[nomel]

Where I am, it's illegal for bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk, so you're left with a couple of feet of space beyond the white line, in the unprotected shoulder, with a speed difference of around 30mph, and often a curb to make sure you eat it if you're pushed beyond. With the number of people I've seen weave into the shoulder, biking being the default would be a blood bath.

[steelframe]

> biking being the default would be a blood bath

The theory I've heard is that cyclists being on the road is only a problem when it's the exception. When it's rare, motorists aren't expecting it and are driving in a way that doesn't accommodate it.

If cycling were "the default," motorist behavior would be very different because everyone would be expecting it.

[anonporridge]

The problem is that the main way to change this is for a critical mass of self sacrificing individuals to choose to put themselves in harms way in order to shift the expectations of drivers.

[KleerKut]

I don't understand why people don't fight this silly rule about bikes on sidewalks. The number of people being maimed and killed by cars while on bikes is substantially higher than the number of people being maimed or killed by bikes while walking. The difference in speed and mass is orders of magnitude smaller for a bike. Yes, there will always be those clowns like you see on YouTube with bikes going much faster than is safe or sensible, and those people deserve to be punished for their recklessness.

I'm even all for having no limit on watts or horsepower. If I want to haul a heavy trailer with a custom bike that draws 10kW but can't break 20 MPH, I should be allowed to do so. Having the torque to quickly get through an intersection saves lives and impatient drivers are less likely to make dangerous maneuvers if people can get out of their way quickly. Cars don't have HP limits, they have speed limits, and those same clowns who risk themselves and everyone around them for fun are always going to do what they want regardless. I feel it would be better to make speed limit laws stronger and get rid of the laws that pit pedestrians against other pedestrians over antiquated statutes.

[dysarray]

One could argue that bikes on sidewalks are dangerous for pedestrians. For example, a person walking on the sidewalk may not be expecting a bike to be coming from behind or from the side, and can be startled or even injured if the bike is going too fast or if the rider is not paying attention. In addition, bikes on sidewalks can make it difficult for people with mobility issues or for those pushing strollers or using wheelchairs to navigate the sidewalk. It may be safer for both pedestrians and cyclists if bikes are restricted to designated bike lanes or roads.

[KleerKut]

I have mobility issues, and the chances of me dying on the road are amazingly larger than that of a pedestrian dying from me on my bike, no matter how reckless I could possibly be riding. If I have the choice between becoming roadkill or getting harassed by police, I will always choose the latter. It should be the job of the rider to yield to pedestrians the way cars must yield. If a rider isn't paying attention or going too fast for the situation, they are going to get hurt regardless of there being a pedestrian or any other obstacle. There is no danger to the motorist's safety when they mow down a cyclist. Source: I got mowed down by a police officer who buried his head in his laptop and slammed on the gas at the same time, veering uncontrollably. Luckily he wasn't injured. He had no clue he hit me until my bike was completely under his car. Somehow I managed to stay on his bumper and not go under.

This type of thinking, "One person might be frightened, so let's continue to make cyclists pay with their lives" is unfathomable. It's even more incomprehensible that it seems to come mostly from motorists wanting to dictate how all pedestrians 'shall obey' because the are second class citizens. "One could argue" all kinds of things without data and get nonsensical laws passed that affect other people and not themselves.

Furthermore, sidewalks already exist in vastly larger coverage of most cities, where bike lanes do not. Most places don't want to pay for bike lanes, and those that do rarely maintain them in the US. They have never run a street sweeper over the bike lanes where I live, and if they had, they would have hit the concrete spill that's been there for over 3 years and likely damage the street sweeper. It's outrageously dangerous if you don't know it is there because it is between the roadway and a turning lane, so if you get ejected in either direction you are possibly roadkill either way.

[hackmiester]

Personally, I just illegally ride on the sidewalk. It's unenforced, and it's easy to stop and walk the bike when you see a pedestrian. (Which is even more rare than another cyclist.)

[nomel]

> It's unenforced

This is false, depending on the region.

[hackmiester]

You probably won't ever see this, but I learned yesterday it isn't even illegal in my area, so I was wrong on several fronts. Wow.

[mgrthrow]

If the city won't provide infrastructure, take the whole lane.