James123 on November 10, 2011, at 03:51PM – #1

This is bull. Give me a lane to ride my bike and I will gladly choose it over the sidewalk, but otherwise I am going to ride on the sidewalk rather than get hit by a 3000 pound vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour.

rob on November 10, 2011, at 08:59PM – #2

^^{^} exactly why this is being considered many cyclist care as much about pedestrians as drivers care about cyclist

() on November 10, 2011, at 10:33PM – #3

Los Angeles is seeing a shift towards a more urban culture, with more people walking and taking transit. It's probably time to prohibit cyclists on the sidewalk unless there is no other safe option.

When I first moved here it was no big deal to switch from the street to the sidewalk as needed but over the years the sidewalks have actually gotten much more crowded.

As a pedestrian most of the time, the cyclists I see on the sidewalk are largely riding unsafely. (And I say this as an avid cyclist who would NEVER ride on the sidewalk if there are pedestrians around).

I can totally understand that there are situations where it is safer for a cyclist to move to the sidewalk, but it's not smart to allow it when there are pedestrians present.

Vero Queero on November 11, 2011, at 08:57AM – #4

I hope this goes through as a deterrant, but mainly for the streets that have bike lanes. As a pedestrian walking along 7th Street, I still see the cyclists on the sidewalk and feel the danger. To be specific, if I see an oncoming cyclist, not that big of a deal as there's usually enough time & space to move over--it's when they approach from behind, making no noise, is where the problem lies in my opinion.

on November 11, 2011, at 08:57AM – #5

Unlike James123 I don't think it's BS. Also unlike James123 I won't demand a Class II bike lane as ransom in order to ride in the streets, which I do 99.9877% of the time. The 0.0123% that I'm found biking on sidewalks is done as Bert Green says, when there is no other safe alternative (or perhaps to get around a road's closure). And it's done so cautiously and with the utmost reduction in speed and respect for pedestrians present.

on November 11, 2011, at 08:58AM – #6

Unlike James123 I don't think it's BS. Also unlike James123 I won't demand a Class II bike lane as ransom in order to ride in the streets, which I do 99.9877% of the time. The 0.0123% that I'm found biking on sidewalks is done as Bert Green says, when there is no other safe alternative (or perhaps to get around a road's closure). And it's done so cautiously and with the utmost reduction in speed and respect for pedestrians present.

() on November 11, 2011, at 09:39AM – #7

Good article on this subject in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/realestate/streetscapes-the-pedestrian-loses-the-way.html

DTBob on November 11, 2011, at 10:49AM – #8

DTLA will never be a truly "walkable"city with a vibrant sidewalk culture as long as bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the sidewalk. If the street is unsafe than get off the bicycle and walk until it is safe to ride on the street.

Prinzrob on November 12, 2011, at 12:22PM – #9

I agree that sidewalk cycling is a bad idea in almost every situation, but under this proposed law I would still be able to dismount my bike and sprint with it at about 10mph legally, whereas staying on the bike at the same speed, with greater control and stopping power, would not be allowed.

I think the existing law is better as it gives police the discretion to crack down in actual, dangerous behavior based on the details of that situation, not some arbitrary speed limit.

The city can instead simply identify busy, pedestrian priority zones and ban sidewalk cycling on those blocks, instead of creating a blanket law which will never apply in many parts of the city.

Alexandra Leh on November 12, 2011, at 06:30PM – #10

every day as a DTLA pedestrian, i experience a close call with whizzing bicyclists on the sidewalk. regardless of the fact that they're two-wheeled and people-fueled, they're still vehicles, and they move at a much quicker speed than pedestrian traffic. it wasn't a big problem when i moved down here 6 1/2 years ago but, with the increase in foot traffic and bicyclists, it's become a serious hazard. just today, i was nearly hit twice, and couldn't help wondering: if i'd been hurt, would the cyclist have the insurance to cover my medical expenses?