Do you ride your bike on the sidewalk?

[Jack]

I know the bike laws have been gone over a bunch in this thread, but don't federal highways have minimum speed limits?

You're thinking of controlled access freeways (e.g., Interstates), which have minimum speed limits. US Highways can be freeways, but they can also be 2-lane undivided roads (with urban or rural shoulders) or anything in between.

Back on topic: Several in this thread have said things to the effect that "sidewalk cycling is a bad idea, but you can do what you want." I disagree. All of you who insist on riding on the sidewalk are not only being unsafe  but you also cause motorists to get either the mistaken impression that all cyclists are "supposed" to be on sidewalks or that cyclists are a bunch of hooligans who can't be bothered to follow the laws.

In other words, by riding on the sidewalk you're making the rest of us cyclists less safe. Quit being selfish dumbasses!

[HappierAtHome]

No. I've been creamed by cyclists riding on sidewalks a few times (when I'm walking), and had numerous near-misses. I'm sure they thought they were paying attention, riding safe, not a hazard to pedestrians, and all that BS, too.

Got hit by a cyclist on a pedestrian path just this week :-(

[iris lily]

As a pedestrian who walks to work, I would like to say to ya'll on bikes: a gentle but sincere F.U. to the bicyclists on the sidwalk.

If there is one thing I hate it is being overtaken from behind by a bicyclist.

Only one time in my life has a bicyclist done what I thought was the right thing--rang his bell as he came up behind me. How do the others know that I won't be stepping out in their path?

Run over me baby on your bike, on the sidewalk, and I'm taking you to court. I don't really care how much it costs, I am sick and tired of sidewalks being used by bikes.

[wild wendella]

I feel like many of you would change your opinion if you moved to my area.

I agree.  I also live in a city that is completely un-bike friendly.  I'm trying really hard to muster up the courage to ride to work. I've found many routes that add miles by meandering through a few neighborhoods, but there are still large portions of the ride that are on narrow, busy streets, with aggressive east-coast drivers who are applying makeup or checking their email.  I see no way to ride anywhere safely without taking the sidewalks.  I've read there is an ordinance against bikes riding in my town, but it's not enforced. 

I also found that like a decade ago a group of cyclist petitioned for bike paths to be added (bike lanes aren't much of an option because there's no room on the roads).  That petition has gone nowhere. 

Cars here routinely run red lights.  it's ubiquitous.  everyone does it.  Cars turning left will pull out in the middle of the intersection waiting to turn, while the light turns red.  Two cars (per lane) coming the other way will run the red light, and then the two cars waiting in the intersection will run the red light too.  If the city would start ticketing this horrible practice, they could probably gather enough money to create usable bike paths in about 6 months.

[m8547]

Turning left with multiple lanes of traffic:

http://labikeguide.org/tip/31/

Thanks for the tip, and this is great for intersections, but my left hand turns aren't at intersections. There's no light or stop signs, just a middle turning lane I need to somehow get into.

Go to the next intersection, do a Copenhagen left twice (u-turn), then turn right when you get back to where you were trying to turn.

[m8547]

I know the bike laws have been gone over a bunch in this thread, but don't federal highways have minimum speed limits?

You're thinking of controlled access freeways (e.g., Interstates), which have minimum speed limits. US Highways can be freeways, but they can also be 2-lane undivided roads (with urban or rural shoulders) or anything in between.

Back on topic: Several in this thread have said things to the effect that "sidewalk cycling is a bad idea, but you can do what you want." I disagree. All of you who insist on riding on the sidewalk are not only being unsafe  but you also cause motorists to get either the mistaken impression that all cyclists are "supposed" to be on sidewalks or that cyclists are a bunch of hooligans who can't be bothered to follow the laws.

In other words, by riding on the sidewalk you're making the rest of us cyclists less safe. Quit being selfish dumbasses!

It's even legal to ride on interstates in some places where it's the only road that goes somewhere. The nice thing about 50mph+ roads is that they usually have wide shoulders, as wide as a normal car lane.  I don't like to take the lane if the speed limit is any more than 35mph in heavy traffic (so I avoid fast roads with heavy traffic with no bike lanes). I've taken the lane on 55mph 2 lane rural roads with no shoulder, no problem since there was great visibility (you could literally see for miles) and traffic was light so cars could always pass. In the city, I prefer 4 lane roads over 2 lane roads if there's no bike lane, since it gives cars room to pass.

[MDM]

As the old American Indian saying goes, "Never criticize a [cyclist] until you've [ridden] a mile in [ the cyclist's native cycling environment]."

Unless, of course, said cyclist is trying to ride at road speeds on the sidewalk.  I don't begrudge people getting off an unsafe road as long as they then take extra care on the sidewalks.

[frugalnacho]

As a pedestrian who walks to work, I would like to say to ya'll on bikes: a gentle but sincere F.U. to the bicyclists on the sidwalk.

If there it one thing I hate it is being overtaken from behind by a bicyclist.

Only one time in my life has a bicyclist done what I thought was the right thing--rang his bell as he came up behind me. How do the others know that I won't be stepping out in their path?

Run over me baby on your bike, on the sidewalk, and I'm taking you to court. I don't really care how much it costs, I am sick and tired of sidewalks being used by bikes.

Not really an issue in the motor city.  Nobody walks anywhere.  The ratio of cars:pedestrians in my area is probably in the tens of thousands.

Also not all bicycles are assholes.  On the rare occasion I encounter a pedestrian I always either make sure we make eye contact, or if not I give an audible shout so they are aware of my position.

EDIT: probably not in the tens of thousands, but certainly in the thousands.  i've only encountered like 8 pedestrians in the last 2 days, and many of them were on the other side of the street.  and I probably rode about 25-26 miles over those 2 days totaling about 2.5 hours.

[sol]

The sidewalk vs roadway debate has got to be as old as the invention of the bicycle.

In my experience, most new cyclists prefer sidewalks because they are afraid of traffic.  Which is understandable, riding in traffic is an acquired skill.  Most experienced cyclists prefer to ride in traffic, because it is both safer and faster for a competent cyclist.

I ride in traffic wherever practical, but there are certainly areas where it is not.  I'm fine with people riding on sidewalks provided they do so responsibly, which means at pedestrian speeds and never in crowded areas like farmers markets, street fairs, small town main streets, or other areas with significant foot traffic. 

If you're blowing past pedestrians on a bike, on a pedestrian sidewalk, you're a jerkface.  If you find yourself in a place where you feel you MUST move faster than a pedestrian, you need to be in the roadway.  If you can't, then you chose the wrong route and should suck it up and walk your bike like a responsible non-jerkface.

[geekette]

Bikes are allowed on the sidewalk in my town, but they're trying to build out greenways, which are shared.  Usually overtaking bikers say "on your left" or ring a bell before they pass. 

The real problems are groups who straddle the whole greenway, dogs meandering on loooooong leashes, and cute kids on trikes weaving this way and that.

Collision between a pedestrian and a bike - scrapes.  Collision between a bike and a car - much worse.

[tallen]

I ride on the sidewalk if I'm on a main road and there's much traffic. Here drivers don't respect cyclists and will frequently blow by you within inches and blow there horn to scare you, or yell and curse at you to get out of the road. I've even had people throw stuff at me as they drive past because I was riding in the road. I also worked with a guy who was hit and killed while riding home from work (I don't know the details, but he always rode on the street), and another who was hit from behind by the city bus...TWICE!!! So I stick to side streets where I can and sidewalks of main streets unless traffic is light. And for what it's worth, I rarely encounter pedestrians and if I do I slow to walking speed and make sure they know I'm there when I pass them.

[The Money Monk]

Back on topic: Several in this thread have said things to the effect that "sidewalk cycling is a bad idea, but you can do what you want." I disagree. All of you who insist on riding on the sidewalk are not only being unsafe  but you also cause motorists to get either the mistaken impression that all cyclists are "supposed" to be on sidewalks or that cyclists are a bunch of hooligans who can't be bothered to follow the laws.

In other words, by riding on the sidewalk you're making the rest of us cyclists less safe. Quit being selfish dumbasses!

It seems that whatever group somebody primarily considers themselves in (driver, cyclist, walker) they find the other groups to be selfish and dangerous.

Can you point me to the info that leads you to believe that cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous than cycling on roads without bike lanes?  I don't know if such a study exists and, no offense, I think you are just making an assumption here.

I almost exclusively use bike lanes (because we actually have them in my city) but as far as "following the laws", it is perfectly legal here to ride a bike on the sidewalk.

[FunkyStickman]

I ride in the road, always. And as bad as the roads are here (absolutely NO bike infrastructure) the sidewalks are even worse. The sidewalks randomly appear and disappear, some are blocked by telephone poles right in the middle of the sidewalk, etc. They're not an option.

Even after being hit and seriously injured, I'd still say it's safer riding in the road if you know how to do it.

[luigi49]

The sidewalk vs roadway debate has got to be as old as the invention of the bicycle.

In my experience, most new cyclists prefer sidewalks because they are afraid of traffic.  Which is understandable, riding in traffic is an acquired skill.  Most experienced cyclists prefer to ride in traffic, because it is both safer and faster for a competent cyclist.

I ride in traffic wherever practical, but there are certainly areas where it is not.  I'm fine with people riding on sidewalks provided they do so responsibly, which means at pedestrian speeds and never in crowded areas like farmers markets, street fairs, small town main streets, or other areas with significant foot traffic. 

If you're blowing past pedestrians on a bike, on a pedestrian sidewalk, you're a jerkface.  If you find yourself in a place where you feel you MUST move faster than a pedestrian, you need to be in the roadway.  If you can't, then you chose the wrong route and should suck it up and walk your bike like a responsible non-jerkface.

Great post.  I believe this poster is an avid cyclist.

[bikebum]

In my city, you are allowed to ride on the sidewalk. I almost never do it though, as I am comfortable on the road. If I can keep up with the city traffic, I'll take a lane, especially when making left turns or to stay away from right-turning cars when I am going straight.

There is one area where I ride on the sidewalk. It is a steep, uphill climb on a very busy street with lots of cars parked in the shoulder. I just don't like going slow up the hill with parked cars on my right and moving cars whizzing by on my left. Forgot to point out that since it's uphill, I'm riding really slow on the sidewalk. I don't take the sidewalk going down the hill.

[Janie]

No, never. It's illegal in my area anyway. I do prefer bike paths to roads where they're available.

[GuitarStv]

The sidewalk vs roadway debate has got to be as old as the invention of the bicycle.

In my experience, most new cyclists prefer sidewalks because they are afraid of traffic.  Which is understandable, riding in traffic is an acquired skill.  Most experienced cyclists prefer to ride in traffic, because it is both safer and faster for a competent cyclist.

I ride in traffic wherever practical, but there are certainly areas where it is not.  I'm fine with people riding on sidewalks provided they do so responsibly, which means at pedestrian speeds and never in crowded areas like farmers markets, street fairs, small town main streets, or other areas with significant foot traffic. 

If you're blowing past pedestrians on a bike, on a pedestrian sidewalk, you're a jerkface.  If you find yourself in a place where you feel you MUST move faster than a pedestrian, you need to be in the roadway.  If you can't, then you chose the wrong route and should suck it up and walk your bike like a responsible non-jerkface.

This is pretty much where I'm at on the issue.  The thing is, I've never seen a cyclist moving at pedestrian speeds on the sidewalk.

[frugalnacho]

I tend to go at pedestrian speeds, especially on that stretch of road that goes under the free way.  It's just simply not safe to barrel down that sidewalk.  The visibility in that area is fine, you can see cars coming and going, and there is nothing visually blocking any of the drives.  But there is an on ramp, and an off ramp, and many various drive ways.  And you go under a dark bridge.  I feel more like a pedestrian than a cyclist on that stretch.

I just went for a ride to the local bike shop which is down a different road than my commute.  And I agree it would absolutely be safer to use the street due to the number of hidden driveways and cross streets.  You have to practically stop every 50 feet because of a driveway or street if you go on the sidewalk.

[Penartist]

It is not allowed in my city unless you are 12 years old or younger.   There are bike lanes in the congested areas, rail trails that connect neighborhoods to the downtown and the shopping areas and 325 acres of parkland wooded trails connecting other parts of town.

[Gin1984]

This is why I don't bike in this city.  I have a young daughter and it is not safe to bike here.  I have almost gotten hit multiple times in the car.  My husband used to have a motorcycle (sold it to pay off debt) and now that he was going to be driving 67 miles for his new job I offered to buy a motorcycle instead of a car.  He turned me down because he did not feel safe riding as a someone who has ridden over a decade.  When I was in California I had a bike and biked/bussed for most of my life.  Here I don't because of the crime and the lack of consideration.  A lot of things are area dependent and we all have to be used to that. 

[RapmasterD]

They call them sidewalks, not sidebikes. As a driver, biker and pedestrian, I wouldn't ever think of riding my bike on a sidewalk.

[bikebum]

I think it also depends on the city. I already said I rarely ride on the sidewalk, but in my city people don't walk that much so the sidewalks are usually clear.

[TomTX]

Cycling on the sidewalk is illegal in most places. Even where it is legal, it's usually not the safest option.

Also I find it frustrating when I am driving my car on a 4 lane road (2 lanes of traffic going my direction) and some biker is essentially occupying an entire lane doing 25 mph under the speed limit and causing excessive and dangerous traffic

That is called vehicular cycling, and it's a legal, safe and sensible way to ride a bike in many situations. I presume the cyclist isn't doing 5mph, so you're talking about 40mph roads (with drivers doing up to 50mph, as you mentioned), where it's certainly far more dangerous to cycle at the side of the road and let cars past.

It is my opinion that if your vehicle is 25MPH below the speed limit, you should not be driving on that road - whatever your vehicle is. You are a severe impediment to traffic.

[TomTX]

As a pedestrian who walks to work, I would like to say to ya'll on bikes: a gentle but sincere F.U. to the bicyclists on the sidwalk.

If there is one thing I hate it is being overtaken from behind by a bicyclist.

Only one time in my life has a bicyclist done what I thought was the right thing--rang his bell as he came up behind me. How do the others know that I won't be stepping out in their path?

Run over me baby on your bike, on the sidewalk, and I'm taking you to court. I don't really care how much it costs, I am sick and tired of sidewalks being used by bikes.

Walking or biking, if I am overtaking, I will call out a cheery "Passing on your left!"

[TomTX]

They call them sidewalks, not sidebikes. As a driver, biker and pedestrian, I wouldn't ever think of riding my bike on a sidewalk.

Do you park in your driveway and drive on the parkway?

Etymology is not the strongest argument.

I'm typically biking on the road or on a wide "multimodal pathway" anyway.

[Thegoblinchief]

I ride on the sidewalk if I'm on a main road and there's much traffic. Here drivers don't respect cyclists and will frequently blow by you within inches and blow there horn to scare you, or yell and curse at you to get out of the road. I've even had people throw stuff at me as they drive past because I was riding in the road. I also worked with a guy who was hit and killed while riding home from work (I don't know the details, but he always rode on the street), and another who was hit from behind by the city bus...TWICE!!! So I stick to side streets where I can and sidewalks of main streets unless traffic is light. And for what it's worth, I rarely encounter pedestrians and if I do I slow to walking speed and make sure they know I'm there when I pass them.

Heh, here a lot of bike lanes are shared with the city buses. The bus drivers are the WORST.

It's impossible to give a blanket recommendation without literally biking every single street, but generally the more I act like a vehicle (e.g. taking the lane, using turn only lanes, etc) the safer I feel. Yes, you get the angry drivers that blow past you after tailgating, but that's far safer than the same driver squeezing past you in the same lane if you are over by the shoulder.

I have had a few driver rage incidents that make me wish I carried a firearm, but letting assholes dictate your life is not a way to live. Without my bike exercise I'd be super depressed.

[greaper007]

It really depends.   I try to ride on the street, but I don't always feel safe on 35+mph streets, even with a bike lane.   I see too many people chatting on cell phones while they let their mondo suv drift all over the place.    In one road by my house there's a double wide sidewalk next to the road with very few people, I don't see the big deal in riding on that sidewalk.   I'm always cautious of pedestrians and give them plenty of room and a warning before passing..

The other time I ride on the sidewalk is when I'm trailering my two children (which as a stay at home dad is most of the time).   I'm slow enough to spot cars turning into driveways or intersections, and I just don't trust drivers around my kids.   There's way too many idiots on the road that don't have an understanding of basic physics.

[greaper007]

This discussion really begs for a point to be made.   New road funding should come with a stipulation that all construction requires bicycle and pedestrian access, preferably access with a barrier.

Is it necessary for safety?   Maybe not.   But it's probably the biggest thing that would get more people out of cars and onto bikes.   Look at countries like the Netherlands where bikers are actually a large part of the commuter population.   I'd argue it's because their protected bike paths give people a sense of security and ease when riding.

In an age where the White House is setting up a clearing site about global warming, anything that gets people out of fossil fuel burning vehicles is worth the cost.   Plus, I really think it would be cheaper long term.   Multiuse paths are smaller than roads, thus cheaper, and bikes really don't cause any damage to the surface in the way that cars and trucks do.

[bikebum]

As a pedestrian who walks to work, I would like to say to ya'll on bikes: a gentle but sincere F.U. to the bicyclists on the sidwalk.

If there is one thing I hate it is being overtaken from behind by a bicyclist.

Only one time in my life has a bicyclist done what I thought was the right thing--rang his bell as he came up behind me. How do the others know that I won't be stepping out in their path?

Run over me baby on your bike, on the sidewalk, and I'm taking you to court. I don't really care how much it costs, I am sick and tired of sidewalks being used by bikes.

Walking or biking, if I am overtaking, I will call out a cheery "Passing on your left!"

I used to do this on a multi-use path I ride often. But a lot of people would spin around to their left and have a mini-panic attack when they saw me, even though I was going pretty slow and I hollered well ahead of passing. Now I just go by slowly and don't make any noise, as long as there is room. If they are hogging the path, I slow down so I can stop if I need to and shout something friendly as I'm coming up.

[bikebum]

This discussion really begs for a point to be made.   New road funding should come with a stipulation that all construction requires bicycle and pedestrian access, preferably access with a barrier.

Is it necessary for safety?   Maybe not.   But it's probably the biggest thing that would get more people out of cars and onto bikes.   Look at countries like the Netherlands where bikers are actually a large part of the commuter population.   I'd argue it's because their protected bike paths give people a sense of security and ease when riding.

In an age where the White House is setting up a clearing site about global warming, anything that gets people out of fossil fuel burning vehicles is worth the cost.   Plus, I really think it would be cheaper long term.   Multiuse paths are smaller than roads, thus cheaper, and bikes really don't cause any damage to the surface in the way that cars and trucks do.

I like it. One good thing is the current road standards call for paved shoulders. The intent is mainly for auto driver safety, but they provide a nice place for bikes.

There is a group in my town that advocates the "living streets" concepts. When there is a major road project, they encourage people to contact the designers and tell them what they want. I'm a county engineer, and we do listen when people contact us.

And about the damage, would you believe that a truck causes as much damage as about 4,000 cars? This was what the equations I learned in college accounted for. This article says 9,600: http://www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/

Bike damage would definitely be minuscule.

Sadly, I think it's the civilians citizens who think the roads are just for cars that are holding us back. The engineers mainly design the roads for how people use them. There doesn't seem to be any goal of trying to fill the roads with cars, that's just how the public uses the roads. It's a barrier though because, as you point out, changes in the designs may be needed to get people out of their cars. So in a way the designers and the users are waiting for each other to switch to more bikes and less cars. Maybe it's different other places, but this seems to be the way it is where I live.

[greaper007]

To a large extent, even here in ultra bike friendly Denver/Boulder a protected bike path is still a novelty outside of expensive parts of Denver and Boulder.    My town has a great infrastructure for traveling inside the town.   I can go to my favorite bar, any grocery store and all the city buildings without touching a busy road and often on a dedicated bike path.

Traveling town to town is still nearly impossible in some directions though.   My son attends a great charter school one town over, there simply isn't a way for us to get there that doesn't involve travel on a 45mph road that doesn't have a shoulder in many parts.    It's really frustrating because this is my most frequent commuting route (5 miles each way twice a day).   From what I understand, the town to town concept is the most difficult one when it comes to alternative transportation infrastructure.

I think I'll take you suggestion and try to talk to someone in the central command.   Thanks for the post.

[bikebum]

I think I'll take you suggestion and try to talk to someone in the central command.   Thanks for the post.

Awesome! Also, if you can get some other people behind you they will probably take it more seriously.

Another thing I've noticed is many of the younger engineers and planners seem to be more on board with bike and ped friendly designs, so my hope is as the trend continues and they move up in their careers and have more influence, it will also help. Many of the city engineers where I live are into cycling.

[sly]

this thread captures all the reasons why I am considering getting a skateboard, and ride it where ever.

[newideas2013]

As a pedestrian who walks to work, I would like to say to ya'll on bikes: a gentle but sincere F.U. to the bicyclists on the sidwalk.

If there is one thing I hate it is being overtaken from behind by a bicyclist.

Only one time in my life has a bicyclist done what I thought was the right thing--rang his bell as he came up behind me. How do the others know that I won't be stepping out in their path?

Run over me baby on your bike, on the sidewalk, and I'm taking you to court. I don't really care how much it costs, I am sick and tired of sidewalks being used by bikes.

Maybe this is why I still can't get into biking, bikers are not wanted anywhere. I feel like there are a whole lot of rednecks in jacked up 4x4s here who will gladly run down a biker and a right wing government won't do a whole lot in the way of protecting the biker anyways.

Yet it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk, the road rage from the drivers can easily get you killed. What's the point, to save 30 bucks a week in gas?

[Bakari]

Can you point me to the info that leads you to believe that cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous than cycling on roads without bike lanes?  I don't know if such a study exists and, no offense, I think you are just making an assumption here.

Several have been posted in this thread already:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/please-ride-your-bike-in-street.html

Its not an assumption, nor an opinion.  There isn't really any valid debate here.  (With limited exceptions) riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is more dangerous than riding in the street.

Car-bike collisions are much more frequently at intersections and driveways than they are a car clipping a bike as they overpass.
Of those car-bike collisions which do occur when the bike was on the street, the majority are due to the cyclist either going the wrong way or running a stop sign or stop light.  After illegal riding on the cyclists part, the next most frequent cause is that the driver did not see the cyclist.  It is harder for a driver to (consciously) see a bike on the sidewalk than in the street.

[Tai]

I used to ride a bike in downtown Toronto, and had many incidents of being forced off the road by drivers. Now I live in the suburbs. In this area I see 10 bikes on the sidewalk for 1 on the road. The ones on the road seem to be hard-core commuters. When I try biking to work once the snow clears I'm going to take side streets and stick to the sidewalks. I was walking about 20 minutes of the trip and I would pass at most 1 or 2 people. Too many of the drivers around here are not paying attention, I see them on their phones etc. and they blow through stop signs. If I was downtown again with busy, crowded sidewalks I would stick to the road. I cannot see how a large, empty sidewalk is more dangerous than competing with oversized SUVs.

[Bakari]

I used to ride a bike in downtown Toronto, and had many incidents of being forced off the road by drivers. Now I live in the suburbs. In this area I see 10 bikes on the sidewalk for 1 on the road. The ones on the road seem to be hard-core commuters. When I try biking to work once the snow clears I'm going to take side streets and stick to the sidewalks. I was walking about 20 minutes of the trip and I would pass at most 1 or 2 people. Too many of the drivers around here are not paying attention, I see them on their phones etc. and they blow through stop signs. If I was downtown again with busy, crowded sidewalks I would stick to the road. I cannot see how a large, empty sidewalk is more dangerous than competing with oversized SUVs.

Because people blow through stop signs.

They don't hit other cars, right?  Imagine if a car (or motorcycle, say) was driving on the sidewalk, and tried to cross the street in a crosswalk, at motorcycle speed.  The driver on the cross street who doesn't come to a full stop for the stop sign is more or less likely to see the motorcycle in the cross walk, vs in the middle of the traffic lane?

Unless cars are actually hitting your elbow with their mirror, cyclists aren't really being "run off the road".  They are being passed closer than they feel comfortable with.  There's a big difference.  More cyclists get hurt diving out of the way of cars that weren't actually going to hit them than the number who actually avoid getting hit.

The reality is that having large chunks of steel pass you at 30mph with a foot of clearance is scary.  It is.  But the amount of fear doesn't correlate with the amount of risk.  Its scarier to touch down in a jet than to drive to work, and its scarier to let your kids walk home from school than to give them a ride in the car, but both of the former are far safer than being in a car. 
Our fear centers aren't optimized to take statistics into account, so we fall back on stuff like our perception of speed and height and evil human intent - going 75mph in an enclosed car with good suspension doesn't feel fast, so it doesn't register as dangerous, even though it is the single largest non-disease cause of death.  Letting kids walk home feels dangerous, cause, you know, stranger danger! 
Having a car pass you at high speed feels dangerous.

Like someone else here said, if you want to ignore statistics and make choices based on fear, that's your choice (assuming its legal where you live), but personal anecdotes really don't trump statistics.

[MDM]

Data is good, as is statistical analysis of that data.  The cited studies leading some to conclude one should "never" cycle on a sidewalk, however, are underwhelming.

The first, http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf, studies non-fatality accidents in a single city (Palo Alto), and defines the overall population of cyclists by observations during a single 8 hour period.  While this is not necessarily a case of GIGO, it isn't exactly a broad based study.

The second, http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm seems to have a decent population (League of American Bicyclist members - presumably good riders), so that could be meaningful.  The survey results indicate a higher frequency of accidents per miles traveled on "other" facilities: "An 'Other' category appears in the present study and nearly all responses indicated this meant sidewalks. They accounted for just 0.3% of the kilometers ridden."  But (because these are check-the-box survey results?) there is no analysis beyond calculating numerical ratios.  E.g., for the purposes of this thread, it would be helpful to understand why the cyclist was on the sidewalk, cause of the accident, etc.

The first study starts with:
"In 1992, 722 bicyclists were killed in the United States in collisions with motor vehicles, and an estimated 650,000 people were treated in emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries.  It is remarkable that, for a traffic safety problem of this magnitude, so little research has been conducted to establish the causes of these accidents."

As one is often more interested in what might be fatal vs. what might cause a scraped knee, the second study had a reference, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/FARS94.pdf, that contains the table below.  Unfortunately it does not state if any did or did not occur due to sidewalk use.

Table 99
Pedalcyclists Killed, by Related Factors

Factors	Number	Percent
Failure to yield right of way	203	25.3
Riding, playing, working, etc., in roadway	123	15.3
Improper crossing of roadway or intersection	101	12.6
Failure to obey (e.g., signs, control devices, officers)	75	9.4
Inattentive (talking, eating, etc.)	48	6
Failure to keep in proper lane or running off road	46	5.7
Erratic, reckless, careless, or negligent operation	32	4
Operating without required equipment	30	3.7
Making improper turn	26	3.2
Driving on wrong side of road	22	2.7
Improper lane changing	21	2.6
Not visible	20	2.5
Improper entry to or exit from trafficway	16	2
Failing to have lights on when required	12	1.5
Other factors	75	9.4
None reported	220	27.4
Unknown	24	3
Total	802	100

Note: The sum of the numbers and percentages is greater than total pedalcyclists killed as more than one factor may be present for the same pedalcyclist.


A good compilation of studies is http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sidecrash.htm.  It includes graphs based on the Moritz study mentioned above, however turning not-well-explained tables into pretty graphs does not increase the information quality.  There does seem to be consistency in the results from various studies, finding a positive correlation between accidents and sidewalk use, but the quality and quantity of underlying data remains underwhelming.

Personally I think it has more to do with poor cycling practice on sidewalks (too fast; not considering that cars aren't expecting a cyclist to be there; etc.), and not that any road is safer for a cyclist than its adjoining sidewalk.

And one final comment from http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-mayor-john-hieftje-kicking-around-idea-of-banning-bicycles-on-downtown-sidewalks/
"BBC reported zero pedestrians killed by cyclists in 2009, but 426 were killed by cars. There were 13,272 collisions between bikes and cars in 2008, 52 of which resulted in a fatality for the cyclist. No drivers were killed."

In sum, there are times and places to use the road, and times and places to not use the road.  Caveat cyclist in any case.

[Bakari]

Data is good, as is statistical analysis of that data.  The cited studies leading some to conclude one should "never" cycle on a sidewalk, however, are underwhelming.

I can't speak for "some", but:

Its not an assumption, nor an opinion.  There isn't really any valid debate here.  (With limited exceptions) riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is more dangerous than riding in the street.

(emphasis added)

Personally I think it has more to do with poor cycling practice on sidewalks (too fast; not considering that cars aren't expecting a cyclist to be there; etc.),

Fair enough - if you always ride at walking speed, and/or if you dismount and walk across every intersection - and at every driveway - then there is probably no higher risk, possibly even a lower risk than riding in the street.
Of course, depending on how long the blocks are and how many driveways there are, in many cases you might as well just walk instead.

If you live in an area with long stretches of uninterrupted sidewalks, which pedestrians don't use, with few or no driveways, and you get off and walk at every intersection, then there is no reason riding on the sidewalk would be more dangerous.  The problem is that most people don't walk every intersection.
And if you live in a more urban area, that's when everything I wrote before applies.

[MDM]

Yeah, we may not agree 100% but probably close enough that we'd have to try hard to get into an argument.  Better to go for a ride and have a beer afterwards.  Thanks for your perspective.

[The Money Monk]

Can you point me to the info that leads you to believe that cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous than cycling on roads without bike lanes?  I don't know if such a study exists and, no offense, I think you are just making an assumption here.

Several have been posted in this thread already:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/06/please-ride-your-bike-in-street.html

Its not an assumption, nor an opinion.  There isn't really any valid debate here.  (With limited exceptions) riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is more dangerous than riding in the street.

Car-bike collisions are much more frequently at intersections and driveways than they are a car clipping a bike as they overpass.
Of those car-bike collisions which do occur when the bike was on the street, the majority are due to the cyclist either going the wrong way or running a stop sign or stop light.  After illegal riding on the cyclists part, the next most frequent cause is that the driver did not see the cyclist.  It is harder for a driver to (consciously) see a bike on the sidewalk than in the street.

Thanks for the studies. I tend to agree with MDMs take on this though. The raw data does support what you are saying, but Sample size is weak on some of those and interpretation can be wildly different.

As the man says, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Not too say the data isn't true, but I would take issue with the statement that there isn't room for a valid debate. IMO That's a bit of a bold stance based on the info you posted. There are so many variables not controlled for in these studies.

I surmise that the biggest reason for the disparity is that most of the riders on the sidewalks are those uncomfortable with riding, or otherwise distracted, and thus much more likely to be involved in an accident no matter where they ride. A lot of experienced confident riders avoid the sidewalk not because it is more dangerous, but because it is a pain in the ass. More obstructions and you can't go as fast.

I ride in the bike lane for this reason. At least as far as anecdotal evidence goes, all the serious riders are in the bike lanes, and on the sidewalks are loaded with the kids, old ladies, guys who lost their licenses for DUIs, homeless can collectors, thugs on BMX bikes using their cell phones or carrying 42 oz big gulps - basically every cylcing demographic that you would already assume would have a much higher accident rate.

The experienced riders also seem more likely to be using safety gear, lights, etc than the sidewalk-riders.

To really get good data we would need a study where the same group of riders rode the same number of miles on the sidewalk and on the street in the same city, at the same times of day, etc.

Otherwise ANY or all of those factors could be contributing to the disparity in accident rates.

[GuitarStv]

Personally I think it has more to do with poor cycling practice on sidewalks (too fast; not considering that cars aren't expecting a cyclist to be there; etc.), and not that any road is safer for a cyclist than its adjoining sidewalk.

And one final comment from http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-mayor-john-hieftje-kicking-around-idea-of-banning-bicycles-on-downtown-sidewalks/
"BBC reported zero pedestrians killed by cyclists in 2009, but 426 were killed by cars. There were 13,272 collisions between bikes and cars in 2008, 52 of which resulted in a fatality for the cyclist. No drivers were killed."

In sum, there are times and places to use the road, and times and places to not use the road.  Caveat cyclist in any case.

I'd argue that your citation of the BBC is quite misleading.  It's implying that it's safer to cycle on the sidewalk because there are only pedestrians there, but the question of pedestrians being killed by bikes isn't what is being questioned here.  Collisions between cars and bikes are what kill most cyclists.  While it's true that cars don't typically drive on the sidewalk, they hit sidewalk cyclists quite regularly.

[MDM]

Personally I think it has more to do with poor cycling practice on sidewalks (too fast; not considering that cars aren't expecting a cyclist to be there; etc.), and not that any road is safer for a cyclist than its adjoining sidewalk.

And one final comment from http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-mayor-john-hieftje-kicking-around-idea-of-banning-bicycles-on-downtown-sidewalks/
"BBC reported zero pedestrians killed by cyclists in 2009, but 426 were killed by cars. There were 13,272 collisions between bikes and cars in 2008, 52 of which resulted in a fatality for the cyclist. No drivers were killed."

In sum, there are times and places to use the road, and times and places to not use the road.  Caveat cyclist in any case.

I'd argue that your citation of the BBC is quite misleading.  It's implying that it's safer to cycle on the sidewalk because there are only pedestrians there, but the question of pedestrians being killed by bikes isn't what is being questioned here.  Collisions between cars and bikes are what kill most cyclists.  While it's true that cars don't typically drive on the sidewalk, they hit sidewalk cyclists quite regularly.

Other than in Boston, where the leading cause of traffic accidents is two cars trying to hit the same pedestrian.

After all the dry statistics in the first part of the discussion the BBC thing was intended as, while not exactly humorous (fatalities and humor don't mix), a somewhat droll reminder (primarily to pedestrians who hate cyclists infringing on "pedestrian's" space) that all accidents are not created equal.  At least, that was my read.  You'd have to ask the person who posted the comment in the Ann Arbor article about original intent. 

And, while perhaps believable to anyone in Boston....

[Gen Y Finance Journey]

I'm curious about the statistics. I did a little bit of reading (not much admittedly), and I'm dubious. It seems like studies are looking at car-bicycle accidents as either occurring when the bicycle was using the sidewalk or using the road (either in a lane of traffic or in a bike lane). Shouldn't we really be looking at three distinct categories? Sidewalk, lane of traffic, and bike lane? And really, I don't even care about roads with bike lanes where the decision of where to bike is a no-brainer. I only care about roads that don't have bike lanes, where your only options are lane of traffic or sidewalk. Can someone point me to a study that looks at that?

Ok, now I'm reading a bit further into this study: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf, and I have more observations. In this study, they analyze risk across several variables. The most interesting is whether the cyclist is going with traffic or against traffic. Here are the numbers:

Biking With Traffic on the Sidewalk: 656 observed, 13 accidents, 1.98%
Biking With Traffic on the Roadway: 1897 observed, 43 accidents, 2.27%

Biking Against Traffic on the Sidewalk: 315 observed, 28 accidents, 8.89%
Biking Against Traffic on the Roadway: 108 observed, 5 accidents, 4.63%

Based on that, wouldn't it seem that what's really dangerous is biking against traffic? Of the 971 people biking on the sidewalk, a third of them were going against traffic. But of the 2005 people biking on the roadway, only 5% were going against traffic. Everyone knows you're not supposed to bike against traffic, but clearly people think if they're on the sidewalk it doesn't matter as much. Apparently it does. Would we be better off just telling people that if they're going to bike on the sidewalk, make sure they're still going with traffic?

Again, I haven't done much reading and this study is the only one I actually looked at, so I'd love to see some more data.

Posting again to re-articulate that my point in citing the Palo Alto study was to show that it does a terrible job of "proving" that sidewalks are more dangerous than roads. It conflates biking in a lane of traffic with biking in a bike lane, and shows that the overwhelming risk factor is biking against traffic, not biking on the sidewalk.

[cbgg]

I only ride on sidewalks occasionally, in unusual circumstances.

I live in Vancouver, BC which I think has very good bike infrastructure.  Here it's not so much about having bike lanes everywhere, but about having bike routes.  So sometimes I'll be in a bike lane on a busy street (not my preference, but it works) but often I'll use a street that has lower traffic volume so riding without a lane is not a big deal (cars can easily go around you, there is easily enough shoulder to ride on without a lane, etc).  I'm often surprised when I see people around here riding in the bike lane on really busy roads since there is nearly always a nearby bike route that's vastly more pleasant.  I hate riding on roads shared by semis - the suction and sound it just terrible.

If I get caught off a bike lane and am in a high traffic area with no bike lane or space I'll ride on the sidewalk for a short distance or just haul ass in the MIDDLE of a car lane (it's important to ride defensively by knowing when a car should NOT pass you and not give them the space to do so) but will get to a side street as soon as possible.

[Tyler]

I always ride on the street in residential areas, but prefer the sidewalk along busy roads for safety reasons.  In that case, I will always hop back into the street (or veer through grass) to steer clear of a pedestrian on the sidewalk.  It's safer for both you and the pedestrian that way.  IMHO, there's nothing wrong with erring on the side of safety provided you simultaneously respect the safety and personal space of others.

[Twenty4Me]

There's a huge push at the moment to make my city cycle friendly, and they've really done great so far in this regard as well by recently passing a law that motorists have to give at least a 1m berth to cyclists when passing them. That said, however, a lot of the designated cycle lanes are painted on the sidewalks, especially when it comes to those along the busier roads.

[lithy]

Car blows by cyclist on the road

"Whoa, that was dangerous, better move to the sidewalk."

Cyclist blows by pedestrian on the sidewalk

"Whoa, that was dangerous, better move to the ..."

Sorry, but I agree with the post at the top of this page, your cycling behavior is affecting the perception of cycling for others in a negative way, and ultimately your perception of safety doesn't mesh with the actual statistics. 

If you cycle on these streets during rush hour and traffic is moving 35-50mph, traffic must be flowing pretty smoothly and everyone might be inconvenienced for a grand total of 14.73 seconds in order to get around you.  If these streets are so packed with cars during rush hour that they can't get around you, then they are likely the ones holding you up, not the other way around.

[frugalnacho]

I still don't get why dismounting and walking across the intersection is safer.  I mean I understand you don't want to approach and cross an intersection at full speed, but wouldn't coming to a complete stop, then proceeding at pedestrian speed (or slightly faster as when you first start pumping and haven't built up momentum) be just as safe as walking it across?  Especially when you have the pedestrian crosswalk signal.

[GuitarStv]

Because dismounting and walking your bike means that you're actually going walking speed.  Not "I'm on the bike and I slowed a little bit so this is probably walking speed" as you blow by all the pedestrians.