Cyclists Can Travel On Avenues Of Traffic Fast? Why Do You Insist On Doing So?


For having high speed cars and, generally, the presence of trucks and buses, we always recommend to cyclists to avoid the large avenues that do not have bike path or bikelane. Although these roads are congested, impatient drivers sometimes want to get all up on a space of a few metres, threatening purposefully the rider, as if that simple bike (which in seconds is no longer there) were responsible for congestion since!

Streets off-hours, they have “elements” of accidental traffic calming (traffic signals, streets, speed bumps, roundabouts and parking areas that reduce the free space on the various, among others) become safer for bikes. And, generally, are much more pleasant, with afforestation, less pollution, local businesses, parks, people, life.

Avenues are often inhospitable, unpleasant and stressful. That in itself is a good reason to choose another way. Displacement can be nicer and, why not, fun. This is one of the advantages of the bike: enjoy the route, use that time to you instead of wasting it stopped and powerless in front of the.

Despite the recommendation to seek alternatives, there isn’t always a parallel route that accompanies the whole Avenue. This forces the cyclist to know very well the region where travels, so you can find alternatives, and may increase the route.

To make matters worse, the Grands Boulevards are usually built in bottom of Valley or on posts (as in the case of the Avenida Paulista, in Sao Paulo). This sometimes causes the have uphill, making parallel Avenue the road plan, straight and geographically suited to those who use the bike. In a city for people, these paths would be prioritized for hiking and moved human propulsion, leaving the burden of negotiating for those who just need a throttle or twist a knob to beat them.

In such cases, insist that the rider choose another path: who moves using a medium that depends on physical exertion (walking, cycling, skateboarding, rollerblading and others) tends to always get the shortest route and plan. That’s what makes people walk outside the crosswalk, when use it implies offsets of hundreds of meters. Are logical choices, natural and understandable, which should be accepted and protected by the Government, as provided for and encouraged by who plans the road infrastructure and the urban environment, making the city friendlier and safer for those using these modes.

Say that cyclists should not use determined via because she is dangerous collusion with drivers who travels for her recklessly. Is to accept that the reckless endangerment in a motor vehicle is a valid argument so that other actors, such as bicycles and pedestrians, surrender your right to movement so that the irresponsibility and impunity can continue to be in force. It must address the root causes and the cause of the problem, instead of blaming their victims and punish them with the curtailment of their rights.

To adopt the speech that cyclists should not circulate in avenues, we are stimulating and loading of arguments the drivers who do not agree with your presence on the streets and put them in harm’s way intentionally, criminally, with the goal of educating them ” ” not use the avenues. And when a press organ – or, worse, a representative of the public authorities-makes these claims, the harmful effect is potentiated, as a statement of official character coated stimulates even more aggressive behavior. This stimulation can result in deaths, sequels and amputations – unfortunately quite indirectly, making it impossible to establish a causal link that imputaria legal liability who discloses publicly this distorted concept and that strengthens intolerance and aggression to cyclists who travel in


State that cyclists should not use the avenues as there are drivers who can kill them is how to tell women not to wear skirts, as there are rapists who can attack them.

What the law says

The claim that cyclists could not use ” fast ” traffic routes comes from the following article of the CTB:


Art. 244 (…)
(1) For cycles applies the provisions in items III, VII and VIII, as:
B) use on freeways or highways, except where there is no shoulder or rolling tracks own

A first analysis makes us believe in avenues where cars trafeguem at high speed, the bike would be forbidden to circulate. But let us understand, in annex which complements the CTB, which the law considers as Freeway:

Annex I – of

Concepts and definitions for the purposes of this code the following definitions adopted:
FREEWAY – that characterized by special access with free transit, without intersections, level without direct accessibility to lots bordering and without crossing of pedestrians at level.

Translating, the bike just can’t travel in avenues where the following requirements are met:

There are no traffic lights there are no crosses there is no direct access to land, buildings, houses, sites, garages, etc., these being made only through acceleration/deceleration lanes there are no crosswalks (or otherwise non-crossing bridges and footbridges)

In other words the only avenues where the bicycle is forbidden by law are those with features of Highway –, yet who have no shoulder. In the city of Sao Paulo, the only places where this occurs are the clues of the Marginal Tiete and Pinheiros express and AV. 23 de Mayo. Throughout the rest of the city, MAY.

Regardless of the right to use, Go to Bike recommends that alternative routes are fetched, when not involve in excessive increase of the distance or uphill. And, even in those cases, weigh the advantages and disadvantages of change your path to avoid Grands Boulevards. The final decision is personal and subjective.

See what the Traffic Code says about bicycles and cyclists.

See also:

Restriction to bicycles in Balneario Camboriu sparked controversy Curitiba bikers national launch campaign for respect to 1, 5 m private Catholic College gets sent to remove bike path in Sao Paulo By the CET does not shy away the attitudes that can kill cyclists on the streets? Watch the full documentary “fight in Fight” bias against cyclists