17 ms·

I agree that riding in the road is the right thing to do from a safety standpoint for everyone involved. Cyclists are much more likely to be hit by cars when ri

I agree that riding in the road is the right thing to do from a safety standpoint for everyone involved. Cyclists are much more likely to be hit by cars when riding on the sidewalks, and are probably more likely to injure pedestrians as well. Since you seem to ride, is it possible there's something unsafe about the particular cycle paths you're referencing?

downerending 7y ago
My current city gets awards for having some of the best bicycling infrastructure in the US. At first glance, it seems like bicycle heaven. But after having walked/bicycled/driven here for a few years, one realizes that the reality is different. The novel and specialized bike lanes/laws/signage are quite confusing to drivers, and confusion is the enemy of safety. As an example, in various places, drivers turning must yield to bicyclists several car lengths behind them, potentially on their right or their left. All of this while simultaneously yielding to bikes/cars/peds that may be approaching from the other three directions. This is difficult to pull off, even for a safety freak like me. I felt much safer riding my bike (and walking and driving) in Los Angeles. There's far less infra, but the situation was simple for all to understand. Wide shoulders (in my area) seemed to make a big difference, and sidewalks that were mostly bike-unrideable seemed to help.
privong 7y ago
> Cyclists are much more likely to be hit by cars when riding on the sidewalks, Is this actually true? I haven't seen data one way or the other, so I'd be interested to know. I can see reasons why it could go either way.
- downerending 7y ago
  Sidewalks often intersect car trajectories, either due to driveways or street crossings. Pedestrians are relatively easy for drivers to see because they move slowly. Bicycles on the other hand can be moving quite quickly and often believe (often correctly) that they have the right of way. Combine that with poor visibility, typical lack of bicycle lights/reflectors/etc, and unpredictable behavior, and you have a recipe for disaster.
  - privong 7y ago
    That’s true, but not unique to sidewalks. Much of the same arguments likely apply to bike lanes.
- retsibsi 7y ago
  It's a big claim, and potentially misleading even if technically true. There could plausibly be a higher accident rate, but lower serious injury and fatality rates. (Due to lower-speed collisions, and reduced likelihood of being knocked into other traffic.) A quick google found this page [http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/news/1637 http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/news/1637] created by a walking lobby group, which looks like an attempt to present the strongest case against footpath cycling, but still leaves all the big questions open.

downerending 7y ago

My current city gets awards for having some of the best bicycling infrastructure in the US. At first glance, it seems like bicycle heaven. But after having walked/bicycled/driven here for a few years, one realizes that the reality is different. The novel and specialized bike lanes/laws/signage are quite confusing to drivers, and confusion is the enemy of safety. As an example, in various places, drivers turning must yield to bicyclists several car lengths behind them, potentially on their right or their left. All of this while simultaneously yielding to bikes/cars/peds that may be approaching from the other three directions. This is difficult to pull off, even for a safety freak like me. I felt much safer riding my bike (and walking and driving) in Los Angeles. There's far less infra, but the situation was simple for all to understand. Wide shoulders (in my area) seemed to make a big difference, and sidewalks that were mostly bike-unrideable seemed to help.

privong 7y ago

> Cyclists are much more likely to be hit by cars when riding on the sidewalks, Is this actually true? I haven't seen data one way or the other, so I'd be interested to know. I can see reasons why it could go either way.

downerending 7y ago
Sidewalks often intersect car trajectories, either due to driveways or street crossings. Pedestrians are relatively easy for drivers to see because they move slowly. Bicycles on the other hand can be moving quite quickly and often believe (often correctly) that they have the right of way. Combine that with poor visibility, typical lack of bicycle lights/reflectors/etc, and unpredictable behavior, and you have a recipe for disaster.
- privong 7y ago
  That’s true, but not unique to sidewalks. Much of the same arguments likely apply to bike lanes.
retsibsi 7y ago
It's a big claim, and potentially misleading even if technically true. There could plausibly be a higher accident rate, but lower serious injury and fatality rates. (Due to lower-speed collisions, and reduced likelihood of being knocked into other traffic.) A quick google found this page [http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/news/1637 http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/news/1637] created by a walking lobby group, which looks like an attempt to present the strongest case against footpath cycling, but still leaves all the big questions open.