Runners in the bike lane -- Please explain the logic?

[RFC]

I was a distance runner for 20 years and would always take the option of the sidewalk over the street.

Why are so many runners and walkers insisting on using the bike lanes when a safer option is 4 feet away?

[Macadamia]

same deal as riding is what I always assumed, sidewalk has segments that are varying heights and go up and down with cross streets and gutters

the more confusing thing to me is why they're always going against traffic too

[RFC]

Originally Posted by Macadamia

same deal as riding is what I always assumed, sidewalk has segments that are varying heights and go up and down with cross streets and gutters

the more confusing thing to me is why they're always going against traffic too

I ran both track and cross country. Humans are evolved to deal with small obstacles like curbs.

[Lanternrouge]

Originally Posted by Macadamia

same deal as riding is what I always assumed, sidewalk has segments that are varying heights and go up and down with cross streets and gutters

the more confusing thing to me is why they're always going against traffic too

When I was growing up we were told to walk against traffic so you could see the oncoming traffic.

[cmbicycles]

I often wondered the same when I saw runners in the road rather than the sidewalk. I was told it was because there was less chance of tripping due to an uneven sidewalk... sounded lame to me but I guess it's a preference thing for those who haven't been blessed with hearing my obviously better point of view.

[RFC]

Originally Posted by Lanternrouge

When I was growing up we were told to walk against traffic so you could see the oncoming traffic.

Correct! I actually prefer it when they run against traffic. That way we can see each other and adjust.

[RyanH]

Runners are supposed to be on the opposite side of traffic. There's not many things that cause me more anxiety on a bike than having to pass runners going the same direction as me. There must be some correlation of running on the right side and erratic changes in movement without looking around first.

[rnhood]

I believe the reason is actually the compliance of the tarmac (pavement). Runners often choose the street over the sidewalk as there is less shock since concrete has virtually zero compliance. It might not be a big difference when wearing running shoes however, like seasoned aficionados in every other sport, they can often feel or detect everything. A softer surface is slightly easier on their joints and bones. Of course there is probably other reasons too, as mentioned in this thread.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.
.

[Plum Hill]

Forest Park in St. Louis always had a problem with walkers and runners on the signed bicycle trail. It got so bad a designated walking and running trail was built. And they still take to the bike path.

[stev0]

Sounds like there are a few different issues people are talking about, but I'll add a few bits to the discussion:

I've been hit by cars many (MANY) more times while running on the sidewalk than I have cycling. Usually they are pulling in/out of driveways or rolling through intersections - that extra three feet and visibility you get by running on the street can be pretty useful. For some reason, people are even less trained to look for runners than they are for cyclists. That extra distance can also be useful at night when there are threats other than cars (in the countryside or the 'burbs I run in the middle of the road when running at night).

Streets surfaces tend to be more uniform than sidewalks - that can be pretty stressful for people to run on. I can't say I've noticed asphalt being more compliant than concrete, but it's usually easier on my body to run on shoulder than it is to run on the sidewalk. That being said.. many streets slope downwards towards the edge, and that can be stressful over time too. Especially in urban environments where the sidewalk is totally wrecked, or if there's snow but only the streets get plowed.

Busy sidewalks can also be an issue - other pedestrians are oblivious to/don't care much for runners and it can be dangerous to run through crowded sidewalks just as it would be dangerous to ride a bike or a bird scooter on a sidewalk. Obstacles on the road are pretty sure to be cars and motorcycles that drive more or less predictably (at least, more so than pedestrians.. I can't count the number of times I've called out something like "on your left" and had someone jump left, or freeze in the middle of the road/path/sidewalk" .. cars and motorcycles tend to try not to drive onto the shoulder).

Have lived in suburbs and urban environments in CA and UK. all of the above have held true.
That being said, I do 90% of my running on the sidewalk when there is one. I always run opposite the direction of traffic, even when I'm on the sidewalk.

[unterhausen]

I always liked running on asphalt more than on a sidewalk. It does feel softer, which intellectually I know is ridiculous. Go hit some asphalt with a hammer and see how much it gives.

As far as runners in the bike lane, Airzound is your answer. Wait until you get real close. Helps control the impulse to smack them on the back of the head as you pass.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by RFC

I was a distance runner for 20 years and would always take the option of the sidewalk over the street.

Why are so many runners and walkers insisting on using the bike lanes when a safer option is 4 feet away?

I was too LSD runner but found the road was much more even and 'forgiving', more so than concrete sidewalks. As long as they run facing traffic, I'm ok with it. For post number 2, around here, facing traffic is the rule/law..

[sitzmark]

Rich. Cyclists who argue and defend their right to use roadways arguing against pedestrians who have the same rights. Ha!

[biker72]

Not a runner but an extensive walker. I walk in the bike lane against traffic. The sidewalks here are treacherous at best.