Let's stop pretending that sidewalks are more dangerous than riding on the road.
And let's increase the penalties for killing cyclists, even if unintentional.
No cause has been established but, texting while driving is more dangerous than driving under the influence. The penalties should reflect that.
Intro
Flawed studies and Vehicular Cycling have permeated this notion that cycling on a sidewalk is ALWAYS inherently more dangerous than riding on the street. No matter the situation, no matter the specifics of the sidewalk, no matter the rider, some adamantly insist that adults should NEVER cycle on the sidewalk even when it is completely legal. As a matter of fact, most US states do not ban riding on the sidewalk by cyclists. It's typically left to local authorities to regulate via ordinance. Consequently, it is often legal in suburbs. It's time to debunk the notion that riding on the sidewalk cannot be safe and should always be avoided in favor of exposing oneself to high-speed and LETHAL traffic.
Flawed Studies
The study most often cited by the cycling community to "support" their contention that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous is the Wachtel & Lewiston study published in 1994. I would be surprised if even 1% of those citing this horrible study ever bothered to read it. It is irreparably flawed and irrelevant:
Counter Studies
Selective Usage
Safe & Effective Sidewalk Cycling does not mean taking every sidewalk you see. It means assessing the risk of each sidewalk individually both from your point of view and that of any pedestrians that might be using it. It is not an all or nothing proposition. The suitability of a sidewalk varies according to many factors: pedestrian density, driveway density, sidewalk width, speed limit of adjacent street, traffic density, width of adjacent street, visual obstructions, etc. And of course, the specific rider in question.
A sidewalk that is not suitable for a Tour de France hopeful riding at 25 to 30mph might be entirely fine for someone riding casually at 12 to 15mph. Generally speaking, it is far lower net risk for a cyclist to pass one pedestrian at 10mph than for that cyclist to be passed by dozens of two-ton vehicles carrying lethal force.
Below is an example of the traits of one poor candidate and one good candidate.
Techniques to Reduce Risk
The Sidewalk Cyclist only needs to remember a handful of tips to dramatically reduce their risk level below average and, I contend, below that of the Vehicular Cyclist.
Alerting Pedestrians
Passing Pedestrians
Conclusion
The Sidewalk Cyclist is flexible, driven not by ideology but by safety. Where the street is the safer option, he will use it. But he also will not risk his life riding next to two-ton vehicles moving at lethal speeds simply to avoid inconveniencing non-existent pedestrians. Where those pedestrians do exist, he exercises great caution and always yields the right of way. The primary objective is to arrive at the destination safely. Not unconditionally exert right-of-way claims to "Take the Lane" out of ego or dedication to a misguided ethos that ignores obvious dangers.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=i6QKY9_AOyI
This 11 minute video covers the vastly deficient bike lanes in Reno. I agree fully, the bike lanes are atrocious and paint is not infrastructure.
The hilarious thing is that nearly every road with the objectionable bike lane featured in this video has a perfectly good MUP (multi-use path) running parallel to it. And throughout the entire video, I counted JUST ONE pedestrian and JUST ONE cyclist using them. MILES of paved, semi-separated, semi-protected MUPs and just one pedestrian.
Some of you refer to these MUPs as sidewalks. But for some reason you find them more scary than the 90% fatality rate (claimed in this video) for a collision with a motor vehicle traveling at 40mph. I assure you, if mountain bikers and hikers can share single track trails with obstructed bends and an encounter frequency 30x greater, you'll be fine sharing these MUPs with one pedestrian every three or so miles that can be spotted from 100 yards away.
Seems like an electric motorcycle would be safer and faster FOR THOSE CURENTLY RIDING ON THE ROAD. Still inexpensive and green. Many other ways to get exercise with lower risk.
>Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
-- John Forester, Father of Vehicular Cycling
I'm learning where this doctrine of insisting on riding next to lethal vehicles originated -- John Forester in the 1970s. Old news to many of you, no doubt. He actively campaigned against bike lanes and separate bicycle infrastructure. He bragged about being responsible for killing efforts in the 70s and the 80s to bring Dutch-style infrastructure to the US. He took an elitist approach towards cycling and essentially said anyone getting hit by a car is doing it wrong. His books cherry picked data in studies, ignored inconvenient facts, and made conclusions in direct opposition to the study authors he quoted from. Seems like there was a lot of this poor analysis going on decades ago (*cough* Wachtel and Lewiston *cough*). Yet, his philosophy was widely embraced anyway. He died in 2020, but the effects of his misinformation continue to linger.
I have some sad news for some of you. Cyclists fare best when they do not collide with cars. And the best way to achieve this is physical separation. No amount of pretending that you are the same as a car will change this. You are not nearly as fast. You are not nearly as massive. Objectively, you are nearly identical to pedestrians in mass. And often closer in terms of speed. Overall safety is considerably improved with dedicated infrastructure.
Studies like the 2011 Montreal cycle track study show this with a 28% reduction in injuries. The Dutch have a cyclist fatality rate of about one-fifth of the US per 100 million kilometers travelled. They have extensive separated infrastructure. Infrastructure that essentially looks like a color-coded sidewalk reserved for bicycles with a few extra ingenious adaptations for intersections (see video below). The Dutch put pedestrian sidewalks right next to these bike paths. For some reason, they do not have an issue with cyclists and pedestrians being in such close proximity.
I'm already well past the attention span of this forum. But I highly recommend the video below for a thorough takedown of the Vehicular Cycling cult leader and his flawed ideology. Remember, most of you were convinced at one time that skinny tires and extreme tire pressure was the key to the fastest possible speed. Maybe the cycling community is also wrong about road safety.
Informative and Comedic Rebuttal to Vehicular Cycling:
https://youtu.be/pRPduRHBhHI?si=So4kulhVuq5rTBwd
(PS - if it needs to be said, this is not my video. This is not self-promotion.)
People derived the wrong conclusion from this post. The issue is not that the sidewalk is inherently more dangerous but that OP (despite claims otherwise) did not ride defensively.
Do not ride in front of exiting traffic. Wait for them to exit or, if clear and unobstructed, ride BEHIND them. This is particularly important when salmoning (going AGAINST traffic) as OP was doing. At a bare minimum make eye contact with driver before riding in front. It is well established that those making a right hand turn to exit will typically be focused only on traffic to the left. While the motorist is at least partially (if not fully) at fault, either party could have avoided this collision.
It's easily avoidable collisions like this that conflate the risk of careless sidewalk riding with disciplined sidewalk riding. Disciplined (and selective) sidewalk riding has a lower risk than street riding. We need to teach people how to safely ride on sidewalks when it is appropriate to do so.
There simply is no safe way to ride a bicycle on a road like this with no shoulders and hairpin turns. Being legal and having a "right" to be there will never change this. I've no doubt this message will fall on deaf/defiant ears on this forum.
Yes the driver lost control and hit the cyclist head-on. The driver should be charged. The point remains. Roads like this are not appropriate for recreational activities.
EDIT - those calling out that the driver lost control (despite it already being noted), YES that is more prone to happen on tight switchbacks like this. Further supporting that riding on this road is dangerous.
A 153-page report published by the Consumer Products Safety Commission in 1994 finds that riding bicycles on the street to be far more injury prone than sidewalks or bike paths. (There were other findings too).
The study consisted of an "injury survey" conducted in 1991 based on 463 non-fatal bicycle-related injuries.
This was complemented with an "exposure survey" conducted via telephone with 1,254 participants completing the survey. Third party exposure data was also purchased and combined.
The stated conclusions were consistent that riding on the street was riskier. The detailed study can be downloaded from the summary link below:
Bicycle Use and Hazard Patterns in the United States. | National Technical Reports Library - NTIS
>In the children's model, higher risks were associated with certain riding surfaces, time ofday, and population density. Children who rode during non-daylight hours, on streets, and who lived in areas with greater population density were more likely to be injured. The risk on streets was about 8 times the risk on bike paths, 3.4 times the risk on unpaved surfaces, and about 1.7 times the risk on sidewalks. Riding under non-daylight conditions (e.g., at night, dusk, or dawn) was about 3.6 times more risky than riding during the daytime. Rider gender had no statistically significant effect on the injury risk.
>In the model for riders 15 years of age and older, risk was also affected by riding surface. As in the children's model, the adult risk was higher on paved roadways. The risk on neighborhood streets was about 7 times the risk on bike paths and about 9 times the risk on unpaved surfaces. Moreover, the risk on major thoroughfares, the highest risk riding surface, was about 2.5 times the risk on neighborhood streets. As in the children's model, risk was higher for riders who lived in areas with greater population density. However, there was no significant difference in risk between daylight and non-daylight hours. Nor did rider gender independently affect the injury risk.
>For each measured effect on relative risk, all other effects that were modeled were held constant. A child in a large city would be 1.79 times more likely to incur a bicycle related injury than a child in a small town, if they have the same riding habits.7 Similarly, a child in a large city would be 2.12 times more likely to sustain an injury than a child in a rural environment. **Riding predominantly on streets was estimated to be 1.65 times more risky than riding on sidewalks, 8.02 times more risky than riding on bike paths,**^(8) and 3.44 times more risky than riding on unpaved surfaces. The risk of riding predominantly at night was estimated to be 3.64 times greater than riding in daylight.
A 153-page report published by the Consumer Products Safety Commission in 1994 finds that riding bicycles on the street to be far more injury prone than sidewalks or bike paths. (There were other findings too).
The study consisted of an "injury survey" conducted in 1991 based on 463 non-fatal bicycle-related injuries.
This was complemented with an "exposure survey" conducted via telephone with 1,254 participants completing the survey. Third party exposure data was also purchased and combined.
I've not examined the study in detail. But the stated conclusions were consistent that riding on the street was riskier. The detailed study can be downloaded from the summary link below:
Bicycle Use and Hazard Patterns in the United States. | National Technical Reports Library - NTIS
>In the children's model, higher risks were associated with certain riding surfaces, time ofday, and population density. Children who rode during non-daylight hours, on streets, and who lived in areas with greater population density were more likely to be injured. The risk on streets was about 8 times the risk on bike paths, 3.4 times the risk on unpaved surfaces, and about 1.7 times the risk on sidewalks. Riding under non-daylight conditions (e.g., at night, dusk, or dawn) was about 3.6 times more risky than riding during the daytime. Rider gender had no statistically significant effect on the injury risk.
>In the model for riders 15 years of age and older, risk was also affected by riding surface. As in the children's model, the adult risk was higher on paved roadways. The risk on neighborhood streets was about 7 times the risk on bike paths and about 9 times the risk on unpaved surfaces. Moreover, the risk on major thoroughfares, the highest risk riding surface, was about 2.5 times the risk on neighborhood streets. As in the children's model, risk was higher for riders who lived in areas with greater population density. However, there was no significant difference in risk between daylight and non-daylight hours. Nor did rider gender independently affect the injury risk.
>For each measured effect on relative risk, all other effects that were modeled were held constant. A child in a large city would be 1.79 times more likely to incur a bicycle related injury than a child in a small town, if they have the same riding habits.7 Similarly, a child in a large city would be 2.12 times more likely to sustain an injury than a child in a rural environment. **Riding predominantly on streets was estimated to be 1.65 times more risky than riding on sidewalks, 8.02 times more risky than riding on bike paths,**^(8) and 3.44 times more risky than riding on unpaved surfaces. The risk of riding predominantly at night was estimated to be 3.64 times greater than riding in daylight.
Many were asking for a study supporting the notion that a large portion of bicyclist fatalities are caused by being run over from behind. Here it is. The League of American Bicyclists researched 628 cyclist fatalities circa 2012 and analyzed the circumstances:
>For a 12-month period, we set about the grim task of tracking and documenting every fatal traffic crash involving a bicyclist captured by relevant internet search terms...We learned, for example, that a much higher percentage of fatal crashes than expected — 40% of fatal crashes with a reported collision type — were “hit from behind” incidents
A staggering 40% of fatalities were attributed to rundowns from behind. In addition to distracted drivers, those on drugs or under the influence of alcohol likely played a significant role as well. These are drivers over whom you have ZERO control when riding on the road.
I've yet to locate a more recent study detailing fatalities by the type of collision. The number one fatal collision event, by far, can presumably be avoided when riding on a sidewalk. The second largest fatal collision event was "cyclist side / car front" at just 11%.
Collision events that impact sidewalk riding at a higher rate can, in some cases, be controlled. For example, by slowing down or waiting for shadowing traffic to pass before crossing thresholds. Or by waiting for cars attempting to exit a parking lot, or riding behind them, never in front. The problem with studies claiming sidewalk riding is more dangerous, is that they examine aggregate risks. With disciplined riding, the individual risk can be lowered to a small fraction of the aggregate risk.
Other interesting takeaways from their "Every Bicyclist Counts": Florida is among the most dangerous state for commuting by bicycle. Sentences for killing a cyclist are lenient.
New Report: Every Bicyclist Counts | League of American Bicyclists
When asking for input on a model, take the time and effort as the author to look up the link once. Rather than expect everyone else to do this dozens of times. Help them help you. This is a daily occurrence here. If it's too much effort for you, why should anyone else do it?
Also, include budget, location, and use case.
Discussions today with regards to riding on sidewalks triggered a thought. When I mentioned the ability to slow down or stop before crossing a threshold on a sidewalk, some seemed to be in disbelief at the proposition: "you mean use the brakes?"
Many seem to be of the mindset that riding on a sidewalk always entails cruising at a steady speed as one might do on the road. So yeah, that would make some sidewalks dangerous.
The notion of varying your speed as you encounter driveways and entrances (waiting if necessary) and thus losing momentum is a foreign concept to some, especially to those relying on muscle power. On an ebike it's no big deal.
I too often see road cyclists run red lights that precede a steep climb. On an ebike there is no pressing need or incentive to preserve momentum. In this respect, ebikes are the safer choice. And perhaps partially explains why many cyclists are quick to denounce sidewalk riding as unsafe.
Invariably when you advocate riding on vacant suburban sidewalks rather than on the road next to two-ton SUVs traveling at 45mph, the sidewalk police invoke the Palo Alto study conducted in the late 80s by Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston.
This study has at least one major flaw, biased conclusions, and lacks relevancy in the age of texting. I pointed this out a year ago. It actually shows that riding with traffic on a sidewalk is safer than riding with traffic on a road. The real risk is riding against traffic but they bury this in their analysis and declare sidewalk-riding-at-large to be the risk. Incidentally, much of this risk can be managed by passing BEHIND cars pulling out on the main road, NEVER IN FRONT. Or simply waiting for them. In this interest of not squandering an entire day, I'm letting MS co-pilot summarize my points below.
There’s been a lot of debate about sidewalk riding safety, and one particular study gets cited over and over as “proof” that sidewalk riding is dangerous. But when you actually dig into the methods, the study’s conclusions fall apart. Three major flaws undermine the entire analysis:
(1) a one‑day baseline population count,
(2) conflating with‑traffic and against‑traffic sidewalk riding, and
(3) conclusions that ignore what the data actually shows.
Let’s break down why these issues matter — and why the study’s sidewalk‑risk claims shouldn’t be taken at face value.
Crash risk isn’t just about counting crashes. You need to know how many people were riding, where, and in what direction to calculate exposure. That’s the denominator in any risk ratio.
This study measured the entire cyclist population on one single day.
That’s not just “less than ideal.” It’s invalid for exposure modeling because cyclist volume varies massively depending on:
These are completely different cycling populations.
A single weekday count will underestimate sidewalk riding.
A single weekend count will overestimate sidewalk riding.
Either way, the baseline becomes a caricature of reality.
This is a huge confounder almost no study accounts for.
If the observation day happened during school session, the sidewalk baseline is inflated.
If it happened during summer break, it’s artificially low.
Cycling volume can swing by 200–400% depending on weather and season.
A single day cannot represent the population that produced the crash data.
If your exposure denominator is wrong, every risk ratio built on it is wrong.
This alone invalidates the study’s sidewalk‑risk conclusions.
This is the fatal flaw.
The study lumps all sidewalk riders together, regardless of direction. But directionality is one of the strongest predictors of crash risk in bicycle safety research.
This group behaves predictably:
This group is often riding on the sidewalk to avoid stressful traffic conditions. They’re cautious and predictable.
This group is dramatically more dangerous:
These two behaviors are not comparable, yet the study treats them as one.
When you blend a relatively safe behavior (with‑traffic sidewalk riding) with a highly dangerous one (wrong‑way sidewalk riding), the resulting “sidewalk risk” number becomes meaningless.
It artificially inflates the risk for with‑traffic riders and artificially deflates the risk for wrong‑way riders.
This is why the study’s sidewalk category looks worse than it actually is for the safe subgroup — and better than it should for the dangerous subgroup.
Here’s the kicker:
When you conceptually separate the two behaviors, the study’s own data quietly shows that sidewalk riding WITH traffic has lower crash risk than roadway riding WITH traffic.
But the authors don’t emphasize this.
Instead, they repeat the generic claim:
>
This is scientifically sloppy because:
The study essentially buries the lede.
If the authors were honest about their own data, the conclusion would be:
>
That’s the real story — and it’s the one the study avoids telling.
The study often cited to claim “sidewalk riding is dangerous” has three major methodological failures:
If we want meaningful safety insights, we need studies that separate directionality, measure exposure across multiple days and conditions, and draw conclusions that match the data — not preconceived narratives.
Every request for bike recommendations is inevitably met with replies suggesting customer service is the most important element of any selection. Is this really true? More important than cost, features, performance, comfort, reliability, and value?
Sure, I get it. Not everyone is capable of fixing their bike. But with a small investment in tools, a bike stand, and some patience, almost anyone can learn the basics that will cover about 98% of issues. YouTube will show you how to install, lube, and adjust chains. How to change tubes and tires. How to replace cassettes and derailleurs and fine tune shifting. How to bleed brakes and replace brake pads. Even how to upgrade your MTB fork.
In six years with over a half dozen ebikes, I've needed customer service once for a failed motor. Is it really worth paying 50% extra for what is perceived as better customer service or settling on a an inferior bike with mediocre components? Ride1up has some of the best offerings but many shy away for want of a convenient dealer.
Customer service has real value, particularly for novices. But does it get weighted too highly too often? Why isn't there more emphasis on being self-sufficient?
Please respond based on the bikes you personally own and ride, and not those of family members.
NOTE: THERE IS A SEPARATE POLL FOR HUB DRIVE OWNERS.
Please choose the closest answer that reflects your longterm experience. For those breaking chains, how are you using your bike, and how often do you lube your chain?
PS - at the risk of seeming self-serving, I would ask that you consider upvoting this poll so we get a better poll sample.
NOTE: THERE IS A SEPARATE POLL FOR MID DRIVE OWNERS.
Please choose the closest answer that reflects your longterm experience. For those breaking chains, how are you using your bike, and how often do you lube your chain?
PS - at the risk of seeming self-serving, I would ask that you consider upvoting this poll so we get a better poll sample.
I'm going to try again to dispel misinformation and the trope that a mid-drive is always the better choice. (And no, this is not AI just because you see bulleted lists)
Advantages of a mid-drive:
Advantages of a hub drive:
Applications where mid-drives shine:
Applications where hub drives shine:
If you are doing blue level (intermediate) and up mountain biking, you want a mid-drive. When dealing with gradients over 15% on a routine basis, you want a mid-drive. Between 10% and 15% is a gray area but leans towards a mid-drive. For an occasional gradient up to 10%, high powered hub drives work just fine. I would speculate that the decisive majority of US residents are not dealing with gradients over 10% on any regular basis.
The efficiency advantage of a mid-drive is dependent on the gradient. On flat ground, there is little to no efficiency gain with a mid-drive. In mixed use with some sizeable hills thrown in, you might see a 25% to 35% advantage per watt hour with a mid-drive. This advantage can climb to over 50% on steep hills owing to the use of drivetrain gearing.
While a mid-drive can have a throttle, it is a much different experience. The throttle response is toned down to avoid drivetrain damage. If you doubt this, watch reviews on the Velotric Discover M and Aventon Aventure M. You cannot effortlessly blast off from a stop to 20mph because you will need to change gears manually. If your chain breaks, your mid-drive throttle no longer works. There is no drivetrain redundancy as with a hub drive.
On folding or fat tire bikes, the pedal feel has already been negated. There is little benefit to precise pedal feel on a fat tire bike which has the feedback of a 1960s American car. A hub drive with a torque sensor does a pretty good job for most applications.
So please, stop saying mid-drives are always better without considering the specific application, terrain, and needs & priorities of the rider.
Not sure if this is legit. Claimed benefits are:
Biggest downside mentioned, doesn't pair as well with throttle.
link to Grin source video:
Since Detective Fusco has blocked me, let me state this here. If you buy bike products from Amazon sellers, there is a strong likelihood that the Shimano chain or Cloud 9 saddle you ordered is not authentic.
Buying from the lowest cost seller is a good way to get a knock-off product. If counterfeit, it is not up to the brand being ripped off to honor a warranty on a product they did not make and did not receive revenue for. Leaving a bad review on a counterfeit product only adds insult to injury. Any attempt to justify this and blame the brand being infringed upon is juvenile.
He brought this upon himself. To avoid counterfeit bike products, use established outlets like JensonUSA and Performance Bike when possible. Many times their prices are just as competitive and you aren't left wondering if you got the real McCoy or not.
This Detective Fusco is the same guy who repeatedly bitches about Aventon on the Aventon forum. Now I'll just assume he is in the wrong there too.