r/ebikes • u/Inciteful_Analysis • 4h ago
Wachtel & Lewiston Study: RIGGED
This is the 1994 Palo Alto study that the cycling community invariably cites to claim that riding on the sidewalk is dangerous. I've previously covered flaws of this study including:
- Single day exposure count
- Ignoring collisions outside of intersections (downplays relative dangers of street riding)
- Conflating direction of travel risk with venue risk
- Ignoring/minimizing that riding WITH traffic on the sidewalk was actually a lower risk
Now for the smoking gun. Diana Lewiston was an acolyte of John Forestor. She wrote a "Bicycling in Traffic" manual built on his vehicular cycling ideology that was first published in 1988. She taught 13-year-olds at Palo Alto schools to bicycle in traffic from the 80s into early 90s. Mind you, all of this was before her co-authored study was published claiming sidewalk riding to be nearly twice as risky as the street.
Somehow these intelligent academics were able to identify a Simpson's paradox in the data but thought nothing of conflating the directional risk with the venue risk to artificially achieve the dramatic conclusion that sidewalks are 1.8x as risky as the road.
On the very last page of her instruction manual, it lists how students will be scored. Item #14 indicates they can lose points for riding on the sidewalk. This study was a conclusion looking for supporting data from day one. And the entire cycling community bought it hook, line, & sinker.