Advocacy & Safety - Are there times it is just dumb to ride?

Tonight I was driving in Corvallis, OR, a cycling-friendly college town (a dangerous combination IMHO). Windy, very windy, and torrential rain. Very difficult to see as a driver.

Was spooked a couple of times by cyclists passing me, with no apparent headlight and marginal tail light. Saw other unlit bikes (this was all after dark).

I noticed how hard it was for me to make out the lines on the road whilst driving, and how the glare of headlights and taillights, and the bright advertising signs, and the constant change in lighting from moving from under a street light to areas in between.

I also noticed how my eyes (I'm 53) don't care for the new bright blue headlights, and especially the cars that either are using driving lights or leaving the lights on high beam.

I came to the conclusion that there are some times where cycling is just plain dumb. Drivers, no matter how conscientious, are going to have a hard time seeing even a well-lit cyclist in these conditions. I just scratched these weather conditions off my ride day list - even though it will impact my commute and my monthly mileage.

Sure, the right to ride is there - but even the most careful driver is having trouble in these conditions, and I couldn't help but think that the folks I saw out there today hadn't really thought it through very well.

These times that "cycling is plain dumb" often overlap those times where driving would be correspondingly more risky. I'll give you a hint: if you're having difficulty seeing out of your car, other drivers are having difficulty seeing out of theirs. Everyone's risk proportionately increases during these times. In my experience, my own visibility from a bike is more consistent in inclement weather than when I am in a car. I really feel trapped when I'm in my car and its raining, when I'm riding my glasses can get wet, but never as bad as a car windshield, plus I have more feedback from sound, that is, I can hear what cars around me are doing better. Rain in a car is loud. That doesn't mean I'm safer during these times, but I don't feel much safer being on the interstate in my car during a downpour either.

Under the conditions you describe, I think the people that are not wearing reflective gear and using good lights are taking their lives in their hands. I don't ride in town without those and a helmet light to get people's attention. If you are wearing good reflective gear, there are very few conditions that aren't reasonably safe.

I came to the conclusion that there are some times where cycling is just plain dumb. Drivers, no matter how conscientious, are going to have a hard time seeing even a well-lit cyclist in these conditions.
Perhaps, although it seems to me that a really well-lit cyclist would be at least as visible as a car and therefore even moderately conscientious drivers should be able to see them. Night riding without adequate lighting does strike me as a bad idea.

But it seems to me that the real problem is that we have established societal norms where we hardly ever consider conditions to be such that driving shouldn't be attempted - or even such that drivers should slow down to a fraction of their normal speed so that they can still see obstacles at a distance and with sufficient clarity so that they can be avoided.

Given the conditions you cite I wonder how well you and your fellow drivers would have done in a test of reaction times to the appearance of sudden obstacles in comparison to a group of drivers with a BAC of, say 0.12, under normal, good weather conditions. Yet most of us wouldn't think of going out to drive our cars with that BAC level whereas we don't even hesitate about doing so in bad weather conditions.

I agree with all that prathmann said. I'll add one other thing that has occurred to me quite often lately. As cities, businesses, sports arenas and residences add more and more gratuitous lighting, we cyclists become more and more likely to be mentally processed out by overwhelmed motorists as noise. The more streaks of light appear in front of a motorist, the more likely he/she is to just look for pairs of tail lights indicating the car in front of them, which means our closely-spaced blinkies become invisible. This is particularly likely to be true when the pavement is wet, since it can look like a house of mirrors out there.

Wouldn't it be lovely if motorists understood the basic speed law that is on the books of (nearly?) every state?

Tonight I was driving in Corvallis, OR, a cycling-friendly college town (a dangerous combination IMHO). Windy, very windy, and torrential rain. Very difficult to see as a driver.

Was spooked a couple of times by cyclists passing me, with no apparent headlight and marginal tail light. Saw other unlit bikes (this was all after dark).

I noticed how hard it was for me to make out the lines on the road whilst driving, and how the glare of headlights and taillights, and the bright advertising signs, and the constant change in lighting from moving from under a street light to areas in between.

I also noticed how my eyes (I'm 53) don't care for the new bright blue headlights, and especially the cars that either are using driving lights or leaving the lights on high beam.

I came to the conclusion that there are some times where cycling is just plain dumb. Drivers, no matter how conscientious, are going to have a hard time seeing even a well-lit cyclist in these conditions. I just scratched these weather conditions off my ride day list - even though it will impact my commute and my monthly mileage.

Sure, the right to ride is there - but even the most careful driver is having trouble in these conditions, and I couldn't help but think that the folks I saw out there today hadn't really thought it through very well.

What about a drivers responsibility to DRIVE at a safe and reasonable speed for the conditions present? Such as if it is an overcast raining day i.e. heavy rain. So much so that you can't see the road in front of you. Why are you driving at a speed that makes it difficult if not impossible to stop in a reasonable amount of time?

The reverse of your question is this: Are there times that is just dumb to drive?

I truely inclement conditions most motorists simply don't consider that an individual would be cycling. They are scared to be out there in a car. Even though they see you, they dismiss you as a misperception because they just "know" that there can't be a bicycle on the road in these conditions.

I know this because many drivers have explained it to me as they tried to apologize to me for nearly killing me, many from a ditch, and many who were other employees and supervisors were I worked, and who knew I rode that road to work.

Who's right, the driver who encounters a cyclist in extreme conditions that most drivers won't drive, or the cyclist who rides in those conditions anyway (me, often)? The point is moot. If you ride or drive in extreme conditions, you take a serious risk that transends the norm. Accept it and move on, or park the bike and climb in the cage, but you can't blame drivers for not seeing you when you are "hidden" in severe conditions that most reasonable people are terrified to even be in at all.

OP: Lightening and tornados, and thats about it so far......

In the conditions the OP described, it sounded like it was dumb, for both. The cyclists' could have easily fallen from skidding on the wet roads. The motorist could have easily skidded.

In general, I don't ride in rain unless I am already out when it was originally clear skies. The only time apart from rain itself, is inclement weather in general. In terms of a specific time of day, when it is already dark.

I agree with all that prathmann said. I'll add one other thing that has occurred to me quite often lately. As cities, businesses, sports arenas and residences add more and more gratuitous lighting, we cyclists become more and more likely to be mentally processed out by overwhelmed motorists as noise. The more streaks of light appear in front of a motorist, the more likely he/she is to just look for pairs of tail lights indicating the car in front of them, which means our closely-spaced blinkies become invisible. This is particularly likely to be true when the pavement is wet, since it can look like a house of mirrors out there.

This is my largest concern as a cyclist in inclement weather. When I ride to work in the morning, I am usually rolling in well before the traffic picks up. I stand out because I am alone out there, mostly, and the route I take doesn't have me in areas with lots of supplemental lighting.

Going home at this time of the year, I feel like I get lost in all the red tail lights. When someone sees my lights in the bike lane, I believe in many cases they are looking at that light thinking it is just the right hand tail light of a car in front.

Riding in the rain here in Oregon is something you simply do if you ride more than three months a year. But I concluded last night that the weather can be sufficiently inclement that I am not sufficiently visible: I can ride fine in nasty weather, just like most of you - but as the "clutter" on the radar screen increases, the likelihood of an error by a driver (or cyclist) increases.


Wouldn't it be lovely if motorists understood the basic speed law that is on the books of (nearly?) every state?

Many motorists do. I am frankly impressed with the number of drivers here that do dial it back in bad weather. But it doesn't take but one idiot running above what is safe to cause an issue.

Equally lovely (pause here whilst I don my flameproof suit) would be cyclists that followed the basic rules of the road that are on the books of every state? (maybe hijacked my own thread....).

What about a drivers responsibility to DRIVE at a safe and reasonable speed for the conditions present? Such as if it is an overcast raining day i.e. heavy rain. So much so that you can't see the road in front of you. Why are you driving at a speed that makes it difficult if not impossible to stop in a reasonable amount of time?

The reverse of your question is this: Are there times that is just dumb to drive?

If I cannot see the road in front of me, like most drivers, I pull over. Just like drivers do in Tampa - when those storms hit that don't allow drivers to see there, they pull over or (as I have observed) they stop where they are.

By the same token, I have ridden in cars at 60mph in the Tule fog in CA on the way to ski, where you could see maybe two stripes on the road. Stupid. That would definitely register as a time too dumb to drive.

Dense fog. Torrential rain. Icy roads. Easy list of times it is too dumb to drive. But my question in the OP was to consider it from the cyclist perspective - not to flip to ragging on JAMs, but just under what conditions do you consider it too dumb to ride. Apparently there aren't many such conditions we wish to admit.

Equally lovely (pause here whilst I don my flameproof suit) would be cyclists that followed the basic rules of the road that are on the books of every state? (maybe hijacked my own thread....).

+1

It's not a question of being dumb. Cycling on the road is risky. The risk can be lessened to some degree by improving conspicuity and choosing where and under what conditions to ride. It's a matter of personal judgement as to what constitutes an acceptable risk/benefit tradeoff.

It's not just weather that makes it dumb to ride/drive. I've learned to avoid riding during the last couple of weeks before Christmas. There's a lot more traffic on the road, people are REALLY in a hurry and are driving very aggressively. I had my only serious cycling accident at this time of year. This year, it was scary even driving my car around the last few days before Christmas - people running lights, cutting other people off, generally driving like lunatics ...

It's funny to think that without the cars this whole situation would be perfectly safe. A bunch of cyclists riding around in the rain presents no real danger at all...

Anyways, I certainly understand the 'light pollution' thing, but I really think that the high quality blinkies cut right through it all.

In the conditions the OP described, it sounded like it was dumb, for both. The cyclists' could have easily fallen from skidding on the wet roads. The motorist could have easily skidded.

In general, I don't ride in rain unless I am already out when it was originally clear skies. The only time apart from rain itself, is inclement weather in general. In terms of a specific time of day, when it is already dark.

You just ruled out riding bikes or driving for about 9 months out of the year here where the O.P. lives. Not practical. Our roads are also wet so much that they aren't particularly slick, as they are being washed pretty clean most of the time. Especially last night! Anybody else feel like they need scuba gear?

David, I'm only 48 but my night vision is going so bad that I'm afraid to drive in conditions like you describe. I have become one of those old guys that drive 35 in a 55 zone, and that's pushing my sightline sometimes. Except that I'll pull over to let other people pass. But I can see well enough to ride my bicycle. I have two of those flashing Radbot tail lights mounted to the ends of an 18" wide light bar I attached to my rear rack, in addition to my generator powered tail light. That's plenty out where I ride in the sticks, even in the fog. I still don't know if that would compete with the city traffic, reflective wet streets, and lights everywhere. My bicycle is way more visible from behind than my motorcycle now. I need to work on the motorcycle.

I'm happy my commute is rural, though of course if I do get hit it is way more likely to kill me.

it seems like it would pretty much rule out riding in Pennsylvania too. You get used to picking a line that isn't quite as slick and staying off of road markings. The only time I've fallen in the last couple of years was due to wet snow early in the season when there was probably some residual oil left on the roads.

If I cannot see the road in front of me, like most drivers, I pull over. Just like drivers do in Tampa - when those storms hit that don't allow drivers to see there, they pull over or (as I have observed) they stop where they are.

By the same token, I have ridden in cars at 60mph in the Tule fog in CA on the way to ski, where you could see maybe two stripes on the road. Stupid. That would definitely register as a time too dumb to drive.

Dense fog. Torrential rain. Icy roads. Easy list of times it is too dumb to drive. But my question in the OP was to consider it from the cyclist perspective - not to flip to ragging on JAMs, but just under what conditions do you consider it too dumb to ride. Apparently there aren't many such conditions we wish to admit.

My question is just as fair and relevant as your question is/was. As if for whatever reason, i.e. weather conditions that it's "dumb" to ride then it is probably also "dumb" for people to drive as well. And likewise is there a time when it is "dumb" for people to walk?

Sadly, I have seen too many drivers who do not pull over and who continue to drive as if it isn't raining and that the road is drive. A good example of this is from a few years ago on I4. One state agency was doing a controlled burn. Unfortunately an unexpected and rather dense fog rolled in. Instead of canceling the burn it continued. Drivers instead of slowing down and pulling off of the interstate continued to drive through the fog and smoke. Causing a MASSIVE pileup.

It was so large, that IIRC that it was determined that it was actually made up of several crashes. Of course the first few drivers through who actually caused the pileup were upset to learn that they were going to be ticketed for their part in causing the crash(es), with many of them saying that even if the fine was $10.00 they'd fight it.

I would say that if drivers obeyed the existing traffic laws, slowed down when weather/road conditions called for it. That overall it would be safer for walkers, cyclists and motorists alike.

It's not just weather that makes it dumb to ride/drive. I've learned to avoid riding during the last couple of weeks before Christmas. There's a lot more traffic on the road, people are REALLY in a hurry and are driving very aggressively. I had my only serious cycling accident at this time of year. This year, it was scary even driving my car around the last few days before Christmas - people running lights, cutting other people off, generally driving like lunatics ...

I find just the opposite. I'm not saying you're wrong ... I've also noticed that people drive more aggressively, and tend to congregate in the shopping districts, as Christmas approaches. But if you choose your routes to avoid places where people shop, the rest of the streets look like they belong to a ghost town.

[QUOTE]My question is just as fair and relevant as your question is/was. As if for whatever reason, i.e. weather conditions that it's "dumb" to ride then it is probably also "dumb" for people to drive as well. And likewise is there a time when it is "dumb" for people to walk?

If answering a question with a question is an answer...

I presume then, that there are no conditions that are unsafe for a cyclist to ride in as long as drivers think it isn't unsafe for them?

Dang, yet another A&S thread unraveling - either hijacked or a hard turn away from the question.:notamused:


Sadly, I have seen too many drivers who do not pull over and who continue to drive as if it isn't raining and that the road is drive. A good example of this is from a few years ago on I4. One state agency was doing a controlled burn. Unfortunately an unexpected and rather dense fog rolled in. Instead of canceling the burn it continued. Drivers instead of slowing down and pulling off of the interstate continued to drive through the fog and smoke. Causing a MASSIVE pileup.

So have I. Part of the original question - when does it become too dumb/risky/whatever to ride. I submit that the drivers have an influence on that decision - the heavy rain and wind last night made it more hazardous to drive, and IMHO too hazardous to ride a bicycle safely.


It was so large, that IIRC that it was determined that it was actually made up of several crashes. Of course the first few drivers through who actually caused the pileup were upset to learn that they were going to be ticketed for their part in causing the crash(es), with many of them saying that even if the fine was $10.00 they'd fight it.

Typical of crashes in the fog in the central valley of CA. But would this have been a safe condition to cycle in? If the drivers have a hard time seeing other cars or the road, does it follow that they might have a hard time seeing and reacting properly to a cyclist?


I would say that if drivers obeyed the existing traffic laws, slowed down when weather/road conditions called for it. That overall it would be safer for walkers, cyclists and motorists alike.

I would tend to agree. And if pedestrians wore bright and reflective clothing and didn't jaywalk, and cyclists never went ninja or played salmon, and we all sat around and sang kum ba ya we'd at least have more love at the scene of the accident.

Back to the original question: Are there times it simply isn't wise to ride?:bang:

As a commuter, I ride in all weather except ice.

The problems you describe aren't with cycling in general, but with cycling unprepared -- bikes with inadequate or no lighting don't belong on the road when it's dark or raining. Get good lights that are visible but avoid glare; add plenty of reflective material; ride predictably where motorists will be looking for other legal traffic; leave extra clearance when passing; be extra-careful at intersections; etc.

Most drivers compound these problems by failing to abide by the most basic of safety rules, driving no faster than conditions allow. No matter how hard the rain, a motorist is still responsible for seeing other legal road users in time to avoid a collision. Sometimes that means driving 5mph with high beams on just to see 50 feet; sometimes it means pulling off the road entirely until conditions improve. But most drivers act as if the posted speed limit means it's OK to drive that fast in all conditions. This widespread contempt for the law is definitely one of the factors I consider when planning my commute.

It would be dumb to ride your bike if the only bike you had was completely apart and you had no way obtain another one.

It's not a question of being dumb. Cycling on the road is risky. The risk can be lessened to some degree by improving conspicuity and choosing where and under what conditions to ride. It's a matter of personal judgement as to what constitutes an acceptable risk/benefit tradeoff.

Keep in mind that cycling is still safer than driving, overall.

Decades of peer-reviewed public health research show lower all-cause mortality for bicycle commuters, despite all the risks we focus on here. Partly that's because the risks aren't as great as they seem, partly it's because the risks of driving are greater than they seem, and partly it's because of the immense health benefits of cycling twice a day, all year long.

The risks of accidental death are higher for cyclists, but to me, whether I die this year is more significant than how, so all-cause mortality risk is more relevant than accident-only mortality risk. And by that standard, there's almost no weather where it would be smarter to drive than ride. If the weather is too awful to bike, it's too awful to risk going to work at all.

You just ruled out riding bikes or driving for about 9 months out of the year here where the O.P. lives. Not practical. Our roads are also wet so much that they aren't particularly slick, as they are being washed pretty clean most of the time. Especially last night! Anybody else feel like they need scuba gear?

True, true. When I lived in London 35yrs. ago, I felt like I needed scuba gear, just to walk one mile from home to school in the rain and it wasn't fun.

........The problems you describe aren't with cycling in general, but with cycling unprepared -- bikes with inadequate or no lighting don't belong on the road when it's dark or raining.

......Most drivers compound these problems by failing to abide by the most basic of safety rules, driving no faster than conditions allow......
......sometimes it means pulling off the road entirely until conditions improve.......

I wholeheartedly agree. Unprepare riders, and drivers, are the greatest threat in inclement weather. Riders who don't prepare their bikes properly or dress appropriately end up too preoccupied by the conditions and don't pay attention to what is going on on the road ahead and behind them.

Drivers who are unprepared find themselves running late, and they drive too fast for the conditions and too preoccupied to maintain control of their cars. Sometimes they are forced to "pulling off the road entirely until conditions improve" because they end up in a ditch...... Happen every year here when the first snow hits.




Keep in mind that cycling is still safer than driving, overall........
...........If the weather is too awful to bike, it's too awful to risk going to work at all.

Too true. Several times I have shown up for work, only to find that I was the only one that made it in on time (or at all).

I'd not ride in 4+ inches of snow, at night, when the plow trucks are out.

I wouldn't be driving then, either.

In fact, my bike is better than my car in rain, snow, and ice, but there's no way I'm going up against plows or slowing them down, in the dark, and deeper snow just sucks too bad.

I haven't rode in the rain since I was a kid (And loved riding in the deep puddles, I wonder why my old bike was so noisy?) but man, I tell you what. Don't get out there if there's any chance of hail.

... because of the immense health benefits of cycling twice a day, all year long..

The immense benefit comes from the exercise, not cycling. There are safer, if not more enjoyable, ways to get equivalent exercise.

Also certain times of the day when you have to ride into the sun on the horizon, which is more of a challenge to avoid if the sun remains low on the horizon all day, in the northern latitudes.

I find just the opposite. I'm not saying you're wrong ... I've also noticed that people drive more aggressively, and tend to congregate in the shopping districts, as Christmas approaches. But if you choose your routes to avoid places where people shop, the rest of the streets look like they belong to a ghost town.I wish that were true here...

The immense benefit comes from the exercise, not cycling. There are safer, if not more enjoyable, ways to get equivalent exercise.

If there are, no one has found them yet. The health benefits of bicycle commuting are, according to peer-reviewed public health research, independent of other athletic activity. That is, whether you do other exercise or not, bicycle commuting is good for your health. (In studies, most forms of regular exercise do correlate to improved health outcomes. Amusingly, according to a Milliman study of employee health costs a few years back, the one common exercise that correlates with negative health outcomes is "walking for health." It's not clear why that's true. But bicycle commuting has an added benefit, on top of whatever other athletic activity you do outside work.)

That bicycle commuting has health benefits independent of other exercise is in part due to the unique physical and mental characteristics of commuter cycling -- twice-daily extended aerobic exercise, much more regular than almost any exercise program adopted for health, combined with exposure to the natural environment, and requiring mental acuity as well as constant physical activity.

The timing of bicycle commuting is important for stress-related illness -- you'd have to go to the gym immediately before and after work every day to emulate that benefit, and for most people, going to the gym twice a day would mean two to four additional exposures to the health consequences of driving, not just motor vehicle accidents, but stress, carbon monoxide exposure, increased risk of deep-vein thrombosis from regularly sitting in a car seat, etc.

To reap the same mental health benefits, you'd need to have your gym outdoors, exposed to varying scenery and weather and seasonal daylight, and incorporate some sort of interactive mental component.

Too true. Several times I have shown up for work, only to find that I was the only one that made it in on time (or at all).

I've only had that happen once, but that's because we have an active employee safety program that tells people to stay home when the weather is truly dangerous. If there's any doubt, employees can call a toll-free office status line to check. Losing just one employee, even temporarily, due to an accident, can be very expensive and disruptive.

The one time I made it in to an empty office, it was because of a local problem, a broken water main near the building. I'd left home just minutes before the phone tree would have told me not to bother.

Dumb times to ride:

1. During a hailstorm.
2. When drunk.
3. After dark to go get batteries for your lights.
4. When you slip on the glare ice in your driveway on the way to the bike.
5. When you start to believe that drivers WON'T do the rudest, most thoughtless and stupid thing imaginable in your vicinity.

I've ridden in raging downpours/T-storms, blizzards, through flooded streets, and through/over snowdrifts, plowed and otherwise.

5. When you start to believe that drivers WON'T do the rudest, most thoughtless and stupid thing imaginable in your vicinity.

From the moment I get on my bike, I prepare myself for the ANY motorist to be rude and/or, thoughtless and/or, stupid. Even the police when they are not on a call.

From the moment I get on my bike, I prepare myself for the ANY motorist to be rude and/or, thoughtless and/or, stupid. Even the police when they are not on a call.

And, therefore like the pessimist, if I am wrong the worst that happens is that I am pleasantly surprised. And often, I am.

Dumb times to ride:

1. During a hailstorm.
2. When drunk.
3. After dark to go get batteries for your lights.
4. When you slip on the glare ice in your driveway on the way to the bike.
5. When you start to believe that drivers WON'T do the rudest, most thoughtless and stupid thing imaginable in your vicinity.

I've ridden in raging downpours/T-storms, blizzards, through flooded streets, and through/over snowdrifts, plowed and otherwise.

Does your rule #5 imply that cyclists are never rude, thoughtless, and stupid? Just come to SE Portland some day and pull up a bench and watch some....

If there are, no one has found them yet. The health benefits of bicycle commuting are, according to peer-reviewed public health research, independent of other athletic activity. That is, whether you do other exercise or not, bicycle commuting is good for your health. (In studies, most forms of regular exercise do correlate to improved health outcomes. Amusingly, according to a Milliman study of employee health costs a few years back, the one common exercise that correlates with negative health outcomes is "walking for health." It's not clear why that's true. But bicycle commuting has an added benefit, on top of whatever other athletic activity you do outside work.)

As you point out, there are correlations but causal relationship has been proven. There may other lifestyle characteristics of those who choose to commute that may be the "cause", and not the commuting itself. I'm inclined to believe the effect is due to a sumation of lifestyle factors than it is that commuting is somehow different than other bike riding. What constitutes commuting and specifically how is it different from other types of riding? For example, if I work from home and go for a 1/2 ride in the morning and afternoon, that probably doesn't' qualify, but do you think the benefit is less because of that? Suppose I went for run instead?

As you point out, there are correlations but causal relationship has been proven. There may other lifestyle characteristics of those who choose to commute that may be the "cause", and not the commuting itself. I'm inclined to believe the effect is due to a sumation of lifestyle factors than it is that commuting is somehow different than other bike riding. What constitutes commuting and specifically how is it different from other types of riding? For example, if I work from home and go for a 1/2 ride in the morning and afternoon, that probably doesn't' qualify, but do you think the benefit is less because of that? Suppose I went for run instead?

I wonder if the endorphin rush I have when I get to work, and then when I get home, is part of the equation for other commuters? My work day starts at a lower stress level, and maintains that lower level, most of the day. I leave work at work when I climb in the saddle to go home - I can't very well be dwelling on work and be safe on the bike. Even days that I drive in with a bike and ride at lunch, my start to the day is just better.

I know that commuting to work does more than just lower stress - I eat better, I sleep better, I spend less time in front of the TV (please don't measure me based on the last two weeks). But I commute because I like to ride, not to save money or be car-free. I also ride a lot on weekends, and any other time I can. I actually only kinda hate my trainer (I know, sick). But if I don't ride to work, I feel icky and bummed - I miss the fun of riding in. So, I am an anecdote, rather than a data point. But commuting does something for my whole day that my recreational/training rides does not.

OP: Lightening and tornados, and thats about it so far......

I’m going to add Tsunamis and Hurricanes to the list….or maybe we should just say any extreme natural incident is unsafe to ride in (which would also include earthquakes, volcanos, etc...)

IMO, it’s about management of risk. Sometimes all you need to do is change one thing and the risk of failure goes away. Any particular failure is not due to one thing going wrong, but a series of things going wrong (conditions and actions) in sequence. So, yes, the aforementioned dark/heavy rain/windy situation is dangerous (condition)…but it would appear that it is so because of the presence of vehicles on the same road (condition and action – choosing that particular road to ride on). What if the rider was on a less traveled road (frontage road, country road, etc…), is the risk still there? OK, maybe the risk of getting hit by a car is now reduced, but if you’re on a tertiary road it might not be well maintained, so now there’s more potholes to trip you up (a different level of hazard, but a hazard, still).

In the safety world, there is what is known as the Hierarchy of Controls that is used to manage risk. These (in order) are:

1) Substitution. Basically this is asking “Can something else be done, instead?” This can be as simple as taking a different road, postponing the trip, taking public transit, driving, walking, etc...
2) Engineering Controls. This refers to physically preventing the hazard or injury from occurring. Unfortunately, with bikes, these are limited – in fact the only one I can come up with are MUP’s or bike lanes that are separated from traffic by a barrier. Outside of that, there’s nothing really stopping vehicle/bicycle interaction - or vehicle/vehicle interaction for that matter - regardless of weather.
3) Administrative Controls. In short, rules. Thou shalt and thou shalt not. We all see how well these work.
4) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Among these would be helmets, lights, reflective clothing and such. Basically these are the last line of defense when the above three fail (which, when you think about it, is of very little comfort).

To these, I would add awareness as a function of experience. Meaning: Someone that has been riding in foul weather for 10 years is far more aware of his surroundings than an 8 year old (for example), and as such could be expected to fare better in poor conditions.

Some say that when it’s unsafe to drive, then it’s also unsafe to ride. I understand the correlation, but my thought is that if cars are banned from the road (i.e. during large snowstorms when the city or town shuts down), it could be more likely safer to ride (provided you have studded tires, lest you slip on the ice).

Does your rule #5 imply that cyclists are never rude, thoughtless, and stupid? Just come to SE Portland some day and pull up a bench and watch some....

Nope, I apply it to drivers because, on a daily basis, I see myself in windows more than I see other riders! And, David -- sorry, m'friend, I don't routinely IMPLY anything, I'm pretty plain-spoken; when I do imply things, I make it pretty obvious, too. Just sayin'.....

Are there times it is just dumb to ride?


…Who's right, the driver who encounters a cyclist in extreme conditions that most drivers won't drive, or the cyclist who rides in those conditions anyway (me, often)? The point is moot. If you ride or drive in extreme conditions, you take a serious risk that transends the norm. Accept it and move on, or park the bike and climb in the cage, but you can't blame drivers for not seeing you when you are "hidden" in severe conditions that most reasonable people are terrified to even be in at all.

OP: Lightening and tornados, and thats about it so far......
I've never encountered this on a bike, but I would think a white-out fog condition would not be a good idea to cycle.

A couple years ago was a thread. “When does Hardcore become Stupid,” and I was impressed with this reply:


Hardcore becomes stupid when it becomes dangerous.

Hardcore becomes stupid when anything going wrong becomes a safety problem instead of an inconvenience…

Hardcore becomes stupid when minor errors in judgment become safety issues…

Hardcore has clearly become completely stupid when you lose any fingers or toes to frostbite.

In each case, it's not just the weather that makes it hardcore or stupid, it's the degree of preparation and knowledge used in dealing with the weather [and other hazards].

Some friends & I threw a few beers in the baskets of our mamacharis & pedaled around town during a major typhoon many years ago. We cruised the bike paths, some of which were almost 3' deep of water alongside the many rivers in town. The rain drops, along with the driving wind made it feel like needles hitting any bare skin.




Yeah, that was a dumb time to ride....fun, but dumb.

Tonight I was driving in Corvallis, OR, a cycling-friendly college town (a dangerous combination IMHO). Windy, very windy, and torrential rain. Very difficult to see as a driver.

Was spooked a couple of times by cyclists passing me, with no apparent headlight and marginal tail light. Saw other unlit bikes (this was all after dark).

I noticed how hard it was for me to make out the lines on the road whilst driving, and how the glare of headlights and taillights, and the bright advertising signs, and the constant change in lighting from moving from under a street light to areas in between.

I also noticed how my eyes (I'm 53) don't care for the new bright blue headlights, and especially the cars that either are using driving lights or leaving the lights on high beam.

I came to the conclusion that there are some times where cycling is just plain dumb. Drivers, no matter how conscientious, are going to have a hard time seeing even a well-lit cyclist in these conditions. I just scratched these weather conditions off my ride day list - even though it will impact my commute and my monthly mileage.

Sure, the right to ride is there - but even the most careful driver is having trouble in these conditions, and I couldn't help but think that the folks I saw out there today hadn't really thought it through very well.

I would say the wind is a big one.

[QUOTE=Digital_Cowboy;13651922]

If answering a question with a question is an answer...

I presume then, that there are no conditions that are unsafe for a cyclist to ride in as long as drivers think it isn't unsafe for them?

Dang, yet another A&S thread unraveling - either hijacked or a hard turn away from the question.:notamused:



So have I. Part of the original question - when does it become too dumb/risky/whatever to ride. I submit that the drivers have an influence on that decision - the heavy rain and wind last night made it more hazardous to drive, and IMHO too hazardous to ride a bicycle safely.



Typical of crashes in the fog in the central valley of CA. But would this have been a safe condition to cycle in? If the drivers have a hard time seeing other cars or the road, does it follow that they might have a hard time seeing and reacting properly to a cyclist?



I would tend to agree. And if pedestrians wore bright and reflective clothing and didn't jaywalk, and cyclists never went ninja or played salmon, and we all sat around and sang kum ba ya we'd at least have more love at the scene of the accident.

Back to the original question: Are there times it simply isn't wise to ride?:bang:

Sadly, this is a question that can't really be answered. As road and weather conditions can make what one person see/think of as being "dangerous" be totally acceptable to another person. I regularly ride late at night, and don't think twice about doing so. But I would be the first one to advise a new or relatively new cyclist to think twice about doing so. NOT, because it is unsafe to do so, but because if they lack the skill, confidence and experience and equipment to do so safely it can be dangerous.

So as for your question of "are there times when it is 'dumb' to ride?" There are just TOO MANY factors to consider/take into account to determine if there "are there times when it is 'dumb' to ride?" Road/weather conditions are just "one" factor to be considered. We also have to consider visibility, rider/driver experience/skill/competence.

As a commuter, I ride in all weather except ice.

The problems you describe aren't with cycling in general, but with cycling unprepared -- bikes with inadequate or no lighting don't belong on the road when it's dark or raining. Get good lights that are visible but avoid glare; add plenty of reflective material; ride predictably where motorists will be looking for other legal traffic; leave extra clearance when passing; be extra-careful at intersections; etc.

Most drivers compound these problems by failing to abide by the most basic of safety rules, driving no faster than conditions allow. No matter how hard the rain, a motorist is still responsible for seeing other legal road users in time to avoid a collision. Sometimes that means driving 5mph with high beams on just to see 50 feet; sometimes it means pulling off the road entirely until conditions improve. But most drivers act as if the posted speed limit means it's OK to drive that fast in all conditions. This widespread contempt for the law is definitely one of the factors I consider when planning my commute.

Agreed, we need better driver training to get the message through their "thick heads" that that the posted speed limit is the maximum safe speed under IDEAL conditions. And as those of us who live in the real world know, that road conditions are not always ideal. Which is why I think that all roads should have signs that indicate both a minimal and maximum speed, or at least a day/night time speed.

Maybe in the future when we have "robot" cars we can have speed limit signs that have RFID chips embedded in them so that control the speed of cars for different light/weather conditions. Hell we don't have to wait for "robot" cars, given that if I am not mistaken most if not all "modern" cars have computers built into as well as some sort of cruse control these days. Embed RFID chips into the speed limit signs, mile makers, etc. so that they can communicate with the computers already in the car. So that even if the car doesn't have cruse control the computer(s) in "modern" cars does have a level of control over the speed of the car.

Agreed, we need better driver training to get the message through their "thick heads" that that the maximum safe speed under IDEAL conditions. And as those of us who live in the real know that road conditions are not always ideal. Which is why I that all roads should have signs that indicate both a minimal and maximum speed, or at least a day/night time speed.

Also, That they don't need to drive like they needed to somewhere 'yesterday'.

Also, That they don't need to drive like they needed to somewhere 'yesterday'.

Agreed, which is probably why so many of them will honk at us even when we're going the speed limit. Such as this past Wednesday. I was riding down a local road going the speed limit. There was a car behind me, and the driver felt the need to honk at me. Then once we got to the end of the road where there was a roundabout the driver honked at me again. Because I stopped to wait for two cars that were traveling north and south to enter and pass through the roundabout. The reason that I had stopped to wait for them even though they weren't yet in the roundabout is because they were too bloody close to the roundabout for me to feel safe entering it.

But sadly, I guess that that wasn't as important to the driver behind me as it was to me. :(

One thing that I'd like to know is, whatever happened to people leaving early enough for an appointment so that if they had an "unforeseen" problem that they could still get there on time? This past Friday I had an appointment out to the local VA. I left about 2 hours or so early so that I knew that even if something came up that I'd still be able to make it on time. That and as anyone here who is a Vet will agree we were trained/taught that if we show up for an appointment at the time of the appointment we're late. Sadly that doesn't seem to be something that civilians have learned.

And ironically something did kind of happen that caused me a slight delay in getting to the VA. Thursday I developed a slight problem with my front derailer. It took more movement to change from either the "granny gear" chain ring as well the middle chain ring on to the large chain ring. While heading out to the VA, I noticed that the chain was also rubbing against the derailer cage. So I stopped off at a local firehouse and "borrowed" a couple of rubber bands so that I wouldn't have to keep applying pressure on the shift lever.

After leaving the VA I went to one of the LBS' that I like go to. To have them what I thought would just be adjust my shifter cable, but as it turned out I needed a new shifter cable. As the old one wasn't just stretched it was frayed and not making very god contact with the derailer.

If I hadn't allowed enough time to allow for "surprises" and left with just enough time to get to the VA I would have been late. But because I had planned ahead and left with enough time to allow for "surprises" I wasn't late.

I’m going to add Tsunamis and Hurricanes to the list….or maybe we should just say any extreme natural incident is unsafe to ride in (which would also include earthquakes, volcanos, etc...)I strongly disagree. I work in a Tsunami Inundation Zone. In the event of a Tsunami heading for the island, the thing I want most is my bicycle to ride away from the danger zone. Same for lava flows. The motorist will just have to sit in their cars drowning or getting burnt.

Agreed, which is probably why so many of them will honk at us even when we're going the speed limit. Such as this past Wednesday. I was riding down a local road going the speed limit. There was a car behind me, and the driver felt the need to honk at me. Then once we got to the end of the road where there was a roundabout the driver honked at me again. Because I stopped to wait for two cars that were traveling north and south to enter and pass through the roundabout. The reason that I had stopped to wait for them even though they weren't yet in the roundabout is because they were too bloody close to the roundabout for me to feel safe entering it.

But sadly, I guess that that wasn't as important to the driver behind me as it was to me. :(

While I have not been honked at for waiting to enter a round-a-bout, I definitely know the feeling of, wondering what the driver behind me is thinking as I wait to enter the round-a-bout. I had to go to Radio Shack to get some lithium batteries for my bike computer, and spoke lights. To get to the Radio Shack, I have to go down a four-lane road that has a round-a-bout(instead of an intersection) in it. When I reach the round-a-about, I stop to look for a safe opening in the flow of traffic. But some drivers just love to step on the gas.


One thing that I'd like to know is, whatever happened to people leaving early enough for an appointment so that if they had an "unforeseen" problem that they could still get there on time? This past Friday I had an appointment out to the local VA. I left about 2 hours or so early so that I knew that even if something came up that I'd still be able to make it on time. That and as anyone here who is a Vet will agree we were trained/taught that if we show up for an appointment at the time of the appointment we're late. Sadly that doesn't seem to be something that civilians have learned.

Exactly. People are in such a rush, that even leaving early, some motorists' still get grouchy.


And ironically something did kind of happen that caused me a slight delay in getting to the VA. Thursday I developed a slight problem with my front derailleur. It took more movement to change from either the "granny gear" chain ring as well the middle chain ring on to the large chain ring. While heading out to the VA, I noticed that the chain was also rubbing against the derailleur cage. So I stopped off at a local firehouse and "borrowed" a couple of rubber bands so that I wouldn't have to keep applying pressure on the shift lever.

Hmmm...Can you describe how you used the rubber bands to stabilize the chain?


After leaving the VA I went to one of the LBS' that I like go to. To have them what I thought would just be adjust my shifter cable, but as it turned out I needed a new shifter cable. As the old one wasn't just stretched it was frayed and not making very god contact with the derailleur.

Ouch


If I hadn't allowed enough time to allow for "surprises" and left with just enough time to get to the VA I would have been late. But because I had planned ahead and left with enough time to allow for "surprises" I wasn't late.

Smart.

I still plan for surprises on my bike. But far less than, if I were only getting around by public transportation.

There are times when I feel it is not in you best interests to ride. (My own opinions, nothing else)

-when you are ill, or recovering from an illness.

-When weather conditions are just too adverse. Extreme cold, wet, snow, ice, etc.

Last night (new year's eve) there were some icing conditions in the early morning hours that took many travelers by surprise. Icing conditions occurred on major highways and some
side roads as well. Sometimes, nature can pull a fast one.

In general, I ride. But I have concluded that there are some times it is just dumb to ride, at least for me. Most of the time it corresponds to conditions that make it more difficult for drivers to drive, and I prefer to just remove myself from the equation (to avoid permanent removal):

freezing fog or similar conditions for group rides
dense fog, though I will ride in darkness before dusk/daylight since I am more visible with my lights/reflectors
high winds
wind and rain and darkness
snow or ice

Now some may think that htfu is needed and I should just ride, but comfort-wise I can handle the weather. But my assessment of dumbness, FOR ME, is based upon whether or not I think the conditions are going to negatively impact drivers more than they are by just being behind the wheel. I'm not an adherent to the cyclist religion, so driving a car doesn't mean I am headed for perdition, but I do love to ride and that has shown to get me in trouble in the past.

I consider yesterday - foggy. I would have ridden to work in that density of fog, as my lighting is quite good. But in the yucky daylight we had till near noon, it would have been dumb to ride in it, particularly with my wife as planned. The filtered light in the dense fog makes it too hard to contrast with the surroundings, so I therefore dub the conditions as being a dumb time to ride. I may be simple, but it isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you...