>I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no furthe

>I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic. You must'a missed the subtle metaphor abuse to lighten the mood. Sorry 'bout that. At any rate ... Side walks haven't the width for fast moving traffic. Sidewalks cross other rights-of-way with always implied priority, traffic comprised of pedestrians, kids, dogs, old folk, etc. I ride a bike in the city every day. I know riding on the sidewalk wouldn't work, even if you made it legal. Not at real commuting speeds. You really advocate cyclists poking down the sidewalk at 5-8 mph, dinging their bell at every pedestrian, asking them to step aside? Or no, wait .. does the cyclist have to stop, do a track stand, and weeble-wobble around every blockage? Oh, and bunny hop over dog leashes. Hmm, yeah. Anyone who thinks bikes should be on sidewalks has nearly zero understanding of what an urban mix of traffic works like. Fellow cyclists, please jump in here! /AC