Sidewalk Cycling and the Roller Coaster Paradox

From a story on Washingtonian

Graham argues allowing bikes onto sidewalks only transfers the hazards bikers face to pedestrians. “It doesn’t make sense to me, and I’ve got too many people who have fear of injury,” Graham says. The council member said he believes the bill will encourage more bike lanes, as pedestrians lobby for their construction to protect walking space.

There are two things here. One is that Graham is trying to protect people from the fear of injury - not actual injury. Some of this is legit, as people should not have to live with fear or be constantly startled, but some of this is what I call the Roller Coaster Paradox.

I usually refer to this when people ask "isn't biking dangerous?" It can be scary some time, scarier than driving, but it's not significantly more dangerous (if it is at all. I've become convinced that we really don't know). In that sense it's like roller coasters. People drive to the amusement park and then they ride roller coasters. They find the first part to be nothing of concern (maybe they even sleep on the way) but the roller coasters are quite terrifying, by design. But in reality the drive is far more dangerous. The fatality rate for 100 million miles of travel by car in 2000 was 0.86, but for roller coasters it was only 0.70 - and the drive is far longer than a roller coaster ride. So the roller coaster is scarier, but not as dangerous.

I think part of the concern about sidewalk cycling stems from this: it can be scary for pedestrians, but not that dangerous. Pedestrians have a legitimate right to ask to not be scared, but so do cyclists who are choosing the sidewalk over the road. What we probably need is for the MPD to enforce laws against unsafe sidewalk cycling and perhaps for the council to define some rules (a sidewalk speed limit, perhaps lower when pedestrians are present? A no passing rule, perhaps tied to sidewalk width? A strict "hitting a pedestrian on the sidewalk creates a presumption of guilt" rule?)

The second part is Graham's claim that this law will encourage more bike lanes due to pedestrians lobbying for them. I think this is a very unlikely outcome. For one thing, AllWalksDC already supports more bike lanes, as does the Pedestrian Advisory Council. In addition, since cycletracks have already been shown to reduce sidewalk cycling in DC, people opposed to that behavior already have reason to support them, I have not seen any interest in that from the people pushing for this law. If Graham wants more bike lanes and cycletracks, he's had ample opportunity to engage with DDOT to make that happen. This is not "Force 10 From Navarone" where the easiest way to destroy the bridge it to blow up the dam. The easiest way to install more bike lanes, is to install more bike lanes. 

 

Comments

[Tom]

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect bikes to stay off the sidewalk when a bike lane is available. Regardless of the cyclists risk tolerance for riding on city streets. They can choose to walk the bike on the sidewalk.

On the other hand, I think walkers and runners should stay out of the bike lane when a sidewalk is available. Regardless of their preference.

You don't have to present a lethal threat to be a nuisance.

[Greenbelt]

I do like the idea of presumption of guilt. If there's an accident with a cyclist and a pedestrian on a sidewalk or crosswalk, the presumption of guilt should be on the cyclist. If a crash occurs on the road, the presumption of guilt should be on the motorist. Sort of a hierarchy of responsibility based on weight and speed (danger potential) in the various locations.

[Smedley Burkhart]

I like your roller coaster analogy very much and it applies to other areas of human threat assessment. However, I think there is also a quality of life consideration.

Some, I included, might argue that sharing the sidewalk with bicycles raises the stress level (much like the roller coaster) regardless of the true risk of collision. Many physically innocuous environmental and social stressors are strongly linked to health outcomes.

[Jeffb]

I'm curious as to why someone would be riding on the sidewalk and not bike lane.

Before we go passing new laws shouldn't a survey/educational outreach be the first order of business?

[Crickey7]

With the linkage between alternatives and restriction (and perhaps some age-based exclusions), I could live with it. But I fear the linkage would be quickly forgotten once the precedent was set, and we'd see expansion of restriction without commensurate expansion of infrastructure.

[dynaryder]

@Jeffb: people ride on the sidewalk instead of the bike lane to go the opposite way on a one-way. They also do it to dock their CaBi. I tend to stay off the sidewalk,but do ride them for the above reasons. I also do it to get around people blocking the road,and on roads where drivers can't behave themselves. If I ride from Cathedral to Bethesda,I'll ride the sidewalk from the edge of Friendship Heights to Bethesda because I've had too many close calls on that stretch of road from drivers treating it like a speedway. I've also used the sidewalk down Embassy Row on Mass Ave because I was on my 3spd and didn't have the gearing to run with traffic. That's another strip people like to speed on,plus you've got the diplomats who can get away with running you down.

I think the Grahamstander just needs to STFU,he's on his way out,and it seems like he's either trying for payback or trying to show people getting rid of him was a mistake.

[muskellunge]

The analogy is unfortunate. People do all sorts of risky things for recreation, such as flying sailplanes, downhill skiing, swim long a distance in the open ocean, white water rafting, deer hunting, motor cycle racing, marathon running, high-stakes gambling, unprotected sex with strangers, riding roller coasters, etc. They do it for fun.

This list includes many strange and unusual activities. Due to the breadth of human imagination, the list is far too long to attempt to compile.

But everyday locomotion on the street is NOT on this list -- it is neither fun, nor recreation, nor is it supposed to be risky.

[DE]

I think the analogy has merit. It's not a perfect comparison, but then if it were, it wouldn't mean much. The part that is instructive, to me, relates to peoples' (mis)perception of risk.

Musk, if I ever get to the point where everyday locomotion on the street isn't fun or recreation, I want to stop. Driving used to be fun, but then traffic got too bad, so now biking is fun.

[muskellunge]

@DE -- Everyday walking basically means stepping out to buy a cup of coffee, or some such errand. Yes the walking in the city is nice -- but it isn't "fun" like a roller coaster, or skiing, or like piloting a sail plane, is -- activities where one knowingly accepts the risk, is prepared for the risk, and where that risk is a part of the fun.

This article argues that the risk to a bicyclist when riding on the street, is reduced by riding on the sidewalk. The added risk to the pedestrian -- with includes injury, death, and the difficult to quantify "fear" from close calls -- is discounted because it is unknown. Thus the risk is transferred to the pedestrian. This is presented as acceptable because the overall injury risk to everybody was thought (not proven) to be reduced.

So bicyclists win while pedestrians lose, regardless of the fact that the pedestrians did not choose to get on this roller coaster. Nice.

Not long ago I was walking on the sidewalk on a quiet, tree-lined, one-way street near the capitol. It was a dark, rainy Sunday night, there were no cars, and I was wearing dark clothes. Suddenly a CaBi rider came upon me from behind, and it caused me to jump out of my skin. I swore. The young lady riding apologized, and explained in passing that she did not want to bike the wrong way up the street.

The roller coaster is an apt analogy. I love to ride them, but I was not expecting to that Sunday evening.

[Mike]

I'd be fine with a presumption of guilt rule for cyclists hitting pedestrians, as long as there were a similar rule for motorists hitting anyone not in a car. I also think that better enforcement of cyclist safety would go a long way toward keeping cyclists off the sidewalk. It only takes one encounter with a lunatic in a SUV or pickup screaming at a cyclist to get out of the street to make the cyclist feel safer on the sidewalk. MPD has demonstrated that they don't care about drivers intimidating (or even hitting) cyclists, and that has to change before cyclists are going to feel safe on the streets. Being hit has to trump being scared, and getting killed has to trump either.

[DE]

Okay, maybe walking isn't really "fun" in that sense. I was thinking, in my tunnel vision, of cycling, which is fun--more fun than a roller coaster to me.

However, I'm not certain the article argues for transference of risk from cyclists to pedestrians. The situation can be read that way, I suppose, but it seems the writer is arguing against that by saying that it isn't that dangerous. You can argue against that with the statistics that show (limited) cyclist-pedestrian collisions, and that would be fine, but that's not what the writer appears to be saying.

The factor of perceived danger, or fear, is noted as legitimate.

[washcycle]

But everyday locomotion on the street is NOT on this list -- it is neither fun, nor recreation, nor is it supposed to be risky.

None of that is relevant to the analogy. Maybe another analogy will work better.

People are very concerned that their kids might get Halloween candy with chocolate in it. But this basically doesn't ever happen. So the fear is out of proportion to the risk.

Fun or choice has nothing to do with the analogy.

This article argues that the risk to a bicyclist when riding on the street, is reduced by riding on the sidewalk.

Does it? I don't see where that is argued.

This is presented as acceptable because the overall injury risk to everybody was thought (not proven) to be reduced.

Are you sure you read the same article I wrote? I think we should try to discern what the injury risk is.

Suddenly a CaBi rider came upon me from behind, and it caused me to jump out of my skin.

It was startling, but not dangerous. Should we make it illegal to startle other people?

[TJ]

I'm startled by the notion people traveling in public space should be protected from being startled when they encounter other people in public space. D.C. is a crowded city. Expect to encounter others at any time. It is possible the surprise person in public space will be on a bike and on a sidewalk.

Should they be doing that? In most instances they shouldn't.

But it still will happen and no one should be surprised. People on bikes can be afraid, too, take shortcuts, be ignorant or simply be trying to avoid dangerous traffic situations.

Awareness of one's surroundings is a key to survival, but many people are lost in their heads.

[muskellunge]

"It was startling, but not dangerous."

How many close calls does it take to convince you that something is dangerous? I've seen people nearly killed by crossing the street in front of a truck -- nearly; but everybody got home fine. By your thinking, there is no danger there.

There have been few accidents between pedestrians and bicyclists on the sidewalk mainly because, up until lately, there are so few bicyclist. But now with CaBi there are lots more, riding far heavier bikes. There will be serious injuries when a pedestrian gets hit by one, and as more people ride this will happen more often. Enough people getting hurt may lead to licensing, ... [gasp]. Enjoy your bike-riding, insurance-free freedom while you have it.

There are lots of laws that are designed to protect people from getting startled...I wouldn't be surprised if a startled pedestrian becomes fanatically angry and retaliates in some way. Now that is where laws and lawyers step in.

[washcycle]

How many close calls does it take to convince you that something is dangerous?

I don't know. How many should it take?

now with CaBi there are lots more, riding far heavier bikes.

Good point. Has there been an uptick in crashes, injuries or deaths?

Enough people getting hurt may lead to licensing, ... [gasp].

Probably not. It would kill CaBi, since tourists pay for the thing and won't be licensed.

Enjoy your bike-riding, insurance-free freedom while you have it.

I always do (but I'm also covered by current car and home owner's insurance).

There are lots of laws that are designed to protect people from getting startled..

Hmmm....

I wouldn't be surprised if a startled pedestrian becomes fanatically angry and retaliates in some way.

I would be quite surprised. But that retaliation is likely illegal.

[SJE]

I think the analogy is apt insofar as it illustrates how we misjudge risk, which is what we were using it for.

[muskellunge]

"I would be quite surprised. But that retaliation is likely illegal."

Must be nice to approach an unsuspecting pedestrian and frighten them. You are flouting superiority. This is not a friendly thing to do.

Having been through this lately, I am having difficulty describing the scale of emotions that passed through in the span of maybe 3 seconds. It was strongly visceral, and I suspect that my "fight or flight" reflex was triggered. I was definitely ready to come to blows with someone I did not know on a public street. This is what you are messing with.

Have a nice day.

[washcycle]

Must be nice to approach an unsuspecting pedestrian and frighten them.

It doesn't happen to me very often, but when it does (whether I'm on bike or foot) I apologize. I would not say it is nice. Why do you think it is?

I was definitely ready to come to blows with someone I did not know on a public street.

It sounds like the real issue here is that you have anger management problems.

[muskellunge]

"It sounds like the real issue here is that you have anger management problems."

No, it sounds like you refuse to respect the strength of the reptilian reactions that are triggered when a quiet pedestrian minding her own business is blindsided by a fast-moving bicyclist. Like a mother protecting her young. If the offense is trivial, then there is no reason for the offender to apologize like they do, usually quite profusely.

So you can ignore my experience, but it wouldn't take many more of them before I go and complain to my city counsel member. Or you could encourage your crazed bicyclist friends, weaving around pedestrians, to get back on the street before somebody passes a law you don't like.

[washcycle]

I can't think of one case where a pedestrian, having been startled by a cyclist attacks a cyclist. So, that's why it would surprise me if it happened in the future.

it wouldn't take many more of them before I go and complain to my city counsel member.

That would not surprise me at all.

Or you could encourage your crazed bicyclist friends...

I doubt they're my friends. But I would encourage them to start biking in a way that is safe and courteous.

[DE]

Or you could encourage your crazed bicyclist friends, weaving around pedestrians

Yesh, the all-powerful bike lobby loves to scare it some pedestrians. We're the motorcycle gangs of the 21st century, doing circles around a terrified, helpless citizenry.

Seriously, any jerk who flies through a pedestrian-filled crosswalk or buzzes pedestrians on a sidewalk is just that--a jerk, just as any driver that buzzes a cyclist or blows his horn at a pedestrian in a crosswalk is just a jerk, not a member of a club of crazed motorists.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

"But now with CaBi there are lots more"

Which should mean more bike-ped collisions, but at the same time will mean more pedestrians who also bike, and value biking. I would bet they offset each other - or even leed to more sympathy to cycling. Note, in my experience CaBi riders mostly do use bike lanes where they are available. While the Graham law specifically only bans riding near a lane, it seems to me that the folks supporting this basically oppose ALL sidewalk cycling (and sometimes are hostile to all cycling.) As there are more and better in road facilities, this will be less of a problem.

[dynaryder]

@musky:
A)you should switch to decaf
B)I'm former military,attacking me for startling you would prolly not end well. In fact,in the real world,I'm betting that most of the people riding bikes are in good enough shape to handle an encounter with you. And with the prevalence of security cameras around here,your attacking someone would prolly end up with charges on you. I guarantee you're not tough enough for jail.
C)if the streets were safer,there wouldn't be as many cyclists on the sidewalks. Maybe you should do something constructive like get on your council member to have MPD step up traffic enforcement. No-one has been killed by a cyclist since 2009,cars kill people almost weekly.

[muskellunge]

@dynaryder, just how do you react when you are blindsided? I hope your self-control was as good as mine.

[Mike]

@muskellunge: just pay more attention to your surroundings and drink a lot less coffee

[muskellunge]

@Mike: I don't drink any coffee, thanks. Now what's your problem?

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

" If the offense is trivial, then there is no reason for the offender to apologize like they do, "

maybe they are just very polite. Now if only drivers would apologize when they do illegal things, like blocking crosswalks, or running reds, or turning right on red without stopping.

[cyclistinthecity]

'If the offense is trivial, then there is no reason for the offender to apologize like they do, usually quite profusely.'

It's likely they saw your reaction and apologized on the basis of how intense it was. They were simply being polite.

[Crickey7]

I've had drivers apologize for being knuckleheads. It happens if you keep your cool and explain to them what they did wrong.

[dynaryder]

@musky,mine is much better than yours. I was doored in G'town and didn't cuss out the driver,even though my bike was trashed. If being startled by someone passing you on the sidewalk makes you fly into a rage,cuss them out,then vent about it on the web,you need to get some anger management therapy.