Being a pedestrian around cyclists is dangerous, but not as dangerous as being a cyclist around cars. So I find it hard to fault cyclists who go onto the sidewalk.

In the UK it's illegal to bike on the pavement. [1] says "Rule 64. You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129" (exception: combined bike lanes and pavement, if the cyclist stays in the bike section).

Saying "the way things are is dangerous for me, so I'm going to break the law and be a danger to others instead because I'm what matters here" is not ok behaviour. If cycling is too dangerous for you, don't cycle. You don't get to say "driving in traffic is dangerous so I'm going to drive in the bus lane where there's less traffic", right?

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cycli...

Insisting that people risk their lives because "the law says you have to put yourself in mortal danger, therefore you're morally obliged to comply" is blind obedience of the dumbest degree.

or the other option - walk on the pavement, with your bike.

That's definitely the preferable path if there are significant numbers of pedestrians, yes. If the sidewalk is basically empty, I think it's okay to ride. And there are some 'multi-use paths' I've seen that are basically still just sidewalks where bikes are explicitly permitted.

Half the people that you "share the road" with in your metal box think that is exclusively where bikes must ride? This is getting a bit schizophrenic.

Well put. Shifting the problem around doesn't solve it.

It does reduce the total danger. Cyclists are killed by cars all the time, whereas pedestrians dying to bikes is extraordinarily rare.

In Germany, protected bike lanes are mostly extensions of the sidewalk, and while it's not ideal, it still works pretty well.

> "Cyclists are killed by cars all the time, whereas pedestrians dying to bikes is extraordinarily rare."

Evidence I can find suggests that's not entirely true. While pedestrians dying to bikes is extraordinarily rare, police reports of crashes in the UK in 2019 involving a (pedal cycle, pedestrian) pair happened 375 times and killed 4 pedestrians (~1%). Crashes involving a (car, bike) pair happened 13,336 times killed 48 cyclists (~0.3%).

That is (bike, pedestrian) happens 35x less often than (car, bike) but is fatal to the weaker party 3x more often when it does happen.

This dataset is particularly "accidents involving a pedal cycle and pedestrians which don't involve any other vehicles" so it excludes car -> bike + walker, kills walker situations.

(Injuries are another matter).

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/reported... looking at sheet RAS40004: Accidents, vehicle users and pedestrian casualties by severity and combination of vehicles involved (ODS, 105KB) with Vehicle A being Pedal Cycle -> Single Vehicle accident with Pedestrian and Pedal Cycle -> Two vehicle accidents with Car.

This ignores the fact that bikes are so much less dangerous than cars that most crashes that involve a bike but not a car will not be reported. Your average time a cyclist runs into a pedestrian will be only an annoyance.

Also, note that super bike-friendly Netherlands has 1/10th the pedestrian fatalities with 1/4th the population of the UK. If bikes are that dangerous, why would such a bike-focused country have radically fewer pedestrian fatalities?

From what I've seen, the data is pretty consistent, in that more car-focused countries tend to have more pedestrian fatalities.

> It does reduce the total danger.

I think that's kind of missing the GP's point. AIUI they weren't saying cyclists shouldn't move to the sidewalk when necessary. They were saying cyclists should do so with respect for the sidewalk's primary users especially with regard to safety. A sidewalk is a kind of commons, to be shared. "I need this now so you all get out of my way" isn't good sharing, and in many places (where the law explicitly gives pedestrians right of way) should deserve a ticket.

Oh, absolutely. I try to be respectful when I ride on the sidewalk.

But realistically, "cyclists should be nicer" isn't a policy prescription. We're just shouting into the void here, you can't actually accomplish anything significant with, I dunno, billboards shaming dickhead cyclists. Whereas zoning or road design changes could result in actual, meaningful change. And that would also result in cyclists being a lot nicer.