Bicycles prohibited in the Villages

[Reefmonkey]

I was driving along Memorial Drive this weekend and noticed several "Bicycles prohibited on roadway" signs, starting in Hunter's Creek and going all the way to Bunker Hill. I know bicycles are prohibited on limited access roads like freeways and tollways, where the minimum speed limit is 45, however I wonder about banning bikes from regular surface streets. I don't see such signs along the stretch of Memorial I live on, west of BW8.

 

I know there is a trail along the road, but it looks to me more like a sidewalk, too narrow to safely accommodate both cyclists and pedestrian, as well as not being a great condition for wheeled vehicles (too many expansion joints too close together).

 

Considering these are the Villages, I wonder if they even have the authority to ban bicycles from a road like Memorial - I mean, these neighborhoods along Memorial also had "soliciting is prohibited" signs, even though I know from serving on my own HOA board and fielding complaints about why we don't get the constables to enforce our no soliciting signs, that it's actually unconstitutional to prevent door-to-door solicitation. I know affluent neighborhoods like the Villages had even more Karens willing to drop a dime on any POC who dares try to sell them a magazine subscription than mine does, and want signs up to deter that even if it's unenforceable, so I could also imagine them wanting signs up to deter bicyclists from outside the Villages enjoying a ride in their leafy neighborhood.

 

So, anyone know if this kind of ban on bicycles on a roadway like Memorial is enforceable?

[j.33]

I have seen riders on Memorial Dr. where the signs are posted. Have I ever seen Memorial Villages PD enforce it? No, not really. I am sure the signs are there to make sure drivers and cyclists don't come into contact due to the roadway being narrow with no shoulders in some areas. If you do choose to ride in the roadway, you'll probably just get some angry looks from drivers, but thats the case throughout most of the city sadly haha. I do agree with your statement on how the Villages think the sidewalk is more of a hike/bike trail, so they think bike riders should use that instead. Unfortunately, the reality is that it is just a sidewalk and not really a proper hike/bike trial. 

[Ross]

You would have to be insane to ride a bicycle on the travel surface of Memorial in the Villages. Way too dangerous.

[august948]

Isn't it state law that bicycles are considered a "vehicle" and have a right to travel on surface streets like any others?

 

On another note, a friend who frequently cycled through the area got pulled over some years ago by one of the village police departments because he was riding on the sidewalk.  They told him he had to ride in the street and couldn't ride on the sidewalks.  This was on Briar Forest.

[cspwal]

Good morning from coffee land

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.551.htm

 

According to the state code:

Quote

§551.106

(a)The department or a local authority may not prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle:

    (1) on a highway that is used primarily by motor vehicles; or

    (2) in an area in which the operation of a nonelectric bicycle is permitted, unless the area is a path that:

        (A) is not open to motor vehicles; and

        (B) has a natural surface tread made by clearing and grading the native soil without adding surfacing materials.

 

(b) The department or a local authority may:

    (1) prohibit the operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk; and

    (2) establish speed limits for bicycles on paths set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles and other paths on which bicycles may be operated.

 There's no mention of authority to prevent bikes from roads; it says they can prohibit them on sidewalks, and can't prohibit electric bikes on roads.  Prohibiting regular bikes on roads seems iffy.

 

Incidentally, this means you're allowed to ride your electric bike in the bike lanes, but not on bike trails in Houston - the lanes are part of the road but the trails are "not open to motor vehicles"

[rechlin]

3 minutes ago, cspwal said:

Incidentally, this means you're allowed to ride your electric bike in the bike lanes, but not on bike trails in Houston - the lanes are part of the road but the trails are "not open to motor vehicles"

 

I thought electric bikes were not considered motor vehicles in Texas, as long as they can't exceed 20 mph and don't weigh more than 100 pounds.  They could theoretically be banned from bike trails but I've seen no signs indicating that they aren't allowed:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws#Texas

[cspwal]

This is from the Houston city code

Quote

Sec. 45-301. - Authority to prohibit riding on roadways.

The traffic engineer is authorized to erect signs on any roadway prohibiting the riding of bicycles thereon and, when such signs are in place, no person shall disobey the same.

 

I don't see how you can reconcile this with the state code.

 

I couldn't find anything about banning electric bikes, but I know you aren't supposed to ride the electric b-share bikes on the trails

[Reefmonkey]

13 hours ago, Ross said:

You would have to be insane to ride a bicycle on the travel surface of Memorial in the Villages. Way too dangerous.

I'm not a bike rider myself, and it surprises me not just where, but when hardcore cyclists choose to ride. My afternoon commute used to travel westbound along Briar Forest between Wilcrest and Dairy-Ashford, and it used to frustrate me that large packs of Lance Armstrong wannabes would choose that same route as their afternoon workout ride. It was ~5:30 in the afternoon, rush hour westbound traffic, and they're riding 3,4 abreast, taking up an entire lane and going significantly slower than the rest of traffic. I know we're supposed to "Share The Road" with bikes and all, but I think cyclists like these give the rest a bad rep. I wonder if the people in the Villages just got tired of large gaggles of cyclists gumming up traffic?

[samagon]

4 hours ago, cspwal said:

This is from the Houston city code

 

I don't see how you can reconcile this with the state code.

 

I couldn't find anything about banning electric bikes, but I know you aren't supposed to ride the electric b-share bikes on the trails

 

I think most of the roadway in question is not in Houston jurisdiction, Hunters Creek Village being the referenced municipality in the OP.

 

either way, that's an interesting ordinance, and does seem to go against the Texas law. 

 

1 hour ago, Reefmonkey said:

I'm not a bike rider myself, and it surprises me not just where, but when hardcore cyclists choose to ride. My afternoon commute used to travel westbound along Briar Forest between Wilcrest and Dairy-Ashford, and it used to frustrate me that large packs of Lance Armstrong wannabes would choose that same route as their afternoon workout ride. It was ~5:30 in the afternoon, rush hour westbound traffic, and they're riding 3,4 abreast, taking up an entire lane and going significantly slower than the rest of traffic. I know we're supposed to "Share The Road" with bikes and all, but I think cyclists like these give the rest a bad rep. I wonder if the people in the Villages just got tired of large gaggles of cyclists gumming up traffic?

 

first of all, you should become a bike rider, it will help you gain a better perspective.

 

being that I am both a cyclist and a driver, I am far more equipped to discuss where cyclists should and shouldn't be allowed to go, and you're wrong.

 

many times, when I am 'stuck' behind cyclists I take note of how much time I lose during that trip directly related to the cyclists being 'in my way', usually it's way less than even 10 seconds.

 

really, you need to modify your attitude and realize that the road is designed and expected to be used by more than just motor vehicles. if you have a problem with that, don't be angry with the people using it as the state expects them to use it, do your part to have the state and city provide better accommodations for everyone to have their own space.

[cspwal]

41 minutes ago, samagon said:

Hunters Creek Village being the referenced municipality in the OP.

 

D'oh should have read the OP better

Here's the Hunter's creek ordinance

Quote

Sec. 40-9. Bicycle paths.

    (a) Wherever a useable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a public street, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the public street.

    (b) The city engineer is directed to post signs giving notice of the requirements hereof.

    (c) No person shall use or operate a motor vehicle or ride a horse or pony, upon the pathway and bikeway system, or any portion thereof, as shown by the map or plat which is attached hereto and incorporated as a part hereof, and as it may be revised from time to time by the city council; provided however, that this prohibition shall not apply to the public and private streets comprising a part of the pathway and bikeway system. (Code 2002, § 12.400; Ord. No. 236, 8-17-1970; Ord. No. 422, §§ 1, 2, 7-30-1987)

 

Still don't know how (a) is allowed under state law.

 

I suspect the bike riders riding on a busy street at rush hour, going in the direction of traffic are actually commuters - they probably are able to change at work into more comfortable biking clothes and ride home.  

[Reefmonkey]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

 

I think most of the roadway in question is not in Houston jurisdiction, Hunters Creek Village being the referenced municipality in the OP.

 

either way, that's an interesting ordinance, and does seem to go against the Texas law. 

 

 

first of all, you should become a bike rider, it will help you gain a better perspective.

 

being that I am both a cyclist and a driver, I am far more equipped to discuss where cyclists should and shouldn't be allowed to go, and you're wrong.

 

many times, when I am 'stuck' behind cyclists I take note of how much time I lose during that trip directly related to the cyclists being 'in my way', usually it's way less than even 10 seconds.

 

really, you need to modify your attitude and realize that the road is designed and expected to be used by more than just motor vehicles. if you have a problem with that, don't be angry with the people using it as the state expects them to use it, do your part to have the state and city provide better accommodations for everyone to have their own space.

 

Seems I touched a nerve.

 

Look, I'm not opposed to bikes being on the road, I support more bike lanes being established, and remember, I'm the one who started this thread because it seemed sketchy to me that the Villages could ban bikes from Memorial. Just because I said that I find it kind of annoying that certain cyclists choose to use certain roads at certain times does not mean I am suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to use those roads, so your getting your hackles up at me is misplaced, and frankly, you saying that I am "less equipped" to discuss an activity that does directly affect me is pretty arrogant.

 

Again, I'm not talking about banning bicycles from any roads, I'm actually opposed to doing so, which is why I started this thread, just making a sidebar comment that choosing a commuting corridor during the height of rush hour for you  and a big gaggle of your other cycling buddies to get your afternoon workout in may not be the most considerate thing to do. If you can't understand that, that's your problem. This is not some animus against bikes on my part, I'd feel the same way about people in cars making a decision to do some nonessential non-commuting activity on the roads during rush hour. In fact, I can think of an example of such an activity. Last year, there was a store, I think it was a furniture store, along the eastbound I-10 feeder road between Kirkwood and the Beltway, that was having a going out of business sale that lasted I'd say a good two months. The way they choose to advertise this sale was to put big signs on the roofs of several cars and have them drive in a big slow convoy on the I-10 feeder road, with westbound traffic, during afternoon rush hour. I thought that was a pretty obnoxious way to advertise their business, it didn't make me feel badly that they were going out of business, and it certainly didn't make me want to buy any of their furniture.

[Reefmonkey]

36 minutes ago, cspwal said:

I suspect the bike riders riding on a busy street at rush hour, going in the direction of traffic are actually commuters - they probably are able to change at work into more comfortable biking clothes and ride home.  

Possible, but who I saw most frequently was a group of 10-12 guys, all wearing matching cycling jerseys, all riding close together in a big group, none of them had laptop bags or backpacks (a few had small camelbacks) and it was like they were a fixture on Briar Forest every afternoon for several weeks in the spring, but not the rest of the year.

[samagon]

43 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

Seems I touched a nerve.

 

Look, I'm not opposed to bikes being on the road, I support more bike lanes being established, and remember, I'm the one who started this thread because it seemed sketchy to me that the Villages could ban bikes from Memorial. Just because I said that I find it kind of annoying that certain cyclists choose to use certain roads at certain times does not mean I am suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to use those roads, so your getting your hackles up at me is misplaced, and frankly, you saying that I am "less equipped" to discuss an activity that does directly affect me is pretty arrogant.

 

Again, I'm not talking about banning bicycles from any roads, I'm actually opposed to doing so, which is why I started this thread, just making a sidebar comment that choosing a commuting corridor during the height of rush hour for you  and a big gaggle of your other cycling buddies to get your afternoon workout in may not be the most considerate thing to do. If you can't understand that, that's your problem. This is not some animus against bikes on my part, I'd feel the same way about people in cars making a decision to do some nonessential non-commuting activity on the roads during rush hour. In fact, I can think of an example of such an activity. Last year, there was a store, I think it was a furniture store, along the eastbound I-10 feeder road between Kirkwood and the Beltway, that was having a going out of business sale that lasted I'd say a good two months. The way they choose to advertise this sale was to put big signs on the roofs of several cars and have them drive in a big slow convoy on the I-10 feeder road, with westbound traffic, during afternoon rush hour. I thought that was a pretty obnoxious way to advertise their business, it didn't make me feel badly that they were going out of business, and it certainly didn't make me want to buy any of their furniture.

 

usually, when I see someone refer to cyclists in a not friendly way, they are more or less 'against' cyclists. "packs of Lance Armstrong wannabes" is certainly that.

 

if that wasn't your intent, then I apologize.

 

I still encourage you to get a bike and experience the life.

[Reefmonkey]

4 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

usually, when I see someone refer to cyclists in a not friendly way, they are more or less 'against' cyclists. "packs of Lance Armstrong wannabes" is certainly that.

 

if that wasn't your intent, then I apologize.

 

I still encourage you to get a bike and experience the life.

Thank you, I appreciate that, and I did not mean to impugn all cyclists, it's just that I've had experiences with certain cyclists who take their cycling a little too seriously and aren't considerate of others. I hike or run along either Terry Hershey or the Bush Park hike and bike trail about 4 miles, almost every day. Bush Park isn't too bad, but on Terry Hershey I avoid the paved trail and stay on the dirt part as much as possible, because even though most cyclists there are very considerate, there are still enough who go way too fast for a path that size that is also usually fairly crowded with walkers as well.

 

 

[samagon]

I agree about the size of paths on THP, there's enough ROW that they can create cycle specific track and then have pedestrian/jogging trail, at the very least a wider trail. maybe they'll do something similar to what there is in BBP in downtown.

[j_cuevas713]

I’m a cyclist myself. I ride where there are bike lanes but I mostly ride street. If you’re in that big of a rush then use the other lane and safely pass. Patience is part of being in a big city. Nobody is going to baby you because you can't get somewhere on time. Deal with it, otherwise don’t live in a city. I do suggest riding a bike though to gain some perspective.

[Reefmonkey]

That's the kind of attitude that makes people dislike cyclists, and probably why the Villages banned them from Memorial. It's not about being "in that big a rush" it's about people coming home from the job they have to go to to make money to support the family they'd like to spend a little time with at the end of the day being delayed by a large group of people who choose an inconsiderate time to use a commuting corridor for a recreational activity. Consideration for others is also part of living in a big city, or at least should be if we all want to get along together. I've ridden bikes before and do have that perspective, I also have enough perspective of the culture of the riding community to know that there are some people in it who have an overly inflated sense of superiority about the "virtue" of being a bike rider which they think exempts them from common courtesy.

 

I'll give you two very recent examples of the entitled attitude some cyclists have I personally witnessed, and both of cyclists vs pedestrians on walking trails, so we can avoid muddying the waters with "bicycles are better for the environment than cars anyway" discussion.

 

The first was on Terry Hershey Trail between Eldridge and Highway 6. I hike on the berm adjacent to the trail because it's a better workout, and I can avoid the cyclists, but it also gives me a good perspective of the whole trail and what happens on it. It was a gorgeous weekend and the trail was heavily populated. I saw a group of four cyclists coming down the trail, passing walkers on the trail, and the lead cyclist said pointedly "see, some walkers know to stay in the grass so they aren't in our way!" This attitude that cyclists have priority on TH is contradicted by the signs posted all over the trail that state that repeated rule violations will result in bicycles being banned from the trail. That makes it clear the trail is intended for pedestrians first, and this stronger verbiage threatening to ban bikes is relatively new, obviously necessitated by an ongoing problem of cyclists not showing courtesy to pedestrians.

 

The second was on the hike and bike trail in George Bush Park, just west of the parking lot at S. Barker Cypress Rd. A woman was walking on the trail in front of me, coming the opposite direction, and had stopped to allow her younger child, who was on a bike with training wheels, to catch up. A woman on a bike overtook the pedestrian, and screeched at her "you're in the middle of the trail!" The pedestrian calmly said "actually, I'm not," and she was right, though she wasn't standing on the shoulder of the trail, she was to her right of the centerline of the trail by at least a foot. The cyclist responded with a nasty "JESUS!" as she passed.

 

Both these incidents illustrate an attitude within the cycling community that pedestrians are supposed to hop off the pavement to let cyclists pass, and your comment illustrates an attitude that people who are trying to get home from their jobs during rush hour just need to "deal with" groups of cyclists who clog up their commuting corridor during peak commuting time for a leisure activity. Your "nobody is going to baby you because you can't get somewhere on time" comment is especially emblematic of a callous attitude; people can't leave work before a set time, and then many of them only have a short amount of time to pick their kids up from daycare/afterschool care before  they incur late-pickup fines. You really think they should have to pay a fine, and then be delayed getting their kids home so they can make them dinner and help them with their homework just so that you and 15 of your closest buddies can play Tour de France on a commuting corridor during rush hour? It's called common courtesy.

[Texasota]

You haven't identified a problem with cyclists. You've identified a problem with human beings. Some people will always be inconsiderate, whether they're on foot, a bike, a car, or whatever. It's just that you can do a whole hell of a lot more damage being inconsiderate in a 2-ton truck than you can on a 30lb bike. 

 

[j_cuevas713]

44 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

That's the kind of attitude that makes people dislike cyclists, and probably why the Villages banned them from Memorial. It's not about being "in that big a rush" it's about people coming home from the job they have to go to to make money to support the family they'd like to spend a little time with at the end of the day being delayed by a large group of people who choose an inconsiderate time to use a commuting corridor for a recreational activity. Consideration for others is also part of living in a big city, or at least should be if we all want to get along together. I've ridden bikes before and do have that perspective, I also have enough perspective of the culture of the riding community to know that there are some people in it who have an overly inflated sense of superiority about the "virtue" of being a bike rider which they think exempts them from common courtesy.

 

I'll give you two very recent examples of the entitled attitude some cyclists have I personally witnessed, and both of cyclists vs pedestrians on walking trails, so we can avoid muddying the waters with "bicycles are better for the environment than cars anyway" discussion.

 

The first was on Terry Hershey Trail between Eldridge and Highway 6. I hike on the berm adjacent to the trail because it's a better workout, and I can avoid the cyclists, but it also gives me a good perspective of the whole trail and what happens on it. It was a gorgeous weekend and the trail was heavily populated. I saw a group of four cyclists coming down the trail, passing walkers on the trail, and the lead cyclist said pointedly "see, some walkers know to stay in the grass so they aren't in our way!" This attitude that cyclists have priority on TH is contradicted by the signs posted all over the trail that state that repeated rule violations will result in bicycles being banned from the trail. That makes it clear the trail is intended for pedestrians first, and this stronger verbiage threatening to ban bikes is relatively new, obviously necessitated by an ongoing problem of cyclists not showing courtesy to pedestrians.

 

The second was on the hike and bike trail in George Bush Park, just west of the parking lot at S. Barker Cypress Rd. A woman was walking on the trail in front of me, coming the opposite direction, and had stopped to allow her younger child, who was on a bike with training wheels, to catch up. A woman on a bike overtook the pedestrian, and screeched at her "you're in the middle of the trail!" The pedestrian calmly said "actually, I'm not," and she was right, though she wasn't standing on the shoulder of the trail, she was to her right of the centerline of the trail by at least a foot. The cyclist responded with a nasty "JESUS!" as she passed.

 

Both these incidents illustrate an attitude within the cycling community that pedestrians are supposed to hop off the pavement to let cyclists pass, and your comment illustrates an attitude that people who are trying to get home from their jobs during rush hour just need to "deal with" groups of cyclists who clog up their commuting corridor during peak commuting time for a leisure activity. Your "nobody is going to baby you because you can't get somewhere on time" comment is especially emblematic of a callous attitude; people can't leave work before a set time, and then many of them only have a short amount of time to pick their kids up from daycare/afterschool care before  they incur late-pickup fines. You really think they should have to pay a fine, and then be delayed getting their kids home so they can make them dinner and help them with their homework just so that you and 15 of your closest buddies can play Tour de France on a commuting corridor during rush hour? It's called common courtesy.

Your car is a 1 ton weapon. Quit acting so entitled. Some people only have a bike to get around. 

[Reefmonkey]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

You haven't identified a problem with cyclists. You've identified a problem with human beings. Some people will always be inconsiderate, whether they're on foot, a bike, a car, or whatever. It's just that you can do a whole hell of a lot more damage being inconsiderate in a 2-ton truck than you can on a 30lb bike. 

 

 

I've identified a mindset that can emerge among people of a particular subculture, and the one relevant to this discussion is the road bike subculture. We can discuss mindsets that lead to lack of consideration among people who drive pickup trucks or crotch rockets or jetskis or gaggles of women powerwalkers in another thread. The cycling and motorcycle communities are always pushing a "share the road" message, which I agree with, but it needs to go both ways. And rules are rules and a person in a 2-ton truck needs to avoid hitting a cyclist, but those of us who enjoy boating, even recognizing that there are rules of the road on the water, also recognize the unwritten Law of Superior Tonnage, which is why I in my little sailboat stay out of the Intracoastal Waterway when there is heavy barge traffic going through it.

 

51 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Your car is a 1 ton weapon. Quit acting so entitled. Some people only have a bike to get around. 

You're going to try to argue that a baker's dozen of white guys in matching jerseys riding together through the Energy Corridor during rush hour on Specialized, Trek, and other road bikes that retail in the mid thousands of dollars are doing so because they are the only form of transportation they can afford? Why bless your heart. 🤣

 

 

There's also the issue that this stretch of Briar Forest has a designated bike lane that this group of cyclists chose not to use, and instead chose to take up an entire regular lane by riding  3-4 bikes side by side.

[mollusk]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

You haven't identified a problem with cyclists. You've identified a problem with human beings. Some people will always be inconsiderate, whether they're on foot, a bike, a car, or whatever. It's just that you can do a whole hell of a lot more damage being inconsiderate in a 2-ton truck than you can on a 30lb bike. 

 

 

However, the 15 - 30 pound bike with a 150 pound person on it doing 10 to 20 mph down a sidewalk can sure ruin a pedestrian's day. (Incidentally, this is the issue I have with bikeshares and group rides downtown - they disproportionately use the sideWALK without the least attention to people who are using the sideWALK for the purpose it's named after)

 

Edit:  For the record, I have a Trek road bike and a motorcycle.  I ride neither on the sidewalk (OK, I did sometimes run the motorcycle on the sidewalk when going to Valhalla way back when I was in grad school, but only at night).  I also call out "on your left (or right)" when approaching someone from behind, which leads me to think we should be charitable to all those hike & bike trail riders who must certainly be mute.

[Reefmonkey]

18 minutes ago, mollusk said:

 

However, the 15 - 30 pound bike with a 150 pound person on it doing 10 to 20 mph down a sidewalk can sure ruin a pedestrian's day. (Incidentally, this is the issue I have with bikeshares and group rides downtown - they disproportionately use the sideWALK without the least attention to people who are using the sideWALK for the purpose it's named after)

 

About 10 years ago a jogger was killed on a trail I used to run on when I lived in Dallas, when she was hit by a cyclist. If I remember correctly, there was talk about the jogger possibly wearing earbuds, and that she may have made an "abrupt" U-turn on the trail. It's true that I think wearing earbuds on a mixed use trail or when jogging on a road is a bad idea (the only time I've ever listened to music while jogging is when I've been on a jogger/walker only trail like Memorial Park. However, I know the Katy Trail in Dallas, it's always really busy, and if you're a cyclist who is going fast enough that you can't avoid a jogger/walker/child/dog that does something unexpected, you are going too fast for that trail. Most of the time it's only safe for slow leisurely bike rides, not workouts for cyclists, and that is true of Terry Hershey a lot of other hike and bike trails, but they still get used by cyclists for workouts who are going too fast around pedestrians all the time. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/katy-trail-jogger-hit-by-cyclist-dies/2114296/

[mkultra25]

2 hours ago, mollusk said:

(OK, I did sometimes run the motorcycle on the sidewalk when going to Valhalla way back when I was in grad school, but only at night). 

 

That sounds more than a little familiar. I used to ride my motorcycle on the sidewalk during the day in order to park right outside the building that my office was in (within a stone's throw from Valhalla). However, I rarely exceeded a walking pace when doing so, and always yielded the right-of-way to any pedestrians I encountered. No one ever objected, but I reformed my ways when the campos started writing tickets for two-wheeled motorized vehicles that were parked outside of designated parking areas. 

 

That was a long time ago, and I wouldn't dream of engaging in such activities on campus now, as I'd probably get tased at minimum. 

[samagon]

20 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

About 10 years ago a jogger was killed on a trail I used to run on when I lived in Dallas, when she was hit by a cyclist. If I remember correctly, there was talk about the jogger possibly wearing earbuds, and that she may have made an "abrupt" U-turn on the trail. It's true that I think wearing earbuds on a mixed use trail or when jogging on a road is a bad idea (the only time I've ever listened to music while jogging is when I've been on a jogger/walker only trail like Memorial Park. However, I know the Katy Trail in Dallas, it's always really busy, and if you're a cyclist who is going fast enough that you can't avoid a jogger/walker/child/dog that does something unexpected, you are going too fast for that trail. Most of the time it's only safe for slow leisurely bike rides, not workouts for cyclists, and that is true of Terry Hershey a lot of other hike and bike trails, but they still get used by cyclists for workouts who are going too fast around pedestrians all the time. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/katy-trail-jogger-hit-by-cyclist-dies/2114296/

 

by this logic, we should hold drivers on roads to the same standards when a cyclist is on the road.

[Reefmonkey]

5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

by this logic, we should hold drivers on roads to the same standards when a cyclist is on the road.

 

I would have thought it would be obvious to any reasonable person that a trail and a highway have completely different purposes, the former for recreation, the latter for transportation. As such, they are governed by different regulations. For instance, on a recreational trail, there is no "normal speed" that traffic is expected to maintain; it's not uncommon for a jogger to suddenly slow to a walk, or even stop completely to tie his shoelace (without even signaling, no less!) and cyclists are expected to be going slowly enough around pedestrians that they could stop for even this. It's often posted in the rules for the use of the trail that cyclists are responsible for avoiding pedestrians at all times. On a public highway, on the other hand, if a vehicle is going to slow down or stop, for instance to make a turn, it is required to have and use proper signaling devices. There are other rules related to burdens placed on vehicles that go slower than the "normal speed," for instance, from Section 545.051 of the Texas Transportation Code:

 

Quote

An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway

 

So, for instance, bicycles getting passed by cars on Briar Forest would obviously be moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at that time and place, and thus would have to move as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. On Briar Forest, which has a designated bicycle lane that was the right-hand most lane available for vehicles like them, which was also as close as practicable to the right-hand curb, that would be the place for them to ride, single file. Riding three or four abreast in the regular traffic lane as the group I saw regularly do was not only discourteous, it was unlawful.

[cspwal]

The bicycle laws do address cyclists riding 2 abreast in a lane

https://transport.tamu.edu/Alternative/bicycles/statelaw.aspx

Quote

8. Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast.  Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane.  Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway.  

 

You could argue either way on whether road cyclists (who tend to go a decent clip) riding 2 abreast in the right hand lane of a two lane section of road are impeding the normal and reasonable flow of traffic.  On one hand, they do slow down anyone behind them to 15 mph (most likely), but on the other hand those cars can just pass in the left hand lane, and the group is more compact if they are riding two abreast, so it takes less time to pass them.

 

 

[samagon]

18 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

I would have thought it would be obvious to any reasonable person that a trail and a highway have completely different purposes, the former for recreation, the latter for transportation. As such, they are governed by different regulations. For instance, on a recreational trail, there is no "normal speed" that traffic is expected to maintain; it's not uncommon for a jogger to suddenly slow to a walk, or even stop completely to tie his shoelace (without even signaling, no less!) and cyclists are expected to be going slowly enough around pedestrians that they could stop for even this. It's often posted in the rules for the use of the trail that cyclists are responsible for avoiding pedestrians at all times. On a public highway, on the other hand, if a vehicle is going to slow down or stop, for instance to make a turn, it is required to have and use proper signaling devices. There are other rules related to burdens placed on vehicles that go slower than the "normal speed," for instance, from Section 545.051 of the Texas Transportation Code:

 

 

So, for instance, bicycles getting passed by cars on Briar Forest would obviously be moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at that time and place, and thus would have to move as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. On Briar Forest, which has a designated bicycle lane that was the right-hand most lane available for vehicles like them, which was also as close as practicable to the right-hand curb, that would be the place for them to ride, single file. Riding three or four abreast in the regular traffic lane as the group I saw regularly do was not only discourteous, it was unlawful.

 

there are a lot of trails (THP comes to mind) that has signs posted regularly that state bikes have a 10mph speed limit on the trails. so there's that in addition to the cyclist having to be aware of their surroundings. peds have some expectation to be aware as well though.

 

certainly, anyone operating a vehicle on a roadway needs to operate safely. this includes following the rules of the road. for every law a cyclist routinely breaks there are laws that drivers routinely break. a cyclist may roll a stop sign, and so will a driver. a cyclist may stop/go a red light (or roll it) a driver may go 5-10mph over the legal posted speed limit. no one uses turn signals, so let's just drop this track before we even go down that path. k?

 

as far as the law about riding a slow moving vehicle as close as practicable to the curb, for the driver of a car they might think that 'as close as practicable' is a lot closer than the person riding the bike knows they can be. 'as close as practicable' is very ambiguous and doesn't define any real value.

 

for instance, when I am riding my bike and have to occupy a lane of traffic my definition of 'as close as practicable' is to ride about 3' away from the curb. if you (as a driver) are passing me, and following all the rules of the road, there is an ordinance in Houston that states you have to give me 3' buffer. I like to think that the view of me riding 3' from the curb helps give you an idea of how much room you need (by law) to provide me when you pass.

 

I think someone stated it above, but the biggest problem is that humans are human. we are selfish beasts. whether we are pedestrians who have stopped and are talking with a friend we meet on the trail (and we decide to stand in the middle of the shared path, and how dare anyone else want to use that path for the intended use), or a cyclist riding on the path expecting the peds to make some room, or a car driving on a street with a bicycle occupying the lane they want to be in. 

 

it can (for the most part) be overcome though....

 

start expecting that someone is going to stand where you want to ride, or expect that someone is going to want to ride where you want to stand, or expect that someone is going to want to ride where you want to drive. when you set these expectations and they are met you are prepared to work within the expectation, when you don't encounter the expectation, you can be pleasantly surprised that you didn't have to encounter that.

 

vs if you don't prepare for the encounter, you have no idea how to respond when you do encounter that event, the all too human response is to get angry at the person who created that encounter you were unprepared for (rather than being angry with yourself for not being prepared). 

[jgriff]

I just don’t move for cyclist on the sidewalks in Buffalo Bayou Park anymore. If they want to hit me it’s gonna hurt them a lot more than me. If they can’t avoid me then they are going too fast.

[Reefmonkey]

26 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

 

 

it can (for the most part) be overcome though....

 

start expecting that someone is going to stand where you want to ride, or expect that someone is going to want to ride where you want to stand, or expect that someone is going to want to ride where you want to drive. when you set these expectations and they are met you are prepared to work within the expectation, when you don't encounter the expectation, you can be pleasantly surprised that you didn't have to encounter that.

 

vs if you don't prepare for the encounter, you have no idea how to respond when you do encounter that event, the all too human response is to get angry at the person who created that encounter you were unprepared for (rather than being angry with yourself for not being prepared). 

That's well said. Very Buddhist.

[samagon]

58 minutes ago, jgriff said:

I just don’t move for cyclist on the sidewalks in Buffalo Bayou Park anymore. If they want to hit me it’s gonna hurt them a lot more than me. If they can’t avoid me then they are going too fast.

 

I avoid BBP at all costs. every 6 months or so when my wife says "we should go to BBP and ride" I begrudgingly acquiesce to her request, then 5 minutes onto the trail she declares that it is too busy with people, and I'm quick to point out this is why we don't go to BBP.

 

I do believe that the parks board needs to designate specific paths as either bike only, or they need to paint lanes for bike only on the existing paths. as you state, people are going to get hurt because they have an all too selfish attitude. stay safe.