Did a quick google search. It is much more dangerous to ride on sidewalk than on the road. Surprising me was the inference from the data that as a bike comes out of a sidewalk in an intersection crossing, that is not where a car is looking to see a bike. It apparently even matters if you are riding in the direction of traffic or against traffic on the sidewalk.

This study shows that riding on the sidewalk vs roadway is 1.8x more dangerous.

"Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on aver age 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the inci dence of wrong-way travel."

This study also shows the same thing. The relative danger index of riding on the sidewalk is 16.34 compared to less than one for roads. In fact, this study shows that it is 24.8 times more dangerous on a sidewalk than it is on a major road without biking facilities (bike lanes etc..).

"The evidence that bicycling on sidewalks and similar facilities is more hazardous than bicycling on streets is overwhelming."

Thanks for providing the impetus to look this up. Backs up my experience, I guess. You may feel "1000%" safer, but the truth is quite different.

J.

Do you drive? The whole argument of "not riding because the roads are dangerous" is crazy because YOU'RE the ones driving! everyone always complains about the other drivers. Well, they're saying exactly the same thing about you.

Also if you drive, pay attention when you come to an intersection - you are NOT looking at the sidewalk, you're looking at the traffic, and bikes in the road are traffic. Most cars don't even stop behind the sidewalk to look in the first place, and stop at the road, blocking the sidewalk. My wife and I ride on the sidewalks carefully when we're not sure where we're going, but then quite often we're at almost walking speed anyway. In our home town it's always on the road whether there is a bike lane or not. It does depend a lot on where you are riding though.

A lot of US cities just don't seem to be set up for anything but a car. Sub-divisions that are completely separated from each other, joined together by high speed arterials with no shoulders or bike lanes or sometimes even sidewalks. I could ride 60km to Toronto through sub-divisions hardly ever leaving 40km/hr roads.

Here in the commuter forum, the majority of participants probably don't fit either category. I ride to work in work clothes.

I've been knocked down by a cyclist when I was a pedestrian.

Since that item is from Toronto (quite near my home, actually) here are a couple more from around the same time:

http://www.thestar.com/article/678257
Woman, 56, dies after sidewalk crash with cyclist

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local.../?hub=CP24Home
Cyclist suffers life-threatening injuries after car collision
A 44-year-old cyclist is in hospital with life-threatening injuries after being struck by a car at the southern entrance of Yorkdale Mall on Friday evening.
The man was travelling southbound on a sidewalk of Dufferin Street

Well? After post #31, now what say you?

J.

It also really matters whether you are urban, suburban, or rural. In an urban setting the street probably makes the most sense. In suburbia (at least where I live), along busy roads that are main arteries, nobody walks anywhere and the sidewalks are almost always empty. If somebody chooses to use a sidewalk to ride on they should consider themselves like a pedestrian. If I ever do this, I stop everywhere a pedestrian would stop and always use crosswalks to cross the street. I don't bolt down a sidewalk at 20mph and blaze across intersections.

Ugh. Who wants to climb a 20 foot steep hill just to get on a bikeway? I'll be down on the street, thank you.

Besides, anything either wide enough to be safe or with side fences and walls high enough to be safe would look horrendous.

Another thought-- when I imagine an elevated bikeway along, say, I-95, I can almost smell the exhaust...

was about to write the same thing...

John,

Commendable effort...however, I did do a search.

I think studies are usually created when "documentation" is needed to prove a point one way or the other. The current Administration can produce volumes on the benefits of ALL policies enacted since 2008 by the current Administration. Do you believe all of them?

I also think that most sidewalk accidents are caused by people trying to treat the sidewalk as a roadway. There are people who are dangerous whether they are on foot or behind the wheel.
You see them every day.

Also, as stated, it depends a lot on where you ride. One set of experiences does not fit all. Your area may be safer than many others and hence your beliefs....and vice versa.

Finally, and this is paramount, Your study is so dated it really shouldn't be relied on any longer. ( I got a laugh out of the date of the study) :-) C'mon. Is that the best you have?

Back when that study was done texting was just getting started and some folks were still using pagers. This is what I mean about studies...they are rarely worth the paper they are written on and opposing studies are usually just as accurate....or inaccurate. I tend to find the National Transportation Safety Board studies a bit more reliable. Show me one from them less than 3 years old and I'll reconsider ;-)

The nation as a whole has changed dramatically in the last 10 -11 years. Find an up to date study from a reliable source and perhaps it will be more believable.

So, yes, you have provided me with evidence that I am probably more correct that I thought I was as your evidence is no longer relevant and it suggests that the few involved in sidewalk accidents were likely to be irresponsible types no matter where they were...and their unfortunate victims of course.

Can you find some useful, current data? Thanks for doing research just the same.

So, it appears that if you discount the people who ride sidewalks recklessly (probably because they are simply not responsible and respectful of others), then it still seems sidewalks
are much safer than the roads after all. On or off the road, there will always be dangerous drivers and riders. The stories you read of accidents are often evidence of natural selection doing it's job. Personally, if I couldn't avoid one of these types, I would MUCH rather be hit by their bicycle than their 5000lb Dodge Ram Hemi Pick-up (although I like those trucks). Who could argue that ?

Cheers !

lmao

Well...you must think about it a bit....I would prefer a 30ft hill.

1). It would keep lazy pedestrians off as the fat and lazy probably wouldn't be able to make the climb....leaving more room for me and my bike.

2). I would LOVE the climb. The whole idea of bicycling after all is "exercise"...isn't it ? :thumb:

Surely a small hill doesn't scare you :p

I propose flying bicycles. We can call them flycycles.

You're silly :p

Scared of exercise?
Does your bike have one of those 2 stroke motors on it :D

Actually, it just takes an architect with skill. Take a look at the Miami, Florida Yacht Marina. They have elevated sidewalks and they're quite attractive yet extremely simple.

lol. Maybe they wouldn't have to be right on top of I-95 ? But seriously, I doubt that would be an issue even if they were. If that were a concern, I believe people would be ill from driving the Interstates in the cars right?

If only :love:

Forget studies, look at physics. A cyclist has much more in common with a car when it comes to the physics of stopping, starting, and changing direction than a pedestrian. A car must haul itself down from speed over a long distance, accelerates relatively slowly to top speed, and generally must slow down to make most turns. A person on foot can stop almost instantaneously, reaches top speed from a standing start almost immediately, and can change directions 90 degrees at full speed with no warning. A bicycle is much closer to a car in all three respects than a pedestrian.

To say you're going to act like a pedestrian when riding on the sidewalk is against the laws of physics. You're riding a hard and sometimes weighty piece of equipment that requires a good deal of forward momentum to remain balanced. It is impossible to ride like a pedestrian walks. Even you if put the seat down and set both feet on the ground and walk, you are still not a pedestrian.

You should ride your bike on the road or path that best supports your ability to handle the bike, given all those physical limitations. In some cases that may be a wide sidewalk with relatively little pedestrian traffic. In some cases that's a road. And in some cases, that requires a path with only bikes on it. But to say you're going to be like a pedestrian on the sidewalk is much more unlikely than saying you're going to be like a car on the road.

I must be defective. I can't do any of those things. ;)

I agree though that somebody walking is more maneuverable than somebody on a bike. Yes, I can go really slow through intersections from a sidewalk while on a bike, but if you're going to do that, you might as well just walk. On the other hand, people on the sidewalk often seem oblivious to what's going on around them. To me that is another good reason to avoid riding on sidewalks.

PeddlePhile: I'm not sure why "texting" invalidates the study. Somebody who's not paying attention is more likely to hit a cyclist crossing at an intersection just as they are more likely to hit a cyclist on the street itself.

The other (and much more dangerous to you) threat when it comes to riding on the sidewalk is cars. Yup, you read that right, I said cars. Cars aren't expecting fast moving (even 10-12 mph is fast compared to a pedestrian) bicycles. So they may stop at an intersection and look at what may come in the crosswalk, turn and look the other way, and then pull out. Meanwhile you came from the first direction they looked and have pulled into the crosswalk. They didn't expect you to come that fast and now you're under their tires. Same thing with cars backing out of driveways. The drivers typically only look the short distance a pedestrian would be that could get behind them and don't look the further distance you'd be on your bike that could still result in you getting behind them. Again, you're hit. Being out on the road where you're expected is the safest place to be.

As I said above, I have also mused on the possibilities of elevated bike paths. I work in a fairly dense downtown area and live in an older inner suburb, about 5 miles from work. I have approximately 30 stop signs and 8 traffic lights on my way to work, and an uninterrupted, elevated bikeway would probably make my commute easier. There would be extra effort riding up a ramp to the bikeway, but that would be offset by the exercise saving of not having to start and stop so much.

Even so, I see the proposal as overall negative. There is no chance of a bikeway being built above every street, so at best perhaps a two thirds of my commute could be elevated and the rest would have to be at grade.

If the bikeway was successfull, it might become very slow and congested, as cycling is very popular in this city, so people would still have to overflow onto parallel surface routes if they didn't want to contend with crowding. As well the bikeway would attract the least experienced, slowest riders.

If the bikeway had a lot of access points, then riders would have to deal with the inconvenience of continually merging traffic. If it didn't have a lot of access points, then people would still have to ride some distance at street level to get to destinations between the on and off ramps.

There's a justifiable paranoia among some cycling groups, best exemplified by the controversial author John Forester, that the provision of alternate facilities for bikes will lead to us being outlawed on the streets. I don't want that. I want to go wherever I want to go - I don't want to be limited to going only where there is a bikeway, or doing laps in a park.

Failing the provision of a separate elevated bikeway, the street is a far better option for me than the sidewalk. I have to get through almost 40 intersections, and at each of them, I'm safer riding through already on the street, than riding into the street from the sidewalk. I have to cross the mouths of hundreds of driveways - residential and business - and at each of them I am safer riding on the street than on the sidewalk. This is a city where pedestrians are fairly common, so providing them with the proper courtesy of dropping to near their speed would more than double my commute time. Of course, your situation may differ, but it may also be the case that sidewalk riding gives you a false sense of safety since you haven't factored in the increased risks you face at intersections.

Peddlephile, I'm not sure if you're a commuter and if you are proposing the bikeways for commuters, as you seem to focus on other issues like exercise.

The only other thing I should add PeddlePhile, is that it's pretty common in forums like this for a new member to drop in and float what they think is a great idea, and then find it trashed by the other members. Often it's because the topice has been hashed to death in the past. Don't take it personally!

You're serious? So you think that in a decade sidewalk riding has gotten more than 25X safer? Despite higher population density? From what I can tell, those studies pretty much settled the question. Smaller studies since continue to confirm the same facts over and over.

How about you find a study that shows that sidewalk riding is much, much safer instead? That ought to be quite interesting. Nothing I've found shows it to be safe - all multiple times more dangerous.

Or is it you just want to ride on the sidewalk and that's the end of it?

J.

C'mon, man up and get on the road for pete's sake.

Thank you himespau, these are the main reasons why it is more dangerous to ride on the sidewalk. Cars aren't looking for a bike on the sidewalk, riding at 12 to 15 MPH is a lot faster than walking at 4 to 6 MPH as a pedestrian. You are much more visible in the street than on the sidewalk.

I think the biggest reason is pure economics. Bikes don't pay gas tax or license fees. If you want to pay a mileage fee and starting having $200/year tabs on your bike then maybe...

I would be surprised if even the most used bike paths around here carry 1% as many commuters in a given day as the road does right next to it with cars.

It appears that many here want to consider their bikes equal to motor vehicles when the truth is they aren't.
Also, many here appear to be unaware of the dangers of modern driving.

Although my argument may be opposed, no concrete evidence supports the opposition....instead, overwhelming evidence of the dangers of street riding are readily available.
A quick Google search of bicyclists killed by motorists yields thousands of results whereas bicyclists killed riding sidewalks are far and few in between.
Simply saying something is so does not make it so.

Regardless of your beliefs, riding on the road is orders of magnitudes more dangerous and potentially fatal than riding on sidewalks.
The problem is that many here feel that riding on sidewalks is the same as riding on the road and feel they can push the envelope and race past
pedestrians disregarding them altogether. Sad. I can see why those voicing their opinion believe sidewalks are more dangerous.
And that is because the person voicing the comment is likely to be a more dangerous and wreckless person overall.

Also, facts support my argument that the roads are far more dangerous today not only for bicyclists, but for everyone on them including motorists.

Although a British story, our societies are similar...and blames cyclist attitude as a major component...it's only a few years old vs opposing evidence
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...opularity.html

Here's another...just happened..he was struck and killed by a motorists who never stopped....
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2...oad-loved-ride

How about a State Champion Bicyclist killed recently?
http://glendora.patch.com/articles/f...-mountain-road

There is an unlimited number of these on the Internet.

Finally....here is the end of the argument.

Data taken from the National Highway Traffic Safety Board which definitively supports my argument.
Counter to some here that have stuck to their claim that most of the accidents involved intersections...here's proof that is incorrect.

First, a summary of US statistics available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 2009 Data

• 630 bicyclists died on US roads in 2009 (718 in 2008, 1,003 in 1975)
• 74 were 14 or younger, a reduction of 58 per cent from the 178 killed in 2000.
• Bicyclist deaths represented 2 per cent of all 2009 traffic fatalities.
• 51,000 bicyclists were injured in traffic in 2009 (Up sharply from 43,000 in 2007)

Please read the last line item in red several times for clarity.

And some more statistics from 2008 data also released in 2010:

• One-seventh of the cyclists killed were between 5 and 15 years old.
• Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 41
• Average age of a bicyclist injured on US roads: 31
• Bicyclists 15 and under killed: 93. Injured: 13,000
• Bicyclists 16 to 34 killed: 168. Injured 20,000
• Bicyclists 35 to 54 killed: 270. Injured 13,000
• Bicyclists 55 and older killed: 179. Injured 6,000
• Alcohol involvement was reported in 37% of 2008 deaths.
• Nearly one fourth (23%) of the cyclists killed were drunk. (BAC over .08 g.dl)
• Fatal crashes typically were urban (69%) and not at intersections (64%).

It is critical to not that this is 2009 data and at the time, the number of Bicycle Road related injuries was taking a VERY sharp increase...just as I had stated.
No doubt, we will see that trend continued in the 2010 data when it is released.

So, while you may argue, you have been proven incorrect by indisputable evidence..

However, if you still feel safe on the roads with your bicycle, by all means you should continue to take those chances.
After all, it is ultimately your hide motorists will devour, not mine.

Personally, I will make the smart choice and I will steer clear of the roads until such time as bike paths clear of the hazards of motorists are made available.

By the way...have any members of this forum ever died while riding their bicycle on the roads? How about sidewalks?

The 2010 data will be ready soon at which time there will be even more overwhelming evidence that riding on the roads is as dangerous as I have said. I will be watching for it's release and post it as soon as it is available.

All the Best !
Be careful out there. :thumb:

Now this is something I can agree with. Motorists out number bicyclists by vast margins.

I am wondering if the sustained pressure of higher fuel costs will increase the number of people forced to take up bicycling as an alternative? Studies so far indicate yes.

I can't rally see a future in America where gas prices are as low as we have enjoyed in the past. Largely due to pressures on demand from developing nations like China who's appetite for oil has soared keeping demand high even as America curbs her appetite.

FAIL

This is a faulty argument.

Your statement applies to bicycles on the road just as heavily. In fact, evidence is that so many motorcyclists are killed because automobile and truck drivers simply aren't looking for two wheeled vehicles. This is a MAJOR concern for Highway safety everywhere. There are many campaigns aimed at making motorists more aware of Motorcyclists. If motorists don't see Motorcycles, what are the chances of them seeing a tiny bicycle?

Most (not all but most) people riding a bicycle on the sidewalk are going much slower and paying attention and not recklessly barreling across roadways as some have suggested.


But thanks for playing :lol:

Where I ride, biking is illegal on the sidewalk. Boston, Cambridge and some other suburbs. Riding on a sidewalk, cars can't see you and don't expect you there. Its not a RIDE walk. Around here bike paths work good too. Where is UP TOWN JOE when you need him, you guys should talk.

Peddlephile:

Has this been normalized for cycling miles traveled on sidewalk vs. street?

Wouldn't a cyclist that gets hit in an intersection coming off of a sidewalk still be counted in these stats?

As to your red line: Are the roads really more dangerous or are there just more cyclists than there were in 2007? Plus you cherry picked the stats. The number of cycling deaths in 2009 was the lowest in the decade except 2003 (which had 1 fewer death) and lower than it was in the late 90's. Overall, it's been pretty flat.

Since to get anywhere on a bike you have to cross a street at some point and since intersections are frequently where accidents occur, I don't see where you've shown sidewalks to be safer. Especially since crossing an intersection from a sidewalk makes it less likely a car will see you.

FAIL.

I read those studies before you even posted them and noted that the make no comparisons to riding bikes on the road or sidewalk. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that what we are talking about here?

None of these statistics compare the relative safety of riding your bike on the sidewalk vs riding it on the street. The links I posted do just that and show it to be many times more dangerous riding on the sidewalk to riding on the street. The argument that this makes is the whether to ride a bike or drive a car. If you want to make that argument, then you ought to be doing that in a car drivers forum not in a cyclists forum. I had presumed we were talking about where to ride a bicycle most safely not whether to ride a bike or drive a car.

Your note indicating that there are more accidents in the last studied year are not corrected for the hugely increased number of cyclists. You need to be normalizing this to accidents per mile ridden to get an actual measure of the danger. That is not done. If so, I'd bet you that, if anything, cycling has become safer per mile ridden (but that is another topic for another time) due to drivers becoming more aware of cyclists. Anecdotally, that is very much happening around here.

Also, do you want me to go out and post individual examples of cars hitting other cars and people getting killed to prove... what? that people in cars hit people in cars? Or that there are examples of people in cars hitting people on bicycles? So what - anecdotal evidence.

Please read the links I provided. Apparently you have failed to do that.

J.

The one stat in peddlephile's favor is the one that says that most fatal accidents did NOT occur at an intersection. About 60% to 70% occur somewhere else. Unfortunately, it's not really broken down any. We don't know how many cyclists where hit from behind, hit because they were were riding in the wrong direction or hit because they were drunk and weaving all over. We don't know how many were unlit and hit at night.

It does say that 28% of cyclists killed were drinking.

But the big thing he was putting forward was it it more dangerous to ride on the sidewalk or on the road. Which this study absolutely doesn't say.

What also he doesn't note is how much safer it is becoming in terms of fatalities. Number of fatalities is almost cut in half from 1975 to 2009 yet the number of bicycles sold every year runs to about 18-20 million units. Presuming that they don't get thrown away, that is a lot of people on a lot of bicycles and is probably increasing. But even it the number of cyclists stays constant, it is still getting a lot safer to ride on the road then (can be inferred). Unless, of course, one presumes that people are continuing to buy bicycles at the rate of 20 million per year and then ceasing to ride them. Pretty low rate of fatality either way.

I guess if he is this worried about it, and doesn't understand the statistics, he probably shouldn't ride on the sidewalk either.

J.