From John S. Allen, LAB Regional Director, New York/New England:
"The evidence that bicycling on sidewalks and similar facilities is more hazardous than bicycling on streets is overwhelming."
From "Adult Bicyclists in the U.S." by Dr. William Moritz:
Relative danger index 24.8 times as high for sidewalk riding as for major street without bicycle facilities. (ADULT BICYCLISTS IN THE UNITED STATES - CHARACTERISTICS AND RIDING EXPERIENCE IN 1996, William E. Moritz, Ph.D., Professor (Emeritus) Human Powered Transportation, University of Washington, Seattle WA)
According to Dr. Eero Pasanen, Helsinki City Planning Department, Traffic Planning Division, HELSINKI
FINLAND--
"A recent study in Helsinki showed that it is safer to cycle on streets amongst cars than on our two-way cycle paths along streets. It is hard to imagine that our present two-way cycling network could be rebuilt. But in those countries and cities which are just beginning to build their cycling facilities, two-way cycle paths should be avoided in urban street networks.
Even in more advanced cycling countries like Denmark and in the Netherlands, with a lot of cyclists and with their one-way lanes and paths, cycling is still much more dangerous than car driving or public transport. "
Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston published in the ITE Journal, Sept/Oct 1994 (from the Institute of Transportation Engineers):
"The average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway. The risk on the sidewalk is higher than on the roadway for both age groups, for both sexes, and for wrong-way travel. The greatest risk found in this study is 5.3 times the average risk for bicyclists over 18 traveling against traffic on the sidewalk."
"Wrong-way sidewalk travel is 4.5 times as dangerous as right-way sidewalk travel. Moreover, sidewalk bicycling promotes wrong-way travel: 315 of 971 sidewalk bicyclists (32 percent) rode against the direction of traffic, compared to only 108 of 2,005 roadway bicyclists (5 percent)."
"Even right-way sidewalk bicyclists can cross driveways and enter intersections at high speed, and they may enter from an unexpected position and direction for instance, on the right side of overtaking right-turning traffic. Sidewalk bicyclists are also more likely to be obscured at intersections by parked cars, buildings, fences, and shrubbery; their stopping distance is much greater than a pedestrian's, and they have less maneuverability."
There are of course many more supporting expert opinions which are easily found. These only scratch the surface, but should be more than enough to convince a novice.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
From John S. Allen, LAB Regional Director, New York/New England:
"The evidence that bicycling on sidewalks and similar facilities is more hazardous than bicycling on streets is overwhelming."
John S. Allen is one of the more reasonable of the VC party liners, but this is pure horse hockey. He discredits himself.
LittleBigMan
John S. Allen is one of the more reasonable of the VC party liners, but this is pure horse hockey. He discredits himself.
And your expert credentials are...?
Here are some of John S. Allen's:
BICYCLING AFFILIATIONS
2003- Member, Board of Directors, League of American Bicyclists, national bicyclists' organization. 1989-1993, Member, Consumer Affairs Committee, drafted policy on helmet laws. New England Regional Director's Distinguished Service Award, 1991. Founder and member of Massachusetts State Legislative Committee, 1982-1983. Initiated effort for bicycle headlight bill signed into law in 1983 and drafted helmet bill signed into law in 1993. State Legislative Representative, 1984- . League member 1979-.
2003- Member, Board of Directors, Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition, advocacy organization.1989-1992 President, predecessor organization, Boston Area Bicycle Coalition. Director, 1982-1985, 1987-1994. Active in Coalition since 1977.
2003- Member, Bicycle Technical Committee, National Council on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
2003-, 1984-1995, Member, International Human Powered Vehicle Association.
2002- Member, Board of Directors, Bicycle Transportation Institute
1983-1985 Member, American National Standards Association (ANSI) Technical Advisory Group on bicycle standards.
1980-1992 Member, American Youth Hostels.
EMPLOYMENT IN THE FIELD OF CYCLING
2003-, 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980 Co-author, Sutherland's Handbook for Bicycle Mechanics, third and subsequent editions (Sutherland Publications), the bicycle industry's parts interchangeability "bible;" 1992: Co-author, Sutherland's Handbook of Coaster-Brake and Internally-Geared Hubs.
2002 Member of team developing a national curriculum for police about bicycling, working under contract to the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition
2002 Juror, Taiwan bicycle industry international design competition, Taichung, Taiwan.
2001 Assisted Governor's Highway Safety Bureau in development of materials on bicycling safety.
1999 Conducted seminar on bicycle transportation for the St. Louis area. Wrote report, now posted on the Internet.
1995- Conducting ongoing study of bicycle use on the island of Martha's Vineyard.
1995 Technical consultant employed by the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition to conduct a statewide bicycle facilities inventory under contract to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation. Principal author of inventory report.
1994, 1993 Researched and wrote reports on bicycle touring routes and commuting routes under contract for Massachusetts Highway Department and Department of Environmental Management.
1990- Trained Boston Metro, Providence, MIT, Lexington and Waltham, Massachusetts police in riding skills. Have taught Effective Cycling/Bicycle Driver Training classes in Boston area since 1982.
1990 Revised Basic Bicycling booklet for League of American Bicyclists.
1988-1994 Contributing Editor, American Bicyclist magazine.
1987 Wrote booklet Bicycling Street Smarts, about correct and safe techniques for urban riding (Rodale Press, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida Departments of Transportation and on the Internet). New edition published by Rubel Bikemaps, 2002. Total circulation over 400,000 copies.
1988, 1987 Instructor in MIT course "Planning for Bicycling."
1985-1986 Revised Glenn's New Complete Bicycle Manual, a major bicycle repair text (Crown Publishers, New York).
1985 Contributor, Bicycle Repair, Easy Bicycle Maintenance and Riding and Racing Techniques, (Rodale Press).
1985-1986 Consultant to Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston, selecting routes for the Massachusetts Bicycle Map; the routes were later adopted by Rubel Bikemaps for its series of bicycle touring maps; continuing consultation with Rubel Bikemaps 1994-present.
1984-1993 Contributing Editor, Bicycle Guide magazine. Author of numerous articles; consultant for startup of magazine.
1984 Consultant on bicycle riding skills for Silver-Burdett children's book Things to Know Before You Buy a Bicycle.
1984 Co-author, Expert Bike Handling (Rodale Press, 1984).
1982- Expert witness-consultant in bicycle accident cases. Undertook research which led to resolution of numerous major claims. Testified at depositions and in court.
1981-1984 Editor at Large, Bike Tech magazine. Author of numerous articles on maintenance, dimensional standards, lighting and reflectorization, and mechanical theory.
1980-1984 Contributing Editor, Bicycling magazine. Wrote many articles about riding technique, facilities design standards, repair and maintenance. Consultant to the magazine.
1981 Contributor, The Durability Factor (Rodale, 1981).
1980 Author, The Complete Book of Bicycle Commuting (Rodale, 1981): a comprehensive handbook for use of the bicycle as transportation under demanding urban conditions.
1977- Author, over 200 bicycling articles in magazines named above as well as Bike World, Boys' Life, Human Power, Consumer's Digest, and other publications: subjects: riding technique and maintenance.
INDUSTRY CONFERENCES AND CONVENTIONS ATTENDED
2004, 2001 Attended National Bicycle Summit, Washington, DC
2003, 1993, 1990, 1982, 1980 Workshop leader on traffic riding techniques at National Rally of the League of American Bicyclists. Attended National Rally, 2004
2004, 2003, 2002, 1996 Attended Interbike international bicycle trade show (Las Vegas, Nevada; Anaheim, California).
2003, 2002 Attended National Council on Uniform Traffic Control Devices meeting, Alexandria, Virginia.
2002, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1990, 1984, 1982 Attended Pro-Bike Conference, an international gathering of bicycle specialists and activists from government, planning and public interest communities. Workshop leader, 2002, 1996.
2000 Invited participant, NHTSA National Bicycle Safety Conference, Washington, DC
1998, 1995, 1994, 1990, 1988 Workshop leader, GEAR, annual rally of the League of American Bicyclists. 1985, workshop leader, Gear in the Bluegrass, southern rally; 1984, 1983, 1981, workshop leader, Gear-Up, northeastern area rally.
1995 Participant in conference organizing American Society for the Testing of Materials (ASTM) bicycle standards committee.
1995 Workshop presenter, Playing It Safe child safety conference, Worcester, Massachusetts.
1994, 1981, 1979 Attended national tandem bicycle rally.
1995 Workshop leader at Massachusetts Bicyclists' Conference. Co-chair, 1994.
1992 Attended Bicycle Federation of America workshop on Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, Washington, DC. Prepared and edited conference transcript.
1991 Co-chair, East Coast Bicycle Conference, Cambridge, MA; attended 1989 conference, New York, and 1987 conference, Washington, D.C.
1991 Workshop leader, Pro-Bike Northwest Conference/League of American Bicyclists National Rally.
1990 Attended Let Kids Live, conference on pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility issues, Hollywood, Florida.
1990 Consultant, Traffic Safety Curriculum Development Conference, Vermont Department of Education.
1990, 1989 Workshop leader, Massachusetts Lifesavers' conference. Organizing committee member for 1992 conference.
1989 Attended Atlantic City Interbike Expo (trade show).
1989, 1987, 1985, 1983 Led workshops at the New England Area Rally. Member of organizing committee, 1983.
1987, 1984 Attended International Human Powered Vehicle Association championships. Judge in Practical Vehicle Competition, 1984,
1987, 1986, 1985, 1983, 1982, 1980 Attended New York's International Cycle Show (trade show). 1984, attended Bicycle Dealers' Showcase Exposition, New York. 1983, panel member, Bicycling magazine seminar for industry representatives on improving product lines. 1982, speaker, Bicycling technical conference.
1985 Attended National Forensic Center conference of expert witnesses and litigation consultants, Chicago.
1983 Featured speaker, Vélo-Quebec bicycle industry conference.
1980-1983 Participant and workshop leader at annual meetings of the Bicycle Network, an international bicyclists' advocacy group.
CYCLING BACKGROUND
Bicycling for transportation and recreation since 1964, averaging 2,000-5,000 miles per year in recent years, more than half in Boston urban traffic in all seasons, weather conditions and at all times of day; the rest in tours of 20-100 miles per day. Travel by bicycle in and around San Francisco; Los Angeles; Portland, Oregon; New York; Philadelphia; Baltimore; Washington; Montréal; Paris; Taichung, Taiwan; Inchon, Korea and other cities. I own six bicycles, specialized for different purposes (folding bike, day touring bike, long-distance touring bike, mountain bike, "trashmo" for city riding, tandem.) I assemble and maintain all of my bicycles myself.
JRA
My credentials are that I'm not an expert. I've referred many people to John S. Allen's writings but, when it comes to his views on sidewalk riding, he's full of it. It's too bad he accepts the party line and is unwilling to take a critical look at the evidence.
LittleBigMan
My credentials are that I'm not an expert. I've referred many people to John S. Allen's writings but, when it comes to his views on sidewalk riding, he's full of it. It's too bad he accepts the party line and is unwilling to take a critical look at the evidence.
Show your evidence.
Roody
My credentials are that I'm not an expert. I've referred many people to John S. Allen's writings but, when it comes to his views on sidewalk riding, he's full of it. It's too bad he accepts the party line and is unwilling to take a critical look at the evidence.That's all you're going to say? We should be convinced? Come on...
KrisPistofferson
I'm not "VC" or "PC" or any of that, but I've never heard anything to convince me riding the sidewalk ISN'T hazardous compared to the street. Unless you're in a really laid back suburb or out in the country riding on the sidewalk is pretty effing dumb. Anybody who would be looking out for you on the road won't really think to look on the sidewalk, rendering you invisible, you have to follow pedestrian rules, making your travel time longer, pedestrians won't think to look out for you, there are tons of blind corners and such on sidewalks. It's just kind of a silly thing to do unless you're a little kid and don't know better.
JRA
The alledged "proof" of the dangers of sidewalk cycling is a joke.
Even in more advanced cycling countries like Denmark and in the Netherlands, with a lot of cyclists and with their one-way lanes and paths, cycling is still much more dangerous than car driving or public transport.
OK, let's all drive cars. Cycling is just too dangerous.
"The average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway."
OMG! 1.8 times. Is that the risk of death or simply the risk of an accident of any kind?
"Wrong-way sidewalk travel is 4.5 times as dangerous as right-way sidewalk travel."
Wow, what a revelation! And this is relevant how?
Give me a frickin' break! Show me some evidence that sidewalk cycling is actually more dangerous than cycling on the road. The burden of proof is on those who claim sidewalk cycling is dangerous.
They've been trying for years and haven't come up with diddly squat so far.
I've always respected Mr. Allen but it's interesting that he is LAB Regional Director, New York/New England, and 'sidewalk riding is dangerous' is the LAB party line.
If it weren't for the fact that some people actually believe the party line propaganda, it'd be laughable.
catatonic
My opinion of it, is it may FEEL safer, but if you are not behaving as pedestrian like as possible, then you are just adding to your risk factor.
IMO about 7mph is reasonable on a sidewalk...just pay attention. The real risk factor is at interesctions and parking lots, where a car may either not notice you or miscalculate your speed.
Most often I'e seen are cars will block the pedestrian lane (sidewalk or crosswalk), often requiring a speeding rider to have no nail the brakes. The other is right hand turns, where they don't notice the rider until they just hit them. It's those two situations alone why I keep insisting if anyone rides the sidewalk, while they are to behave like a pedestrian.
The other side is pedestrian safety....if they don't feel safe with the way a person is riding their bike on the sidewalk...then they either need to adjust their riding style or get on the road....after all, a sidewalk was designed explicitly for pedestrians, while roads were designed for vehicles (like bikes).
basically it boils down to rideaccordng to the path you are on, and what you feel is safe on a sidewalk doesn't matter...it's whats safe to the people walking it that matters.
Helmet Head
"The average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway."
Show me some evidence that sidewalk cycling is actually more dangerous than cycling on the road.
When a study shows that X is 180% as dangerous as Y, that, to me, qualifies as "some evidence that X is actually more dangerous than Y".
What part of "the average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway" do you not understand?
Helmet Head
Of course, for someone who understand how traffic works, and rides accordingly, sidewalk cycling is no more dangerous than roadway cycling.
The assertion that sidewalk cycling is more dangerous is based on studies of average cyclists who probably have little understanding of what situation is more hazardous than another, and are essentially riding at the mercy of motorists seeing them. Those people are less likely to be seen on sidewalks, and, hence, are more (1.8 times, apparently) at risk than when riding on the roadway.
I-Like-To-Bike
Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston published in the ITE Journal, Sept/Oct 1994 (from the Institute of Transportation Engineers):
"The average cyclist in this study incurs a risk on the sidewalk 1.8 times as great as on the roadway. The risk on the sidewalk is higher than on the roadway for both age groups, for both sexes, and for wrong-way travel. The greatest risk found in this study is 5.3 times the average risk for bicyclists over 18 traveling against traffic on the sidewalk."
The researchers showed the same sloppy mischaracterization/misuse of the term "risk" as their mentor. Nowhere in their "risk" study is accident severity level evaluated. A risk analysis that does not factor in the severity of the various mishaps is WORTHLESS for evaluating comparative risk. Except possibly for those researchers with a predetermined agenda to "prove."
Not surprisingly the researchers suggested Effective Cycling Instruction as a likely candidate for risk reduction (with no supporting evidence.) One of the researchers is an instructor in that program; the other researcher is an associate of the owner of the program; a program whose promotion is predicated on such sophomoric risk analysis.
KrisPistofferson
Okay, say that sidewalk riding is ONLY %10 more dangerous,(and I think there's really no question that it is, whether you agree with %80 or %2,) what possible advantage does it serve? Or is this an "I think I'll be contrary just to troll"-situations?
I-Like-To-Bike
Okay, say that sidewalk riding is ONLY %10 more dangerous,(and I think there's really no question that it is, whether you agree with %80 or %2,) what possible advantage does it serve? Or is this an "I think I'll be contrary just to troll"-situations?
You can "say" anything you like; that doesn't make for a credible evaluation of risk.
KrisPistofferson
what possible advantage does it serve?Answer the question, please! :p
I-Like-To-Bike
Answer the question, please! :p
The question being: "what possible advantage does it <sidewalk cycling> serve?
The cyclist(s) concerned deem "it" the best choice at that time and that place for that cyclist.
Presumably such cyclists don't give a dang about WAGs and meaningless statistics about relative "risk" that are unquestioned by some individuals on Internet discussion groups
KrisPistofferson
The question being: "what possible advantage does it <sidewalk cycling> serve?
The cyclist(s) concerned deem "it" the best choice at that time and that place for that cyclist.
Presumably such cyclists don't give a dang about WAGs and meaningless statistics about relative "risk" that are unquestioned by some individuals on Internet discussion groups
I may have misconstrued you as a "sidewalks Only" type of guy, and you in turn mistook me for a VC hardliner. You can't be all bad, since, like me, you use quotation marks a lot. I think it's exceptable in rare instances to go on the sidewalk, but if most of your riding is on them, you've got problems.
I-Like-To-Bike
I may have misconstrued you as a "sidewalks Only" type of guy, and you in turn mistook me for a VC hardliner. You can't be all bad, since, like me, you use quotation marks a lot. I think it's exceptable in rare instances to go on the sidewalk, but if most of your riding is on them, you've got problems.
True, and the "problem" could be that a rational cyclist would view the alternative to the sidewalk, at certain places and times, as a worse choice than the sidewalk.
Not all cyclists place the same emphasis on maximizing speed or choosing cycling technique IAW theoretical guesswork.
LittleBigMan
You can "say" anything you like; that doesn't make for a credible evaluation of risk.
I-Like-To-Bike, your position is cleary understood from the majority of your posts. What is not clear is what scientific studies you are basing your points on.
As you said, one can say anything one likes; that doesn't make for a credible evaluation of risk. Even one single scientific study does not prove anything; it takes several studies that point to the same results to establish credible scientific evidence.
Please post the scientific studies that justify your position.
Helmet Head
I-Like-To-Bike, your position is cleary understood from the majority of your posts. What is not clear is what scientific studies you are basing your points on.
As you said, one can say anything one likes; that doesn't make for a credible evaluation of risk. Even one single scientific study does not prove anything; it takes several studies that point to the same results to establish credible scientific evidence.
Please post the scientific studies that justify your position.
Don't hold your breath.
I-Like-To-Bike
I-Like-To-Bike, your position is cleary understood from the majority of your posts.
I doubt it. Given your question I also doubt if you understood anything about measurement and evaluation of risk you would not ask such a question.
What is not clear is what scientific studies you are basing your points on.
Please post the scientific studies that justify your position.
My position is that by definition a credible analysis of risk REQUIRES evaluation of the probability of mishap/exposure to the mishap(s) AND the severity level of the various mishaps. WITHOUT SEVERITY EVALUATION, you might as well be quoting random numbers; such incomplete raw numbers do NOT provide a basis for evaluating risk, PERIOD.
This basic fact about risk analysis techniques requires no scientific or counter proof to discredit a study, that for its creators' own purposes, redefines risk as any accident with no regard to severity.
The Wachtel and Lewiston so-called "risk" study makes no distinction between a skinned knee accident and a crippling permanent disability accident -i.e. it is worthless for comparative risk purposes. In fact there may not be any personal injury at all in some of these accidents, a dented car door qualifies as an accident for this study; no accident data is provided, only total numbers of undefined "accidents". Just like found in some other notoriously sloppy "risk analysis" oft quoted by VC gurus, a bent rim is equivalent in risk/danger value to a cyclist's crushed pelvis, or worse. And this kind of "stuff" doesn't get any more credible because someone who should know better (and discredits himself in the process) posts it on his web site or uses made-up phraseology like "crash rates" to cover up the insignificance of such meaningless numbers.
Helmet Head
I don't think LittleBigMan was referring to I-Like-To-Bike's position about credible analysis of risk; I believe he was referring to his position(s) about traffic cycling.
I disagree that his position on traffic cycling is clearly understood. I, for one, don't understand it at all, and doubt that even I-Like-To-Bike understands what his position is. He appears to not understand it well enough to explain it to the rest of us very clearly, in any case, much less able to cite the studies upon which his postions are based.
John E
Of course, for someone who understand how traffic works, and rides accordingly, sidewalk cycling is no more dangerous than roadway cycling.
The assertion that sidewalk cycling is more dangerous is based on studies of average cyclists who probably have little understanding of what situation is more hazardous than another, and are essentially riding at the mercy of motorists seeing them. Those people are less likely to be seen on sidewalks, and, hence, are more (1.8 times, apparently) at risk than when riding on the roadway.
This is one of the most rational posts in this thread.
On very rare occasions, I resort to a bit of sidewalk cycling to bypass a specific problem, such as having to make two successive left turns in heavy traffic or to get around an impassable curb-to-curb traffic jam. I select sidewalk segments which are wide, which have few, if any pedestrians, and which have few driveway cuts, I proceed at low speed, and I do not re-enter the street directly at an intersection without repositioning myself in a vehicular fashion.
I accept John Allen's risk statistic as a GENERAL AVERAGE guideline and note that it does not apply to me, for the reasons Serge mentioned above.
nick burns
Are there really that many people riding regularly on the sidewalk instead of the road? I've been riding an awfully long time & the only people I see on the sidewalk are kids.
I think most adults realize that sidewalks were made for pedestians not bicyclists.
I-Like-To-Bike
I accept John Allen's risk statistic as a GENERAL AVERAGE guideline and note that it does not apply to me.
Which John Allen "risk statistic" would that be and to whom does it apply?
gonzohill
The point he is making is that the study doesnt say what the dangers are. The average cyclist could be running into light poles and fire hydrants not haveing collisions with cars. However if you have accidents of any type more often in one place than another it might be reasonable to conclude it is more dangerous on the sidewalk!!
genec
Are there really that many people riding regularly on the sidewalk instead of the road? I've been riding an awfully long time & the only people I see on the sidewalk are kids.
I think most adults realize that sidewalks were made for pedestians not bicyclists.
I see a number of sidwalk riders in my area... Not quite a dense urban environment, but a well developed older neighborhood with long standing sidewalks. The streets however tend to be somewhat narrow and the connecting boulevards are 35-45MPH roads with cars parked alongside. The sidewalks tend to run full block lengths often without driveways along the boulevard. I often see sidewalk riders in an around the local shopping center/mall (bigger than your basic shoping center, smaller than the average mall). I see one old guy all the time... riding slowly, smoking cigarettes... obviously in his element.
A fellow co-worker occasionally rides from my neighborhood to work on his bike on the sidewalks and has expressed that "those guys that ride in the streets are nuts..."
I prefer the streets, simply because I prefer to go fast.
I have ridden the sidewalks on occasion on my cruiser bike... but rarely... just to pop down to the store and such... it's fun... and I don't have to change shoes to do it. ;)
I personally think the biggest danger is the motorists turning into driveways from the street... they don't look much past their destination for anything but autos. For a rider like myself... that is fine... I see the situations setting up, and avoid them. These situations also exist when riding VC on the streets. Motorists do not look for cyclists, and/or underestimate their speeds. Thus "turns into driveways," are probably the biggest danger.
For a non VC rider or non driver (i.e. kids) they will not see or look for the situations and therefore are in the greatest danger.
Don't ask for my credentials... just find a busy street near a shopping center and watch some time... see what you see.
AndrewP
I ride on sidewalks and in the wrong direction on one-way streets at times, but as I know this is more dangerous, I exercise much higher level of care.
BOGEE
It is against the law in LA County and believe in California to ride your bicycle on a sidewalk let alone in the wrong direction. Anyway, it is way better on the road.
LittleBigMan
I-Like-To-Bike ...
Please post the scientific studies that justify your position.
My position is that by definition a credible analysis of risk REQUIRES evaluation of the probability of mishap/exposure to the mishap(s) AND the severity level of the various mishaps. WITHOUT SEVERITY EVALUATION, you might as well be quoting random numbers; such incomplete raw numbers do NOT provide a basis for evaluating risk, PERIOD. Etc...
I asked you to post the scientific studies that justify your position. You still have not done that. All you have done is to repeat your position and add detail to it, but the fact that you believe it does not prove it, just like you are fond of saying about those who disagree with you.
The difference is that they have scientific studies to reference, you do not (yet.)
FotoTomas
Well I for one see benefit to both techniques of cycling. I was trained as a VC rider in a Police Moutain Bike course. I was also trained to use the sidewalks, jump curbs, climb stairs and descend stairs on my bike. These techniques have their place and time.
When I commute to work on my Patrol MTB I often combine the techniques and keep a watchful eye out. I have 5 lane high speed roads near my house where there are sidewalks on both sides. My MTB is not fast and I also deal with a large number of college students in the area that not only ride the sidewalk but with out helmets and lights at night. When I am on those fast roads at night I much prefer to be on the sidewalk, wearing a helmet and with lots of light. I "feel" safer and aware of the potential downsides. I ride slower than most for the entire commute. 10 to 12 MPH both on sidewalks, trail and roadways.
There may statistical evidence to indicate such riding has a higher potential of accident but at what point does the risk overcome the benefit. I was trained as a private pilot and realize my chances for death or serious injury is far greater in a car. I drive a lot more than I fly. I also realize that head injuries are the most common cause of death in car accidents but I limit my protection to seatbelts and air bags. Maybe one day I will start wearing a helmet in the car to overcome the statistically significant threat of death due to head injury in a car wreck. Maybe not.
In my limited exposure to "serious" cycling I have been very happy to find a great group of people that have helped me both professionally and privately with my biking needs. This battle between the "VC" and non "VC" seems to be a little on the extreme side. There is a place where both techniques have a purpose and the cycling community has enough variety to insure it will never run out of arguments. :)
Bottom line is this...with out the VC studies (that some have quoted) showing me how the added risk might negatively impact my riding on a sidewalk occasionally (as opposed to simply saying it is more risky) then I will continue to evaluate my own experience and do what I think is safer for me. Even if it means taking on more risk for a better perceived return on personal safety or value.
Life is a risk in all things and your perception of risk and the return of value will guide your actions.
For some such as serious roadies with the special shoes and pedals looking for long distance and speed I see VC as being the preferred method but that does not necessarily apply to everyone else. Conditions, equipment and circumstance will always require the need to improvise and make do. Including the need to take on extra risk to meet your objectives or make you “feel” better.
I-Like-To-Bike
I asked you to post the scientific studies that justify your position.
What dang position are you talking about? That risk can not be credibly measured, assessed or compared by totaling accident events, independent of assessing accident consequences (severity)? That "Studies" relying on such methods are only useful for those wishing to gull others who are clueless (and apparantly proud of it) about risk assessment, risk analysis and/or risk management?
No study, scientific or otherwise, is necessary to "justify" the observation that such statistical/analytical deception about risk assessment finds fertile ground among so-called cycling safety advocates happy to be duped, as long as the conclusions are in sync with their own. If in doubt just read this thread again.
I-Like-To-Bike
If you have accidents of any type more often in one place than another it might be reasonable to conclude it is more dangerous on the sidewalk!!
It would be reasonable to draw that conclusion, IF you ranked/assessed ALL accidents as equal in severity and made no distinction at all about accident effects; i.e. a bent rim or skinned knee accident is identical in consequences to an accident that results in paralysis, crushed internal organs or shattered bones or bodies.
Though some of the studies, oft quoted by self-appointed VC "safety experts, do use such inadequate methods to categorize risk, no credible safety person would rely on, or even pay attention to, such statistical doo-doo for the purpose of risk analysis/risk management. Obviously, as this thread demonstrates, there are those who are quite content to believe in what they want to believe, regardless of lack of reliable/credible evidence.
LittleBigMan
What dang position are you talking about? That risk can not be credibly measured, assessed or compared by totaling accident events, independent of assessing accident consequences (severity)? That "Studies" relying on such methods are only useful for those wishing to gull others who are clueless (and apparantly proud of it) about risk assessment, risk analysis and/or risk management?
No study, scientific or otherwise, is necessary to "justify" the observation that such statistical/analytical deception about risk assessment finds fertile ground among so-called cycling safety advocates happy to be duped, as long as the conclusions are in sync with their own. If in doubt just read this thread again.
You use so many words to repeat one simple mantra:
"I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. The proof that they are wrong is because I am right."
I don't accept your supporting evidence, because you have none. You just keep repeating that you are right.
I-Like-To-Bike
I don't accept your supporting evidence, because you have none.
LBM's declaration that he is unwilling to "accept" that his favorite "risk" stats are not to be trusted due to the improper/dishonest method used to arrive at them, and that sophomic, sloppy use of the term "risk' doesn't indicate doo-doo to someone not logically impaired, is of little consequence. If LBM prefers to "accept" an apparent belief that understanding risk assessment fundamentals is irrelevant when discussing risk, good for him and he should continue to successfully preach about "risk" (to include statistical gibberish) to those who share in his set of beliefs.
JRA
There is no body of evidence that sidewalk riding is inherently dangerous.
People can "reference" studies and claim that there's a body of evidence but it simply isn't true. The studies do not show what some people claim they show.
A statistic doesn't mean a whole lot unless you know how the study was conducted, what population was studied, what data was collected and how it was collected. For example, comparing children who ride on sidewalks to adults who ride on the roads may not be a particularly meaningful comparison. A greater rate of injuries for the first group may be an indication that riding on sidewalks is dangerous but it could just as well be an indication that children who ride bicycles are more prone to accidents than adults who ride bicycles.
There simply isn't a lot of accurate and meaningful data on sidewalk riding. There's a good deal of evidence that riding on sidepaths is dangerous. I don't dispute that but data from studies of sidepaths says little or nothing about the dangers of riding on sidewalks.
In particular, there's no significant body of evidence that riding on sidewalks at pedestrian speed is dangerous. People can and many probably will accept the party line on sidewalk riding without questioning it. There are no advocacy groups for sidewalk riders that I'm aware of, so the politically correct (among cyclists) view that sidewalk riding is inherently dangerous will continue to go pretty much unchallenged.
I'm not advocating sidewalk riding but I am advocating a choice. I'm concerned about laws against sidewalk riding - laws which, ironically, some so-called cycling advocates either favor or don't oppose.
BTW, I see lots of people riding on sidewalks in some places. Aside from children, I see college students, college professors and the like. (And, yes, the police.) There's nothing particularly dangerous about it. To force them to ride the half mile or so from their apartment to class seems a little unnecessary to me.
FotoTomas
It seems to me that one side (little Big Man for example) is against sidewalk riding due to the "risk" being greater for "accidents" based on published reports indicating this is so. The other side (I-Like-To-Bike, and JRA in that corner) seem to purport that the studies have used flawed methodology to arrive at the conclusions and as such the conclusions are not valid due to statistical infidelity.
This has caused an argument that I as a new member to the "serious cycling community" do not understand. one side refuses to examine the study for flaws and admit there might be some discrepancies as to how risk is determined while the other does not seem to consider that risk is still risk even if undefined.
I for one will be happy to concede that maybe sidewalks "Can" be more dangerous but until the risk vs. reward can be shown to infer death or serious bodily injury will be the likely result unless I stay off the sidewalk I tend to support the honorable opposition to the study.
I agree that side B does not have any need to provide a rebuttal study when the study in question has an obvious bias and does not quantify its results with risk management guidelines.
If this Internet exchange was designed to show the "VC" way as being the "better way" In my case it has not. it has merely shown me that there are proponents that are dogmatic in their belief structure.
As for me...The jury is definitely still out. I will continue to use those roads where I in my experience believe myself to be safer and the sidewalks when in my opinion the risk is the lesser of two evils.
:)
I-Like-To-Bike
This has caused an argument that I as a new member to the "serious cycling community" do not understand. one side refuses to examine the study for flaws and admit there might be some discrepancies as to how risk is determined while the other does not seem to consider that risk is still risk even if undefined.
I consider "risk is risk", in the same sense that injuries are injuries; i.e. a skinned knee and a smashed body are both injuries; competent evaluation of injuries AND risk require defining severity. Dogmatists often do not make such distinctions as it might call into question the basis of their rigid beliefs.
catatonic
It would be reasonable to draw that conclusion, IF you ranked/assessed ALL accidents as equal in severity and made no distinction at all about accident effects; i.e. a bent rim or skinned knee accident is identical in consequences to an accident that results in paralysis, crushed internal organs or shattered bones or bodies.
Though some of the studies, oft quoted by self-appointed VC "safety experts, do use such inadequate methods to categorize risk, no credible safety person would rely on, or even pay attention to, such statistical doo-doo for the purpose of risk analysis/risk management. Obviously, as this thread demonstrates, there are those who are quite content to believe in what they want to believe, regardless of lack of reliable/credible evidence.
Evidence has been presented...it's just easier to wave off anything that's not agreed upon...that's human nature. Heck even when the world was proven to be round, people still didn't beleive it for over a hundred years.
Now, the proof may not be proving exactly what the person was trying to convey, but it does make a point.
That point was the chance of incident goes up on a sidewalk...couple that with sidewalks being one of the few places where a cyclist/pedestrian collision is at it's highest, and that's where people start off with this.
My main gripe is the group that treats the sidewalk like it's a road, and goes 15-20mph down it....part since that is not a bike path...it's apedestrian path....that's akin to someone taking a mototrcycle down the street at 200mph (based on a traffic speed of 50mph) while claiming "well we aren't cars, so we don't have to follow rules".
Basically there has to be rules of some sort for their sake.....regardless of if any are on the sidewalk or not....road speeds don't vary depending on traffic (school zones are the only exception), and a bicycle is a vehicle.
To me it has to do with also doing the right thing as well as safety....if the pedestrians feel threatened about someone's speeding bike down the sidewalk...well that person needs to find something other than a sidewalk to use. If the sidewalk is used, ride at a pace that gives plenty of time to deal with pedestrians, and stop at intersections and look both ways. It's at intersections where sidewalks are the most dangerous, since most people just barrel through it without looking...so the driver usually doesn't see them, and POW...it's not the driver's sole fault in that instance...it's both parties...since the rider was not on the road, so they have to check before getting on it, even if just to cross.
To make it short....sidewalk basically equals driveway....treat crossing the street from a sidewalk as if you were exiting a driveway. It has to do more with preventing an accident than anything else.
KrisPistofferson
In larger cities,(New York, Chicago, LA,) isn't it illegal to ride on the sidewalk? I mean, in Iowa it probably isn't all that much more hazardous, but a metro area is a completely different story. Another example of the intellectual dishonesty some forum members accuse others of perpetrating...
LittleBigMan
It seems to me that one side (little Big Man for example) is against sidewalk riding due to the "risk" being greater for "accidents" based on published reports indicating this is so. The other side (I-Like-To-Bike, and JRA in that corner) seem to purport that the studies have used flawed methodology to arrive at the conclusions and as such the conclusions are not valid due to statistical infidelity.
This is a very clear picture, sir.
My "case" is simply that proponents of the safety of sidewalk bicycling, as compared with road cycling, refuse to support their arguments with any sort of data. Instead, they just keep saying that data they disagree with is wrong.
In fact, they go as far as to totally dismiss the opinions of those who our legal system recognizes as "expert witnesses" in cycling-related crashes (Allen, Forester) simply because they say these men are "biased." Again, they give no evidence to support their accusations against these gentlemen. Instead of giving facts, they claim these men are part of a larger conspiracy which includes everyone who falls into a category they call "VC's."
I have posted the credentials of John S. Allen, a highly-respected cyclist and advocate in the cycling community. In response, his character was attacked. This is a typical mud-slinging tactic when you have no evidence to support your claims.
The other tactic of making the false accusation that there is a conspiracy against people who ride on the sidewalk and bicycle facilities is repeated over and over so that it appears to be a fact, but it has never been supported. The accusation is, in fact, ridiculous.
sggoodri
I can think of three levels of description that a government or organization might use to describe an activity such as sidewalk use by bicyclists.
(1) Dangerous enough to prohibit. I personally do not think that sidewalk cycling is so dangerous to other sidewalk users or roadway users that it warrants outright prohibition in many or most places, particularly where pedestrian volumes are very low. Opposition to sidewalk cycling prohibition may be justified in conservative terms related to minimizing government interference with harmless activity.
(2) Safe enough to endorse. I believe outright encouragement of sidewalk cycling may be unethical, primarily due to the potential hazards at driveways and intersections. In the city where I live, a dispropotionately large share of car-bike collisions involve contra-flow sidewalk cyclists at intersections. I don't think it's possible to endorse sidewalk cycling without setting up cyclists for unexpected conflicts at intersections.
(3) Safe enough to require. Many cities and some states have mandatory sidepath-use laws that require cyclists to ride on a designated sidewalk path if one exists. These laws were written with the assumption by the regulatory agencies that the sidepaths would be as safe or safer than using the roadway, but we now know that the collision hazards on these paths are significant - enough that some DOTs and the AASHTO guide recommend against designating sidewalks as bike paths, and cyclist education organizations discourage sidewalk cycling in favor of roadway cycling. There are also many situations where sidewalk cycling is less convenient than roadway cycling, and roadway cycling creates minimal danger for other road users. For these reasons, most cyclist advocacy organizations recommend against statutes and ordinances requiring cyclists to ride on sidewalk-type facilities, and seek the repeal of existing laws to this effect.
Vehicular cyclists avoid sidewalk cycling because it is usually more hazardous and less convenient than roadway cycling. However, many habitually vehicular cyclists will occasionally use a sidewalk in some specific situation where it seem advantageous and reasonably safe to do so. I believe the biggest concern that most vehicular cyclists have about sidewalk cycling is the prohibition of safe and convenient roadway cycling that often comes with promotion of sidewalk cycling, particularly when the government is behind that promotion. This was a significant problem in the city where I live, where the city had a mandatory sidepath-use law and proceeded to designate some sidewalks as bike paths. After cyclists opposed these actions, the local government changed its policy to endorse and accommodate (via education, enforcement, and engineering actions) roadway cycling while still building certain priority sidewalks wider to accommodate whatever bicycle traffic they might see.
manboy
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It depends on what road you're on. If we're going to talk about studies, I want to see a study that differentiates between urban roads where a bike can mesh with the car traffic and roads that are basically interstates with stoplights. You can't tell me it's the same, and I don't think it's possible to cycle vehicularly on a 5-lane highway without bike facilities and full of aggressive 50-60mph drivers, especially if you're only moving at a moderate cruising speed. This kind of thing is why they don't let bikes, animals, mopeds and horse-carts on the interstate: they all just get in the way. On divided highways that are like interstates, I feel like I'm about to cause an accident or incur road rage even when I'm courteous. Also, it doesn't help if there's a curb directly to the right of your tire and you have no "out."
Maybe you guys should travel a bit more and start re-thinking your strict categories.
JRA
My "case" is simply that proponents of the safety of sidewalk bicycling, as compared with road cycling, refuse to support their arguments with any sort of data. Instead, they just keep saying that data they disagree with is wrong.Speaking for myself, my case is not that the data is wrong but that it is inconclusive. There's a big difference.
I have also not claimed that sidewalk riding is safe. Asking me to support something I haven't claimed with data is a bit silly.
I have claimed that some people are biased which, contrary to popular opinion, is not an attack on their character, their honesty or their qualifications. Everyone is biased. Everyone has had slightly different experiences and sees the world through a slightly different lens. There is nothing wrong with.
I have said I respect John Allen. I would not hesitate to recommend his book, "Street Smarts" to anyone. But the fact that I respect a person does not mean that I accept everything that person says without question. I can respect a person and still think they are quite wrong about certain things. (I have to respect Mr Allen; his name bears a striking similarity to mine)
There are people who have a definate "ride on the roads or don't ride at all" agenda. Some people bad-mouth sidewalk riding every chance they get, all on the basis of some rather flimsy evidence. They point to studies that are at best inconclusive. I've read a number of the studies (not recently, but I've read them). I claim that they do not show that sidewalk riding is inherently dangerous. That's really about all I'm saying.
I suspect there's a lot of support in these forums for the opinion that sidewalk riding is just so incredibly dangerous that no one should ever attempt it. I also suspect that I am tilting at windmills in this crowd. That's just fine. I have an opinion and others have theirs. You know what: I don't really care. The future of cycling won't be decided on an internet message board anyway. Arguing back and forth is fairly pointless. On top of that, there are things I'm considerably more interested in than sidewalk cycling.
And so it goes.
I-Like-To-Bike
Speaking for myself, my case is not that the data is wrong but that it is inconclusive. There's a big difference.
Ditto
I have also not claimed that sidewalk riding is safe. Asking me to support something I haven't claimed with data is a bit silly.
Ditto
But the fact that I respect a person does not mean that I accept everything that person says without question. I can respect a person and still think they are quite wrong about certain things.
Ditto
I also suspect that I am tilting at windmills in this crowd. That's just fine. I have an opinion and others have theirs. You know what: I don't really care. The future of cycling won't be decided on an internet message board anyway. Arguing back and forth is fairly pointless.
Certainly true about expecting reasonable dialog, rather than rigid dogma and self-righteous whining from a few individuals who seem unable to recognize themselves as ideologues. For the most part I have stopped wasting time responding to the worst; several more joined my list of windmill/time wasters as a result of this thread. Just let them rant on and continue to channel the Words/Statistics of their Guru.
On top of that, there are things I'm considerably more interested in than sidewalk cycling.
I haven't ridden on sidewalks in over 40 years, but I don't criticize or object to those who do for their own reasons; none of which, I am confident, involve giving a dang about what VC ideologues "accept."
The Real 57
There is no danger involved in sidewalk riding that can not be overcome with a little common sense. Average riders are more likely to get into trouble on the sidewalk than the street because they do not understand the special dangers involved in riding there. Sidewalks can be extremely useful but generally require more skill and awareness than riding in the road.
You may be interested to learn that the author of one of the studies you mentioned (Moritz) did another study which showed that riding on streets with bike lanes is generally safer than riding on streets without.
nick burns
In larger cities,(New York, Chicago, LA,) isn't it illegal to ride on the sidewalk? I mean, in Iowa it probably isn't all that much more hazardous, but a metro area is a completely different story. Another example of the intellectual dishonesty some forum members accuse others of perpetrating...
That got me wondering if that's the case in NJ, since I rarely see adults riding bikes on sidewalks here. I couldn't find anything that specifically said it was prohibited, however this statement from NJ Motor Vehicle Commision kind of alludes to it:
"NJ law states that bicycles are vehicles and have both the rights and responsibilities of any other vehicle on the road. Bicyclists must respect the laws as they apply to the rules of the road, and motorists must respect their right to be there."
This, though off topic, was worth the search for me too, since I've been wondering about it due to the recent bike lane threads:
"While they should keep to the right, cyclists are not required to use shoulders or bike lanes at all times. They may use any portion of the roadway, particularly if they need to turn."
I never liked the prospect of mandatory bike lanes. My mind has been put to ease.
ajone825
cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerouse b/c When you leave the sidewalk and enter traffic cars are not expecting you. A bicycle is faster and cannot react as fast as a person walking off of the sidewalk onto the road.
pharmboyrx
I just started commuting on my bike to school about a week and half ago. Its about a 6 mile ride. I have a choice between a road with no bike lane, 50 mph speed limit, 3 lanes in each direction, and 1 sidewalk on the wrong side for the direction I'm traveling. My other choice is a 4 lane ineach direction road with a bike lane, 50 mph speed limit, and very wide sidewalks on both sides with nothing obstructing the view of a driveway the whole distance. The bike lane and sidewalk both end abruptly and suddenly right before the off ramp to the highway. I can avoid both of these roads for about a mile by cutting down smaller roads.
I rode on the sidewalk right when I started commuting. As has been stated, this seems like an obvious choice. After reading that riding in the roadway was safer, I tried riding on the road with a bike lane, and almost died at the hand of an escalade whose driver apparantly doesn't like bikers.. Now I know why everyone here rides on the sidewalk.
I can see both sides and I can see the relevance of the studies. I would love to ride in the road. I believe that here in Palm Beach I'm supposed to ride in the road. It just isn't a feasible practice here though. Especially for my particular route. At a certain point it doesn't matter if you have the right to be on the road. If there are hundreds of angry motorists going really fast who don't want to see a bike on the road and make me very aware of that, I'm gonna ride on the 7 foot wide sidewalk where there is plenty of room and barely any obstructions even if it means I have to go a little slower.
It doesn't matter how conclusive a study looks, there is usually always an exception to the scenario.
alcahueteria
In new york it is quite illegal. I live in atlanta, and I ride on the sidewalks most of the time. I ride a bmx bike and I am not going to get in the road with that. I understand that I have to watch for pedestrians and that I have to stop at blind driveways and make sure no one is coming. That's just the way sidewalk riding goes. And it's still a lot faster than walking or a skateboard.
:edit: I've never gotten a ticket for it here. but I bet it probably is illegal here too.