I voted for #1, but in particular, it's when buses are behind me and I just know they are going to cut me off, then sit diagonally across two lanes while loading and unloading passengers sometimes making it difficult to get around them without having to get into oncoming traffic. Then once I pass, they do the same thing again. They go fast enough to cut me off but slow enough for me to always catch up at the next bus stop. I guess it's not as much of a safety issue as it is time consuming and exhausting.

Another concern is being nudged so close to a curb that I start to straddle the hump or gap that marks edge of the pavement and beginning of concrete. When getting a tire pinched becomes a possibility, I take the lane.

I ride my bike in the city daily 7-8 months of the year, and less often when there's snow on the ground. I have the confidence to ride in most traffic situations, but I do not enjoy mixing with cars, and will take detours to avoid particularly busy roads, and any roads where I'm expected to ride between traffic and parked cars. I am a big fan of separated infrastructure, except for door zone lanes. Bike-specific infrastructure is a better alternative, but if a multi-use trail is wide enough to accommodate the volume of traffic that it gets, I prefer that to riding with cars. Unfortunately, there's an upper limit on how much use a MUT can get before sharing the trail becomes impossible.

Basically, I'm definitely a segregationist when it comes to transportation infrastructure, but if we're only partially segregated, I'd rather mix with peds than with cars. Cars present a threat; peds present a hassle.

Low probability of what? Your source for this tidbit of low probability?

Chickened out? Where did you get that notion that cyclists who have "Real" experience with their own environment are "chickens"? Was it the same source as your probability info?

I have been 100% car free now for 6 years and use a bicycle as my only mode of transit for getting to work and doing my shopping.

I worry about cars overtaking me quite often. Many seem to think just inches is plenty. Even though we have a 3-foot law here in Nebraska, you would be hard pressed to tell.

4 way intersections I simply avoid at any cost. nearly no motorist will yield the right of way here when it's your turn, after all it's just a bicycle. 2-way can be bad, but most of the time are ok.

as for running red light, there is NEVER an excuse. Even if you have to dismount and hit the pedestrian button that's what you do. IMHO any cyclist that runs a red light deserves a ticket. Even in the Netherlands running red lights is simply not accepted.

i agree that getting rear ended is low probability but I interpreted being over-taken as encompassing being cut off. I've had near misses and a hit because some idiot thought he could beat me to the light.

You would hate to cycle in Idaho.

Unless you are one of the infamous amsterdam bike ninjas.

???
There is no law requiring a cyclist to ever press a ped button.

I voted "other":
1. Getting broadsided from traffic entering traffic circle as I am riding thru the circle.
2.Also, nervous when on road wth no shoulder and am riding white line as traffic passes me.

It looks to me like a fair amount of the divisions may result from different environments. Road designers take motorists seriously, so planning and enforcement seem to be fairly consistent in different places; regardless of any laws, I don't see a social consensus on bicycling so engineering varies widely and I find enforcement varies greatly depending on the individual police officer. Some give bicyclists the same rights as drivers; others have told me I can't bicycle to places that are on roads without shoulders or bike lanes.

I note fears of overtaking from posters in IA and NE are concerned with overtaking while other respondents are not. My experience in Eastern cities is that overtaking is not a major issue due to congestion. In contrast, a local bicyclist mentioned a driver running down his brother in Iowa instead of just changing lanes to pass; during the short time I was in Kansas I found drivers polite in the city but in the suburbs they would often run lights I had tripped on my bicycle because they saw no cars and decided that their light was red because it was broken. (I'm not overly sympathetic to motorist complaints that all bicyclists are a**h***** that run redlights.)

From your scenario, I supposed I'd have to pick going straight when cross traffic has a stop sign, but I actually find the bigger problem is poorly designed facilities in PA and DE. The designers generally don't ride (and don't believe bicyclists ever have the right of way), and advocates think any facilities are better that no facilities. Personally, I refuse to use bike lanes painted to the right of RTOL lanes on to I-76 (installed in 12/2010 after major planning) or the the right of right turn arrows (most intersections in DE). When I've commented on plans that violate AASHTO standards, planners say they will fix them, but install them as originally designed.

Most of the existing Philadelphia lanes are in the door zone; I find motorists are far more hostile after these lanes were painted. Turning motorists don't yield to bicyclists in bike lanes, and honk and swear if bicyclists leave them. I found riding 10mph in the middle of the lane in 10 mph traffic upset fewer motorists before the bike lanes were installed; I think the driving public belives the bike lanes are there to get the f****ing bicyclists out of the way.

In short, I think the hazards vary greatly by location, and the facilities are installed in cities where motorists want bicyclists removed, not where they might help (possibly Nebraska?)

Great post Angelo, I totally agree. It is all about location. As for bicycle facilities, you got that right too.

I think what it comes down to is just dealing with what you got, in the best way possible.

Other: Drivers misjudging my speed. I ride fast in the summer (studs slow me down this time of year), and routinely have cars pull out in front of me. Same applies to right hooks; I think cars underestimate my speed, so they right-hook me.

Absolutely true. AngeloDolce, good post (#133). My city (El Paso) is not bicycle conscious at all. There is very, very little bike culture; there are very few bike lanes; and I think bicyclists are not thought about much by the "general public". Here, it's a good thing. I am much safer riding through the streets here than when I lived in Denver. In Denver, and I assume in other cycling-conscious areas, there seems to be a real anti-cyclist feeling amongst drivers, and an ongoing battle for "rights" between bikes and motorized transport. I definitely felt it in Denver, and in a couple other cities I've ridden through (Phoenix, Tucson . . .) But in El Paso drivers view me as a curiosity (so does my wife, but that's a different thread lol) and they steer clear most of the time. Every time I hear about a plan to install a bike lane or bike path I'm ambivalent because I want things to stay just the way they are.

This; but, with a twist. I feel most exposed on these roads when I then have to cross three lanes of what you described in order to get to a left turn lane. Sometimes I don't even try; I will go to a corner and make a two part turn. I will sometimes even get off and walk across, people seem more willing to make way for a person walking a bike across the street.

Sorry but I believe it's warranted. Something is almost always behind you. To me it seems comparable to a phobia.

I've ridden on 55mph roads but supposedly unlike you, I had a wide shoulder. If that's all you do, then are you real on par the OP's standard? I'm unsure whether I could ride 98% of my time in constant fear of something suddenly attacking me from behind.

How did you duck under mirrors?

Yes, chickened and that was a critique. I thought that particular statistical figure wasn’t uncommon knowledge at least for safety-oriented commuters, and several others here have acknowledged that fact. Maybe you should read something informative instead of making 16,000 posts of constant stink. As for stats, it’s here and here.

Ah, the the old "phobia" ploy. I thought your fear of the rear rhetoric sounded familiar. You wouldn't happen to have your copy of Effective Cycling handy would you? You can probably find some more similar "stuff" with similar objectivity and similar analytic techniques about cycling risk.

Is the raw data of an 18 year old study without any methodology listed and Mr Bluejay's web site the source of all "common knowledge" about the relative risk encountered by cyclists in various environments? Or just your source?

No, but there is a law against running a red light and if the light will not detect your bicycle that is the only other legal option (other than to walk it across as a pedestrian). I simply am tired of seeing other cyclists, mainly the racing sporty types, running red lights and stop signs as if laws do not apply to them. It gives us that actually USE our bicycles a bad name.

In many places, they have "bicycles and motorcycles can run red lights if not sensed" laws in place. Many places that have sensors that don't pick up bicycles also don't have pedestrian switches (or even cross walks).

That's true. On my side of town, I know which lights will sense me and which will not, so some I will go through (especially if there is no car at the intersection that may have tripped the mechanism) and some I will wait. But I never think through whether my actions will vilify bicyclists as a whole; I'm just out riding my bike, I'm really not trying to be a PR guy for cyclists everywhere.

Then that's fine, but my area does not have such a law, yet many cyclists don't even slow down for lights or signs. I have had to yell at countless fellow cyclists that just don't think laws apply to them as they blow past me while waiting at a red light.

But even in those areas with such a law, one is expected to wait a reasonable amount of time. Every youtube video I have ever seen, the cyclist waits perhaps 5 seconds and jets through. That is NOT in the spirit of the law and is just a license to run a red light. One should wait as long as the light would normally take to turn in areas with a law like this, then proceed only if safe. Anything else is just reckless behavior.

Cyclist have a bad name no matter what they do. Cyclist are second class citizens even if they obey all the laws.

Or perhaps learned behavior.

I have a couple of lights that I regularly "run" (by your description) as I know they don't work. I test them now and then; I have alerted the local street division to these lights, but over the years the condition of the lights has not changed... so why should I wait any longer than what it takes for other traffic to clear? As soon as it is safe, I "run" these lights.

No doubt other cyclists in other areas are also familiar with their local lights... and can tell you which work for cyclists and which do not. You want "equality" on the road with respect to traffic lights, get all the traffic lights to see cyclists. Until then, don't worry about what the other guy does.

This thread makes it obvious that we all have our own sensibilities regarding the law as it applies to bicycles. I believe that besides our personal feelings we should realize that every community has it's own values as well. My community (New Orleans) is lax across the board. It is illegal to drink alcohol in public or to be intoxicated on the street, prostitution is illegal, drugs are illegal, speeding and running red lights is illegal for motorists and bikes, playing music on the street is illegal, panhandling is illegal, sleeping under a bridge or on the sidewalk is illegal, etc. Enforcement of these laws are generally on a "need to know" basis i.e., someone complains about a specific problem at a specific time and place. Otherwise - do your thing man.

Step 1: Look over shoulder (or in mirror).

Step 2: Observe truck/suv approaching from behind.

Step 3: Lower upper body & head as rear view mirror of vehicle mentioned in step 2 passes overhead.

Been there, done exactly that.