Go Ride in Traffic
Posted: July 14th, 2009 | Author: Karolijn | Filed under: Cycling, London, Why I Hate London | 17 Comments »As a cyclist I often find myself arguing until I’m blue in the face with some people over where and how it is appropriate to ride.
My position is this: cyclists are safest when they obey the laws at all times. Selfishly breaking laws to save a few seconds or because you think you’re making yourself safer (more on this in a minute) makes the roads more dangerous for everyone.
Of course there are always emergency and unusual exceptions (construction, accidents, etc.) but in my not-so-humble opinion there is almost never a valid excuse for riding anywhere but on the road, with traffic.
Sidewalk Cycling
Inexperienced cyclists seem to think that the biggest threat to them is passing drivers. So it makes perfect sense that getting off the road (and onto the sidewalk) would be the easiest way to eliminate this risk.
Unfortunately it’s not true.
So, the argument goes, sidewalk cycling must at least get rid of that 4-ish%, right?
It absolutely does and if you could ONLY ride on sidewalks you’d only be a threat to the pedestrians (which works out pretty well for you…not so much for the pedestrians).
The only problem is that in order to get anywhere, you have to pass through intersections – where the vast majority of cycling accidents occur.
Biking on the sidewalk may eliminate the small risk of being hit from behind, but when entering the relatively high-risk intersections, sidewalk cyclists put themselves at a much higher risk than they would face if they were on the road in the first place.
In North-America, it has been found that sidewalk cyclists are at a significantly higher risk of being in an accident – double or more.
And really, it’s no wonder. BicycleSafe.com shows the top 10 ways to get hit on a bike (and how to avoid it). 7 of them involve a vehicle turning into a cyclist at an intersection.
I think it’s safe to say that in most cities, drivers don’t want to hit cyclists. But it’s hard to avoid what you can’t see – or what isn’t where you expect it to be.
When approaching an intersection, the average driver will check for the usual obstacles in the usual places. A cyclist travels at a much faster speed than a pedestrian and may not be in the driver’s field of consideration when checking the sidewalk.
A driver will, however, look at other traffic – the oncoming lane, his own lane and the lane beside him. A cyclist in one of these locations is much more likely to be seen and safely avoided than one that appears in the intersection unexpectedly.
Sidewalk cyclists may feel safer, but ultimately they are trading a relatively small risk for a much much larger one.
Path Biking
There isn’t a single risk-factor above that doesn’t apply to sidewalk-adjacent bike paths – including pedestrians, because as anyone that has tried to use them knows, beside-the-sidewalk bike paths are really just double-wide sidewalks.
These paths even bring up additional problems. Sidewalk cyclists may be oblivious and self-centred, but most of them know they shouldn’t be there and may be slightly more attentive when crossing intersections.
The paths, however, give the illusion of safety and right-of-way while keeping cyclists effectively invisible from motorists. Whenever I see a conflict between the two on these paths, both seem to feel they are in the right.
The cyclist was usually keeping to the designated path and had the right of way! But to the driver, he was minding his own business when suddenly a bike appeared out of nowhere and crossed his path! Regardless of who is in the right, this situation creates a dangerous scenario that is bound to eventually result in more than just road rage.
The paths also create a culture of segregation between bikes and cars. I can’t count the times I’ve had drivers honk or yell at me to “get on the path” when passing me in traffic. Despite the fact that road biking is safer, the presence of these paths encourages bikes and cars to ignore each other – until they are forced to acknowledge each other’s presence – angrily – after a near collision.
This doesn’t promote cooperation or road-sharing, it promotes frustration and distrust between road-users. Bikes are only visible to drivers when they are avoiding hitting one that jumps into an intersection unexpectedly.
Solutions?
While North-America in general is a long way away from the cultural shift necessary to make biking as safe as it is elsewhere in the world, there are things we can do.
On a city-wide level, I encourage London to ticket sidewalk cyclists and remove all beside-the-sidewalk lanes. Where possible these should be replaced with safer on-road marked bike lanes.
Individually, we can solve this problem by refusing to use the sidewalk or the bike paths. Not only is it practically safer, but it encourages bikes and cars to be aware of each other making the roads safer for all cyclists.
If you are interested in learning more about bicycle safety, visit BicyclingLife.com and BicycleUniverse.info.
Update July 29, 2009
Today it came to my attention that the city of London, Ontario recognizes the dangers of the sidewalk paths – what they call “In-Boulevard Bicycle Paths”.
London’s Bicycle Master Plan [PDF] states:
When properly situated, IBBP’s can serve as significant generators of bicycle use, providing for enjoyable recreational opportunities (especially for the less skilled cyclist) as well as desirable commuter routes. Appropriate applications of an IBBP would include:
- Where an uninterrupted right-of-way is available to provide for long, continuous routes for commuting or recreational trips; or,
- Within an independent right-of-way such as an abandoned railway corridor, utility corridor, along a river, through a linear park or a greenbelt.
According to the Ministry of Transportation, bicycle paths may be located within the right-of-way of major roads as long as they are located beyond what is used as the clear hazard zone for such facilities. In such instances, the Ministry recommends a separation distance of 10 to 15 metres. When IBBP’s are located immediately adjacent to an arterial roadway, however, many operational problems can occur as the motorist and cyclist interface. Cyclists using the inboulevard pathway, for example, are generally required to stop or yield at all cross streets and driveways to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Furthermore, unless diligence is exercised in regular pathway maintenance, the accumulation of sand, debris, and eroded materials on the IBBP can lead to crashes that do not involve another vehicle or cyclist. For reasons noted above, there is a “…higher incidence of bicycle crashes associated with off-street, rather than on-street, facilities, particularly in commercial areas… (Ontario Bikeways, Planning and Design Guidelines, Ministry of Transportation).
The problem is that I can’t think of a single example of a IBBP in London that has a dedicated right-of-way for any significant distance (the longest I can find is 700m) or that is anywhere near 10-15m from the road.
Does continuous right-of-way count when there are bus stops planted in the middle of the paths?
In fact, although I have no statistics in this case, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it is more dangerous to jump in and out of traffic than it is to just stay in the lane in the rare case where a cyclist may have the right of way for any noteworthy distance.
Not that it matters anyway, those cases are limited to a handful.
Thankfully the plan has acknowledged that these paths are dangerous and do not intend to install any more.
Given the operational (and potential risk management) issues associated with IBBP’s, the Bicycle Master Plan Guideline recommends that the City no longer pursue their development. While it is recognized that portions of the system may currently temporarily include existing, or previously planned and approved infrastructure, all new City-initiated capital transportation projects will not provide for the development of IBBP’s.
However the unfortunate truth is they are part of the culture of London and established paths need to be removed if the city is serious about ensuring the safety of its travellers.
Solid article, and a great list of resources! I was riding home the other night, thinking of the possibility of launching some sort of public-awareness campaign to bring awareness both to drivers and cyclists about the laws of the road.
Great post. I’m glad to see this is still a live topic because I’ve had the urge to tweet a lot of complaints lately.
I can understand being drawn to the sidewalk on a major thoroughfare, but on my quiet street, sometimes I’ll count 3 adult cyclists go past on the sidewalk before I see a single car. That’s just astonishingly dumb.
There are a couple of explanations for this: 1. people who ride their bike on the sidewalk are giant babies who still do every single thing their mommy ever told them to do, and 2. they are also perverts who prefer the physical sensation of vibrating over sidewalk cracks and bouncing up and down curbs rather than a smoother and faster ride on asphalt.
Just putting it out there.
Also saw a good post the other day about pedestrians in bike lanes.
Thanks for the link! London certainly encourages people to walk in bike lanes by doing things like putting bus stops right ON them
I can understand the instinctual draw of the sidewalk, but I think cyclists need to be educated that just because it *feels* safer doesn’t mean it is.
Well said! As both a driver and a cyclist I’ve seen how dangerous sidewalk cycling (And pseudo-sidewalk bikepaths) can be, and nothing makes me more angry than crappy cyclists giving the rest of us a bad name!
I just read through Toban’s recent blog and following a whole lot of links from there. Posts which I enjoyed reading include:
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?p=1096
http://spacing.ca/wire/2009/05/22/new-york-city-lessons-and-torontos-fairytale-war-on-the-car/
http://www.planetizen.com/node/38963
http://bikingrules.org/rules/streetcode
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/driving-while-texting-remains-popular-and-dangerous/
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?p=1317
http://savannahnow.com/node/646713
http://limeport.org/2009/05/bike-lanes-bicycle-friendly-communities/
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?p=476
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/14/german-town-chooses-human-interaction-over-traffic-signals/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/19/is-death-an-appropriate-penalty-for-jaywalking/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/07/18/tom-vanderbilt-ponders-motorist-sociopathy/
http://sustainablesavannah.com/transportation/calling-crashes-accidents-even-when-they-arent/
(oops, lost the second sustainablesavannah.com link… it was a better read
http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/streetbeat/2009/June/0604.html#safety_in_numbers
I think we do best by trying to set a good, legal example. (Next day, a comment about how I’d like traffic/licensing laws to change.)
How I’d like traffic/licensing laws to change
Changes to licensing:
Let everyone learn to travel in the following steps:
0. self-propelled mode of travel
1. … with gears
2. … with non-human power source
3. … with protective shell (vs aerodynamic shells which are always permitted)
Let there be a wide exemption given to persons requiring mobility aids (e.g. unable to travel within steps 0 or 1 of this licensing scheme).
Let there be a fixed penalty for moving violations: decrement your license level.
Changes to traffic laws (given the penalty described above, to be phased in through routine repairs):
Let stop signs or unsigned intersections be marked with all-way yield signs.
Let advance green right arrows cue the right to turn right on a red light without stopping. They will illuminate when opposing traffic is given a general advance green. Follow the arrow to turn right into the right-most lane.
Reflecting upon an article I read and my experiences with side streets, I might also wish for road paint (except for stop lines at traffic lights) to be abolished. I have yet to think about this enough to decide.
RE previous comment
I’m looking forward to detailed, picky discussions about these ideas. I hope such discussion will help improve the way in which I express these ideas.
[...] and wine Centimonious Digital era – doing more with your digital photos Everybody needs… Go ride in traffic Intentional community. Keeping it clean Ninety-eight degrees On the 20-something blogging [...]
bikers should stay on the sidewalk where they belong. it’s so annoying trying to avoid them on the road. ESPECIALLY when there’s a bikepath on the sidewalk and they choose to ride their faggy bicycle amongst vehicles. roads were made for cars, not bikes.
incidentally, i’m pretty sure that i went to Fanshawe with you for computer programming and have seen you around the north end of London.
small world.
Probably, it does seem that Fanshawe attracts some real dimwits. I can’t help but wonder if it’s poor eduation in this region, low-admission standards, a lack of breadth at school or self-imposed ignorance. What’s your excuse?
ooh sassy. i’m pretty sure that i fit into the low admission standards and the self-imposed ignorance categories. i find it easier to stay happy that way.
however, bicyclists are a menace to themselves and others when they ride on the road. and ignoring bike paths is just insanely rude; the city didn’t build them as scenic works of art. in my opinion, bike riders who choose not to use them should be ticketed and for a larger amount than those who ride on the sidewalk.
I’m sorry but did you actually read the post above or are you just commenting on the title? Paths are dangerous and impractical. Not only are they dangerous for the reasons listed above but they are murder on bikes themselves because they lead cyclists on and off curbs damaging the bikes themselves and creating even more risk. As you can see above, I’m not interested in why the city built them (unless of course they can prove some legitimate benefit). They are dangerous and your attitude is exactly the unfortunate and ignorant thing they promote.
Having an opinion is a lovely thing to say but it doesn’t make you right despite what your VIP teacher may have told you (speaking of which, I really need to get around to writing a post about that soon).
I don’t mind you commenting but I will be filtering any further comments that contain sexist or homophobic language.
@Alex — lol! not very many people can master satire this well!
[...] wrote a great post last week on the highly misinformed “assumption” that cyclists are “safest” [...]
Wonderfully put. I put a lot of kms on my bike every year, and there’s nothing more dangerous, IMHO, than a cyclist on a sidewalk. The danger extends to the cyclist, to pedestrians and to motorists as well.
I’d rather be out in the lane, where motorists can see me, than on a sidewalk or adjacent/arterial path that routinely pops me blindly into traffic at every intersection. When I deliberately choose to avoid the path and take the lane, I inevitably get honked or yelled at by passing motorists. Which sucks, of course, but I have a photographic memory for license plates and vehicle descriptions, and a BlackBerry in my bike bag that I’m only too happy to use to call 911 if I feel especially threatened.
A tiny piece of irony: years ago, while riding on the Rachel Street path in Montreal’s East End, I was t-boned by a motorist too busy arguing with his wife to notice me on my banana yellow mountain bike in the middle of the intersection. He blew the stop sign and accelerated right into me. I haven’t used on-street paths since.
And the next time I see a cyclist on the sidewalk, I’ll seriously let my dog chase him
Thanks for saying it like it needed to be said. Sure wish more motorists would read and appreciate.
[...] wrote a great post last week on the highly misinformed “assumption” that cyclists are “safest” [...]