I think a reasonable rule might be that you can ride them on sidewalks as long as you stay at least 25 feet from pedestrians. So basically if the sidewalk is empty, go for it. It might mean taking the side streets rather than the main ones, but that's ok.
Nope:
I once saved a kid from serious harm. I was waiting for my kid to come out of a martial arts test and I was waiting outside on the sidewalk. There was a class after my kid's that had lots of little kids in it. They were waiting inside, mostly. Basically, I saw a guy riding a bike down the sidewalk, about 30m away. I also saw a group of kids about to rush out the door, running. I literally just had enough time to hold out my arms and stop the bicyclist before he could get to where the kids were running. In essence, I put my body in front of him and he stopped.
The conversation didn't go well. I said he could have seriously injured the kids as they ran out of the door, 2-3 feet from him, and he decided to yell at me that he would have seen, blah blah blah.
> Pedestrians need to be aware of their surroundings too.
That means walking in a perfectly straight line and never deviating from that line unless you clear your blind spots. But, that isn't even enough. I've been hit twice, in the last 20 years, by cyclists on the sidewalk, when I was walking in a straight line. Both said: I didn't mean it. Incidentally, 100% of bicyclists, when told it's not legal to ride on the sidewalk reply to me, said "I won't hit a pedestrian" and then somethings I get the f-word yelled at me (I was very polite to start, but not at this point).
Your anecdotes support the idea that it's hard for multiple modes of transportation with different travel speeds to coexist in the same space. When I cycle, I try to never ride on a sidewalk, because it's unpleasant both for me as a rider and for pedestrians.
In a perfect world, we would have separate infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists/scooters, and cars -- but our cities aren't laid out that way. Instead, most of the time, we devote huge tracts of land to cars, and force everyone else to share the scraps.
Where should the cyclists in your anecdote be riding? What speed do cars in the lanes nearby travel, and how aware are they of other road users?
The conversation can be very different from city to city, but in most places in America, sharing the road with cars means risking serious injury or death
> Where should the cyclists in your anecdote be riding?
The street. If they feel the danger is too great, then you know what? They have the choice to walk or take the bus or a car.
The choice to break the law and endanger my life is always a bad one. But it is a choice. They are trading their safety for mine, when they choose to ride on the sidewalk.
This is extremely black and white thinking. You are trading your safety for theirs when you insist that no one but pedestrians be in certain places.
Whether they are breaking the law is rather irrelevant, unless you think the problem would be solved by making riding bikes on the sidewalk legal (which you obviously don't). You can't say "the law shouldn't be changed because that would be bad" and then "it's bad to do it because it is illegal". That's circular logic.
Also, not everywhere is riding on a sidewalk illegal (example found with a quick google: "The City of Los Angeles permits riding bicycles on sidewalks, even in business districts, as long as cyclists do so with regard for the safety of pedestrians and property").
You gave an example of kids rushing out of a store. But if bikes/scooters/etc are regularly on sidewalks, wouldn't they then be taught to be careful? I mean, kids have to intermix with cars in parking lots (far more likely to cause death or serious injury than getting hit by a bike), and they are taught appropriate safety.
Who knows, maybe a kid getting a painful scrape or bruise by running into a bike will save their life later by making them more attentive next time, so they don't get run over by a bus. If you are going to list anecdotes (observed or imagined), you should consider all such possibilities.
The burden is on cyclists/scooter operators. In my city it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk. In California, motorized vehicles cannot be used on the sidewalk, I've been told by local Police officers I've discussed this with.
In the Netherlands, they know bikes and pedestrians don't mix, so they make separate paths. They are the gold standard for cyclist and pedestrian safety.
I, as a pedestrian, am an advocate for my safety. I walk 4 miles per day on the sidewalk and I can tell you since the scooters arrived, my safety is greatly at risk. With the number of hours I put in on sidewalks, it's only a matter of time before I get knocked down. I've had a bunch of very close calls already.
Will it be minor? Will I die due to a head injury? Don't know. The stakes are that high, though.
Everything you wrote is just avoiding the main issue.
"In California, motorized vehicles cannot be used on the sidewalk"
Possibly true. (actually electric skateboards are allowed) But bikes also entered the conversation.
Regardless, I personally find the discussion of what the rules should be, rather than what they are in any particular jurisdiction, to be more interesting.
"I've had a bunch of very close calls already."
I don't know where you live, but you're quite the outlier. Maybe your attitude that the burden is entirely on someone else is putting you in danger?
I have a 5 year old (and yes, we spend an awful lot of time on San Francisco sidewalks), and I teach her that the burden is always on her to keep herself safe.
Of the 8 people killed using electric scooters so far, all of them have been the riders. Maybe you'll be the first to die this way, but that sounds a bit unlikely to me, unless you are actively trying to. Also, I've yet to hear of a pedestrian bicycle accident that caused significant injury that happened on an actual sidewalk.
"Everything you wrote is just avoiding the main issue."
No, it's not.
It's simply calling you out for assuming that your views and your priorities are the only right ones. You show no nuance. Placing "the burden" entirely on one party, here in the real world, makes no sense to me.
Nope:
I once saved a kid from serious harm. I was waiting for my kid to come out of a martial arts test and I was waiting outside on the sidewalk. There was a class after my kid's that had lots of little kids in it. They were waiting inside, mostly. Basically, I saw a guy riding a bike down the sidewalk, about 30m away. I also saw a group of kids about to rush out the door, running. I literally just had enough time to hold out my arms and stop the bicyclist before he could get to where the kids were running. In essence, I put my body in front of him and he stopped.
The conversation didn't go well. I said he could have seriously injured the kids as they ran out of the door, 2-3 feet from him, and he decided to yell at me that he would have seen, blah blah blah.
> Pedestrians need to be aware of their surroundings too.
That means walking in a perfectly straight line and never deviating from that line unless you clear your blind spots. But, that isn't even enough. I've been hit twice, in the last 20 years, by cyclists on the sidewalk, when I was walking in a straight line. Both said: I didn't mean it. Incidentally, 100% of bicyclists, when told it's not legal to ride on the sidewalk reply to me, said "I won't hit a pedestrian" and then somethings I get the f-word yelled at me (I was very polite to start, but not at this point).