Bike Lanes On Heights Blvd.

[kylejack]

Riding on sidewalks is not always illegal. This is from the city of Houston's website:

"Can I ride my bike on the sidewalk? It is acceptable to ride on the sidewalk under certain conditions, except in a business zone. A business zone is the territory that includes the contiguous 600 ft. along the roadway where there are buildings in use for business or industrial purposes that occupy 300 feet collectively on both sides of the roadway. Remember that pedestrians have the right-of-way."

That includes downtown and some commercial thoroughfares, but leaves a lot of sidewalks where biking is allowed. I ride (and see others riding) on sidewalks all the time up and down Westheimer, Richmond, Dairy Ashford, Memorial, Wilcrest, Kirkwood and other streets and have been passed many, many times by police cruisers without incident. They may ticket you in downtown, but further out I suspect the police have bigger fish to fry than bikes on sidewalks. I think if you do it resposibly (no wheelies down sidewalks crowded with pedestrians, please!) you won't have any problems.

Has anyone out there ever been ticketed or warned by police not to ride on sidewalks? If so, where?

My friend was ticketed for riding on the sidewalk. I live inside the loop, and the vast majority of street miles have businesses on both sides of the road, so its very rare to find a place where its legal. There are a few.

[musicman]

parking in the bike lane has definitely changed since the 90's when this city was actively ticketing vehicles for parking in one. i remember when they added the bike lane to dallas, they were ticketing customers at the aquarium.

[EMME]

First, that area is dry....second making any area dry only hurts business...restaurants do not come to the heights as it is because they cannot serve alcohol....there are ways around this obviously, but still making areas dry is just a bad idea for any area.

Also, I can see being upset about a car in the bike lane, but as a driver, it is more than annoying when the bikers are in the normal traffic lanes causing huge backups...especially when the biker is breaking the law and riding against traffic in the oncoming lanes (see this all the time in the washington area) There may not be many places that road bikers have to bike, but through the city disrupting everyday traffic should not be one of them. I always think how incredibly selfish a biker is being when he backs up traffic so that he can get some exercise. Not saying bikers should not ride...there just ought to be better places. Car lanes are bad places for bikers...its just an accident waiting to happen.

Cyclists pay for road construction too.

[kylejack]

The business that has the sign up on Washington encouraging their patrons to park in the bike lane, guess what their name is.

The Broken Spoke.

[callisthenes]

The business that has the sign up on Washington encouraging their patrons to park in the bike lane, guess what their name is.

The Broken Spoke.

That's no the Broken Spoke. This is.

[Marksmu]

Cyclists pay for road construction too.

They do pay for the road, but their contribution is extremely minimal, compared to the cars....the gasoline tax is enormous compared to what a cyclist pays. Its actually probably insignificant in the grand scheme.

[kylejack]

They do pay for the road, but their contribution is extremely minimal, compared to the cars....the gasoline tax is enormous compared to what a cyclist pays. Its actually probably insignificant in the grand scheme.

Very well, but also insignificant is their weight burden on the road. They're contribute very little to potholes and etc.

[RedScare]

They do pay for the road, but their contribution is extremely minimal, compared to the cars....the gasoline tax is enormous compared to what a cyclist pays. Its actually probably insignificant in the grand scheme.

Cyclists generally do not ride on the roads that your gasoline taxes (AND THEIRS!) build and maintain, such as interstate highways US highways and the like. However, my property taxes, both city and county, as well as my METRO sales tax, DOES build and maintain those city roads that you somehow believe are only yours to use. So as far as the local roads go, my contribution is ENORMOUS, too. And, as mentioned before, a 21 pound bicycle puts virtually no wear and tear on the roadway compared to a large 6,000 pound vehicle. Given your minimal contribution in comparison to your destruction of the road, I would think the least you could do in gratitude is not delicate flower about those cyclists who contribute so much to the roads you destroy.

[Marksmu]

Cyclists generally do not ride on the roads that your gasoline taxes (AND THEIRS!) build and maintain, such as interstate highways US highways and the like. However, my property taxes, both city and county, as well as my METRO sales tax, DOES build and maintain those city roads that you somehow believe are only yours to use. So as far as the local roads go, my contribution is ENORMOUS, too. And, as mentioned before, a 21 pound bicycle puts virtually no wear and tear on the roadway compared to a large 6,000 pound vehicle. Given your minimal contribution in comparison to your destruction of the road, I would think the least you could do in gratitude is not delicate flower about those cyclists who contribute so much to the roads you destroy.

not sure where you gleamed that I think the roads are only mine to use....I clearly stated Im not against cyclist - I simply said I think they should have some areas to ride that are better adapted to them...some of the areas I see the cyclist using, their presence can be both dangerous and disruptive...more people are using cars, so though there are certianly places that cyclist should be allowed to ride, there are others they should not be allowed to ride. And I will have you know my truck weighs 9,100 lbs, not 6,000.

[callisthenes]

LOL you are fitting into that aggressive driver stereotype.

I can see being upset about a bike in the car lane, but as a cyclist, it is closer to threatening bodily harm when the cars cannot yield the right of way to bikes in the normal traffic lanes as they should. This is especially dangerous when the driver chooses to ignore oncoming bikers when pulling out into a traffic lane, or accelerates past a cyclist and cuts them off in order to turn right (see this all the time all over the city). There may not be many designated places (bike lanes) that road bikers have to bike, but they have the right of way when on the road. Sometimes I think how incredibly selfish a driver is being when my eyes meet his and he turns his head to pretend he didn

[jgriff]

Cyclists generally do not ride on the roads that your gasoline taxes (AND THEIRS!) build and maintain, such as interstate highways US highways and the like. However, my property taxes, both city and county, as well as my METRO sales tax, DOES build and maintain those city roads that you somehow believe are only yours to use. So as far as the local roads go, my contribution is ENORMOUS, too. And, as mentioned before, a 21 pound bicycle puts virtually no wear and tear on the roadway compared to a large 6,000 pound vehicle. Given your minimal contribution in comparison to your destruction of the road, I would think the least you could do in gratitude is not delicate flower about those cyclists who contribute so much to the roads you destroy.

A bicycle riding down Memorial drive to me is kind of like the opposite of mass transport. They take up way more space on the road per person due to the wide berth you have to give them. Plus they slow down all the other traffic around them. I'm always getting stuck behind 4 guys riding in the right lane just West of Memorial park. I'm usually in no hurry so it doesn't bother me but they sure do use a lot more of the road per mile traveled than the rest of us. I understand what a previous poster meant when he called them "selfish".

I know it's legal for them to ride there and I give them all the respect they deserve on the road but my mother taught me that it's kind of stupid to ride a bike in the street when I was about 4, legal or not.

[kylejack]

Frankly I think that the city has not invested enough in bike infrastructure, so in that sense I agree with you that there are not enough alternatives for people to ride on. I went to Austin a while back and its like a bike wonderland.

[RedScare]

not sure where you gleamed that I think the roads are only mine to use....I clearly stated Im not against cyclist - I simply said I think they should have some areas to ride that are better adapted to them...some of the areas I see the cyclist using, their presence can be both dangerous and disruptive...more people are using cars, so though there are certianly places that cyclist should be allowed to ride, there are others they should not be allowed to ride. And I will have you know my truck weighs 9,100 lbs, not 6,000.

Other than the statements you made in posts numbers 12, 19, 36, and 39, I have no idea where I came upon the realization that you believe the roads are only yours to use.

[sunsets]

...more people are using cars, so though there are certianly places that cyclist should be allowed to ride, there are others they should not be allowed to ride.

Yes. Like controlled-access highways. Which prohibit bikes.

Houston is certainly not the most bike-friendly town, but gas prices are going up, and more and more people are living in the loop. Bicycling is only going to increase, so I'm of the opinion that drivers should take a deep breath and relax a bit. The extra 2 minutes you're behind a bike won't make that much of a difference.

[kylejack]

A bicycle riding down Memorial drive to me is kind of like the opposite of mass transport. They take up way more space on the road per person due to the wide berth you have to give them. Plus they slow down all the other traffic around them. I'm always getting stuck behind 4 guys riding in the right lane just West of Memorial park. I'm usually in no hurry so it doesn't bother me but they sure do use a lot more of the road per mile traveled than the rest of us. I understand what a previous poster meant when he called them "selfish".

I know it's legal for them to ride there and I give them all the respect they deserve on the road but my mother taught me that it's kind of stupid to ride a bike in the street when I was about 4, legal or not.

Are you talking about east of 610 and west of the park? If so that is practically the only place in the city where it is actually marked that they can ride on the sidewalk, so they should definitely take advantage of that.

[jgriff]

Yes. Like controlled-access highways. Which prohibit bikes.

Houston is certainly not the most bike-friendly town, but gas prices are going up, and more and more people are living in the loop. Bicycling is only going to increase, so I'm of the opinion that drivers should take a deep breath and relax a bit. The extra 2 minutes you're behind a bike won't make that much of a difference.

So if you got one bicyclist on a street and he's slowing down 50 vehicles for two minutes each which one is selfish? Is that a good use of resources? Making 50 cars spend two more minutes each on the road using fuel and polluting the air so a few people can save a little gas?

[kylejack]

So if you got one bicyclist on a street and he's slowing down 50 vehicles for two minutes each which one is selfish? Is that a good use of resources? Making 50 cars spend two more minutes each on the road using fuel and polluting the air so a few people can save a little gas?

Generally speaking, a cyclist will attempt to ride to the right of the lane if it is safe to do so, and people can pass him. Occasionally on some streets it makes more sense to take the lane, especially places where there is zero shoulder. This is a good reason why cities should invest in good roads with plenty of shoulders and/or bike lanes. Its extremely rare that a car is held up for more than 30 seconds or so when he can safely pass on the left, and let me assure you that nearly every car makes their discontent known when they are inconvenienced for even a nanosecond by blowing their horn.

But the fact of the matter is that these streets belong to everyone and as long as a person is obeying the law you should just settle down and be patient.

[sunsets]

In the case of Memorial Drive, I concede that that is a bad place to bottleneck traffic. Plus, it is illegal to ride on the road on that stretch, so that's a moot point, really.

kylejack pretty much covered the rest.

[callisthenes]

So if you got one bicyclist on a street and he's slowing down 50 vehicles for two minutes each which one is selfish? Is that a good use of resources? Making 50 cars spend two more minutes each on the road using fuel and polluting the air so a few people can save a little gas?

That's hyperbole.

But if your scenario was correct, wouldn't the first in the line of 50 cars share some fault? After all, there is nothing keeping that first car from passing the bike as long as it is safe, thus releasing those behind to do the same.

Without that, I think both the cyclist and the first car should pull over, dismount/disembark from their vehicles, and flagellate each other over the sinful wastes of energy and other peoples' time they had a part in.

[SaintCyr]

To lighten the mood a bit... Does anyone have an old beat up kid hauler you put on a bike? I'm looking for one and haven't had any luck on Craigslist. I would REALLY appreciate if someone wants to get rid of one to let me know.

Thanks!

D

P.S. I have to agree that in coming years it will become more of an issue with bikers in the inner loop... So, regardless whether people agree or disagree it is OBVIOUS that it's an issue and needs to be better defined/enforced/or resolved.

[jgriff]

In the case of Memorial Drive, I concede that that is a bad place to bottleneck traffic. Plus, it is illegal to ride on the road on that stretch, so that's a moot point, really.

kylejack pretty much covered the rest.

I've seen signs in the villages that say "No bikes allowed on roadway" but I didn't know it was illegal where I usually see them... around the 610 loop. I see them on Woodway all the time on the weekends too.

[EMME]

So if you got one bicyclist on a street and he's slowing down 50 vehicles for two minutes each which one is selfish? Is that a good use of resources? Making 50 cars spend two more minutes each on the road using fuel and polluting the air so a few people can save a little gas?

The selfish one would be whoever is the one griping about the other. Neither size, nor dollar, nor status has any credence. Each has the right to be there. Safety hierarchy = cars yield to pedestrian and cycles. Therefore cars are really the ones that are supposed to be the most inconvenienced. Get over it. Breathe, sing a song, make silly faces. All you are doing is raising your own blood pressure.

[jgriff]

That's hyperbole.

But if your scenario was correct, wouldn't the first in the line of 50 cars share some fault? After all, there is nothing keeping that first car from passing the bike as long as it is safe, thus releasing those behind to do the same.

Without that, I think both the cyclist and the first car should pull over, dismount/disembark from their vehicles, and flagellate each other over the sinful wastes of energy and other peoples' time they had a part in.

That's the clincher. It's usually not safe. You can get stuck behind a bike for long periods of time while cars pass them and you can't get out. The problem is that only the car right behind the bike knows what is going on. When you're the second car back you just see some jerk driving 5 miles an hour in a 35 zone so you get over and pass him. By the time you realize there is a bike in the right lane it's too late.

[jgriff]

The selfish one would be whoever is the one griping about the other. Neither size, nor dollar, nor status has any credence. Each has the right to be there. Safety hierarchy = all yield to pedestrian, cars yield to cycle.

So if we follow that logic then I own the road and can use it for as long as I want. There is no minimum speed so I can drive a mile an hour down Memorial drive and block rush hour traffic. In fact I could get a buddy to ride beside me and make it impossible for people to pass. I could cause everyone in West Houston to have a 4 hour commute home everyday.

[Gooch]

If no cyclists are present... its my lane to turn from. IF cyclists are present, the number of cars and cyclists would dictate which lane to wait in.... but waiting and yielding to the cyclists present is the rule... and shouldnt be a problem for most drivers.

Or a problem for riders. Your way is the correct way to do it. If I'm on the bike I hug the line just inside of the bike lane, giving room for traffic to advance and make right hand turns on my right-hand-side. I split the lane between, which is legal in TX. I'll take a picture of what the correct markings should look like if I get a chance this afternoon. N.Post Oak where it crosses I-10 has a well marked right-hand-turn bike lane interface.

They take up way more space on the road per person due to the wide berth you have to give them. Plus they slow down all the other traffic around them. I'm always getting stuck behind 4 guys riding in the right lane just West of Memorial park.

This is going to sound wierd... but drivers that are too timid to pass make me more nervous than those zooming by on the side. Most of the time drivers have plenty of room to pass on and keep their vehicle within the lane. Especially if they time it where there is a gap between cars to the left. If you are looking ahead you should never get stuck behind a cyclist more than a few seconds.

Frankly I think that the city has not invested enough in bike infrastructure, so in that sense I agree with you that there are not enough alternatives for people to ride on.

Most of the Houston bike lanes are so rough you can hardly ride them. The lane on Weslayan between 59 and Richmond comes to mind. Morningside through West U is a beast too. I think they designated that one a bike lane so they wouldn't have to maintain it to grade. You almost need a 6" travel mountain bike on parts of it!

[RedScare]

That's the clincher. It's usually not safe. You can get stuck behind a bike for long periods of time while cars pass them and you can't get out. The problem is that only the car right behind the bike knows what is going on. When you're the second car back you just see some jerk driving 5 miles an hour in a 35 zone so you get over and pass him. By the time you realize there is a bike in the right lane it's too late.

I have lived in Houston since 1977. NEVER have I been stuck behind a cyclist for "long periods of time". This statement suggests that the problem here is your impatience, not cyclists using the roads. The more you ratchet up the hyperbole, the more obvious it gets.

These arguments are similar to the freeway arguments, where the drivers speeding at 10 to 20 mph over the speed limit demand consideration from the "selfish" drivers going the speed limit. I notice that it nevers seems to be the aggressive drivers who are selfish, only the respectful and law abiding drivers. Wonder why that is?

[jgriff]

This is going to sound wierd... but drivers that are too timid to pass make me more nervous than those zooming by on the side. Most of the time drivers have plenty of room to pass on and keep their vehicle within the lane. Especially if they time it where there is a gap between cars to the left. If you are looking ahead you should never get stuck behind a cyclist more than a few seconds.

You don't know there is a bike in front of you until the last second when the guy you think is just a slow-poke in the right lane gets over and suddenly there are 4 bikes taking up the whole lane in front of you.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to ride your bike where it's legal. There are some people who seem to think that bikers are not an inconvenience to people around them. If that's true why do they seem to always provoke such anger from the people around them?

The picture in your original post proves the point to me. Maybe it's legal but it can be very foolish to ride your bike on the street even where there are bike lanes around.

I may sound like I'm anti-bike but I don't argue your right to do it. I think it's probably more dangerous to commute down I-10 to Katy everyday for 30 years than it is to ride a bike on the street every once in a while. I won't do that either though.

[kylejack]

Cyclists have enough problems on the road without aggressive drivers who can't bear to wait 15 seconds for a good opportunity to pass. Consider the firetruck accident at Westheimer and Dunlavy recently. A cyclist (one of our Critical Mass riders, actually) stopped waiting for the light to change was killed when two firetrucks ran through the intersection at the same time. She died and many people were injured because of the firetruck driver's negligence and all he got was a traffic ticket. We've got our life on the line every time we ride, and there's not much of a price to pay when someone kills us with their vehicle. We don't have a tank of metal surrounding us, so try and be a little understanding and give us our space.

There's a law that they've been trying to work through the legislature to require motorists to give cyclists a 3 foot berth when passing them and I think that's a great idea. I can't tell you how many near misses I've had, and even a few have brushed me as they blew past.

[kylejack]

You don't know there is a bike in front of you until the last second when the guy you think is just a slow-poke in the right lane gets over and suddenly there are 4 bikes taking up the whole lane in front of you.

Yeah, this is a common problem for cyclists. You are not maintaining safe following distance. You need to slow down, because if you were maintaining safe following distance, you should have no problem slowing in time not to endanger the cyclists.

[RedScare]

You don't know there is a bike in front of you until the last second when the guy you think is just a slow-poke in the right lane gets over and suddenly there are 4 bikes taking up the whole lane in front of you.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to ride your bike where it's legal. There are some people who seem to think that bikers are not an inconvenience to people around them. If that's true why do they seem to always provoke such anger from the people around them?

The picture in your original post proves the point to me. Maybe it's legal but it can be very foolish to ride your bike on the street even where there are bike lanes around.

I may sound like I'm anti-bike but I don't argue your right to do it. I think it's probably more dangerous to commute down I-10 to Katy everyday for 30 years than it is to ride a bike on the street every once in a while. I won't do that either though.

What a great argument against cycling. "Hey, I'm an poopy headhole and might run over you, so you shouldn't ride in the street, you selfish jerk!"