Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

James wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Sep 22, 10:21 pm, James wrote:
damyth wrote:
NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709...ture-hits-cong...

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:
"@Greg Smith (jatodog)
'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'
Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."
What the hell? Every driveway is a blind intersection. With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?
Yup, I agree.

I guess if you ride very slowly, like at walking speed, the footpath
might be ok, but for most people who ride regularly, the footpath is not
an option. I'd like to see how long this civil eng. would survive at 40
km/h on the footpath.


Riding on the sidewalk introduces some profound hazards of its own,
but offers unique protections and conveniences as well. As long as
the rider is cognizant of the implications, sidewalks are a great
option to *include* in panoply of choices.

I know there are times when it becomes useful, the question is, would
you ride exclusively on the footpath, for a minimum of 20 miles per day?

I might ride a short distance on the footpath, to avoid for example a
traffic jam, road works, or open street festival like:
http://www.hispanicfiesta.com.au/

But once the road is clear of obstruction, it's the safest place to be
at any sort of reasonable riding speed.

Here's a blog that analyzes Phoenix Arizona's latest bike crash report.

http://azbikelaw.org/blog/listening-...ision-summary/

The author's major points: Sidewalks seem MUCH more dangerous than
roads, and cycling by vehicle rules seems MUCH safer than being, um,
creative. That's shown by the table, indicating whether the cyclist's
action pre-crash would be deemed "good" or "bad" by VC standards. Only
10% of crashes involved "good" VC behavior. A full 70% happened to
sidewalk cyclists.

Unfortunately, there's no exposure data, which means it's possible that
only 10% of the cycling in Phoenix is done according to the rules of the
road, and that 70% of Phoenix's cycling is done on sidewalks. But I
think that's highly unlikely.

I also think it's likely that most of the rule-flouting cyclists figured
they were being really smart - i.e. much smarter than those cyclists
following normal traffic rules.

--
- Frank Krygowski