Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff

First, I want to thank LittleBigMan for starting this thread, and this discussion. It got me to read the above reference, Adult Bicyclists in the United States, Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996 by William E. Moritz. I think that I was a part of that study, actually, as it was a time when I was a member of the League of American Bicyclists. But let me make a few comments on this survey.

First, and foremost, it is a survey, and not a "study." This survey was very limited in scope, in that it replicated two previous surveys (a Washington State survey in 1994, and a League of American Wheelmen survey in 1974). A "study" would include being double-blind, and include much more than one group to examine the problems. A "study" should be reproducable, but this survey is not. It is not accurate either. To quote from the report:



Please note that there are several other thing about this survey which handicap it. This is a survey of the adult League of American Bicyclists. It is not inclusive of all bicyclists, and therefore any claims for relative danger apply really only to this group. Other factors may influence other groups. Also, this is self-reported data. There is no way to check this data at all (and we know the range of errors is 80%; you know, 2% to 5% is probably acceptable, but 80%?). Finally, the author of the study decided on the criterion for a "serious" crash as one that caused at least $50 of property damage or medical expenses (few medical visits go now for $50 for anything).

Concerning the statements on sidewalks above, they were not made in the report of the survey. They were apparently made by John S. Allen to support his thesis. The abstract of the survey stated:



There are several things to be said about the data on sidewalks in the survey. First, this statement is in the abstract, but not in the survey report itself. Second, it lumps all the crashes into one category, whereas if it were broken out, you could easily see that sidewalks are less hazardous than roads without bike facilities. The statement above that riding on sidewalks is 24.8 times more hazardous than riding on a major road without bicycle facilities is based upon a table in the 1998 report of the same title presented to the Transportation research Board (I found both on a Google search). This table shows, for all crashes, the crash rate per million kilometers is 1026 for "Other (most often 'sidewalk')" and 41 for "Major w/o bike facilities." By the way, 1026 divided by 41 is 25.0, not 24.8, and neither of these numbers are used in the study itself. They were derived from the report's Table 4. Crashes by facility type.

See: https://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

But this is biased data. First, I doubt that League of American Bicyclists ride much on these "Other" areas, and probably ride them very fast when they do. But if you look at the data for the percentage of the total crashes, it is 5% and 4% respectively for "Serious" and "Minor" crashes on "Other (most often 'sidewalk')." It is 29% and 17% respectively for "Serious" and "Minor" crashes on "Major w/o bike facilities." And it is 41% and 43% respectively for "Serious" and "Minor" crashes on "Minor w/o bike facilities." ("Major" and "minor" in these cases meaning major and minor roads.) It should also be pointed out that the LAB 96 survey is the only one cited in this paper that has data on "Other (most often 'sidewalk')." The other two surveys (WA 94 and LAW 74) list "N/A" for this category, as they had no data on it at all.

LittleBigMan, you asked that we provide scientifically validated data to back our claims that riding sidewalks are as safe or safer than riding on the roadway. The data in the study you provide suggests that, if we use LAB data, the LAB cyclists experienced inordinent numbers of minor crashes on sidewalks compared to the number of miles (km) ridden on them. But this data is really suspect. I know that I had a hard time remembering what I had done for a year previous in my bicycling. I don't think many of us could produce data anywhere near accurate a year later about our bicyling habits (# km/type of roadway each day).

Now, from a practical aspect, I will talk about my today's ride (which I do still remember pretty well). I rode my "auto avoidance" route today, as on Thursday evening I treat autos as if it were a Friday (and I still do not bicycle on Friday--two trips to emergency rooms have quelled my enthusiam for Friday riding). I rode ten miles this evening, about 1.5 of which was on sidewalks, 0.5 on bicycle paths, and the rest on open roadway (both with and without bike lanes). I was passed by approximately 35 cars during that time on the road. My estimate is that about 10% of auto drivers are impared for some reason (cell phone usage, baby, drink, radio, alcohol, etc.). That means that probably three or four of those cars passing me were impared. One guy, in a sedan with a child next to him, talked to me about my recumbant as we were stopped side-by-side at a stop light; as the light turned, he answered a cell phone and proceded through the intersection. I headed to the sidewalk, as the next stretch of my commute was uphill, with no shoulder or bike lane whatsoever. During my commute home, I had (if I give ~3000 pounds/car) about 52.5 tons of vehicles pass me within ten feet at a regular speed (45-55 mph), and 4.5 tons were most probably driven by impared drivers. That is a lot of mass and force.

When I was on the sidewalk, I was separated by these vehicles by a curb, sometimes a light pole, and most often by about 10-20 feet of ground (sometimes with trees between me and the road). Sure, I could hit one of those poles, or the post in the middle of the bike path I took. But if I did, my mass going at 12.5 mph would be about 250 pounds. This is about 18.3 feet per second. My 250 pounds (with the bike) hitting at 12.5 mph would be 4583 foot pounds per second would create an impact, but probably not life-threatening.

If I am on a road, and hit by a car, then (assuming the car is going my direction at 45 mph, and I'm fast at 18 mph) the closing speed is (45 mph - 18 mph) about 40 feet per second. The car weighs 3000 pounds though (if I'm lucky), and so the impact will be at 118,800 foot pounds per second. I don't think I would survive a direct hit.

So I use the auto avoidance when I think they are driving in a hazardous manner (and that is on Thursday afternoon and all day Friday). If I were to hit a person (and I saw none today on the sidewalks, and two on the bike path I took), it would be at that slow speed and low force. It would hurt, but probably not kill anyone. In other words, those above who said that you were not looking correctly at the risk management are correct in their thinking. The risks simply are not as great.

I am nearing 60 years old now, and hope to be cycling to 100 years old. I will continue to use these techniques to ensure I don't tangle again with a car. Some of you who have been riding "aggressively" don't perhaps know what it feels like to awaken in an ER and have the Doc tell you he had just completed the CAT scan, but you didn't remember it. But I have had that experience, and it is not pleasant. It has made me re-think all my cycling--for instance, I ride a recumbant now, and the sidewalks are not as hazardous to me as you who don't as I'm closer to the ground, and traveling feet-first. Ever tried swimming through a river rapids head-first--that isn't pleasant either, so why do we go head first on bikes when we have cars to duck instead of rocks?

Well, the dishes becken, so I need to wrap this up. I will continue to use sidewalks when it is to my advantage (it is legal here), and bike paths too. They may hurt you, but they are very unlikely to kill you. I can heal...but not if I'm dead!

John

PS--I am a Certified Safety Professional, and applied a lot of my 25 years in the safety field to analyzing my bicycling.

Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff

Hi LittleBigMan,

Actually, I acknowledged that the statistics cited prove that for the League of American Bicyclists, sidewalk riding is more hazardous than street riding for all injuries. This is also in line with my own experience. On sidewalks I have not had problems, but I have had a spill going across a road on a crosswalk, another spill taking a path too fast in wet conditions, another one on a wet boardwalk where I spilled, and finally, the one that would probably count as "serious" under the LAB definition, a boardwalk where the boards were parallel to my line of travel and caught my front tire, dumping me head first onto the path and ruining my front wheel (more than $50 to replace it). The greatest injury I sustained in all this was a bruise on my left thigh, and a slightly sprained wrist from the "serious" accident.

The "serious" accident was the one which convinced me to go to a recumbant bicycle, as that type of accident was simply not possible on the recumbant (a low speed, over the handlebars dumping).

My discussion about the surveys were that none of the prior ones had data for sidewalks at all, so those were irrelevant to the discussion. The survey included only members of the League of American Bicyclists, and they are a small percentage of actual bicyclists. So the scope of the 1996 LAB survey was very limited. Also, it was not accurate in its methodology. How could it be, with a budget of about $6500 to conduct the survey itself?

The survey was limited to LAB members, so it can be extrapolated only to LAB membership as a whole. The LAB membership at the time was about 23,500, according to the report. They sent out the samples, and got 2,403 returned surveys. Due to inaccuracies, they used only 1,956 of those surveys, about 8% of the membership. This is a good sample of the membership, and if they are typical of all USA adults, then it probably could be extrapolated to the entire USA. But I don't think the level of experience of the USA population is equivalent to the LAB members. Therefore, in my opinion (and mine only) to exprapolate it further to the US population is to bias introduce potential bias into the survey.

While I acknowledge the greater hazard of riding sidewalks and bike paths for all injuries, I feel it is much safer in uncongested areas to do so for car/bicycle accidents. Those are the ones I worry about, as those in my opinion are the ones which can kill me. To those who point out the hazards of crossing roadways, I can only say "Look, Listen, then go." I think all children were taught how to cross roads by looking in both directions, listening for approaching vehicles, and only when clear, going across the road. This applies to bicyclists too, and involves slowing or stopping as necessary to clear one's self. These are things we learn in kindergarten, and should be self-apparent to all concerned.

John

Originally Posted by joejeweler

Some good stuff here,.....for you practical sorts. Thought it was worth a bump. :-)

Originally Posted by dynodonn

Hmmm.... and any person prefering other versions of riding a bike are considered impracticable sorts.

Originally Posted by joejeweler

You said that,....i didn't.

But i'll take my chances of walking away from any sidewalk collision over a VC rider exercizing his "right" to ride as an equal to motor vehicles.

That is just dillusion & pure fantasy, when physics is looked at and the real world fact that a LOT of motor vehical drivers are impared in some way.

When a minor scrape is counted in the statistics the same as a limp and broken body,........the risk/reward part of the equation is FUBAR!

It doesn't matter "how" they are impared, just that you're betting your life that they're not. Not a bet in certain areas i'm willing to take.

Originally Posted by dynodonn

Your paranoia of impaired drivers is way overboard, since every motorist that I have encountered so far, judging by their actions, knew very well of my presence.

Stop deluding yourself into thinking that nothing good will happen to anyone riding in a manner that does not fit your personal thoughts. Proof, here I am still posting away.

Originally Posted by joejeweler

"Proof, here i am posting away",.......REALLY????

Originally Posted by joejeweler

That's NOT proof of anything except the ONE fool who may not be paying attention or is impared hasn't found you yet!

Originally Posted by dynodonn

Your paranoia is showing again...... according to your beliefs, I should have been dead years ago.

Originally Posted by joejeweler

Must be nice to have so much faith in every driver behind you!

Originally Posted by Wut

I saw a couple of adults riding their bikes on the sidewalk with their kids...the kids looked under 10. To me that's okay. There are exceptions. When I see a full grown adult riding on the sidewalk however...not good.

Originally Posted by Transportation Alternatives

Cyclists and City Streets

...

Though cyclists are nominally lumped together with motor vehicles, in many ways they more closely resemble pedestrians — they are small, maneuverable, human-powered and exposed to the elements. As with pedestrians, cyclists' most frequent offense is crossing against traffic signals. Pedestrians are rarely or never ticketed for this offense, but cyclists have received up to 25,000 summonses per year.

Cyclists who barrel through lines of pedestrians at red lights are behaving inexcusably. But a cyclist who slows to a near stop for a red light, looks, waits for all pedestrians to cross and then “slips through” is being responsible and considerate. Rather than trying to issue a ticket to every cyclist who runs a light — a futile endeavor — the Police Department should focus its efforts on cycling offenses that endanger others.

...

Originally Posted by Thrasymachus

Let me point out the obvious:
This is biased and merely a survey, not a study, as pointed out in the '05 post by poster John C. Ratliff which you can find a link to here.(which I found since it was quote above) There is a difference between getting into a sidewalk accident and one with a motor vehicle weighing over 2,000 pounds and likely hauling it, so you cannot compare the two.

But most important, even on this cycling forum most people use their bicycle as a toy often carried on a car carrier and are dilettantes who cycle to nowhere, or are wannabe racers. Now the minority of cyclists in the Anglosphere who actually use cycling for actual day to day activities like commuting, grocery hauling or getting to appointments, have a very different reality. The wannabe roadies just stick to their "routes" by which mean they mean rides to nowhere under the most optimal roads they can find in their area for cycling. For people that get things done, however, if you have an option to pretend to take a lane on a motorway with a speed limit of 45 mph or more(meaning cars will actually be going about 50-60 mph) or a sidewalk, what would you do? Pretend that you can cycle at 50 mph, assume that every driver will see you in time to avoid you?



Cycling is not a happy family, infact in many ways cycling is an exercise in restrained terror in the Anglosphere because of the "car first" laws and urban planning. It is easy for all the toy recreational cyclists and pro roadie wannabes to point their hypocrite fingers -- because they are motorists to the core as they get behind an automobile to actually get to wherever they have to in life and not on a bicycle. They tend to use the bicycle only for recreation or training, thus they can cherry pick suitable routes and make their disgusting condemnations against sidewalk riding. But when you want to get things done in a country hostile to cycling, riding on the sidewalk is often the only sensible choice.

Get lost toy cyclists and get off your car seats, too. That is all, I am sick of you.

Unkindly as possible,
Your Thrasymachus.

Originally Posted by Thrasymachus

Now I get the sense you were offended because you are perhaps an arch-escapist and people who don't want to live in reality, work hard to escape from it. Thus when I pointed out a depressing fact about the actual state of cycling in the USA, you got offended. My advice: solicit advice on a Victoria's Secret forum for pantyhose, so you can at least take your offense in a more appropriate attire. I don't care where you fit into this dichotomy which exists and I like to often draw attention to.

Originally Posted by Thrasymachus

No, I don't have issues in the case you are describing. What we have here is yet another thread in an English language cycling forum where yet another group of alleged cyclists are condemning real cyclists for riding on the sidewalk when there are perhaps good reasons(like the fact that you cannot pretend to be automobile when you cannot compete for that space in terms of mass or speed vis a vis cars). In contextualizing such patterns of condemnation we must understand that most cyclists in our part of the world are toy cyclists, people who actually use the motor vehicle for everything related to their actual life and daily activities. For them cycling is just for joy rides, exercise, acting like a Lance Armstrong wannabe, etc. Since this is the case, the two groups are like oil and water. The motorists who also happen to cycle when they feel like it, can often easily piece together routes where they can pretend to be a motor vehicle on lightly used surface roads or roads with ample shoulder lanes. Those who actually cycle for transport find themselves having to *gasp* cycle on the sidewalk for intervals instead of competing with cars going at 45+ mph or if there is only one shoulder in one direction, *gasp* riding against traffic! It is amazing the different realities for the motorists-cyclists of convenience and those who cycle as a means of transport.

Now I get the sense you were offended because you are perhaps an arch-escapist and people who don't want to live in reality, work hard to escape from it. Thus when I pointed out a depressing fact about the actual state of cycling in the USA, you got offended. My advice: solicit advice on a Victoria's Secret forum for pantyhose, so you can at least take your offense in a more appropriate attire. I don't care where you fit into this dichotomy which exists and I like to often draw attention to.

Originally Posted by Daniel4

Aside from the fact that it's illegal