Why do people in LA ride their bikes against traffic?
By - masterchief1990
oof, your dashcam footage. that's a bad situation to be in.
Folks, if you want to get a more nuanced answer from people who actually ride Los Angeles streets, it may make sense to also ask in /r/BikeLA. I think almost everyone there will universally state that riding against traffic is dangerous.
I'd also encourage people to take a League-certified confident cycling class when offered in your area:
sometimes you hit a main road at a point there is no safe way to cross to the other, correct side (I.e. heading left on venice after exiting a small side street perpendicular to it with no stoplight, for example). You can either ride on the sidewalk or in the street until you get to a place you can safely cross. If there are too many pedestrians or the sidewalk is in disrepair (or maybe completely covered by an encampment), some cyclists may choose to risk riding in the street against traffic.
Edit: just wanna say this is not a suggestion. My suggestion would be double back by going with traffic to a safe place to cross, or better yet plan your routes so you don’t have to. Sometimes it can feel like your only option, but it almost never is. The bigger problem though is insufficient bike infrastructure.
That said some people are just dumbasses (out of ignorance or disregard for their own life). Not unique to bikers by any means, I see so much dumb dangerous shit done by drivers. You notice a lot more when you’re on a bike too.
Here's some math on that. Let's say you're riding at 15mph on a 35mph road.
If you're riding with traffic, the cars approach you from behind at a relative speed of 20mph. Against traffic, they approach you head on at 50mph. One of these gives drivers more time to react and avoid you. One doesn't.
Ride with traffic, not against it.
As comment op said, sometimes there's not much of an option.
You say this as if LA drivers give a shit about avoiding people on bikes!
In that case, would you rather the car hit you at 20mph or 50mph?
¿Por qué no los dos?
I think most people actually do. Just like a handful of bikers don't follow any rules and make them all look bad
Honestly, I just can’t afford the points
Yep. Thats what I have to do on la brea due to encampments taking over. On top of it pedestrians sway on the sidewalk for some reason. I almost hit a few ppl on my bike because ppl walking on they phone will just start drifting over
They really shouldn't be...
Cyclist here. No one should ride against traffic.
Yep, I'm a cyclist too. Never ride against traffic. I'd be terrified.
100%. Riding against traffic guarantees a crash at intersections sooner or later. The best thing a cyclist can do is to be seen and be predictable.
I cycled year round in Chicago for over a decade. Drivers knew to expect cyclists and for the most part acknowledged that cyclists helped traffic congestion. In LA, riding a bicycle is high risk because drivers are not paying attention and they are not expecting a bicycle at any time. Every time, I ride here for fun or commuting, cars blast past me without giving room. “Zero regard for human life once an Angeleno is behind the wheel”
LA needs more bike lanes and to increase education for all commuters including cyclists. For example, I often see people on bikes without lights and without helmets riding at night.
Toronto puts up [ghost bikes](https://respectcyclists.org/ghostbikesfaq) for every cyclist killed on the street. It's a reminder to all that we need to be considerate and careful. Nobody should have to ride on the sidewalk or against traffic in order to feel safe or be seen.
They do that here too. Maybe not for everyone but ghost bikes aren’t uncommon to see.
I was taught the same and that cyclists have the right to ride in / take up the lane. Bike lanes are great but the situation becomes difficult when a cyclist wants to make a (usually left) turn; For someone that rarely rides or doesn't ride on city streets, it may take a bit before they're brave enough to make that turn as if they're a car rather than in increments like a pedestrian.
We need more protected bike lanes and pedestrian scrambles in LA.
> P.S. We need more protected bike lanes and pedestrian scrambles in LA.
Come to DTSM. The only time a cyclist *doesn’t* ride through the pedestrian scrambles is when there is no bicycle. Talk about becoming the thing you hate.
TBF I believe there’s one intersection by the train that explicitly allows it, and the other ones don’t say no bikes (though “pedestrians only” is pretty unambiguous), so I can see why some cyclists roll through that.
Edit: confirmed that there are intersections with bike stoplights that go green with the scramble crosswalk
That’s not true though. There are bike stoplights meant for bikes only, and also it is legal to ride on the sidewalk in LA proper.
> it is legal to ride on the sidewalk in LA proper.
It’s *not* legal to ride on the sidewalk in Santa Monica. That’s why I said come to DTSM. Because it’s not legal here.
Yes, there is one scramble with a bike light at 4th and Colorado. It’s the only one, so when I talk about bikes illegally running red lights through the scrambles I’m not talking about that one specific intersection. Hope that clears that up.
I have never found a logical justification worth the risk. Then again, when it's early in the morning on a weekend and the street is forcing me to turn right and I really want to turn left...
I remember when I was a kid, I was taught that when walking in the street, you should walk against the flow of traffic, so that you can see the vehicles in the lane that you're in, and can react. I think some people might have been taught that for biking too.
This rule makes sense when you're talking about a remote country road, with good long-distance visibility.
But for city streets, it's usually better to go in the same direction as traffic, and just rely on the person driving the vehicle to see you (and to help them see you by having a rear light, and riding in the center of the lane rather than right at the edge, where they'll still hit you but will have a harder time seeing you).
As a guy that rides a bike to travel from work and grocery shopping.
Cars don't give a fuck about bikes. If they don't notice you they could care less.
I stay near the bike lane but when there isn't one, I just stay in the sidewalk. I don't want to but not worth some asshole hitting me. I've been closed to being hit many times.
My assumption at all times is that every car is trying to kill me.
that's the feeling i get when i'm walking around the city. i check every street several times. la has one of the highest hit and run accidents in the country.
I still can't imagine exactly what is going on in OP's description that makes the cyclist at fault.
OP is making a right turn, the car behind him is making a right turn, how did the cyclist "run into" the car when cars don't have right of way making right turns at intersections or lights? How exactly did OP react fast enough (was it by gunning it past the cyclist in the crosswalk?) but the car behind him didn't? By...not stopping first before making a right turn?
Regardless of whether the cyclist was going against traffic or with traffic, how do the cars turning right have right of way?
The cyclist was coming from the cross traffic but on the left side of the road. OP and the car behind them were turning right and didn’t see the cyclist until the last moment.
I have dashcam footage if you still don’t get it
Looking at the footage I blame the cyclist for the accident, this is not an opinion on "fault". This was easily avoidable in my opinion.
As to your question, I don't think it's taught here, and if it is it shouldn't be. This rider was not very smart.
Sure, please post it!
If the cyclist had been heading in the same direction as the direction of the driver's right turn, the cyclist would have been heading away from the cars instead of toward them.
The cyclist was not heading in the same direction. As OP said, the cyclist was going against traffic.
And so the SECOND car turning right somehow wouldn't have hit the cyclist? If they weren't paying attention anyway as they should be when turning right, does it matter which direction the cyclist is heading?
I've seen cyclists get hit by cars turning right twice now and they were going the same direction as the drivers.
Let's replace the cyclist with a pedestrian in your example...so if the pedestrian was heading in the same direction as the drivers, they would be heading away from the cars instead of toward them and *that makes it all right for the cars to turn and hit them in the crosswalk*...?
Because despite the quibbling about whether the cyclists were going the same direction or against, or on the sidewalk or using a bike lane, from OP's description it 100% sounds like they got hit in the crosswalk where they had right of way and the cars were turning. But OP framed it as the **cyclist** "running into" the car.
You're right: Regardless of the direction cyclists are riding, drivers are responsible for looking to cyclists and pedestrians.
As for how a cyclist can hit a car ... If they had a close call with car A, they might have been looking at car A over their shoulder instead of where they were going, straight into car B. Also, car A might have had less than a car length before contact with cyclist but car B would have had less time than car A if they were on the tail of car A which, before veering, blocked the view of the cyclist and car B.
Not trying to place blame. Just giving an example of how it could happen.
I could be misunderstanding it but Three Feet For Safety Act suggests otherwise
Three feet for safety is meant to create a safer passing practice for cars around cyclists by putting at least three feet of space between themselves and the rider while passing and is written from the assumption that both parties are legally traveling in the same direction on the same road.
In California cyclists on the road are expected to adhere to all traffic rules that apply to motorists, meaning a cyclist is more akin to a car than a pedestrian. Simply put, the cyclist should be at fault for not riding in the correct direction of road traffic. If the bike were an actual car we would not be debating who is at fault. The spirit of the scenario is the same.
Additionally, were there a pedestrian crossing legally from that corner on green the turning car would have likely allowed them to pass, and the cyclist would have more than likely hit the pedestrian. In that scenario he is also at fault, not the pedestrian who didn't check for oncoming traffic from a one way lane.
As a cyclist and motorcycle rider I can confirm to you that they are.
*\* couldn't \* care less*
By saying you *"could"* care less, it means there is still SOME caring left.
If you're trying to say someone doesn't care AT ALL, the saying is: *"COULD NOT / COULDN'T"* care less ... as in, I could NOT care any less than I already do.
Oh blah, the way people fastidiously pick at this phrase, when the English language is full of idioms that don't make logical sense but the intended meaning is understood anyway
Yeah, I can't deny there are a million other phrases that are equally butchered.
I try to ride on the street as much as possible but if it’s too sketchy I’ll go on the sidewalk and slow down when I see people walking on sidewalk. I’ve had cops yell at me but I’ll take the ticket over getting hit by a car
There is no universal state law about the legality of riding on the sidewalk. To my knowledge the only cities that have outright banned riding on sidewalks are all in San Diego county.
Los Angeles City allows 'safe' sidewalk riding in most areas.
you're absolutely right here.
I wish people replying here would look to authoritative sources rather than go spouting their uninformed takes.
To which law are you referring? CVC 21206 outlines that the California legislature will not prevent local authorities from creating their own
laws regarding safe bicycle operation on sidewalks and other areas.
Cops dont give a shit where I live about my riding on side walk, crossing on a red etc. Lmao. But I do agree. On the side walk I tend to slow down. Its shocking how some bicyclists dont slow down and pedal as fast on sidewalk as they do the road.
Having been in a fist fight with a bicyclist who ran over my then girlfriend and then tried to blame her, I know that I’m not supposed to ride on sidewalks so I try to avoid making them pissed or scared.
I think you’re referring to the instance where a bicyclist ran a light and struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk in San Francisco. I do ride much much slower when on a sidewalk almost to the point of going just above their walk speed. I try to avoid busy streets and am mostly through neighborhoods where there are fewer cars.
Sorry, but I have to say this - riding on the sidewalk is a great way to get hit.
Most people get hit because drivers don't see them, and most drivers are looking at the road, not the sidewalk. So, they'll hit cyclists while pulling in/out of driveways, at intersections, and so on. Any place the road the sidewalk meet.
It may sound counterintuitive, but the best way to be safe is to be seen, Ride with traffic, use the bike lane and take the lane, if needed.
What about the driver that thinks he can pass me and make the right turn before he assumes I'll be crossing the street? He clearly saw me, he just thinks he will get to make the turn before i cross the street.
I've had to stop before they hit me on a number if occassions.
That one is pretty common. It's known as the [right hook](https://biketoeverything.com/2021/01/19/avoid-the-right-hook/). Being on a sidewalk won't prevent this.
Step 1: wear gopro
Step 2: hire personal injury attorney
Step 3: profit.
> they could care less
So they do care a little?
Enough to slow down when they notice me. Otherwise they dont.
> Cars don't give a fuck about bikes
Cars are human-operated objects - let's not assign agency to where no agency exists.
Cars movie exists. Somewhere in another universe cars are living being. So fuck cars for almost wanting me dead. #2wheellifesmatter
Dashcam footage: [https://imgur.com/a/5bdBYtP](https://imgur.com/a/5bdBYtP)
u/Adariel \- it wasnt in the crosswalk
Okay that guy is just a moron. He would probably be driving a car down the wrong side of the street too. Looks like he was just taking the shortest route and went straight into a car. At least he was wearing a helmet.
If you slow the video, the biker wasn't paying attention. He wasn't looking ahead, he was looking to the right
If i read the road right and that's admiralty way in the Marina, the guy has literally access to a whole protected bike path as well.. so he took a risk for no reason.
Cyclist here. Doesn't matter if he was within the crosswalk. If going against traffic or sidewalk, he needs to walk his bike. I almost hit this older gentleman going against traffic on his e-bike.
what a fucking idiot
Lmao that dude is an idiot, but it’s amazing he landed on his feet
Dashcam footage is interesting.
You need to be careful that you come to a complete stop, and it is questionable whether you did so here. It is not clear what the signal color was for you tho. If the biker hit you here, you could be considered at fault for not stopping.
The car behind you is clearly at fault as they never stop at the intersection at all, let alone before the limit line. They needed to stop before the intersection and then slowly proceed until they could see beyond the hedges. This is assuming they had a red light. Even if they had stopped tho they would still be at fault for not safely checking for people in their path.
The biker salmoning was clearly an idiot, and I would expect *may* share fault in this case.
The hedges are a great example of a perfect scenario where salmoning is very dangerous and here greatly reduces visibility at an intersection in addition to speed and reaction time dangers.
usually it’s from riding on the sidewalk. sometimes the streets are so dangerous for bikes that we have to ride on the sidewalk for stretches. that’s usually when bikes salmon
I've never thought of calling it salmoning...
That's because the word is slalom
No, the word is "salmon".
"Slalom" is when you veer left and right to go around repeated obstacles. "Salmon" is when you travel in the opposite direction to the flow around you.
I was unaware that people used salmon as a verb to mean moving in the opposite direction of the flow of traffic. Doesn't seem to have made it's way into dictionaries, but it makes sense.
Salmoning is a well established term in discussing biking/traffic.
It’s mostly, people would rather take the risk of going into traffic so they can react when a driver is about to hit them. If someone is driving recklessly behind them, they won’t know it until it’s to late. You can wear all the bright clothing and reflective whatever you want, it will not slow a drunk down in the slightest. It’s a risk either way, but most would rather see death coming with a chance to avoid it.
And yet not only will the severity of impact be increased, but any chance of avoiding collision as time to react is shortened. Mirrors are the right choice. Maybe "smart" taillight sensors too.
They shouldn't. They have to follow all the rules of a motor vehicle.
You learned correctly. There's a lot of irresponsible cyclists out there, and it doesn't help that there isn't good bicycle infrastructure. It's the worst at night, because usually they don't have lights.
It will be nice if stop signs become yields. You lose so much momentum if you have to stop at every intersection, but so many cyclists run stop signs that drivers don't know what to expect any more.
> so many cyclists run stop signs that drivers don’t know what to expect any more.
> There’s a lot of irresponsible cyclists out there, and it doesn’t help that there isn’t good bicycle infrastructure.
Thank you for acknowledging this. Cyclists face a ton of serious problems, and luckily my city is taking different steps to help. But if you’re riding on the sidewalk (illegal here) on a street full of pedestrians, walk your bike for a block. Or ride two streets down, where the sidewalks are empty. I think people would be much more sympathetic to the dangers cyclists face.
If a local official wants to create a protected bike lane she will need the support of the community.
> You lose so much momentum if you have to stop at every intersection,
Here’s where you lose me. I don’t have a car, but when I’m walking down the street and there’s construction and the sidewalk is closed, I don’t say, “Well that’s inconvenient, I think I’ll just keep walking.” When there’s a detour, cars don’t say, “Well that’s inconvenient. I think I’ll just keep driving on this road anyway.” And as a pedestrian, I’ve never, ever had a bike stop at a crosswalk for me.
Being inconvenienced is not an excuse to willfully break the law, making you unpredictable. Safety works both way. The public commons are not a velodrome.
I’m here to advocate for all the bicycle safety measures, including road diets and parking pricing disincentives. But inconvenience? *I’m in LA. Being inconvenienced by traffic is kind of out thing.*
I dated someone once who insisted the safest way to ride a bike in the city was against traffic and on the sidewalk. That's an embarrassing part of my past.
With no lights or reflectors of course.
And no bike lanes.
At least they are on the road. Nothing worse than having to dodge them on the sidewalk.
I'm having a hard time imagining what scenario would explain who you "almost" hit a cyclist but reacted quick enough, yet the car behind you didn't and the **cyclist** ran straight into him and flipped over.
So what, you saw a cyclist coming down toward you as you were waiting to make a right and gunned it, which is what you meant by "luckily reacted quick enough" but the car behind you didn't stop before making a right turn and instead followed you, so they crashed into the cyclist?
No matter how you put it, a car making a right turn does not have right of way on a green crosswalk light or at an intersection. Doesn't matter if it's a pedestrian, a cyclist, or someone going an inch a minute with a walker or baby stroller.
I pictured the rider was on the street OP was turning onto, after having the same thought as you. Maybe the driver was turning a red, while cross traffic had a green and the rider was going through the intersection from the right, then as you said they gunned it and cleared the rider, then the car behind pulled into/past the crosswalk.
Well, OP replied to me saying they have dashcam footage so hopefully they post it.
I'd be really curious to see it because it sounds like both cars were just not paying attention. This is fundamentally a problem of our very car-centric culture here where drivers never expect a bike so they aren't watching out for one. Like I said, despite OP's question about biking against traffic, I kinda doubt it would've helped the cyclist in this situation even if they were biking with traffic. Someone not stopping before turning right and just blindly following the first car probably isn't paying enough attention to notice a bicyclist coming up behind them and going straight either. I've seen two different people on bikes get hit by cars turning right because the drivers weren't even paying attention (in both cases, I think if it had been a pedestrian they also would've been hit). I've been to so many big cities where cyclists and drivers both do really well because drivers know to look out for the cyclist.
I think it's the same reason why so many pedestrians get hit or narrowly miss getting hit while in the crosswalk here...drivers just see green and think they can go, or even if they've seen the pedestrian waiting at the corner with them for the last minute, they think they should be able to "beat" the pedestrian and go first.
It's funny because OP mentioned nothing about the person biking on the sidewalk but that's what half this thread is about. I said in another comment that I've seen a lot of risky, stupid biking as well,
Just saw the video. It was what I mentioned, and imo the cyclists fault for riding against traffic. Being on that sise of the street doesn’t really give them a green light, right? Both drivers should have checked to the right, but as drivers we typically shouldn’t expect to have to look that way, but **should**.
The second car probably did what most people do, which is oull into the crosswalk, check that the left is clear, then go.
I agree a lot of comments mentioned the sidewalk, and may show how we all had different things in our head about what happened, and would have helped a lot to have the video to reference from the beginning.
And definitely looks like risky riding there. I would never trust that people would see me in that situation and would have been on the sidewalk myself (here in Passdena anyway where it’s allowed), so I could cross as a cycling pedestrian.
Just saw the video, IMO both were at fault, cyclist more so for not slowing down and for biking against traffic and but also somewhat the car that hit the cyclist for not stopping at a red/intersection before turning right.
The other cars in the video were stopped, indicating that both cars were making right turns on red or there is a stop sign there. The car turning right needs to check both left AND right AND come to a stop before turning. Yes, most people do the “California roll” here but this exact scenario is what you get when you just blindly go on a red. From the video you can clearly see the wheels of the 2nd car and they didn’t even slow down when approaching the right turn, let alone kinda stop.
The cyclist is doing risky riding for sure but the car is turning right on a red so I suspect insurance would find some fault there, not sure of the percentage. From the video it appears neither side was paying attention or saw each other and the cyclist was an idiot.
Yeah I’m sure it could end up as partial fault for both parties. I hate that the roll is so expected that people ride my ass or honk at me now and then because I always stop behind the line first, the creep out.
If the cyclist was actually a car driving illegally against traffic, the car that entered the intersection without ever stopping and that hit the cyclist (car) would still be at fault for blindly entering the intersection without stopping before the unsafe vehicle cleared their path. The cyclist would share fault, but most definitely not 100%.
I figured people would know what I meant. Crossing from the curb on a walk light vs in the street at speed at a green light.
Our city. Our rules. Be a safer driver. Practice defensive driving and don't be in such a rush.
Our city. Our rules. Be a safer cyclist. Practice defensive riding and don’t be in such a rush.
Both drivers and cyclists are responsible for the problems. Both need to do better. As a driver who wants to promote cycling, I want to assure cyclists that most drivers are worried about hitting cyclists but when cyclists take risks by ignoring traffic rules, it pisses us off when they get angry and blame us for the risks they take.
Unless they're jumping out right in front of you, you shouldn't be hitting fools on bikes. Lol Yeah it may be annoying and you slow down a bit, but you're driving. How much faster do you want to go?
That's what I tell myself whenever I drive and feel frustration coming on.
> How much faster do you want to go?
Faster than a bike obviously.
My pet peeve with cyclists: When you’re making a right turn at a red light and a cyclist is coming up behind you, you have no idea of whether he’s going to stop at the light if he doesn’t feel like it and you have no idea of whether he’s going to go to your right or, as he should, to your left. Meanwhile, he’s hard to see and you just have to wait to see whether or not he’s an idiot cyclist. After a couple of intersections like this every morning, my patience with cyclists, who blame drivers while ignoring their own, is wearing thin.
There are dozens of ways both drivers and cyclists need to improve and adjust. As a driver, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge we need to be more aware and do better. But - read this thread - I find precious few cyclists willing to acknowledge their part in the problem.
> As a driver, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge we need to be more aware and do better.
I agree, and have been openly supportive of educating drivers and road safety. It doesn’t seem to matter.
> But - read this thread - I find precious few cyclists willing to acknowledge their part in the problem.
This just isn’t the place for a good-faith discussion. I’m a pedestrian. How weird would it be for me to pretend that pedestrians are never at fault lol.
I understand anger at cars. I don’t understand anger at allies. 🤷🏻♀️
*Nb* my city is not your city, and my neighborhood is not your neighborhood.
That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about being able to say that yes, sometimes pedestrians are assholes or idiots, as opposed to cyclists who seemingly refuse to even acknowledge that cyclists are ever in the wrong.
That said, I can’t tell from your comment if you agree that sometimes cyclists ride like jerks or ride illegally.
It’s good practice that when you will be turning right, and might end up with a biker coming up to you, to pull the car close enough to the curb to force a biker to choose the smart and legal path of riding on your left as they filter. This assumes there is not a biker immediately behind you that you will cut off.
Your patience is wearing thin? Then don't fucking drive. People in bikes know what they're doing. They're not little children who lack self-awareness, so give them some credit, geezer. They know, and don't care, and that's fine. Like I said, you sound creepy and like you're going to snap and hit-and-run any day now. Work through your emotions before you kill someone and wee see you on r/idiotsincars or something
You sound like an aware and responsible cyclist that shares the road and follows the laws whenever they feel like it, the kind that has no tolerance for others and demands everyone put up with them. Good luck out there. You’re going to need it with your attitude.
Thank you. I appreciate the love.
>People in bikes know what they're doing.
lol wut about the dude on the bike in this video?
What about it?
He is on a bike and yet he doesn't appear to know what he was doing by riding straight into a bigger motor vehicle that was obeying traffic laws.
We are taught to walk against traffic so you can see what’s coming . And then as kids on bikes we follow same rules and don’t always make changes later
Now they got electric scooters zipping down sidewalks. In the streets - with and against traffic . Oh my !!! In front and through restaurants ... dropped and left on the corner for others to step over . Follow the rules . What are the rules with scooters ??
If you are going to get run over by someone not paying attention, you might as well see it happen.
In Burbank they let you ride the sidewalks as if you are a damn pedestrian. Geez, talk about your accidents-waiting-to-happen.
LOL People forget every rule they had to know to get a driver's license - what makes you think they EVER learned the rules for bike riding? I can't tell you how many idiots in my neighborhood ride on the sidewalk and act like I should get out of their way. Even after the city squeezed the street down to one lane to provide wide bike lanes!
It’s legal to ride your bike on the sidewalk in LA
You've been downvoted because people don't know the law.
Los Angeles Municipal Code section [56.15(1)](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/lamc/0-0-0-138429) states: “No person shall ride, operate or use a bicycle, unicycle, skateboard, cart, wagon, wheelchair, roller skates, or any other device moved exclusively by human power, on a sidewalk, bikeway or boardwalk in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”
There are cities within L.A. that make it illegal to ride on the sidewalk but in most places it's legal.
Willful wanton wheelchair gang
Seriously, this thread is a clusterfuck of people who hate bikers and probably are itching to run them over.
I've seen my fair share of both asshole bikers and asshole drivers but the sheer amount of idiots here who not only are downvoting the truth BUT THINKING THEIR SO SMART AND WITTY ABOUT BEING WRONG is incredible.
You really want to be pedantic? "Bikers" can refer to bicyclists just fine and it's crystal clear what group I'm referring to here. If it bothers you so much as a "cyclist" to omg maybe be associated with the stereotypes of a "biker" as a motorcycle rider, that's really your personal problem. I bike, I call myself a "biker" sometimes and a
"cyclist" sometimes, the only time I ever see people pedantically correcting others it's 100% always a cyclist about to spout off some joke about how cyclists go to coffee shops and bikers go to bars, and cyclists are athletes wear lycra while bikers are leather wearing gang members. Yeah, just keep reinforcing stupid stereotypes!
> People engaged in cycling are referred to as "cyclists", "bicyclists", or "bikers".
> If you ride a “bicycle,” your vehicle might also be called a “bike.” You might be called a “biker,” a “bicyclist,” or a “cyclist.”
> If you ride a “motorcycle,” your vehicle might also be called a “bike,” and you might be called a “biker.” That’s true even though “cycle” is embedded in “motorcycle,” but “bike” isn’t.
>Cycling, also called bicycling or biking, is the use of bicycles for transport, recreation, exercise or sport. People engaged in cycling are referred to as "cyclists", "bicyclists", or "bikers". Apart from two-wheeled bicycles, "cycling" also includes the riding of unicycles, tricycles, quadricycles, recumbent and similar human-powered vehicles (HPVs). Bicycles were introduced in the 19th century and now number approximately one billion worldwide.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskLosAngeles/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Who hurt you bro?
Is biking on the sidewalk per se "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" because if it isn't, the code you cited doesn't support your position.
Read their statement again.
Their statement that bikes are legal on sidewalks in LA is not at all misleading if people read the code, and understand it is LA City code (which covers much of LA County). Yes, bikes are considered vehicles when on the road. However, you seem to be failing to understand that human powered bikes are ALSO explicitly allowed to ride on the sidewalk, as long as safety is considered, in LA City, per the LAMC code cited above.
> People forget every rule they had to know to get a driver's license
We found one!
You don't even know the law and you're trying to make fun of someone who does? Wtf is wrong with the people in this thread. It's legal to bike on the sidewalk in the city of LA, specifically stated in the LA municipal code 56.15(1)
> Within the City of Los Angeles, bicycling on a sidewalk is permitted as long as you do not show “willful and wonton disregard for the safety of persons or property” (LAMC 56.15.1). This means riding at a cautious speed, yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians, and watching for storefront doors opening onto the sidewalk.
Why are you bringing up the city of LA? Some of us live in LA, but not the city of LA. It is illegal to ride on the sidewalk where I live in LA.
\> Outside the City of Los Angeles, the law gets complicated. Some municipalities prohibit bicycling on the sidewalk in defined “business districts.” Some require bicyclists to travel in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent lane. Some prohibit sidewalk-riding outright. To learn your municipality’s rules, visit the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s Bike Blog, which has a comprehensive list.
\> The County of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Palmdale forbid riding bicycles on the sidewalk completely.
Edit: You're even trying to use the same web page that you didn't read!
And? The comment you replied to specifically said the **sidewalk in LA**
Does that sound like Santa Monica or freaking Palmdale to you? Just admit you're wrong instead of doubling down and looking even more ridiculous.
LMAO NICE EDIT, keep trying to double down even more. If you actually knew that it's legal to ride your bike on the sidewalk in the city of LA but not **where you live in LA** you would have said that in your first comment. You would have known his statement is in fact **true for the city of LA** but obviously you had no idea what you were talking about because you chose to make a snide quip instead.
Now instead of acknowledging that it's true that it's legal to ride on the sidewalk of LA, you tried to use the same webpage that **I linked** to pick places where it isn't legal.
Why not pick freaking San Dimas where it's legal if your point is about places in LA outside of the City of LA? Oh right, because you didn't know what you're talking about but you desperately want to pretend that you did rather than acknowledge your mistake.
Edit 2: Since you changed your comment to include all of that - did you literally ask me **why I'm bringing up the city of LA when talking about LA**?! Really dude?! Did your defensiveness short-circuit your brain into writing that?
Well, if there is a whole bike lane painted just for you but you would rather bully pedestrians... great for you - it's legal. Because of course YOU matter more than I do. The proverbial you, of course. I'm sure you're not an asshole. :/
Only about 2% of the city streets have bike lanes or biking infrastructure and many of those just lead to a street with out one. Often the choice is sidewalk or risk getting hit.
I get it. Still doesn't mean that bikes have the right of way on the sidewalk. Whether it's legal or not - manners have a place in society. If I'm on the sidewalk walking my dogs, a cyclist should either figure out the street bike path or slow down/get off and walk their bike. Why should the pedestrian have to get out of their way? I've actually had cyclists yell at me because I was 'in their way'!
Bruh yourself. u/theeakilism is completely correct, it's you idiots downvoting him that don't know what you're even talking about.
It's legal to bike on the sidewalk in the city of LA, specifically stated in the LA municipal code 56.15(1). Here it is [spelled out for you people who probably still don't even understand what you're reading](https://www.geklaw.com/personal-injury/bicycle-sidewalks.html)
> Within the City of Los Angeles, bicycling on a sidewalk is permitted as long as you do not show “willful and wonton disregard for the safety of persons or property” (LAMC 56.15.1). This means riding at a cautious speed, yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians, and watching for storefront doors opening onto the sidewalk.
Yeah, that blogger that didn’t just copy/paste that section of the LAMC must have been hungry.
That or the city council was.
Nope, read the LAMC. It says wanton.
Exactly what law is that? Cite it!
15 feet is the length of like 20.69 'Zulay Premium Quality Metal Lemon Squeezers' laid next to each other.
Don’t know why you think “stopping, standing, and parking” has anything to do with riding bikes on sidewalks.
What do you think that has to do with bikes on sidewalks? Sidewalks are neither highways nor Class I bikeways.
That depends on whether you mean the City of LA or the County of LA. While correct in the City, the rules vary within the County of LA.
Us La people are just stupid man
Its not idiotic, though it may be illegal.
Bottom line is my safety. Forget the law. If I am observing a possibly distracted driver(swerving) or a large vehicle coming my way, I can move to a safe location before it reaches me. If I am flowing with traffic, all I could do is hope for drivers not clipping me.
However there are differences in paths, type of bicycles, and road conditions that many be best to use the opposite of what I explained.
I think riding against the flow of vehicular traffic is universally condemned by every instructor of safe cycling technique. yes, it's 100% idiotic and 100% unsafe.
Chill expert. It really should come down to application.
Combination of idiocy and entitlement and cops enforcing traffic rules for cyclists even less than they do for motorists. Maybe the cyclists feel safer doing this but very unlikely it isn’t more dangerous.
Feels safer when there’s no bike paths so they can consciously avoid cars instead of having to trust people not to suck at driving LA
i guess i get the mindset, but is it actually safer?
Because if they get hit and it’s somehow caught on camera and it goes viral, at least they look good doing it /s
it’s Los Angeles after all
I don’t know what’s worse. Maniacal drivers or maniacal cyclists.
I rarely do it except to evade aggressive homeless encampments and when I do it I am super cautious and go slow crossing over streets against me.
People here walk WITH traffic, too. I have to work very hard not to scream at people at the Rose Bowl.
Street smarts wise, you would rather see the cars coming at you then having them come from behind. I never knew u had to ride with traffic till I started biking more for exercise