Agree that extra caution is needed for pedestrians and bicycles. Having said that, I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. The threat posed by a car to a bike is much greater than the threat posed by a bike to a pedestrian, therefore, to maximize safety bikes should be on the sidewalk.
As far as motorcycles are concerned - I think they're a bad idea in general. I have a cycle endorsement, and when I ride, I am acutely aware that it's on me not to get hit, because many vehicles just realistically don't have the kind of visibility to reliably spot motorcycles. The law should probably be updated to reflect that ... because although most bikers are aware that that's how it is in reality, it's not codified anywhere.
> I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them.
I'm so positively gobsmacked that a statement this plainly ignorant came from a fellow HN participant, I don't even know where to begin.
Start with: bicycles are vehicles—always have been, in fact.
Pedestrians are not. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. (It's not a "sideride" after all. )
Even razor/bird scooters on sidewalks are typically forbidden—we have PSAs on the buses here in LA reminding e-scooter riders to ride in the road.
Bikes can participate in traffic, so they ought to be on the road. Bikes mix better with cars than bikes mix with pedx: anyone who walks in a city regularly would know this.
I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic. Perhaps we should stay on the driveway?
You're phrasing your conclusions like the alternative is moronic, but it's not. There are lots of places that allow bikes on the sidewalk, and it doesn't lead to martial law.
I lived in a large but suburban city that allowed it, and it was hardly a problem, bikes would yield to pedestrians, and the only problem is bikes taking the intersections too fast.
At higher densities, I've seen bikes on sidewalks in various Asian cities, including several Japanese cities with various pedestrian densities. I think these anecdotes are a fair counter to your LA anecdote.
If we follow the logic of your post, we should also ban vehicles such as electric wheelchairs from the sidewalk.
>I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic.
You must'a missed the subtle metaphor abuse to lighten the mood. Sorry 'bout that.
At any rate ...
Side walks haven't the width for fast moving traffic. Sidewalks cross other rights-of-way with always implied priority, traffic comprised of pedestrians, kids, dogs, old folk, etc.
I ride a bike in the city every day. I know riding on the sidewalk wouldn't work, even if you made it legal. Not at real commuting speeds.
You really advocate cyclists poking down the sidewalk at 5-8 mph, dinging their bell at every pedestrian, asking them to step aside? Or no, wait .. does the cyclist have to stop, do a track stand, and weeble-wobble around every blockage? Oh, and bunny hop over dog leashes. Hmm, yeah.
Anyone who thinks bikes should be on sidewalks has nearly zero understanding of what an urban mix of traffic works like.
Well, when I was growing up, common sense said I should ride on the side walk. The side walk was hardly ever used and perfectly suited to riding a bike. The road was much more frequently used; by 3000lb death machines piloted by zombies. No thanks.
If the side walk is too populated to comfortably ride a bike, and the road is busy with said suicide cans, then there is simply no place for a bike. I haven't ridden one in years. A short section of "bike lane" and a helmet wouldn't do much to convince me otherwise.
A lot of cities are trying to increase the number of people that ride a bike for various good reasons. If your solution leads to bikes being essentially banned except as toys, it's not a solution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Non-motorized wheelchairs operated by obese 90-year-old people are also vehicles, and they clearly don't belong on the road (hope you agree), so "vehicle" doesn't matter. The same goes for little battery operated kid toys and traditional kid tricycles.
Most bike riders are far closer to the above than they are to cars. Lots of people are obese, elderly, and otherwise lacking in athletic ability. If these people are excluded from the sidewalk, then they are entirely excluded from the benefits of bike usage.
The trouble here is that bike-related laws are mainly influenced by people who are extreme bike users. These users want to be in the road. They care enough to join cycling organizations that will lobby to have bikes treated like cars. The typical bike user is a physically weak person, and they ride on something like a $39.95 bike from Walmart. The bike has overly thick knobby tires, unreliable gears if any, big fenders, and lots of low-quality (thus thick) steel. You're saying these people have no right to ride bikes if you insist that they go on the road.
No, those cycling organizations typically lobby for safe bike infrastructure like protected bike lanes. Safe infrastructure allows all people, regardless of their athleticism, to enjoy riding a bike.
Bicycles don't ride on sidewalks because you want to maximize their visibility. Most deadly accidents between bikes and cars happen at intersections where bikes are getting right-hooked by drivers who forget to check their blind spot. Drivers don't expect objects traveling at 30km/h on the sidewalk, so they're even less likely to look. Sharing the road between bikes and cars is much safer. There would be almost no problem if cars respected safe overtaking distances and switched lanes to overtake bikes.
Drivers don't expect objects traveling at 30km/h on the sidewalk, but that doesn't matter. Drivers are supposed to be on the roads. I suppose the idea is that the bike would just zip across the intersection at that speed? The people preferring bikes on sidewalks are thinking of non-athlete bike riders. They never go that fast. At intersections, they dismount and walk. These bike users are far more compatible with pedestrians than they are with cars.
You can't expect cyclists to stop and get off at every intersection. They wouldn't get anywhere. Bicycles are not toys, they're vehicles. The people on them have places to be.
I am amazed that we allow cars in any place that people are nearby, such as cities of suburbs? 40,000 people die every year in the US, just so someone can get somewhere slightly quicker. Roads take up more space than private housing. Cost billions every single year.Such a ridiculous cost.
As far as motorcycles are concerned - I think they're a bad idea in general. I have a cycle endorsement, and when I ride, I am acutely aware that it's on me not to get hit, because many vehicles just realistically don't have the kind of visibility to reliably spot motorcycles. The law should probably be updated to reflect that ... because although most bikers are aware that that's how it is in reality, it's not codified anywhere.