Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Recumbent
Reload this Page >

The big lie

Notices
Recumbent What IS that thing?! Recumbents may be odd looking, but they have many advantages over a "wedgie" bicycle. Discuss the in's and out's recumbent lifestyle in the recumbent forum.

The big lie

Old 05-17-11, 09:22 AM
  #26  
BlazingPedals
Senior Member
 
BlazingPedals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of da Mitten
Posts: 12,340

Bikes: Trek 7500, RANS V-Rex, Optima Baron, Velokraft NoCom, M-5 Carbon Highracer, Catrike Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1459 Post(s)
Liked 672 Times in 420 Posts
I think it's generally acknowledged that, statistically, intersections are the most dangerous place for cyclists. For instance, https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/wachtel.html states that in Palo Alto CA (the subject of the study) "Accidents at intersections accounted for 237 of 371 total bicycle accidents (64 percent), and 233 of 314 bicycle-motor vehicle collisions (74 percent)." I think any research would turn up similar numbers for anywhere.

Regarding the lane usage, doubling up is a vehicular cycling issue, and goes to the situation. If doubling up causes more traffic to back up behind the cyclist than would have happened otherwise, then it should be frowned upon. OTOH, often the lane is too narrow to share with a car, in which case the cyclist is not only allowed but advised to 'take the lane' to avoid being dangerously squeezed. Having taken the lane, riding side by side with another bike shouldn't be an issue. Likewise, it's not an issue where there's more than one lane going in the direction of travel. Of course, tripling up and/or crossing the center line is never correct. Except when passing. The real problem with doubling up is, drivers often see 2-abreast as holding them up, when in fact it doesn't. It makes the line of bikes they must pass only half as long; and if they have to pull out to pass anyway, it's no additional inconvenience over passing a single bike.
BlazingPedals is offline  
Old 05-17-11, 11:14 AM
  #27  
Doohickie
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Posts: 14,721

Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by BlazingPedals View Post
I think it's generally acknowledged that, statistically, intersections are the most dangerous place for cyclists. For instance, https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/wachtel.html states that in Palo Alto CA (the subject of the study) "Accidents at intersections accounted for 237 of 371 total bicycle accidents (64 percent), and 233 of 314 bicycle-motor vehicle collisions (74 percent)." I think any research would turn up similar numbers for anywhere.
That says nothing about accidents in rural areas.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.


Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
salcedo
Advocacy & Safety
259
12-12-17 10:25 PM
Equinox
Advocacy & Safety
13
06-15-13 07:58 AM
rydabent
Advocacy & Safety
123
01-26-13 03:15 PM
Clarks
Advocacy & Safety
15
02-10-11 08:28 AM
vtjim
Commuting
44
10-22-10 03:54 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.