Choosing a safe bike route

[buzzman]

My local REI (Boston) (http://www.rei.com/stores/store_event_detail.jsp?pid=817A2F5FB1B99D3FC9F9C76838648F34&template_id=30&template_family=webDetail&ignore_cache=1) is offering a course in bike commuting and a portion of the course will be devoted to finding a safe route to ride.

It set me to thinking. Certainly one of the first skills I developed as a bike rider was map reading and learning how to choose a bike route that got me safely to my destination. Here in Boston we now have an excellent series of bike maps made by Rubel (http://www.bikemaps.com/urbmaps.htm). These easy to read maps provide cyclists with keys to preferred routes.

So to help those readers who might be new to this skill I thought it would be a worthwhile thread to offer some pointers on how to do this.

Perhaps being specific to certain categories might help:

Transportation Cycling.

a) commuting

b) Point A to B travel both local and more long distance

c) utility/messenging etc...

Recreational

a) Fun rides.

b) Training routes- time trials, training loops, small group of riders training

c) Touring- day and long distance.

d) group and club rides

e) Foreign travel



What are your criteria? How do you define a safe route? And how do you choose one? What resources do you use?

Keep in mind that a safe route not only involves how we interact with automobiles but other factors like road conditions, flooding, fog areas, high wind, steep descents or climbing.

[MrCjolsen]

I basically have 3 criteria for a particular road - outside lane width, volume of traffic, and speed of traffic.

Basically, an unacceptable road is one that fails all three criteria. For example, a crowded, narrow street is good if the traffic is going the same speed I ride at. A heavily travelled expressway is good if it has a nice wide shoulder or bike lane. And a narrow country road works if there's only a car every five minutes or so.

The next problem are incidental things along the route. I have two routes to work. One is 12.5 miles and the other is 14 miles. On the shorter route, I have to make a left turn in fast moving traffic. The longer route is free of any tricky manevering. Also, along the shorter route there are some dangerous tire-eating railroad track I like to avoid, expecially when I ride my fixed gear.

[bragi]

I only have three criteria:

1. The road must have a low volume of traffic;
or
2. The road must have a wide shoulder or designated bike lane;
or
3. The cars on the road must not be able to go much faster than a bike.

That said, a deal breaker for me is any road where the cars are going faster than 45mph, unless the shoulder is huge; at that speed or above, I don't feel that drivers expect to see a guy on a bike, nor can they react in enough time if necessary. In addition, at these speed differences (45 mph vs. 15 mph), let alone the mass difference, I don't think a styrofoam bike helmet will do much to help me in the event of a mishap.

[Bekologist]

I usually just go for it, and decide after just how fun it was!

or white knuckler.

Many communities have maps that chart out 'bicycle friendly' streets - IE low traffic, bike lanes, etc. and some even highlight 'bicycle unfriendly' roads- high speed, high volume roads without bike lanes, wide lanes or shoulders.

seems pretty nice to have a community outline the good roads and the poor roads for riding.

Sometimes on tour I wind up on a road with high speed, high volumes of traffic and narrow roads; unlike some of the brain addled 'bikes-r-like-cars' vehicular parity chestbeaters that drive a lot and post in here, I know EXACTLY how much 'fun' and 'safe' those roads are.

high speed, high volume roads require concentration, nerves of steel and the backbone to take abuse, buzzingly close passes, honks and things thrown at you for taking the lane.

nicer to be able to pick out a lightly trafficed country road or even a long distance MUP, even though bikes have the 'rights' to the all roads, some are more 'right' for biking than others.

the ability to read maps is good, but its tough to tell how much shoulder or traffic a road will have until you're on it, or have a cyclist geared map.

cyclist specific maps, i wonder if the foresterites are PRO-map, or anti-map, if it encourages prudent route selection using available bike facilties.

sorry, i digress.

[SingingSabre]

I have a map which lists various bike-friendly streets and the degrees they're friendly to. They're rated mostly by the size of the shoulder, if they have a "bike route" sign on them or not, and speed.

It's been good to me so far.

I prefer bike lanes, but will gladly take the lane on an appropiate street. I won't ride on a street where I have to take the lane in moderate to heavy traffic while travelling slowly.

[Helmet Head]

What are your criteria? How do you define a safe route? And how do you choose one? What resources do you use? I just use a map to pick a route. In the old days, I used a traditional county paper map. Now I just use maps.google.com.

If I'm trying to get somewhere (work, a friend's house, a store), I try to pick what will be the fastest route. I try to minimize stops signs and traffic signals when possible.

If I'm planning a recreational ride, I look at total length, how scenic it is, numbers of hills (sometimes I want more, sometimes I want to avoid them), and reducing intersection delays.

But, whether the route planning is transportational or recreational, "safety" is never a consideration. What makes one route more "safe" than another? I don't consider that at all, because there is nothing to consider. Lane width? Nope. Traffic volumes? Nope. Number of intersections, okay, maybe, but if there is a way to reduce number of intersections without sacrificing time, I'll do it anyway, but to reduce intersection-induced delays (stop signs and red lights), not for safety considerations.

Edit: When riding at night without lights, which has happened to me once or twice (got stuck at work with no light), I seem to recall at least once that I chose an alternate route because it had street lights, to avoid a section on my regular route without street lights.

[Jalopy]

But, whether the route planning is transportational or recreational, "safety" is never a consideration. What makes one route more "safe" than another? Given your cycling philosophy, I'm not surprised that you don't consider high traffic volumes and high speeds to affect safety but, in my experience anyway, they do.

I used to travel one particular section of road with high volumes and high speeds with NOL. Not wanting to encourage unsafe passes, I take the full outside lane. Watching in my mirror, I see the havoc it is causing (not because I am doing anything illegally but because motorists are not willing to wait a few seconds). People are changing lanes at the last minute, cutting off other motorists, riding my tail, hitting the brakes, even some people who still try to squeeze by me with another car in the adjacent lane. I'm not sure how you could possibly consider this situation equally as safe as a quiet residential street with wide lanes and infrequent, slow moving traffic.

Jalopy

[chipcom]

But, whether the route planning is transportational or recreational, "safety" is never a consideration. What makes one route more "safe" than another? I don't consider that at all, because there is nothing to consider. Lane width? Nope. Traffic volumes? Nope. Number of intersections, okay, maybe, but if there is a way to reduce number of intersections without sacrificing time, I'll do it anyway, but to reduce intersection-induced delays (stop signs and red lights), not for safety considerations.

Personally, I think the reality is far from what you write in here. You have positioned yourself to where you have no choice but to protect the steely-eyed, alpha-dog, professional cyclist persona that you aspire to and advocate, but I think most cyclists who have been riding the roadways for any amount of time see right through it. My concern is that the less-experienced cyclists will read this line and think they are doing something wrong or that their pecker isn't big enough and put themselves in situations that might get them hurt or worse, because they think it's what they are 'supposed' to do to be a real live 'serious' cyclist.

So in a nutshell, IMO anyone who says that they don't consider safety factors at all when scoping out a route, is just plain fibbing.

[rando]

I basically used Mapquest and found routes kind of parallel to the arterial I drive to work. through trial and error, I found a couple of different options. both are low-traffic and have wide outer lanes and low speed limits. part of one has bike lanes.it's efficient, pleasant, and I don't have to fight traffic much!

[donnamb]

I utilize the bikeway maps my city and region publish that point out routes that are labelled by whether or not they have bike lanes and by the volume and speed of automobile traffic. Between that and my general knowledge of the area in question, I am able to plan trip routes that I am comfortable with taking.

[Bekologist]

I with chipcom on this one.

Never considering safety when choosing routes is a dangerous way to decide where to ride a bike.

For those of you new to cycling and looking to plan routes around your community, try and find out if there are local maps produced for cyclists.

not just metropolitan areas have them, i've seen some from relatively rural counties.

becuase some roads are more safe than others, these maps will help differentiate between well accomodated and less safe route choices.

barring any maps for cyclists, a query to a local bicycling group on the internet will often produce an old salts' advice to the best route from A to B.

and, using a well defined gazzateer will help you choose between different types of roads. a thin, county road line on a map is no guarantee of low traffic volumes, but it sometimes it is a good indicator.


using a quality map while riding also allows you to pick an alternate route on the fly, if a road becomes not to your liking.

sticking to a computer generated route map gives you no option but the declared one, and is much more suitable for driving while pretending you are riding a bike.

[chipcom]

Consider this scenario, which actually describes part of my commuting route: Your starting point and destination both lie on cross streets between two roads, but at opposite ends of those two roads, maybe 10 miles total.

One road is a 4 lane, 60mph speed limit, divided highway with a fair, but inconsistent and debris laden shoulder. The road has one light controlled intersection with ROTL with the remaining cross street access being freeway-style on/off ramps. Bicycles are not barred by law from using this road. The road is fairly flat other than one overpass. Traffic volume is heavy and impatient. Cars using the shoulders to pass on either the left or right is not uncommon if overall volume causes backups, especially at the single lighted intersection. Some traffic exceeds 80mph and routinely jump from lane to lane to pass slower moving vehicles. The accident rate on this stretch of highway is probably at least 1 incident per day.

The other road is a narrow, two-lane country road with no shoulder, rolling with a couple of steep climbs and a 45mph speed limit. This road has triple the number of intersections with only stop signs (4 and 2 way) to control ROW. Some of the cross streets have steady 55mph traffic. Traffic volume is not as heavy as the 4 lane, but regular.

Which road do you choose and explain why safety ISN'T a factor in your decision, if that is the case.

Edit: I ride the country road. I could ride faster, with less effort & stop/go on the highway, but getting tagged by some impatient or inattentive moron is a matter of when, not if.

[sbhikes]

Route selection is the first thing that people have to learn when they start riding for transportation. Most people will hop on their bike and attempt to take the same route that they would if they drove, which isn't always the best choice for a number of reasons.

The thing is, as cyclists we can't use the freeways so we're stuck with surface streets to go anywhere. If your city has any congestion, the surface streets can be a pain in the you-know-what. You have to stop all the time. The lights take a long time. There are lots of driveways for the strip malls. Etc. This is not always the safest, the fastest or the most fun.

If you were in a car and you opted for a route that used residential streets instead, you might not find a lot of advantage because there are a lot of cross streets and the speed limit is low. But on a bicycle speed limit doesn't matter, and with the low volume of traffic, the intersections don't have signals and can be gotten through quickly.

The trick is finding these back routes, which can be done if you a) have a map, b) have a map produced by local bicyclists, c) go for rides with or talk to local bicyclists who know the secret routes. The last one is how I learned a lot of my routes.

For example, coming from a car-only perspective, you may never have noticed all the little bridges across creeks that connect various residential developments. These allow you to ride directly through on your bike, but in a car you can't do that, making each residential development kind of like an island. You might never know you can go straight through if somebody doesn't tell you about it.

Some people with an obsession for making you think they have large peckers will try to make you think you are doing something wimpy or phobic to avoid the busy surface streets. But if I'm out riding for transportation, I choose the quickest, smoothest way, and if that involves a residential back route, a bikeway, or whatever that's what I pick. If not, then I takes what I can gets.

[sbhikes]

Consider this scenario, which actually describes part of my commuting route: Your starting point and destination both lie on cross streets between two roads, but at opposite ends of those two roads, maybe 10 miles total.

One road is a 4 lane, 60mph speed limit, divided highway with a fair, but inconsistent and debris laden shoulder. The road has one light controlled intersection with ROTL with the remaining cross street access being freeway-style on/off ramps. Bicycles are not barred by law from using this road. The road is fairly flat other than one overpass.

The other road is a narrow, two-lane country road with no shoulder, rolling with a couple of steep climbs and a 45mph speed limit. This road has triple the number of intersections with only stop signs (4 and 2 way) to control ROW. Some of the cross streets have heavy 55mph traffic. Traffic volume is not as heavy as the 4 lane, but regular.

Which road do you choose and explain why safety ISN'T a factor in your decision, if that is the case.
I think I would pick the 4 lane 60mph divided highway. It sounds flatter, and the big shoulder would mean I could focus on going as fast as I can between intersections. I'm not a big fan of the ramp-style right lanes, but I think I could manage because I could keep my speed up and time myself between cars pretty well.

The 2-land country road has too many hills which would slow me down and make me a pain in the neck to the drivers. I think I would suffer a lot of flak from drivers who would prefer to go 45 than slow down to 8, which is what I'd probably be doing on the hills. Sometimes even 4mph if it's steep enough. As people know, I dealt with something like that every day for several years and I'm tired of it.

However, I would probably try both and then make my decision, and likely I would probably choose one or the other based on how I felt each day. They both have drawbacks and benefits.

[chipcom]

Sorry Diane, I made some edits to better describe the roads, as well as my choice, that I think you missed when you were writing this. My bad for not providing a more accurate description before hitting the button, and having to go back and edit.

[N_C]

with commuting I am kind of limited on the route I choose. I picked what I think is the safest possible one. Along parts of the route there is no choice as to what the route is. Along others there is.

I have choosen the best possible safe route for my fun rides. I did this early on when I started riding in this community. I used maps, info. & advice from the LBS & I talked with members of the local bike club as well.

Just because it is legal to ride on any roadway in this community that does not have a mimimum posted limit does not mean I will ride on it. Just because it is legal & just because I can, why do it, when there are really great alternative routes not to far off of the arterial roadways that has far less traffic thus making it safer. I know this may go against what HH believes in with his VC doctrine but it is what works best for me & who is to judge that? If riding on arterial roadways is what works best for HH, more power to him. Maybe in San Diego there are not alternative roadways that parrallel the major arterials, don't know, never been there.

[sbhikes]

Oh, well then if the traffic on that highway is so awful and lawless then yeah, I guess I'd have to put up with the narrow road with all the hills. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

[chipcom]

Oh, well then if the traffic on that highway is so awful and lawless then yeah, I guess I'd have to put up with the narrow road with all the hills. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

Welcome to my world! Now you see why in the winter, when the roads get nasty, I split my commute by driving part way, avoiding both the rock and the hard place. :D

[Brian Ratliff]

I'm never very good at this. I kind of take a stab based on what I've seen while driving and/or biking combined with a map. Then, if there are any difficult spots, I'll look around for alternatives. I can bike anywhere, so that is not my initial concern, but if there is a tricky spot on the route, I'll look for alternatives to minimize my exposure.

For instance, on my half-commute (drive half, bike the rest) I used to ride along a route that followed an arterial east, then went south along a smaller road that I was familiar with. Coming back to the car though, I had to make a left across two lanes of heavy and relatively fast traffic at night, and it was uphill. I didn't like it, so after doing it a for a few weeks, I found a different route that cut across kind of diagonally and was much easier to negotiate, was shorter, but with more hills.

[supcom]

...a deal breaker for me is any road where the cars are going faster than 45mph, unless the shoulder is huge; at that speed or above, I don't feel that drivers expect to see a guy on a bike, nor can they react in enough time if necessary. In addition, at these speed differences (45 mph vs. 15 mph), let alone the mass difference, I don't think a styrofoam bike helmet will do much to help me in the event of a mishap.

That criteria would eliminate 90% of long distance cycling, which is 90% of my cycling. Your criteria reduces cycling to little more than running little errands to the grocery store.

[ghettocruiser]

I hate to admit this, but I tend to place speed and avoidance of delays above avoiding high-volume NOL roads as well. I *try* to route myself on wider, lower-speed routes, but I'm just to impatient to be at the sidestreet ends of all the 4-minute red light cycles. Before I know it I end up back on a 70-80kph NOL arterial.

[cc_rider]

I basically have 3 criteria for a particular road - outside lane width, volume of traffic, and speed of traffic.
I would add road condition to that, especially when riding in the city. Potholes and construction patches can be deadly.

Traffic, hills, scenery and destination are my other considerations.

If it's not a route I've biked or driven before, I look at maps and look for cue sheets by other cyclists (one of the local clubs has a good on-line library.) In the city and suburbs I sometimes just wing it and take a street that is going in the right direction.

[LittleBigMan]

Oh, maps! :D

My wife brought me a comprehensive map of the Atlanta metro region and surrounding areas form her job years ago. It's a large, fat book, man. Now, it's a bit outdated (lots of roadwork over the years,) but it's literally covered with yellow highlighter markings showing my earlier attempts at finding the safest routes to/from work, or other destinations. I explored a lot of out-of-the-way places as the spirit of exploration began to take over me.

As time went by, I ventured more and more on to major roads and abandoned most of my back-route alternatives, for time's sake. But boy, do I have some neat memories of those commutes, and I know my way around better than ever after exploring so many avenues. And now, I have plenty of choices if I get bored with the same-o-same-o, or if traffic is backed up.

Where I live, there is almost always a way to get where you want to go, even if you don't want to use main arteries. And there tends to be less glass on those back streets, too, and with less traffic, can be more pleasant, if you don't mind winding around a bit. It can be lots of fun to cut through a college campus, or wind through a little neighborhood where the kids are playing ball in the street (watch for dogs! :D)

Now that I think of it, some of my most pleasant memories are not of my "convenient" time-saving trips on main arteries, but of wheeling silently though quiet, shady neighborhoods, avoiding the hustle and bustle.

:beer:

[joejack951]

I hate to admit this, but I tend to place speed and avoidance of delays above avoiding high-volume NOL roads as well. I *try* to route myself on wider, lower-speed routes, but I'm just to impatient to be at the sidestreet ends of all the 4-minute red light cycles. Before I know it I end up back on a 70-80kph NOL arterial.

Unless I'm looking to spend more time on the bike, I generally pick the most direct route and just ride. (note that this does not mean that I don't enjoy cycling but I enjoy a lot of other things in life and don't want to spend 30 minutes on a trip to the store when it could take 15) As much as some people want to believe that all, or the majority, of drivers are crazy cyclist-hating lunatics, the exact opposite is true, and becomes very apparent to me on higher speed, multilane roads, where the treatment I get from motorists in terms of patience and space, is far superior than on single lane, lower speed roads (in the same general area, used at the same time of day).

Traffic is something that should be eased into so new riders should consider traffic when planning routes. Aside from that, roads are meant for cycling so use them.

[donnamb]

I'm never very good at this. I kind of take a stab based on what I've seen while driving and/or biking combined with a map. Then, if there are any difficult spots, I'll look around for alternatives. I can bike anywhere, so that is not my initial concern, but if there is a tricky spot on the route, I'll look for alternatives to minimize my exposure.

For instance, on my half-commute (drive half, bike the rest) I used to ride along a route that followed an arterial east, then went south along a smaller road that I was familiar with. Coming back to the car though, I had to make a left across two lanes of heavy and relatively fast traffic at night, and it was uphill. I didn't like it, so after doing it a for a few weeks, I found a different route that cut across kind of diagonally and was much easier to negotiate, was shorter, but with more hills.
Do you find that Washington County "Country Cycling" map helpful at all?

[Keith99]

That criteria would eliminate 90% of long distance cycling, which is 90% of my cycling. Your criteria reduces cycling to little more than running little errands to the grocery store.
Just 90%? I've run back through every place I've lived in the last 45 years. There is not a single one where I could get to anywhere without taking, or at laeast crossing a major road, meaning 45MPH plus traffic. On the other side there has been only one place I've lived in the last 45 years where I could not get lots of places by bike without taking any roads I would consider nasty or dangerous. (The one exception was where I lived just off a major highway which was the only route to anywhere).

[Helmet Head]

But, whether the route planning is transportational or recreational, "safety" is never a consideration. What makes one route more "safe" than another? I don't consider that at all, because there is nothing to consider. Lane width? Nope. Traffic volumes? Nope. Number of intersections, okay, maybe, but if there is a way to reduce number of intersections without sacrificing time, I'll do it anyway, but to reduce intersection-induced delays (stop signs and red lights), not for safety considerations.
Personally, I think the reality is far from what you write in here. You have positioned yourself to where you have no choice but to protect the steely-eyed, alpha-dog, professional cyclist persona that you aspire to and advocate, but I think most cyclists who have been riding the roadways for any amount of time see right through it. My concern is that the less-experienced cyclists will read this line and think they are doing something wrong or that their pecker isn't big enough and put themselves in situations that might get them hurt or worse, because they think it's what they are 'supposed' to do to be a real live 'serious' cyclist.

So in a nutshell, IMO anyone who says that they don't consider safety factors at all when scoping out a route, is just plain fibbing. I'm very serious about this, Chippy.

Honestly, since I live on the coast, I can generally plan routes north, south, or to the east. I've been on all of them in all directions countless times, about as far as you can go in one day and back in any direction, and I have never, not once, chosen not to ride on a particular road or road for safety reasons. It's not even on the list of factors that I consider when I decide where to ride. Not even when I have my 7 year old attached on the trailercycle (in which case avoiding steep climbs is probably the biggest factor that I use to determine what route to take!).

I believe that cycling on any road (where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited), regardless of traffic conditions, is so safe that it's nothing to worry about. So I don't.

But, then, I also never put myself in a situation where my safety depends on the attention of someone before I verify that I have their attention. I do that habitually no matter where I ride, so my perception of how safe I am does not vary much based on the presence and behavior of others. I mean, I feel very safe whether they are there or not, regardless of what road I'm on.

And it's not about cajones or pecker size at all. To the contrary, that kind of thinking has to do with putting aside, ignoring and/or being in denial about one's fears. I don't do that, nor do I advocate it. I manage myself and my situation so that I don't experience the fear in the first place. But it is about confidence, and confidence in one's habits, practices, methods and instincts to keep one safe.

Edit: Is Gene reading this thread? He knows me, how I ride and about where I live. Perhaps he can confirm that he also cannot think of a route/road within a day's riding distance - the greater San Diego metropolitian area - of my home that I might avoid for traffic safety related reasons.

[zeytoun]

I believe that cycling on any road (where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited), regardless of traffic conditions, is so safe that it's nothing to worry about. So I don't.

Southbound PCH crossing Barnett?
Friars Road?

Just asking.

[Jalopy]

I believe that cycling on any road (where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited), regardless of traffic conditions, is so safe that it's nothing to worry about. So I don't.

But, then, I also never put myself in a situation where my safety depends on the attention of someone before I verify that I have their attention.I'm a little speechless.
Jalopy

[Brian Ratliff]

Do you find that Washington County "Country Cycling" map helpful at all?

I think I have one somewhere, but I haven't used it before. I just used google maps.

[chipcom]

I believe that cycling on any road (where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited), regardless of traffic conditions, is so safe that it's nothing to worry about. So I don't.

And I do not believe you. I can put on that act while riding with others too...it's not hard. But that does not mean that I do not take safety into consideration when I choose a route - it's simple common sense. You can claim otherwise all you want, but it I don't think anyone, including Gene, is buying it.

See the example that I posted, tell me what route you'd choose and why safety was not a factor in your choice. Also, if safety is not a consideration, why do you bother wearing a helmet - fashion?

[Helmet Head]

Southbound PCH crossing Barnett? I go through there every time I do the Coronado loop (south to National City, up the strand, back on the ferry, then back through PB), or just going to SD Bay and/or downtown. What alternate route could I take to avoid it anyway?

By the way, I keep hearing about the supposed horrors of this intersection, and I can't even picture it. I know I've been through there countless times, every time I go south from Mission Bay on Pacific Highway passed the airport, but I've never taken note which particular intersection on PCH is at Barnett. None of them seem notable to me.

Friars Road? Friars Road is part of my route to the movies at Fashion Valley (family ride on tandem with trailercycle), to the inlaws - (Friars Rd from Sea World Drive to Zion Ave) and part of many century loops that head through east county. I don't know of an alternative to Friars for those rides either, nor did I ever consider trying to find one. Any alternative would be less direct and slower. I do encounter cyclists struggling with the freeway interchanges, particularly at 163, but that's because it doesn't seem to occur to them to use a lane controlling position through there, which is the only way to go (if you ask me).

[Helmet Head]

And I do not believe you. I can put on that act while riding with others too...it's not hard. But that does not mean that I do not take safety into consideration when I choose a route - it's simple common sense. You can claim otherwise all you want, but it I don't think anyone, including Gene, is buying it.

See the example that I posted, tell me what route you'd choose and why safety was not a factor in your choice. Also, if safety is not a consideration, why do you bother wearing a helmet - fashion? Don't get me wrong, safety is a HUGE consideration in much of what I do and how I do it, including wearing a helmet and where and when I choose what lane position. But safety is not a consideration when I'm selecting a route, because I don't see any correlation between my safety and route selection. If there were one, that would mean some roads and routes are safer than others. If they are, I have no idea which ones those are, or how one would determine that.

My biggest safety concern, by far, is me, and no matter where I go, there I am.

Edit: I don't know what else to tell you, except that I never choose to go one way instead of another because of safety.

[wethepeople]

Make sure their are no:

Bike lanes.
Roads.
Cagers.
Liberals.
Conservatives.
Churches.
anything else on the route and you will be fine.

[chipcom]

Don't get me wrong, safety is a HUGE consideration in much of what I do and how I do it, including wearing a helmet and where and when I choose what lane position. But safety is not a consideration when I'm selecting a route, because I don't see any correlation between my safety and route selection. If there were one, that would mean some roads and routes are safer than others. If they are, I have no idea which ones those are, or how one would determine that.

My biggest safety concern, by far, is me, and no matter where I go, there I am.

So see my example in post #12, tell us which route you'd choose, and why safety isn't a factor in the choice. Some roads ARE safer than others - no matter what vehicle you happen to be operating.

[Helmet Head]

Consider this scenario, which actually describes part of my commuting route: Your starting point and destination both lie on cross streets between two roads, but at opposite ends of those two roads, maybe 10 miles total.

One road is a 4 lane, 60mph speed limit, divided highway with a fair, but inconsistent and debris laden shoulder. The road has one light controlled intersection with ROTL with the remaining cross street access being freeway-style on/off ramps. Bicycles are not barred by law from using this road. The road is fairly flat other than one overpass. Traffic volume is heavy and impatient. Cars using the shoulders to pass on either the left or right is not uncommon if overall volume causes backups, especially at the single lighted intersection. Some traffic exceeds 80mph and routinely jump from lane to lane to pass slower moving vehicles. The accident rate on this stretch of highway is probably at least 1 incident per day.

The other road is a narrow, two-lane country road with no shoulder, rolling with a couple of steep climbs and a 45mph speed limit. This road has triple the number of intersections with only stop signs (4 and 2 way) to control ROW. Some of the cross streets have steady 55mph traffic. Traffic volume is not as heavy as the 4 lane, but regular.

Which road do you choose and explain why safety ISN'T a factor in your decision, if that is the case.

Edit: I ride the country road. I could ride faster, with less effort & stop/go on the highway, but getting tagged by some impatient or inattentive moron is a matter of when, not if.
Okay, I found the example that you're talking about.

First, I can't think of anything comparable in San Diego, city or county. I don't know of any 10 mile stretch of road anywhere where the accident rate is anywhere close to 1/day, 7/week, 30/month. So I'm having a hard time picturing this. I therefore cannot tell you that I would not avoid that road for safety concerns. All I can tell you is that when I'm planning a route in San Diego, safety is never a factor in choosing my route.

Ah, now that I said that, I thought of something. There is a section on the route from Ramona to Julian where cyclists always seem to take the Old Julian highway instead of the main (78) highway for the section which taking the Old Julian Highway avoids. Map. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&saddr=Amigos+Road+at+highway+78,+ramona,+ca&daddr=Old+Julian+Trail+at+E+Old+Julian+Hwy,+Ramona,+CA+to:Hwy+78+at+E+Old+Julian+Hwy,+Ramona,+CA+920 65&sll=33.043997,-116.802521&sspn=0.03842,0.07081&ie=UTF8&z=13&ll=33.051119,-116.801662&spn=0.076834,0.141621&om=1) I'm no exception. It never occured to me (until this moment) to consider taking Hwy 78 between the two intersections with Old Julian Highway, but that's because Old Julian Highway is a great ride (country road, rolling hills, twists and turns, relatively light traffic). Is it safer? Yes, it probably is, because there is a TON more traffic on the main highway. But that's not the reason I take OJH. The reason I take OJH is because it's much nicer and not any longer. If it was much longer, I would take the main highway. But since they're both about 8 miles, I take the country road, thank you very much. By the way, once OJH connects back with 78, I continue on 78 which has similar conditions to the part of it which I skipped by taking OJH (2 narrow lanes, no paved shoulder, blind turns, 60+ mph traffic, often heavy).

[CB HI]

Chipcom,
Do you really need to call people liars? I choose my commute routes on:
directness to destination
road conditions - such as lack of potholes that can damage bicycles
ability to make time on the route - such as more or less traffic lights and signal priority

Based on the Hawaii State “Bike Oahu” map, my commute includes the less safe routes (in red).
But the are the most direct, pothole repaired routes that give traffic signal priority to my route.

Bike Oahu (http://www.hawaii.gov/dot/highways/bike/oahu/index.htm)

By your post, I guess you would not believe me either - whatever.

[kf5nd]

I believe the answer to which roads are safest is so situational and multi-factorial that it's impossible to answer succinctly.

Around here, the worst roads are narrow, high-speed (45 MPH), maybe one-lane in each direction, no shoulders, with a lot of curves. Deathtraps. Dangerous for ANY vehicle. I try to stay off of those on my bike or in my car.

Beyond that, I pretty much ride any road without distinction. Even roads that others consider impossible I will ride on, if I have to (State Highway 6 / FM 1960 in NW Harris County, TX, for example). But it may be a brief, tense ride!

[supcom]

Just 90%? I've run back through every place I've lived in the last 45 years. There is not a single one where I could get to anywhere without taking, or at laeast crossing a major road, meaning 45MPH plus traffic. On the other side there has been only one place I've lived in the last 45 years where I could not get lots of places by bike without taking any roads I would consider nasty or dangerous. (The one exception was where I lived just off a major highway which was the only route to anywhere).

You're probably correct. Although there are some roads with shoulders, I don't think I could get to any of them without first riding on a shoulderless road.

Some of the best cycling roads in Texas have no shoulders and 70 mph speed limits. Some are even 75 mph out in West Texas.

[buzzman]

How even a simple thread about how to pick a safe route to work or tour or simply get somewhere has turned into a debate about whether safety is ever a consideration when we choose a route seems ludicrous and deliberately petty and argumentative.

Certainly some roads are "safer" than others by virtue of the fact that automobile collisions may occur at a higher rate on some roads than others and no matter how good a rider you are you risk being collateral damage to such an accident.

Roads that pass a string of bars and clubs, like a road I take as I cut through Boston and Brighton, might not be the best choice at closing time- I go a different route at that time.

Roads that pass sports stadiums might not be your best choice pre- or post- game time.

Roads with lots of construction might cause more distractions to drivers than other routes that are not under construction.

Roads with lots of shopping centers, malls, gas stations and liquor stores might not be the best route to take on that snowy Christmas eve.

The road that is subject to flash flooding, wash outs and rock slides might not be the safest route on tour if there are heavy rains predicted.

The road that goes through an area that has a high crime rate might not be your best choice as you ride home after a late night shift.

The dark road without a lot of street lights might not be your best choice on that night you forgot to recharge your batteries.

It would be interesting to hear from women about choosing routes and safety considerations. I know that my wife has other standards when choosing a route for a solo ride that I do not generally consider.

Now people might consider whether what I'm talking about is perceived or actual (statistical safety) but as far as this thread is considered if a cyclist does not feel safe well then that is not for that particular person what I would consider a safe bike route. So, if you feel safe on every road, every where, all the time good for you! Don't use this thread as a platform to convince others of your perception- you obviously choose your route based on how short the ride is or if you're out for scenery how much it satisfies that criteria. How helpful that is to the sizeable number of cyclists that consider safety when choosing a route is probably nil so state your piece and find another thread to clog.

[sbhikes]

I have a favorite coffeehouse I like to vist. It has a patio outside where you can sip your coffee and read the paper. The business is at the corner of two somewhat busy streets, one of which is a two-lane one-way street. With great frequency while my boyfriend and I are there, we witness people who try to turn the wrong way on the one way, or we hear screeching tires, or witness full head-on collisions with glass flying and that horrible crunching sound. It's a hellishly dangerous intersection. We see this almost every time we eat there.

I can't believe someone would think about riding their bicycle through there, think about all the alternatives, and then decide to ride through it without having safety be a consideration in their decision. It doesn't mean that nobody ever rides a bike through there. Even I normally choose to ride through there than choose an alternate. But when I do so, it's with the clear understanding that it's not a safe place to be, that somebody could do something stupid at any time.

So don't give us BS bravado that safety isn't a consideration in route selection. Unsafeness may not rule out a route, but it's still an ingredient in the choice. Or it should be if you are at all an ordinary human being.

[buzzman]

for time trialing and training routes I map out a loop so that I have more right turns than left. Actually designing the loop so that I never have to make a left turn is ideal. I do this not only so that I will not have to slow down to make turns that cross a lane of traffic and therefore maintain a higher average speed but for safety reasons as well. Having only right turns when I'm pushing hard and riding at a higher speed and I'm putting a lot of concentration on my pace is safer than breaking that concentration and rhythm to take the left turn.

[Bekologist]

If safety wasn't a consideration for Mr. head on EVERY ride, he wouldn't swerve in and out in front of traffic all the time.

helemt head, you DO consider safety, using your mirror, changing lane position often, fluttering to and fro to try and get cars to notice you. sounds to me like you DO consider safety, maybe more than most of us.

just stop with the VC chestbeating, please. you consider safety. every ride. MUCH MORE than I would if we were riding the same road.

[buzzman]

If safety wasn't a consideration for Mr. head on EVERY ride, he wouldn't swerve in and out in front of traffic all the time.

helemt head, you DO consider safety, using your mirror, changing lane position often, fluttering to and fro to try and get cars to notice you. sounds to me like you DO consider safety, maybe more than most of us.

just stop with the VC chestbeating, please. you consider safety. every ride. MUCH MORE than I would if we were riding the same road.

I'm with you on this, Bek, but...


More than likely he could argue that those are riding techniques that are independent of the road he is on and that how he rides rather than what roads he rides on is, in fact, where he places his safety considerations.

For this thread if that is his, or anyone else's, style so be it. But, as I said in a previous post, not terribly helpful to the rather sizeable number of cyclists who think route selection is a matter of safety.

[N_C]

So see my example in post #12, tell us which route you'd choose, and why safety isn't a factor in the choice. Some roads ARE safer than others - no matter what vehicle you happen to be operating.

Chip, I know you were not asking me, but I'd choose the 2 lane roadway. I would use the same commone sense in choosing to ride on a road called Myrtle then Hamilton Blvd in my city.

HH, I have to go with Chip on this one. He is right. Safety should be a factor in choosing a route. Eliminating it as you claim to do is a foolish thing. I hate to say this but maybe not using safety as a factor makes you a Darwin Award recipient.

HH, tell me which roadway you would choose. You have seen me post about Hamilton Blvd. It goes from the city limits to the north all the way to the I-29/Hamilton Blvd/Chris Larsen Rd interchange to the south. Between Stone Park Blvd & the interchange to the south it is a 4 lane 35 mph roadway that sees on average 15,000 to 20,000 motor vehicles a day. Yes it is legal to ride on it but not exactly a safe idea to do so.

Between Stone Park Blvd & the intersection at 36th/Country Club Blvd it is 4 lanes but not as much traffic that is south of Stone Park & this section is wider with no median as well. North of 36th/Country Club Hamilton is only 2 lanes. I ride the section north of 36th/Country Club & between 36th/Country Club & Stone Park all the time. I will not ride on Hamilton south of Stone Park.

A few blocks east is Myrtle. I nice 2 lane residential 25 to 30 mph roadway that sees maybe 500 vehicles a day. It is also part of the existing on street bike route system. It is real easy to get to Myrtle from Stone Park, just turn west goa few blocks & you're there then turn south to head down Myrtle.

Let's say your destination is the Pizza Hut at W 17th & Hamilton & you're starting at the old Hoover Middle School just west of Hamilton on Country Club Blvd. You would get there faster if you rode on Hamilton & took your life into your own hands. Or you could take a little more time, get there safe & sound & take Myrtle. Granted you'd have to navigate through some residential areas to go west from Stone Park to Myrtle, down Myrtle then east to the intersection of W 17th & Hamilton. What route do you use? Do you assert your VC beliefs to motorists who could care less & take Hamilton or do you play it safe & use Myrtle where you can ride VC, just not as many motorists would see you, meaning less would even care about it? Hh, which would it be, Myrtle or Hamilton?

[Bekologist]

I've already mentioned many of the tricks I've used and seen used to determine bicycling routes.

sorry 'bout that.

[buzzman]

I've already mentioned many of the tricks I've used and seen used to determine bicycling routes.

sorry 'bout that.


much appreciated. if ever I were in your area you are exactly the kind of cyclist I would seek out for advice on a route to a destination or for a loop.

When I was in the San Francisco area last year around this time I rented a good road bike for a ride and looked for the right kind of rider and did a great 50 miler I'd never have found on my own by just starting a conversation. He ended up doing an extra 20 miles he hadn't planned and I bought him lunch at the end. I never even needed to look at a map. :D

[buzzman]

Hh, which would it be, Myrtle or Hamilton?

N_C I'm pretty sure his answer will be Hamilton or it doesn't matter. In any case, if this thread turns into yet another one way dialogue with HelmetHead about lane positioning and how every road is a bike lane I think I'm going to wretch. :rolleyes:

Are there links or resources in your area that you use or would suggest to cyclists that are new or visiting your area to help find a safe bike route?

Is anyone involved with the "Safe Routes to Schools Program"?- what criteria do they use?

[Brian Sorrell]

Safety not an issue when choosing a route?? Can't find a bad road with a days ride of San Diego? Well start to ride faster and give Iowa Ave. in Riverside (100 miles away) a try at about 5pm on a weekday. Good luck. If you think that's a cake walk, head over to Spruce by the 91 Freeway, and continue across La Cadena and hit Main Street as it becomes Riverside Ave. at the San Bernardino county line. Look, I feel safer on a bike than in a car (ask my wife about how I freak out as a passenger on the freeways), but those roads -- no thanks. A line of semis bearing down on you at 60+ mph through an industrial section of a city on a two lane road that was last resurfaced a dozen years ago will change your mind about the significance of safety considerations, not to mention your right to travel the same roadway as any other motorized vehicle. Unless you forgot your meds this morning. I'll stick to dodging the coyotes on the SART, where the detritus is more (literally) horse 5h1t than bicycle and automotive parts.

[N_C]

N_C I'm pretty sure his answer will be Hamilton or it doesn't matter. In any case, if this thread turns into yet another one way dialogue with HelmetHead about lane positioning and how every road is a bike lane I think I'm going to wretch. :rolleyes:

Are there links or resources in your area that you use or would suggest to cyclists that are new or visiting your area to help find a safe bike route?

Is anyone involved with the "Safe Routes to Schools Program"?- what criteria do they use?

Yes, here is a link to a map of the trail & existing on street bike route system: http://www.siouxlandtrails.org/download/Siouxland_Trails_Map.pdf

The Safe Routes to School program is just in it's infancy in Sioux City right now. I am concentrating on a Complete Streets Program first which the Safe Routes To School will tie in to eventualy.

With all the touting about VC that HH does I have yet to see him post a link for the bike routes or trails in the San Diego area. Either one does not exist, he does not know about such a thing, does not care because he thinks his way is the only right way thus refuses to post a link.

Uh oh look what I found: http://www.efgh.com/bike/routes.htm

Why couldn't HH do this? I know he's been asked. From this web site you can navigate through it & find links to maps.