MTBLover

Incorrect. Think about it: a typical bike lane is 3-5' wide. If cars are parked along the curb to the right, and you have serious traffic to the left of you and some joker comes riding at you, against traffic, something has to give. Either you go into the door zone, or you have to go out into the traffic lane. Neither of these options is safe on a busy roadway. And the "alleged danger" as you put it is real- not in terms of relative risk, perhaps, but definitely in terms of absolute risk.

BTW, you do realize that your silly, curmudgeonly rants paint you as an "oversensitive control freak", right?

I-Like-To-Bike

"Absolute risk"? What the heck is that supposed to be in relation to bicycling?

BTW, My trenchant observation about nit picking nannys who seem to get all bent out of shape if they ever have to deal with any insignificent alteration in speed or direction as they cycle in an otherwise perfect pattern obviously strikes a sensitive nerve.

CommutiePatooti

Nice alliteration!!

DX-MAN

Actually, it sucks -- and then, there's the occasional festering hemorrhoid who thinks he's above the rest of it, and can look down on anyone with a social conscience, calling them 'nannies', et.al. But even the moron legion wouldn't be an issue, were it not for the tremendous imbalance they suffer from -- empty head and loaded right foot.

Still better than dealing with the spillage of cyber-pus.......

I-Like-To-Bike

Wrapping an unsupported opinion in a cloak of an imaginary "social conscience" and a host of insults gives that opinion/argument no weight.

Gimme a dozen bike salmon over an "advocate" who believes his personal scheme of "social conscience" is license to disparage all people who don't fit his profile, meet his approval or agree with his opinions.

The Human Car

For risk calculations see:
https://www.metroplanorlando.com/site...ermeasures.pdf

Bekologist

Keri Caffery wonders 'what can be done' to reduce wrong way bicycling?

From that study performed in her town, Orlando, and linked to just above by the human car -

Keri wonders how to reduce bike salmon? bike specific travel lanes help reduce wrong way and sidewalk cycling ,Keri!

MTBLover

I know, right? I'm think ILTB is the reincarnation of Spiro Agnew. ILTB, I thought you knew risk. Google is your friend if you can't figure out how absolute vs. relative risk applies to cycling, and especially how it applies to salmon situations.

I-Like-To-Bike

I do know something about risk and would like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that the increased "danger" of salmon or sidewalk riders "is definitely [real] in terms of absolute risk." Risk to whom and measured how? Supporting your statement with a Search Google, the answer is there somewhere does not answer the mail.

I-Like-To-Bike

This study of bicycle "risk" has the same fatal flaw as so many others. Counting all "crashes" as equal and completely failing to factor in the critical risk determining metric of the various "crash" severities encountered.

A misleading term used throughout the document is "crashes per mile" where the "miles" metric is the length of road/street, NOT the mileage of the cyclists. In fact the information about the cycling habits of the individuals who were actually involved in the crashes and the actual cause of the "crash" is so skimpy that the risk conclusions drawn are more guesswork and preconceived opinions than risk analysis.

Of particular interest is the statistical and rhetoric contortions used to get around their own finding that Bike lanes (vs. no bike lanes) were associated with a higher risk of bicyclist-motorist crashes, as determined by their convoluted risk measurement scheme.

dynodonn 

I still see the occasional salmon rider in my area, but most local cyclists I have observed flow with the same direction as traffic. Personally, I feel that the poor driving habits exhibited by our local motorists have had some effect on deterring counter flow bicycle travel.

MTBLover

It's the same issue as fatality associated with airplane crashes. The relative risk is extremely low (because the vast majority of flights don't crash), but the absolute risk is extremely high (because when they do crash, the case fatality rate is usually 1.0). If you're riding in a bike lane, your risk of a crash with or due to a salmon is quite low, since salmon are pretty infrequent (I'd hope). However, if you're in a bike lane and encounter a salmon your risk of a crash or other untoward event increases considerably. It's all about exposure and how that exposure is measured. In the first case, your exposure is the bike lane (arguably dangerous in itself because of the usual covariates), but in the second, your exposure is now the bike lane (with its attendant dangers) plus the salmon, which changes your overall exposure profile dramatically. Some would argue that the risk is not just additive, but multiplicative. In many cases, I'd certainly investigate that in an analysis. But in summary, a salmon in your bike like places you at increased risk of an adverse event. I just don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for you.

Shimagnolo

I just had perhaps my first encounter with a salmon last week.
I was climbing a hill, so I was going pretty slow and not looking very far ahead,
when I suddenly saw the salmon coming at me in the bike lane.
And then, as if a head-on approach wasn't dangerous enough, he swerved to his *left*,
(the opposite of what anyone familiar with US traffic would expect),
passing me on my right.

I really hope he succeeds in his ambition to remove himself from the gene pool w/o taking anyone else with him.

closetbiker

I have a report examining over 6,000 collisions cyclists had over a 3 year period.

Wrong way riding seems to be the domain of younger riders.

Under 30, collisions from wrong way riding can exceed 25% of total collisions, while cyclists over 30 years old have a significantly lower percentage of collisions from riding on the wrong side of the road

Footsore Ramble

The only bicycle collision I've ever had was with a salmon. Before then, I rolled my just eyes internally at such behavior, but since then it's one of my pet peeves.

kludgefudge

Who cares about some pie in the sky absolute measure of risk, or statistical evidence or any of that crap. Salmoning is an annoying and dangerous practice as perceived by both the majority of cyclists and motorists. Give em' sh*t.

ILTB, I think I kinda understand your "cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want" point of view, that the sole responsibility for all choices made by an individual rests on his or her shoulders, and that It isn't anyone else's business. Please correct me If I have this wrong.

Personally, I feel there is no place in the world for this kind of all-or-nothing Idealism, wherein one individulal or group of individuals asks for the moon while offering nothing in return. If we as cyclists want to share the road with motor vehicles, and want some privileges beyond those experienced by motorists, we are going to have to make at least a few concessions.
If, as a group, we want things like bike lanes, sharrows, the Idaho stop, the right to take full control of a narrow lane, etc., we have to "surrender" certain "rights" you seem to think we have, like the right to ride contra to the flow of traffic or riding without active lighting at night.

I-Like-To-Bike

Dramatically changes risk? Additive, no make that multiplicative? Some would argue anything but that doesn't make it so. Insiginificent risk is insignificant risk, no matter how you add or multiply it with another insignificant risk.

I-Like-To-Bike

Cycling in traffic (no matter how it is done) is an annoying and dangerous practice as perceived by a large number of motorists. Perhaps even more annoying to delayed motorists when done legally.

Cycling without helmets annoys a large number of cyclists who get their shorts all bunched up over that practice and is perceived by same as a dangerous (dramatically increased risk) practice.

Both groups of know-nothings also don't give a crap about facts or actual risk, and also give plenty of sh*t to whomever doesn't met their standards.

kludgefudge

what you seem to be saying is because everything bothers somebody, everything should be allowed? Can't please everyone so please no one? Doesn't sound like a winning strategy for a functional multi-modal transportation network to me.

also, I don't know about where you live, but I have the right to be on the road, and I don't particularly care if a motorist is mad at me just for being there if I am there legally.

also, allthough I see where you're going equating helmets with salmoning, and their respective effects on other cyclists, I don't really think the two are comparable. A salmon is an actual potential road hazard, especially at intersection situations, and situations where they are using a bike lane on the wrong side of the road, creating obvious conflict with other cyclists. The helmetless rider obeying major traffic regulations is only increasing to potential for injury to his or her person in the event of an accident, not the potential for an accident situation involving other road users.

Really, whats a bigger deal when in a car: driving the wrong way in traffic, or not wearing a seatbelt? what degree of righteous indignation would you say would be reasonable to expect from other road users witnessing either of these behaviours? Most reasonable people would be significantly more incensed by the wrong way motorist than the seatbeltless motorist, for completely logical reasons.

MTBLover

OK- thanks for your thoughtful reply.

mikeybikes

How do we stop salmon from salmoning? You can't. Put up with it and hope they learn to ride the proper way.

That said, I live on a one-way street. I see more salmon cars than I do bicycles and the salmon cars are extremely dangerous (they think its safe to turn down a quarter of a block to the parking lot that's always full).

mikeybikes

Here's what works for me when approaching a salmon on a busy street - with or without bike lanes.

I look far enough ahead of me that I see them coming. When I do see one (rarely), I start scanning to the left of me for a gap in traffic. I also put my left arm out signaling my intent. I usually either find a gap, or cars give me a gap when they see me signaling and they see the salmon. I then proceed into the regular traffic lane, pass the salmon, and move back into the bicycle lane.

What do you do when you see a door in the bike lane? Or a double parked car? or a slower moving cyclist?

Seriously, salmon aren't the only thing you have to worry about. You should be constantly scanning for potential dangers.

I-Like-To-Bike

IMO, most reasonable people, when in a car, would see almost no relationship in the potential or actual danger to themselves created by a wrong way motorist vis-à-vis a wrong way cyclist. For completely logical reasons.

And for completely logical reasons, though a wrong way cyclist may require an irritating momentary adjustment for a legal, "properly" operating cyclist, the wrong way cyclist hardly raises the threshold of "danger," except for those cyclists with vivid imaginations or an uncanny ability to filter out every other daily irritant that crosses their path.

San Rensho 

As a resident of Florida, I can say there is a widespread, persistent belief among cyclists that wrong way cycling is safer. I don't know why, but I seem to remember that Florida used to have a law, many years ago (don't make me look it up) that required cyclists to ride against traffic.

kludgefudge

Um, my point was that it is more logical to be against others salmoning than it is to be against riding helmetless, and In no way was I suggesting that wrong way cycling is on the same level as wrong way driving, "risk" wise. I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think the actual risk of the activity is the problem or is the best reason for it to be illegal and disdained by other road users. The fact that it is irritating and often requires action of some sort sort by other road users to avoid collision is reason enough. The relative ease with which collision with salmon is avoided is immaterial, at least to my argument.

I am a little curious, do you personally believe riding contra to the flow of traffic should actually be legal for bicyclists, or that it should be illegal, but that the practice should generally ignored by other cyclists, with punitive measures or just caring about it in general left to the authorities?