Entitled Douchebag SF cyclist HITS AND KILLS A MAN, gets probation.

And the flip side of that is the beach paths, which are clearly marked - with pictures, even - to separate bike paths from pedestrian paths (often right next to each other), and bikers still have to steer around families of six waddling along the entire width of the bike paths.

The hard life of being a bicyclist. If "the traveling you" comes with more than 5 pounds of metal and is traveling faster than walking speed, you get shit on.

That's how it is. Every time. Every place. If it's you on a bicycle, on a skateboard, on a scooter, in a car, wearing a jetpack, you yield the right of way. You slow the fuck down. Because a full grown human being accompanied by metal at any speed above that of a jogging pedestrian is a projectile.

That downhill curve that looks fun to speed down on the sidewalk? Could have somebody on it. That somebody could be a child. Or a cripple. Or an old person. Their life is not yours to risk.

Let's try this again.

There is no harm in riding on an empty sidewalk.

Here's the problem:

You can't guarantee that an empty sidewalk stays that way. If you're riding faster than pedestrian traffic, you can't necessarily react to sudden and unexpected pedestrian traffic in time. Somebody unexpectedly opens a gate and steps through it into your path, you either hit that person or end up in the street avoiding them.

Start the fuck off in the street. Or ride slowly.

But you don't ride slowly, do you?

Of course you don't. If you're going somewhere, the object is to get there, so you're riding as fast as the terrain permits. That doesn't allow for surprises.

Stay off the fucking sidewalk. When there are siderides, you will be informed.

That will be all. You are dismissed.

No, that is not all, you pompous shitscarf.

Explain to us all exactly how you determine, from moment to moment, whether or not a sidewalk is empty.

Because you don't get to endanger people stepping onto sidewalks with your big fat speeding metal-braced ass and then yell about your safety.

If there was a question about your fat-sheathed chrome dome putting a tiny-ass dent in a car versus you plowing a little kid or an old lady into a bloody pulp, guess who I vote should get the bruising?

Even John Castle makes more sense than Uncle Albert. Essentially, Albert believes there is nothing unpredictable (ie no unexpected pedestrian when he rides on the sidewalk), but in the event that there is something unpredictable, might makes right.

I'm going to agree with UA on this one - no doubt he'd take responsibility if he plowed into some kid at 25MPH on what he thought was an empty stretch of sidewalk. Also, a new rider who has only been riding a week probably can't ride safely at any speed on a shared surface. What Castle is trying to insinuate is that his guidelines are the correct ones, and they aren't, not for Albert on an empty sidewalk, or some new biker who can barely stay in the seat.

If there are limited or no risks, and you're experienced, there's no reason not to push it - and if you're experienced you have a far better understanding of what the risks are in the first place.

An experienced cyclist that takes the sidewalk over the road isn't doing so because he likes riding on the sidewalk - we hate riding in mixed ped/cyclist traffic even more than riding with autos so we're only doing it if we judge it to be safer for ourselves and everyone else, and we're likely not doing it at speed.

What John is probably voicing concern with is that you have bunches of mid-level cyclists (especially in late Spring/early Summer) that aren't comfortable enough to ride with cars and aren't experienced enough to ride with peds. I honestly blame this on the drivers; if cyclists thought they'd be respected on the streets and treated as another vehicle, they'd give up the sidewalk for the predictability of traffic.

Edit a word

This is definitely a major issue and one of the reasons I disagree with Zombie about bike lanes. For me and other advanced level cyclists, a bike lane can he problematic because they create erroneous beliefs in the driving population about where they should and should not see us (cfe LizK). But as an advanced cyclist, I can deal with such drivers. Bike lanes are important for getting the intermediate riders off of the sidewalks, where they really do not belong.

Alertness is a survival mechanism on a bike. I'm aware of every goddamn thing. Without my spidey sense, I would've been run the fuck over quite a few times. Compared to oblivious dipshits in cars, pedestrians are easy to deal with. Once I maneuver outside a certain radius, there is no way they can juke and jive their way back into my path quickly enough to get hit.

You may give me riding tips when you pry your ass up out of that seat and break a sweat for 10 minutes without having a fucking heart attack.

I say any plan that depends on motorists being considerate and trustworthy is fucking suicidal.

There is no such thing as an "empty sidewalk", just like there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. As a 200 to 300 pound speeding metal-and-flesh projectile, you have to assume that, at any given moment and without any warning, without any time for you to react, a child, an elderly person or a cripple could appear directly in your path before you can react.

That doesn't happen in the street. It can -- and therefore it is your responsibility to assume that it will -- happen on a sidewalk.

Well, in my particular case, these people can take the designated bike path with their bikes and we only have the road.

These people wanted a bike path and now some of them won't use it and would rather create unsafe conditions for everyone.

On this we can agree. But we part company on how to deal with the drivers. I deal with them by making sure they see me if I can't make sure they avoid me. By default, I ride to the side of the car flow, but when necessary, I take the lane, just to make sure they can see me. I also agree on the necessity of situational awareness. But again, I refuse to yield the street just because I need to pay better attention than I can expect from the driver. I can be safe without endangering pedestrians.

And you may not assume that I don't know exactly whereof I speak. Nobody likes it when garamet pulls that Miss Cleo shit, so don't you go thinking that you get to pull it, either.

Does the bike path go everywhere that somebody might need to go in your town? Unless the answer is yes, then your position is filled with fail.

Even when there's no bike path, there's always enough space between the farthest white line and the sidewalk for slow, careful riding. Even in those rare cases where the sidewalk is the only option available, it is incumbent on the bicyclist to slow to pedestrian walking speed and give plenty of notice to pedestrians who could potentially be at risk from being struck.

Stay on the road, you entitled dipshit. That's what it's for. An empty sidewalk can become a busy one just by turning a corner. Just because it looks empty doesn't mean that it is - especially when you're going 20mph, and even if you have some sort of laughable "spidey sense".

On my drive home from work there's a bike lane off to the right up a long road I take. When I'm stopped in the rush hour traffic I always make sure half of my SUV is occupying the bike lane. Those spandex wearing cunts can still get around me but have to slow right down and navigate it. It's too bad you aren't one of those cyclists that piss and moan when they pass me.

Utter horse shit. Maybe your city is built like a terraced rice paddie, but I can usually see a hundred yards in every direction.

And you think you're immune to that in the street, that it's even significantly less likely to happen? This further suggests a complete lack of direct experience. Pedestrians, cars, fucking lawn mowers and construction equipment. They lurk everywhere, and you must be one with the force. Your mindless "zero tolerance" bull puckey will either get you killed or make you too fearful to leave your fucking driveway.

Yeah...I'm gonna need to see a picture of you on a bike now. And not in your living room or on a display model at Wal Mart.

I'll take my actual riding experience over your "wisdom" any day.

Here's the bottom line -- if you weigh more than the average pedestrian and are traveling at a rate of speed faster than the average pedestrian, you are responsible for the safety of pedestrians whose route of travel you're using.

Period. If you're moving fast enough and weigh enough, because of your mode of travel, that you could knock an adult the same size you are to the ground, you are the one who should assume any and all physical risk related to your mode of travel.

This is why Albert's stance is baffling to me. Normally, dude, you would be the one applying this principle. Normally, this would be you.

If you create a health risk, you assume the entirety of that risk. You want to go 20 plus miles per hour on a 60 or 70 pound contraption made of metal? All you, dude. That means all the danger. The fun, the luxury, AND the danger, all you. You take that fucking thing out into the bike lane, and if there isn't any bike lane, you fuckin' pedal faster. No? You'd rather use the sidewalk? Then dismount that thing and fuckin' walk.

Man, that is strip mall central, definitely not bike or pedestrian friendly. Fuck the assholes who would design a place in such a way that you have to be a dipshit like Uncle Albert to bike there.

Yeah because no self proclaimed professional has ever fucked up at what they think they do best.

Look...you people harassing Albert about the sidewalk...unless he's doing it in downtown Omaha, it's legal where he is.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120521/NEWS01/305219973

Not around blind corners, you dumb son of a bitch.

No. But I do know that if there's a collision in the street, as opposed to on the sidewalk, that I'm the one who will be all banged up. I'm the one who is imposing the risk, and I'm the one on whom any negative consequences will rest. I'm not imposing them on people who haven't consented to those risks.

Like I said, that's normally a principle you get, so I'm baffled by the apparent fact that you don't get it in this case.

Never been to the midwest?

No problem with this. I'm more attentive to their safety than THEY are, most of the time.

Your disconnect is resting on the assumption that riding on a sidewalk absolutely constitutes an immediate threat to pedestrians. It doesn't.

Again, you're imposing what you think is the proper risk/reward scenario and you still fail. A pedestrian can trip and fall on another pedestrian, killing him should no pedestrian be allowed within 5 feet of another pedestrian in order to prevent this? A gun that has no bullets in it, checked and handled by an experienced target shooter and then handed to a child to look at, is a much different than a thug who pulls out a clip from his 9 and hands it to his younger brother - wouldn't you agree?

And no, I do not have to assume that some ped is going to step out into my path every second of my commute - I already know where they are going to be and why - and where I'm not looking for peds I'm looking for turtles. And I'm not going to be doing 25 when I know there are risks, but I damn sure am going to be doing 25+ on a couple of points in my commute where, while still on mixed-use trail, I know that taking them at speed is actually less risky then slowing down (but even then I will still slow down if there are peds on the trial in front of me, because you know, experience).

A cyclist should slow down when there are risks present or potentially present - and a cyclist should also be able to ride out when there aren't. I will say that by definition a "sidewalk" is going to a risky area - I ride a bunch of paved mixed-use though and I'm not going to ride at a walking pace just because there may or may not be peds on it as well.

Spend some more time around Albert, and you'll find he doesn't actually get the principle at all, though his view does sometimes result in the same conclusions. His views are always built around self-centered smug, which as this thread demonstrates, is not the same thing as self-responsibility.

Shhhh. Men are talking. Cyclists too.

Yes, it absolutely fucking does, because the appearance of a pedestrian is way more unpredictable than anything a car is going to do. Cars are bound by the boundaries of the roadway and other traffic on it. Pedestrians can, and do, come out of fuckin' nowhere, for no reason. There are buttloads of laws governing the behavior of motor vehicles on roadways, but none governing the movement of pedestrians on sidewalks.

You see an empty sidewalk -- see that line of houses? At any moment, any one of those doors could fly open at the last second and disgorge a brood of kids into your path, and if you're traveling at a speed greater than that at which you would walk, your odds of hitting one of those kids is way too high.

But hey, that sidewalk was "empty" a split-second ago, right? No reason not to cruise along the sidewalk at 5 to 6 times the normal walking speed, is there?

You obviously haven't fucked up yet. Congratulations. But you only have to fuck up once.

Keep your bike off the sidewalk. If you want to use the sidewalk, fuckin' walk.

I gave that intersection because it's near my apartment. Now look up the Papio Trail, a block away from that intersection. That's the start of most of my rides.

Also, certain stretches of sidewalk out west were torn out, widened, painted with lines and marked with signs declaring them bike trails. A stretch of 144th street, for example. Did that scare off all pedestrians? No. We just have to learn to coexist.

If your argument requires the completely unsupported assumption that I go flying around blind corners at 20mph, you've got nothing. Because a) few if any blind corners where I ride, and b) where I encounter them, I slow the fuck down or even stop.

Yes, you are. Willfully. I do not endanger others. Arguing to the contrary requires you to make shit up.