4
A person was spotted biking on I-90 in Chicago. Police have a message for them
(www.nbcchicago.com)
Maybe they should have proper bicycle infrastructure???
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
4 points (66.7% liked)
micromobility - Ebikes, scooters, longboards: Whatever floats your goat, this is micromobility
2337 readers
42 users here now
Ebikes, bicycles, scooters, skateboards, longboards, eboards, motorcycles, skates, unicycles: Whatever floats your goat, this is all things micromobility!
"Transportation using lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters, especially electric ones that may be borrowed as part of a self-service rental program in which people rent vehicles for short-term use within a town or city.
micromobility is seen as a potential solution to moving people more efficiently around cities"
Feel free to also check out
It's a little sad that we need to actually say this, but:
Don't be an asshole or you will be permanently banned.
Respectful debate is totally OK, criticizing a product is fine, but being verbally abusive will not be tolerated.
Focus on discussing the idea, not attacking the person.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yes they should have significantly better bike and pedestrian infrastructure
No, its not an excuse to behave like a fucking maniac and ride a bike on an expressway...That is an absolutely insane thing to do. Basically any other road is a better solution, even if it's means taking a less direct route. Not everything can be done in a beeline from A to B.
Man... I live in Salem and there are people walking biking on I-5 all the time
Its only insane to you. I do it fairly regularly and it isn’t insane. Wear a helmet, act like a moped, and you're golden.
No, its objectively insane behaviour...not to mention illegal (at least where I live). It's not only dangerous for you (that bike helmet isn't going to do shit to save you if you're hit by a car at >60mph), but you're creating a dangerous congestion because you're going way too slow for the flow of traffic. Please don't be an idiot and drive a bike on the highway, mopeds are not allowed there either (where I live)
You ride on the shoulder, not with the cars going triple your speed. There is no impeding of traffic. I’ll keep riding on the highway like I have for years. You can be a coward.
If you’re riding on highway that explicitly forbids cyclists and slow moving vehicles, do you think they’re going to be looking out for you when entering and exiting the highway…?
I never said I rode illegally. Here in colombia it's perfectly legal to walk or ride your bike on the highways. Also the shoulders exist on the exits and entrances so why would they need to look for me? I'm not in their lane.
You are arguing for it, in a post about a place where it’s explicitly illegal to do it on this road. So what’s your point here then?
We are explaining why it’s insane in this particular case.
ride a bike on an expressway…That is an absolutely insane thing to do.
This was the statement that I was replying to. Which I made clear in my initial response. Learn to read better.
An espressway in the US is illegal to ride a bike on…
Just because it’s legal where you are, doesn’t mean the circumstances everywhere are the same…. They even explained that to you to re-establish context.
Don’t insult someone’s intelligence when you yourself missed the mark to begin with. You missed the context, which is extremely important when conversing. So please look in the mirror before insulting someone next time. Since it’s clear you are the one who didn’t read properly in this case….
They could literally choose any other road than the expressway….
Could they?
US infrastructure is insanely car-centric to the point where there are numerous places than you 100% cannot safely walk or bike to from certain locations, even when they're just miles away sometimes.
Uhh… yeah? Is there not another road that travels the same direction as the expressway with a lower speed limit? This can’t possibly be the only road traveling that direction.
So they choose the fastest road possible that they can’t keep up with? Lots of other roads are far safer for them to be on since traffic isn’t going 2x their speed…
Sure it’s unsafe, so let’s just make it more unsafe by doing it illegally instead of legally on another road that’s safer…..… smart idea…..
All too often there isn't another road as everything else is blocked, or at least leads to the expressway not in the direction you want to go. This pushes cars to the expressway (which is faster anyway), and away from places where people live. However it means you can't get very far via non-car.
There’s always secondary roads, can you provide a city that only has one highway/expressway traveling a direction for reference please? Theres multiple “expressways” that travel the same direction with different speeds.
This person picked the fastest, instead of one of the others.
I don't know for sure what this person's situation and riding on the highway is obviously dangerous as fuck, but there are certainly places that you practically cannot get to without a car in the US with any reasonable measure of safety because of how car-centric our infrastructure is.
Bruh. Are you out of your mind? Literally any other paved surface is safer than the highway.
Are you sure you're responding to the right comment? I'm advocating for safer biking infrastructure.
The shoulder of a freeway is probably safer than riding in the lane on a chaotic stroad of a feeder running alongside it where cars are still mostly going a minimum of 50mph and its still 3+ lanes. Much fewer places for cars to turn right and less distractions and you have a dedicated lane.
Do you not know what a highway express way is? The issue is all the feeders where you need to cross and traffic won’t be looking for you, since it’s expressly illegal for you to be there.
The issue is all the feeders where you need to cross and traffic won’t be looking for you
Where I'm at, the interstates only have entrance and exit lanes (which would be insanely dangerous to cross, but there only a small fraction of the interstate), no cross traffic ever, whether its the express lanes or the normal lanes. Maybe its different where this person was riding.
The feeders themselves are constant intersections with no shoulder or bike lanes and people constantly entering and exiting from side streets and businesses and much more poorly labeled lanes and lots of distractions on the side of the roads.
Illinois State Trooper Jayme Bufford said. "There is no protection available to you as a pedestrian, a person riding a bike is in the same peril."
Yeah, except that people who walk or cycle die all the time in places where you would expect them to be. Hell, even people waiting at bus stops are in danger.
It's almost like... cars are the real problem, not a "lack of protection".
Also, if cyclists are choosing to use a goddamn highway, then that would be a symptom of a lack of safe and accessible cycling infrastructure!
There is protection here: he is in a place set aside for cars only. If you are in a car only place don't cry when you are not protected from cars in that area.
The real question is why isn't there are place for bikes that goes the same places. (Note that I didn't look at a map, I just assumed like most places there isn't a reasonable alternative for bikes)
There is protection here: he is in a place set aside for cars only.
Did you see the width of the shoulder he's riding in? On regular high speed roads where cyclists are allowed, you'd be lucky to have that kind of buffer.
And considering that intersections are the most dangerous places for crashes, he's safer on the highway shoulder.
Where I live, we have roads with sharrows and no shoulder or bike lanes. The posted speed limit are usually 50 or 60km/h, but I've clocked cars/suvs passing me at over 80km/h, often making dangerous or illegal passes in the process (i.e. into oncoming traffic).
If you are in a car only place don’t cry when you are not protected from cars in that area.
I will re-state what I wrote about: even in places designed for cyclists and pedestrians, car drivers still end up killing them.
There is no safe place to be a pedestrian or cyclist when there are cars around, so "cars only" is just a form of discrimination. This is a North American issue, since other developed countries have been sorting this problem out.
The real question is why isn’t there are place for bikes that goes the same places. (Note that I didn’t look at a map, I just assumed like most places there isn’t a reasonable alternative for bikes)
Because that huge "cars only" interstate is taking up a massive amount of space. I don't know specifically where this cyclist was, but there are large areas near the i-90 that doesn't have cycling infrastructure.
I loved this one idea where you have this high up structure that starts high downtown and goes down to station level at the end of the line for the el trains and the reverse of that. The idea is at every station you would have stairs to it and cyclists could bring their bike up and have an ever so slight downhill path to bike down. this highway has an el in the middle.
A quick look on Google Maps shows that West Ontario St in Chicago leads to a 1 km (!) long on-ramp to Interstate 90, flying over the Chicago River. Once on the ramp, the next possible exit is Augusta Blvd, about 2 km away. Interstate 90 cuts a diagonal path through the rectilinear street layout of Chicago, so an equivalent route would necessarily be slightly longer. There is a sign at the on-ramp prohibiting "non-motorized traffic", among others.
I can't really endorse riding a bicycle on an urban freeway when it's not designed or designated for such. But in the Western USA, we do have segments of freeway open to bicyclists, even in urban areas. Note: West Coasters and the federal govt say "freeway" for a fully-controlled access highway; East Coasters say "expressway", but that means something else here in the west.
California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21960 authorizes the state DOT (CalTrans) to prohibit pedestrians, bicyclists, and a few other categories, provided that they post a sign. Although very typical, CalTrans does not default to posting these signs on every freeway, to avoid running afoul of a different provision disallowing the destruction of preexisting routes used by non-motorized traffic.
Common sections of freeway available to bicyclists are bridges where there is no other reasonable method to cross. As an example, the routing of Interstate 80 often followed that of old US Highway 40, meaning that a bridge that would have carried Highway 40 now carries the mainline Interstate. As a result, the preceding on-ramp must be opened to non-motorized traffic, unless a reasonable alternate route or facility is available. The absolute minimum is to simply permit bicycles onto the freeway.
Per CVC 21650, bicyclists on the freeway would have to use only the shoulder, although there's technically a quirk if freeway traffic is moving very, very slowly, akin to the Chicago situation. In such a case, if a bicyclist can keep pace with or exceed the current flow of traffic, then all lanes are available on such a stretch of freeway that doesn't prohibit cycling, subject to the usual requirement for slower traffic to keep right.
Freeway segments permitting bicyclists can be identified by a "no pedestrian" sign at the on-ramp, rather than the typical sign that would also prohibit bicyclists. The end of the segment is identified by a white sign on the freeway that says "bicyclist must exit".
Eh, i ride on a highway every now and then. The normal roads here in colombia have bike lanes but not the highway. You just have to get used to people flying by you and you’re fine. Also make sure your life insurance is up to date. Just in case.
On a grade-seperated highway or like a normal one?