Riding my bicycle downtown, I generally avoid sidewalks. There are some streets with well-defined bike lanes; in other cases, to ride in the street basically means to take up a car lane. While I'm OK with doing taking up a car lane, I do sometimes go on a sidewalk if I can clearly see that there are no or few pedestrians, and when I do this, I slow down a lot, coming to a very slow speed when near a pedestrian, giving a wide a berth.

As a pedestrian downtown, I've noticed that some bicycle riders appear to me to habitually use the sidewalk.

There are a few streets that have one-way traffic - some of them have two lanes of traffic and some of them have three lanes of traffic. In the latter cases, to ride in the street basically means taking up a lane. It might be better to turn those into two-lane streets, and then creating a distinct bicycle lane. I wouldn't like to clog up car traffic by reducing the lanes, which might not be a big impact if bicyclists are already closing off one of more lanes.

Motor vehicles are far more dangerous to cyclists than cyclists are to pedestrians. If the city wants to be more pedestrian friendly, then create some no-car zones and let cyclists use those streets.

Wonder what the bike situation is there?

Only one block remains closed to vehicle traffic. The rest is not open to cars. I ride my bike to my gym which is located on K and 10th. Another factor on that street is the presence of the light rail.

I don't think we need to close streets to cars. I think the best solution is well-defined bike lanes. On Capital Avenue, west of 9th street, the bikes lanes are painted green. I think that's a good idea - it makes the lanes more visually apparent to all.

It is too dangerous to cycle in the road but also dangerous for use on sidewalks. In DC there are cycle lines on the right side of the road, but in heavy traffic they are pushed off the road. A separate bike path just for bikes would benefit cycle riders. In many areas they ride in the center of the road in packs but also get hit at times by drivers.

Bicyclists should extend the same courtesy to pedestrians -- stay three feet away.

I can't tell you how many times I have been brushed by a bicyclist coming up behind me. And I don't care if they shout "left, left, left" -- especially since I'm directionally challenged.

be required to have a horn or bell so they can warn a pedestrian that there is a bicycle coming up behind them. It would help keep the pedestrian from inadvertently moving in front of the bike when they aren't aware there is one trying to pass them.

Not because I think it's a bad idea. I was just imagining myself walking along peacefully and suddenly hearing a horn sounding. I'm not sure I'd instinctively do any particular thing in response to a horn sound. Stop and don't move? Don't move horizontally? Turn around and look in all directions?

I would prefer that the bikes stay off the sidewalks and that accommodation for them be made in the streets. At least where I live in downtown Sacramento, where there are plenty of both bicyclists and pedestrians. Each need their own place, in my opinion.

Most people associate bells with someone coming by. Most people had them on their bikes and used them as toys.

Horns, on the other hand, tend to be very loud. Many bike experts recommend having both. A small light bell to remain people that you are passing them and the loud horn to use on automobiles who act like you were not there.

I have found most people know what a bell means and act accordingly. Horns are a different matter for people are use to them as in automobiles horns. Thus I support the experts who state you should have both. One for pedestrians, the other for automobiles.

Pennsylvania's law for decades said a Cyclist could NOT ride on a Sidewalk, period dot. Then out great state legislature decided to pass a law REQUIRING cyclists to ride on any bike path along a road and forbidding them to be on the road if a bike path exists.

That lasted just a few years, till a cyclists on a bike path in an Allegheny County Pennsylvania county park killed a pedestrian. The case never went to court, for it was clear the Cyclist was obeying the law going 25-30 mph on a bike path that followed an abandoned transit system. The problem the transit system had been an overhead system and the path followed the BASE of the system not the system itself (which had been torn down and removed). The subsequent bike trail ended up going up and down steep hillsides with tight blind turns. It was in one of these turns that the cyclist hit and killed the pedestrian.

As I said the case NEVER went to court for the simple reason the cyclist was obeying the law by staying off the four lane road beside the bike path, for that is what state law said the cyclist was suppose to do. Thus the Cyclist committed no crime. The Pedestrian was just staying in the path, which is also permitted, and thus was NOT committing a crime. The design of the bike path was at fault and sovereign immunity could NOT protect the people who design and built the bike path. From what I heard the county paid up, for it was clear the fault was the County design of the path for it violated most of the rules when it came to designing bike paths and roads.

One of the result of that debacle was the State of Pennsylvania rewrote its bike laws. It removed the requirement that cyclist MUST use bike paths. The new law also permitted riding on sidewalks EXCEPT in business districts. The law does NOT define business districts, that is up to the judge who hears the case, but most people know what a business district is.

Since that law was passed, it had worked well. I still tend to avoid riding on sidewalks for most contain hazards that have knocked me on the ground. The law makes it clear that cyclist must yield to pedestrians, but that has worked out well in Pennsylvania (please note most cyclist in Pennsylvania do NOT ride on any sidewalks, preferring the berm of the road, if one exists).

Thus the law should permit cyclists on sidewalks, but that they must get off the sidewalk or yield to pedestrian must be part of the law.