Seriously? Dude! Car accidents are in many western country the leading cause of death for children and teenagers. By far! And certainly in the US.
And predictably where cycling increases this drops significantly, always.
Sorry, but this tu quoque misfired 
Sounds like good reasoning where those conditions are the case. But we have heard lots of testimony of exceptions…places where the sidewalks are less chaotic and the roads more. Why are you insistent on the same conclusion there?
You seem to think I was making an argument rather than just providing information. If anything I would interpret the data as indicating that accidents between cyclists and pedestrians is very rare and getting rarer.
I’ll also note that this data includes instances where the pedestrian was in the road and at fault and doesn’t distinguish them.
The post above where I put this was discussing the question of how frequent accidents occur between cyclists and pedestrians so I posted some empirical evidence.
For the record, I’ve been hit multiple times by cyclists on sidewalks, more times than I’ve been hit by cars in any situation. It really can be a problem. But it’s the same problem: people caring more about their own journey than someone else’s safety. A cyclist who gets off and walks their bike when appropriate is a good thing. I’ve seen it done countless times and it works perfectly. They get back on their bike when the roadway is safe for them to do so. Unless you live somewhere where there are bike-safe transportation lanes, then the calculus is either for cyclists to be dangerous to pedestrians, or drivers to be dangerous to cyclists. Most places in the States don’t have any other option yet.
Well I suppose the practicalities, primarily who makes the decision that the sidewalk is less chaotic enough? One cyclist cycling on a sidewalk infrequently to avoid a dangerous junction, for example, is unlikely to be a problem, but that is not what happens, several cyclists will see the one, some might choose to follow that example.
I am not convinced that the spaces that present the most danger to cyclists do not intersect with spaces where there are plenty of pedestrians (thinking more of commuting cyclists rather than leisure cyclists).
The best/most practicable solution is probably the one @Jeroen_Metselaa describes in the Netherlands (which I have experienced) – a clear and physical separation of cyclist from both road and pedestrian – obviously an expensive and difficult proposition but which may well be repaid by less impact on health resources and emissions.
This is what we want! But it’s an uphill battle when bringing that to most city planning meetings.
YES. As many comments here seem to highlight, those who commute via bicycle are still an anomaly in the USA. Those who do so have already “survived” attempts to dissuade, often via mockery, and so they will be more aggressive in defending their right to cycle, fuelling the impression that cyclists are entitled and selfish, and so on. Odds are you don’t personally know anyone who uses a bike to commute in the USA.
Go to the Netherlands or Denmark, where cycling as a form of commuting is more common, and the whole “cyclists are entitled and selfish” isn’t there. Oh, and even if you don’t cycle yourself, odds are high that a hefty chunk of your personal acquaintances do.
Yes, it would take a serious effort to get this through a council/city planning and then to get it made, I would expect that the arguments of benefits in areas outside road safety to be critical to the process.
I worked out an comparison that might explain things a bit better.
My point is that the (perceived) conflict between cars, bikes, cyclists and pedestrians, etc. is created by laws and road design. Let’s think less William Golding and more Rutger Bregman now 
and try not to believe all other sides are pig-killing savages.
Imagine you stay at a shared residence that has a communal room for two different uses: Music practice and meditation … See how that can lead to conflict? Or how if one user group is smaller or more vulnerable that group might be pushed to the side? That is what is happening in many traffic systems around the world.
This is what happened: Car drivers who (initially) where the elite or at least the professional middle class did not want to be held responsible for the accidents they were causing. So there came traffic laws on sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, jay walking… Ostensibly these rules exist to make traffic safer, in reality they often work to make sure cars can GOGOGogogoGO wherever they want at the cost of any other road use.
Like preventing the conflicts in a music-practice-cum-meditation room with a minimum noise requirement: You are only helping one party, see? And since this drives up the conflict the other users will become more and more defensive and belligerent in demanding their own space.
Weirdly enough (mostly) unregulated mixed traffic use CAN work, we call that Shared Space these days. It worked before cars and traffic law after all. It has been tried in several places in the world, where it works. If laws are few reasonable people work these things out in reasonable ways. In such places people adjust their speed and weave through each other. It looks unsafe(*) and chaotic but such traffic can be remarkable safe and efficient.
Just how normal, reasonable people sharing a room might work out a schedule for different kinds of uses.
(*Just a side note but most traffic users are exceptionally bad at judging risks especially in places that look well maintained with lots of lights and signs. Nothing is as dangerous as a risk that looks safe. A narrow street with trees close on both sides leads to less accidents that a wide open road. )
Or strap it to the trunk of a car. That would be preferable, right?
No what would be preferable, if safe travel on a cycle is not possible, is to take it on a fully integrated public transport system. That would include those of us who do not own a car (like me).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
