Greenways around here are like that, too. It’s great to get across town in Easy Mode like that. The biggest systemic hazard I’ve seen over the years are dog walkers; those often require a couple of quick calculations using leash length and π.
This is quite true, and also the problem: if the system relies on such “accommodation” to avoid catastrophic outcomes, the system is catastrophic.
It’s a bit sad that so many people can hate cyclists but not apply that kind of anger to the fact that most cities have such poor design that both cyclists and pedestrians are an afterthought at best and that improving conditions is met with so much resistance because of the cost and challenge when that kind of anger might actually be productive when applied to some kind of advocacy for public good.
I feel like there’s an allegory in there for global warming and we’re so so damned.
*full disclosure: I never even learned to ride a bike.
Oh, I don’t know…maybe the work commute is quite far, and I want to make the journey with less effort? The same reason people drive cars, it seems.
None of the “cyclists” here are saying we have the right to claim your territory out of convenience, and it’s not very common for sidewalks to be that crowded, save bigger, older cities like NYC or Chicago. You’re engaging in hyperbole.
I have been a pedestrian for the last five years, and I still feel this way despite having used all three modes of transportation extensively, and I still don’t understand where “you’re inconveniencing me” takes precedence over “I don’t want to die, and riding in this particular traffic increases those chances exponentially”.
Personal anecdote: The only time I can remember riding on the sidewalk when it was crowded enough that I would inconvenience pedestrians was New Year’s Eve in downtown Austin, TX. I operated a pedicab, and it being Amateur Night for many revelers, traffic was gridlocked after midnight when all the drunk people decided to go home at the same time. Legal traffic issues were simply tossed out the window, as police had to prioritize more important problems.
You bet I was trying to make the best of a crappy situation, and I rode slowly and I must have said “excuse me” thousands of times that night. As a pedicab operator, you can bet that APD are especially hard on pedicabs, and I never had any traffic violations during the years I operated one.
If you are in fear of riding on the road in particular traffic then you should be able to use the sidewalk – as a pedestrian with a bicycle not as a cyclist. How is that difficult?
I was gonna mention that I already know this, because … and I had no idea this was the case … I quickly learned from following Boing Boing discussions in 2013 when they switched to a then-beta Discourse that “cyclists vs. motorists” is in the same hot button category as topics that touch on gender issues, politics, and religion.
(And this topic was already throttled when I got here. Good call, moderators 
)
We’ve gone over this. Miles and miles. That’s why. Kansas, Texas, anywhere you have to travel long distances because everything is so spread out.
Do you want me to just say you’re right and I’m wrong? Because that seems to be what you’re looking for.
Turns out that I am wrong.
“Because miles and miles” is an acceptable excuse. s/
No, because chances are greatly increased that I will die if I ride in dangerous traffic. That’s the excuse. Keep up.
If we’re honest, I get a lot more heated on this than almost any other topic.
So jealous. One of my long-time fantasy careers.
And I really appreciate how, despite my repeated assertions that I don’t ride like a demon and always try to be courteous with pedestrians, though I’ve been a pedestrian for a number of years, I’m lumped in with the bad guys. Which was the point of the OP in the first place.
The reason cyclists have to be in the wrong, is carbon emmisions. As global warming gets worse, as the oil wars take a greater toll, as the petrochemical industry solidifies its hold on government… “regular people” (the ones who don’t bicycle,walk,or use mass transit) feel inrceasingly accused by the mere existence of bicyclists. By riding in public, you are essentially yelling, “the emperor has no clothes”.
So in any altercation between a bike and a car, its automatically assumed the biker is at fault. Because nobody likes a smartass.
So THAT’S supposedly why someone on a bike should never ever, ever use the pavement?
What a load of hyperbolic hooey. There are plenty of ways, and plenty of situations in which, to do it safely.
You might not have witnessed a collision on a sidewalk, does that mean they never occur?
Look upthread, I have not asserted that cyclists should not use the sidewalk if they find the road too dangerous, but that they should use the sidewalk as a pedestrian with a bicycle. The response is “I will die” or “miles and miles” never “I should be more considerate of fellow sidewalk users” (which is probably what most cyclists want from car drivers).
Yes and one of them is – getting off the bicycle and pushing it – probably the safest for all concerned.
Far from it. I’m sure it does happen – just as I have seen drivers collide with each other and pedestrians (a very vivid memory there). But it does mean the thing you treat as if it were some impossible miracle, for cyclists to bike on sidewalks safely, is where I live routine and unremarkable.
I am willing to believe things might be different where you are, but it means there’s some problem there other than that these modes of transportation simply can’t safely share a space.
I never said they never occur. I’m sure no one else here has claimed that either. Isn’t that man you’re stuffing with straw full yet?
Even when there aren’t any pedestrians around, sometimes for miles and miles? Preposterous. Even in an area where pedestrians are quite accustomed to the occasional, almost always courteous person on a bike? Really rather silly.
I doubt anyone here would disagree, though, that if a sidewalk is choked with pedestrians, especially in an area where bikes are not commonly used on the sidewalk, then walking it is a good idea.
It seems that the arguments here are a great example of the psychology from the article.
People remember longer and have stronger reactions to bad interactions, so once you’ve had a bad interaction with a given situation, you are likely to have that reaction again when you encounter a similar seeming set of circumstances.
So drivers remember “bad” cyclists and cyclists remember “bad” drivers.
That makes it prudent for cyclists to assume drivers are hostile and drivers to assume cyclists are unpredictable. In fact, it would seem that doing so is the only prudent course of action.
As a women walking across a parking lot at night I have to assume that anyone approaching me is possibly hostile. If I don’t, I could get assaulted, or even end up dead. This doesn’t mean I think men are bad as a class, I just can’t assume that any particular man is safe. Just so when driving-I must be aware that the cyclists near me may do dangerous/illegal things. As a pedestrian I must be aware that drivers might not see me.
I can’t hate drivers as a class of people, even though I find cars can be troublesome when I’m walking. The same is true for pedestrians when I’m driving.
It’s very easy to then assign bad reactions to all members of the class, and all encounters. We don’t remember the drivers who didn’t hit our mom when she was walking the dog, but we do remember the one who did.
How many miles have we all travelled safely, compared to the number of times we have had a bad encounter?
My point is that a sidewalk is a chaotic environment with no rules (and therefore less predictable) as to where pedestrians might be and where they might move, stop, change direction, turn off and on from all directions and, sure, some streets seem fairly chaotic as well (and the consequences of collision are often more serious) but in theory road users will be going in the same direction, obeying a set of rules, have lights or signals to indicate where they are turning or stopping and there are less places where they should do this. So the chances of collision are higher even if the consequences are frequently less severe.
