jputnam

If it's shared with pedestrians, it's not a bike path, but it might be a multi-use path.

If it has driveway intersections that lack proper sight distances and turning radii, then it's not a path, it's a sidewalk.

It might still be a safer place for children to ride, depending on the street, but they need to understand they're riding on a sidewalk, not a bike path.

On a sidewalk, every driveway is a potential conflict point with motorists who are looking for pedestrian-speed traffic.

On a sidewalk, if bicycling is legal, there's no "right" direction of travel like there is on a path, so you must be constantly aware of more potential conflicts.

On a sidewalk, cyclists should generally limit themselves to pedestrian speeds when they're near any pedestrians, any driveways or intersections, any cyclists heading other directions.

vol

In the last few weeks I saw quite a few people riding on the sidewalks due to the road condition (snow, ice, slush). Some deliverymen rode too fast on the sidewalks passing pedestrians, not good. On the rare occasions when I need to ride on sidewalks, I ride almost at pedestrians' pace.

ro-monster

Where I live the distinction between sidewalk and multi-use path is murky. Not only is it legal to ride on sidewalks, but some of them are designated as multi-use paths and are shown as bike routes on the city's bike map. These range from a path about 7 feet wide that is separated from the road and and has few intersections or driveways to ordinary 3 foot wide sidewalks in residential neighborhoods. There is even one place that has a marked, signed bike lane on the sidewalk.

CrankyOne

About a year ago there was a fairly in-depth report, I think by people-for-bikes but couldn't find it there, that looked at this. If I remember correctly something like 60% of fatalities were riders being hit from behind and about 40% were at intersections. Maybe someone else on here has a link to it.

CrankyOne

Care to expound on the cause of this :-)

CrankyOne

So, should we tell the hundred or so kids who ride along here every day to school that they shouldn't because it is too dangerous due to the driveways? Should we tell them that instead they should ride in the motor traffic lane with fairly heavy 45-55 mph traffic?

CrankyOne

Agree. I get quite irritated with people who ride dangerously on sidewalks, MUPS, or paths exclusive to bikes. One issue that people in communities near where I live have been focusing on is some common path/sidewalk etiquette like keep right except to pass (or if walking side-by-side the person on the left should move to the right), bell ding to let people know you're passing, etc. MUPs are slowly getting better even as they're getting more crowded.

CrankyOne

Sounds familiar. Roseville MN painted a strip down the middle of a 6' wide sidewalk and wrote walk on one side and bike on the other closest to traffic. Since this is only on one side of the road I'm assuming they expect this 3' bikeway directly adjacent to 45 mph motor traffic and with street signs in the middle every so often to act as a two-way :-)

CliffordK

Oh, nothing much. Just a typical day might be 20 to 40 miles. Headed into town, I'm goal directed, may have a time crunch, and fresh. While I'm often stopping for errands, by 40 miles I'm beginning to slow down, and I don't think complete recovery occurs until overnight. My backpack is also often also loaded with an extra 20 pounds or so of food and supplies.

Here is this report. I'm not sure if it is the one you're talking about, but it has a lot of details.
Index - Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists

Unfortunately I think it only makes the serious/not serious distinction, but doesn't count fatalities.

I find it is a little frustrating because it is broken down into about 60 separate pages. I have summarized some of the data in a personal spreadsheet. Here is my summary. A couple of fields are calculated (giving fractions of an accident), or were my attribution of fault based on the description.


Younger kids especially were most affected by driveways and intersections.

About half the accidents were caused by actions of the bicycles such as failing to stop at a stopsign, or not looking.
About half were caused by actions of the car such as rear-ending, or also failing to stop or yield.

prathmann

Clifford's chart indicates far smaller percentages for hit-from-behind: under 9% of all reported crashes and about 14% of the serious/fatal ones and that's more consistent with other figures I've seen. Hit-from-behind crashes tend to be more serious due both to the higher average speed of impact and that the cyclist would frequently be totally unaware until the moment of impact. I've seen figures of up to 40% being hit-from-behind when only fatal crashes are considered - but fortunately those constitute only a tiny minority of all crashes.

spare_wheel

a light-weight study that used collated media reports and classified some hook/cross-type collisions as "hit from behind" purely based on the angle of impact.

spare_wheel

drivers also often fail to notice cycling-speed traffic at driveways and intersections so your critique applies to cyclists using bike lanes and vehicle lanes

Keith99

There is a truly wonderful path on the East side of Palos Verdes. Near Palos Verdes Drive North.

Notice I did not say bike path. It is a walking or riding path, often separated from the street by 20-30 feet and with views badly obstructed and crossed by driveways going into expensive homes. Idylic and a wonderful break, but dangerous as all heck for kids or adults who do not click to the danger and realize they have to turn into pedestrians on wheels. Only rode it once or twice. I did not have the patience to be a good pedestrian on wheels.

It did take a bit before it registered the first time. It was a strange sort of Oh Crap moment.

One thing that made it especially dangerous is that I never saw anyone else on it. That means there is a temptation to go fast (at least by pedestrian on wheels standards) and that car drivers do not expect any cross traffic. Not a good combination.

TrekkingMitten

I vote for whatever makes people ride instead of sitting on their couches.

howsteepisit

Not much for freedom of choice are you.

kickstart

My commute to work is significantly faster than my commute home.

Going to work I'm fresh, and its mostly down hill. Going home after working 8 to 10 hours with a mile long 15% grade to climb tends to slow me down.
The big hill is on a main 4 lane arterial that has no shoulders or bike lanes, so going down in the am. I use the lane, going up in the pm. I use the sidewalk. It was in terrible shape, but the city is redoing it a couple blocks at a time and its almost done.

spare_wheel

is someone less free on a bike than on a motorized couch?

howsteepisit

No but nobody makes anybody sit on a couch, as the poster I replied to want to "makes people ride instead of sitting on their couches".

KraneXL

Then they need to read the Driver handbook. In Florida, the law is simple: before crossing a sidewalk you must stop and yield the right of way. Its essentially the same as a stop sign.

The law is also simple regarding the use of sidewalks: sidewalks are for pedestrian. However, a cyclist may use the sidewalk except in locations where it is prohibited. Typically within the central or downtown district. Cyclist on the sidewalk must also yield to pedestrians.

jputnam

True, but there are minimum standards for sight distances in travel lanes, unlike bike lanes and sidewalks. The farther you are from the travel lane, the less likely a driver will be looking for vehicular speeds.

genec

And just how many drivers also actually come to complete stops at stop signs, drive below the speed limit, and actually come to a complete stop before making a right turn on red and use turn signals before turning or changing lanes? All things that are covered in the Driver Handbook that they are supposed to have read. Dream on.

CrankyOne

Yep. Regardless of where you ride (or drive) you can never count on people simply obeying laws. Better to design roads, bikeways, and sidewalks to encourage or force people to take safer actions. Narrow driving lanes do a much better job of slowing people than speed limit signs do. Tight radius corners at intersections do this even better and at one of the most critical points. Tabling (raising) crossings make people more aware of them and force them to slow (and reduce water and snow buildup). One place where paint does have an impact is sharks teeth (give-way) at crossings which do an amazingly better job of getting drivers to give appropriate ROW than any other type of marking — something about these things pointing at drivers is very effective.

genec

Exactly... and in a less autocentric world, this is what should be done to equalize the environment for other road users.

CrankyOne

Very true and something that we need to change. Most of the paths (MUPs) around us have pretty good sight lines and even where it's minimal a bicycle rider can easily slow down a bit to check for cars. There are two such spots along my daily route (or not so daily when it's below about 10f) and neither are a problem. This would be irritating for someone who was intent on maintaining a fast pace but not a problem if you're just riding to work or lunch and can afford to slow for 5 seconds. 99% of the time there are no cars from any direction and I need only slow a slight bit to check and then proceed.

The Dutch CROW manual on bicycle traffic design lays out some pretty specific details on sight lines. Bikeways are usually designed for 18 mph (20 kph) minimum speed so sight lines have to be enough so that drivers can see faster riders approaching if the riders have ROW which is most of the time.

howsteepisit

However, narrow lanes and tight radius corners discourage or eliminate the possibility for public transit busses to use those streets. I also am skeptical of US drivers adjusting properly to the necessary restrictions, and the ability of public officials to convince the 95% or so of the public who do not use bicycles as transportation to accept reductions in traffic flow.