Bicycles and sidewalks? As always, New Albany's legal stance is as clear as mud -- and City Hall gazes at the ceiling.

Behold, another Rosenbarger bike lane triumph.

We've all been here before, but the fake factoids never cease, so let's have another look at the question of whether it is legal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk in New Albany. Not unexpectedly in a state with its own contradictory laws, sections of the official code of ordinances in New Albany don't jibe.

§ 73.01 OPERATION OF BICYCLES.
(A) Every person riding a bicycle upon a street shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. Every person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to a pedestrian.

(D) No person 14 years of age or older shall operate a bicycle on the sidewalks located within the geographical incorporated boundary limits of the City of New Albany ("city").

73.01 seems to suggest that since no person 14 years or age or older should be on the sidewalk anywhere within the city limits, everyone else should be riding on the street.

Then it gets weird.

§ 73.03 RIDING ON SIDEWALKS.
(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, it shall be legal to operate a bicycle upon a sidewalk when sidewalks are available and are not congested with pedestrian traffic. If the sidewalk is congested with pedestrian traffic, any bicycle operator using the sidewalk shall walk the bicycle.

(B) No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk in a business district or upon or along which signs have been erected by authority of the Board of Works prohibiting such bicycle riding.

In 73.03, it's legal to ride on the sidewalk with no reference to age, except in a business district, which isn't defined (here or elsewhere in the code), or wherever signs prohibiting bicycling have been erected.

Which is it? Maybe BOW can spin the wheel during its next meeting. In truth, it doesn't matter much because there is no enforcement of any conceivable interpretation.

As for which direction a bicyclist should travel when riding on a street, it should stand to reason that if the code of ordinance explicitly holds bicyclists riding in the street to the same duties of motorists, and it does, then these duties include riding in the same direction as traffic, seeing as a driver wouldn't decide to drive against traffic -- for the very same safety reasons as a bicyclist shouldn't.

You were taught to ride against traffic? Sorry, but you were taught wrong.

DEBUNKING WRONG-WAY RIDING, by Jamie Wine

Lots of us were taught as kids to ride facing traffic ... this sense of safety is tragically false, but that doesn’t stop it from being widely believed – especially if your last lesson in bike safety was when you were seven.

Even closer to the center of the target:

When you see someone riding the wrong way on a bike, the chances are good that they have chosen this as a crummy alternative to an even crummier series of major roads and horrifying intersections.

Yesterday during a conversation at Facebook, some guy living in Harrison County insisted that bicycle licensing is the answer to all these issues: "I believe that it (licensing) should be on the books and enforced. Especially with bike lanes now prevalent like never before."

Bike lanes prevalent? It's hard to believe bicycle lanes in New Albany amount to more than a few single digit percentage points of the street grid's total acreage. Perhaps it seems like more for folks living in mobile homes by a cornfield.

Bizarrely, until recently, the city of New Albany had bicycling laws on the books, dating from the aftermath of the Great Flood.

Rewind: Bicycles, mopeds and the ordinances not governing them.

§ 73.20 LICENSE REQUIRED BEFORE OPERATING BICYCLE.
No person shall ride or propel a bicycle upon any public highway, street, boulevard or other public place in the city, unless the same shall be licensed as herein provided.
('71 Code, §73.28) (Ord. 4120, passed 3-6-39)

In summary, city government's relationship with the street grid is devoted roughly 95% of the time to assuring drivers that car-centrism is king. There are no stated policies v.v. bicycling (or walking), no goals for improving non-automotive access, and no evident will to improve. If you're interested in this changing, then it's time to begin holding feet to the fire -- and next year, when there's a municipal election, you'll have the opportunity.

Rant over.

SHANE'S EXCELLENT NEW WORDS: Salmoning, shoaling -- bicycling, to be exact.

On Monday, the word "salmoning" appeared at NA Confidential for the first time in our 13-year history.

Why it’s safer for bicyclists to ride with traffic - not against it.

However, is this type of riding actually safer than following traffic flow? In a word, no. There are a number of risks associated with salmoning ...

To tell the truth, I was completely unaware that "salmoning" was a word, although it makes perfect sense.

Following are definitions of a few other cycling terms. As a public service (seriously), I'm reprinting the complete 2014 article from National Public Radio, and hope it doesn't mind my doing so.

---

Don't Salmon, Don't Shoal: Learning The Lingo Of Safe Cycling, by Marc Silver (NPR)

Alec Baldwin, you were salmoning!

The actor was ticketed in New York on Tuesday for riding his bicycle the wrong way on a one-way street.

Cyclists use the term "salmoning" to describe a biker going against the stream on a one-way bike lane. Surely the definition can be broadened to include Baldwin's infraction.

While salmoning is a funny word, it's a dangerous action. In a bike lane, it can bring on an unwelcome game of chicken when a wrong-way cyclist heads toward cyclists going the proper way. Salmoning also creates a potential hazard for motorists crossing a bike lane via a legal cut-through. They'd assume they only need to scan in one direction for incoming pedalers. Some cities discourage salmoning with clever signage, like this in London: "If you can read this you are biking the wrong way."

In honor of National Bike to Work week, I've collected a few examples of cycling jargon that's all about safety.

Door zone: That's the space right next to the parked car lane. If a motorist opens the door, a passing cyclist can get "doored." Cyclists have been severely injured or killed from hitting the door or being bounced into traffic.

In many municipalities, it is illegal to open a door into traffic, which includes bicycles, says Greg Billing, advocacy coordinator for the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. When riding in a bike lane up against parked cars, "ride on the outermost third of the lane, nearing the white line," he suggests. In other situations, keep 3 to 4 feet from parked cars, putting you out of the zone, or at least far enough away that you can take evasive action if a door opens.

Sharrow: A cyclist is riding in a bike lane. The bike lane ends. In the middle of the lane of traffic ahead sits a stenciled cyclist and a couple of chevrons. That painted symbol is a "sharrow" –- a shared lane arrow. It's only been around a decade or so, reminding motorists there will be cyclists ahead, says Andy Clarke, president of the League of American Bicyclists.

Of course, cyclists have the right to ride in any lane; skeptics worry that drivers might think they don't have to share the lane if there's no sharrow. "The jury's still out on some of these signs," says Clarke. As a commuting cyclist, I share the sharrow view of D.C. commuter Evan Wilder: "I imagine the motorist thinking, 'Oh, right, it's OK that the biker's in the middle of the road.' "

Bike box: That's a box painted between the crosswalk and the white line that shows motorists where to stop, with bikes stenciled within its borders. The benefit: A cyclist can easily switch from one side of the street to the other to make turns. This kind of arrangement is called an "advanced stop line" in the Netherlands, where it began, and the bike-loving Dutch actually have two traffic signals at intersections: one for bicyclists in the box, to give them a head start, followed by the signal for motorists.

Ninja: That's a night rider who wears dark clothes and eschews bike lights. Not only a bad idea, but against the law in every state — a white front light and rear reflector or light are required.

Shoaling: A shoal is a school of fish. Or a collection of cyclists at a red light. That's where shoaling happens. A cyclist comes up to the light, eyeballs a cyclist already there, thinks, "I'm faster than that person," and moves ahead.

But who can truly judge a cyclist's speed potential? Maybe the person you've shoaled is faster than you and will want to pass you once the light changes. To avoid triggering such unnecessary passes (not to mention road rage), "it's safer for people to wait at the light with everybody else and make the pass in the lane," says Billing. Or if you're really in a rush, just ask the other cyclist: "Hey, I'm late, is it OK to get in front of you?"

Idaho stop: Since 1982, Idaho law has given cyclists the right to treat a stop sign as a yield (slow down and roll through if traffic allows) and to treat a red light as a stop sign (look both ways and proceed if no cars are coming). That's the Idaho stop. It's the law only in Idaho, although there are a few local variations. Several Colorado towns have adopted the "stop sign = yield" portion. And in some states, if a red light only turns green when a sensor senses a car, a cyclist can proceed after 120 seconds or so.

The Idaho stop is hotly debated. In Idaho, notes Clarke, "the sky has not fallen, there's not a terrible crash rate. It probably legitimizes what's already happening."

Then again, in a world where drivers think bicyclists are renegades, Clarke thinks a big push for the Idaho stop would not go over well. "Red lights should be inviolate," he says, but "the mechanics of stop signs are different -– having to put your foot down at every stop sign is often pointless. Most cyclists can roll through without any harm."

Meanwhile, I bet Alec Baldwin has done his share of Idaho stops. In fact, I bet just about every cyclist has, except maybe the cyclist who once yelled at me for doing an Idaho stop at a light: "You're making cyclists look like they don't obey traffic laws!"

Why it’s safer for bicyclists to ride with traffic - not against it.

As a side note, just imagine if the city's promotional expenditures for parks, concerts, ceremonial anchorages, signature events and the mayor's cult of personality were shifted instead to education about daily realities.

I understand that a certain proportion of the population always will remain distracted or oblivious, for good reasons and bad, and yet I persist in thinking such a shift would be helpful.

Here's one we haven't touched on for a while. Note that I'll be returning to "salmoning" on Wednesday in SHANE'S EXCELLENT NEW WORDS.

DEBUNKING WRONG-WAY RIDING, by Michael Tatarski (Bike Easy)

A pedicabber breaks down why it’s safer to ride with traffic - not against

At Bike Easy, a question that we often get is whether or not wrong-way cycling (also called salmoning) is safer than riding with traffic. As a pedicab driver, I’ve personally noticed that salmoning seems to be fairly popular here in New Orleans, especially in the French Quarter, with its myriad one-way streets. I regularly see riders going down the wrong way down Royal and other east-west roads, jostling for space with horse-drawn carriages, other bicycles, tourists and taxi drivers. Both sides of this argument have their reasons; let’s begin by taking a look at what proponents of wrong-way riding have to say.

As children, many bike riders were taught by their parents that riding against traffic was the safe way to go. You could see drivers coming, and they could see you, instead of having to worry about cars coming up from behind. Intuitively, it does seem like it would be better to be able to see what is coming, rather than constantly wondering if someone is going to blast by you with inches to spare.

Another common point brought up in favor of salmoning is convenience: why should I cycle some circuitous route following the flow of traffic, when one shortcut down a couple blocks in the wrong direction could get me to my destination much faster? As a pedicabber in the French Quarter I know full well the frustrations of dealing with one-way streets – they can turn three-block jaunts into eight-block marathons.

However, is this type of riding actually safer than following traffic flow? In a word, no. There are a number of risks associated with salmoning ...