5 ms·

Agree that extra caution is needed for pedestrians and bicycles. Having said that, I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in a

Agree that extra caution is needed for pedestrians and bicycles. Having said that, I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. The threat posed by a car to a bike is much greater than the threat posed by a bike to a pedestrian, therefore, to maximize safety bikes should be on the sidewalk. As far as motorcycles are concerned - I think they're a bad idea in general. I have a cycle endorsement, and when I ride, I am acutely aware that it's on me not to get hit, because many vehicles just realistically don't have the kind of visibility to reliably spot motorcycles. The law should probably be updated to reflect that ... because although most bikers are aware that that's how it is in reality, it's not codified anywhere.

johnbrodie 8y ago
Updated how? If I'm on a motorcycle and get hit, it should be assumed to be my fault?
AceyMan 8y ago
> I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. I'm so positively gobsmacked that a statement this plainly ignorant came from a fellow HN participant, I don't even know where to begin. Start with: bicycles are vehicles—always have been, in fact. Pedestrians are not. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. (It's not a "sideride" after all. ) Even razor/bird scooters on sidewalks are typically forbidden—we have PSAs on the buses here in LA reminding e-scooter riders to ride in the road. Bikes can participate in traffic, so they ought to be on the road. Bikes mix better with cars than bikes mix with pedx: anyone who walks in a city regularly would know this. Wow. Just ... wow.
- danjayh 8y ago
  Ignorant because it's not what you believe, or because you have data to justify your beliefs? Explain to me the logic from a safety perspective. 40mph car vs 15mph bike? Biker is lucky to live. 15mph bike vs 4mph pedestrian? Maybe a broken bone, if that. Besides insulting me and declaring that because bicycles are vehicles they should be on the road, you provide no quantitative reasoning to back your position. I fail to see how that's enlightened. Let's first acknowledge that between mixed traffic (whatever the mix may be) collisions will happen, and then discuss how to minimize harm.
  - Novashi 8y ago
    Cars can avoid bikers more easily than pedestrians. You don't walk around with rear-view mirrors. A bike rear-ending a pedestrian is going to be much worse than broken bones for both. A bike rear-ending a car is just going to hurt the biker. The solution you're looking for is for people to not ride bikes if they don't want to take the risk. I'm pretty sure sidewalk building codes are also written to assume they're not a bike path. You're more likely to run into blind corners on the sidewalk (and thus risk a collision) than a bike lane. You've also forgotten about disabled people using the sidewalks.
    - danjayh 8y ago
      It is obviously the bike's responsibility not to rear end a pedestrian, not vice-versa. In any case, I would counter that a bike rear ending a pedestrian is a lesser accident than a car rear ending a bike.
  - flatfilefan 8y ago
    A bike going 30 km/h on a sidewalk is often impossible to see from a car doing a right turn because it’s covered by cars parked on the curb.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Cyclists, like car drivers and pedestrians, should look in all directions for dangerous traffic before crossing an intersection. The right of way is little consolation for the dead. Here lies the body of Henry Gray, He died maintaining his right of way. He was right, so right, as he sped along, But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    The problem with your logic is that few bike accidents happen from a 40 mph car overtaking a 15mph bike. Most car-bike collisions happen at intersections and not only does riding on the sidewalk not reduce that problem, it makes it worse both because a bike on the sidewalk is not as easy for the car to see, but also it multiplies the number of intersections since suddenly every driveway becomes an intersection that a car might be pulling out of.
- Cpoll 8y ago
  I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic. Perhaps we should stay on the driveway? You're phrasing your conclusions like the alternative is moronic, but it's not. There are lots of places that allow bikes on the sidewalk, and it doesn't lead to martial law. I lived in a large but suburban city that allowed it, and it was hardly a problem, bikes would yield to pedestrians, and the only problem is bikes taking the intersections too fast. At higher densities, I've seen bikes on sidewalks in various Asian cities, including several Japanese cities with various pedestrian densities. I think these anecdotes are a fair counter to your LA anecdote. If we follow the logic of your post, we should also ban vehicles such as electric wheelchairs from the sidewalk.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - AceyMan 8y ago
    >I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic. You must'a missed the subtle metaphor abuse to lighten the mood. Sorry 'bout that. At any rate ... Side walks haven't the width for fast moving traffic. Sidewalks cross other rights-of-way with always implied priority, traffic comprised of pedestrians, kids, dogs, old folk, etc. I ride a bike in the city every day. I know riding on the sidewalk wouldn't work, even if you made it legal. Not at real commuting speeds. You really advocate cyclists poking down the sidewalk at 5-8 mph, dinging their bell at every pedestrian, asking them to step aside? Or no, wait .. does the cyclist have to stop, do a track stand, and weeble-wobble around every blockage? Oh, and bunny hop over dog leashes. Hmm, yeah. Anyone who thinks bikes should be on sidewalks has nearly zero understanding of what an urban mix of traffic works like. Fellow cyclists, please jump in here! /AC
    - tejohnso 8y ago
      Well, when I was growing up, common sense said I should ride on the side walk. The side walk was hardly ever used and perfectly suited to riding a bike. The road was much more frequently used; by 3000lb death machines piloted by zombies. No thanks. If the side walk is too populated to comfortably ride a bike, and the road is busy with said suicide cans, then there is simply no place for a bike. I haven't ridden one in years. A short section of "bike lane" and a helmet wouldn't do much to convince me otherwise.
- burfog 8y ago
  Non-motorized wheelchairs operated by obese 90-year-old people are also vehicles, and they clearly don't belong on the road (hope you agree), so "vehicle" doesn't matter. The same goes for little battery operated kid toys and traditional kid tricycles. Most bike riders are far closer to the above than they are to cars. Lots of people are obese, elderly, and otherwise lacking in athletic ability. If these people are excluded from the sidewalk, then they are entirely excluded from the benefits of bike usage. The trouble here is that bike-related laws are mainly influenced by people who are extreme bike users. These users want to be in the road. They care enough to join cycling organizations that will lobby to have bikes treated like cars. The typical bike user is a physically weak person, and they ride on something like a $39.95 bike from Walmart. The bike has overly thick knobby tires, unreliable gears if any, big fenders, and lots of low-quality (thus thick) steel. You're saying these people have no right to ride bikes if you insist that they go on the road.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    No, those cycling organizations typically lobby for safe bike infrastructure like protected bike lanes. Safe infrastructure allows all people, regardless of their athleticism, to enjoy riding a bike.
megaremote 8y ago
I am amazed that we allow cars in any place that people are nearby, such as cities of suburbs? 40,000 people die every year in the US, just so someone can get somewhere slightly quicker. Roads take up more space than private housing. Cost billions every single year.Such a ridiculous cost.
adrianN 8y ago
Bicycles don't ride on sidewalks because you want to maximize their visibility. Most deadly accidents between bikes and cars happen at intersections where bikes are getting right-hooked by drivers who forget to check their blind spot. Drivers don't expect objects traveling at 30km/h on the sidewalk, so they're even less likely to look. Sharing the road between bikes and cars is much safer. There would be almost no problem if cars respected safe overtaking distances and switched lanes to overtake bikes.
- burfog 8y ago
  Drivers don't expect objects traveling at 30km/h on the sidewalk, but that doesn't matter. Drivers are supposed to be on the roads. I suppose the idea is that the bike would just zip across the intersection at that speed? The people preferring bikes on sidewalks are thinking of non-athlete bike riders. They never go that fast. At intersections, they dismount and walk. These bike users are far more compatible with pedestrians than they are with cars.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    You can't expect cyclists to stop and get off at every intersection. They wouldn't get anywhere. Bicycles are not toys, they're vehicles. The people on them have places to be.

johnbrodie 8y ago

Updated how? If I'm on a motorcycle and get hit, it should be assumed to be my fault?

AceyMan 8y ago

> I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. I'm so positively gobsmacked that a statement this plainly ignorant came from a fellow HN participant, I don't even know where to begin. Start with: bicycles are vehicles—always have been, in fact. Pedestrians are not. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. (It's not a "sideride" after all. ) Even razor/bird scooters on sidewalks are typically forbidden—we have PSAs on the buses here in LA reminding e-scooter riders to ride in the road. Bikes can participate in traffic, so they ought to be on the road. Bikes mix better with cars than bikes mix with pedx: anyone who walks in a city regularly would know this. Wow. Just ... wow.

danjayh 8y ago
Ignorant because it's not what you believe, or because you have data to justify your beliefs? Explain to me the logic from a safety perspective. 40mph car vs 15mph bike? Biker is lucky to live. 15mph bike vs 4mph pedestrian? Maybe a broken bone, if that. Besides insulting me and declaring that because bicycles are vehicles they should be on the road, you provide no quantitative reasoning to back your position. I fail to see how that's enlightened. Let's first acknowledge that between mixed traffic (whatever the mix may be) collisions will happen, and then discuss how to minimize harm.
- Novashi 8y ago
  Cars can avoid bikers more easily than pedestrians. You don't walk around with rear-view mirrors. A bike rear-ending a pedestrian is going to be much worse than broken bones for both. A bike rear-ending a car is just going to hurt the biker. The solution you're looking for is for people to not ride bikes if they don't want to take the risk. I'm pretty sure sidewalk building codes are also written to assume they're not a bike path. You're more likely to run into blind corners on the sidewalk (and thus risk a collision) than a bike lane. You've also forgotten about disabled people using the sidewalks.
  - danjayh 8y ago
    It is obviously the bike's responsibility not to rear end a pedestrian, not vice-versa. In any case, I would counter that a bike rear ending a pedestrian is a lesser accident than a car rear ending a bike.
- flatfilefan 8y ago
  A bike going 30 km/h on a sidewalk is often impossible to see from a car doing a right turn because it’s covered by cars parked on the curb.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Cyclists, like car drivers and pedestrians, should look in all directions for dangerous traffic before crossing an intersection. The right of way is little consolation for the dead. Here lies the body of Henry Gray, He died maintaining his right of way. He was right, so right, as he sped along, But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  The problem with your logic is that few bike accidents happen from a 40 mph car overtaking a 15mph bike. Most car-bike collisions happen at intersections and not only does riding on the sidewalk not reduce that problem, it makes it worse both because a bike on the sidewalk is not as easy for the car to see, but also it multiplies the number of intersections since suddenly every driveway becomes an intersection that a car might be pulling out of.
Cpoll 8y ago
I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic. Perhaps we should stay on the driveway? You're phrasing your conclusions like the alternative is moronic, but it's not. There are lots of places that allow bikes on the sidewalk, and it doesn't lead to martial law. I lived in a large but suburban city that allowed it, and it was hardly a problem, bikes would yield to pedestrians, and the only problem is bikes taking the intersections too fast. At higher densities, I've seen bikes on sidewalks in various Asian cities, including several Japanese cities with various pedestrian densities. I think these anecdotes are a fair counter to your LA anecdote. If we follow the logic of your post, we should also ban vehicles such as electric wheelchairs from the sidewalk.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AceyMan 8y ago
  >I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic. You must'a missed the subtle metaphor abuse to lighten the mood. Sorry 'bout that. At any rate ... Side walks haven't the width for fast moving traffic. Sidewalks cross other rights-of-way with always implied priority, traffic comprised of pedestrians, kids, dogs, old folk, etc. I ride a bike in the city every day. I know riding on the sidewalk wouldn't work, even if you made it legal. Not at real commuting speeds. You really advocate cyclists poking down the sidewalk at 5-8 mph, dinging their bell at every pedestrian, asking them to step aside? Or no, wait .. does the cyclist have to stop, do a track stand, and weeble-wobble around every blockage? Oh, and bunny hop over dog leashes. Hmm, yeah. Anyone who thinks bikes should be on sidewalks has nearly zero understanding of what an urban mix of traffic works like. Fellow cyclists, please jump in here! /AC
  - tejohnso 8y ago
    Well, when I was growing up, common sense said I should ride on the side walk. The side walk was hardly ever used and perfectly suited to riding a bike. The road was much more frequently used; by 3000lb death machines piloted by zombies. No thanks. If the side walk is too populated to comfortably ride a bike, and the road is busy with said suicide cans, then there is simply no place for a bike. I haven't ridden one in years. A short section of "bike lane" and a helmet wouldn't do much to convince me otherwise.
burfog 8y ago
Non-motorized wheelchairs operated by obese 90-year-old people are also vehicles, and they clearly don't belong on the road (hope you agree), so "vehicle" doesn't matter. The same goes for little battery operated kid toys and traditional kid tricycles. Most bike riders are far closer to the above than they are to cars. Lots of people are obese, elderly, and otherwise lacking in athletic ability. If these people are excluded from the sidewalk, then they are entirely excluded from the benefits of bike usage. The trouble here is that bike-related laws are mainly influenced by people who are extreme bike users. These users want to be in the road. They care enough to join cycling organizations that will lobby to have bikes treated like cars. The typical bike user is a physically weak person, and they ride on something like a $39.95 bike from Walmart. The bike has overly thick knobby tires, unreliable gears if any, big fenders, and lots of low-quality (thus thick) steel. You're saying these people have no right to ride bikes if you insist that they go on the road.
- adrianN 8y ago
  No, those cycling organizations typically lobby for safe bike infrastructure like protected bike lanes. Safe infrastructure allows all people, regardless of their athleticism, to enjoy riding a bike.

megaremote 8y ago

I am amazed that we allow cars in any place that people are nearby, such as cities of suburbs? 40,000 people die every year in the US, just so someone can get somewhere slightly quicker. Roads take up more space than private housing. Cost billions every single year.Such a ridiculous cost.

adrianN 8y ago

Bicycles don't ride on sidewalks because you want to maximize their visibility. Most deadly accidents between bikes and cars happen at intersections where bikes are getting right-hooked by drivers who forget to check their blind spot. Drivers don't expect objects traveling at 30km/h on the sidewalk, so they're even less likely to look. Sharing the road between bikes and cars is much safer. There would be almost no problem if cars respected safe overtaking distances and switched lanes to overtake bikes.

burfog 8y ago
Drivers don't expect objects traveling at 30km/h on the sidewalk, but that doesn't matter. Drivers are supposed to be on the roads. I suppose the idea is that the bike would just zip across the intersection at that speed? The people preferring bikes on sidewalks are thinking of non-athlete bike riders. They never go that fast. At intersections, they dismount and walk. These bike users are far more compatible with pedestrians than they are with cars.
- adrianN 8y ago
  You can't expect cyclists to stop and get off at every intersection. They wouldn't get anywhere. Bicycles are not toys, they're vehicles. The people on them have places to be.