🚀 go-pugleaf

Harvey Fishman wrote:
>. . .  When walking on the sidewalk, I am fairly
>sure that I am unlikely to be hit by a car; would that it were the same
>with bicycles.

Michael Polymenakos replied:
> You should not be. You are >20 times more likely to be killed by an
> automobile *on the sidewalk* than by a vehicle. The DOT's figures for
> NYC "off-road" car fatalities (sidewalks, parks, parking lots) are:

>   1989 15
>   1990 19
>   1991 15
>   1992 15
>   1993 8
>   1994 16

> Bicycle-caused sidewalk fatalities are extremely rare, probably less than
> once a year (I have seen no statistics). The only time I've been hit by a
> moving vehicle (not seriously, tg) was on a sidewalk (woman exiting an NYC
> garage as if though she was on the highway).
> PS. I am not defending sidewalk biking, which is illegal, dangerous and
> stupid.

Harvey Fishman wrote:
> That is deliberate obfuscation of the problem; how about comparing numbers of
> injuries?  The point is that the number of bike-riders putting pedestrians at
> risk by deliberately flouting the law is obscene.  And the percentage of all
> bike-riders that act out this totally asocial behavior is even more disgusting.

Ken Kifer comments:
I hate to break up a good fight, but I did not see Michael as arguing
against what you said (I don't know what the e-mail says).  I think that
us cyclists have to toe a narrow line here: we certainly don't want to
defend other cyclists who are breaking the law; on the other hand, we
don't want a crackdown that damages our right to travel by bike.

I think it's very important in any public comment we make on this matter
for us to know and to be able to point out that the motorists are
actually killing many more people on the sidewalks than are the
cyclists.  It puts the matter into a larger perspective and allows the
public outcry about a death or two to be seen as hysteria.

On the other hand, the more important point is that bicycle riders need
to obey the traffic laws and this requires: 1) the punishment of cycling
violations and 2) improvement in the ability of the cyclists to use the
roads.

Bill Zaumen's statement is very appropriate here:

> New Yorkers are a bit territorial. As pedestrians, they want the bikes
> off the sidewalks and on the streets.  As motorists, they want the
> bikes off the streets and on the sidewalks.

Many of the sidewalk cyclists are merely bowing to the pressures of
their family and community.  We need a public education policy designed
to remind them of the laws and a public enforcement policy to make sure
they obey those laws.  The education policy must include the motorists,
or it will just cause a decline in cycling.

On the other hand, the cities are faced with the problem of bicycle
messengers who often deliberately violate both the law and public safety
to save a little time.  Someone has already posted a statement saying
that they wouldn't do anything to jeopardize their own health to earn a
little extra money -- tell that to the coal miners with black lung
diseases, the soldiers wounded or killed in wars, the people dying from
sedimentary lives, the policemen and firemen killed on the job, etc. 
The truth is that people will always risk their own safety and that of
others to earn a buck; otherwise they starve.  
What to do about the bike messengers is a question, however, I cannot
answer.

----------------------(Emerson  Self-Reliance)---------------------
The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet.
. . . He has a fine Geneva watch, but he fails of the skill to tell
the hour by the sun. . . [he] does not know a star in the sky . . and
the whole bright calendar of the year is without a dial in his mind.