I’ve always biked against traffic so that I can see the cars that are coming my way. I feel safer this way. When the cars are behind me, I feel I am at a higher risk of getting hit.
This post, https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/e8i24j/just_gotta_get_to_work_on_time/ , reminded me to finally get to the bottom of this.
In: Culture
As a person on a bicycle you are considered to be in/on a vehicle. As such you are suppose to obey all rules of the road. That means stopping at red lights, signalling with hand signals when you are turning down a road, and riding in the correct lane of the road to go with the flow of traffic.
Additionally going against the flow of traffic means that you reduce the chances that someone can react to avoid you as you are going towards each other thus the time before they reach you is shorter. That makes things extremely dangerous, particularly when going around blind curves. You are many times more likely to get hit going against traffic.
From a driver standpoint, it never made sense when bikers went against traffic to me. We have less time to react because we are heading towards each other. You’re better off getting seen as the car is going to go faster than you can react.
I believe the theory is that bicycles are vehicles and thus have more in common with cars than with pedestrians. I suspect this is a holdover from when cars went twenty miles an hour and bicycles were considered dangers to pedestrians. It’s probably time to re-evaluate that stance.
As a bicyclist, you are to observe all the rules of the road, therefore you have to travel in the same direction. In rural areas, this doesnt seem very important. But in crowded cities, it would be a hellish disaster if bikes didn’t follow the same rules as cars. Theres a standard because there has to be, for the safe flow of traffic.
If you were the person on the bike in the link that you included, you would be hit regardless of which direction you were riding in. With that in mind, consider this scenario: the car is driving 50 units of speed (to include all the driving world) and the bicycle is moving at 15 units.
If the bicycle is traveling with traffic then the cyclist is hit with the equivalent of 35 units of speed.
If the bicycle is traveling against traffic then the cyclist is hit with the equivalent of 65 units of speed.
Which one would you prefer?
If you are going against traffic and there is no shoulder what do you do? Just get hit?
The rules are designed to assume you as a cyclist are riding in the road with traffic; that’s the basis.
Think about spaces where you do not have a shoulder. With only lanes of traffic, and you would then be going against traffic and you’re going to get in a head-on vs a car.
I’ll contribute “Velocity” for increased survival chances in a collision.
Drastically simplified down:
Head on collision is (CarSpeed*CarMass) + (BicycleSpeed*BicycleMass)
Rear ended, you subtract bicycle speed at least.
Now this assumes crash is inevitable, but see the way the cyclist is propelled in your clip? Forward on existing path is better than UP or Into-the-windshield.
A racing bike can hit 25mph. Let’s assume a more modest 15. Car doing 40+15=55(head on collision)
Same scenario, bike obeying traffic laws=25
I’d rather not be hit either, but one of those values looks significantly more like a death sentence.
When I was a kid I biked against traffic so I could see them coming and get off the road onto the should. Made perfect sense to me then and now. But that was country (without curbs) and way less congestion.
Also pointing out that in some places because you’re required to obey rules of the road that includes things like lights and reflectors. In the dark, your bright light is blinding to people coming at you from the opposite of your heading. If they’re on the same side of the road as you that’s me dangerous for both you and them. If you go with the flow of traffic they’ll still see you but not be blinded by your light.
Latest Answers