Why don't we make Bikes go on the sidewalk?

Question

So I saw a bike almost cause an accident today. He ran a red light (which I see every day) and three cars almost crashed to avoid him. This may be illegal for the bike, but how would it be enforced? A camera wouldn't get a license plate on a bike (not that they have one) and all the guy has to do is keep going.

Further if the guy was hit by one of these cars, he would have died. If he hit someone on a sidewalk (someone who more easily could get out of his way and avoid the accident) they probably wouldn't need medical attention.

Bikes disrupt street traffic either by not being able to go the speed limit/ speed of traffic, and often by violating laws (that are almost impossible to enforce on a bike).

Further, a bike going from the sidewalk to a street is more likely to use caution as they are going from a protected and separate "road" to an unprotected road with vehicles that move faster and are thousands of pounds heavier.

This is no longer a primary means of transportation-it is a toy and or recreation equipment. So why don't we make them go on the sidewalk?

Answer 1

Because on sidewalks, they'll be knocking down pedestrians and running into strollers, mailboxes and street signs.



I think the problem would be, if not solved, greatly eased if cities would have decent bike lanes and if bikers actually bothered to follow the safety rules. Too many bike riders don't seem to realize that if they come to an intersection, they have to stop.

Answer 2

So if bikes aren't scared to break the rules of the road when up against cars and trucks, aren't they likely to be worse when up against pedestrians? Sidewalks are for walking, and bikes on them are likely to injure lots of pedestrians, especially seeing as they can be very narrow and no place for a speeding cyclist to go to try avoid a last second crash.



If the cyclist is the hazard, then I say keep it where the cyclist is the one most likely to receive harm. Not an innocent party like a law abiding pedestrian.



Even your example. Bikes on sidewalk don't improve the situation. A bike running a red light on the crosswalk still requires those three cars to avoid him. And they are less likely to notice his presence racing through the middle of the crosswalk (where they expect slow pedestrians) while they concentrate more on road traffic.

Answer 3

Traffic laws are applicable to bicycles that are on the roadway, and police do write them tickets. They get by with it for the same reason car drivers get away with it; the police simply can't be everywhere at the same time. I strongly disagree with your assertion that a pedestrian probably wouldn't need medical attention after crashing with a bicycle. Even a seemingly harmless skateboard can cause serious injury to a pedestrian. Also, a bicycle most certainly is the primary mode of transportation for a lot of people, either by choice or necessity. The road belongs to a wide variety of vehicles like cars, trucks, motorcycles, semis, RV's, and bicycles.

Answer 4

Bicycles are vehicles. The roads are for vehicles.

The sideWALK is for pedestrians, not vehicles.



That some cyclists break traffic laws is not justification to ban all bicycles from the roads. That you get annoyed because they are not going fast enough for you is not justification to ban all bicycles from the roads.



Public roadways belong to everyone, not just high speed motor vehicles.

Answer 5

Statistics show cyclists are more likely to get hit if riding on the sidewalk, since drivers turning into driveways don't expect someone to be moving that fast on the sidewalk.