Post by KirályPost by DiscoDuckIN other words, even though people complain about cyclists on the
sidewalk in the central city areas, there are few bicycle/motor-vehicle
collisions.
People who cycle in the inner city tend to be more likely to ride on the
road. A higher proportion of cyclists use the sidewalk in the suburbs
vs. cyclists in the central city. So it is not surprising that reported
incidents of accidents involving cycling on the sidewalk are higher in
the suburbs.
My experience corroborates this. Often the most intimidating roadways -
arterial 6 lane shoulderless throughways with traffic of 80+ k/h -
service the city core from suburban hinterlands. Indeed, one of the
most challenging aspects of cycling in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area)
is entering or exiting the city center. Once within the downtown core,
slower traffic speeds, cycling lanes, and the variation of vehicle
types (rickshaws, pedestrians, trolleys and buses), generally make for
a more tolerant and agreeable environment for cycling.
Post by KirályPost by DiscoDuckI also find it interesting that they point out that kids are "over
represented in sidewalk cycling crashes." and......"Since children are
encouraged to ride on the sidewalk until they are old enough and have
acquired the necessary skills and experience to ride safely on the
road. Bicycles with wheels 24 inches in diameter or smaller (typically
ridden by young cyclists) are allowed on sidewalks in Toronto."
There is no such rule here in Vancouver, for good reason. The sidewalk
is simply not safer for bicycles than the road. If a kid is old enough
to ride a bike in an urban area without adult supervision, then he is old
enough to ride on the road. I took a bike skills course when I was seven
years old that taught us to ride on the road and not the sidewalk.
Suggesting kids are safer riding on the sidewalk than on the roadway is
perpetuating the myth that riding on the roadway is more dangerous than
it really is.
I have misgivings - not such much with the premise of your contention,
but with its amplification into a general dictum. 'If a kid is old
enough to ride a bike in an urban area without adult supervision, then
he is old enough to ride on the road' - this argument falls short in
two areas: a) it fails to account for the types and degrees of urban
environments and b) it doesn't do enough to qualify the competence of
the cyclist - the lack of supervision is not enough. Through my
childhood I rode unsupervised; looking back now, it's clear I was an
accident in the making, and sometimes in the process.
It's typical of children to be easily distracted, lack the ability to
focus for extended periods of time, and have difficulty grasping the
complexity of movement that characterizes dense urban environments - in
short, they possess qualities that undermine their safety as cyclists.
(Let me add that many adults suffer from these traits as well!).
The observation that some children *may* make competent cyclists and be
suited to riding on *some* roads should not be extrapolated into a
general rule; they should have recourse to paths (i.e., the sidewalk)
where the consequences of their limited appreciation have less
detrimental effects - to wit, a collision with a pedestrian rather than
a vehicle.
Consider this: in many respects driving a car is simpler than riding a
bicycle. There's no balance required; automatic transmissions preclude
the distraction of manually shifting gears; hazards for cyclists (wet
metal manhole covers and storm sewer grates, potholes, etc..) can be
ignored; technical advances such as anti-lock brakes require less skill
of the driver, etc.. - before I was ten I had mastered the rudiments
and could drive around the neighbourhood unsupervised.
No responsible individual would suggest I was qualified driver. That's
because competently controlling a vehicle is a thing apart from
understanding the subtleties of its interactions with other vehicles in
traffic, and the extent to which they constitute hazards to all
concerned. I'm overstating the case to be sure, but I hope you take my
point. The matter is not so much the danger inherent to riding on
sidewalks per se - it's variable, affected by many factors - but with a
child's capacity to perceive and react to the dangers of riding on the
road. Indeed, as an alleged adult I'm still discovering these. And if
one cannot anticipate a hazard, there's no avoiding it - regardless of
where the fault lies.
There's one aspect to cycling on the sidewalk that recommends it as
being safer over riding on the road: among vehicular traffic you are
vulnerable to the mistakes of other motorists as well as your own;
while on the sidewalk you suffer from your own shortcomings only (minor
mishaps with pedestrians excluded). Consequently, a sidewalk cyclist
such as Disco who **is aware** of the dangers lurking at every
instersection and crosswalk is justified in his belief of safety: he
will NEVER be doored, rear ended, or cut off by a car while on the
sidewalk.
Post by KirályPost by DiscoDuckMaybe the answer is to BAN small children from cycling on the sidewalk
and make them do so on the road? Ridiculous of course,
For kids old enough to ride unsupervised it is not ridiculous at all. My
two year old rides a tiny bike with training wheels. She is obviously
not old enough to ride anywhere unsupervised. So she rides along on the
sidewalk at walking speed, with me always at arms' reach. When she is
old enough to ride all by herself without my supervision then I will
tell her to stay on the road and off the sidewalk. I don't want her
getting creamed by a turning car when she rides off the sidewalk and
onto the road when she gets to an intersection [the classic
bike-on-sidewalk accident; see example below].
Then impress upon her that she must absolutely ascertain whether it's
safe to proceed before leaving the sidewalk. Problem solved. If a child
cannot be trusted to adopt this simple practice, then trusting them to
their own abilities while on the road - where the perils posed by autos
are constant rather than periodic - is inviting trouble.
Post by KirályPost by DiscoDuckbut so is suggesting cycling should be banned on sidewalks as it is
dangerous. It's not...
You and I disagree about this, but here's an example of how riding on the
road is safer than on the sidewalk. A few months ago a twelve year old
was riding his bike westbound on the north sidewalk on Austin Avenue in
Coquitlam. An eastbound car was making a left turn. The left-turning
car did not see the cyclist up on the sidewalk, and there was a collision
when the kid rode off the sidewalk and into the crosswalk where the
car was making his left turn. This would not have happened had the kid
been riding on the roadway where the car would have seen him. This is
*the* classic bike-on-sidewalk accident, which is all too common, and
entirely preventable.
I'm not familiar with the intersection; keep that in mind when
considering the following. Yes, the accident may have been avoided if
the child was on the road, but it *certainly* would have been prevented
had the child followed the golden rule (stopped and looked all ways
before crossing the street). To my mind there is nothing about riding
on the sidewalk that precludes submitting to this rule - but children,
being children.... From your description I'd consider that the child's
riding on the sidewalk to be a peripheral factor in the accident, not
the essential, determining element; which, strictly speaking, has more
to do with being a poor pedestrian.
Post by KirályPost by DiscoDuck...and this is proved by cyclist's everyday in every city.
You have used this false argument many, many times in several threads.
Just because many people do it and don't get into accidents does not prove
that it is safe.
Neither would the fact that many sidewalk cyclists are involved in
accidents disprove it - There are lies, damn lies, and statistics...
Post by KirályThousands of people smoke tobacco every day and don't
get cancer. My own great-grandfather smoked 15-20 filterless
roll-your-own cigarettes every day for over 75 years. He lived to be 95
and never got cancer, lung disease or any other tobacco-related disease.
Did he and others prove that smoking tobacco is safe? Of course not. He
proved that he was lucky and nothing more.
The analog is awkward: the term 'healthy' should be subsituted for
'safe'. No, smoking is not healthy - I'm not encouraging anyone to
light up!; but can one indulge the habit without suffering from its
catastrophic effects -i.e., safely? Your great-grandfather, and
millions of others, have proven that the answer is yes.
More to the point, a healthy, long-lived smoker isn't so much lucky,
than the exception that proves the rule: rare is the truth that is not
subject to extenuations. In the case of your great-grandfather they
were fortuitous genetics and an exceptional constitution; where it
concerns the hazards of sidewalk cycling, they are an awareness and
respect for the hazards lurking beyond every curb.
Luke