The dangers of cycling *against* the direction of traffic?

Seen here:
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=41422&view=unread#p1035900

REALLY??? Was taught AGAINST traffic was SAFER? Not to "take the (whole) lane", but stay close to edge and see what other traffic is coming at a distance? Lately `been traveling the "wrong" way along one way roads. Zero other moving vehicles maybe 1/2 the time. Gotta watch too for vehicles leaving driveways. And don't travel at night.

Anyway. Curious if anybuddy here can link to any studies?

if you're driving on the wrong side of the road then you're a danger to yourself and everyone else...if you've seriously been doing this, stop now before you frock everything up for everyone...if you're not going to stop then I hope your shit gets impounded and destroyed.
What are you, 8 years old?

http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/9033/why-is-it-safer-to-bike-with-traffic-instead-of-facing-oncoming-cars

http://www.virtuousbicycle.com/BlogSpace/go-with-the-flow/

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=491e0995bbbc1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=f4d4970aa08c1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2364

Bicycles to travel on right side

147.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a cyclist travelling upon a roadway shall, where practicable, proceed in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

1. The cyclist is overtaking and passing another cyclist or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

2. The cyclist is preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

3. The cyclist, by exercising reasonable caution, is avoiding fixed or moving objects, including vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.

4. The cyclist is proceeding in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side.

5. The cyclist is proceeding side by side with another bicycle.

Click to expand...

Hehe... In practice, stay in the middle of the ("one way") roads. `Cause views obscured by large vehicles parked one side or the other.

EDIT: Was asking for any studies ("links"), not what any "laws" say.

LockH said:

Hehe... In practice, stay in the middle of the ("one way") roads. `Cause views obscured by large vehicles parked one side or the other.

EDIT: Was asking for any studies ("links"), not what any "laws" say.

Click to expand...

Here:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

THANKS Cal3x!
Sooo, per that link:



... looks maybe 2x-3x as risky (traveling in direction not expected by others). My only defence? Driving much slower. Flying banners/flags re visibility, plus orange coloured trike plastered w/reflectors (even added spinning silver magnetic "stick on" caps on inner tube valves!). (And of course not trusting others, like I don't trust myself. Or my vehicles.)

Well I was going the right way in my cage today and this guy in another cage decides to turn down my street. Only problem is that it was a oneway street. Two kind and gentle beeps didn't get him to stop his progress directly at my hood, so I laid on the horn. FINALLY, he got the idea.

I don't trust drivers AT ALL. So I will continue to ride with them (in speed and direction) and not against them.

LockH said:

EDIT: Was asking for any studies ("links"), not what any "laws" say.

Click to expand...

Try reading the links...

This reminds me of an old roommate he put a cookie in the microwave for 60 seconds it started smoking took it out stuck in the trash still smoking he don't know to take the trash can outside. Ok open the windows another chocolate chip cookie in the microwave for 60 seconds this one catches on fire must be defective cookies ????

I was just reading up on this as the rules of the road apply to bicyclists in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The rule is to follow traffic law pertaining other vehicles, so with the flow of traffic. Also, that a bicyclists does not need to hug the curb. Its quite legal and safe for a bicyclist to take up the whole width of the lane, by travelling in the middle, or to the left side. I'm doing that more, especially approaching stop lights, or when anticipating a left-hand turn, of owning my place on the road, right in the middle.

arkmundi said:

I was just reading up on this as the rules of the road apply to bicyclists in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The rule is to follow traffic law pertaining other vehicles, so with the flow of traffic. Also, that a bicyclists does not need to hug the curb. Its quite legal and safe for a bicyclist to take up the whole width of the lane, by travelling in the middle, or to the left side. I'm doing that more, especially approaching stop lights, or when anticipating a left-hand turn, of owing my place on the road, right in the middle.

Click to expand...

I'm doing that all the time in LA. Especially when I have to pass a bus that decided to pull over at an angle taking up 1.5 lanes.

It's so much safer than waiting behind and possibly getting sandwiched by a person not paying enough attention. That .5 lane that they are not using basically creates a lane that I can take and cars will not. :wink:

So. `Been reading (the links in this thread). Much pro and con? In a world that can't EVen agree on which side of the road to drive on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic

Hehe...

Us old guys were taught to ride against the traffic when we were kids. So we could see the cars coming.

Makes sense, but the problem is cars look one way first, then maybe the other, then go. And there you are, coming the wrong way, on the wrong side, where they never looked.

It's like an American in England. The very first day I was in London, I was still looking the wrong way before crossing a street. I nearly got creamed by a Taxi, but another guy grabbed my collar and yanked me back.

One thing we learn riding, often at the cost of broken bikes and bones...

You got to surf with the wave 8)

ACK! I must be *really* "old". Was taught "Look Left. Look Right. Then look left again." (Sneaky chiropodist.)

I would say riding salmon is ok as long as the rider is using the sidewalk. Visibility to drivers turning right could be improved somewhat at intersections since the rider and driver would be facing each other instead of traveling in the same direction. However, vehicles turning left could have difficulty seeing the cyclist, especially at night. Lots of people ride on the sidewalk around here, but it's dangerous to surprise motorists at intersections and driveways. :wink:

The fingers said:

I would say riding salmon is ok as long as the rider is using the sidewalk. Visibility to drivers turning right could be improved somewhat at intersections since the rider and driver would be facing each other instead of traveling in the same direction. However, vehicles turning left could have difficulty seeing the cyclist, especially at night. Lots of people ride on the sidewalk around here, but it's dangerous to surprise motorists at intersections and driveways. :wink:

Click to expand...

First time I was slammed to the pavement by a stinko-ICEr-killing-machine, I was on the sidewalk, against the traffic. The driver did not see me there. Take care to stay out of blind spots.

When riding against traffic you're putting other cyclists at risk. If you've ever been riding legally and encountered a guy riding backwards through a busy intersection when you need to turn, with cars backing up behind you and this unknown guy riding into your path, you'll know what i mean.

The only time i think it's safer to ride against traffic would be a short distance if your a and b destinations are on the same side of a busy road. Still if anybody else is coming down the shoulder legally you're now making yourself an obstacle in his path. If you don't get off the road and stop for the guy you're just making a nuisance of yourself, or worse, a hazard.

Otherwise why not get a mirror and obey the most basic traffic laws, most of us out there are just trying to get someplace and not get maimed or killed by a wild card....

Riding against traffic means a lot more cars that have to avoid you than when riding with the traffic, and they can't slow down behind you to wait to pass, but have to stop.

Top end of Pickering Street (Saturday noonish) on part of return trip from grocery store, southbound on "one way north" street (note max. speed 30kmh. Also, no center line painting. Staying to right side so as far away from parked cars as possible re clearer vision. Wheelchair (recumbent trike) with pole flying yellow "CAUTION" streamers, max. speed maybe 10kmh. (V3 Cycle Analyst instrumentation not installed yet.):
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6856...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1swfoKqeBqC8YYY1IuOqQXtw!2e0

http://kron4.com/2015/04/17/no-charges-in-salinas-traffic-death-of-bicyclist/
Here's an example of what can happen while riding on the sidewalk in the direction of traffic, and the unfortunate outcome.
SALINAS (BCN) — A truck driver who collided with and killed a bicyclist last month in Salinas will not face charges because the bicyclist was high on an illegal drug at the time and his bike had no working brakes, police said Friday.
The bicyclist, 33-year-old Rogelio Vasquez, was riding east on the sidewalk on East Market Street near Kern Street at 2:09 p.m. on March 26 when truck driver Anthony Martinez made a right turn in front of him in the driveway of a Shell Gas station, officers said.
Vasquez then went down onto the pavement and the rear tires of the truck ran him over. He suffered major internal injuries and died later at Natividad Medical Center, according to police.
An investigation, including an autopsy by the Monterey County coroner’s office, determined that Vasquez had a high level of methamphetamine in his system when the collision occurred, police said.
An examination of his bicycle, which was not damaged at all in the crash, found that it had no functioning brakes whatsoever and so Vasquez was forced to lay the bike down to try to avoid the crash, according to officers.
Sgt. Gerald Ross said that at first police suspected that Martinez made an unsafe turn, but later found he was not negligent enough to file charges.
Since the bike’s brakes did not work, Vasquez clearly was unable to stop, Ross said.
“The brakes is what really did it,” he said. “He (Vasquez) just slid away from the bike and got run over.”
Vasquez, who was “very high” at the time, also should have known to be more careful when riding on a sidewalk, he said.
The Salinas Police Department’s traffic unit concluded that Vasquez was most responsible for the crash because he was driving under the influence of methamphetamine and had no functioning brakes prior to the collision, police said.
Police decided there was not enough culpability on the part of Martinez to charge him with a crime.
The investigation took some time to complete as police waited for the results of toxicology tests on Vasquez’s body, Ross said.

...(Crossing the) driveway of a Shell Gas station...a high level of methamphetamine in his system...no functioning brakes whatsoever. (“The brakes is what really did it"). "“very high” at the time."
Dunno if that town has even heard of "bike lanes":
https://www.google.ca/maps/@36.6773...!1e1!3m2!1sZs8WFuyOUCkJjedGklu6eQ!2e0!6m1!1e1

Count of pedestrians seen using sidewalks? Have to get back to ya (still searching for any... Any at all.)

Edit: Found one! Sorry. Traveling the sidewalk today, paused to let Mum and young one not bump streetlamp post in sidewalk. Mum: Smiles, says thanks. "Nice bike"! Response to young one "Tell yer mum it's a wheelchair". (Technically, not legal on roads anyway.) Only has the one (caliper) brake on front wheel. Have already concluded has infinite number of speeds. From slow to something other than completely stopped.

Also "no damage to bicycle"? If that's the one in the photo, it has obvious damage and visible brakes. Makes the entire story appear suspect. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops in Salinas get their gas at Shell.

oobagooba said:

When riding against traffic you're putting other cyclists at risk. If you've ever been riding legally and encountered a guy riding backwards through a busy intersection when you need to turn, with cars backing up behind you and this unknown guy riding into your path, you'll know what i mean.

Click to expand...

One of the few crashes I have ever had on CrazyBike2 (other than on the kart track at Death Races :lol: ) was caused by a cyclist riding toward me in my lane (a car lane) thru a red light that I was approaching (in the correct direction).

He probably had no idea the light was red, either, as he was riding against traffic, and definitely wasn't lookng around or paying attention. He's just lucky he didnt' get run over by anybody.

The full story is somewhere in my CrazyBike2 thread 2 or 3 years back, I think.

Re the story of the guy killed riding on the sidewalk. Right cross is the most likely way you can get hit by a car. They seem to think you will, and even must yield to them. Bottom line, in a way they are right. Once they screw you, you better have a plan to yield, turn, whatever. But at the speeds most ebikes go, stopping in time aint happening.

This applies to riding anywhere, in the right lane, in the bike lane on the right, on the bike path on either side, on the sidewalk.

Bike paths tend to be on just one side of a busy road. they are pretty safe to ride one direction, but against the flow, they can be dangerous as hell to ride. ( at any driveway or road crossing) I used to often take a different route to work, riding a path in the right direction each way.

Most of the bike fatalities in my town are similar. Oblivious tweaks all drunk or high blunder into a car. But in this case, the truck driver should have been charged. The message is clear, bums don't count.

But that is not us. We aren't all riding around baked. Have your A game going when you ride, and don't get hit, even when they surprise the hell out of you. Always assume every car passing you will immediately right cross you.

"Safety strategy"? Analogous maybe, but I've been a traveler all my life. Moved 12 diff. times (and went to 15 diff. schools) before I left the parents home at 17. (Navy brat.) ...and have been moving EVer since. So always starting somewhere "new" (to me). "Unfamiliar" surroundings. Different laws and customs. Even traveled through different languages. Mostly English, but also Spanish, "English"-English, NovaScotian "English", Wet Coast (sp? British Columbia, CA) "English"... Currently looking for the next place to live, having *tried* to "slow down" since arriving in "Toronto" some decades ago. (The "problem" with accumulating "stuff"? It eventually has to be packed up and moved/carried.) Even this city is a bunch of smaller towns thrown together. "Scarborough", "Parkdale", (lived in both), "Rosedale", (lived there too), "Agincourt"... and so on. At least different bylaws, including "thoughts" re diff. types of vehicles vs. pedestrians.

So one might conclude I'm an "expert" at "looking ahead"?

And in the same way, traveling via vehicles (even walking), checking the weather forecast for that day (at least dressing appropriately), then *always* while moving ("traveling") keeping head up/eyes open to see... "stuff" ahead and below and above me. And to the left of me and to the right, and behind me. Both moving and stationary... things. *Anticipate* all "stuff". (Carry a bike tire tube pump, patch kit, a few tools, etc. in a bag with me when using most wheeled vehicles.) Even beyond the weather, "stuff" is constantly changing. New construction, etc. etc. etc.

Anticipate, anticipate, anticipate. Expect the "unexpected". When moving via vehicles, the "safest" thing I know is just to SLOW DOWN. I like to do odd stuff like "leave early". To arrive at a destination early (hopefully).

Anyway. That's my "safety factors".