44 replies to this topic

[johnfwd]

In an old episode of the "Andy Griffith Show," Deputy Fife cites a town ordinance prohibiting bicycle riding on the sidewalk.  In one of the threads of this Forum, someone commented that it's illegal to ride a bicycle on a city sidewalk.  Well, I've searched the Fort Worth city code and ordinances and cannot find any restrictions on bicycle riding on sidewalks. In fact, the City of Fort Worth website below outlines several bicycle safety rules and guidelines but does not specifically prohibit riding on sidewalks.  And, the governing body of such rules is generally a municipality not the state of Texas.  If anyone finds an ordinance on this, please let me know (because I sometimes ride my bike on sidewalks).

 

 

http://fortworthtexa...KE_GUIDE-TX.pdf

[Russ Graham]

I think you're right that it's legal to ride on sidewalks.   Many people are not aware of the dangers of riding on sidewalks however:

 

1) you are harder to see for cross traffic if you are biking on the sidewalk.  Drivers are looking for traffic in the road, not on the sidewalk - they look just far enough to see if there's a person on foot coming, and sometimes they don't look for those.  Cars turning left across the sidewalk are also not looking for you and won't yield for you if you're on the sidewalk.  So basically if you're on the sidewalk you have to be ready to yield the curbcut to cars coming from behind and in front of you at any instant.

 

2) you have to be ready to basically dismount and go around pedestrians - they are not expecting to see you, and they might not be ready to jump off the sidewalk to get out of your way... most of the sidewalks I use are either very skinny or not continuous or both, so you're going to do some off-roading on a bike.

 

There's one particular spot where I use the sidewalk on a regular basis, and that's crossing over the Trinity on University to get from the West Side to the South Side... hopefully there'll be a better way to traverse the Trinity soon.

[Dylan]

Typically, if I'm on a minor residential street, I ride on the street, and if I'm on an arterial (without a parallel residential street to ride on instead), I ride on the sidewalk. If I plan on riding somewhere new, I look up alternates to arterials ahead of time (though that can be difficult with many residential streets resembling spaghetti in my area).

[JBB]

I don't think anyone ever said it was "illegal".

[John T Roberts]

I really don't know if there is a particular ordinance stating that it is "illegal" to ride your bicycle on the sidewalk.  However, I have been told that if you are riding on a multi-use trail or sidewalk.  A bicyclist is expected to behave like a pedestrian.  This means that you must yield to all automobile traffic at intersections.  Also, I have been told that if you are at a traffic light in this situation, you must have a "walk" light to cross the intersection, even if the light is green for traffic.  This means in most cases, you have to stop, press the button, and wait for the "walk" light before you can cross the street.  Finally, if you are in situations like this, you must also yield to pedestrians because you could injure them since you are a faster moving object.

 

Russ, I think riding across the University Drive bridge is perfectly acceptable, since two sections of Trinity Trail have a direct connection to the bridge. 

[johnfwd]

I appreciate the safety tips, you all.  And, I know we have a mayor whose a biking enthusiast and a city that's becoming more and more bicycle friendly, as we've seen the development of bike lanes downtown and elsewhere.  As for the legality of bike riding on sidewalks, I may have misinterpreted a comment during the discussion on the 7th Street Bridge thread.

[JBB]

Yeah, I think the point that was being made was that it's not good form to ride on the sidewalk when a bike lane is available and it seems strange to not provide a transition from the bike lane on the street to the one on the bridge without using the sidewalk.

[mmiller2002]

Haha, in my travels to Tokyo and Nagoya, there are bicycles only on the sidewalks, along with a LOT of walkers.  Watch-out for those bikes!!  They are fast and aggressive!  They use their squeaky brakes to scare you to move...

 

To the point of the thread, I am surprised that it's legal to ride on the sidewalks.  I always thought it wasn't.  Maybe from watching Mayberry as a kid.

[Volare]

Here's some good info from Bike Friendly Fort Worth:

 

http://www.bikefrien.../tag/sidewalks/

[Russ Graham]

I'd bet the reason it's not illegal here yet is that we're still in the early days of having lots of bikers and lots of walkers on any sidewalks at the same time... back in the days when there were lots of people walking on Fort Worth sidewalks, there probably weren't a lot of bikes around.  With any luck we'll get lots of bikers and lots of pedestrians out enjoying the new West 7th / Sundance Square / Magnolia / TRV, and we'll have to pass laws to regulate these things. 

[Austin55]

And also a good majority of FW residents consider sidewalks in the suburban sense. Riding on the sidewalk in sprawlborhoods and yo Sprawlmart makes sense as no one walks there anyway.

[Brian Luenser]

Riding on the sidewalk is the smartest place to ride.  That's where I ride when I can.  Laws in that regard need to change.   People are too lazy to walk on the sidewalks, let's use them.  Frees the street to get the polluting vehicles where they are going more efficiently. 

[Doohickie]

There's one particular spot where I use the sidewalk on a regular basis, and that's crossing over the Trinity on University to get from the West Side to the South Side... hopefully there'll be a better way to traverse the Trinity soon.

 

Ummmm... Rogers Road to cross the river, one block to the west?

[Russ Graham]

sure, but then you have to come back across University!

[Doohickie]

I don't think anyone ever said it was "illegal".

 

I certainly thought it was illegal.  I think I have seen the wording of the FtW law, but if I had to find it, I don't know that I could, and if people in this thread have searched and not found anything, maybe I'm wrong...

[Doohickie]

sure, but then you have to come back across University!

 

At the light coming out of the shopping center that goes to Old University.  It's not that painful.

 

You probably know that a bridge over the Trinity is planned near there, right?

[Doohickie]

Riding on the sidewalk is the smartest place to ride.  That's where I ride when I can.  Laws in that regard need to change.   People are too lazy to walk on the sidewalks, let's use them.  Frees the street to get the polluting vehicles where they are going more efficiently. 

 

As usual, I couldn't disagree more with your view. 

[John T Roberts]

I also thought it was "illegal", but I did have trouble finding the ordinance online.  I'm betting it is buried deep into the City of Fort Worth's website. 

 

Once the new trail work is completed in that area, there will be great access.  I also knew about the extension along the east side of the river and the new trail bridge across it.  Even with these improvements, I'm sure it will be acceptable to ride a bicycle across the University Drive bridge, since it will still connect the trail on two sides of the river together.

[johnfwd]

One way to check on this is by scanning the traffic fines on the municipal court website (assuming, of course, that bicycle riding no-no's are traffic violations punishable by fine).  Checked it out today, and there is nothing about bike riding on sidewalks.  But, here are a few of the bicycle violations that warrant a ticket: 

 

Riding on the freeway

Running a red light

Running a stop sign

Two riders on one bike

Riding at night with no light

Wrong side of road

No rear reflector and...

No helmet.

 

The last one puzzles me because I thought riding with no helmet might get you a courtesy warning, but not an $87.00 ticket!  I suspect, however, that the police, in their professional discretion (i.e. either too busy or too lazy to bother with), generally ignore these violations.  But I wouldn't try riding through a red light directly in the view of a police car.

[mmiller2002]

"Running a stop sign"

 

Haha, I don't think I've ever seen a rider stop at a stop sign unless there was cross traffic in the way.

[Volare]

No helmet may be for Under 18. Not required in Fort Worth otherwise. Required in Dallas- and no bike share for them until they get rid of that ordinance!

[gdvanc]

I got stopped by the police in Pantego for riding my bike on the sidewalk. Said I had to ride in the street - but that, since it was dusk and I had no lights, I couldn't ride there, either. So I carried my beat up old Bianchi to my girlfriend's house.

 

Of course, that's Pantego and not Fort Worth - so different laws. I think basically everything is illegal in Pantego if you don't live there.

 

My wife has told me that when you reach an intersection while riding on the sidewalk, you're supposed to dismount and push or carry your bike across like a pedestrian. I've never seen that law, either. She's a Navy brat, though, so maybe it was a real law somewhere. I wonder how many bicycle laws there are that were enacted to deal with issues that no longer exist? Or that make sense in one environment but not in others - even within the same city?

[Doohickie]

"Running a stop sign"

 

Haha, I don't think I've ever seen a rider stop at a stop sign unless there was cross traffic in the way.

 

I wrote a haiku for this:

 

I stop for people

whose right of way I honor

but not for no one.

[djold1]

And if you did that on a motorcycle or car you would get a ticket.  Any doggerel on that?

[Brian Luenser]

I will keep riding on the sidewalk and if I get I ticket I will share a scan of it. 

I too follow the "ride on the street if it has no traffic or sidewalks.  Except in the middle of downtown, I never see anybody but myself walking on the sidewalk.  (And if I am walking on the sidewalk, I yield to bike people)  I never want to disrupt traffic.  I only want cars to get to their destination quickly with the least amount of air pollution and blood on their tires.  Then bikes make sense.  If a bike slows down or stops traffic, bikes become a cause of pollution.  I have seen bicycles cause a lot a pollution from time to time.

[Austin55]

Really depends on the time for me. Around 5 when the streets are jammed the sidewalk is the fastest place to be, around lunch and dinner when the sidewalks are packed I'll take the streets. If both are empty, I'd take the street. Talking mostly about the CBD area really. 

[Doohickie]

And if you did that on a motorcycle or car you would get a ticket.  Any doggerel on that?

 

True.  But I'm on a bicycle.  Honestly, as long as I don't disrupt traffic, I don't think the cops care.  I've done "Idaho stops" in front of them (not necessarily on purpose) and if anything, they wave.

[djold1]

I've said this several times in the past.  I'm very much for bicycles..  I think the new bike rental program is great.  I love seeing everyday people riding and enjoying themselves downtown and in neighborhoods. I also hope that at some point it will become possible for regular riders to commute to their work where it makes sense.

 

I am less concerned about the militant sport bikers who seem to go uniformed everywhere in packs nose to tail, as fast as possible, for some reason. I respect their athleticism  and their Austin given right to do all all that, but  If bikes ever become really feasible and useful , this last group will become a quaint niche in the legend.  

 

Even if the law says that bikers have equal rights with cars and motorcycles, the reality is that the laws of mass in motion do not allow any equality when the two forces intersect drastically. This is obvious as we see the Draconian re-marking of Fort Worth streets to accommodate ... almost no one.. in a given day.

 

What bewilders me is that in direct contrast to their equals who drive cars or motorcycles, there is a a willingness to be unequal by bike riders by not becoming a part of the system.  If powered vehicles are required to be licensed and have insurance and have safety checks and have effective lighting why aren't their unpowered yet equal-in-the-eyes-of-the-law peers required to comply as well?  Fair is fair..  Or are you just special in some way? 

And if I in my car am required to stop at EVERY stop sign and at EVERY red light, and if the law specifically says that bike riders must do this as well, then why is this chance to be equal being ignored?  Or does your mobile avocation have some built in flaunt right that if I did the same in my car would cost me a bundle, if I was caught?

 

I think that the tone of the reply above is both supercilious and contemptuous.  I don't think it was really meant to be that way, but it does indicate a mind set that implies that bike riders are somehow MORE EQUAL than we mere mortal motorists..   I guess that's possible.. 

[mmiller2002]

Its a second set of rules that developed because there aren't enough true bikers to matter.  If you start seeing bikers clogging things up on the sidewalks or streets, laws will change or be enforced.  I used to have my bike licensed at college.

 

Roads were paved and paid for by, and for, cars.  Bikes get a free ride mostly in the name of Eco-friendliness.

[John T Roberts]

I also think there is another thing to consider.  Very young kids and people under 18 ride bicycles.  Would you want to have those people taxed, licensed, inspected, etc.?  Or, would you give them a "free" ride until they were 18? 

 

I'm very much in favor of enforcing all of the traffic laws on cyclists.  If a police officer sees a bicyclist run a stop sign, then he should be given a ticket. 

 

I will say this much about the opposite point of view toward running stop signs.  I ride in "clipless" pedals.  Your shoes are cleated and you literally "clip" into your pedals.  When you come to a stop sign and make a full, legal stop, it is very difficult to "clip" out of your pedals, stop, and then push off to start back in motion again, and then clip back in.  I think if some non-cyclists actually tried to ride in these pedals and stop at stop signs, they would see why many cyclists prefer to stay in motion, only go slower at intersections.  I do not want anyone to misconstrue my statements, here.  I am not advocating running stop signs.  Ease of not stopping is really no excuse. 

[Russ Graham]

Roads were paved and paid for by, and for, cars.  Bikes get a free ride mostly in the name of Eco-friendliness.

 

uh, no.  Roads were paid for by people; those people both drive cars and ride bicycles.

[Doohickie]

What bewilders me is that in direct contrast to their equals who drive cars or motorcycles, there is a a willingness to be unequal by bike riders by not becoming a part of the system.  If powered vehicles are required to be licensed and have insurance and have safety checks and have effective lighting why aren't their unpowered yet equal-in-the-eyes-of-the-law peers required to comply as well?  Fair is fair..  Or are you just special in some way? 

 

And if I in my car am required to stop at EVERY stop sign and at EVERY red light, and if the law specifically says that bike riders must do this as well, then why is this chance to be equal being ignored?  Or does your mobile avocation have some built in flaunt right that if I did the same in my car would cost me a bundle, if I was caught?

 

I think that the tone of the reply above is both supercilious and contemptuous.  I don't think it was really meant to be that way, but it does indicate a mind set that implies that bike riders are somehow MORE EQUAL than we mere mortal motorists..   I guess that's possible.. 

 

In the courts, bicycles have been equated with walking under basic right of passage.  As such, there is no special licensing requirement as there is with cars. 

 

I will acknowledge that, as a cyclist, I *am* required to stop at every stop sign and red light.  If I get a ticket for running one, so be it.  I am equally liable to follow the law as any driver.  But drivers also find the unenforced sections of the law and exploit them- speeding, rolling through red lights to turn right, cutting people off, etc.  My house is at a 4-Way Stop sign.  Over the years I've occasionally counted how many cars comply with the Stop signs.  Fully 20% of drivers go through at speed without slowing down, and most of the rest roll through without coming to a full stop.  So yeah, I am equal under the law, no more ore less equal than cars.

 

The nature of a bicycle is such that the rules that cyclists bend are different than the rules that drivers routinely bend.  At this point, I will not apologize the way I ride.  You can not like it.  I don't like it when you speed, run stops signs, etc.  I get over it.  I suggest you do likewise.

[johnfwd]

I think we're getting carried away about regulating bicycle riders.  It's not as if bike riders are mowing down pedestrians right and left.  And cars are more likely to cause accidents with bicycles, rather than vice versa.  And, you can carry the logic to regulating pedestrians in traffic.  Cars are more like to injure pedestrians, rather than vice versa.  Also, what about pedestrian regulations?  Jaywalking used to be regulated.  When was the last time you saw a pedestrian get a ticket for crossing a downtown street outside a regulated crosswalk? 

[Doohickie]

Ultimately.... no harm, no foul.  Kumbaya, Baby.

[Fort Worthology]

 

Roads were paved and paid for by, and for, cars.  Bikes get a free ride mostly in the name of Eco-friendliness.

 

uh, no.  Roads were paid for by people; those people both drive cars and ride bicycles.

 

 

Exactly this.  City streets aren't paid for by cars.

[Austin55]

At what point should bikers not be using a road? Highways are obvious, but what about large avenues with 40+ speed limits and other larger roads.

[Doohickie]

Exactly this.  City streets aren't paid for by cars.

 

 

No... the opposite:  Roads are eroded by cars far in excess of any funding generated by gas taxes and registration fees.

 

 

At what point should bikers not be using a road? Highways are obvious, but what about large avenues with 40+ speed limits and other larger roads.

 

Bicycles have a right to be there.  The law states that cyclists have all the rights and responsibilities as motorists with certain exceptions.  In general, cyclists are to ride as far to the right as practical with several clauses that negate that, including a lane narrower than 14 feet, when there is debris on the side of the road, or it is otherwise not safe for a car and bicycle to ride side-by-side in the lane (paraphrasing from memory).

 

Anecdotally, I know of someone who rode on 287 near Ennis out in the traffic lane and refused to ride on the shoulder.  Based on his reading of the law, he felt he was acting legally.  He got a few tickets from local law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions and opted for a jury trial.  The ticket that he was tried for was "Obstructing Traffic" because he was going so much slower than motor traffic (55 mph limit), even though traffic was light and no one was being held up.  The jury decided against him and said he was riding illegally.

 

So.... yeah.  Whatever.

 

I've personally ridden my bike south on Hulen Street from Overton Ridge to Granbury Road during rush hour.  Honestly, I wasn't holding up traffic at all in the rush hour traffic.

[Volare]

Cars are licensed because it is a source of revenue for the State. If there were as many bikes on the roads as cars, you can be sure they would be licensing the bikes too. Hawaii licenses bikes.

 

Cars require insurance because if you're moving a couple of tons of metal around at 70 mph there's a good chance you could damage someone's property if you hit them. The only insurance required by the state is liability insurance to mitigate the effects of the damages you cause due to your incompetent driving. If you crash while riding your bike, it is unlikely you will hurt anyone other than yourself. Maybe you'll dent someone's car if you run into the back of them. You surely won't kill anyone riding inside said car.

 

Please don't pretend that cars come to a full stop at a stop sign at an uncontested intersection. If a car slows from 40 to 5 mph and then continues, or me on my bike slows from 20 mph to 3 mph and then continues, I don't really see a problem either way if the intersection is empty. Now, blowing thru it at 40 mph in the car or 20 mph on the bike. Not cool.

[mmiller2002]

Anecdotally, I know of someone who rode on 287 near Ennis out in the traffic lane and refused to ride on the shoulder.  Based on his reading of the law, he felt he was acting legally.  He got a few tickets from local law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions and opted for a jury trial.  The ticket that he was tried for was "Obstructing Traffic" because he was going so much slower than motor traffic (55 mph limit), even though traffic was light and no one was being held up.  The jury decided against him and said he was riding illegally.

 

 

 

...militant cyclist.  Got his just deserts, too, because he was being a PITA for no reason other than he thought he could.

 

Some laws protect people from themselves...

[Doohickie]

Yeah, that's Reed....

[johnfwd]

During last Friday's heavy afternoon rush hour traffic, I was riding my bicycle on the sidewalk headed west through the commercial part of West Seminary Drive.  Then I decided to get on the street, but it just so happens I had a cop car in back of me.  Heard a "squawk" noise, then a voice on loud-speaker, "Ride on the sidewalk!"  I got back on the sidewalk and waved to the cops as they passed me.  Moral of story, I suppose:  You should ride on the streets, not sidewalks, unless you're on West Seminary Drive during rush hour traffic.

[David Love]

Downtown bike patrols use the sidewalk almost exclusively, not sure if they've ever had anyone hit.

 

With any level of traffic I'd much prefer the sidewalk.

[Fort Worthology]

I really wish the downtown officers wouldn't use the sidewalk.  It sets bad precedent for the public and for drivers, thinking bikes don't belong on the street, and it's not great to have bikes and pedestrians on the same sidewalk.  Dallas downtown bike patrols use the streets.

 

I'd rather us make the streets better for all users, slow traffic down, and provide safe on-street bike infrastructure than insist people use the sidewalk when there's more than one or two cars out.  The FW bike plan, while a major improvement over what we had before, is still really heavily dependent on shared-lane stuff in a lot of places (example:  it's incredibly short-sighted that we have bike lanes on 7th, and wide paths on the new bridge, that just dump people out onto sharrows on the downtown side), and I don't feel like that actually gets people interested in using their bikes, even when it'd be a great way to get around.

[Russ Graham]

Agreed - Bike officers on the sidewalks mean two things, both of which are "bad messages to send"

 

1) the streets are too dangerous to ride on (because drivers don't follow basic traffic laws - and the police don't enforce them)

 

2) the sidewalks are so devoid of pedestrians that you can ride a bike around without worrying about hitting anybody, or forcing a pedestrian off the road into traffic, etc.  Riding a bike on the sidewalk would not be possible if there were significant numbers of people using the sidewalks for, you know, walking on.

[johnfwd]

As we've discussed at length previously, it's simply necessary for a bike rider to ride the sidewalks instead of traversing on major roadways such as Seminary Drive.  Back to my experience, I know the cops wanted me back on the sidewalk because I was holding up motor vehicle traffic on West Seminar during a Friday rush hour.  Sections of that street are too narrow to accommodate a bicycle, let alone cars and trucks.

 

The Trinity Trails are very useful for southwest to northeast travel.  Park lanes (e.g., Overton Park) and nearby neighborhood sidewalks do provide some relief for bike riders in the southern parts of Fort Worth.  But the roads in that area are too steep to climb.  I can tell you this, riding a bicycle from southwest FW to the TCC South campus is no picnic in the park.