How to Not Kill a Cyclist
themorningnews.org
themorningnews.org
But bikers need to make up their minds. Who are they, vehicles or pedestrians? Each comes with it's own rights and obligations.
I see bikers all the time blow through red lights, stop signs, and pedestrian crosswalks. When I'm a driver I always need to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting them as such intersections when I have the right-of-way or a green light. And in dense cities a biker can cause a tremendous backup, with gridlock followng him as he makes his way through the city.
Likewise, when I'm a pedestrian, I constantly need to watch not for cars, but for high speed bikers blowing perpendicularly through pedestrian crosswalks when the pedestrians have the crossing light. Why do they get to blow through pedestrian crosswalks and red lights and stop signs?
EDIT: And bikers who listen to their iPod and wear headphones while blowing through red lights - F you!
(I have never hit one)
I have a problem with Prius drivers, they always seem more interested in improving their gas mileage personal best than driving a reasonable speed on the freeway.
2 were on roads, ran stop signs.
The thing is, you CAN'T behave like a vehicle on the side walk and you can't behave like a pedestrian on the street.
That means no blowing through the crosswalk obviously.
In most part of Europe (yay I'm generalizing again), there's no "turn on red" and there's no grid system, thus this is less of an issue
Cyclists complain about motorists, motorists complain about cyclists. A certain percentage of each group are jerks who don't play nicely.
Imagine a car, coming to a red light in the right lane. It then turns right on red, but rather than driving on in the new road, it makes a sudden u-turn, coming back to the intersection. Then makes a right on green, and continues on in the original direction.
If you're a rider, discourage your colleagues from this practice. It's a violation of the responsibilities listed in the quote above, but worse, it promotes contempt for cyclists among us drivers.
It's easier to promote cross-community cooperation when you're not cherry picking your responsibilities.
I think what we really need is less group labeling. When a car driver fails to signal, we don't generally think, "Man, car drivers are so inconsiderate." (Well, I often do. But I think that's unusual.) Yet when a bicyclist does something against the rules, suddenly this is taken as representative of everyone on two wheels.
Other countries use roundabouts, and while that's not necessarily the answer, there might be other remedies. California is famous for the "California Stop", where you come to a near stop and roll forward slowly for a few seconds while you wait your turn, which if done systematically, is an option which seems relatively safe and conserving of momentum.
As a rider, I try to time my arrival at an intersection to share the turn of a car going in the same direction and slip through without coming to a stop if I can.
They are so common, they work so poorly even when everybody knows what they're doing, and nobody ever knows what they're doing with them. Any time they get the least bit busy they just turn into a total mess. Knowing the rules doesn't help because nobody else follows them.
I often fantasize that the US will come to its senses switch to roundabouts.
I agree I prefer a roundabout to a four way stop.
IMO the major problem with roundabouts in the US is simply that American drivers find them frightening and confusing and simply won't put up with them.
4 way stops are just evil. Where I live, nobody comes to a full stop (even though think they think they do), and because the danger is a little less than a full intersection with a traffic light, people will go out of turn because they think their time is worth more than everyone else's.
With a roundabout, you need to look to the left (or right, for those in the appropriate countries) for oncoming traffic in the roundabout, and yield to it. You also need to check your entrance's crosswalk for pedestrians, and wait for them. Separately, when you exit, you also have to check that crosswalk for pedestrians, and wait for them. In total, you have to pay attention to two things as you enter, and then separately one thing as you exit.
With a four-way stop, you have to check all three other entrances when you arrive. You must also check your crosswalk, of course. You must also simultaneously check your destination crosswalk, since it's simply not reasonable to wait for pedestrians while in the middle of the intersection. You also have to check both other crosswalks, because pedestrians there can influence what the cars there will do. Thus there are a total of seven different things you must all check simultaneously to make it through a four-way stop.
Can we please stop with the moral equivalence nonsense. Yes we should all be more considerate, but please at least try to acknowledge the incredible power imbalance here.
But in general, we're all ambassadors for our different communities.
It occurred to me that what I was responding to was actually the notion (which always comes up in this duscussion) that an appropriate response to a discussion of "How not to kill cyclists" is to say "well, but they shouldn't do this thing that annoys but really has no effect on me".
Except it does. An intersection is one of the worst places to be "pulling a maneuver." There are too many things happening from too many directions, and vehicle and pedestrian traffic are intermixing.
The base reason we have traffic laws is for safety. A good part of traffic law is flow: direction and speed. Anything with a wheel is a vehicle, and all the vehicles are using the same space. When you have all that lethal metal (and bikes are also lethal metal) moving around, it all needs to be going in approximately the same direction and following approximately the same rules.
At an intersection, you have all these things ... intersecting. And now you throw a bike into the intersection, moving across expected flow. It's unnecessary risk for everyone at the scene.
It only has no effect on me if everyone is lucky. But it still adds risk, to me and everyone else.
Also it's confusing pedestrians crossing the street - you expect vehicles coming from one side or the other, not suddenly appearing on your left, because they did a u-turn right after they passed the crossing.
Incidentally, the whole notion of cyclists being subject to the same laws as cars is rather ridiculous. Bicycles are not cars, just as cars are not "road train" semis.
It depends on where and when you are. Traffic laws vary from place to place, and change over time.
According to wikipedia, u-turns are generally legal in Indiana and generally illegal in Oregon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-turn
In Colorado, u-turns are subjectively legal under safe conditions. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Revenue-MV/RMV/12126578...
In Colorado, you will be fined and assessed costs and points for a subjectively illegal u-turn: http://www.denvertrafficlawyer.com/index.php/legal-services2...
I don't know what "points" means to a bicyclist, or one who has or doesn't have a driver license.
That may very well be how you feel; but, according to California vehicle code, bicycles and automobiles are bound by pretty much the same traffic laws, with few differences --such as a few sidewalk exceptions, having to keep right, etc.
There are consequences to cherry-picking your responsibilities, even if you can't see them right away.
Not wholly true. Cyclists aren't required by law to have insurance, a riding license or a license plate to even be on the road. Cyclists might get fined or punished for disobeying the law, but in most places, they can't be banned from getting on the road again like a car driver would.
It's not identical - bicycles aren't allowed on motorways in the UK, for instance.
In many places, including the whole of CA, you can get points or loose your license for violations on a cycle. DWI on a bicycle is equivelent to DWI in a Car for example. And I've even met someone it happened to. Not exactly something they like to brag about ;).
Oddly enough, Portland has integrated a variant of this pattern into some of its bike lanes. There is a busy bike boulevard (Williams Ave), that is commonly approached from a left-turn off a busy road.
Instead of cutting across several lanes of traffic to make the left turn, the bike lane veers right and cuts through a courtyard, depositing the bikers in the orthogonal bike lane. It really helps reduce conflict in this intersection.
Should cyclists do this on their own? Probably not. But if built into the infrastructure its a great trick. You can see it here:
As a cyclist, I'm hyper aware of the fact that I'm not a 4 ton steel SUV. If you see me do something dangerous, comfort your rage with the simple fact that it will likely kill or severely injure me if it comes to that.
If you see me break the law, know that per law I'll be fined like a normal vehicle, even though these are based off the danger radiating from a SUV going 40mph.
Why would that comfort anyone? It's distressing to watch someone do something dangerous specifically because of the fear that they may injur or kill themselves.
As a cyclist, you're making motorists angry, and that makes it less safe for me.
As a motorist, there's a chance you'll pull some stupid shit and I'll be the one that hits you. And then I have to live the rest of my life with your death on my conscience, even though it wasn't really my fault.
Stop doing dangerous shit on the roads.
What's with wearing the tour de france outfit? 9/10 cyclists are wearing racing outfits covered with logos. They aren't racing, they're just biking to work or biking because it's a nice day out.
1/10 is wearing shorts and a t-shirt, what I wore when biking.
- In NYC it is illegal to turn right at a red light. Seriously, I wish people would learn this. Actually I wish cops would enforce this;
- As a whole you can't trust cars to indicate in the US in my experience. Not indicating and turning is common enough but you sometimes see indicating and not turning. I guess people change their mind;
- Running red lights, particularly at night, seems to be common in NYC. I certainly see garbage trucks do this but I see taxis, delivery trucks and normal cars do it as well. Most slow down to make sure there's no oncoming traffic from the side street but you can't rely on being noticed as a pedestrian.
- In Australia, when cars turn left (remember, other side of the road there), pedestrians have right of way when crossing the street (if it's not at a traffic light). You're playing with your life as a pedestrian if you rely on that however.
I think I would go ballistic if I ever got a ticket for jaywalking in NYC. Fact is, it's most dangerous as a pedestrian (and probably a cyclist) when you believe you have right of way. When you know you don't you're much more careful.
In California I feel like I'm taking my life in my hands anytime I walk anywhere (in SV although SF is fine). The whole turning right at red lights being OK thing is a recipe for killing pedestrians and I really wish it didn't exist.
I really look forward to the day when all cars are self-driving. If the number of people killed in car accidents were killed by disease it would be epidemic. It's hard to fathom just how blase people can be about injury and death on such a massive scale.
Of course how this will play out will be fairly predictable. You will have probably a large segment of the population who sticks to their guns regarding driving themselves as a personal liberty, lives be damned.
The greatest danger in my mind is not that the collision may happen. The worst part is that if I collide with another car at 10mph, the worst that can happen is that both cars will need some new paint, even if I don't hit the break. At the same speed, it's possible I'm going to kill a cyclist - pretty much actually run over him before I start breaking if he suddenly appears in front of me.
However, I will add one more piece of advice for drivers: Take a motorcycle safety course. You don't /have/ to ride, of course, but it will probably be a lot of fun and it will teach you a LOT about your level of awareness on the road.
(For instance: The MSF courses teach you to look ahead about twelve seconds. I'm guessing that most drivers only have a couple seconds of planning, if that. Similarly, always having contingencies -- "where do I go if that truck changes lanes?" -- and noticing little things -- "that rear-view mirror is canted, so that driver isn't even bothering to look.")
Okay, back to r/HN :-)
You're almost completely correct, except for the "interesting to hackers" caveat in the guidelines.
Even with the caveat, this is probably still off-topic. Except that a lot of readers probably ride.
But still it's probably off-topic.
Except ... I've noticed a lot of weekend posts that are both off-topic and interesting, and I tend to see weekends on HN as a brief relaxing of the rules. Which I like.
The young riders who seem to favor the racing bikes in my area (Greater Toronto Area, Canada) seem to be quite dangerous in their habits, whereas the older ones who ride Harleys and the like are much less aggressive on our roadways.
I've been doing the same in San Francisco for some month recently.
In Europe, everyone treat the bike as a vehicule, no question asked. Everyone knows the hand sign. People get doored, and the like but it's rare. You gotta be more careful in heavy traffic, but basically, when riding, it feels safe in most areas. Cars will wait behind you when they can't pass super-safely-with-5-meter-distance-from-your-side almost every time. Nearly everyone of them used a bike and knows how it is, at least, that's the feeling.
Now, fast forward to SF. I was surprised, to say the least.
If there is no bike lane, something like 90% of the cars simply do not give a single shit about bikes. That is, if you're on the rightmost part of the road, they will pass, no matter what (you can choose here: get even more right and risk being doored, the risk is rather high here. slow down to a near halt and go right [that's what I do]. go straight and hear the honk + generally get hit by the rear view mirror.)
Knowing that you can avoid streets without a bike lane, and when forced, take the full lane (you'll hear the honk but you'll live).
Here's one that happened to me recently: some streets in SF have a tram lane and a car lane. No bike lane. car pushed me on the tram lane thinking 'thats where cyclists go'. Tram was coming behind of course. Got to feel the friction of both car and tram. No injuries. Unfortunately I don't have a good alternative route.
Here's another thing that happens everyday:
Car park in the bike lane, so you gotta pass it. Look behind you, car is coming, so you slow down, and let them pass (they will never let you pass). If there is a continuous flow of cars, and it happens, none will let you pass. Most cyclists just pass and assume the driver will slow down (and get angry but hey, you gotta pass some day). Personally, I just wait as long as it takes or walk it on the side walk if its more than a minute.
Pedestrians are no better. They don't cross at red if cars are coming. But they do for bikes. Why the hell? I understand crossing at red when it's safe, don't get me wrong, but don't cross in front of bikes that's extremely dumb.
Cyclists are no better either. 50% (?) ignore the signs and traffic entirely. That being said I noticed that in some parts of the city this is actually safer to cross at the red light while cars are waiting, than waiting with the cars (in line or slightly in front, although I always go slightly i front to be sure they see me). Sad but true. If you start with the cars, they wont let you start first and thus you may get hit if the bike lane is not wide enough or simply not there. Even if there is a bike lane, its gone when there's a crossing and drivers naturally push you on the right side for some reason. I still stop at all traffic lights but this is disturbing me a lot lately. Whats the point of respecting the red light in all situations in the US, being killed? and I bet that's why so many ignore them.
Finally, after a few month I personally got "right turned", and broke some bones, hence my super-safe behavior assuming the driver is going to be doing the wrong thing in every situation. Before I would expect that some situations were safe, such as the right turn if you're in front of the cars. But no. They just turn into you even thus they've seen you, because, you're a bike, you'll probably brake in time, plus you should be on the sidewalk, etc. So yeah, I never cross a street without slowing down a lot if a car is less than 10 meters behind me (and obviously if its next to me or slightly ahead, even thus I'm on a bike lane, although they're supposed to switch lane)
As a last anecdotal story of this very long post, I was also surprised by rainy days. About, let's say, 15% of the cars take the opportunity to splash you when they can. Seriously. My last rainy day in SF, that happened 3 times over my 20min ride back home. The last one the guy stopped and laughed. I was 100% soaked. It means to me that a high enough number of drivers absolutely hate cyclists with passion. WTF is wrong with people?
In America, bikers simply do not follow the laws they are supposed to - and neither do cars. It's not really a "bike is victim" paradigm - it's more like nobody pays any attention to the god damn laws, at all. Because the fucking cops don't enforce the rules!
They give tickets to speeders and red light runners but NOT - NEVER, in fact, to people who don't signal when turning or changing lanes, people who drive too slowly in the fast lane, people who pass on the right, people who stop in the middle of the street to wait for a parking spot, people who do not use turn lanes appropriately, people who stop at yellow lights, people who drive too slowly, people who do not yield to pedestrians, people who block driveways, people who turn left or U-turn illegally, people who ... the list goes on for miles.
Bicycle riders make all these same mistakes as well.
When I lived in Spain they killed so many cyclists every year, it was the source of macabre jokes. I found that to be true in several other countries.
Probably should leave out the "Europe vs US" bit of your argument, and just stick to what you think the causes are.
In general the more south you go the more horrible the driving in EU (yeah another generalization but this one seems pretty good).
I've been honk'd heavily in Italy (Naples) once because I was waiting for the traffic light to go green. I thought it must be I missed something but nope.. they just were "never stopping at this one and its bad practice to do so", one guy said.
So many times I am stopped at a stop-sign, starting to make my turn or go across, and a biker blows through that I almost kill. When a full 50% of your group is breaking the rules and causing problems, it makes sense that people going to hate you. You guys are just lucky that I am extremely careful, someday the driver will be distracted and you WILL get splattered.
(I have zero problems with bikers who follow the rules of the road.)
Note that if you turn after a stop and you almost kill a cyclist it means that you are most likely turning RIGHT. Because cyclists almost never go on the LEFT.
It means also that you're not in the proper lane for making a right turn. You have to go in the bike lane BEFORE stopping. The bike lane is a lane like every other lane, unless both lanes are "forced turn right". I've never seen a bike lane that was "forced turn right" however (or the lane next to the bike lane for that matter)
Then again, I think the situation is slowly improving everywhere. At least that's what I'm seeing for some time. Higher number of cyclists is definitely helping in making them a norm rather than an exception.
If I take the lane I'm in the clear during rush hour as well. The thing to remember is that a cyclist on a road bike is generally able to accelerate faster 0-5 or 0-10 than most vehicles from a stop so clearing an intersection with the cars isn't hard. Cars obviously leave cyclists behind past 5-10MPH because they've overcome their inertia. Usually the only guys clearing an intersection before me on a start are guys on sport bikes and I can lane share with them (though we'd look silly for not just bypassing the traffic).
When you're the faster vehicle its rather reassuring since you can more or less get the same respect as everyone in a car after a couple blocks. If the traffic is moving at a good speed for a bike, you can usually you can just blend into a lane and no one will honk or look at you funny... after all, the cars holding the cyclist up and I think everyone is happier when we're not lane sharing.
I watch my back at every single crossing. Every one of them, zero exception. I slow down when it goes down hill. I slow down when cars are next to me. I don't care if some bikes pass me full speed like "hey look how fast i go". I don't go slow either, but I'm not "full speed". Bikes brake very poorly, specially road bikes. (Mountain bikes brake a lot better, btw. Much larger tire.)
Also important, if there are cars parked in busy areas I go on the far left of the bike lane (there's no way you can anticipate being door'd). Saves me about twice a week. I go back on the far right whenever there's no cars parked.
And when there's no bike lane and cars go by relatively fast, I just claim the lane (of course you need to go nearly as fast as cars for that, else you're going to piss off a lot of people and create traffic issues).
The entire list of vehicles encountered during my commute on the 18th was: the same guy I often see around town on his goldwing, a maroon 70s or very early 80s firebird or camaro, three pickups, a dump truck, the county sheriff in his personal car (he lives a few houses down from me), and a rather large John Deere tractor being moved from one field to another on the other side of the railroad tracks. Oh, and a train, on those tracks, carrying, amongst other things, 737 bodies on their way to final assembly. And while it's not a vehicle - one skunk, freshly killed.
My commute is 12 miles (one direction) of 2 lane roads across farmland. It's flat, boring, and the roads are in pretty poor condition with no shoulders. The cyclists in this area stick to other routes for their long-distance rides, where the pavement is in much better shape, and they have a shoulder that they can use if they have to dodge an idiot, instead of finding an overgrown ditch and a barbed-wire fence.
Personally, I just wear cargo shorts with gussets and a brightly colored exercise shirt (like the kind worn for running). Visibility and comfort without looking like a billboard.
I'm not convinced that a majority of cyclists understand that they have to follow the same rules as motorized vehicles. It's unusual to see the driver of a car blast through a stop sign without slowing down at all. It happens, but not that often. On the other hand, it's unusual for me to see a cyclist who doesn't run stop signs.
I can see why: because you're going slower and have a full view around you. But that's still not an excuse if you're going to play the "cars and bikes are both vehicles" card.
Example: http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/07/28/a-stop-sign...
Speaking as a cyclist, I hope not -- that means the cyclist has advanced past a car in front of him in the lane, which is a stupid thing to do. Either own the lane and be a vehicle, or get off the bike and on the sidewalk.
But that means, you're fine with all bikes claiming the complete lane right? That means you can't pass them at the stop, and you can't pass them as long as the left lane is not 100% free (just like passing a car).
When I do claim the lane when I bike (it happens that I need to, if there's no bike lane and it's a dangerous part of the road), I don't pass cars at the stop. But again, most of the time, I don't, and can't, claim the lane. This means I'd rather be in front of the cars at the stop (= they see me) than next to the cars 3 cars behind the stop (= whoever turn right, won't see me, and since they rarely use the signalization lights, or perform another stop before turning right, it means its horribly dangerous)
This leads to many cases where a driver will have to pass a cyclist twice.
Worst of all, I've never, ever seen a cyclist get pulled over. If cyclists were held to the same responsibilities as drivers, that would be one thing. But they're not, hence the resentment.
Then you're not paying enough attention to cyclists. Stop and take a deep breath before you kill someone.
Anyway, is it seriously that big a deal? Avoid them, like you'd avoid a dog, or a toddler, or a man in a BMW, or some other agent that doesn't seem to comprehend the rules of the road, and then ignore the matter.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1048256--cyclists-defend...
If you're cycling on the road, even though there is a perfectly good bike lane right next to it, I will honk at you. Every single time.
When learning to drive (and before), I was taught that that the horn is for alerting other people to dangerous situations and preventing collisions. It is not for expressing anger or frustration at other people. I've noticed that people tend to become angry or frustrated much more quickly when driving and when interacting with someone who is driving (e.g. as a pedestrian). You might want to consider whether you're acting under the influence of a disinhibition effect and ask yourself whether you want to yell "CHANGE WHAT YOU'RE DOING OR I'LL HIT YOU WITH MY CAR" at a cyclist for forcing you to drive slower for 30 seconds. That's what honking a horn conveys.
Here are some of them:
- it's actually not a bike path. It looks like a bike path, but if it doesn't have a yellow stripe down the middle and isn't signed, it's a sidewalk, and it's illegal and probably dangerous to cycle on it.
- the speed limit on the path is 20 km/h, and I'm going 30.
- it's a mixed use path, frequented by toddlers who are very unpredictable and sometimes hard to avoid when going at high speed. I'd rather deal with assholes on the road than endanger toddlers.
- it's a mixed use path, frequented by people walking dogs. They're dangerous because dogs can veer suddenly, and that leash can snare a bicycle very easily
- it has poor road crossings. Most "recreational" bicycle paths in North American cities are much more dangerous for cyclists than riding on the road is, even though they seem safer. Why? 90-95% of all bicycle fatalities happen at intersections. The bicycle path still has to cross roads, and they generally do so either by merging with the sidewalk or by setting up a crossing a few yards away from the intersection. Some drivers do not slow down or look until they reach the intersection proper. To cross safely you have to slow down to walking pace and be hyper-vigilant like a jaywalker. The safest place in an intersection is as close to the centre as you can get, where you are visible to everybody.
- it has lots of curves and lots of close trees. Which means that visibility around curves is very poor, so it's not safe. It was designed for pedestrians, not cyclists.
- it doesn't actually go where I want to go. This is more common than you think: just because it parallels your road now, doesn't mean it will later
- I don't know where I'm going. Bike paths are very random, and often aren't marked on maps. If I'm following a map designed for cars, I have no choice but to use your road.
In summary, most so-called "bike paths" in North America are really just repurposed walking paths, and are unsafe and slow. Cyclists should be on the road.
It sounds like cycling is far more dangerous and potentially deadly than driving. As others mentioned you'll never "educate away" the problem. The road system is clearly not designed for cycling so both drivers and cyclists are annoyed.
What is it that you get out of cycling to make it worth the risk?
1. Most people have a value system that doesn't refer only to themselves. Driving has staggering negative externalities. Every time somebody forgoes a car for some - any - other method of transport, everyone on the planet becomes a little better off.
2. Daily exercise is one of the few things really demonstrated to significantly improve your health, productivity and lifespan. If you have the temperament or willpower to go to the gym everyday, that's fine. If not, being able to make your mode of transport double as exercise is arguably worth significantly increased risk.
You have to respect the culture in which you are immersed. It seems insane to me that cyclists would even consider riding on a road that has no bike lane.
Right or wrong, the existence of bike lanes sets up a dichotomy in people's minds. Either there is a bike lane and bikes belong there (and I have to be aware of them), or there is no bike lane and bikes do not belong (I won't be expecting them - I may even resent their presence).
Pedestrians have their place, and cars have their place. Bikes have their place, but unfortunately only on a few select roadways.
But if bicycles are treated like motor vehicles, why is it that you often find them creating a lane where there is none? You don't often see motorcycles riding alongside cars, in the same lane, grazing parked vehicles.
I'm not 100% sure what you're describing, but it sounds like you are talking about a situation where a cyclist is riding on the far right side of the lane next to the parked cars and is being passed in the same lane by other cars. What sounds dangerous to me about this situation is not that the cyclist is creating his own lane (because he's not, he's in the proper right most lane), but rather that cars are trying to pass him (a vehicle that is legally allowed to be there) without leaving enough room.
Also, kind of off topic, but where I'm from (California), motorcycles are legally allowed to weave between lanes and do it all the time. Not that I think this is a particularly smart think to do :)
Being legally allowed to weave between lanes doesn't seem right.
Yeah, I'm not really sure why it's legal, but I've also never ridden a motorcycle. A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests that it's legal in most of Europe and Japan though, although not in most places in the US.
Anyway, FWIW, I commute by bike and ride in the center of the lane when there is no bike lane for the exact reason that you describe. However, I don't really get what you are saying about "not belonging". Cars and bikes are both legally allowed on the same roads. Just because this inconveniences some drivers doesn't mean that bikes are "culturally unacceptable". In other words, the opinion of said drivers (legally, and I'd argue culturally) is no more important than that of the bikers who think that it's a totally acceptable thing for them to be there so long as they follow traffic laws.
I suppose people downvote because they dislike my explanations. I think it is reasonable to think that many motorists don't feel that cyclists belong on the same road space. As a cyclist, I wouldn't feel that I belong on the same road space as cars. That's why I haven't ridden a bike since moving to a city where the sidewalks are busy.
As per the law, if there is no bike lane, bikes belong on the road as normal vehicles. If there is a bike lane, they belong on the bike lane, but must still follow all the normal traffic rules as normal vehicles.