Advocacy & Safety - The Persistence of Bike Salmon

http://streetsblog.net/2010/04/19/the-persistence-of-bike-salmon/

by Sarah Goodyear on April 19, 2010
http://streetsblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/19409792_1ecef67472.jpgThis sign is in London. Do you think anyone got the message? (Photo: Salim Virji via Flickr)

Over the weekend on CommuteOrlando Blog, Keri McCaffrey posted a video showing a bicyclist riding in the wrong direction on a Florida street. After pointing out how this might have ended badly for the rider, she poses the question "Why do they do this?":

Riding against traffic accounts for 45 percent of bike-v-car crashes in Orlando. The majority of those are intersection crashes because the bicyclist comes from an unexpected direction.… Despite the numerous conflicts people experience from this behavior, they don’t connect the dots. Why?

And how do we change that?

McCaffrey and many others on CommuteOrlando Blog practice "vehicular cycling," a style of riding in which the cyclist essentially acts like any other vehicle on the road. There’s a long and ongoing debate between vehicular cyclists — who often oppose the construction of bike-specific infrastructure — and those who believe that striped bike lanes and similar facilities are a good way to get more people out biking, thereby achieving safety in numbers and a more welcoming environment for people who might feel reluctant to ride otherwise. There’s no need to reopen that debate here.

But you don’t have to be a vehicular cyclist to wonder, as McCaffrey does, "Why do people do this?" As the streets of New York fill up with spring cyclists, the number of "salmon" is rising — and quite often, they are endangering other bikers as well as themselves with their wrong-way riding. It’s one of the most frustrating and hazardous phenomena I encounter on my bike on a regular basis.

Why do you think people persist in this behavior? Is it simply because they can’t be bothered to ride a block further to get to a street that goes the right way? Do you have any ideas about how to get them to stop?
...

They do it because they really believe it's safer to ride against traffic, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Ughh, no. We do it because we are to lazy to go one more block to find a street that goes the right way. I don't normally salmon unless I'm on a quiet residential street, in which case I really don;t see it as a dangerous. When I lived in holland the law let you salmon up pretty much any street that wasn't a busy main street. Here in Sydney there aren't too many streets that are safe for Salmoning like in Holland. Normally when riding I don't salmon.
Still when I got to deliver stuff I Salmon all the time. I'm aware of how dangerous it is and when salmoning I'm usually being hyperattentive. Also we have one or two streets were one side of the street will be totally congested and no traffic whatsoever on the other side. Sometimes it's just easier to get to whatever address I need to be at by salmoning up such streets.

As for salmoning up a street with actual traffic? That is absolutely stupid. I only Salmon up empty streets or ones with precious little traffic. And even then I suppose there is a high risk of someone pulling out into the road with out seeing me or more likely a jaywalker who looked in the direction of traffic but not where I'm coming from walking out in front of me.
Honestly, except for messengers I don't see too many bike salmon around here anyway.

But you don’t have to be a vehicular cyclist to wonder, as McCaffrey does, "Why do people do this?" As the streets of New York fill up with spring cyclists, the number of "salmon" is rising — and quite often, they are endangering other bikers as well as themselves with their wrong-way riding. It’s one of the most frustrating and hazardous phenomena I encounter on my bike on a regular basis.

It's refreshing that cyclists are still using the plural of salmon that English already gave us. :D


Why do you think people persist in this behavior? Is it simply because they can’t be bothered to ride a block further to get to a street that goes the right way? Do you have any ideas about how to get them to stop?
...

In school ( I'm 32 ) they taught us to always walk in the opposite direction of traffic, and that this would be much safer because we'd be able to see the car that got us. ( They didn't put it quite like that... ) As you said, cyclists in this country have to figure things out on their own, and this is something to go on, handed down from authority.

Forrest, you hit on it -- the pedestrian teaching about going against traffic -- it's just because so many people think of bikes as kids' toys that they MUST be ridden on the sidewalk... ERGO...................................................

The real killer is when they're riding in the narrow left lane while the right (correct) lane is gigantic.

They do it because they really believe it's safer to ride against traffic, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

That and they use the same "logic" for riding on sidewalks. What is it going to take to get it through their "thick" skulls that this is a dangerous, stupid and illegal action???

http://streetsblog.net/2010/04/19/the-persistence-of-bike-salmon/

by Sarah Goodyear on April 19, 2010
http://streetsblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/19409792_1ecef67472.jpgThis sign is in London. Do you think anyone got the message? (Photo: Salim Virji via Flickr)

Over the weekend on CommuteOrlando Blog, Keri McCaffrey posted a video showing a bicyclist riding in the wrong direction on a Florida street. After pointing out how this might have ended badly for the rider, she poses the question "Why do they do this?":

Riding against traffic accounts for 45 percent of bike-v-car crashes in Orlando. The majority of those are intersection crashes because the bicyclist comes from an unexpected direction.… Despite the numerous conflicts people experience from this behavior, they don’t connect the dots. Why?

And how do we change that?

McCaffrey and many others on CommuteOrlando Blog practice "vehicular cycling," a style of riding in which the cyclist essentially acts like any other vehicle on the road. There’s a long and ongoing debate between vehicular cyclists — who often oppose the construction of bike-specific infrastructure — and those who believe that striped bike lanes and similar facilities are a good way to get more people out biking, thereby achieving safety in numbers and a more welcoming environment for people who might feel reluctant to ride otherwise. There’s no need to reopen that debate here.

But you don’t have to be a vehicular cyclist to wonder, as McCaffrey does, "Why do people do this?" As the streets of New York fill up with spring cyclists, the number of "salmon" is rising — and quite often, they are endangering other bikers as well as themselves with their wrong-way riding. It’s one of the most frustrating and hazardous phenomena I encounter on my bike on a regular basis.

Why do you think people persist in this behavior? Is it simply because they can’t be bothered to ride a block further to get to a street that goes the right way? Do you have any ideas about how to get them to stop?
...

There are 2 reasons for wrong way riding.

1) A bicycle is a toy for pedestrians, and on a street pedestrians are encouraged to walk against traffic to avoid being hit from behind.

In this case, states that do not define a bicycle as a vehicle, should. The traffic laws then need to be reviewed, so that those that apply only to motorized vehicles, would state "motor vehicle", this then makes it clear in the law. I have said this before, and will probably say it again, bicycle safety equipment requirements and minimum standards should be set in the same laws as the requirements for other road vehicles. There would then be the concept of a street legal bicycle, which contains that safety equipment, and a non-street legal bicycle, which does not. This would be followed by a series of PSA's through newspapers, radio and television, and inserts in licence renewal forms, so that all citizens know that a bicycle is a vehicle, and how it is to be legally treated. All police officers would be provided with this information as well.

2) People are convinced that the most common bicycle-vs-car collision is the hit from behind, which in most places it isn't, most collisions occur at intersections. Τhe solution here, is really twofold, first we have bicycle mirrors, and they have been around for decades. Second we need better safe passing laws, the 3' law is good with small motor vehicles that are travelling slowly, however as speed increases or the size of the vehicle, more space is required. The laws needs to state such, for example at 30MPH for a vehicle under 10,000lbs you need 3', for every additional 10,000lbs or 10MPH in speed you need to give 1 additional foot, up to a maximum of 1 full lane. A truck at 56,000lbs travelling at 80MPH would need to provide 13' to safely pass a bicycle. However in a lane that is 14' wide, with the bicycle 3; from the curb, this would not be possible. The safe passing law would naturally tie into speed limits, if the road is not wide enough for the largest motor vehicle it typically sees to pass safely at the speed limit, then the speed limit needs adjusting.

There are a couple of places on my regular commute that could use that sign. Around here a common sight is not just cyclists going the wrong way, but going the wrong way with shopping bags hanging from the ends of their handlebars. On bikes that are clearly too small for them. It's really amazing I don't see more of them becoming hood ornaments.

That and they use the same "logic" for riding on sidewalks. What is it going to take to get it through their "thick" skulls that this is a dangerous, stupid and illegal action???
Maybe "they" will get it about the same time that thick skulled pompous blowhards and self proclaimed safety experts "get it" that the "dangerous" actions of so-called salmon (and sidewalk riders) are none of their business. The alleged "danger" is relatively minor and perhaps balanced out by other considerations to the "salmon." The "salmon's" actions are certainly an insignificant danger to the whining ranters except for being an affront to oversensitive control freaks, and their anal efforts to control the actions of other cyclists.

If a person you know and care about rides in an unsafe manner, then by all means talk to him or her about it.

If you are a law enforcement officer and wrong-way riding is unlawful in your jurisdiction, cite the miscreants.

If you are leading a group ride, keep your duckings in line.

Otherwise, see #10 above and ask yourself if your feelings of anger and superiority make life better for you and those you love.

I asked a salmon why he cycled the wrong way on the street recently while waiting at the red light. Well, I had stopped -- salmon paused for a moment after changing sides. He shrugged his shoulders and sped off against the red and neatly dodged an oncoming car. I think this particular guy does it because he likes to buck the rules since he's so special and keen. Anything anyone could say to that fellow would get lost in the wind. I just hope I never seen him in an accident.

The only time I have ever felt endangered by salmon was a salmon rollerblader... OMG. I thought I had moved far enough out to dodge her but I still ran over her foot.

There are 2 reasons for wrong way riding.

1) A bicycle is a toy for pedestrians, and on a street pedestrians are encouraged to walk against traffic to avoid being hit from behind.

In this case, states that do not define a bicycle as a vehicle, should. The traffic laws then need to be reviewed, so that those that apply only to motorized vehicles, would state "motor vehicle", this then makes it clear in the law. I have said this before, and will probably say it again, bicycle safety equipment requirements and minimum standards should be set in the same laws as the requirements for other road vehicles. There would then be the concept of a street legal bicycle, which contains that safety equipment, and a non-street legal bicycle, which does not. This would be followed by a series of PSA's through newspapers, radio and television, and inserts in licence renewal forms, so that all citizens know that a bicycle is a vehicle, and how it is to be legally treated. All police officers would be provided with this information as well.



Oh I just love this Idea. Lets wrap cycling in so much red tape that NOBODY will ever want to go to the trouble of riding a bicycle ever again. That should solve the problem of those pesky salmon.

Also there is such a thing as a street legal bicycle in most places. It is called a bike with a working brake, and reflectors/active lighting if used after dark. what more could you possibly need? functioning turn signals? Please.

The persistence of bike salmon in London and cities around the USA is partly a result of cycling as of yet failing to achieve critical mass.

In cities that stripe in road infrastructure that supports roadway cycling, there is a reduction in sidewalk cycling. This is a big plus for rider safety.

Additionally, i've observed in US cities with high ridership and equitable roadscape for bike traffic that wrong way cyclists are the minority. Wrong way riding behavior gets culled out as ridership increases. A cyclist can't fight the commuter peloton for too long before they discover that yes indeed they might be traveling in the wrong direction! (I can just picture a salmon trying to ride in Copenhagen during rush hour - not going to happen!)

I predict American cyclist counts would show a lessening in the ratio of wrongway:correct direction cyclists as cities build ridership.

salmon are either not there, OR the roads support a multi directional cycling approach (woonerven), in cities with high ridership.

NYC is an odd bird, but even there i suspect to see some greater normalization of bike traffic there as the city builds in more roadway bicycling infrastructure and NYC takes progressive steps to guide non-motorized transportation policy.

Maybe Manhattan needs to become one giant Woonerf????

The "salmon's" actions are certainly an insignificant danger to the whining ranters except for being an affront to oversensitive control freaks, and their anal efforts to control the actions of other cyclists.

I don't think it's "anal" to be irritated by someone coming at you the wrong way, forcing you to take evasive action. The other day my wife nearly got creamed trying to cross the street by a guy going the wrong way. Yeah, I know, it's her fault for not looking to see if someone was going the wrong way down the bike lane.

I asked a salmon why he cycled the wrong way on the street recently while waiting at the red light. Well, I had stopped -- salmon paused for a moment after changing sides. He shrugged his shoulders and sped off against the red and neatly dodged an oncoming car. I think this particular guy does it because he likes to buck the rules since he's so special and keen. Anything anyone could say to that fellow would get lost in the wind. I just hope I never seen him in an accident.
Why were you asking a stranger questions when you "think" you already know the answer?
I suspect that the other fellow hopes never to see you or hear your "questions" anywhere.

http://streetsblog.net/2010/04/19/the-persistence-of-bike-salmon/
Riding against traffic accounts for 45 percent of bike-v-car crashes in Orlando.

That's only interesting if the percentage of wrong-way riders in the population is much less than 45%. Otherwise it's as expected and does not demonstrate that wrong-way riders are at increased risk.






Why do you think people persist in this behavior? Is it simply because they can’t be bothered to ride a block further to get to a street that goes the right way? Do you have any ideas about how to get them to stop?
...

Yes, People want to take the shortest line to their destination. Street layouts designed for people sitting in their cars are particularly frustrating if you're walking or cycling. Best way to get them to stop is to get rid of one-way streets.

Agreed. And even if you see them in advance then you're unsure what they'll do because they're already demonstrating that they might be a bit erratic and unpredictable.

Agreed. And even if you see them in advance then you're unsure what they'll do because they're already demonstrating that they might be a bit erratic and unpredictable.
The Horror, The Horror; or is it the sky is falling because a tiny bit more "uncertainty" might be momentarily added to your life? You must be cycling in paradise if this bit of "uncertainty" is a significant issue where you ride.

That's only interesting if the percentage of wrong-way riders in the population is much less than 45%. Otherwise it's as expected and does not demonstrate that wrong-way riders are at increased risk.

Agreed. Same logic applies to the reports of the alleged dangers of sidewalk cycling.

The Horror, The Horror; or is it the sky is falling because a tiny bit more "uncertainty" might be momentarily added to your life? You must be cycling in paradise if this bit of "uncertainty" is a significant issue where you ride.

Oh go on, you're exaggerating:rolleyes:

Wrong way riding is a pretty good indication that the person is more of a risk taker or more out of it than other road users. Both of those are traits that make for poor road sharing and I give the people that display them a wide berth. Take those people off their Can-Do-No-Wrong vehicle and shove them in a car and you'll be back here *****ing about the moron that right-hooked you.

Take those people off their Can-Do-No-Wrong vehicle and shove them in a car and you'll be back here *****ing about the moron that right-hooked you.
And IF they were driving a bus I might mind even more, and an airplane even more yet; but the point is that they are not, they are riding bikes; and the whiners are all hot and bothered about the insignificant danger to who knows whom from the likely insignificant increase in cycling risk of cyclists' behavior that is no threat to them or anyone else.

Maybe "they" will get it about the same time that thick skulled pompous blowhards and self proclaimed safety experts "get it" that the "dangerous" actions of so-called salmon (and sidewalk riders) are none of their business. The alleged "danger" is relatively minor and perhaps balanced out by other considerations to the "salmon." The "salmon's" actions are certainly an insignificant danger to the whining ranters except for being an affront to oversensitive control freaks, and their anal efforts to control the actions of other cyclists.

Maybe the "thick skulled pompous blowhards" are smart enough to realize, unlike other ostrich-like, unlovable curmudgeons, that the other millions of barely functional morons who sit behind steering wheels view ALL bike riders in the same light as a few fools, and don't want to be painted with the same broad brush.

And I'm having a chuckle at said curmudgeons who can't do else but anally exert their own efforts to control other "oversensitive control freaks" with their societal sociopathy.

... the other millions of barely functional morons who sit behind steering wheels view ALL bike riders...
Must be swell to be an all knowing human being far superior to the low life trash who don't have the good sense to follow your sterling example.

Maybe "they" will get it about the same time that thick skulled pompous blowhards and self proclaimed safety experts "get it" that the "dangerous" actions of so-called salmon (and sidewalk riders) are none of their business. The alleged "danger" is relatively minor and perhaps balanced out by other considerations to the "salmon." The "salmon's" actions are certainly an insignificant danger to the whining ranters except for being an affront to oversensitive control freaks, and their anal efforts to control the actions of other cyclists.

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?

:50: :bang:

...but definitely in terms of absolute risk.

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


"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.

"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.

Nice alliteration!! :thumb:

Must be swell to be an all knowing human being far superior to the low life trash who don't have the good sense to follow your sterling example.

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.......

[Insults and "social conscience" ]
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.

That's only interesting if the percentage of wrong-way riders in the population is much less than 45%. Otherwise it's as expected and does not demonstrate that wrong-way riders are at increased risk.

For risk calculations see:
http://www.metroplanorlando.com/site/upload/documents/ped_and_bike_risks_and_countermeasures.pdf

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 -


Through proper design, bike lanes can reduce crashes. Bike lanes have been shown to
reduce wrong-way riding, increase motorist and bicyclist predictability, reduce sidewalk
riding, and guide cyclists to the proper position for riding through intersections. Bike
lanes can also reduce crashes that occur when a motorist overtakes a bicyclist by
offsetting bicyclists from motorists. An additional benefit of bike lanes is the visual
delineation of the regular travel lane at night. This becomes very important when
motorists drive at a speed such that they cannot stop in the distance that the roadway is
illuminated by their headlights.

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

Nice alliteration!! :thumb:

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 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 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.

For risk calculations see:
http://www.metroplanorlando.com/site/upload/documents/ped_and_bike_risks_and_countermeasures.pdf
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.:twitchy:

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

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

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1413/578296000_d26917eeca.jpg

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.

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.

...the salmon, which changes your overall exposure profile dramatically. Some would argue that the risk is not just additive, but multiplicative.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

OK- thanks for your thoughtful reply.

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).

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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-�-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.

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?