3 ms·

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 15

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.
fian 8y ago
Pedestrians and cyclists can be killed or seriously injured in a collision: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-safety-laws-new-kim-briggs-death-warning-against-witch-hunt-a7960291.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-safety... A pedestrian was killed by a cyclist in my city (Perth, Western Australia) on a shared (bikes and pedestrians) path some years ago. The argument that broken bones are the worst outcome of a cyclist-pedestrian collision is incorrect. Apart from human error ("failed to look properly"), the second most common factor in car-cyclist collisions is whether the cyclist is entering or crossing the roadway: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-saf... In other words road crossings and riding past driveways across the sidewalk increase the risk of car-cyclist collisions considerably. As a commuting and recreational cyclist, my personal experience aligns with this strongly. Most of my close calls with cars have happened when I have been riding on a designated cycle path (separate from the road) and had to cross or enter a road. So riding on a sidewalk that contains numerous road crossings or driveways can increase the risk of a collision for the cyclist. In Perth we have a network of "shared paths" for use by cyclists and pedestrians. These are wide paths with a center line marking (ie they are for bidirectional use, convention is to keep left) and are separate from the roadway. Until very recently, adult cyclists were not permitted to use other sidewalks/footpaths unless they were accompanying a child cycling. On these shared paths pedestrians always have right of way (even if they are on the wrong side of the center line). If a cyclist hits a pedestrian, the cyclist is considered to be at fault. Why? Well these paths are often through public parks or along scenic sections of the coast or river bank. As such they are popular places for families to take their children and to walk their dogs. Young children and dogs have no concept of "keeping left" and may do unpredictable things. As cyclists are the faster moving path users, it is their responsibility (by law) to enure they can safely pass pedestrians. Cyclists must have a warning device (bell or horn) to warn they are approaching and if it is unsafe to pass must slow down or stop until they can pass safely. Dog owners are required to keep their dogs under control (I think they may be required to use a lead by law, though many don't). Most other sidewalks here are not designed for mixed use by cyclists and pedestrians. They may not be wide enough, have no designated center line marking, may be in front of retail or food outlets (increased pedestrian traffic with added unpredictable stopping/direction change) or have numerous driveways and road crossings. Children, the elderly and dogs are common users of sidewalks. Children and dogs often make unpredictable moves on paths. The elderly are generally less agile (unable to take evasive action to prevent a collision), have diminished sight and hearing and are at high risk of serious injury in a fall or collision. As a regular cyclist, I choose to ride on the road over the sidewalk as it is more efficient and safer for me and others (even though I have been hit by cars a few times). Where possible I will use a shared path, but often elect not to as they are too heavy in pedestrian traffic (coastal paths) or have numerous road crossings.
ak217 8y ago
People are having a strong reaction to what you're saying because you're fundamentally presuming a car-centric infrastructure where others have to accommodate cars. Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. It is car drivers' and regulators' responsibility to make cars avoid colliding with bikes, not vice versa. There are plenty of collisions between cars and big rigs on freeways, yet we don't ban cars from going on freeways, instead we insist on more stringent safety standards for big rigs. > Let's first acknowledge that between mixed traffic (whatever the mix may be) collisions will happen, and then discuss how to minimize harm. Sure. It's best to separate the traffic. Either build bike paths, or (if that's not an option) take lanes away from cars and make them into bike lanes (protected by curbs and bulbouts).
- foobar1962 8y ago
  > Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. Only vehicles that have been built to safety and performance standards, checked for roadworthiness, been registered and insured, and are under the control of licensed operators are allowed on the road. When bicycles accept the same responsibilities they can enjoy the right to be be on the road.
  - ak217 8y ago
    In places where such laws exist, sure. If you want all bicyclists to go through that, go pass a law in your municipality. Otherwise you are not the authority on this. International law codifies cyclists' right to the road. Most large American municipalities and states explicitly state in their municipal codes that bikes have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles. The US federal government doesn't state that outright, but implicitly treats bikes as equal to other vehicles as well.

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.

fian 8y ago

Pedestrians and cyclists can be killed or seriously injured in a collision: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-safety-laws-new-kim-briggs-death-warning-against-witch-hunt-a7960291.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-safety... A pedestrian was killed by a cyclist in my city (Perth, Western Australia) on a shared (bikes and pedestrians) path some years ago. The argument that broken bones are the worst outcome of a cyclist-pedestrian collision is incorrect. Apart from human error ("failed to look properly"), the second most common factor in car-cyclist collisions is whether the cyclist is entering or crossing the roadway: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-saf... In other words road crossings and riding past driveways across the sidewalk increase the risk of car-cyclist collisions considerably. As a commuting and recreational cyclist, my personal experience aligns with this strongly. Most of my close calls with cars have happened when I have been riding on a designated cycle path (separate from the road) and had to cross or enter a road. So riding on a sidewalk that contains numerous road crossings or driveways can increase the risk of a collision for the cyclist. In Perth we have a network of "shared paths" for use by cyclists and pedestrians. These are wide paths with a center line marking (ie they are for bidirectional use, convention is to keep left) and are separate from the roadway. Until very recently, adult cyclists were not permitted to use other sidewalks/footpaths unless they were accompanying a child cycling. On these shared paths pedestrians always have right of way (even if they are on the wrong side of the center line). If a cyclist hits a pedestrian, the cyclist is considered to be at fault. Why? Well these paths are often through public parks or along scenic sections of the coast or river bank. As such they are popular places for families to take their children and to walk their dogs. Young children and dogs have no concept of "keeping left" and may do unpredictable things. As cyclists are the faster moving path users, it is their responsibility (by law) to enure they can safely pass pedestrians. Cyclists must have a warning device (bell or horn) to warn they are approaching and if it is unsafe to pass must slow down or stop until they can pass safely. Dog owners are required to keep their dogs under control (I think they may be required to use a lead by law, though many don't). Most other sidewalks here are not designed for mixed use by cyclists and pedestrians. They may not be wide enough, have no designated center line marking, may be in front of retail or food outlets (increased pedestrian traffic with added unpredictable stopping/direction change) or have numerous driveways and road crossings. Children, the elderly and dogs are common users of sidewalks. Children and dogs often make unpredictable moves on paths. The elderly are generally less agile (unable to take evasive action to prevent a collision), have diminished sight and hearing and are at high risk of serious injury in a fall or collision. As a regular cyclist, I choose to ride on the road over the sidewalk as it is more efficient and safer for me and others (even though I have been hit by cars a few times). Where possible I will use a shared path, but often elect not to as they are too heavy in pedestrian traffic (coastal paths) or have numerous road crossings.

ak217 8y ago

People are having a strong reaction to what you're saying because you're fundamentally presuming a car-centric infrastructure where others have to accommodate cars. Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. It is car drivers' and regulators' responsibility to make cars avoid colliding with bikes, not vice versa. There are plenty of collisions between cars and big rigs on freeways, yet we don't ban cars from going on freeways, instead we insist on more stringent safety standards for big rigs. > Let's first acknowledge that between mixed traffic (whatever the mix may be) collisions will happen, and then discuss how to minimize harm. Sure. It's best to separate the traffic. Either build bike paths, or (if that's not an option) take lanes away from cars and make them into bike lanes (protected by curbs and bulbouts).

foobar1962 8y ago
> Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. Only vehicles that have been built to safety and performance standards, checked for roadworthiness, been registered and insured, and are under the control of licensed operators are allowed on the road. When bicycles accept the same responsibilities they can enjoy the right to be be on the road.
- ak217 8y ago
  In places where such laws exist, sure. If you want all bicyclists to go through that, go pass a law in your municipality. Otherwise you are not the authority on this. International law codifies cyclists' right to the road. Most large American municipalities and states explicitly state in their municipal codes that bikes have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles. The US federal government doesn't state that outright, but implicitly treats bikes as equal to other vehicles as well.