Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
I wasn't comparing those things. Why are you? Check your thread title. "Narrow lane crashes". These are lanes where there is not enough space for a large vehicle to pass a cyclist without entering an adjacent lane, are they not?
You stated, I think, that direct-rear-end crashes on these types of road may be less common than motorist drift-over to the side crashes, as you might have on wider roads.
If the road is so wide you can move over to let overtaking traffic pass without it moving left, I agree, but my examples dealt with accidents from cyclists taking narrow lanes, as the thread title suggests.
Okay, I'm confused. You wrote this:
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
If cyclists off to the side of the lane are at greater risk than cyclists in the centre of the lane, why are cars that are slowing in the centre of the lane hit more often than cars parked at the side of the road?
How can you be talking about "cyclists off to the side of the lane" if you're talking exclusively about narrow lanes where being off to the side is not possible?
Why is that the point? Why is that relevant at all? The fact that there are tens of thousands of motorists who do not run into each other is a irrelevant given and a meaningless statement. Even if the rate of rear-end collisions is very low, which it is for a given traffic-slow scenario, the odds of it happening over the span of a couple of years grows enough to represent a concern. Almost everyone I know who drives has been in at least a minor hit-from-behind collision in traffic. And minor in a car is often major on a bike.
A better comparision would be: of all the
motorcyclists you know, how many have been rear-ended?
Why is that a better comparison? Because if it is true, as I believe it to be, that motorists behind cageless cyclists generally pay more attention than motorists behind caged vehicles, then the fact that almost everyone you know who drives
a car has been in at least a minor hit-from-behind collision is not relevant to this discussion.
On this point on completely agree. Cyclists are rare enough that they garner extra attention. This is a good thing.
But not a solution. If motorists are willing to take their eyes off the car in front of them when they know it might stop, then a bicycle taking the lane ahead must gather some of the same risks.
It is a solution. There is no such thing as risk-free activity. At some point you have to realize the likelihood of harm is so small that it's worth doing. That's how I feel about bicycling in traffic using advanced vehicular cycling practices. I even do it with my 7 year old daughter in tow. See
Honking JAM lesson-teacher learns a lesson.