Advocacy & Safety - Looking for an answer...

...to a debate I was having with some family members this weekend. My brother is wanting to get into riding for the health benefits and is contemplating purchasing a road bike. Well, the discussion got around to riding in traffic, crazy/inattentive drivers, etc. I said that I always rode with the flow of traffic rather than against it. Well, everyone thought that that was just stupid (keep in mind, none of them are cyclists). Their arguement was that they would like to be able to see the cars coming at them, so if they had to bail, they would have a quicker reaction. I know that when riding in traffic, one should always go with the traffic, but I could not give them a good reason as to why it is safer to do as such. I ended up telling them that it just felt weird to ride into traffic and that I had developed eyes in the back of my head after ten or so years of riding. So what are some reasons for riding with the flow of traffic?

Riding with traffic lowers the differential speed and gives the motorist much longer to acquire you visually. For example, if you are cycling at 20 mph and the cars are going 40 mph, it takes the car three minutes to pass you from one mile back, where if you were going the opposite direction it would only take one minute.

That makes a lot of sense and was actually what I was trying to explain, although I didnt do a very good job of it. Thanks.

When I was a child, I was told to ride on the opposite side of the street for that very reason. But keep in mind these were not busy streets, but side streets out in the country where you averaged about a car every couple of minutes. The problem with riding against the flow of traffic in the city is that a car can block another from seeing you. Also, being a more seasoned cyclist, I am much quicker now than when I was little, so the reaction time goes down even furthur.

A interesting stat : 1 in 4 serious accidents involving a cyclist is from a cyclist riding the wrong way down the street. If that doesn't convince your friends, nothing will.

Another good argument is that it's the law. In many states the bicycle is considered a non-motor-driven vehicle. Where I am from it's even against the law (although no one ever enforces it) to ride on the sidewalks. Bikes are treated as vehicles and enjoy the same privelages of lane ownership as cars and also are supposed to adhere to the same laws and restrictions.

Originally posted by pathtek
Their arguement was that they would like to be able to see the cars coming at them, so if they had to bail, they would have a quicker reaction.

Riding against the flow of traffic will almost always force either you or the car to bail when you see one another. Additionally, riding with the flow of traffic does not necessarily mean one becomes unaware of a vehicle approaching from behind.

Originally posted by Crack'n'fail
Another good argument is that it's the law. In many states the bicycle is considered a non-motor-driven vehicle. Where I am from it's even against the law (although no one ever enforces it) to ride on the sidewalks. Bikes are treated as vehicles and enjoy the same privelages of lane ownership as cars and also are supposed to adhere to the same laws and restrictions.

Although riding on the sidewalk is legal in my state, everything else you've said is pretty much true across the nation. However, that argument probably doesn't hold as much water for non-cyclists. Just because something is the law doesn't mean everyone will agree it's a good/right thing.

Originally posted by Spire
A interesting stat : 1 in 4 serious accidents involving a cyclist is from a cyclist riding the wrong way down the street. If that doesn't convince your friends, nothing will.


First, I want to say I totally agree that we should ride on the same side as traffic. It not only makes sense, but in places where I live, it's the law.

Interesting stat though, are you saying that 75% of the serious accidents are from riders going with traffic? In that case, it would seem like going against traffic is safer. :confused:

Originally posted by Chi
First, I want to say I totally agree that we should ride on the same side as traffic. It not only makes sense, but in places where I live, it's the law.

Interesting stat though, are you saying that 75% of the serious accidents are from riders going with traffic? In that case, it would seem like going against traffic is safer. :confused:

That's the wrong way to interpret the state.

What percentage of the time would you say that cyclists travel the wrong way on roads. What % of the total bicycle miles traveled are on the wrong side of the road? Its probably less than 1%, I know that I have cycled less than 1k wrong way out of 9000km, that's 0.01% for me. Lets just assume for the population at large its 1%. Thats means that 25% of the accidents are happening in that 1% of riding, making it 25X more dangerous (in this example). Does this make more sense to you?

Think about driving a car and passing a cyclist. If the cyclist is moving with traffic the car can slow down to the speed of the cyclist and stay behind until it is safe to pass. Now think of it with the cyclist coming toward you, the cyclist would have to bail almost every time or OUCH.

Originally posted by Spire
That's the wrong way to interpret the state.

What percentage of the time would you say that cyclists travel the wrong way on roads. What % of the total bicycle miles traveled are on the wrong side of the road? Its probably less than 1%, I know that I have cycled less than 1k wrong way out of 9000km, that's 0.01% for me. Lets just assume for the population at large its 1%. Thats means that 25% of the accidents are happening in that 1% of riding, making it 25X more dangerous (in this example). Does this make more sense to you?

Ah, thanks for the clarification. ;)

Here's another two simple situations:

A person is making a right turn onto a two-lane street. Which way is he looking...? To his left, so he can yield as needed. If it's clear on the left, he is going to proceed, and the last thing he's expecting is to collide with someone going the wrong way in his lane. If a collision does occur, the wrong-way cyclist will be cited for breaking the law and will be responsible for any damage done to the other person's car, motorcycle or bicycle.


A person is going the correct direction in her lane, and swerves fairly close to the parked vehicles at the edge of the road to avoid a pothole. Suddenly, a wrong-way bicyclist who was hugging the curb pulls out to go around the parked cars, resulting in a head-on collision (this nearly happened to me, riding my bicycle, with a mom leading her kids down the wrong side of the road on the way to school, and she got a terse lecture for it). Again, the wrong-way cyclist is going to be cited, and responsible for paying any damages.

Your family should be introduced to the wonders of helmet-mounted or glasses-mounted rearview mirrors IMHO :)

A few points to add to all the others:

1. As a cyclist, you can follow the rules of the roads (the ones everyone, on bike and on car alike, seem to like to forget), so you know how to behave...

2. Other people know what to expect of you.

3. There are a few ways to be aware of your surroundings: using a mirror, turning your head...

4. Because of "1" and "2", it's possible to take your turn in traffic without waiting for everyone to be out, and without blocking the way for everyone else.

Cool!! Thanks for all the replies, folks. I now feel that I have ample ammunition the next time such a discussion arises.

Here's a great site with a section on this topic.

Well worth the time to read.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/index.htm

Originally posted by pathtek
Cool!! Thanks for all the replies, folks. I now feel that I have ample ammunition the next time such a discussion arises.

You're welcome. This is one of the great things about Bikeforums (Thanks Joe!) and why I think it is one of the greatest things around.

Originally posted by Chi
First, I want to say I totally agree that we should ride on the same side as traffic. It not only makes sense, but in places where I live, it's the law.

Interesting stat though, are you saying that 75% of the serious accidents are from riders going with traffic? In that case, it would seem like going against traffic is safer. :confused:

That would be true if more than 1/4 of all cyclists ride against traffic, and less than 3/4 ride with traffic. But that's not the case. Less than 10% of cyclists ride against traffic, but they account for significantly more than their share of crashes. The 1994 Wachtel and Lewis study in California found that cycling against traffic increased your risk of crashing 3.6 times -- that's 360%, if you want a gee-whiz number.

You can find a well-written report on bicycling crash statistics at
http://www.massbike.org/info1/stats.htm . This page is still under development, so some of the menu items won't work. But the data are sound!

if he wants a road bike but is afraid of the traffic why not get a mountain bike or a hybrid?
this way he can get out and get healthy while gaining confidence on his bike.
trees produce better exhaust then cars do.