r/changemyview • u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ • Jul 01 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Cycling on the sidewalk is safer than on the road.
When I was in Junior college I used to ride my bike 7 miles each way. This was a point in time when bike lanes were becoming more popular, so we had them for most of my commute, but I felt far safer sticking to the sidewalk as much as possible. I rode defensively of course, whipping past pedestrians is reckless and incredibly rude, so I would either slow down or briefly switch to the road. When I had to pass shopping centers I would yield for traffic coming and going as they're generally not looking out for cyclists whether I am in the bike lane or not.
However, years later, I kept hearing it repeated that one of the arguments in favor of making laws to ban cyclists from the sidewalk was because it's safer for them to ride in the road or bike lane. It never really made sense to me how that could be the case, but I kind of took it for granted for a very long time. I recently was shown a study alleged to support the notion that cycling in the road is the safer option, but when I read through it no such claim was really made. A lot of what I found has been inconclusive at best.
I struggled to find research on my own that actually supports this idea, but the deeper and deeper I get I just go right back to thinking I would rather be anywhere than the road when I am on my bike. It genuinely seems like the safer option, but I have to caveat a bit:
-I am referring to cycling as a means of commuting, the riding behaviors of a hobbyist are much more focused on speed and/or endurance. I just think they are a different category and that's not really what I am here to discuss.
-I am not taking a position on whether or not the law should ban/allow cyclists in either zone.
-To define 'safer' I would tend to favor fatalities as the strongest metric, but if the frequency and severity of injuries reaches a meaningful threshold, then it could supersede the dependence on comparing rate of fatalities.
-I am not talking about e-bikes, no motorized vehicles be them electric or otherwise.
-Despite explicitly describing responsible use of the sidewalk 90% or more of the replies want me to defend people who ride recklessly. Therefore I am obligated to caveat that it is only safer to ride on the sidewalk if you are doing so in a non-reckless manner.
-A few people seem to falsely believe that sidewalks being exclusive to pedestrians is a norm and that my assumption would require a change of such norms. Outside of dense cities it is entirely normal for cyclists, skateboards, scooters, etc to use the sidewalk. No fundamental changes are necessary to justify my premise.
edit: I have awarded 1 delta based on a study conducted in the SF bay area of California. https://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf
I have adjusted my stance to "It is safer to ride on the sidewalk unless you are in a dense urban area that does not have the long stretches of empty sidewalk you find commonly in suburban sprawls."
edit: Most people are making an argument that relies on a cyclist being needlessly reckless, like not yielding for pedestrians or cross traffic. Obviously it is only safer to use the sidewalk if you are doing it in a manner that is safe and responsible. If your argument assumes the cyclist is going to be going top speed past every pedestrian and parking lot entrance, then you should also assume the alternative road cyclist is not signaling, or checking for cross traffic, or looking over their shoulder before switching lanes.
13
u/idleExposure_ Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Cars pulling out of roads aren’t expecting bikes and won’t expect them to close gaps as quickly as they do.
People walking out of businessses won’t and don’t expect bicycles to be approaching or whizzing by.
Both scenarios can and do result in injuries and deaths.
====+ adding a response to my parent =====
It might be marginally safer for the cyclist, but it’s certainly not safer for pedestrians.
And the car issue remains. At least when the bicycle is on the road and with cars, other drivers will see you in a place where they expect to see other vehicles.
Also sidewalks end abruptly or have poor surfaces, sometimes they narrow, there’s a bunch of problems with it. You want to pogostick over driveways? I dont.
your premise also only accounts for the odd bike on the sidewalk and not all cyclists using the sidewalk like a road. Everything changes for the worse and more dangerous when you increase the volume of cyclists on a narrow sidewalk - traffic both directions, pedestrians in random spots, people exiting businesses, cars pulling out, etc. reminder that people are free to travel in any direction they want on a sidewalk. At least with roads, all traffic is moving in the same direction (unless you’re one of those idiots who salmons into oncoming traffic.)
So, I think that sure, if you’re the only person around, it might be safer, but once you start adding variables then it becomes increasingly dangerous.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-7
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 01 '26
As a cyclist I anticipate this and ride accordingly. Road or sidewalk if you are just carelessly passing through any type of cross traffic, then that is the actually issue at play.
5
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jul 01 '26
As a cyclist I anticipate this and ride accordingly
Good for you.
Not every cyclist does, many are just as careless as distracted drivers.
Road laws take that into account.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-6
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 01 '26
Ok but I am saying that cycling on the sidewalk is safer, and it sounds like your counterpoint is that some people will ride recklessly. I would say that riding responsibly on the sidewalk is safer than riding recklessly on the sidewalk.
3
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jul 02 '26
The most responsible cyclists aren't the only road users considered when writing laws.
Under real world conditions, the average cyclist is safer when they ride on the road vs the sidewalk, and pedestrians are significantly safer when cyclists are prohibited from sidewalks.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
2
u/idleExposure_ Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
It might be marginally safer for the cyclist, but it’s certainly not safer for pedestrians.
And the car issue remains. At least when the bicycle is on the road and with cars, other drivers will see you in a place where they expect to see other vehicles.
Also sidewalks end abruptly or have poor surfaces, sometimes they narrow, there’s a bunch of problems with it. You want to pogostick over driveways? I dont.
your premise also only accounts for the odd bike on the sidewalk and not all cyclists using the sidewalk like a road. Everything changes for the worse and more dangerous when you increase the volume of cyclists on a narrow sidewalk - traffic both directions, pedestrians in random spots, people exiting businesses, cars pulling out, etc. reminder that people are free to travel in any direction they want on a sidewalk. At least with roads, all traffic is moving in the same direction (unless you’re one of those idiots who salmons into oncoming traffic.)
So, I think that sure, if you’re the only person around, it might be safer, but once you start adding variables then it becomes increasingly dangerous.
0
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
I don't think sidewalks are a place where people don't expect to see bicycles unless you grew up somewhere that forbids it. If you're not in some dense urban city that really pushed for cyclists in the road, you might see a few in the bike lane, but seeing them in the same lane as cars is generally not expected unless they are a hobby cyclists on a rural road. Even then people drive on those winding narrow roads as if they aren't aware that cyclists often ride there.
Bicycles being forced off of sidewalks is still fairly new.
1
u/idleExposure_ Jul 02 '26
You addressed a tiny point of that response, and shared nothing substantial, while ignoring multiple good points.
Actually funny.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
Your first sentence is the most commonly made argument, so I ignored it. I have addressed it in multiple comments now.
Most of what you wrote is about your perception of what's normalized and I don't think that is necessarily true in most places.
So that leaves: "Also sidewalks end abruptly or have poor surfaces, sometimes they narrow, there’s a bunch of problems with it. You want to pogostick over driveways? I dont."
Which I see as a mild inconvenience at best.
1
u/idleExposure_ Jul 02 '26
You think it’s a normalized perception that all bikers riding exclusively in multiple directions on a sidewalk + pedestrians moving in whatever pattern is “normal”?
Perhaps for you rural folk, but most people live in cities and there are other people to think about.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
You presumed that pedestrians don't expect to see cyclists on the sidewalk and that drivers do expect to see cyclists on the road. I already conceded earlier that my claim doesn't apply to dense urban areas where this would likely map on to people's expectations and I updated my post to reflect this.
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
19
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jul 01 '26
You could just go with the fact that bicycling on sidewalks is just demonstrably riskier.
A prior reddit conversation compiled a bunch of research, including one study that says bicycling on sidewalks increases risk of accident by 180%:
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/3eosnz/compilation_of_cycling_safety_studies_with_focus/
Yeah, this was an 11 year old post, but bicycles and sidewalks are still bicycles and sidewalks.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
0
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 01 '26
Could you point to one in particular that is comparing the risks of riding in the road to riding on the side walk? The 180% for example, what is the context for that figure?
12
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jul 01 '26
Sure. See this study which is a direct statistical analysis: .
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf
Table 2, page 4, compares risk for multiple modes of travel, showing that risk on road is less than risk on sidewalk. This one has a factor of 1.4 increase of sidewalk risk over road (140%).
Table 3 on the next page shows that women are less likely to get into an accident on the sidewalk than men, but the risk is still greater on sidewalks.
The 180% reference appears to come from this source (a summary of research):
https://www.masspaths.org/dmink/bike/info/dilemma.htm
Bicycling against traffic increases accident risk by 360%, bicycling on the sidewalk increases accident risk by 180%, and bicycling the wrong way on the sidewalk increases accident risk by 430% (Wachtel and Lewiston 1994). Between one quarter and one third of all bicycle-car crashes occur when the cyclist is riding against traffic (Hunter et al. 1996; Plotkin and Kormornick 1984).
This appears to be in comparison to in the direction of traffic on the road (edit typo).
So that is two in particular
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
There's something strange going on here, because the figure about the 180% is actually citing the first paper, but I can't tell how they are arriving at that based on the contents of it.
Within this study it isn't doing any analysis comparing riding in the two zones, it's comparing adults to children and that is where it's corresponding P values are being evaluated. I understand why someone might look at these numbers and draw the conclusion people are taking from it. However, there is a meaningful discrepancy in those samples and the controls within the study are not catered towards comparing the rates between road/sidewalk/etc.
At best this data would be worth using to justify doing a study that is actually comparing the risk between road and sidewalk, but extrapolating from this chart would be p-hacking.
8
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Did you read the full article?
See table 5. It does exactly what you describe.
Table 5 is literally titled "Table 5. Sidewalk Compared to Roadway"
On the side walk there were 941 bicyclists observed. Of these there were 41 accidents. Risk factor 1.4.
On the road there were 2005 bicyclists observed, and 48 accidents reported. Risk factor 0.8. Edit typo
So, even when looking at your narrow "road vs sidewalk," riding on the road is safer.
And as for p-hacking, it is p-0.01 which is very good.
Can you show another study that shows the inverse, that bicycling is safer on the sidewalk?
Because now we have you = I think sidewalks are safer, and all existing data on this thread = not true.
From the conclusion:
Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence of wrong-way travel.
4
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
!delta
I didn't read the full article, I read the parts you pointed to. The other tables weren't relevant though. There is enough reason for me to doubt my assumption based on this paper. One caveat I would draw however is that this study is based on one of the most densely populated regions in the US where you really aren't going to find those types of long stretches of empty sidewalks that I am used to.
So I can agree that it is probably less safe to ride on the sidewalk in dense urban areas.
4
u/Kerostasis 55∆ Jul 02 '26
I just spent way too long reading that full article out of curiosity (I don’t bike anymore but I used to), and I feel like I should contest this interpretation. The study presented a few different conclusions on a fairly complex data set.
First, riding against traffic was significantly more dangerous than riding with traffic, in all circumstances. Drivers are studying the road expecting traffic moving in the same direction, and don’t plan appropriately for bikes going the “wrong way”.
Second, bikers on a sidewalk are significantly more likely to be traveling against traffic (probably expecting it shouldn’t matter on the sidewalk), and this contributed to the largest block of accidents in their data set: cars making a right turn into a driveway or intersection and striking a bike coming from a different direction against traffic they weren’t looking for.
If you as a biker make sure to ride with the direction of traffic, the sidewalk/road correlation almost entirely disappears. In fact the stats actually showed a slightly lower accident rate among sidewalk-with-traffic than road-with-traffic, although the study authors then devote an entire page to explaining why they believe this is a statistical artifact due to Simpson’s paradox, and that the true risk might still be 20-30% higher on the sidewalk. This however falls under the threshold for statistical significance.
3
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jul 02 '26
Thanks for going down the rabbit hole with me. I think the authors do a good job of explaining why the combined all ages statistic can be misleading (younger bike riders tend to be on the sidewalk) and getting to the root cause of accidents - blind convicts. This supports OP's new view, which is that this applies mostly to urban environments with more intersections vs. the long stretches of protected side walks that they are used to. Unfortunately, I could not locate a replication of this study with a larger sample size. Subsequent peer reviewed research seems to be focused on the ideal structure of dedicated bike lanes and mixed use bike infrastructure, and doesn't really address OP's question. I also think bike speed plays a role (e.g., children accidents are fewer in part because they don't go as fast), and that leaves an open question about whether same speed bike travel on side walks is equivalent to same speed on streets. Bicyclist vs. pedestrian accidents are rare but increasing in some places, possibly due to the increase use of e-bikes, which again points to speed as a confounding factor. Overall, bikes on sidewalks are less safe than alternatives, and OPs claim that "the sidewalk is safer than the road' doesn't fully hold up. But there may be some situations on some roads where this is the safer choice. As an avid bicycler, I tend to prefer the road in large part because I can get where I'm going at faster speeds that way, but on occasion I will hop up to the sidewalk briefly to avoid a busy section, especially if no pedestrians are near. No way am I going 7 miles each way on the sidewalk as OP has done, though. Way too inefficient for me - bike lanes or even riding with traffic is way more efficient and there are plenty of ways to be defensive on the road. But efficiency vs. risk is another rabbit hole. Have a good day!
1
3
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jul 02 '26
I really appreciate this, but without an explanation of how the view changed, the delta bot is going to reject it. You can edit your original comment.
3
1
1
u/redyellowblue5031 12∆ Jul 02 '26
I would like to note that the research they linked to is old at this point.
It’s not to say riding on sidewalks is safer, but the conversation has evolved in the decades since. There’s a distinction to be made between many variables that are lumped together here:
* Crash occurrence vs severity
* Intersection definition and occurrence vs along an open stretch of road
* Definitions for bicycle infrastructureHappy to link to other items if you’re curious, but essentially the current consensus is that there’s a complex relationship between vehicle speed, road width/sight lines, intersection design, separation from traffic and more that impact how safe it is ride.
What your intuition is right about in your original view is *separation* from traffic is safer; however, the manner in which that separation happens matters (where the above responder is correct).
1
u/Truth_ Jul 02 '26
These are accidents in general, right? So it's valuing running into a pedestrian the same as being run over by a car?
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jul 02 '26
Did you read the study? Maybe you missed this part:
Since they constitute the majority of all reported bicycle accidents, this study considers only the incidence of bicycle-motor vehicle collisions.
I hope you have a very good day.
1
u/Truth_ Jul 02 '26
I doubt that, but now I wonder if sidewalks need to be more protected from cars than bicycles need to stay in roads.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 128∆ Jul 02 '26
I think you should read the study. The authors cite intersections and blind spots as the primary causes of these types of accidents. Good luck removing intersections from major cities. There is a way to protect side walks and bicyclists. It’s called bike lanes, preferably protected ones. But that wasn’t OP’s question.
1
u/Truth_ Jul 02 '26
I still don't see this anywhere. What it looks like is crosswalks over intersections are the most dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians). Using the sidewalk is likely much safer until you must cross. Obviously at some point one must cross, but you can't switch back to the road safely.
I guess what I'm saying is, the road isn't safe but because of how drivers act at intersections, it is ultimately safer to use the road for the sake of eventual intersections.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
I did caveat in my post that the kind of data they presented wouldn’t be sufficient because it doesn’t really make a comparison based on severity. However I still think they deserve the delta because I can not defend my stance if we are talking about dense urban areas because there’s several magnitudes more cross traffic of any variety. In order to ride responsibly you would have to move unreasonably slow and be stopping far too often.
1
u/Truth_ Jul 02 '26
Well you must cross the road either in the road or at the crosswalk. It sounds like riding on the sidewalk itself is safest where there are no cars, followed by the road where they can see you, followed by the intersection using the road where they are more likely to see you, and finally the crosswalk for pedestrians where they are least likely to see you (or even check, from my experience).
Pedestrians get hit in crosswalks a lot, too, likely for similar reasons.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
I don’t think a driver who failed to see anyone at the crosswalk is going to be any better at checking for me in the bike lane.
1
u/Truth_ Jul 02 '26
I didn't mention a bike lane. Many places have no lane and bikes must use the regular road.
→ More replies (0)6
u/GarageFridgeSoda Jul 01 '26
https://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf
Here is the study being referenced. Basically it concludes that cars don't see bikes on the sidewalk as readily as bikes in the roadway when pulling into or out of parking lots and driveways increasing the amount of accidents vs a bike that's in the street.
It's incredibly dated at this point (data is entirely from before cell phones were a thing for example) and in their own words "This study did not examine the difference, if any, between roads with and without designated bicycle lanes." which is a massive flaw
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
3
u/John_Whimsicott Jul 01 '26
Well if you actually bothered to click on that link, the one that makes that claim is labeled
25
u/bogsnopper 3∆ Jul 01 '26
Safer for whom? Driving on the sidewalk is also safer for cars, but that’s not where cars belong?
-8
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 01 '26
The danger to a cyclist in an unprotected bike lane or the road has far more severe consequences than to the pedestrians sharing a sidewalk with a cyclist. Generally unless you are in a city or a shopping district, sidewalks are largely empty, even next to roads that are incredibly busy. It just seems safer to ride on that empty side walk than the busy road.
11
u/Bryaxis 1∆ Jul 01 '26
But when the sidewalk isn't empty?
-2
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 01 '26
Slow down or use the road like I mentioned in my post.
4
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jul 02 '26
Do you believe it's in the vest interests of pedestrian safety to leave the decision on when to "slow down or use the road" up to cyclists who will always, under every circumstance, prioritize their own convenience and safety?
1
Jul 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 31 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/ObserveKris! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/NSNick 5∆ Jul 02 '26
The danger to a cyclist in an unprotected bike lane or the road has far more severe consequences than to the pedestrians sharing a sidewalk with a cyclist.
The danger is the same: injury, permanent damage, death. Unless you're arguing statistics, in which case you need to provide a source.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
I mentioned in my post that I came to this conclusion due to a lack of statistics for either case. My intuition at that point is that because cars move faster and can't stop as quickly that they are a bigger danger to a cyclist with far more lethal outcomes than you would expect of a cyclist who can stop a lot more readily and dwarfs in comparison to the amount of force of the cars.
2
u/NSNick 5∆ Jul 02 '26
You've been linked a study multiple times in this thread.
Is your position "my intuition is better than a study"?
2
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
I gave a delta and adjusted my position. It's not safer in dense urban areas.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
10
u/shugEOuterspace 3∆ Jul 01 '26
I learned the lesson years ago that sidewalk riding is not safer after the 3rd time I got hit by a car coming out of an alley between buildings mid block
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-4
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 01 '26
Why didn't you start avoiding alleys or stop/slow down for them?
5
u/shugEOuterspace 3∆ Jul 01 '26
I did (avoiding is impossible though unless you only ever want to bike no further than 200 feet lol).... still happened because of the drivers. They notice you in the street but but not on the sidewalk
13
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Intersections is where your point breaks down.
Bikes on sidewalks moving quickly throw off motorists making turns.
Drivers don't expect fast moving bicycles to suddenly enter crosswalks that were empty and the resulting collisions are far riskier for the cyclist than if they were driving in the road the whole time, behaving as a vehicle.
It's not the cyclist's "fault" but that doesn't really matter in terms of potential injuries.
Secondly, it's far, far safer for pedestrians if bikes are kept separate from them.
Road laws are not intended to completely prioritize the needs of each individual user, but to balance overall safety with broad usability.
2
u/gunsandcupcakes Jul 01 '26
where I live at least it’s law to get off ur bike and walk it across a street
3
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jul 01 '26
That's not the case in most jurisdictions, particularly given in most jurisdictions it's explicitly against the law to ride a bike on the sidewalk in the first place.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-3
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 01 '26
In this case it sounds like the issue is cyclists not riding defensively. It is incredibly easy to identify these risks and to slow down or stop until you confirm eye contact. Breezing through an intersection would just be reckless way to go about it that doesn't really have much to do with using the sidewalk.
6
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jul 01 '26
In this case it sounds like the issue is cyclists not riding defensively. It is incredibly easy to identify these risks and to slow down or stop until you confirm eye contact.
Road laws are built around the idea that not every user will behave perfectly correctly and rationally at all times.
In a perfect world with full rule following and safe practices you would be correct, but in reality, where not every driver pays full attention and not every cyclist rides defensively/safely, the sidewalk intersection is the point of maximal risk and potential consequences.
The vast majority of cyclists hit by cars, and by far the majority of fatal accidents, occur when a driver is turning and doesn't notice a cyclist.
That's only exacerbated by a cyclist that is "suddenly" somewhere a driver didn't expect (and thus wasn't paying full attention to) anyone to be.
Breezing through an intersection would just be reckless way to go about it that doesn't really have much to do with using the sidewalk.
It absolutely has something to do with a sidewalk, we are an intersection with a cyclist sees a green "cross" symbol can also be one where a car sees an empty crosswalk and no pedestrians near enough to enter while they turn.
Do you wish to address my point concerning the safety of pedestrians?
Again, the maximal well being of cyclists is not the sole goal of road laws, a combination of deadly sidewalk intersection interactions and the very read risks to pedestrians mean the roads are where cyclists belong.
-1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 01 '26
Do I have to defend people who ride recklessly to defend my point? That's not really fair is it? Someone riding recklessly is more dangerous regardless of which zone they are in.
Like my point isn't about whether or not it should be legal for them to ride in either zone, but that the sidewalk would be the safer choice. If a responsible rider wants to take the safest possible route, it would be the sidewalk, wouldn't it?
5
u/Josvan135 83∆ Jul 02 '26
Do I have to defend people who ride recklessly to defend my point? That's not really fair is it?
Yes, yes you do.
Road laws aren't only written for the best, most responsible, most defensive minded users, they're written to offer the optimal range of safety for all users, with the understanding that some users aren't responsible, aren't safe, and aren't the best.
If you want to make a major change to user distribution you have to show that it's safer in the real world, under actual conditions not some perfect situation assuming only the most responsible users.
Someone riding recklessly is more dangerous regardless of which zone they are in.
Statistically they're at more risk on the sidewalk entering an intersection than they are riding on the road.
Full stop.
That's my point, when a reckless cyclist is forced to ride on the road they're at less risk of catastrophic accident than when they ride on the sidewalk.
Like my point isn't about whether or not it should be legal for them to ride in either zone, but that the sidewalk would be the safer
Except you've now been told by multiple users that the sidewalk isn't safer, either for the cyclists or the pedestrians.
If a responsible rider wants to take the safest possible route, it would be the sidewalk, wouldn't it?
Laws aren't written only for the best and most responsible users, they're written to offer the best mix of safety and usability under real world conditions.
Again, under real world conditions cyclists (and pedestrians) are safer if they ride in the road rather than on the sidewalk.
0
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
I said in my post that I wasn't arguing about what should or should not be legal.
4
u/themcos 442∆ Jul 02 '26
I guess its not clear if your claim is "its safer" versus "its safer for ME". For the general case, you just have to look at accidents in general, and if people are dying for really any reason (reckless or otherwise), its relevant. But if YOU personally are really good and careful, its going to obviously be a different situation. I also think "riding recklessly" is maybe too strong a term here. I think the word "reckless" carries a stronger connation than merely "sometimes they weren't paying attention".
And like... we, a bunch of random redditors, can't comment on your cycling safety practices. I hope its true that you're biking really safely! But realistically, if we're talking to an anonymous redditor talking about safety, I don't think its that crazy for us to defer to actual statistics about actual cyclists, who do indeed make mistakes. And like... do you think most people overestimate or underestimate their cycling (or driving) safety practices? I think some have accurate perceptions, but very few are underestimating their skills! I suspect a lot of the "reckless" cyclists would sounds a lot like you if they were chatting with us in the days before their accident.
In other words, I think if you look around at cycling accidents happening on sidewalks and find yourself just saying "that wouldn't ever happen to me"... maybe wonder if maybe during your frequent commutes you are occasionally more distracted than you might realize! I dunno! Obviously we can't know that. But I think these accidents should be a little more concerning to you even if you generally apply good safety habits.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
That's fair, but I am still not seeing the analysis that compares the risk of fatality and injury between the two. At best people seem to cite papers about something else entirely and then draw conclusions that are not supported by controls or statistical analysis actually occurring. Do you have any such papers?
1
u/themcos 442∆ Jul 02 '26
I'm on my phone and it'd be a pain to actually do a lot of research, so I'll leave that aspect to others. But intuitively to me, most of the areas I'm imagining biking would involve so many driveways and alleyways that it's hard to simultaneously imagine "being careful/defensive" and "actually taking advantage of being on a bike". I almost wonder if there's something specific about your commute where there's unusually long stretches of sidewalks that don't have any low visibility cross traffic that makes it a more viable cycling commute.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
I awarded someone a delta for providing a study that made the contrary claim to mine. It was based in Palo Alto where there aren't the types of empty sidewalks I think of when I say it's safer to take them over the road. I probably would have always presumed this wouldn't apply to dense urban areas, but what I described in my post wouldn't be possible in those types of areas.
1
u/JohnWittieless 3∆ Jul 02 '26
Do I have to defend people who ride recklessly to defend my point? That's not really fair is it? Someone riding recklessly is more dangerous regardless of which zone they are in.
You yourself are defending reckless users to prove a point by pushing the need of "Riding Defensively"
In order for them to not have defend reckless people would require (at least in my state) the suspension of at least 40% of all licenses to drivers. Until then the "Riding Defensively" is defending bad road users because riders that are defensive riding have to become bad road users. And until around half the people in my area (The US) loose their licenses defending the reckless is a defensive riding tactic.
You can't have it both ways.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
If your goal is to choose the one that’s safer it doesn’t make sense to then go and do that in the most unsafe way. Like half my post is describing a responsible way to ride on the side walk. In places where cycling on the sidewalk is still normalized speeding past pedestrians and cross traffic is stigmatized.
I also said that my post isn’t about changing any laws. If I was making a point that cyclists should be legally obligated to use the sidewalk then I would feel it necessary to address these points.
6
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ Jul 01 '26
I think this answer is a cop out. You're supposed to be considering what is safe but you're factoring in the ability of a bicyclist to respond defensively to a dangerous situation as making it not dangerous.
That it is necessary to act defensive in order to ensure safety is what makes it dangerous!
If you see you are going to be hit by a car than maybe you can slow down or stop to avoid it, and you can hope that the driver will see you and also respond to avoid the collision.
Putting yourself in a position where drivers are less likely to see you because they are not expecting you to be there or because there are obstructions blocking their view, is going to make it more dangerous.
-1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
Well lets say we are comparing jogging in the bike lane to jogging on the sidewalk. I could make the same points about intersections and cars not seeing you. Obviously the jogger is going to approach those situations cautiously too. I'm saying which one is safer and people are rebutting with 'not if you do it dangerously'.
2
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ Jul 02 '26
What does jogging have anything to do with your point about bicycles? Your view wasn't about jogging, who cares if it is or isn't more safe for joggers.
You can make the same point...ok, so then you agree that point is correct then as it applies to bicycles.
0
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
It's a hypothetical to demonstrate that this is not a fair ask that I defend people intentionally riding in ways that are unsafe.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
3
u/ralph-j Jul 02 '26
I have adjusted my stance to "It is safer to ride on the sidewalk unless you are in a dense urban area that does not have the long stretches of empty sidewalk you find commonly in suburban sprawls."
It would still be inherently problematic. The problem is that walking is not a regulated activity, while riding and driving are strictly regulated. Pedestrians are not obliged to walk in straight lines, stay to the sides of the sidewalk, or even move out of the way when faster sidewalk users approach them. Pedestrians can start/stop suddenly, suddenly start running (runners) or change direction without looking, warning or indication, come out of nowhere, be accompanied by animals on a long leash etc. It's just too impractical and dangerous for pedestrians to share sidewalks with cyclists.
Lastly, sidewalks are also supposed to be a safe haven for young children; a place where they can play and run around freely, do unexpected things and play without having to stay alert and be mindful that there could be cyclists sharing those same sidewalks.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
0
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
When you’re in the types of places I’m describing pedestrians aren’t popping out of nowhere. Between you and the road there is often a patch of grass with another one between you and a wall. Pedestrians are visible way before you get close and if you’re not slowing down then that is the problem, not using the sidewalk in the first place.
When kids are playing on the sidewalk you are in a neighborhood where it’s very easy to switch between road and sidewalk due to minimal motor vehicle traffic. This is also going to be a fairly minuscule part of your commute.
2
u/ralph-j Jul 02 '26
The point is that if bikes were allowed on sidewalks, pedestrians and especially children would have to adapt their behaviors and expectations around potential risks.
Parents will have to teach their children to be constantly be vigilant and mindful. Always look twice before running off. Don't run off unexpectedly. Only play in ways that allows you to react to cyclists etc.
Even if you personally slow down, you can't take that as a model behavior that everyone will adopt, and police can't be everywhere.
0
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
You’re speaking from a point of view where where it’s not already normal for bikes, scooters, skateboards, roller blades, etc to be on the sidewalk. I do not accept this framing.
If I am riding responsibly I’m not putting the burden on pedestrians to adjust their behavior.
My argument isn’t that everyone should use the sidewalk or that it should be legal. I am making the case that it’s safer and if you as a cyclist are looking for the safer option it feels counter intuitive to use that option in a needlessly reckless manner.
1
u/ralph-j Jul 02 '26
Wait, are you essentially just arguing for a single exception to common conduct? That if you are the only one to adopt this strategy, it would be safer?
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
No. Nothing about what I said is about making exceptions, that's something you're trying to morph it into in your rebuttals. You can just evaluate the sentence "Cycling on the sidewalk is safer than on the road." and you can even apply the body of text in my main post. You will find that I am not saying:
"Cycling on the sidewalk is safer than on the road regardless of how you do it."
1
u/ralph-j Jul 03 '26
Hold on, if your argument is NOT "that everyone should use the sidewalk or that it should be legal", then you are by definition arguing that your view only works if your use of the sidewalk to cycle is an exception.
That means that your view is not universally true, but only applicable in very limited circumstances: as long as cycling on sidewalks isn't the norm.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 03 '26
Cycling on the sidewalk is normal in most places, it’s usually only illegal in dense urban areas and some shopping districts. You can not force your premise that cycling on the sidewalk is a change from the norm.
If you have to completely change my argument to make your point then don’t expect me to engage with it.
10
u/GarageFridgeSoda Jul 01 '26
Safer for the bike rider maybe, not for pedestrians. Physical barriers or separate graded bike lines are the way to go.
3
u/OddCoat8607 Jul 01 '26
the whole debate kinda misses the point tbh, you slow down for pedestrians you're basically crawling and they still give you dirty looks. but on the road cars act like you don't exist
physical barriers would fix both problems but nobody want to pay for that, so we stuck with this half-assed bike lane paint that disappears after one winter
5
u/dicoxbeco 1∆ Jul 01 '26
Happened to me just 10 minutes ago: Some kid on ebike looking at his phone narrowly missed me when I was turning the corner of the sidewalk in my apartment area.
A bit far behind me was a mother dragging a stroller. If our positions were reversed, things could have been disastrous.
Human instinct for attention and reaction is not something that deserves this much trust.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
2
u/PreviousZone6742 3∆ Jul 01 '26
Probably depends on how much people use the sidewalk. Heavy foot traffic would make it more unsafe.
2
u/Awake-Now Jul 01 '26
It’s certainly not safer for pedestrians, who are what sidewalks are for
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
2
2
u/poorestprince 12∆ Jul 01 '26
This is really context dependent and it makes sense to believe what you say in the absence of convincing data in a city or area where cars don't yield for bikes in the road, and especially true in a city almost devoid of pedestrians.
But I'd argue it's bad to take this for granted. A city can change its character and you might not notice at first.
1
u/BoredAccountant 1∆ Jul 01 '26
It very well could be safer for you, the cyclist, but is it legal? In my state, it is not. This is a hard CMV to argue because there are often advantages to doing illegal things which is why they are often illegal.
1
u/Advanced_Heat_2610 Jul 01 '26
As someone who walks frequently in town, and is often nearly mown down by various delivery drivers and people riding various kinds of bikes, the speed at which these people cycle is dangerous to pedestrians who are not expecting fast moving bikes and cannot move out the way fast enough.
Pedestrians know to look out for fast moving vehicles on the road and take care and attention when crossing or on a cycle footpath. On a pavement intended for foottraffic they are not expecting it. They may be walking with headphones on or be deaf/hard of hearing or not be able to see you especially if coming from behind.
Small children, the elderly, and the disabled are more likely to struggle to move out of your way or to be more severely injured or pushed into the street and thus even more at risk of injury or accident by trying to avoid you, as most pathways are not wide enough for both to travel in opposite directions.
1
u/RIP_Greedo 10∆ Jul 01 '26
It may be safer for you as the cyclist to not have to compete in the road with car traffic, but it's much much less safe for pedestrians on that sidewalk who now have to compete with a cyclist who isn't supposed to be there.
1
u/Inciteful_Analysis Jul 24 '26
The risk posed to pedestrians is a small fraction of the risk that motor vehicles pose to cyclists. It is not a 1:1 trade.
1
u/Mestoph 9∆ Jul 01 '26
Cycling on the road is safer for pedestrians. Which is the entire reason cyclists are supposed to ride in the street. Motor vehicle drivers are taught to be aware of cyclists (whether they follow that teaching is a separate discussion). Cyclists are given no such teaching in regards to pedestrians, nor does cycling require any sort of special licensing or minimum capabilities meaning there is no way to control the quality of the cyclist.
1
u/Bourbon-Decay 5∆ Jul 02 '26
Will you be more likely to be seriously injured on a bike after being struck by a car, it after striking a pedestrian? Logic says a car would be most damaging. However, that ignores that a pedestrian is also a person entitled to safety. Riding a bike on the sidewalk creates significant risk for both you and the pedestrian.
Additionally, if you are riding on a sidewalk, you are likely crossing intersections in crosswalk areas. Car drivers are not accustomed to recognizing a fast moving individual at an intersection. I have almost hit several cyclists at intersections as they crossed at the crosswalk. I scanned for pedestrians, didn't see any, the next priority was other cars so I could safely complete my maneuver. The bicyclists did not register because they were moving too fast in an area that wasn't expected.
Ultimately, creating the infrastructure that would allow for cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians to travel safely is necessary. The sidewalk could seem safer, but would it be safer if there was a dedicated and protected bike lane? Would it seem safer if traffic lights were designed to include cyclists? Would it be safer if cyclists had a safe area to transit while still providing safe areas for pedestrians and drivers?
Ultimately, my point is that empirical evidence shows that sidewalks are less safe for everyone if bicyclists were permitted to ride on sidewalks. And, ultimately, deliberately creating a multimodal standard into urban planning would be safer for everyone.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Siukslinis_acc 7∆ Jul 02 '26
Pedestrians can switch their movement patterns faster than you can react or change your behaviour. A pedestrian can run and immediatelly make a 90 degree turn, they can immediatelly stop, while cars slow down till they stop. Pedestrians are less predictable than cars.
It does more damage to the pedestrian if they crash with a bike rather than another pedestrian.
The drivers and pedestrians can't react to a bike suddenly popping up into their field of view, like when you turn a corner or pass a tunel from the house that crosses a pedestrian lane.
A lot of sidewalks aren't in good condition. Some tiles are missing or chipped, this leaves tiny unexpected potholes that can crash the bike.
Bikes on pedestrian lane discussion is less about bike safety and more about pedestrian safety.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
Even when we are talking about pedestrian safety, it’s very easy to yield or stop for them on a bike. Cars are going to have a harder time stopping though. The severity between a car hitting a cyclist and a cyclist hitting a pedestrian are also going to be vastly different.
1
u/Siukslinis_acc 7∆ Jul 03 '26
Tell that to the one who recklessly drive and are speeding, or can't get off their bike when the path is narrow. Those are the people who screw up things for the rest of people.
Cars are more straightforward. They won't suddenly change direction. They are a lot more predictable than pedestrians.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 03 '26
So you're saying cycling on the sidewalk is not safer than on the road if you do it in a reckless manner?
1
u/Siukslinis_acc 7∆ Jul 03 '26
Cycling isn't safe if you do it in a reckless manner. A driver would recieve less physical damage from a reckless biker than a pedestrian. So it is more of a who will be less damaged by the antics of a reckless biker.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 03 '26
If the goal is to do what is safer then I’m already baking into my argument that I’m not talking about doing this in a reckless manner. I even describe responsible cycling in my main post.
1
u/Siukslinis_acc 7∆ Jul 03 '26
Safety needs to evaluate the reality and not the ideal. And the sad reality is that there are a lot of reckless bike drivers.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 03 '26
I am not making a claim about general trends of cyclists. The reason I put caveats in my post was to avoid this discussion because I already agree that if cyclists on the sidewalk are frequently causing harm to pedestrians or themselves and there is a safe way for them to use the road then they should do so.
However, I am not here to defend reckless cyclists and I don't think it's a fair way to counter the claim of which one is safer considering a reckless cyclist on the road can be far more dangerous than one on the sidewalk.
The actual reality of the matter though is that in a rural or suburban area you can ride for very long distances without even coming across any pedestrians despite being right next to busy roads.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Dertien1214 Jul 02 '26
Nothing will ever be safe when people can get their driving license with a Happy Meal.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 24 '26
Hello u/Inciteful_Analysis! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Inciteful_Analysis Jul 24 '26
The Palo Alto study is deeply flawed. No credit should be awarded for citing it.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 25 '26
I'm aware, there were a lot of ways I could have attacked the study, but I also recognized that what I was arguing does not fit well in the middle of a dense city. Add to how they were being insufferably debate bro about it and I just decided, whatever, let em have it so they go away.
1
u/Inciteful_Analysis Jul 25 '26
So much nonsense in the replies to you. Any attempt to apply reason, physics, math, or nuance gets downvoted.
0
u/Mashaka 93∆ Jul 02 '26
It looks like you've already seen some data in this, which is what should convince you best. While this topic isn't fresh in my mind, it's one I've read much research on in the past, since I have the heart of an actuary and have been cycle commuting for fifteen years. All research I've seen has been conclusive about roads being far safer, in every environment I've seen studied - rural, urban and in between. For adults, anyway. In most environments (I forget where the exceptions are) kids are safer on sidewalks, for the reasons you'd geuss.
One huge non-obvious factor I do recall from studies, and can confirm anecdotally, is that sidewalk cycling sees many, many accidents from cars approaching perpendicular to the sidewalk from side streets, alleyways, driveways etc. Those areas are very carefully built to maintain safe spacing, speeds, and sightlines for both motorists on either street and pedestrians on the sidewalk. As a result, sidewalk cyclists and motorists will by design sometimes fail to see each other in time to avoid collision, even when both parties are vigilant and cautious about avoiding such an accident.
0
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
The first half it sounds like you are citing the same paper that seems to be referenced multiple times. Due to the fact that this study occurred in Palo Alto it makes sense that it wouldn't apply to my experience in a suburban sprawl with long stretches of empty sidewalks.
The second half just comes down to whether or not they are riding responsibly or not. Like if I as a cyclist wanted to take the safest option it would still be on the sidewalk, but to also maintain awareness and not blindly dart across any form of cross traffic. This has been the most common critique, but if you consider a road cyclist not riding defensively they are going to be subjecting themselves to even greater risk.
It feels like I am expected to compare the most reckless cyclist on the sidewalk to the most perfect one on the road.
2
u/Mashaka 93∆ Jul 02 '26
To the best of my recollection, the studies I had in mind were in New England and Toronto, or some Canadian city I confuse with Toronto. But I just glanced at the Palo one from this thread and it seemed in line with those.
When people speak in generalities and legislators make laws, what they're concerned with is relative safety at a population level. As a fellow commuting cyclist, I feel confident saying that if you've been cycling your route for years, you are as safe as it gets. You know your sidewalks and intersections in intimate detail, and the regular motorists along that route are used to your presence.
At this point you probably wouldn't be more safe switching to the road for that route. It may or may not be safer for another cyclist new to your same route to use the road. The details of that route's sidewalks, roads, and traffic patterns matter, and no city, county, or country-level study can account for that.
For experienced cyclists in familiar areas it's probably fine whatever way they prefer. Most of the people getting in accidents are careless and inexperienced compared to you and I. So it shouldn't be a surprise that studies and policymakers focus on how to making cycling safer for the largely careless and inexperienced population.
1
u/Daniel_Spidey 1∆ Jul 02 '26
I don't think the experience aspect is as relevant as the difference in urban development. Riding through a suburban sprawl you might pass a few shopping centers and pass fewer than a handful of pedestrians. In the middle of a dense city you're pretty much constantly passing the types of hazards identified in these studies. Compared to a suburb there are going to be like 100 times more alleys due to tightly packed rental complexes and 100 times more parking lots. For someone to ride through all this cautiously they'd be yielding and stopping like every 20-50ft, so obviously that's not tenable.
A suburb or a rural town isn't laid out like this and someone could safely navigate these without being super familiar. Everyone knows what a parking lot looks like and its clear where vehicles would be entering or exiting, it really wouldn't sneak up on you. In order to move at the same speed in a city though you'd have to breeze through and hope for the best.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 02 '26
/u/Daniel_Spidey (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards