It is never necessary to ride on the wrong side of the road opposing traffic.
Our roads are designed for proper vehicular driving. A bicycle can easily be operated in the vehicular manner, albeit often a slow vehicular manner.
If road tests were required, you would probably not pass. You might consider taking a LAB (League of American Bicyclists) Road 1 course. See their website bikeleague.org.

You've been hit by a lot of cars? Yikes! Ever consider that might have something to do with your doing "whatever it takes to get to work and home"?

I too used to think there were all the nuts out there. Then I learned and started riding in the vehicular manner per the book Effective Cycling by John Forester. Almost all of the nuts disappeared!

If you want to get run down and killed, be my guest. I'm not going to put myself in that position.

I get far more annoyed with wrong way and sidewalk (typically both at once) cyclists when I am in my car. I am a strong advocate for bikes, yet I have had several near misses with these types of riders flying out of seemingly nowhere into the road and is pisses me off that someone who drives as conscientiously as me and is very aware of cyclists may end up being in an accident with one of these wrongway/sidewalk riders. Not to mention that they give cyclists a bad rep. to other car drivers.

Al

Please describe a situation in which riding on the wrong side of the road is a better way to prevent being "run down and killed".

I NEVER ride on the wrong side of the road precisely because I do not want to be "run down and killed."

Have you read Effective Cycling by John Forester and/or taken a Road 1 course from the League of American Bicyclists? I doubt it, since if you did, you'd have a better understanding of what kind of cycling puts you into a position of getting run down and killed.

Be safe out there. Ride visibly and predictably: ride in the vehicular legal manner.

Serge

In my case the "wrong" side of the road has a 10-15 foot wide shoulder to ride in, while the "right" side of the road has no shoulder due to a double intersection of two 5-lane streets and a 2-lane street. Riding the left shoulder where there are no cars is preferable to crossing a right-turn lane and two lanes of 50MPH traffic through a large double intersection to get to the left turn lane for my left turn at the second half of the intersection. After that left turn I'd need to get onto the protected left shoulder/sidewalk of the next road anyway since there is no right shoulder on that narrow rolling road and extremely poor sightlines with very fast downhill traffic that makes it totally unsafe on a bike IMO.
So, if I ride the left shoulder to my left turn onto the protected left shoulder of the next road I don't have to encounter any automobiles at all, and if I encounter a bike or ped there's plenty of room to pass. If I ride "as traffic" on the right side of the road I have to cross several lanes of fast traffic trying to rocket through the light and end up in a lane on the next road that I refuse to ride a bike on anyway.

Suit yourself, but if you think it's safe to ride the wrong way, even in the situation you described, you're probably mistaken.

How do you not encounter any cars? As you're riding the wrong way, are there no driveways to your left? If a car pulls out of there the driver is likely looking to his left - where traffic is coming from - not to his right where there is no traffic (except for you).

And what happens when you reach the intersection? Do you go straight ahead and then turn left (on the correct/right side of that street), or do you turn left and stay on the left/wrong side?



I'm fascinated by the language with which you describe this traffic situation. Are you aware that yours is the language of cyclist inferiority thinking? That is, it reveals the underlying belief, perhaps subconscious, that cyclists have lesser rights on the roads than do motorists. Don't worry, most cyclists think the same as you. Look at the words you choose to describe what you have to do to get to a left turn lane: "crossing a right-turn lane and two lanes of 50MPH traffic" Crossing? What, perpendicularly? Like a pedestrian jay-walker? Yes, that would be risking your life. You need to learn how to safely merge vehicularly, not cross, one lane at a time, negotiating for and establishing the right-of-way in each lane before merging into it.

Start out riding along the right side. Prepare for the left merge well before the right turn lane appears (I don't know how long it is, but usually if there is a right turn lane, by the time it appears it's too late to start preparing to merge across two lanes to get into the left turn lane). First, make sure you're not riding right alongside the curb or edge of the roadway. That's never safe. Then look behind you over your left shoulder, be careful to keep the bike going straight ahead (you might have to practice this). Looking back is usually enough to signal to a motorist that you are looking to merge left, but sometimes sticking out your left arm helps. Usually the first car will slow and let you in, but sometimes you have to wait a few cars. As soon as one slows - the driver may also wave or nod with his head - move fully into that line, about as far as the "left tire track", then repeat the process: look back, stick out your arm, wait until someone slows in the next lane and grants you the right-of-way, merge left. Note that through that step, the driver behind you is "blocking" - running interference for you, in your lane. Once you get into the second lane, you only have to do it one more time to get into the left turn lane. This technique works great even on roads with 3-4 lanes going in the same direction with 50+ MPH traffic. It seems crazy at first, but like anything else, once you do it a few times it seems perfectly natural.

As to the downhill with no shoulder and poor sightlines - take the lane! Imagine you are a tractor or some kind of heavy machinery requiring those behind you to wait. If you ride too close to the edge, you are inviting them to pass you within the lane - not safe! If it's not safe to ride there, don't! Move out into the lane and make those behind you slow down, just as they would for the tractor. By moving out into the right tire track, or even the middle of the lane, your positioning and body language is saying, "I have as much right to this road as do you. You have to slow down; to pass me you have to at least partially cross over into the oncoming lane". Once a motorist realizes that he can't pass you within the lane, but has to cross that stripe to pass you, he will be leave much more room when he passes you. Also, even if there is no one behind you, by riding in the middle of the lane motorists in oncoming traffic who are considering passing (by moving into your lane) are much more likely to see you (and wait to pass when you're no longer in the way). Try it; you'll be amazed at what dramatic effects YOU can have on traffic through subtle changes in your lane positioning choices.

As there are roads upon which you refuse to ride, you really should look into improving your skills, and understanding and attitude about traffic cycling. Experienced cyclists skilled in cycling in the vehicular manner can travel very safely on any road designed for vehicular travel.

Serge

On the first street no. On the second street riding the shoulder/sidewalk allows me the luxury of going slow enough to be in control of that situation, and I can stop at will without fear of being run down from behind. On both streets in the right lane I would encounter cross-traffic trying to pull quickly out into fast traffic with limited visibility - a squeeze play. The left shoulder is superior in that case as well.

So after they run me over at 45MPH I can act all superior and chastise them for driving too fast or not paying enough attention? There's nothing superior about being dead/maimed.

Yes, on a bicycle I am an inferior vehicle. I always keep that firmly in mind when I ride on the street. Motorists accept collisions as a fact of life and worth the risk to get around faster. On a bicycle I can't/won't/don't. YMMV

Ever time I have been hit by a car I was follow the rule of the rode . But the people in the car do not . Like taking on a cell phone and driving . So like I said you have to do what you have to do . Even if you have to go the wrong way or on the sidewalk . Just has you get their safe .

Two nights ago I'm riding home @ 11:00 PM and as I'm heading up a hill and going into a weak ass traffic calming section of the road, I hear one of those oversized monster trucks flooring it up the hill. I stay on the road (there's no bike lane) until I hear the truck coming up to the traffic calming part of the hill. At this point I fear I will be killed (call it bicyclist intuition) so I plant my right leg on to the sidewalk and lift my bike and myself on to the sidewalk and turn around to watch what could have been. Sure enough The truck came around the bend at about 50 mph in a 20 mph zone, and this driver was hugging the sidewalk. I would have been dead. It's a cagers world and I'm always aware.

I also live in San Jose and have issues with riders who ride on the wrong side of the road. However when they see a 200+ guy coming at them at 20 miles per hour in bright clothing they tend to yield the right of way. Even when riding in groups they tend to clear the bike path.

Which "rules of the road"? Note that bike lanes and most laws governing bike lanes contradict traditional "rules of the road".

I know someone who collided with a van while riding in a bike lane. Legally, the van driver who cut in front of the cyclist in the bike lane was at fault. But from the perspective of traditional "rules of the road", the cyclist was at fault, because he was passing slow and stopped cars to the right of them (in the bike lane). Three lanes of motorist traffic moving in the same direction as the cyclist stopped to let the van driver coming from the opposite direction turn left in front of them to enter a driveway into a commercial area. Meanwhile, unbenownst to any of them, and out of their view, the cyclist was barrelling down the bike lane at 20+ MPH. The van driver turned and crossed the three lanes of traffic, and then the bike lane, right when the cyclist appeared who hardly had time to get his hands on the brake levers before he smashed into the side of the van.

The van driver took 100% of the blame and paid for a new bike and all of the cyclist's medical costs. But was he really at fault here? Is it reasonable for the cyclist to be passing stopped cars on their right going 20mph? To me, that's violating a very important "rule of the road".

Defensive driving courses teach that no collision is 100% the other guy's fault - that every collision is avoidable by anyone involved. This is why a driver's insurance premium is raised even though he may not have been legally "at fault".

Defensive traffic cycling (hmm, maybe I should trademark that phrase) is based on the same principle.

I would be interested in knowing the details of any incidents you (or anyone else) may have had with cars where you think you did nothing wrong, the whole thing was caused by the motorist, and there was nothing you could have done to avoid it.

Serge

We agree on at least one point: there is nothing superior about being dead/maimed!
Where we disagree is regarding what is the best way to avoid being dead/maimed, and still ride our bikes.

The vehicular cycling principle, on which the riding described in the book Effective Cycling by John Forester is based, is: Cyclists fare best when the act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

You, apparently, do not believe this principle to be true. You seem to think that if you ride down a hill with a narrow lane on which traffic normally travels at 45mph you will be run down. But you ignore the effect that your presence will have on the traffic. When there is a bike going 25-30 mph down the hill, the motorists slow down.

What percent of cyclist crashes do you think are car-bike collisions? It's less than half, something on the order of 30%.

What percent of those car-bike collisions do you think fall into the category of "car hits cyclist from behind"? It's tiny. Something like 10%.

During the day? A fraction of that.

In the city (as opposed to a rural road)? A fraction of that.

In short, if you're worried about getting hit by a car from behind you might as well also worry about your house being hit by a meteor and plan on winning the Lottery while you're at it. Does it happen? Yes, but very rarely. If you worry about odds like that, you must live in constant fear of all kinds of highly unlikely events.

Motorists accept collisions as a fact of life and worth the risk to get around faster? I don't believe that's true, but I can see how you would be terrified to leave the house, much less ride a bike on the street, if you believed that to be true.

Collisions are a hassle. If nothing else, they consume time and money. Motorists do everything they can to avoid the hassles of collisions. In fact, I find that they take even more care when around cyclists than when around motor vehicles. In a car I can signal to change lanes and lots of cars will pass before someone finally yields to me. When I signal the desire to merge with a turn hand signal on my bike, almost always the first motorist yields to me. Sometimes I have to wait one or two cars, at the most.

Don't take this personally. I'm only taking the time to write all this because most cyclists think like you do, and I'm hoping my posts will reach someone, if not you.

Serge

When I am riding at or faster than traffic speed I always get out of bike lane and fully take the lane. Sometimes I need to ride slower because of this, but I never pass on right.

The two places this happens are
1. The 15mph and no passing school zone - of course I am not going to pass cars on right going by going over speed limit
2. The 25mph residential street I ride with speed bumps every 100yrds. In this 1mi stretch cars generally drive ~20mph and slow to 15mph over bumps - which sometimes leads to situation where I would pass cars on right when they are going over bump, then they pass me between bumps, then I catch up again when they slow for bump, etc. I'll overtake cars on left if they are going too slow, but this has hazards too as there are possibilities for them to make left turns.

Al

Yes, it's contrary to the principles of defensive driving (or "defensive traffic cycling [TM]") to pass in sections where the vehicle being passed might make a left turn.

Not always. It only takes one sleepy or radio-twiddling or scenery-gawking or road-raging etc driver to end your life in a random moment of given day.

True enough. Just as true as it takes only one 7 number sequence to get you a $20 million dollar jackpot, setting you up financially for life. And it only takes one 1 lbs meteor to kill you. Or one slip in the tub. But what are the odds? Is it sufficiently likely to even think about?

If you want to live your life making decisions based on such highly unlikely events, be my guest. Me, I swim in the ocean, hike in the Grand Canyon, travel on airplanes, take elevators, drive my car among potential drunk drivers, and, yes, I even ride my bike in front of cars on my way to work, home, and any other place I need to go.

The ironic thing is that statistics show that getting hit by a car is MUCH more likely when you're riding on the wrong side of the street against the flow of traffic.

I believe in taking reasonable risks. Riding my bike in front of cars with the traffic flow is a reasonable risk. Riding on the wrong side of the road against the traffic flow is an unreasonable risk.

Serge

Riding with traffic is the law. The laws of physics also backs this up.

Getting run over on these two streets would NOT be a "highly unlikely" event, IMO. (I even had a car TRY to force me off the road on one of the feeder streets 1.5 blocks off of it) If you want to get squashed, be my guest.


Where did you locate statistics for THIS specific situation on THESE two particular streets? "Statistics" don't mean much unless they apply very specifically to the situation and conditions in question. (if that...) It boggles the mind how I'd be more likely to get hit by a car riding where there are NO cars, rather than where there are a LOT of cars. Since there is no traffic on the shoulder, I'm not "riding against" any.

Bicyclists who ride against traffic have been taught wrong. They believe they are right.

Question: shouldn't all road users be taught the proper rules?

You do the math

Why does stuff like this (getting run off the road) only happen to those who fear it might happen? Hmm...

All I can tell you is that if you really believe you have the same right to the road as do motorists, and ride accordingly, they will treat you with respect. Human nature is human nature. No one is going to recognize a right that is not asserted. You clearly do not believe you have these rights, or at least do not believe that it is safe to assert them, and so you must ride accordingly. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You ride without asserting your rights, and, so, motorists act like you don't have them. But I doubt you understand what I'm saying.

The problem with riding against traffic is rarely the oncoming traffic per se, it's the intersections (including intersections with driveways), and the fact that you're coming from an unexpected direction at an unexpected velocity (anything faster than a pedestrian), attached to a device that prevents you from making sudden lateral movements (from which a pedestrian is not constrained).

I'm going to recommend that you read Effective Cycling by John Forester one more time (ask Santa). I don't think you'll "get it" any other way. I, for one, did not "get it" until I read the book.

Serge

I'm going to recommend that you cease pontificating on situations that you are completely ignorant about.

I move to the left side, only when i am reaching a turn and a clear spot opens uo and i can cross. but if thats no the situation then it never happens.

Ok, fine, then tell me more about it. How, for example, would you deal with this situation on a motorcycle? Would you ride a motorcycle in the shoulder on the wrong side of the road? Why not? Assume you had a good reason to want to avoid the "legal" alternative that you are choosing to avoid when you're on your bicycle. In other words, please focus on the specific reasons you would not ride a motorcycle along the route you're espousing for bicycling.

I had some fool tonight riding on North Avenue in BAD traffic coming off the interstate against the traffic. Of course, I had to swerve to avoid the idiot, and almost got hit in the process. I wanted to slap the fool. Not sure what to do in those circumstances, but I'm actually considering getting some eggs from the store and storing them in a sack, and if I have situations like this, I can throw it at the idiot... it's assult, I know, but damn. I don't know what to do. Like I should jeopardize my well being because some idiot in dark clothing decides to ride against rush hour traffic on a Thursday night in a section where cars are fighting to get on and off the interstate.

Koffee