experienced riders are supposed to ride?

So... by riding on the street, logically our MOST experienced riders are therefore in the LEAST dangerous environment?

I don't know about all this, but it's an interesting dilemma to ponder, at least to me.

Look, bikes and even motorcycles have it rough out there. Unlike Europe, where many forms of transportation are common and accepted, in our country, bikers, whether motorized or not, really take their lives in their hands, wherever they ride.

I used to own and enjoy a moped in the days before they were even known well in this country. At that time, laws were VERY vague as to whether that was a motorized vehicle, a bicycle, or whatever. Later on, the moped laws came along, but back then, they were essentially bikes. Still, I kept it in the street and not on the sidewalk or whatever passed for a bike lane back then. Great fun.

Please remember, whether roadway, bike path, bike lane, or trail riding, drive defensively and carefully, especially during this holiday weekend.

Back to the banjo...

[Ben VanLear]

Great discussion. Some of the below info is in the pdf linked at the petition on the first page of this thread.

I think the first question is: Are bike lanes a good idea? Are they safe / safer than alternatives?

All of the cycling advocacy groups I looked at recommend bike lanes where they can be safely added: bicyclinginfo.org, thunderheadalliance.org (walking and biking advocacy), the League of American cyclists. The major North American cities I checked have bike lanes and have been adding a lot of them lately: Boston, New York, Chicago, L.A., Seattle, Philadelphia, etc. These cities had and are still having this same discussion we're having here and they are still adding bike lanes. They don't appear to be a fad, and here's why.

New York city, for example, added 255 miles of bike lanes in just the last 4 years, saw cycling participation double in that time, and saw accidents drop below the level where they were BEFORE the number of cyclists on the roads doubled. http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/bike_lanes_memo.pdf This type of meta-analysis was the most common case for bike lanes I found.

The case goes something like this: Bike lanes increase the number of cyclists that use the roads (multiple sources for this in my pdf) + Increasing the number of cyclists on the roads greatly increases the safety for cyclists (this is called Safety in Numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_in_numbers ) =Therefore bike lanes, in general, are good for cyclist safety.

I'm not a bike lane advocate, just a cycling advocate, but this has me sold. Bike lanes seem to be great for local businesses too - more info on that in the pdf http://bikecleveland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Madison-Bike-Lane-Proposal-1.pdf

Now the question, for me, becomes: Can bike lanes be safely implemented on Madison?

A much more difficult question. A question for traffic engineers who have experience implementing bike lanes. This may be difficult to find given that Cleveland only has about 5 miles of bike lanes (they are adding more, though). The city looked and found room for 4.5 foot bike lanes - very, very close to the recommended 5 foot lanes. Can we narrow some driving or parking lanes just a little overall to find another 1 foot of width? That's what I'm pushing for. I want to look at this thing as hard as possible before saying that Madison Ave, a 56 foot wide street in many places, doesn't have room for bike lanes.

[Tim Liston]

Mike you ignorant slut….

Your last post didn’t address my concerns (1) that Madison already has some unique characteristics that make it a relatively safe and easy urban bike street, and (3) that bike facilities, including “lanes” or whatever, need to be considered in a citywide context. And as for (2) that a lane on Madison will put bikes in parked car door zones, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I certainly would never ever EVER encourage cyclists to ride in the door zone of parked cars, bike lane or no. Door zones are a dangerous place to cycle, far more dangerous than the “traffic” lane on a street. Why would we intentionally put cyclists in harm’s way? Why are we encouraging cyclists to stay out of the door zone then contemplating putting a bike lane there?

At the BikeLakewood meeting, Ben introduced the notion of bike lanes on Madison and distributed a handout that included the 55’ version of this 44’ graphic….



The problem is, the cars depicted above are not to scale. When the cars are drawn to scale, the graphic would look like this….



Notice that even an average car, parked 12 inches from the curb, sticks out of a 7’ parking stall and into the bike lane. My Kia is 6.6’ wide (not including mirrors), now imagine a UPS truck!

And when you open their doors, it looks like this….



Here’s another depiction with some actual car/truck measurements….



The fact that the original illustration (which came from the Chicago design guide) was very misleading is no secret to cycling advocates. Bike lane decisions here in Lakewood certainly should not be based on misleading information.

Madison is about 56’ wide at its widest. If you take out one traffic lane in each direction (leaving a 10.5’ traffic lane each way), and add an 11’ turning lane, 24’ remain for parking and a bike lane, both sides. That’s 12’ per side, which means 7’ parking stalls and a 5’ bike lane. That’s almost precisely what is shown in Ben’s pdf proposal.

Shown below is what you will end up with in real life with a 7’ parking lane and a 5’ bike lane. The photo below was taken from Cambridge, MA, ”click here: Cambridge regards (such) bike lanes as making a political statement in favor of bicycling. I would like to think that a better statement might be made by an approach that creates facilities that are actually usable.



There is no such thing as a safe door zone bike lane. Here’s another one from sf.streetsblog.com (San Francisco), click here: Why are we building bike lanes that are hurting people?



There are literally hundreds of “door zone bike lane” photos on the Web, if you want to view more. I certainly am not the first to highlight the issue, it’s well-known….

Finally, below is a youtube video that depicts a crash-test dummy getting doored, then four actual dooring incidents. Why would Lakewood EVER subject cyclists to these possible outcomes?



The master plan that Lakewood has already adopted calls for “sharrows” to help encourage bike participation on our streets. Since nobody on this thread has yet shown what a sharrow looks like, I will, and as properly used on streets with on-street parking….

Hermosa Beach sharrow:



Seattle sharrow:



Ithaca sharrow:



The sharrows are applied to the roadway every other block or so. Especially where there are parked cars, they should be applied right in the middle of the lane, between the tire tracks, so that (1) they direct cyclists away from the door zone, and (2) they don’t get obliterated after being run over repeatedly. I think they should be installed right after intersections, so that they don’t discourage left turns as you approach intersections.

Finally, Kierstyn Sharrow:



She’s a ballerina who I guess appeared in Cats. At least that’s what it said on the Web. I wonder if she knows that she has a FHWA-approved roadway marking named after her! (just keepin’ it light here, sorry ladies)….

There is one Madison bike lane plan that won’t do great harm, but that I would recommend only if folks absolutely insist that bike lanes be installed. That would be (curb to center) an 8’ parking lane, a 3’ buffer lane, a 5’ bike lane, and a 11’ traffic lane, on each side. One motorist lane in each direction and no turning lane. One foot left over on each side to use wherever, or as margin for error when Madison is not quite 56’ wide. That would keep bikes mostly out of the door zone. Any plan that creates a traffic lane in each direction plus a turn lane will put bikes in the door zone of parked cars. There’s just no getting around it….

Buffered lane graphic:



Buffered lane actual photo:



When I went through the Web looking for pictures, using the search “buffered bike lane” virtually all of them depicted buffers that separated the bike lane from the traffic lane (not from parked cars), even when the bike lane was installed next to parked cars. I guess that’s to be expected when you entrust such decisions to folks who have no urban cycling experience whatsoever.

I hope this little “show and tell” helps you understand some of the issues a little more clearly. Thanks for viewing….

[Ben VanLear]

Thanks for the show and tell, Tim.

I dont' want to make a long reply, but I'll point out two things:

The Chicago Design Guide is something the City of Chicago has for its traffic engineers so that when the city wants to implement more bike lanes (and they have added a lot since this guide was introduced), the traffic engineers have a starting point for the lane layouts. It is not intended to sell the public and therefore I don't think it could be called misleading. Its a city document for engineers and many midwestern cities have adopted it and implemented bike lanes based on it because Chicago has already done a lot of the hard work.

And again, that major cities across the US have had this same debate, considered the vehicular-only, anti-bike-lane position as well as the bike-lanes-as-a-part-of-safe-infrastructure position and gone for bike lanes.

thanks,
Ben

[Will Brown]

I've seen places where bicycling is very popular, but I have never seen a place where there is any degree of certainty that accidents won't happen, and I believe a vehicle/bike accident is not always the fault of the vehicle driver. I don't think we would be willing to pay for completely separate roads, such as an elevated bikeway, so we will have to settle for less. I also feel that adult cyclists should be banned from sidewalks, unless they are carrying their bikes, as there is too great a chance of collision between cyclists and pedestrians.

One of my concerns with bicyclists is they are untrained, unlicensed, and uninsured. I would like to see a licensing process in place for any adult who wants to use the public roads. As a pedestrian, I often feel endangered by reckless bicyclists, who apparently feel they can go anywhere and it is up to us to jump out of their way.

One good solution would be to make Madison vehicle free, with free trams running up and down the street. Perhaps a third of the street could be made one-way with nose in parking to accommodate those who must drive. I think something would have to be done to keep pedestrians and bicyclists apart. Right now, the police can do almost nothing about reckless or dangerous bikers. If one of them hits you and keeps going, all you can do is report he had a black bike and a big butt; if you had a chance to catch a license number, that would help.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Ben, Tim, Michael, All

Thanks for the conversation. I really respect all of you when it comes to bikes and riding.

Well it seems to me that no one thinks Sharrows are a bad idea.

So wouldn't it make sense to get them down now?

I can actually see some solid thinking behind Will Brown's post, and I am willing to bet
others think the same. While one can make a case that fuel tax pays for highways, and
we all pay for city roads, why wait on lanes, when Sharrows will make people aware that
the road belongs to vehicles? Cars, trucks, bikes, motorcycles, handicap scooters, skate
boards, etc.

I have seen less aggravation from car drivers in metro parks now that the roads have been
marked with Sharrows. While everyone knew the roads needed to be shared, many motorists
I know used to complain about, "Well, they built them a bike path!" Which stopped being a
dedicated bike path, about the third year of its existence when it was discovered it was no
place for hardcore riders.

So, while we study lanes, one ways, off roads, etc. Let's get Sharrows from the city as
soon as possible.

FWIW


.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Ben, Tim, Michael, All

Thanks for the conversation. I really respect all of you when it comes to bikes and riding.

Well it seems to me that no one thinks Sharrows are a bad idea.

So wouldn't it make sense to get them down now?

I can actually see some solid thinking behind Will Brown's post, and I am willing to bet
others think the same. While one can make a case that fuel tax pays for highways, and
we all pay for city roads, why wait on lanes, when Sharrows will make people aware that
the road belongs to vehicles? Cars, trucks, bikes, motorcycles, handicap scooters, skate
boards, etc.

I have seen less aggravation from car drivers in metro parks now that the roads have been
marked with Sharrows. While everyone knew the roads needed to be shared, many motorists
I know used to complain

about, "Well, they built them a bike path!" Which stopped being a
dedicated bike path, about the third year of its existence when it was discovered it was no
place for hardcore riders.

So, while we study lanes, one ways, off roads, etc. Let's get Sharrows from the city as
soon as possible.

FWIW


.

Jim said:

...the road belongs to vehicles.. Cars, trucks, bikes, motorcycles, handicap scooters, skateboards, etc.

Uh, skateboards? What about riding mowers?

I don't think it is legal for these two types of vehicles to share the road with cars. But I don't know. It would alarm me to see either of these vehicles in front of me in the road if I was driving a car, or riding a bike.

Which brings me to the other part of your post that seems to me to be essential in this discussion:

Jim said:

I have seen less aggravation from car drivers in metro parks now that the roads have been marked with Sharrows. While everyone knew the roads needed to be shared, many motorists I know used to complain...

(bold marks are mine.)

Motorists DON'T KNOW the law. "Everyone" does NOT know that they have to share the road.

And even if car drivers do know that they are supposed to, they are not sure HOW they're supposed to. Are bicycles just supposed to be next to you, on your right, when you're driving? Are they supposed to cross in front of you from your right to your left when they need to make a left turn?

Are they allowed to be right in front of your car? As if they too were cars? Are they allowed to be in front of your car if there is more than one bicycle? Even if their speed is much slower than the speed marked on the road? Should they move over and ride single-file next to the cars if they are not matching the speed?

What IS the law? And HOW does it work?

I'm a bicycle rider, a pedestrian, and a car driver. My kids all ride bicycles, they are ages 7 through 13. We ride on the sidewalk-- with care-- because we have also been the pedestrians barely avoiding being run down outside of Drug Mart or Just 4 Girls.

We ride on the sidewalk when we are in the center of Lakewood because clearly no-one knows what to do on the road.

Bicycle riders routinely ride right through red lights, and if they can see a window in traffic, shoot through those windows. It's terrifying if you are in a car and you were about to let your foot off the brake.

Meanwhile, as a bicycle rider in the street, it terrifies me to note that the car driver next to me seems to have no idea that I am next to him in the street. At lights, right turns on red seem deadly, and a good reason to get back on the sidewalk.

If a car driver wants to turn right on red, and a bicyclist is next to the car, can the car turn anyway? Even though the bike is going straight? It would seem that the answer to that should be "No." But having been on that bike, it seems that car drivers think they can turn right on red in front of you.

The problem I have with bicycle advocates is that they talk to each other. In publications, blogs, websites, facebook posts designed for other bicycle riders.

How are car drivers supposed to pick up on this discussion? It would seem that this information needs to be given to more mainstream outlets. I like the Great Lakes Courier quite a bit but I think a lot of the information in it would have more results if it was submitted to the Lakewood Observer, Parma Observer, Collinwood Observer, etc. And their websites. And City websites. And public libraries. Etc.

I disagree with Jim regarding the well-known, much-fought-over road through the Rocky River Metro Parks. I think the car drivers are behaving better now because they didn't know before that they were supposed to share the road, and they thought that the bicyclists in the road with them were breaking the law, which was clearly expressed by the fact that bicyclists had a separate path-- albeit one shared by strollers, skateboards and dog-walkers.

Now that signs are up, and sharrows are in front of them on the road, car drivers get it. Or some of them do.

It is dangerous to assume that anybody knows anything. Watch everybody out there, cars and bikes. They don't know. Or if they do know, they have decided not to act upon that knowledge. A lot of times with my kids, we just all get off our bikes and join the pedestrians and walk our bikes.

What is the law for sharing the road? We have some heavy-hitters in the bicycle world on this thread right now. Please have mercy and post how your average person can find out what the law is.

This info is desperately needed outside the biking community.

Thank you.

Betsy Voinovich

[Ben VanLear]

Ben, Tim, Michael, All

Thanks for the conversation. I really respect all of you when it comes to bikes and riding.

Well it seems to me that no one thinks Sharrows are a bad idea.

So wouldn't it make sense to get them down now?

I can actually see some solid thinking behind Will Brown's post, and I am willing to bet
others think the same. While one can make a case that fuel tax pays for highways, and
we all pay for city roads, why wait on lanes, when Sharrows will make people aware that
the road belongs to vehicles? Cars, trucks, bikes, motorcycles, handicap scooters, skate
boards, etc.

I have seen less aggravation from car drivers in metro parks now that the roads have been
marked with Sharrows. While everyone knew the roads needed to be shared, many motorists
I know used to complain about, "Well, they built them a bike path!" Which stopped being a
dedicated bike path, about the third year of its existence when it was discovered it was no
place for hardcore riders.

So, while we study lanes, one ways, off roads, etc. Let's get Sharrows from the city as
soon as possible.

FWIW


.

Jim, sharrows are not a bad idea - and the city is already including them on Madison and have approved them for Detroit. They just don't do much.

Here is how New York City DOT describes them: “Class III routes [sharrows] provide important connections to Class I and Class II lanes”

I couldn't find a single urban area that is using sharrows as the only form of bike infrastructure like Lakewood is planning.

A Federal Highway Administration report on sharrows
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/10044/index.cfm
found some increase in passing distance and other positive safety impacts, but no increase in the number of cyclists using the roads. Several other studies have also found that sharrows do not increase accessibility. The L.A. Bike Study of 2010 actually recommends that LA no longer use sharrows because other Class I and Class II bike lanes make so many more improvements that sharrows aren't cost effective.

So I'll take the sharrows, if that's all the city has the will to do, but they are merely a nod in the direction of bikability.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Betsy

I am not sure when it became legal to hit skateboarders, cyclists, or even guys on lawn
tractors. In essence the rules of the road would not allow you to run them over, so it
becomes the "angry" or "unaware" driver that is the biggest danger.

My last motorcycle ride was from the office home, lest than 1 mile, almost hit 3 times by
people unaware of the motorcycle even being there.

Awareness of the laws is key, and the start.

So I'll take the sharrows, if that's all the city has the will to do, but they are merely a nod in the direction of bikability.

Ben

I am not saying stop there by any means. When a city like Lakewood makes a big deal out
of being "bikeable" and when all of the VIPs come out to cut the ribbon on a single bike rack
I say hold their feet tot he fire, and make them prove it. Talk is real cheap. Councilman
Bullock, a pretty avid biker is making inroads, but it is really time for some solid actions
from the city instead of talk.

Let them put the Sharrows down, no one seems opposed and it will make drivers more
aware and that is a good thing, and can be crossed off the list. Then lanes, etc.

I mean millions for a hotel, no one including the hotel industry really wants, or something
that it would seem everyone wants.

File under no brainer.

Ben, thanks for the conversation, and your hard work on biking and biking in Lakewood.

.

[marklingm]

Betsy

I am not sure when it became legal to hit skateboarders, cyclists, or even guys on lawn
tractors. In essence the rules of the road would not allow you to run them over, so it
becomes the "angry" or "unaware" driver that is the biggest danger.

My last motorcycle ride was from the office home, lest than 1 mile, almost hit 3 times by
people unaware of the motorcycle even being there.

Awareness of the laws is key, and the start.

So I'll take the sharrows, if that's all the city has the will to do, but they are merely a nod in the direction of bikability.

Ben

I am not saying stop there by any means. When a city like Lakewood makes a big deal out
of being "bikeable" and when all of the VIPs come out to cut the ribbon on a single bike rack
I say hold their feet tot he fire, and make them prove it. Talk is real cheap. Councilman
Bullock, a pretty avid biker is making inroads, but it is really time for some solid actions
from the city instead of talk.

Let them put the Sharrows down, no one seems opposed and it will make drivers more
aware and that is a good thing, and can be crossed off the list. Then lanes, etc.

I mean millions for a hotel, no one including the hotel industry really wants, or something
that it would seem everyone wants.

File under no brainer.

Ben, thanks for the conversation, and your hard work on biking and biking in Lakewood.

.

Jim,

I agree!

But, I'm sure that Kierstyn Sharrow would agree that those of us on two wheels need to use common sense and comply with the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood, Ohio including, but not limited to, Part Three, Title Nine, Chapter 373 and other applicable laws. See, e.g., http://www.conwaygreene.com/Lakewood/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0.

Matt

[Peter Grossetti]

You know what really sucks? You just can't legislate common sense, common decency and/or common courtesy!

[Betsy Voinovich]

Betsy

I am not sure when it became legal to hit skateboarders, cyclists, or even guys on lawn
tractors. In essence the rules of the road would not allow you to run them over, so it
becomes the "angry" or "unaware" driver that is the biggest danger.

My last motorcycle ride was from the office home, lest than 1 mile, almost hit 3 times by
people unaware of the motorcycle even being there.

Awareness of the laws is key, and the start.

Well, on the continuum of Jim's idea that motorists are actually trying to hit skateboarders, cyclists, people on shopping scooters, and Peter's idea that it's too bad that we can't legislate common sense, or common courtesy, there has to be some way forward.

Jim, I think there is some confusion here. I'm asking about which vehicles have a legal right to use the road as a road (bicycles do.) You seem to be talking about whether motorists have patience for people on motorized or rolling conveyances who use intersections, or parts of the road when they have to get around. I don't think skateboards are allowed to "share the road." Or riding mowers. This doesn't mean that it's okay to try to hit them when they are in the road.

Yes awareness is key. I'm asking for a way towards more awareness. I'm asking that people in the know about bikes, share what they know with people who have habits of car driving for years. They aren't homicidal, I don't think, but with a large enough degree of unawareness they might as well be.

I don't let my kids do legal things on bikes-- cross in a crosswalk, where a car might be getting ready to make a right on red-- until my kids actually can see the car driver's eyes, and know that the driver sees them.

And to the rescue comes Matt Markling! With the ordinances and everything.

There ARE laws about biking in Lakewood. Many of my questions were immediately answered.



373.07 RIDING BICYCLE ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY; OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC RULES; PASSING.

(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.


(b) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

So bicycles are supposed to ride on the right side of the road in the city of Lakewood unless it's problematic.

It seems like it would be a good idea with all of this discussion, to get these ordinances out there along with the rest of the discussion.

Thanks Matt.

Betsy Voinovich

[marklingm]

And to the rescue comes Matt Markling! With the ordinances and everything.

There ARE laws about biking in Lakewood. Many of my questions were immediately answered.

***

It seems like it would be a good idea with all of this discussion, to get these ordinances out there along with the rest of the discussion.

Thanks Matt.

You are welcome, Betsy.

And, of course, you need music while you read these ordinances ...



Matt