4 ms·

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.
        prvit 4y ago
        ok? It’s not like someone tried to mislead you about the source of that figure, it was clearly stated. Why are you pretending to be stupid? You could just jump straight to criticizing the dataset instead of pretending to not know how they could reach that figure.
        michaelmrose 4y ago
        This is not an acceptable way to speak here. When you find yourself adding emotional content including insults before your statements take a breath and delete everything but the factual statements. For example you could have simply said "If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered" It would have added the same value without degrading the conversation or being rude. Thank you.
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.

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.
        prvit 4y ago
        ok? It’s not like someone tried to mislead you about the source of that figure, it was clearly stated. Why are you pretending to be stupid? You could just jump straight to criticizing the dataset instead of pretending to not know how they could reach that figure.
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        This is not an acceptable way to speak here. When you find yourself adding emotional content including insults before your statements take a breath and delete everything but the factual statements. For example you could have simply said "If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered" It would have added the same value without degrading the conversation or being rude. Thank you.

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.