5 ms·

To be quite honest, it is very useful for cyclists to behave this way when they have to constantly fight traffic because it makes drivers give them a wider bert

To be quite honest, it is very useful for cyclists to behave this way when they have to constantly fight traffic because it makes drivers give them a wider berth. You don't know what that bike's about to do, so you stay the fuck away instead of blazing by too close. On the other hand, people who can't bother to get a bell for their bike and zoom past pedestrians are dickheads.

michaelmrose 4y ago
Honestly no bike belongs mixing with pedestrians any more than any other vehicle bell or no bell. A pedestrian is meandering along at 1-3MPH a bike is comparatively racing at 10-20. Even at only 10MPH you are closing on a slow walker by at least 13 feet per second. If they notice you 60 feet behind they have less than 5 seconds to react. If they don't notice you and you don't maneuver you'll hit them. If you maneuver and they also try to get out of the way you might still hit them. I've had multiple bikes zip by with very little space where a slight step to the side would have let to disaster. Honestly anyone caught biking on the sidewalk ought to have their equipment impounded and sold.
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  Biking on the sidewalk is legal in most places. Not saying those people weren’t being dumb but I’d much rather that that getting hit by a car
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    It's legal in only half the country and its stupid everywhere. "The overall crash rate for cyclists was 0.29 per 1000 cycled kilometres and 6.1 per 1000 cycled hours. The crash rate for cyclists riding on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h, which was considerably greater than other road environments. For example, the risk was 8.8 on shared pedestrian and bicycle paths, 5.8 on cycle lanes and 4.7 on roads." https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-021-00497-z https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-021-00... I understand it may be preferable from the cyclists perspective to injure a pedestrian rather than risk getting hit by a car but your unilaterally risking them to procure a benefit for your self. Morally you are fucking them. Furthermore some are more vulnerable to serious or permanent injury than others and they don't have an option not to be on a sidewalk especially in the city. If you have access to a car and are cycling for your health or to achieve a warm fuzzy for saving the earth and hypothetical and mostly fictional people while actually risking, injuring, or killing existing people because actually biking on the street is too dangerous you should probably bike on the street like an adult or turn the key in your car.
    - kazinator 4y ago
      > The crash rate for cyclists riding on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h I'm amazed that whoever cooked up this figure is sure it isn't 26.3 or 26.5. (I suspect that riding on the sidewalk is unsafe, at least serious riding by grownups; not four-year-olds on kid bikes. I just don't believe there is any way to obtain this sort of figure.)
      - prvit 4y ago
        It clearly states that in the dataset they were studying the crash rate on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h. That’s just a simple fact, not a “cooked up figure”. > I just don't believe there is any way to obtain this sort of figure Pretty sure an elementary school student could figure out how to obtain this sort of figure.
        kazinator 4y ago
        There is no way to gather such a data set. There is no mass surveillence system which tracks where cyclists are cycling, and how many hours. Let's look at just the sidewalk versus road issue: if you could surreptitiously place GPS tags on random cyclists, the GPS system does not have the accuracy to tell whether the cyclist is on the sidewalk or road.
        prvit 4y ago
        Are you ok? If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered. I have a hard time believing that a person capable of navigating to HN and producing somewhat coherent sentences is too stupid to figure this out.
        kazinator 4y ago
        That particular figure is from a referenced paper by a R. G. Poulos (at al), whose data comes from self-reporting. "This paper examines self-reported prospectively collected data from 2038 adult transport and recreational cyclists from New South Wales (Australia) to determine exposure-based incident crash and injury rates." That's just silly nonsense.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    If you ride on a sidewalk, it's harder for cars which approach from side streets, alleys and driveways to see you. Doubly so if you ride opposite to the traffic direction, thinking that it's okay because you're off the road; drivers don't expect something to be coming down the sidewalk at 20-30km/h from the wrong direction, where less of their attention is focused.
zdragnar 4y ago
I don't agree that you should intentionally endanger the safety and lives of others to get some extra elbow room. The most important thing you can do on a road (aside from situational awareness) is be predictable- that others have an idea of what you're going to do. If you're behaving erratically or crossing into pedestrian crosswalks so it doesn't look quite so much like you're running a red light, you're seriously increasing the odds of colliding with a vehicle or person.

michaelmrose 4y ago

Honestly no bike belongs mixing with pedestrians any more than any other vehicle bell or no bell. A pedestrian is meandering along at 1-3MPH a bike is comparatively racing at 10-20. Even at only 10MPH you are closing on a slow walker by at least 13 feet per second. If they notice you 60 feet behind they have less than 5 seconds to react. If they don't notice you and you don't maneuver you'll hit them. If you maneuver and they also try to get out of the way you might still hit them. I've had multiple bikes zip by with very little space where a slight step to the side would have let to disaster. Honestly anyone caught biking on the sidewalk ought to have their equipment impounded and sold.

NegativeLatency 4y ago
Biking on the sidewalk is legal in most places. Not saying those people weren’t being dumb but I’d much rather that that getting hit by a car
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  It's legal in only half the country and its stupid everywhere. "The overall crash rate for cyclists was 0.29 per 1000 cycled kilometres and 6.1 per 1000 cycled hours. The crash rate for cyclists riding on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h, which was considerably greater than other road environments. For example, the risk was 8.8 on shared pedestrian and bicycle paths, 5.8 on cycle lanes and 4.7 on roads." https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-021-00497-z https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-021-00... I understand it may be preferable from the cyclists perspective to injure a pedestrian rather than risk getting hit by a car but your unilaterally risking them to procure a benefit for your self. Morally you are fucking them. Furthermore some are more vulnerable to serious or permanent injury than others and they don't have an option not to be on a sidewalk especially in the city. If you have access to a car and are cycling for your health or to achieve a warm fuzzy for saving the earth and hypothetical and mostly fictional people while actually risking, injuring, or killing existing people because actually biking on the street is too dangerous you should probably bike on the street like an adult or turn the key in your car.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    > The crash rate for cyclists riding on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h I'm amazed that whoever cooked up this figure is sure it isn't 26.3 or 26.5. (I suspect that riding on the sidewalk is unsafe, at least serious riding by grownups; not four-year-olds on kid bikes. I just don't believe there is any way to obtain this sort of figure.)
    - prvit 4y ago
      It clearly states that in the dataset they were studying the crash rate on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h. That’s just a simple fact, not a “cooked up figure”. > I just don't believe there is any way to obtain this sort of figure Pretty sure an elementary school student could figure out how to obtain this sort of figure.
      - kazinator 4y ago
        There is no way to gather such a data set. There is no mass surveillence system which tracks where cyclists are cycling, and how many hours. Let's look at just the sidewalk versus road issue: if you could surreptitiously place GPS tags on random cyclists, the GPS system does not have the accuracy to tell whether the cyclist is on the sidewalk or road.
        prvit 4y ago
        Are you ok? If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered. I have a hard time believing that a person capable of navigating to HN and producing somewhat coherent sentences is too stupid to figure this out.
        kazinator 4y ago
        That particular figure is from a referenced paper by a R. G. Poulos (at al), whose data comes from self-reporting. "This paper examines self-reported prospectively collected data from 2038 adult transport and recreational cyclists from New South Wales (Australia) to determine exposure-based incident crash and injury rates." That's just silly nonsense.
- kazinator 4y ago
  If you ride on a sidewalk, it's harder for cars which approach from side streets, alleys and driveways to see you. Doubly so if you ride opposite to the traffic direction, thinking that it's okay because you're off the road; drivers don't expect something to be coming down the sidewalk at 20-30km/h from the wrong direction, where less of their attention is focused.

zdragnar 4y ago

I don't agree that you should intentionally endanger the safety and lives of others to get some extra elbow room. The most important thing you can do on a road (aside from situational awareness) is be predictable- that others have an idea of what you're going to do. If you're behaving erratically or crossing into pedestrian crosswalks so it doesn't look quite so much like you're running a red light, you're seriously increasing the odds of colliding with a vehicle or person.