Banning River Walk Bikes?

[Felix]

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

Pending the results of a informal survey by park rangers, a one-mile stretch of the Riverwalk soon may exclude bikers.

Suggestions from pedestrians prompted officials to survey park visitors for information that could be used in a decision to make the trail along the Tennessee River pedestrian-only from the Chickamauga Dam to the park maintenance buildings.

That part of the trail is eight feet wide rather than 10 feet wide, said Scott Schoolfield, administrator for the Hamilton County Human Services Department.

“It is almost an impossible thing to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction, but we have to keep trying,” he said. “We can’t just quit.”

This has been a topic frequently seen on this board, cyclists vs. pedestrians, almost as much of an issue as cyclists vs. motorists.

While I have often felt irritation at rude cyclists, this measure does not appeal to me at all. No rule or prohibition can enforce manners on the clueless or arrogant.

Enforcement will be a nightmare.

[BlackFox]

Well, the cyclists always say that roads were originally built for bicycles and that vehicles should yeild, so it seems reasonable that if cyclists and pedestrians can't co-exist on the riverwalk, and if one must go, then it should be the cyclists that go. It's not like they don't have a million miles of roads around here to endanger people on already. Let the walkers have a place.

[Warkitty]

I'm cool with it, IF drivers of motor vehicles decide to be cool with bikes being on the streets. Sadly, as usual it's the bike that's the "bad guy" no matter where it goes. On the street, the car drivers are want bikes banned because cyclists are too slow, "in the way" and slowing them down. On sidewalks and multi-use paths like the Riverwalk, pedestrians want bikes banned because cyclists are too fast and scary when dodging around them.

[BlackFox]

My only problem with bikes is out where I live(of course, right?). The roads are sort of narrow and have unbroken double yellow pretty much the entire way. I'm talking miles and miles of unbroken yellow and hilly. I get behind them every morning and evening and slow down behind them and wait for them to wave me around. They give me the signal to break the law by crossing a double yellow, and if they're wrong and an accident occurs, it's going to be my fault. I just wish they could ride on flatter terrain with longer stretches of straightaway. It's simply unsafe, and I'm amazed that it is allowed to continue.

[Warkitty]

Actually, IIRC you are allowed to break the double yellow when passing around a bicycle so long as it's done quickly and safely.

EVERYONE says the same thing. "Where I live it's just unsafe for bikes to be on the road, the road is too narrow, bikes are too slow, I have to slow down, why can't they stay on straight flat roads?" As if there ARE straight, flat roads out here? Sounds like the cyclists are trying to do right, be polite and let you get past them as soon as it's safe to do so. No one will support building roads to accommodate bicycles either. Leaves bicycle traffic as public enemy number one no matter what the cyclist does.

[BlackFox]

I wasn't aware that it was legal to break the yellow, if so that helps.

Single bikes aren't really that bad, but when you get behind a pelaton(sp?), it could be quite a while on my road before a safe place to pass is reached.

[Warkitty]

I hear ya on that. I was thinking about it last week on a group ride. I hear about how bikes should get all the way to the right to let cars pass from drivers, but when faced with a group of 10 or more cyclists, is it better for them to get single file and make a long line to try passing. or to clump up so when you pass you have less time trying to get around them?

[duke]

I would be in favor of allowing bicycles on the interstate system despite the differential in speed because there is a full lane sized shoulder to ride on. The bicycles should however continue to be excluded from the traffic lanes of the interstate system for obvious reasons.

Bicycles should also be allowed to travel against the traffic for collision avoidance.

[Warkitty]

Traveling against traffic is far more dangerous for the cyclist than traveling predictably with traffic. Cars aren't going to magically start looking against traffic before turning into the flow of traffic, a bicycle moving against traffic becomes vulnerable to collision from that alone. When traveling against traffic, the cyclist then faces a head-on collision, demonstrably more fatal than being rear-ended by someone.

[Jay]

And a helmet would probably help...

[Bob]

i agree with felix. Banning bikes will not make the stupid people less stupid. If they enforced the five mph speed limit i dont think there would be a problem

[Warkitty]

I thought it was 15mph? At 5mph, a bike barely stays upright. That's the same speed as walking, so even joggers and runners would be banned.

[Justin Thyme]

It's a 7mph speed limit for bicycles on the River Walk.

Have you ever seen the crap that's on the shoulder of the Interstate? I'm not riding in that. I'm cool with bikes being banned from the Interstate system.

I would never ride my bike against traffic.

Multiuse trails are multiuse trails. If you take bikes off of them they become walking paths, not multiuse. I've not had a problem on the section between the dam and the maintenance shop except for when walkers stop there in a group to talk.

[Bob]

Even seven is a good speed. Its the people (mostly guys) going too fast that are a problem.

[Babs]

Only 7 mph?! You're right! Bikes would barely stand up! I have biked and ran years ago on the walk. If runners and walkers would heed the alerts called out by bikers, things would be better. And if bikers would shout a warning, we could all coexist.

[LimitedRecourse]

only crazy people ride bikes, anyways....

[JC]

Below is my bike.
I sit just a couple inches above the ground on it.No way I'm riding it on the road.
They can kiss my ass


www.planetmobility.com/store/handbikes/quickie/shark/

[Bob]

CJ, I sold mine for that very reason. My face was about where most cars bumpers are. Not a comfortable feeling .

[demanton]

I rode my new bike downtown for the first time on Monday. I was riding to the right or in the bike lane up Market from the south side until I needed to make a left on 7th. There was no traffic behind me so I took the left lane. I hear a vehicle come up behind me, I signal for a left turn and get over into the left turn lane. A Hamilton county vehicle speeds around me on the right side as the driver yells, "WUH WUH WUH BIKE LANE WUH". I shouted out, "HEY!", and made a safe left turn on to 7th and that was that.

Other than that jackass, it was a great ride. I realize how much I have missed riding a bike around.

[daworm]

First of all, it's the Tennessee Riverpark, not Riverwalk.

Secondly, if (and this is a big if), both the cyclists and walkers would show just a little common sense and a little more courtesy, there wouldn't be a problem. A few examples:

When a cyclist approaches a walker, call out that you are going around them on their left and say thank you as you pass. I am constantly amazed by how many walkers are surprised when I do this. They are so used to cyclists just whizzing past them, they have to do a double take.

Of course, for that to work, the walkers need to stay to the right. Don't walk four abreast hogging up the whole path or in the center or even worse, on the left. And the walkers have to be able to hear (excluding deaf people). That means no iPods cranked. You can listen with one earbud and still be able to hear others.

When a cyclist approaches someone from behind, and there is someone approaching from the other direction, slow down and make sure you can pass without squeezing in between. If that means you have to wait for the oncoming walker/rider to pass, so be it. Your cardio isn't going to be interrupted that badly.

Parents with small children need to keep them in check. Letting them run about is likely to get them hurt, cyclists or no cyclists.

Cyclists approaching small children should be extra careful, because even if the parents are diligent, the kids can and do still manage to get loose, and it's up to you to make sure you are traveling slow enough or far enough away that you can react in time. It that means taking a fall, so be it. Better you than a child.

When cyclists go around curves, they should slow down and make sure they stay to the right. If you're whizzing around a right hand curve and swing wide, and someone else is coming from the other direction, it's going to be ugly. Even if you don't, if you come around the curve and there is a knot of people, you're either going to hit someone or dump in the grass. Slowing down prevents all sorts of potential problems.

Now, continuing on the topic of speed. That 7 MPH limit (there are a few signs that say 5) is BS. If they were to start really enforcing that, I'd just quit going. It isn't how fast you are riding that is the issue, it is how fast you are riding for the conditions. If that long stretch around the 4 mile marker has no one on it as far as you can see, it is stupid to go as slow as 5 MPH. Likewise, on the narrow stretch at issue behind Chatt State, with people walking there, it would be stupid to go much faster than that, if even that fast. Use some common sense. if you are going by the park/picnic area by CB Robinson and there are a bunch of kids around, slow down! Better yet, leave the path and go around through the parking lot. It only cuts out a few hundred feet, you can spare it. Make the loop by the creek before/after crossing the bridge if you want to make that up. There are a couple of other areas it is easy to bypass the people, and where the car traffic is limited to 20MPH, that you can take advantage of and go as fast as you want. For instance, you can bypass the first wooden section by the Boathouse to avoid the blind curve where the pavement ends and the wood begins. Go slow on the second wooden section leading up to the football practice field too, there are lots of blind turns there. Use your head for something more than a place to put your helmet (you ARE wearing a helmet, aren't you?).

[RuneDeer]

Jul 29, 2010 10:41:07 GMT -5 duke said:

I would be in favor of allowing bicycles on the interstate system ... because there is a full lane sized shoulder to ride on.

Uh, no. My daily commute along I-75 between here and Dalton shows that the shoulder is little more than a place for shredded truck tires and other debris to land before being eventually swept up. Your average cyclist probably wouldn't get more than 1000 ft (if that) before encountering some dangerous obstacle.

[ETA - As JIT said above.]

[Bob]

I think we're all saying the same thing that Felix said in the first post. Stupid people are the problem. [grin]

[Warkitty]

and no amount of legislation will fix stupid.

[Justin Thyme]

Personally, I think that after a certain level, that we passed long, long ago, more legislation just encourages stupidity.

[Tsavodiner]

I'm cool with it, IF drivers of motor vehicles decide to be cool with bikes being on the streets.

Sure.

Paint's cheap, and I don't mind the dents....