Jogging on the cycletrack

[Steve]

As I’ve stated before, I don’t have a huge problem with people running in the street or cycletrack. I understand how/why it can be problematic and unsafe, which is why I don’t think it’s easy to make a blanket statement on whether or not it is safe. Everything, just like riding, is situational. I would never run down Wilson in the bike lane, but I almost always run down Key in the street (when I used to run more). I do this for a variety of reasons, and have never felt like I was creating an unsafe situation.

It amazes me sometimes the way we cyclists talk about peds/runners in the same manner that drivers talk about cyclists. The point is this, are all runners in the street bad or just the one idiot that did something dumb? I think I would say no, if they are being smart, courteous, predictable, etc, then run where you please. If a specific individual running in the street does something dumb, I think you have to try and view them as an individual, not “all runners.”

Oddly enough, as a cyclists, I hate when runners go contra-flow. I MUCH prefer them to go in the same direction as cars/bikes. It makes passing a much more predictable affair. If someone is running at me, especially in the bike lane, I never know which way we are supposed to pass.

[dasgeh]

@Steve 94510 wrote:

if they are being smart, courteous, predictable, etc, then run where you please.

I believe you are saying that runners should be PALs. Alas, you cannot be a PAL and run in the street where there is a sidewalk, or run in any bike lane (in Arlington, at least) because both are illegal.

@Steve 94510 wrote:

If someone is running at me, especially in the bike lane, I never know which way we are supposed to pass.

More reason NOT to run in the bike lane. But generally, you should pass to your left, allowing the runner to stay as far to their left as possible. Seems to conform to both of the rules: runners in the street stay as far to their left as possible and pass on your left.

[dplasters]

Unhappy Monday afternoon numbered posting.

1.) Its only legal to run/walk in the street counter-traffic assuming the sidewalk is unsafe or non-existent. If someone is biking next to your SO and telling them they are unsafe, they better be a salmon or you better have a talk about road safety when on foot with them. At no time has it every been a good idea to walk with your back to faster moving vehicular traffic with no lights.

2.) If you are seriously going to be daft enough to run in the bike lane, use some common sense and at least apply bullet point #1 to it. Its still a really dumb idea. But hey at least you can see the accident you’re likely to create coming at you and you can swiftly slide back onto the sidewalk to avoid it.

3.) Bike lanes on 25 mph roads? Is that really necessary? We can’t successfully mingle with auto traffic in residential areas where many cyclists can actually break the speed limit. If the possibility of children playing, cars coming out of drive ways and car doors opening can’t save us, paint is nothing.

4.) I’m suppose to get out of the bike lane if I reach *near* motor vehicle traffic speeds? Why? Just because?

[Geoff]

@Steve 94510 wrote:

If someone is running at me, especially in the bike lane, I never know which way we are supposed to pass.

@dasgeh 94511 wrote:

But generally, you should pass to your left, allowing the runner to stay as far to their left as possible. Seems to conform to both of the rules: runners in the street stay as far to their left as possible and pass on your left.

I agree with Steve, I don’t know which way we are supposed to pass. You pass on your left if passing traffic moving in the same direction as you. You pass on your right when dealing with oncoming traffic. The oncoming runner makes me play a guessing game.

[creadinger]

@dplasters 94512 wrote:

Unhappy Monday afternoon numbered posting.

1.) Its only legal to run/walk in the street counter-traffic assuming the sidewalk is unsafe or non-existent. If someone is biking next to your SO and telling them they are unsafe, they better be a salmon or you better have a talk about road safety when on foot with them. At no time has it every been a good idea to walk with your back to faster moving vehicular traffic with no lights.

2.) If you are seriously going to be daft enough to run in the bike lane, use some common sense and at least apply rule #1 to it. Its still a really dumb idea. But hey at least you can see the accident you’re likely to create coming at you and you can swiftly slide back onto the sidewalk to avoid it.

3.) Bike lanes on 25 mph roads? Is that really necessary? We can’t successfully mingle with auto traffic in residential areas where many cyclists can actually break the speed limit. If the possibility of children playing, cars coming out of drive ways and car doors opening can’t save us, paint is nothing.

4.) I’m suppose to get out of the bike lane if I reach *near* motor vehicle traffic speeds? Why? Just because?

This daft person doesn’t waste his time enough to keep up with all of the stupid “rules” associated with cycling. What is Rule #1 again?

PS – Don’t bother. I really don’t care what the rule is. I just wanted you to know who you’re calling daft.

[Steve O]

@dplasters 94512 wrote:

Bike lanes on 25 mph roads? Is that really necessary?

Yes. Not for me, and maybe not for you. But Arlington is trying to make infrastructure that will encourage people of all abilities to use their bikes. Dickie and I may fly down the Clarendon Cannonball, but others may ride down at 10-15 mph. They will feel safer in the bike lane than in the travel lane. Even better would be if the bike lane were buffered–or if it were a protected cycletrack, but we have what we have. I, for one, appreciate that bike lane being there, whether or not I ride in it or out in the travel lane.

Dickie was saved by his decades of experience, fast reactions and a bit of luck. A less experienced cyclist traveling more slowly and encountering that identical situation with the oncoming runner may very well have ended up injured, along with the runner. That was a really, really bad place for that runner to be. Period.

[DismalScientist]

Some random thoughts:

1) If we, as cyclists, are empowered to determine whether a sidewalk is a reasonable place to run, why shouldn’t drivers be able to decide whether we are as far right as “reasonable?” :rolleyes:

2) Why are there bike lanes on the downhill section of Clarendon when the speed limit is now 25 mph and Dickie admits exceeding it in the bike lane?
(This is not a criticism of Dickie, but rather a suggestion that sharrows would be preferable and I would take the entire right lane when I exceed the speed limit, which is always.)

3) Is it really pleasant to run in the road on busy commercial streets?

[dplasters]

@creadinger 94519 wrote:

This daft person doesn’t waste his time enough to keep up with all of the stupid “rules” associated with cycling. What is Rule #1 again?

PS – Don’t bother. I really don’t care what the rule is. I just wanted you to know who you’re calling daft.

Rule 1 was the numbered line right before 2.. where we talked about general rules about not getting hit by a vehicle of any kind as a pedestrian… it really doesn’t have anything to do with cycling. It has everything to do with taking on the books pedestrian traffic laws as they pertain to motor vehicle roads and applying them to bike lanes. Which seems pretty common sense seeing as how bike lanes are on roads.

But I appreciate the general feedback that rule was the inappropriate term. I’ll edit the post to say *see bullet point 1* because you don’t like getting hit by things.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PEOPLE, COUNTER TRAFFIC WHEN ON FOOT AND NOT ON THE SIDEWALK. There isn’t like a national conversation or dialog about this. It is flat out safer. We aren’t debating helmet or no helmet. Its just reality.

I still don’t know you…

[Steve O]

@DismalScientist 94522 wrote:

I would take the entire right lane when I exceed the speed limit, which is always.

Wow! You are really fast!!!

[DismalScientist]

For clarification, that statement only applies on Clarendon between Courthouse and Rhodes when I am not on my fixie.

[dplasters]

@Steve O 94521 wrote:

Yes. Not for me, and maybe not for you. But Arlington is trying to make infrastructure that will encourage people of all abilities to use their bikes. Dickie and I may fly down the Clarendon Cannonball, but others may ride down at 10-15 mph. They will feel safer in the bike lane than in the travel lane. Even better would be if the bike lane were buffered–or if it were a protected cycletrack, but we have what we have. I, for one, appreciate that bike lane being there, whether or not I ride in it or out in the travel lane.

I should rephrase. Its a Monday and I’m crotchety.

Bike lanes in a 25 mph could very well be fine in some places. I think there is a lot of other stuff that is far more important and could benefit cyclists and increase the prevalence of cycling much more than bike lanes on roads with such low speed limits. I would prefer that time and effort be spent on making the larger thoroughfares more bike friendly.

[nsfnsfdave]

@dasgeh 94509 wrote:

I’m glad you’re not a troll, though you seem to have missed a few posts about how it IS illegal to run in the streets where there’s a sidewalk. If that is your wife, I hope there’s a way to politely explain to her that the cyclists of Cherrydale would very much appreciate it if she would run opposing traffic where she insists on running in the street. (I’m not the only one who’s encountered her, and I’m not the only one that SHE has yelled out. I’m talking parents with kids on their bikes)

BTW, to the point about running in the bike lanes, Arlington County Code designates them for the exclusive use of bicyclists (with limited exceptions for motor vehicles in the preceding section):

My reading of the state law and the County law together is that, even in the event that running in the street is legal, it is NOT legal in the bike lane.

1. If all the laws were clear, we wouldn’t need lawyers. Let’s not get into whether county law trumps state law or vice-versa. I spoke to an Arlington County police officer who said there was nothing illegal about running on the street in Arlington. My check of the Arlington County code did not disagree with this. I doubt you could enforce a “No running in the street” policy in Arlington.
2. In reading your posts, I doubt it was my wife. We fight, I cuss. She has never used a foul word in the 25 years I’ve known her.
3. The whole sidewalk issue is moot as long as there is language which says you don’t have to use the sidewalk if you don’t think it’s safe. She has tripped quite a few times on the sidewalk and been injured, several times quite badly. She has never run into a bicycle in the street.
4. She’s obviously not the only one running in the streets, or this post wouldn’t be here.

I’ve been trying for years to get Arlington to fix the sidewalk in front of my house, where all the baby strollers take to the street because it’s so bad. They come out every so often and say “Oh my, there’s a tree root under there.” and the sidewalk never gets fixed. My street is a designated bike route (green sign and all). We have bikes, runners, walkers and baby strollers all sharing the street. Never had a problem here…

C’mon, Let’s all just get along.

[rcannon100]

@nsfnsfdave 94528 wrote:

Let’s all just get along.

Translation: My convenience is more important than your safety.

This isnt about sharing streets or residential roads. This is about specifically joggers in cycletracks or bike lanes. There is a world of difference between pedestrians sharing residential 25 mph streets – and joggers in cycletracks on busy roads where cyclists have to make split second decisions and cannot predict what someone – who is not where they are suppose to be – is going to do.

PS: it may be nice to ask a police officer what the law is – but they are not the authority. They might be the authority on what they are willing to enforce – but they are not the authority on what the law is. And the law is there – as many people have pointed out – to promote safety.

[Steve O]

@DismalScientist 94526 wrote:

For clarification, that statement only applies on Clarendon between Courthouse and Rhodes when I am not on my fixie.

I liked it better without the clarification.

[lordofthemark]

1. I think the speed limit on M Street SE is actually 25 MPH, and its two lanes in each direction. I still usually avoid riding on it, and I think a lot of cyclists do. I think the limit is the same on Eye Street and the bike lane helps me there. I don’t have a bike computer yet so I don’t know my exact speed, but I barely do 10 MPH on my whole commute, and I doubt I do more than 12 to 14 MPH on flat sections like that. Not all drivers drive the speed limit, by any means. I can take the lane if I really have to (I would so more on Eye than on M as I think there is less speeding there) but it would be a deterrent to biking for me. It’s all a combination of traffic speed, volume, lane width, and actual driver behavior. Now on a downhill even I can do a much faster speed, but I don’t particularly like routes that switch back and forth between lanes and sharrows – they can be confusing, and I particularly fear drivers getting confused. So yeah, bike lanes on 25MPH arterials. And cycle TRACKS on faster roads

2. I get that sidewalks have issues for runners. I note that I have also seen at least one runner in a bike lane next to a MUT (on Gallows.) I presume the MUT is better than a sidewalk, generally speaking. (but of couse I do not blame all runners for the behavior of one) In general I am glad there are runners in the region (in part because they add to the constituency for the MUT’s which I enjoy) so I don’t think I am Courtland Milloying on this. I don’t think many cyclists do. Though it might be useful for us to learn the ins and outs of running

3.I am assuming there are not many transportation runners. Thats relevant, as that does mean that suggesting a different route is not necessarily unreasonable. Though in some places it may be.

[Author]

Posts