In the event it's somehow not against the law to ride against traffic in any given municipality, it's incredibly stupid. We as cyclists have a hard enough time getting drivers to acknowledge us and NOT kill us when we are riding the same direction and they should see us, let's not make it worse by riding at them from a direction that they shouldn't realistically be anticipating anything coming from. Never mind that all the traffic signs that we are meant to obey won't be facing us if we ride on the wrong side of the road, or the risks that we're subjecting other direction-conscious cyclists to when we would have to pass them.

Here's a photo of a typical one-way street in Paris. Note the bike markings and arrow. (This isn't my street, it's my father-in-law's street, but our street is also one-way, and also allows "contre-sens" flow.



One way Parisian street, with bike markings indicating permissible "contre-sens" flow.

Completely agree. I believe one of the strongest arguments for riding with the flow is when a car pulls from a driveway or street into the main thoroughfare, drivers typically look for on coming traffic from the left (or the reverse in the UK and other similar countries) and seeing it is clear, pull into the roadway. They do not always look to the right since they don’t anticipate anyone going against traffic. My mantra is to be as predictable as possible. This includes using hand signals to alert drivers of my intentions.

My opinion: in CT a bicycle is traffic. Ride with traffic because that's what you are.

There is no time of day, nor scenario, in which riding illegally against the traffic is safer.

I highly, highly recommend that you take a LAB Smart Cycling class. Seriously.

https://bikeleague.org/ridesmart/

So effectively that is one-way road for cars, but two-way for bikes. The bikes flowing against the traffic are on the right like they would be on a two-way road. Bikes flowing with the traffic would also be on the right.

Yes. Bikes stick to the right hand side. The point of my photo is that counter-flow bike traffic isn't inherently dangerous: in some contexts it's not only tolerated but (as the markings show) legal. When they first marked my street like that, I refrained from riding counter-flow for a couple of years; but eventually I tried it and realized that in this special case (narrow one lane one way streets) it eliminates right hooks and gives the rider a clear view of traffic. (In my location, we're surrounded by so many one-way streets that if a driver passes our apartment, getting back to our front door takes a kilometer and involves 6 traffic signals, 2 left turns, 1 right turn, and a U-turn at a busy intersection). In addition, since COVID, when people got freaked about using the buses and metro, bike use has skyrocketed and the speed limit for cars has decreased (from 50 km/h to 30). AFAIK, there have been very very few bike fatalities related to counter-flow riding (there was a notable case last fall of a car that was driving illegally in a bike lane right near La Madeleine who clipped a rider from behind, then in the ensuing argument the driver drove over the rider, killing him -- but they were both going in the same direction).

I wouldn't ride counter-flow where drivers don't expect to see it (like, in the countryside outside of Paris). My post is to say that riding against the flow is, like all things traffic-related, about expectations and protocols (sort of like protocols about the assignment of right-of-way, which is pretty arbitrary).

Yeah, Reims has those streets as well. They are usually lightly traveled streets, so not particularly dangerous. They can be a convenience but I still try to avoid them when possible.

Same here. Your one-way road example is similar to a single track road where I would still ride on the right hand side of the road (in left-hand drive countries) because that’s where oncoming traffic would expect me to be on the driver’s side.

AND assiduously keep your head moving in 360 degrees to MAKE SURE you are aware of what is happening around you at all times. If a car hits you in traffic it is the fault of the other guy for not preventing motion which could have a hazardou outcome, but also your fault for not taking action which would have prevented an unsafe motion.

There are many collision scenarios that would need to be looked at, My view is that cyclist vigilance (which is something we, as cyclists can affect) is the most important thing a cyclist can add to a traffic situation.

Going with the flow of traffic is safer for (IMHO) good reasons. But those benefits are not sufficient to come close to preventing car/bike crashes.

Is very high self-awareness enough of a cyclist’s countermeasure? I think it would be irrponsible to claim that.

Be vigilant out there! It’s your life you could be saving!

Always ride *with* traffic, walk *facing* traffic (if walking on the side of the road and not on a side walk).