Advantages of wrong-way riding.

[Laika]

I rode about half a mile facing the wrong way, on the wrong side of a relatively quiet 2 lane road today, as a sort of thought experiment, to see what, if any, perceived advantages there might be to the practice.

here's what I thought.

•as has been suggested before, you have the advantage, such as it is, of not worrying about traffic overtaking from behind. All of the traffic you're sharing the lane with is easily visible well before it reaches your position.

• you have far more time to react to turning vehicles, in that, where right-way riders risk right hooks, where the turning vehicle is in close proximity to you, cars making lefts across your path have to cross a full lane (or more) before they get to you, giving you more time to react.

•in theory, if you're doored while wrong way riding, the door will give way (close back on the motorist) rather than remaining stationary as when you're doored riding the right way.

•to that point, a motorist exiting his car is more likely to see you coming and less likely to door you in the first place.

it's not something i'd do all the time, or even particularly often, but i was interested to find how quickly the plausible advantages suggested themselves. not sure whether i'll extend the experiment to sidewalk riding or not.

[natelutkjohn]

hmmm, may be some benefits to the rider, but I know that it sure freaks me out to see a wrong way rider coming at me.... I sure as heck don't wave to em :(

[Laika]

agreed. mostly this was inspired by my experiences squeezing by wrong-way riders (largely deliverymen) on dean street in brooklyn. i wanted to know what exactly those guys thought they were getting out of the deal.

[Blue Order]

agreed. mostly this was inspired by my experiences squeezing by wrong-way riders (largely deliverymen) on dean street in brooklyn. i wanted to know what exactly those guys thought they were getting out of the deal.If they're thinking anything, it's (in the following order):

1) I'm getting there in the fastest time possible.

2) I'm sticking it to the man.


They are most definitely NOT getting increased, or even equal, safety.

[Blue Order]

hmmm, may be some benefits to the riderI doubt it.

I saw a guy preparing to make a wrong way turn today. He was riding with traffic, preparing to turn the wrong way on a one way street, just as the bus i was on crossed the intersection. Had the bus been about 3 seconds later, or had he been about 3 seconds earlier, he would have been a grille ornament on the bus. My immediate thoughts were "What if the vehicle behind this bus is a bicycle? Will this idiot cause a head-on collision with some cyclist behind us?"

[Laika]

If they're thinking anything, it's (in the following order):

1) I'm getting there in the fastest time possible.

2) I'm sticking it to the man.

I really, really don't think this is the case. Think about it. most wrong-way riders willsay that they want to see what's coming. I thnk you're bringing some personal feelings to this and not really thinking it through.

[Blue Order]

I really, really don't think this is the case. Think about it. most wrong-way riders willsay that they want to see what's coming. I thnk you're bringing some personal feelings to this and not really thinking it through.I think it would depend on the wrong way rider.

A lot of wrong way riders are from other countries, and they believe that by riding against traffic, they're being safe (i.e., they can see what's coming.). I think a lot of wrong way riders are cyclists by necessity (i.e., they have a susepended license, or they can't afford gas, or whatever), and they believe that you're supposed to ride against traffic, because that's what they heard when they were kids.

And some wrong way riders (messengers, for instance) deliberately ride against traffic because it will get them there faster, and because they're sticking it to the man (nevermind for now that by delivering documents quickly they're actually greasing the skids for the man).

I assumed when you said you were referring to delivery persons, that they fell into this category of somebody getting things there the fastest way possible.

[CaptainCool]

I really, really don't think this is the case. Think about it. most wrong-way riders willsay that they want to see what's coming. I thnk you're bringing some personal feelings to this and not really thinking it through.
I'm betting most of these wrong-way riders would be on the sidewalk if there was one. At college I see a lot of bikers acting like pedestrians.

[Laika]

OK, I see where you're coming from now. I agree that there's a subset of wrong-way riders who believe they're getting over in some way by riding any which way they want to. but I think the vast majority really do honestly believe they're leveraging some advantage by riding wrong-way, and i think overwhelmingly it's safety they think they're acheiving.

[Laika]

I'm betting most of these wrong-way riders would be on the sidewalk if there was one. At college I see a lot of bikers acting like pedestrians.
Just a bit of background...I'm in NYC, which is amply supplied with sidewalks but also has a pretty large number of cyclists. So the option is open to these cyclists, but they choose to ride wrong-way but in the street.

[CB HI]

One more advantage = no need to worry about if social security will still be around when you grow old.

[Laika]

One more advantage = no need to worry about if social security will still be around when you grow old.
That may be an actual advantage...not sure if it's a perceived advantage, though.

[SonataInFSharp]

I see one problem with wrong-way riding that seems to cancel out all of the advantages of wrong-way riding: a bicycle's speed.

If a bicycle were the speed of a pedestrian, then I could agree with all of the advantages of wrong-way cycling.

[Laika]

I see one problem with wrong-way riding that seems to cancel out all of the advantages of wrong-way riding: a bicycle's speed.

If a bicycle were the speed of a pedestrian, then I could agree with all of the advantages of wrong-way cycling.
How so? A bike's speed is fairl flexible. Granted, there's a limit to how fast bikes will go with even the most skilled riders, but even the least skilled riders are generally capable of operating at speeds not much greater than pedestrians.

[Keith99]

I rode about half a mile facing the wrong way, on the wrong side of a relatively quiet 2 lane road today, as a sort of thought experiment, to see what, if any, perceived advantages there might be to the practice.

here's what I thought.

•as has been suggested before, you have the advantage, such as it is, of not worrying about traffic overtaking from behind. All of the traffic you're sharing the lane with is easily visible well before it reaches your position.



A variation of this is the one real advantage I can think of and I think the reason many of ou were taught to rida against traffic as kids. Assume a street with minimal traffic. Riding against traffic makes it so even a preteen boy will reailize a car is there.

[sggoodri]

Riding against traffic will get you creamed by a right-turning driver entering your road from your left. Way, way more likely than getting hit from behind when traveling with traffic. Right-turning drivers hitting wrong-side cyclists is the leading type of crash where I live. Right turning drivers look left, not right, for vehicle traffic before entering the new roadway.

If traffic volumes are light enough that wrong-way cycling doesn't seem scary-dangerous, then right-side cycling would be so enjoyable and safe that the argument is moot.

A preteen riding on the right doesn't need to realize a car is behind her as long as she rides in a straight line. Only when preparing to move laterally is it necessary to look back and check. My 12-year old niece does this very reliably.

[sggoodri]

I see one problem with wrong-way riding that seems to cancel out all of the advantages of wrong-way riding: a bicycle's speed.

If a bicycle were the speed of a pedestrian, then I could agree with all of the advantages of wrong-way cycling.

In urban locations in daylight, walking against traffic is more dangerous than walking with. Turning drivers are more likely to hit contra-flow pedestrians.

In low visibility conditions such as night, especially where there are no street lights, drivers may not see pedestrians no matter what, and so walking facing traffic allows the pedestrian to get out of the way of the driver who can't see him. Rural areas are where pedestrians walking with traffic at night tend to get hit at high speed. Elsewhere, walking with traffic is safer, especially if there are lots of intersections.

[rando]

I thought one advantage of wrong-way riding would be to save time... instead of having to wait to cross the street, I just turned and rode the wrong way down the sidewalk. my theory was right until that SUV pulled up right in front of me as I was about to cross a street on a crosswalk. ouch. he was looking for traffic on his left.

[hotbike]

i want to turn the clock back to 1961. Before 1961, there was no standard throughout the country, the individual states made their rules.
Some states required bicycles to ride on the left side of the road, similar to the way joggers and runners do today. My state, New York , was one of them.
In 1961, there was a standarization passed that put bicycles on the right side of the road in all 50 states.

1961 was about the time that 10-speed bicycles were introduced to America. Prior to then, most bicycles in the USA were 1 speed, or 3 speed.
The subject I'm talking about is one of the biggest "Unfunded Mandates" in history. Are you familiar with the term "Unfunded Mandate"? That's when a law is passed, but no money is budgeted to enforce it. In the case of putting all bicycles on the right side, it was an Unfunded Mandate that eclipses all others by it's magnitude. Not one dime was spent to educate motorists to the change.
There was some mention of the fact that , with this new ten-speed bike, the cyclist could go 30 MPH. I believe it was [bicycle] industry lobbyists who pushed it through the halls of congress. But no monies were allocated to educate motorists. The cyclists were left to fend for themselves.
Have you ever encountered a "duh-head" motorist? I mean when you were driving your steel steed 30 MPH in a 30 MPH zone and this duh-head has to pass, which means he was speeding. "If i'm going 30 and the speed limit is 30, and you're trying to pass, you must be speeding." to which the motorists' response is "Duh...?". I think it was one motorist that pulled the stunt numerous times, and he's dead now. I haven't seen him in years.
Riding against traffic, on the left side of the road, can be dangerous, but it doesn't have to be anymore dangerous than running or walking. If a bicyclist rides against traffic, he or she must realize that it is too easy to go faster than a jogger. If the bicyclist is conscientious about his or her speed, and not going faster than the jogger, it can be safe. But the wrong way cyclist must be prepared to yield, especially to motorists pulling out from the left, who are not looking right. Headphones will get you killed in traffic.
We must ask; "why is it safer for a runner, pedestrian or jogger to use the left side?" The answer is that he or she can SEE the car coming. Oh, if only we had eyes in the backs of our heads! Then the cyclists could see the cars coming.
I would contend that if the bicycle is going r-e-a-l-l-y - s-l-o-w ,(and prepared to stop) it can be as safe as jogging.
Most bicyclists can't stand to go that slow. The bicycle is more wobbly at such a low speed. And it is up to the cyclist to use his or her judgement. If you ride against traffic, be prepared to stop and yield the RofW every 5 seconds or 5 times per quarter mile, and be prepared to dismount and walk the bicycle at any moment.

I would like to point out that the bicycle is the same width whether I look at it from the front or from behind. It might be a good idea to hop off the bike and start walking it if any motorist doesn't leave enough width to avoid collision.

[invisiblehand]

As Steve pointed out, there is a problem with motorist expectations and field of vision. And as others pointed out, the risks are conditional upon the speed of the cyclist and surrounding traffic.

Regarding getting doored, I speculate from the door angle that hitting a door while riding the against traffic is more likely to push the rider into the street. According to how you weight injuries/mortality, this might eliminate any advantage to getting doored less.

The other problem, of course, is that riding against traffic creates an obstruction to cyclists following the law. Assuming that in some dimension a wrong-way rider is lowering his or her risk, the risk is just being displaced to another cyclist. Note that there is no reason why the two competing risks would be equal. So for some marginal decrease in risk by the wrong-way cyclist, the law-abiding cyclist could be exposed to a greater/lesser marginal increase.

Since people are using running as an example, I understand the argument. But it was never clear to me that running in the opposite direction is safer than running with traffic. That is, in the years I actively ran no one ever produced statistical evidence suggesting that it really was safer to run against traffic. Then again, I never actively looked for evidence.

-G

[CB HI]

hotbike,
You left out some history in your history lesson. The reason for the walk on the left rule was designed for roadways without sidewalks and shoulders. When one was walking on such a roadway, they could see a car approaching and step off the roadway until after the car passed.

Does not exactly make cycling safer unless the cyclist dismounts and moves off the road every time a car approaches.

Why the off topic swipe at headphone use?

[sggoodri]

But it was never clear to me that running in the opposite direction is safer than running with traffic. That is, in the years I actively ran no one ever produced statistical evidence suggesting that it really was safer to run against traffic. Then again, I never actively looked for evidence.
-G

As a pedestrian safety advocate, I looked for evidence that supported building sidewalks. Virtually all of the collisions involving pedestrians walking along the roadway (rather than crossing it) were pedestrians walking with their backs to traffic in darkness. I cannot remember finding collisions involving pedestrians walking with traffic in good lighting.

At the intersections, contra-flow pedestrians fared much worse than right-way pedestrians, regardless of crosswalk design.

[Raiyn]

I posted this back in 2004 and I wish I could print it out and hand it to people, unfortunately most wrong wayers are usually not smart enough to understand it anyway.
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3817/wrongwaynu2.jpg
You do the math

[John Forester]

i want to turn the clock back to 1961. Before 1961, there was no standard throughout the country, the individual states made their rules.
Some states required bicycles to ride on the left side of the road, similar to the way joggers and runners do today. My state, New York , was one of them.
In 1961, there was a standarization passed that put bicycles on the right side of the road in all 50 states.

snip



I have read vague statements about this on several occasions. Before 1961 I had cycled in California, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, in none of which there appeared to be a left-side law for cyclists. I have a copy of Traffic Laws Annotated, 1972, published by the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. The two sections dealing with the rights and duties of cyclists and with the right-hand side of the road for cyclists show no states (nor the UVC) as ever having required cycling on the left. That is not a positive statement, as perhaps the volume would not state such if such had, by that time, been eliminated. However, the references also list the latest revisions of the state laws regarding these subjects. For the rights and duties, many of the latest state statutes listed predate 1960. For the right-hand side, the earliest of the state statutes listed are: AL 1959, AZ 1956, ID 1957, MN 1960, NM 1960, NY 1960, RI 1957, TN 1955, UT 1960, WI 1958, WY 1959.

I suspect the story that some states required cycling on the left. I suspect that this was just one more unofficial result of the cyclist-inferiority superstition. Does anybody have the full legal references?

[John Forester]

hotbike,
You left out some history in your history lesson. The reason for the walk on the left rule was designed for roadways without sidewalks and shoulders. When one was walking on such a roadway, they could see a car approaching and step off the roadway until after the car passed.

Does not exactly make cycling safer unless the cyclist dismounts and moves off the road every time a car approaches.

Why the off topic swipe at headphone use?

The pedestrian on the left-hand of the roadway side was required by law to get off the roadway when traffic approached. UVC 11-506 (d) new 1971. "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway."

[CB HI]

Thanks for the references John.

We can add CO to the list of ride right prior to 1960. I grew up there and we were taught to ride on the right side.

[Keith99]

I posted this back in 2004 and I wish I could print it out and hand it to people, unfortunately most wrong wayers are usually not smart enough to understand it anyway.

Forget about the impact. Even more important is the closing speed. with 45-15 you are closing twice as fast riding wrong way. Odds go way up that there will be no accident at all if you are riding the right way.

[Raiyn]

Forget about the impact. Even more important is the closing speed. with 45-15 you are closing twice as fast riding wrong way. Odds go way up that there will be no accident at all if you are riding the right way.
Impacts are easier to quantify for more people.

[sggoodri]

In 1961, there was a standarization passed that put bicycles on the right side of the road in all 50 states.
...
The subject I'm talking about is one of the biggest "Unfunded Mandates" in history. Are you familiar with the term "Unfunded Mandate"? That's when a law is passed, but no money is budgeted to enforce it. In the case of putting all bicycles on the right side, it was an Unfunded Mandate that eclipses all others by it's magnitude. Not one dime was spent to educate motorists to the change.

No extra money would be needed. It's inherently easier for motorists to avoid colliding with right-side cyclists than wrong-way cyclists. As Helmet Head would point out, cycling properly eliminates most of the problems of traffic negotiation even when motorists aren't educated about vehicular cycling.

In those states that might have discriminated against bicyclists by requiring them to abandon the roadway when motor traffic came along, perhaps requiring right-side cycling would require some education effort to reduce harassment from some motorists when cyclists stopped bailing out of the roadway. Certainly this would cost the public much less than dealing with the consequences of wrong-way cycling. In any case, it's hard to find sympathy for a state on the basis of having a history of discrimination and ineffective public policy.

[randya]

the Dutch have some contraflow bike lanes on streets that are not wide enough for two lanes to support two way car traffic but support one lane of car traffic and one lane of contraflow bike traffic.

[Helmet Head]

the Dutch have some contraflow bike lanes on streets that are not wide enough for two lanes to support two way car traffic but support one lane of car traffic and one lane of contraflow bike traffic.
I suspect the intersections are tricky, to say the least.

[randya]

I suspect the intersections are tricky, to say the least.
why? there's a bike signal just like there would be a signal for motor vehicles at the intersections.

[CB HI]

Yes, bicycles get to go and then stop for a long time for through motor traffic, then cross cycle traffic, then cross motor traffic. Sounds like 3 times the wait at the traffic signal, what a deal.

[randya]

Yes, bicycles get to go and then stop for a long time for through motor traffic, then cross cycle traffic, then cross motor traffic. Sounds like 3 times the wait at the traffic signal, what a deal.
If you're a typical american cyclist you'll just blow the light anyway, so what do you care?

;)

[CB HI]

Because I don't illegally blow lights!:p

[randya]

Because I don't illegally blow lights!:p
so if it doesn't bother the Dutch using those facilities, why does it bother you so much?

:rolleyes:

[CB HI]

I just noted the wasted time for the facility. It seems to bother you that all of us are not forced to use the dutch system.:rolleyes:

[randya]

It seems to bother you that all of us are not forced to use the dutch system.:rolleyes:
I could care less, I can ride anywhere; and even in Portland I don't see it as a practical reality, unless the political landscape changes really dramatically, which I suppose is entirely possible...or not...depends how many people keep moving to Portland to ride their bikes in the next few years, I guess.

[John Forester]

I could care less, I can ride anywhere; and even in Portland I don't see it as a practical reality, unless the political landscape changes really dramatically, which I suppose is entirely possible...or not...depends how many people keep moving to Portland to ride their bikes in the next few years, I guess.

Interesting? If you don't care at all about the kind of facility on which you ride, why do you bother to advocate any particular kind?

[John Forester]

I could care less, I can ride anywhere; and even in Portland I don't see it as a practical reality, unless the political landscape changes really dramatically, which I suppose is entirely possible...or not...depends how many people keep moving to Portland to ride their bikes in the next few years, I guess.

I rather doubt that the population of Portland will increase significantly due to the immigration of committed cyclists.

[le brad]

I rather doubt that the population of Portland will increase significantly due to the immigration of committed cyclists.

I'm moving to Portland for bicycle related reasons.

[randya]

Interesting? If you don't care at all about the kind of facility on which you ride, why do you bother to advocate any particular kind?
I advocate for whatever works. sometimes that's a blue bike lane, sometimes it's a bike boulevard, sometimes it's sharrows markings. I will also argue against what doesn't work, such as door zone bike lanes or unmarked shared NOLs or WOLs on high speed high volume arterials.

[randya]

I rather doubt that the population of Portland will increase significantly due to the immigration of committed cyclists.
then you'd be both surprised and wrong

[hotbike]

hotbike,
You left out some history in your history lesson. The reason for the walk on the left rule was designed for roadways without sidewalks and shoulders. When one was walking on such a roadway, they could see a car approaching and step off the roadway until after the car passed.

Does not exactly make cycling safer unless the cyclist dismounts and moves off the road every time a car approaches.

Why the off topic swipe at headphone use?

Yes, I can dismount and step off the road every time a car approaches. However, it's not every car that I must step out of the way of. Most motorists leave plenty of room. I can see the motorist, and he can see me, so he knows he can't "spook" me by acting like he can't see me. I don't have eyes in the back of my head. Remember in grammar school when one kid would always do something unruly behind the teacher's back? Either someone told on him, or all the boys had to go to the principals office to figure out who did it. Some motorists operate on that level of juvinile mentality, where they know the cyclist can't see backwards (doesn't have eyes in the back of his head) so they figure they can blow him off the road.
A step-thru frame is a lot safer for these quick dismounts. It might as well have a cargo box full of thirty five pounds of sand:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/hotbike/00000024-1.jpg
I call it "Fiberglass Ladies Utility Bicycle", or FLUB for short. The advertizing campaign is going great (everyone "flubbed" their lines at rehearsal).

As for the swipe at headphone use, it's never a good idea to wear headphones whether walking or cycling.

[John Forester]

I advocate for whatever works. sometimes that's a blue bike lane, sometimes it's a bike boulevard, sometimes it's sharrows markings. I will also argue against what doesn't work, such as door zone bike lanes or unmarked shared NOLs or WOLs on high speed high volume arterials.

What are your criteria for "whatever works"?

[John Forester]

so if it doesn't bother the Dutch using those facilities, why does it bother you so much?

:rolleyes:

I don't know whether or not urban Dutch cyclists are bothered by the added delays at traffic signals produced by their sidepath system. In the cities in which these occur, all traffic moves slowly, motorists have additional great inconveniences produced by the design of the city, travel distances are short, and the centuries-old way of life is suited to the conditions. The typical Dutch urban cyclist is happy that cycling is certainly faster than walking, and may well be faster than motoring. I suspect that there is not much more introspection than that.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

What are your criteria for "whatever works"?
Probably the same as "Faring Best".

[Laika]

The typical Dutch urban cyclist is happy that cycling is certainly faster than walking, and may well be faster than motoring.

I don't guess there's much need for the modifier "Dutch" here. And annual tests here in NYC of cycling vs. public surface and rapid transit and private automobil travel demonstrate year in and year out that cycling is in fact the fastest form of travel here.

[CB HI]

Yes, I can dismount and step off the road every time a car approaches. However, it's not every car that I must step out of the way of. Most motorists leave plenty of room. I can see the motorist, and he can see me, so he knows he can't "spook" me by acting like he can't see me. I don't have eyes in the back of my head. Remember in grammar school when one kid would always do something unruly behind the teacher's back? Either someone told on him, or all the boys had to go to the principals office to figure out who did it. Some motorists operate on that level of juvinile mentality, where they know the cyclist can't see backwards (doesn't have eyes in the back of his head) so they figure they can blow him off the road.
A step-thru frame is a lot safer for these quick dismounts. It might as well have a cargo box full of thirty five pounds of sand:...
Do you really ride that way?:eek:

[hotbike]

Do you really ride that way?:eek:

I don't ride against traffic for more than 500 feet, and not more than 15 miles per hour. 99% of my riding is on the right side of the road. But if I'm going into a coffee shop or someplace to grab a bite to eat, and it's on the left, I often cross over when there is a break in traffic. I feel safe when there is at least 200 feet distance between me and any cars.
It's better to cross the lane and go diagonally across the parking lot when the truck is 300 feet behind me, than to make a 90 deg. left turn when the truck is 25 feet behind me.

As for the cars I creamed with the prow of the amphibious bike; 1) Fiberglass is stronger than steel, and 2) it turned out that in this village of 3000 people, there were only five drivers who habitually swerved at bikes. Once those five cars were wrecked, can-opener style, the bike lanes became safe.