In aus.bicycle on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:30:57 +1000
John Henderson said:
To those who say that riding on footpaths is more hazardous (to
anybody) than riding on roads, I'd ask for the statistics to
back that up.
Here you go, a couple from the first 10 hits on a google search of
accident statistics bicycle riding on footpath
===============
www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/qld/qisuissue57.pdf
There is some indication that the provision of bike paths and lanes
separating bike traffic from other users may provide a degree of pro-
tection from cycle/motor vehicle crashes but only if it is in the same
direction as other traffic 8,9 . Riding on the footpath, on the other
hand, has been found to be more dangerous than riding on the road 9,10,11
.. This suggests that allowing cyclists to ride on footpaths may not have
been based on the best available evidence
===============
www.can.org.nz/research/Research-0201-Sidewalks.pdf
In a recent New Zealand study (Munster et al 2001), it was estimated
from hospital data that four times as many cyclists are injured from
cycle-only crashes on the road or footpath than those involved in a motor
vehicle collision (note that this doesn't include off-road mountain-biking
track accidents either). When looking specifically at children, Safekids
(2001) concurred,
[..]
Closer to home and concentrating on road-specific crashes, LTSA injury
crash data for 1996-2000 shows that 58% of urban cycle crashes are
intersection crashes (including driveways). Looking specifically at
on-road crash movements that could be avoided on a footpath (e.g. hit
car door, rear-ended), less than a quarter of all on-road crashes appear
to be likely candidates, based on crash movement codes.
In moving cyclists to the footpath however, additional crash problems
may be introduced. More conflicts with pedestrians are likely for
example and there may be less reaction time for driveway or side-road
conflicts. Poor surfaces and geometrics are also likely to contribute
to the footpath hazards. In fact, a number of studies have found that
the crash rate involvement when cycling on footpaths (or "sidewalks"😉
is considerably higher than on the road or off-road cycle paths.
Aultman-Hall & Hall (1998) surveyed 1600 respondents around Ottawa,
Canada, recording regular routes taken to work/education, amounts of
cycle travel, and crash details. From "event" exposures calculated on
roads, off-road paths, and sidewalks, they found that the likelihood
of fall or injury (per 105 km) was four times higher on sidewalks than
roads. These findings caused the authors to dig a little deeper on
this issue. When Aultman-Hall & Adams (1998) looked at cycle travel
data from >2500 respondents in both Ottawa & Toronto, Canada, the mean
fall/collision rates on sidewalks were 2-10 times higher than equivalent
incidents on roads or off-road paths. A large proportion of sidewalk
incidents involved other cyclists, and surface conditions were also a
factor, e.g. cracked or uneven pavements.
[...]
Moritz (1997) found similar findings from an internet/mail survey of
"regular" commuters in US/Canada (2300 responses). Although "other"
facilities (mainly sidewalks) accounted for only 0.8% of distances
travelled, they accounted for 4.4% of crashes reported, a ratio of >5
compared with the on-road ratio. Further investigation by Moritz (1998)
on the relative crash rate for different facilities showed sidewalks to
be extremely dangerous (16 times worse than other facilities).
[...]
But while moving the cyclist off the road may be reducing their injury
severities, it may be transferring serious injuries to pedestrians that
are hit by them (albeit fairly rarely fatally). And in fact, Aultman-Hall
& Hall (1998) found in their survey that the likelihood of "major"
injuries was still about 1.7 times greater on sidewalks than roads.
===============
(I do note that the NZ paper does say that it is possible that the
people who ride on footpaths do so because they are not confident on
roads and so are more likely to crash anyway.)
Zebee
