How to Not Get Hit by Cars | Hacker News Reader

How to Not Get Hit by Cars

bicyclesafe.com

125 pointsjacquesm246 comments

So much of this advice is “ride to the left” and I wish to emphasize it.

Novice riders are trained to stick to an invisible (or painted) bike lake which ends up with them being far less visible than they need to be.

Your safety is more important than some car’s need to get to work 5 seconds faster, and you shouldn’t feel controlling anxiety if some idiot honks at you for riding in the main traffic lane. You have right of way there just as you do in the bike lane. (Bikes are road vehicles remember)

I was taught “control the lane,” when necessary. It’s not unsafe to ride in front of a car that sees you. It’s more unsafe to ride in the far right of a too-narrow lane while inviting a car to come alongside you and squeeze you in the event that they have to/forget about you.

That means at intersections, areas with pedestrians crossing between cars, loading and unloading of cars, and other low visibility areas or even in other types of areas , when car traffic is traveling as the same speed as you, riding in the center is a better spot for you.

When you stop at intersections, ride up to the front of the line and rest directly in front of the car there, especially if it’s not clear which way they might turn.

As you approach standing cars at intersections or slow moving traffic, if safe pass on the left, not on the right where the blind spots are much bigger.

In general, be unapologetic about ensuring your own visibility. It’s the greatest tool you have for safety

>Novice riders are trained to stick to an invisible (or painted) bike lake which ends up with them being far less visible than they need to be.

I don't think it necessarily has to do with being a novice, sometimes it's just the law. I bike mostly in Oregon and as far as I am aware you have stay in the bike lane if there is one, unless you are passing it the lane is blocked. ORS 814.420

And I believe what the OP and the article are saying in spirit (if not explicitly) - it's OK to break stupid laws in the interest of your own safety.

Laws are just a bunch of words that may or may not be on paper. Not all of them are equally useful or thought-out. Many won't be upheld in court, depending on circumstances.

In 99.9% cases, it's better to break a law than risk injury/death.

Oh ok. I don't have the resources (time/money) to fight things in court or pay fines. I also have been hit enough times and have found things go a lot smoother if the driver is clearly at fault. Even in Portland Oregon (I say even because it is a fairly bike friendly city) cops seem to side with the car because the general mentality is, that is what the road is there for. Anyway that seems like a strange recommendation from my experience dealing with cops while riding a bike. Not to mention the fact that some drivers tend to get aggressive towards bikes if your not following the rules.

In the UK, cycle lanes stop or are explicitly painted out in front of cars in such areas.

Such as: http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/57/34/2573447_7290591... (it's not clear without more context why the lane's on the right, remember we drive on the left so usually the lane is too, but my point is the area in front of the cars, forcing cars to see you and allowing the cyclists to clear the junction first.)

Same in Germany: https://www.nw.de/_em_daten/_cache/image/1xekc0SVN5N2FSQ295T...

I was just in London, and while the boxes were nice the lanes were terrible and overly narrow. The drivers were homicidal compared to drivers in NYC. I wouldn’t say it was a positive experience.

Depends what part of London you’re in. Unfortunately cycle infrastructure is mostly managed by the local boroughs, who all have very different views on cycling.

Westminster and Kensington are famously hateful of cyclist, and do every they can to avoid building anything but the most pathetic cycle infrastructure.

However boroughs like Southwark are far not forward thinking. My area is covered in wide dedicated cycle lanes. I can get from my home to the office on almost entirely grade separated and wide cycle lanes. The only fly in the ointment is that my office is in Westminster, the second I cross the borough boundary, it all goes to crap.

I biked in Kensington, SoHo, and City of London. They were all unpleasant in different but noticeable ways. Old narrow roundabouts were especially scary in the bike. The bus lanes were nice though.

Yeah, most of the cycle infrastructure north of the river isn’t great. South is substantially better, the difference is stark. Thankfully it’s getting better north of the river, but a lot of that infrastructure was built before TfL realised that half-arsed infrastructure just doesn’t work. You either need to build proper infrastructure, or just not bother. Thankfully those lessons have been applied to the new infrastructure that being built, include all the stuff south of the river which is more recent.

Cycling in London sometimes feels like an extreme sport.

Same in some US cities.

This is similar to why I - as a pedestrian - think many crosswalk designs are dangerous. The trend seems to be to place a crosswalk parallel to Large Road X well around the corner (10+ feet) along Smaller Road Y. Besides the fact that it adds burdens for disabled people who have to travel further to use the crosswalk, it reduces visibility and hence increases danger. A group of runners were almost run over at such a crosswalk near my town's high school last month. I don't know how anyone can seriously think these are a good idea. Mostly they just seem easier, using slightly less material and requiring slightly less work during construction. They should be banned.

> you shouldn’t feel controlling anxiety if some idiot honks at you for riding in the main traffic lane

Honking is good; it means they see you!

Great advice. I would say drive assured with a sense of self-respect (but not overdo it with arrogance) instead of as if you are a vulnerable, insignificant exception. But then again I live in a country where a lot of bicycle drivers are (NL). I often drive in the middle of the (one way) bike lane, so that others cannot pass me easily. That's intentional. I often drive with my kids, and I don't want you to pass them quickly on your electric bike. I'm cool if you gotta slow down and use your bell. Also, you want to give yourself some space on the right for a myriad of reasons so much that its a better default. So yes, those behind me will be annoyed that they have to slow down, but its in our mutual interest (a bicyclist who gets hit by a car always has the legal side with them compared to car). In Amsterdam though, good luck as pedestrian. Bicyclists will ignore you and zebra (they're legally bound to stopping for you). When I worked in Amsterdam at some point I got really annoying at a certain crossing. I'd always put up my right arm and fist for visibility as well as they'd hit my fist before they'd hit me.

Quite true.

For novice riders are simply tell them to ride where they would put they right wheel when driving a car. And at least a meter away from the curb/parked cars.

I usually go for "where the driver's seat would be".

I (in the US, driving and riding on the right) go for where the passenger seat would be - far enough left to take up enough of the lane that cars can't pass me by just squeezing between the yellow line and my bike, but that I'm not inconsiderately taking up more of the road than necessary.

There are way too many jerks who put their passenger rearview mirror 12" from my head or literally into my elbow at 55 mph, or who slow down to 25 and try to pass me at a crawl while treating the yellow line as a brick wall if I ride where the outside tire goes or if I ride on the white line. The law here states that cars must give 5 feet of space when passing, but it's not widely respected... Given the choice between squeezing through at an illegally close distance, or waiting for a chance to pass in the opposite lane, too many choose to squeeze past - so don't give them that choice.

For me it depends a little on how safe I feel. If there's very little traffic, road conditions are good, etc, I'll move closer to the side of the road.

I still tell other people to aim for the driver's seat, though. Mostly to communicate clearly to them that it's okay to use the road.

But check your local laws first. There are often specific rules for bicycles in the traffic. Here, for example, is Washington state's law on lane position:

RCW 46.61.770

Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

(1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except:

__(a) While preparing to make or while making turning movements at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;

__(b) When approaching an intersection where right turns are permitted and there is a dedicated right turn lane, in which case a person may operate a bicycle in this lane even if the operator does not intend to turn right;

__(c) While overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; and

__(d) When reasonably necessary to avoid unsafe conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, animals, and surface hazards.

(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited access highway, which roadway or highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe.

(3) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane.

(4) When the operator of a bicycle is using the travel lane of a roadway with only one lane for traffic moving in the direction of travel and it is wide enough for a bicyclist and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within it, the bicycle operator shall operate far enough to the right to facilitate the movement of an overtaking vehicle unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so or unless the bicyclist is preparing to make a turning movement or while making a turning movement.

(5) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles

> shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe

...so basically what the grandparent is saying?

I haven't had any issue riding on the far right when I can, even before I installed my blinking light system.

I love the simplicity of this formulation. It's very obvious in retrospect. Thanks for your comment. I'll steal this.

It's for these same reasons that I think lane-splitting on a motorcycle is so stupid. They are heavy enough to destabilize cars in a collision, definitely heavy enough to kill bikers, and yet have the same visibility issues as their human-powered cousins

Motorcyclists generally don't lanesplit on single-lane roads because it's dumb. Sure, I could ride my liter bike to the right side of a Civic on most roads but I would be nuts to do it even were it legal. Or I could ride it down the center double yellow line to pass the hypothetical Civic, but again it would be stupid.

Notice with motorcycles it is the motorcyclist that chooses to lane split (or not). With bicycles, sometimes it is the bicyclist that chooses and sometimes it is the car. This is fundamentally different.

Many motorcyclists stay in the left third of the lane as taught by, e. g. the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF). Much of this article is basic lane positioning and awareness material taught by the MSF or periodically printed in the American Motorcyclist Association magazine.

Just understand if you take up a traffic lane when a bike lane is right next to you, some cars will pass you then slow down to walking speed in front of you.

Hostility results in hostility, and you’re not surrounded by steel.

Using a traffic* lane when there is a bike lane is not necessarily hostility. I'd even argue that it's rarely hostility. It might be that the bike lane is full of potholes, or dirty/icy/full of foliage or debris, so it's uncomfortable or unsafe. Or there could be a lot of parking with potentially opening car doors right next to the bike lane.

* traffic doesn't only consist of cars. Bikes, pedestrians, wheelchairs are also part of traffic.

To be clear I mean people will perceive it as hostile seeing bikers in a traffic lane when next to a bike lane, and then respond with hostile actions like heavy acceleration right next to a biker etc.

Honking is far more common, but escalation happens and simply assuming it’s safer because someone sees you don’t always work if their annoyed.

It pretty much is, and it's also illegal at least where I live -- cyclists are required to use bike ways/lanes if present, and cyclist's opinion about its serviceability doesn't matter if the bike way isn't officially closed.

It's also stretching luck, because whoever designed the intersections could have assumed there are no bikes on the road, since they all are required to ride bike way and therefore might be less visible on the road.

Where I live it is only mandatory to use the bike line if there is a sign mandating it (blue circle with a bike drawn in it), but otherwise bikes are free to take the road if they prefer (because many of bike lines are in bad shape, too narrow, or shared with the pedestrian)

And the road designer know that because the road marking near traffic lights still have spacial mark for the cyclist, despite the bike line next to it.

> some cars will pass you then slow down to walking speed in front of you.

I have never heard of this happening to anybody.

Do you drive much in the States? The amount of insane hostility that I see on the road in general, not even directed toward cyclists, is mind boggling. For instance, I would never respond to anything with any sort of escalation of anger, because people literally get shot and killed over it in my state on a regular basis.

Here are a few recent incidents, just in my city alone:

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/ax-wielding-road-rag...

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/south-austin-road-ra...

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/road-rage-on-the-rise...

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/apd-releases-video-of...

All of those are just in the last few months. The last one in particular is just absolutely over the top batshit insane Mad Max level behavior.

Sadly this sort of thing happens a lot in the US. You can even see shades of it in HN threads about cycling - there seems to be an unreasonable level of anger and resentment toward people who choose to bike. Another thing you see in certain parts of the country is "coal rolling", which I had never even heard of (much less experienced) until I cycled through the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal It's really astounding how far out of their way some people will go to try to annoy or harass those who made a different lifestyle choice. Best thing I figured to do was ignore it. Fortunately the majority of drivers aren't this petty or antagonistic.

I'd describe it as a near-daily occurrence! To be clear they're slowing down because of traffic congestion or the need to navigate an intersection etc., but it still amazes me that a driver's first instinct is "get past the bicycle no matter what" even if it's clear they'll need to slow right down shortly after.

I had a car actively swerve into me to try to run me off the road after I took the lane to get around a stopped bus. Car drivers can definitely get crazy aggressive if they think you’re not riding “in your place.”

Edit: I still agree that taking the lane when appropriate is the safest option, but it’s hard to deny that some people are insane.

Not insane. Malicious. It's intent to intimidate or injure or kill. It absolutely should be an arrestable offense, but without witnesses or video, the police will not take it seriously.

Those in aggressive driver areas should consider "bikecam" video an insurance policy. If you're injured, you'll need the money, and they should have to pay. A lot. And get a lawyer. I suppose it's a small deterrent but also a cheap one.

Seem it daily. Generally it's kind of unconscious and dumb but sometimes it's malicious and dangerous (I guess being passed by a cyclist hurts some idiots ego).

I'd prefer that to getting run over tbh. What usually happens is that cars do a "punishment pass" with way to little space.

I wouldn’t assume seeing you is going to prevent everyone from running you over if their pissed off enough. I have heard accounts of drivers swerving at cyclists that pissed them off and it’s not like people practice doing it.

Where I live, the cars greatly outnumber bikes. Cyclists that go in the main traffic lane will slow things down substantially, and I think that is inconsiderate.

Where I live its the legal right of bicyclists to use the road in the same manner as cars do. Just because your vehicle is less agile than yours, they are not inconsiderate, e.g. you would not honk on trucks just because they accelerate slower. Or on school buses because they need to stop often.

Where do you live? Every road law on bicycles I've ever read has said something to the effect of "ride as far to the right as practiceable, except to avoid dangerous debris or make a left turn."

If you are driving a camper up a mountain road and you are going slower than traffic you are supposed to pull over when you get too many cars backed up behind you. I've heard the number is six cars backed up till you have to let them pass.

I see no reason a similar rule doesn't apply to bikes or anyone else legally using the road but traveling slower than the flow.

That would really only be feasible if a cyclist could safely make such a judgment while keeping their eyes on the road. If as a cyclist I'm holding up more than 6 cars behind me it's because whoever is in charge of building/ maintaining the road wasn't doing their job. I'd also say I've seen plenty times where cars have held up 20+ cyclists and given no indication they intend to let them pass.

(OP here) I agree and if you can safely let cars pass you, you should. But not to the detriment of your safety.

I find a hybrid approach works well in these cases. Most of the time when I am cycling in a straight line where risk is low I stick to the side of the lane to allow cars to more easily overtake me, but at points where it is particularly risky, such as when there are parked cars (risk getting ‘doored’) or at an intersection, I will take a more primary cycling stance.

It’s important to share the road and be considerate, but not if it risks your safety.

I think hitting cyclists with cars and horrifically injuring them is inconsiderate. But each to their own.

Both are. I've done both for a long time, forcing everyone to go at 30 km/h in a 50 zone is inconsiderate. Not as inconsiderate as not being careful around cyclists when you drive. This looks like a system design problem to me. The needs of the cyclists don't match the needs of the drivers. This is why we are fighting over this. There has to be a solution, but I know nothing about civil engineering.

There is a solution! Protected cycle lanes!

Keep cycles, cars and pedestrians physically separated. Inside towns and cities we should be looking to give up road space for cars, to put in dedicated cycle infrastructure.

Dedicated cycle infrastructure keeps cars and cycles separate, makes cycling safer, and most importantly more accessible and friendly.

Every additional cycle on the road during rush hour is one less car. If removing a car lane reduces the capacity of a road segment by 20 cars, but causes 50 additional to swap their car for a bike, then you’ve just created an 30 cars of capacity on your road.

That’s just the start, a bike lane can easily carry 10 times more people than a car lane, and requires basically zero maintenance. They don’t get pot holes because cycles weigh so little their damage to the road surface is practically unmeasurable.

How do protected cycle lanes mitigate the crash types in the article? I see how they may prevent getting rear ended or doored, but all the intersection conflict points remain and in many cases are exacerbated by the "protection." I've seen lane designs that force cyclists to pass right turning cars on the right at intersections. Often the barriers reduce visibility and tell drivers they don't have to be aware of bikes, increasing the chances for conflict. While infrastructure does need to be improved, I don't think this is a complete solution.

Pretty simple, cycles get their own cycle on lights at crossing, and you ban right turns on red. Right turns on red are such a stupid idea, a tiny time saving for a minority of people, but a huge increase in risk for vulnerable road users.

As for branch junctions along the road, priority is given to bikes going in the direction of traffic, and you build tables across the junction, reduce junction radius, both force cars to slow down when turning into junctions, and make it clear they need to look for other road users.

These are all solved problems. The Netherlands publishes an extremely well respected guide on exactly how to build people-centric road infrastructure that massively reduces collisions and road incidents. There’s no need to reinvent anything, just look at countries that have road death rates at a fraction of what the US has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman

>Hans Monderman (19 November 1945 – 7 January 2008) was a Dutch road traffic engineer and innovator. He was recognised for radically challenging the criteria used to evaluate engineering solutions for street design. His work compelled transportation planners and highway engineers to look afresh at the way people and technology relate to each other.

>His design approach is the concept of "shared space", an urban design approach that seeks to minimise demarcations between vehicle traffic and pedestrians, often by removing features such as kerbs, road surface markings, traffic signs, and regulations. Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others.

Hans Monderman: Rethinking the design of streets and public space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBGokenEhQ

Unexpected interview in Groningen (Homage to Hans Monderman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQASVz4xun8

HANS MONDERMAN ON THE IMPORTANCE OF HUMAN INTERACTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGMFNxCJyQ

Monderman (3of10) - Drachten Roundabout Traffic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGCE6vI5j68

Monderman (5of10) - Drachten Intersection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39gNtsaZfI

Road signs suck. What if we got rid of them all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbsFtLkGN8

Or cyclists can be incentivised to move to small motorcycles (pedelec if they want to stay fit) and we avoid the whole issue of converting car lanes to bicycle lanes and then reverting that decision because a traffic jam occurred and residents were not impressed, wasting money in the process ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What about people that can’t drive a motorcycle, like children? Or people that can’t afford a motorcycle? Or people that have nowhere to store a motorbike (I’ll like to see you hang a motorbike on a wall)? Do we just abandon them?

> we avoid the whole issue of converting car lanes to bicycle lanes and then reverting that decision because a traffic jam occurred and residents were not impressed, wasting money in the process

There are huge piles of empirical evidence that shows the complete opposite of this happens. Introducing bike infrastructure, at the cost of car infrastructure, almost always reduces congestion after a short adaptation period passes. Turns out if you give people cheaper easier ways of moving a round a city or town, they’ll pick them over a car.

Kids are legislatively forbidden from riding motorcycles. Just let them do AM or another form of certification for small bikes that get to 50ish kmh. It's not like they can't get to 50 with a bicycle. I'd even argue it's safer since it's easier to wear protective gear when you don't have to pedal.

Affording it isn't a real issue either. (i)Second hand motorcycles can be had for really cheap since they're treated as toys in the western world. I just opened up the listings for where I live (smallish town in Germany) and there are 44 ads for working bikes under 1000$ in 25km radius of me. Some are even proper 600cc+ machines. (ii)16 brand new bikes in that same area can be bought for under 2000$. (iii)Public transport.

Storage: Small bikes can be manhandled into an apartment if it's about long term storage. Short term, just park it on the street like a normal person. Put a tracker on it if you're worried.

I get that it improves over time but the short term effects are what determines whether whoever implements it remains in power long enough to see that. And I'd argue still that motorcycles are way faster and therefore better at decreasing congestion than bicycles. Regarding inclusivity they are also friendlier to less fit people, especially in uneven terrain since even at my ripe age in the mid twenties I can get out of breath climbing some streets on my bicycle.

> Kids are legislatively forbidden from riding motorcycles. Just let them do AM or another form of certification for small bikes that get to 50ish kmh. It's not like they can't get to 50 with a bicycle.

Can you explain to me how my 4 year old who can barely use her bicycle can reach 50 km/hour? I can't even do it myself on our city bike or transport bike. An electric bicycle is far more expensive (you calling 1000 USD cheap), and they are legally not allowed to go quicker than 25 km/hour. An electric transport bike new goes for 4000 EUR here (NL). Its all fucking expensive.

But regardless of the latter you're out of your mind if you believe young children are able to drive 50 km/hour on a bike, let alone safely. The issue I have with electric bikes is that they often cause accidents (usually elder) on specific bike lanes. I really don't want anyone to drive more quick than 25 km/hour there. Speedbikers and sports bikers are another problem, they're inconsiderate and don't give a rat about other users of the public space.

Your 4 year old does not need to commute per bicycle and in general should not be riding a bicycle on busy streets. Even on busy bicycle paths small kids can be problematic (slow and unpredictable) so they're honestly better off on the sidewalk, on barely used (residential) streets and in parks.

I'm also not mentioning electric vehicles since at the moment they are a luxury product (excluding DIY). If you're looking for value it's definitely still in ICE. Although 1000 isn't exactly cheap a decent bicycle does cost 200-250 second hand in my experience. Anything cheaper tends to break the moment you give it some torque after forgetting to switch down a couple gears for a stop. I've broken so many cheap cranks it's not even funny.

Also as mentioned, there's public transport and maybe moving near your work in case that's somehow too expensive. (I reckon lots of people on ~minimum salary don't work in expensive parts of the city)

And I still reckon even a kid with a half decent bike can get to 50 on a nice downhill. Not too sure though and I don't feel like encouraging a kid to try although knowing how my generation was as kids they'll try without encouragement once they can ride in a straight line.

I'm kinda curious if a kid can do it now so I just opened https://www.omnicalculator.com/sports/cycling-wattage to get a rough idea and although it's definitely far from perfect for:

- 16kg person weight

- 9kg bike

- 50km/h goal

- Hoods position to assume some tuck

- On asphalt with -6 grade

I get 350W. On -10 grade 211W. (to maintain)

Only issue is I can't find a power measurement over time for a 4 year old.

People drive on average 18 km/hour on a bicycle here (flat terrain). That is nowhere _near_ 50 km/hour. Racers drive such speeds, and they are aerodynamic, on a race bike, well maintained bike, etc.

Our oldest is now 4, like I said she can barely bicycle as it is. Kids of age 8, 10, 12 they go to elementary school, and many go by bicycle. Sure, some walk too. After age 12 they go to high school, and these are more far away usually so its either public transport or bicycle. Bicycle is cheaper for parents, and the kids get some exercise, plus the bike lanes are reasonably secure (its illegal now to use a smartphone while using bicycle). Now, yes my 4 year old can barely cycle, and she should be on the sideways indeed. However at some point she's gonna be old enough to start cycling to school and such. And you want her to get combined with cars who drive 60 past her school where they are only allowed 30? Its an insane thought, seriously. Open up Google Maps or Apple Maps or whatever and have a look at the Amsterdam center. Look at some of the roads where cars are allowed. Now, yes, the roads where people live in a house/apartment and such, these are generally small and yes the cars gotta drive together with the bicycles. But when you go from one neighborhood to another, the cars are separated. They drive on their own lane, usually easily 50 km/hour, multiple lanes, traffic lights or roundabouts at different larger roads. You really do not want to cross such roads casually, you want to use the zebra crossing. And as a cyclist what you want to do is listen to the traffic lights, and stay on the bicyclist road. This is in a large city.

Of course, in a small village or even small town, you can have it more casual. For example you could say the main road which connects to a city is mainly for cars, with separated bike lane, but for the rest cars and cyclists must share the road. And this works, perfectly well. But I grew up in a town of about 80k people, and we had various separated roads.

My point being we already make all kind of concessions in The Netherlands:

1) Bicyclists may not use smartphones anymore while using their bicycle because these caused accidents.

2) Sometimes streets and bicycle lane is separated, sometimes the bicycle lane is shared but marked as such (means cars may use the area, but bicyclists have priority), and sometimes they are shared which in practice means cars much adapt to the bicyclists (and they don't like such but if they not allowed 50 km/hour that's OK). It depends on the area, and its decided by local city/province government.

3) Electric bikes are an ongoing issue/debate. Usually the elder drive them, and they cause accidents. I mentioned it because they're a serious problem, but according to local law they're not allowed to drive more quick than 25 km/hour or they fall under different jurisdiction than manual/classic bicyclists.

(In your world, the manual/classic bicyclists would be able to easily go twice as quick as the legal limit of electric cyclists. While they can go quicker than 25 km/hour, and racers do indeed regularly, the casual cyclists do not and will not. They will not adapt to the 50 km/hour of the cars. Also, people in The Netherlands often have old bicycles ('barrels') cause they still work, and these won't get stolen. They won't have a new chain, they're made for flat/city terrain, and all too often you have wind not in the back. So its not only 4 year olds who would be in disadvantage; also pre-teens in general, as well as many elder.)

The low speed is precisely my issue.

Sure, you can separate cyclists from cars on new roads, but it's not financially reasonable to rebuild the whole city trying to get people to move from cars (comfort) to bicycles (lack of comfort + physical effort + slow).

I don't mind cycling focused cities. I've lived in one and it was nice, but it was also rather small so the size allowed for bicycles to make sense. Ain't no one riding a bicycle 20km to work.

In my world, provided the separated cycling infrastructure wasn't made in the beginning, it seems way easier and cheaper to incentivise people to move from cars and bicycles to motorcycles since the comfort/cost impact isn't as big in both directions instead of trying to redesign the whole road infrastructure.

The example with 50kmh was meant as something of a top speed. if a kid can reach it or close to it on a downhill where their brakes are underpowered and tires undersized/lacking traction while having the incentive to not brake so they don't have to pedal you might as well give them a little mofa.

Sure, it raises the average speed but it also removes the issues of wearing gear (I can wear a full textile kit with shoes and gloves and don't sweat at all as long as I'm going 15-20kmh in 30ish degrees C) and removes the disgusting incentive to avoid braking to reduce pedaling. It also gives them the ability to keep up with traffic so drivers aren't inclined to try dangerous overtaking maneuvers.

> Sure, you can separate cyclists from cars on new roads, but it's not financially reasonable to rebuild the whole city trying to get people to move from cars (comfort) to bicycles (lack of comfort + physical effort + slow).

Well, that depends on a lot of factors.

The size of the current roads might be one. If there's room, a bicycle lane might be feasible, but you can also have the cars as guest (which results in the same as you argue: that cars will have to adapt to the speed of the bike). This is the case with the smaller roads in very rural areas. Although I have even seen some roads become one way streets with bicycle lane. You can also combine bicycle lane on the same side which I've seen but then they're guaranteed separated from the main road.

20 km to work is a lot indeed, I don't want to do it, but I have a co employee who goes like 45 km to work (and then takes train back). I appreciate the effort. On electric bikes, 20 km isn't going to be a lot (if you assume 25 km/hour its slightly less than an hour), but we are not living in a world where these are dominant yet (as in the status quo).

I've grown up in a rural area, so I know I can go as quick as cars downhill. Even as kid. Its a cool feeling (I've yet to drive an e-bike), but I was glad I was on the bicycle lane I can tell you that. Also, I took risks at traffic lights and crossings. Risks I shouldn't have taken, tho that's what youth do.

Now, if you want to make a 30 km zone and want to combine cars with bicycles, I give you a pass. Because I have seen such in action. Although sometimes the cars cannot go 30 km/hour it allows the two types of vehicles to live more in harmony. I live in such a zone, though the delivery men tend to disagree. Its a miracle they don't hurt kids with their buses.

There's also these vehicles which look like cars but they can go like 45 km/hour and therefore don't require a drivers license. You can see the elder with them, they're used on the bicycle lane, though they take a lot of space. That's the issue here: space. We only have so much and we want to fairly share it while stimulating the right type of traffic. Cars are inefficient in that sense, therefore its OK if we stimulate other types of transport by making them less attractive (higher fuel costs, higher taxes, less space for them, higher parking costs). These are already happening here as it is. The fuel costs are higher due to war, and certain inefficient fuel types of cars (I don't know the details) aren't allowed in inner circle of city anymore. Parking is expensive. All of which stimulates public transport, bicycle, walking, and electric cars (which are basically only for rich people as it is). Its going very slowly though as those who drive cars are a large amount of votes who also are the ones who vote for certain politicians. These chicken-egg problems as well as lack of popularity of bicycle hamper change.

You are putting words in my mouth. Of course I am against hitting cyclists, and I have never done so.

Bikes cycle as part of traffic because it far safer, and substantially reduces the chances of them being hit and seriously injured.

If you think cycling in manner to improves your safety as a cyclist is inconsiderate. Then how do you suggest they cycle if they don’t want to be hit by a car?

Do you think you deserve praise for not taking out your anger on bikers you consider inconsiderate even though you outnumber them? And how does outnumbering them give you any more right to hit them, or you being in a hurry make them deserve any less consideration, or owe you any more consideration?

I was driving in Boston and stopped at a light that just turned red, while it had just started raining, so all the oil on the road had just gotten slick but hadn't washed off yet. The Boston driver who rear-ended me at the red light was furious and tried to blame me, saying "I thought you were going to run the red light too!" So yeah, it's provably true what they say about Boston drivers.

https://www.allstate.com/americas-best-drivers/index.htm

https://www.boston.com/cars/commute/2018/08/31/boston-driver...

https://www.bcheights.com/2019/11/17/why-boston-drivers-and-...

In The Netherlands, bicyclists don't need to wear helmets, because Dutch drivers don't act like Boston drivers, because they drive safely and respectfully, and don't get pissed off when bicyclists slow them down, and drivers vote for politicians who build safe bike lanes and pay taxes to fund them, which are ubiquitous and well maintained. It's a cultural thing, and the wrong kind of culture kills bicyclists.

And it's not just Boston driver culture: Rolling Coal on bicyclists is also a uniquely American Red State cultural thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmJSsRLgj4

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a39797952/driver-posts-video-...

But then again, after looking at your posting history to see what other words come out of your own mouth, I bet you'd probably hate the Dutch culture, because it's so easy to get great health care, birth control, abortion, morning after pills, non-procreative sex is not stigmatized, same sex marriage has been legal and widely accepted for so long here, conversion therapy is banned, and of course teen pregnancy is much much lower than in the US. More of those pesky progressive cultural things that really make a big difference in the quality and duration of life.

You can always pull into another lane to overtake like you would with a slower-moving car.

The only situation I can see a cyclist making a difference like this is on an uninterrupted country road where it's dangerous to overtake.

In any urban area the time lost to waiting behind a cyclist will be negligible compared to the minutes lost stuck behind cars at every red light.

In many urban areas traveling by bicycle is objectively and measurably quicker than by car, even without allowing for additional time for parking/walking to/from wherever you can park.

You live around a lot of long, straight stretches of road, right?

In my experience, cars take way longer to navigate across intersections, roundabouts, and sharper turns than bicycles, simply because of their size and momentum and limited view.

What would you suggest the cyclists do?

Step N+1: advocate for better cycling infrastructure in your area / town / city. Places that are bike-friendly don't rely on driver or cyclist behaviour to prevent collisions; they build separated lanes, provide bike boxes in front of stopped cars, reduce speed limits, install automated speed enforcement, connect cycling paths through parks, and so on.

"Better cycling infrastructure" should mean an effectively car-free network of streets. Yes this can be achieved while still allowing cars to access residences on these streets.

This is what has been frustrating for me as a life long advocate for decades. People think bike lanes are a solution. They are not, bike lanes are for cars, not for bikes. Bikes and public transit should each get about 5%-10% of car-free surface streets to create a safe, fast, reliable network for alternatives. Ironically, this would reduce traffic, as the main reason why traffic is so terrible is because automobiles have monopoly power over the infrastructure, so nobody can actually choose alternatives if they want to.

I'm a mod of /r/bicycling, and wrote a free ebook on how to get into biking years ago. Here is the chapter on safety:

http://howtobike.info/thebook?section=chapter3

while i can appreciate the idea, in LA, there's basically zero chance we get such a car-free network of streets, so i advocate for replacing free street parking with dedicated bike lanes. ideally, also narrowing the car lanes too for traffic calming and add some sort of barrier (even just periodic bumps or a hump). it's nearly as good, reduces externalized subsidies to cars, it's more achievable politically and civicly, and cheaper to boot.

p.s. - i got buzzed by an SUV riding my bike today. i caught up at the light and yelled at him but that's little consolation for such a dangerous action.

I mean, i just don't know what to say. Anything less is insufficient. Bike lanes "are for other people," which is the paradigm that propagates the bikes and ebikes never being a real alternative to the automobile.

In SF we are slowly, and contentiously creating this network. Perhaps it will fail, but it's mostly becoming real at this point. It will only take and extended period of gas prices to act as a catalyst.

you're letting perfect be the enemy of the good. you can get extensive biking infrastructure nearly immediately by doing a conversion of street parking. creating a separate, dedicated network is much slower and more expensive, if even possible. i've lived in SF and there is no way that the wealthy folks there, just like LA, will allow anything more than a few token bike lanes just to appease the peons and appear magnanimous.

i agree about gas prices needing to be higher though. i've long advocated for raising gas taxes (and removing indirect subsidies) to price in externalities and reconfigure markets (not just transportation, but housing, grocery, and everything else too) to be more efficient as a result. you could even fund bikes lanes with those taxes.

I'm not letting perfect be the enemy. I'll push for whatever infrastructure I can get, i just think a lack of ambition is also a flaw. Ask for what you need, not just what you think you can get. That's how SF got a near car-free route from the ocean to the ferry building.

> > "Anything less is insufficient."

sure, you can ask for anything. and not doing so isn't for lacking ambition. that's a projective ad hominem. sometimes people differ in what they perceive as wholly sufficient.

For most cities, you shouldn't hope to innovate; just partially emulating the Netherlands is the best you can hope for.

That's not riding a bike which is dangerous it is riding in the same zones as cars as the article points out. May people say we shouldn't trust anyone to carry guns, but we allow anyone to drive a car, that's at least as much dangerous.

All the examples of the articles are good, but there are two many to learn and remember. I follow one and only one rule when I ride my bike. Assume you can get killed at every time and do not trust anything.

Sometime I see people wanting to turn left, raising their left hand and then turning without never looking backward to check if the following car is not trying to pass them. These people are crazy and want to die. Always look backward before doing anything else or if a car is approaching.

Many people assume that as a bike rider they have rights and as a result they should be respected by cars, and end up in dangerous situations because of that. Do not trust anything if you want to stay alive

If I had the power to, I would downvote you because you are blaming the victim, being smug about it, even abusive.

If you are riding your bike in the city and the streets are congested enough, there will always be a car close behind you. As there are cars ahead of you, to the right of you and on the street to the left that you would have to look out for. There are limits to how defensively you can ride, and at the end you have to rely on that the driver behind you is required by law to heed to any vehicle that has signalled that it will be turning left.

I have myself been in exactly that situation, almost run over by some idiot who sped up left of me because there had appeared a gap on my left as I entered an intersection. That driver belongs in prison.

Just because they ought to doesn't mean they actually do. The GP is basically advocating the bicycle version of defensive driving, why do you find this "abusive"?

It's delusional to think that laws written by humans can beat the laws of physics. Whether 2 ton vehicle hits you on a bike intentionally or not doesn't change much that you will get hurt and maybe die. No matter how much the written laws favor the bikes.

I don't read that comment as blaming or smug, and certainly not abusive.

I ride my bike in city traffic and that's exactly the attitude I adopt: every one of these car drivers is going to kill me, and it's my responsibility to do whatever I can to prevent that. Laws and courtesy are great, but physics has no mercy.

The fact that most of the time we can rely on each other to pay attention, drive well, stop at stop signs, etc. is really wonderful, it's a daily affirmation that, despite all the rhetoric, we actually do care about each other.

But consider that more USA-ians have died in car collisions than in all the wars we've fought. Mixed car and bike (and pedestrian) traffic is insane. I call it the "mayhem lottery", but it's an imperfect metaphor: you don't have to buy a ticket to play, just be anywhere near the street. (Even indoors! People routinely drive off the road and into buildings!)

Anyhow, yes, of course bad drivers should have their licenses revoked (or even go to prison? Seems extreme to me but then again some of these drivers are downright homicidal, eh?) But it behooves you as a bike rider to defend yourself if you're going to run with the multi-ton high-speed metal. It's just common sense, eh?

> Many people assume that as a bike rider they have rights and as a result they should be respected by cars.

While I am not a bike rider, I am a proponent of defensive driving, which has the same principle: the laws of physics don't really care who has right-of-way.

> While I am not a bike rider, I am a proponent of defensive driving, which has the same principle: the laws of physics don't really care who has right-of-way.

Yeah. The graveyards have plenty of drivers/riders who had right-of-way.

>Always look backward before doing anything else or if a car is approaching.

Better yet, get a rear-view mirror that attaches to your helmet or handlebars so you don't have to turn your full head around. It's been a huge improvement for me since I've gotten it and when I ride shared bikes without mirrors I really notice how much I've come to rely on them.

Reading through all these comments I’m floored that no one has pointed out the most obvious safety tip of any bike/pedestrian. Use the roads defensively and as if every car doesn’t know you’re there. Before entering traffic with cars make damn sure the car sees you and make sure you are fucking visible. Motorists aren’t looking for bikes (you are small) they are looking for cars. It is your responsibility to understand what every car is doing and to ensure that a motorist sees you taking an action that might result in a collision. You technically own the road by law, but you practically speaking don’t. Bad accidents don’t happen because everyone was aware. Bad accidents happen because either the driver or the cyclists wasn’t paying attention. It doesn’t matter how much of the road you own if the motorist is distracted answering a phone or changing a radio station. Their car will crush you all the same. Drive defensively. Be aware of all of your surroundings at all times, particularly motorists and defer to the car when in doubt. The law cannot save your life after your chest has been crushed.

Totally. Ensure twice or thrice. Stay at large safe distance, avoid crowded places, speedy places. Also your sometimes your breaking distance will be longer.. so if a car brakes hard, you'll ram into them. Distance. (that's why I take longer isolated paths now)

The problem is, that isn't really possible in all cases. Sometimes cars ignore people and just turn left (in the UK, right in the US), not really anything you can do if the cars just see differs to do that.

I have cycled for the better part of 2 years through a busy city going to and from work during rush hour. There are very few cycle lanes so most of my cycling is done on the road with cars. The first thing to pick up on is being aware of the cars around you. You can look around and look into cars so you can easily notice people scrolling on their smartphones - it's one of the first types of people you need to keep a lookout for as they are most of the time oblivious to other people on the road (including you).

The other big advice is taking the lane. Especially in intersections, it is essential to be the middle of the lane and making yourself as visible as possible. Its a few dollars for a high visibility jacket that's water and windproof and it will make a huge difference in other drivers noticing you.

The general rule is that you need to be a bit more brave and you should take extra care because while helmets help, most of your organs are kept in a bag of skin which won't do much if a car runs into you...

I had #8 happen to me. Broad daylight, no other cars around, just a distracted driver who wasn't signalling. I'd ridden road for 5 years, but haven't since (2018). No matter how hard you try, if its a problem with the driver the car will always win. Also if you're riding in an area that's not accustomed to bikes, your risk of drivers not paying attention or being actively malicious is much higher.

Now I exclusively mountain bike. The risk of injury is higher, but the average severity of the injuries is minor compared to road.

> No matter how hard you try, if its a problem with the driver the car will always win.

Which is why we have the "Betriebsgefahr" (operational danger) in Germany. Hard to explain, but it boils down to "You're operating something that is inherently very dangerous. So you will be held responsible to some degree when something goes wrong, even when its not your fault. You accept this responsibility by driving a car"

It's obviously way more nuanced than that, but generally if you hit a bycicle with your car (with no fault on your side), there is a very good chance that your insurance will have to pick up some slack as well, depending on the circumstances.

That sounds nice. We have the opposite rule in one of your northern neighbours. "Bicyclists are inherently unpredictable so it's never your fault if you drive a car, even if it was a little."

(Obviously nobody involved would put it like this, but this is the general theme of the police investigations and the court response the rare times it goes to court.)

Interesting. The same unpredictability would hold for children as well, wouldn't it? And I hope at least there the conclusion isn't the same.

At least here in the US, it absolutely is. Kids get hit by cars and die on a semi-regular basis and basically no one is ever held accountable for it. From Chicago, just a few weeks ago: "Driver issued no citations after fatally striking 2-year-old riding mini-scooter in Lincoln Square"[0].

[0]: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2022/6/3/23153664/lincoln-...

The concept sounds a lot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability. I was introduced to the term at a mine site since it applied to blasting activities. Basically if anything/one was harmed during the blast, it was on the mine, regardless of them doing everything correctly. (I’m not holding my breath for this to be applied to US drivers.)

I've been commuting by bicycle for nearly 40 years, under a broad array of circumstances, and the article's advice checks out with my own personal rules.

Although the vast majority of the crashes and wipeouts I've suffered involved no cars, just me losing control.

However, over hundreds of wipeouts accumulated over a lifetime of cycling, I have never hit my head! Wiping out is a skill. A skill best cultivated when one is young and pliable, and a skill that has served me very well across a broad array of risky activities.

> hundreds of wipeouts

Wait, hundreds? I don't own a car and use my bike daily, including commuting to work (which means 24 kilometers per day commuting alone), for around 6 years now. As a kid, I cycled to school every day for 9 years.

I had maybe 2-3 crashes as a kid, and 2 crashes in the last 6 years: once a garbage man rolled a trash can into my handlebar at full speed, and another time a small branch got caught in my front wheel, blocking it completely and sending me flying over the handlebar onto the street.

(The latter was by far the worst bike accident in my life - the bike was ruined, I did not wear a helmet that day, yet for some reason I walked away without even a scratch. Nothing. It didn't even hurt. All the other accidents were far less serious, but always involved pain for days or trips to the hospital for suspected bone fractures).

I've done my share of BMX, mountain biking, and winter riding (where minor wipeouts can be common).

My last commuting wipeout was a couple years ago when I failed to register a speed bump while going pretty fast. I hit it, my front wheel turned sideways, and I slammed myself into the pavement pretty hard.

I've found cycling in winter (with snow or ice) much easier with studded winter tyres (and some care ... can't go 25 km/h over ice with those, either).

> Wait, hundreds?

Maybe they also mountain bike, or do some other sort of high risk bike sport.

For anyone else reading this, hundreds of wipeouts is many standard deviations away from the mean. As a point of comparison, I've been biking for 10+ years and bike commuting for ~5 of those. I've had exactly one wipeout, the first time I wore clip in shoes.

Please don't wear clip in shoes in traffic, they are great for races but they absolutely suck if you have to be able to put your foot down on a moments notice. I know several people with serious ankle injuries due to wearing those in traffic.

Likewise here, in 20 years of daily bike commuting, all weather, year-round, I've had one crash and a tiny handful of near misses. The crash involved hitting a patch of ice going around a turn, after an unexpected cold snap. I got studded tires for my winter bike right after that.

The friends I've had, who've gotten in crashes, were mostly off-road riders where crashes are expected, or competitive riders.

That seemed like a lifetime count of wipeouts (including as a kid and while learning). I don’t know my lifetime count, but I could believe it’s around 100.

I am cycling for 25 years (nearly daily commutes, in big central european cities) and the total number of times I was forced off my bike/crashed dueing that time is probably roughly once every two years. Most of them when I break so hard that I have to unmount the bicycle sideways and run the rest of the momentum off. Basically the bicycle equivalent of an emergency break in your car.

If you know how to do this safely at speed it can really protect you, because good breaks are all nice and sound, but if you are not leaning backwards you will do a frontflip immediately. And even if you lean back hard (behind the saddle) there still will be a point where your bike goes into front-wheelie/front flip. It is really good, if by that point you are not on the bike anymore, but running alongside.

Lets get cars out of cities. No car in the city centre no car hitting bicycles and pedestrians. Clean air less noise.

That's neither feasible nor required. Copenhagen still has cars in city centre - personally I drive my bike 95% of the time, but sometimes I need to use my car. However, I much prefer my bike because it's faster, less troublesome, infrastructure is great and the exercise helps.

Create incentives for biking, but don't outlaw cars.

I agree with you, I don't think we should ban cars, however making it very difficult to have cars in the city would help! I bike in Copenhagen almost 100% of the time, and its actually so much more difficult to get around by car.

I do think cars should be banned in downtown-downtown though or at least have extremely harsh reinforcement: there is no reason for the rich businessman to be driving his Porsche at 120 km/h down a back road near where everyone cycles.

> there is no reason for the rich businessman to be driving his Porsche at 120 km/h down a back road near where everyone cycles.

In my experience it's not the "rich businessman" but the "boy racer" with his Audi or VW Golf that are the most common problem.

The best way to do this is create quadrants in cities that have one-way in and out for automobiles, but public transit, bikes and pedestrians can move freely between.

In this way, cars can use the streets if they are indeed going to that area, but cannot move through the areas as a means to avoid roads meant to carry vehicles across town.

The city that exemplifies this is Groningen, Netherlands, and the superblock concept in Barcelona.

That is a process that takes a couple of decades at least. Meanwhile there are things individuals can do to be safer.

Both should be considered, of course.

Problem for elderly and sick people who need cars to get around.

-- only taxies & buses in the city center would be ideal for me (a city biker) --

Should use a permit system where you have to verify that a car is your only viable option.

Easy exemptions.

And if people start abusing that, at least their relatives or random elderly people get out and about for more sightseeing!

There are a lot of elderly people, though.

I know it causes issues. Not saying it can't be solved, but it is naive to say that simply banning cars is always a net plus. Why did people living in the city even buy cars to begin with?

People can get sufficiently elderly and sick that an electric tricycle would be the best form of transportation for them. In car centric areas they are usually confined to their homes in these cases.

What do you mean, those old people's motor rollers? I am not convinced.

There are bicycles with three wheels. There are also electric bicycles with three wheels. They require neither effort nor balance to ride, make a rather large part of the city accessible if proper infrastructure exists, and they have storage capacity, e.g. for groceries.

I don't see any elderly people using them. Nice thought, but I am not convinced.

How many elderly people do you see at all? If you think about it, you might realize there are several explanations other than "nobody uses those things"

I live in a big city, so I see a lot of elderly people. But especially the ones who are not mobile anymore you probably see less. If they were using those tricycle things, I would certainly see them at least some times.

My mother uses one.

So one out of several billion elderly people. Nice, but not really a proven concept.

My father used to be a doctor in a place that got converted into a pedestrians only area, he reported that a lot of people had issues. Business for other shops also declined.

Also tradesmen. The guy fixing your leaaking pipes or broken tiles is not going to bring his equipment or material in the bus or taxi. Or on a bike.

With such policies you will quickly discover there are many more health conditions that preclude riding a bicycle than you were previously aware. For example, middle-aged and older men who suffer variously different prostate-related conditions that aren't usually discussed.

(Please don't tell me about special bicycle seats.)

Once the number of cars is reduced significantly, it will be much easier and cheaper to have really good public transport, since there aren't so many cars on the road any more.

And we save costs due to less road maintenance (which is really expensive), no need to build new bridges/roads to solve traffic jams, lower health care costs, less time spent (i.e. money wasted) sitting in traffic jams, lower environmental costs, and you can put that in public infrastructure.

I think it's good to be mindful of these kind of issues: for all their downsides, cars can give great personal freedom and I think it's good to think how that can be maintained, but it's not like cars are the only way these problems can be solved.

Pretty interesting advice with lots of less obvious advice along the lines of "doing this may be less legal but safer". An additional fact like this is riding without a helmet can actually make surrounding drivers perceive you as more dangerous, end up giving you more space, and there by make you actually safer. I still always ride with a helmet but it goes with this website auite a bit: doing things that are less obvious and potentially less legal can actually reduce your chance of accidents. Another great quote from the page: wearing a helmet doesn't reduce your chance of getting hit, it just makes it better if you do get hit. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Riding safely is more important than wearing safety gear.

>>>> An additional fact like this is riding without a helmet can actually make surrounding drivers perceive you as more dangerous, end up giving you more space, and there by make you actually safer.

This seems to be a widespread belief, but I don't think it's plausible, for a couple of reasons.

First, I doubt that most crashes occur when motorists have had time to make a reasoned judgment about the safety of the cyclist. Being passed too close by a car is only one possible crash scenario. In many others, claims that the cyclist "came out of nowhere" or was "invisible" come to mind as being more likely indicators of the real hazard.

Second, as a cyclist, I would not perceive a cyclist without a helmet as more dangerous. I would know that other factors are more important, such as the cyclist's situational awareness and bike handling skill. In fact I am perceptive to whether a cyclist is controlling their bike safely, not that I pass them any closer because of it.

I've been a daily year-round bike commuter for a couple decades. I regularly wear a helmet unless I'm going 2 blocks from my house to the store along a particularly tame neighborhood route, which brings up another issue about safety. I've read this article, and it usually gets thumbs-up by cyclists on web forums. But in addition to its excellent study of crash scenarios, one piece of advice lights up at the bottom of the page: *Avoid busy streets.* You can't get hit by a car where there are no cars. I'm lucky to live in Madison WI, which is gradually building bike infrastructure into new street designs, and has a number of nice bike paths. But it also has a network of neighborhood streets that can get you a pretty good ways without having to worry about traffic at all.

I don't think most people in cars would think about the helmet, unless they themselves have spent much time thinking about cycling. I always can tell who the drivers are that also cycle, they try to give you much more space. I imagine trying to make yourself as visible as possible is more beneficial than not wearing a helmet.

You can ride without a helmet with a helmet: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/12/article-2025183-0...

It may be so but it's the same as saying put a big spike in the stearing wheel and people drive safer, good intentions over all but flawed when the cyclist ends up in a&e.

In risk management this is trying to flatten the curve by increasing the chance of death.

>#2 The Door Prize: A driver opens his door right in front of you.

If you have time to react to a car door suddenly opening in front of you, is it best to go around the door?

Or should you brake and stop in a straight line, even if you might crash into the door and the person stepping out of the car?

The same site contains a list of cyclist fatalities[0]. In over 95% of the car door collisions, the bicyclist was killed because they swerved or bounced in front of a following vehicle. They were not directly killed by crashing into the door.

But, naturally, that list doesn't include all the times that a cyclist successfully swerved around the door and nothing happened.

[0] https://bicyclesafe.com/doorprize.html

You'd be surprised how much give car door hinges have. I've managed to almost rip doors off their hinges before when people door me. They are also very surprised when they call the cops as a result of this and receive a ticket for breaking the law.

If somebody opens their car door into the bike lane and after slamming on my brakes, and I can see that I'm not going to stop in time:

1. Try to skid sideways. Your body will impact the door predictably and you will stop. (Same advice when a car pulls a sudden illegal U-Turn.) Having your front wheel impact the door first could result in any number of bad outcomes.

2. Always opt for the door collision instead of swerving out into traffic to avoid the door. The cars behind you are far more deadly than the door is.

No matter the type of collision ALWAYS call 911 and get the driver's information. The police report is key to getting the driver's insurance to pay for your injuries and damage to your bike. You also should always say yes if the 911 operator asks if you need medical attention. You are running on adrenaline and may be in shock after a collision with a car. You will not start hurting until after some time passes.

Then it could be worthwhile practicing that sideways slide maneuver into unexpected obstacles, and always remembering the law is on your side, if there is any law in your country.

[But, like the original bike safety article says, also try not to be so close to stopped vehicles that a door collision can happen]

I think it's similar to car collisions: swerving is tempting because you might prevent the crash, but often taking the crash head on at the lowest speed possible is much safer.

A compounding effect for cyclists is that usually you have a shorter stopping distance in a straight line (since bicycles don't have ABS, so you have to limit breaking while steering)

With or without ABS, stopping distances are shortest when not asking a tire to generate lateral forces as well.

I'd much rather take a low-speed door impact than a high-speed grill impact.

(Same as when you're landing too fast in an airplane: rather continue braking and make a taxi speed tree impact at the end of the runway, rather than open the throttle and end up making the same tree impact at takeoff speed and a few feet in the air.)

But this is why I "swerve" well ahead of parked cars so I can make a smooth, planned transition to the next lane rather than an abrupt sudden one. 99.7 % of the time it turns out to be unwarranted, but sometimes I glad I did it.

> But, naturally, that list doesn't include all the times that a cyclist successfully swerved around the door and nothing happened.

It also doesn't include all of the times cyclists crashed into a door and got back on the bike with nothing but some bruises and a damaged ego. Or any times they crashed and received a noteworthy injury but didn't die.

Like with many safety statistics unfortunately the only data we have to work with is the most severe cases - we have a mountain of data on when things go wrong (deaths), but safe behaviour is invisible since its outcomes are never logged.

Regardless one thing is clear - if you want to avoid either cycling at speed into a person or a heavy metal object, or swerving wildly into passing traffic, always take the lane instead of cycling in the door zone.

> If you have time to react to a car door suddenly opening in front of you, is it best to go around the door?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you brake, you could run your face through the door window. If you swerve, there better not be a driver behind you.

It's best to be out of the path of the door so you don't have to decide, but I imagine otherwise it's situation dependent. "Am I going fast?", "Is there a huge truck behind me?", etc.

I really think we should build better infrastructure for bikes in the US. this has been done in so many European cities even over the last couple of decades/half century. It is very difficult to have cars and bicycles coexist without them both having their proper lanes. Especially with cities like Boston I really hope this can become a reality.

We're attempting to fight this battle (again) in Chicago. Paint is not protection. Fortunately we have some city alderman who get it and more bike lanes are getting actual raised concrete barriers for protection.

These are all fine tips, but I'm wondering how/why they are not mandatory in the US?

Getting a headlight, having a bell, having a rear-light, not riding on the sidewalk are all mandated by law here in Germany.

There are in some areas and/or certain contexts. Adults are not allowed to ride on sidewalks in many areas. I've heard about lights and bell requirements but not sure if that was a law or just listed as recommendations and/or for multi-use paved trails.

As with many things in the US, whether these sorts of laws exist is up to each individual state to decide on for themselves.

Question. Are the laws you listed just for urban areas? When competitive pro/amateur cyclists are training out on the open flat and mountain roads, do they have bells and lights on their bikes?

The laws are for public roads (public in the sense of "you can drive there without driving through a gate of some sort"). The same places where all other traffic laws apply. That includes bike paths, but excludes most hiking paths where you would want to drive a mountain bike. Mountain bikes often don't come with light or a bell, and if you want to use them on public roads you have to spend about $12 to fix that ($2 for a bell, $10 for battery-powered lights).

Was a confusing way to describe it. I meant road cyclists on surrounding flat and mountain roads. Probably a moot question now given advances in technology making everything lighter and smaller.

Even in a rural environment you will be hard pressed to get from A to B as a cyclist without being required to have lights and a bell.

In general service roads that run through a forest tend to be private roads where you don't have to follow that rule, everything else tends to be a public road. On anything that's just a flat place but isn't road like you're also scot-free.

But as you say, lights really aren't the bulky things they used to be.

There are plenty of old cycle paths on sidewalks in Germany. Often it's safer to be on the road instead.

Are there? Do you mean the designated cycle path which are adjecant to the sidewalk using the same material as the sidewalk, but in different colour (red)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but bycicles are forbidden to ride on the actual sidewalk (Bürgersteig, Gehweg) by adults.

I don't know the specific situation in Austin (which this article is about), but in a lot of countries the cycle path infrastructure is patchy at best, and when the choice is between "busy road with cars going 50 or even 80 km/h" and "cycle on the sidewalk" then it's an easy choice IMHO.

Even in slower traffic things can be dodgy; in the UK they're quite fond of their roundabouts and that's all great for cars, but these two-lane roundabouts can be quite dodgy for cyclists with people changing lanes and such and it's very easy to end up in someone's blind spot, so I would take the sidewalk.

I mean dedicated "cycle paths" that are not a "benutzungspflichtiger Radweg" (sign 237), but are legal to cycle on. They usually are on the same level as the sidewalk and only visually distinct in some form. They were typically constructed in the sixties or seventies, are too narrow to overtake or use with a cargo bike, and suffer from the same visibility problems that illegally cycling on the sidewalk has.

Oh yeah, we mean the same thing. I was just hung up on the definition of sidewalk.

Am important tip that want mentioned in here. At any even slightly risky maneuvers like the ones described, I stand up in the pedals and move my head to make obvious eye contact with the driver. Something about the exaggerated head movement seems to be really effective at getting people to pay attention. I guess we're all just hardwired to notice when someone notices us.

That said, many accidents happen when driver look absentmindedly "through" a cyclist, who assumes they were noticed by the driver. It looks like the driver looks at the cyclist from the cyclists point of view, but the driver had their attention scanning for other types of traffic.

Yes, that is always possible, and this only helps with that

I think our visual system hard wiring is really good at: faces, human figures. I think you might essentially be making yourself look more like a human.

In Japan cars have the lowest priority on the road, even if the bicycle is doing illegal stuff. You will experience drivers here stopping even if you are still far from the crossing once they see you approaching it.

-- was under the impression this is true in most places - but I must admit i've never looked --

after cycling for more than 30 years across 3 continents, i have just one piece of advice for not getting hit by cars: get a driver’s license. you will then better understand the flow of cars around you, the various signs, the right of way etc etc etc

Virtually all adult cyclists in the US have a drivers license. Yet from the numbers I've seen, the US is more dangerous than many European countries for both motorists and cyclists.

This. I didn't get a driver's license till I was in my 20s, but it made me a much more conscientious cyclist, because I understood better what drivers were looking for and how they thought about sharing the road. Often as a cyclist on busy roads the safest thing to do is behave exactly like a driver would behave, just much slower. It might briefly annoy people behind you, but it sure is better to cross lanes and merge into traffic as a first class citizen of the road than get stuck in the shoulder and try to dash through a gap.

Similar here; got my driver's license at 30. The first thing I noticed behind the steering wheel was that drivers in cars have basically zero visibility of their immediate surroundings due to the various pillars. Took me quite a while to get used to. But yeah, it also taught me a lot of things to never do on a bicycle since motorists are likely to not even see you.

Mostly a good article but one piece of advise is dangerously wrong: blinking lights.

Do not use a blinking light as your only front or rear light. Have a solid white light at the front and a red one in the back.

You can have a blinker in addition to those.

The reason is that it is impossible to gauge distance and speed and direction from a blinking light. I've had a few encounters with blinking light cyclists in deep night darkness and it is really difficult to see. I knew there is a bicyclist but I could not tell if it is 10 or 50 meters away. I had to slow down to a crawl to make sure we don't hit.

Having good lights in your bike is really nice. I have an adjustable one that is on a pivot ("high beam" if needed) on the handle bars with adjustable intensity that is really bright if needed for forest trails at night but can be turned down to not blind incoming traffic.

How to avoid all of these: Have and use bike lanes that are isolated from car lanes, e.g. on sidewalks.

Avoid crossing street at intersections that are not ultimately regulated by traffic lights. Instead try to find a crossing, preferable with traffic lights, on a street with enough distance to intersections where cars could suddenly appear from.

Instead one is often instructed to ride right next between/to cars in the middle of the lane. In the name of safety! Shaking my head... Would you let your child rather ride its bike between those metal monsters or in actual safety? Some countries have exceptions for children, that allow them to ride on sidewalk, even when adults are required to ride on car line. Why is that? Maybe because it is safer for the children. Well then it should apply in general regardless of age. Cars are dangerous.

The only time I nearly hit a bicyclist they were riding in the sidewalk where I didn't expect them at all when they crossed in front of me. I like having the option of using the sidewalk when the street is a mess (particularly to bypass construction zones safely) but in general sidewalks are the wrong answer. Anyone who thinks they can boil it all down to yelling at bicyclists to just get off the roads isn't really trying to make bicycling safer. False concern for their safety.

That #1 type of collision in the linked article here ("right cross") becomes much worse with bikes on the crosswalk.

That is why I suggested:

> Avoid crossing street at intersections that are not ultimately regulated by traffic lights. Instead try to find a crossing, preferable with traffic lights, on a street with enough distance to intersections where cars could suddenly appear from.

And a car driving on sidewalk should be super focused. I mean the car does not belong there at all!

Your suggestion is just nonsense that you haven't bothered to think through at all. You'll find the most traffic lights down arterials, but all the side roads feeding into the arterial will have stop signs so that the arterial can move faster.

Dunno why you're talking about cars driving on sidewalks. I was talking about when I bike I sometimes do use the sidewalk when the street is a mess. You also have to bike the whole way at not much more than walking speed.

Which I think is your preferred solution. Get all the bikes onto the sidewalks and make them go as slow as pedestrians and then people won't use bikes and you'll never have to negotiate passing one on the road. Which is all about your convenience, and the opposite of bicycle safety.

My misunderstanding, I misread part of your comment and was thinking you meant using the sideway as a car driver for some reason.

I am a bicylce rider, that wants to survive. I dont drive by car. Some car drivers are reckless and the cars they command are pretty dangerous. That makes me avoid car lanes.

My prefered solution is separate bike lines - separate from cars, separate from pedastrians. To avoid #1 problem listed on the page I prefer crossings that are ultimately regulated by traffic lights, i.e. no free right turn when light is red. Otherwise the safest spot to cross a street is on official crossings, best is with traffic lights, where you have enough distance to road turns or intersections. So that car drivers have a lot of time to see you crossing the street and you can see cars coming on both lanes when checking in both directions. When it is too close to a turn, a car can appear from around the corner without you being able to see each other first. A bit like the "right cross" and "crosswalk slam" issue from the website. Almost all the other issues are related to driving on the car lanes, hence the call for separate bike lanes.

I know it is not applicable everywhere - what can you do when there are no bike lanes... Fortunately in my home town we have enough space allocated for those and lots of traffic lights.

Victim blaming? If you hit a bike while in a car you are a mindless zombie cager. The solution is to restrict car travel in cities.

Inb4 wall of text replies about edge cases. Those are 100% obvious. Tradies, sick people needing transport blah blah blah. Its not insightful or interesting. Those edge cases clearly might need an exemption, but also if you remove majority of pointless car trips you can put in way more public transport, eg bus every 5 mins. Probably way better for elderly etc who should probably not be driving anyway. Bikes, better public transport, better pedestrian spaces undoubtedly improve outcomes for those groups instead of some choking car polluted grid lock wasteland.

These are all excellent tips that make you think about situations on the road that are riskier than you may think. The recommendations about having lights front and back, using a reflective vest and not riding on the sidewalks are very practical

Also wear high vis gloves so when you signal intent to do something it's very visible.

Similar: put reflexes on hands and feet. Much more effective for showing drivers what you're doing than e.g. a reflex vest which is very inexpressive.

Collision types 5, 6, 7 all seem predicated on the unwritten assumption that you're in an impromptu lane (one lane, two vehicles) with a car. In that case, yeah, it's always a bad idea.

But where the collisions happen, in my experience, is the following setup:

       /--------->
       |
     +---+ |   |       +-----------------
  |  |   | |   |       |
     |car| | B | Right |
     |   | |   |  turn |
  |  +---+ |   |  only |
           |   |       |

From left to right, there are three lanes: Leftmost, a straight-travel lane, with a car, in the middle lane, a dedicated bike lane with a biker, and on the far right, a right turn lane for cars.

Here, the car, in the third lane from the right hand side of the road, proceeds to turn right, and clips a biker in the process. I have seen this near-hit so many times, that in my car we have a designated phrasing for it ("right turn from not the rightmost lane"), and it is, to me, the most dangerous thing out there, in turns of commonness (frighteningly common) and severity (very collision prone). (Vs. something like "driving the wrong way", which while highly dangerous, doesn't tend to happen as often, relative to this.) Happens even when the bike lane isn't a thing, in car-on-car scenarios too.

Of the three collisions I've seen cyclists in, two were this setup. (Both cyclists walked away, thankfully; the last collision I've witness was a dooring.)

The nearest-to-death I've ever been on a bike was this setup, except the turning car was in lane 1, on a 5 lane road. I.e., he turned right, from the left turn only lane, across 4 lanes of traffic, and nearly hit me in the process. I was forced to take the right (basically along his side) in order to avoid the collision. His words: "sorry."

On dooring,

> Ride to the left. Ride far enough to the left that you won't run into any door that's opened unexpectedly.

Where I am we have dedicated bike lanes. To ride left enough to avoid a door would require me to abandon the bike lane, as it isn't wide enough for a door and a bike.

I have a similar issue with the common advice for pedestrians (including runners) to stay on the side facing traffic. When all else is equal, fine, but most people never stop to think about why this rule exists. It's about visibility. In the interests of visibility, it's often more important to be on the outside of a curve. There are some curves around town where it would be absolutely suicidal to stay on the left (I'm in the US) because the road's narrow and visibility (or escape) is completely blocked by trees or fences etc. The only time I stay on the inside of a curve is when terrain totally flat providing 100-foot or better visibility.

A particularly important case is at intersections. Being on the left often means that you can't see anyone in the near lane and they can't see you until you're practically in the roadway. I often find it's much better to be on the right, with good mutual visibility, so long as I also keep an eye on potential traffic coming up behind me.

Also, if you're on a sidewalk going past multiple driveways, you're better off staying on the road side whichever that is. People backing out without looking for pedestrians (or at all) are the greatest danger you face, and you want to maximize visibility/reaction time.

The best way is to have city planning that actually takes bicycles in account. All these situations are horrible and almost all of them are preventable with better street layouts.

This article is very useful and very practical.

Unfortunately where I live cycling is a mess. Cyclist often ride against the normal flow of traffic and this is so common that it is relatively normalized. Almost every day I'm riding on the correct side of the road and I come face to face with a potential head-on collision. Of course, in this situation it's difficult to know whether to keep left or right.

Cyclists are also extremely unpredictable here. They often dip and dive around traffic and pedestrians so when dealing with them it's very hard to predict their movement.

Knock on effect of this is other road users can't predict my movements as a cyclist even if I follow all the rules. Drivers don't expect me to yield to them. So when I stop at a stop sign they angrily honk their horn and wave me through. Construction workers don't expect me to ride on the road so they ignore me leading to a head-on confrontation with a car or they run out in the middle of traffic to try to stop me from cycling with the normal flow of traffic.

Above all, I implore cyclists to ride a predictably. Pedestrians and other road users don't want a collision. If you ride predictably they can work out where you are going and avoid you.

They only thing I don't agree with is using a flashing light on the front. It is incredibly inconsiderate, especially to other cyclists and pedestrians

Much more important to be visible than nice, particularly when riding at night. Bikes with just a rear light are not especially visible from the front at night, and it’s easy to miss them if you’re a car turning into the road where the bike is traveling.

As someone who commuted by bike daily for about ten years, I cannot imagine thinking that another bike having a flashing front light is inconsiderate. I love to see my fellow cyclists lit up like Christmas trees, because it means they’re more likely to make it to where they’re going safely.

Yes, it's much more important to be visible, but - as another commenter already pointed out - flashing lights make it harder to judge speed and distance. This effect is even more pronounced when there's a high speed differential, which is why you might think it's OK but pedestrians or drivers who aren't matched to your speed might feel differently (and be right). The best approach is to use both flashing and steady, serving different purposes. Flashing lights alone are not just inconsiderate but bad for safety, especially if they're also blindingly bright (another too-common fetish).

-- having been in all these accidents before - #2 hurt the most by far - in my instance the door caught me but the momentum threw me over the top of the door so not only did I smash into a door I got to enjoy the drop from the top of the door to the ground on the other side - don't get doored --

Cars parked on the right side of the street is really big problem for the cyclists. Why isn't it banned completely?

Most German streets are terribly filled with parked cars and not only "the Door Prize" happens, but small children trying to cross the street are getting hit so often.

After cycling in Toronto for too many decades, I found rollerblading facing traffic worked better with the driver population. If the oncoming car or truck was coming too close I simply went on the sidewalk or grass.

My safety tip based on decades of cycling: think of safety as a game of percentages, like baseball. Stopping in the blind spot of a car is a low percentage maneuver—do it enough times and you’ll get hit. I try to ride in a way that reduces the risk over the long term: picking bike friendly routes, mimimizing travel at night, wearing visible clothing, and generally not surprising motorists.

Not on the list, but my strategy has worked pretty well. Move to a country with proper infrastructure and road safety laws.

I don't understand why crossing between sidewalks would be unsafe.

Pedestrians obviously do that all the time, and assuming that you start crossing from a stopped state and not at speed, it seems to me that a bike is as visible or more visible than a pedestrian (about same height, much wider, similar speed).

I think the assumption is that you’re crossing at bike speed, which is very unsafe.

Crossing from a stopped state at walking speed is probably no less dangerous than walking, except that maybe it’s harder to stop on a bike if a car decides to turn through the intersection. Either way, if I have to cross a pedestrian crosswalk on my bike, I’ll get off the bike and walk it. More considerate to pedestrians and no risk of going at a speed that cars have trouble predicting.

As a cyclists you tend to go a bit faster, and it may not be as obvious from the "body language" that you intend to cross (depending on the situation). In quite a few cases, the driver may not have seen you or it may just not have been obvious that you wanted to cross. And as a pedestrian your movement is a lot more flexible: you can stop very quickly if something goes wrong. As a cyclists, not so much.

It really depends on how the intersection is designed. Pedestrians do it all the time but why do assume that they feel any safer?

Maybe something a'la Morris's rules of computer security?

Never own a bike. If you still got a bike, never ride it.

Should be taught in schools.

Sadly many children (and adults) are killed riding bicycles across crosswalks.

Then there's all the (mostly) women killed by trucks turning right.

Regarding number 4, "Don't ride against traffic."

Seems pretty obvious, but in my local area they've started building bike lanes for both directions on a single side of the road [1]. It's great that they have nice wide bike lanes with some separation from the cars, but quite frankly it's an accident waiting to happen at the junctions with one of the bike lanes running opposite to the expected flow of traffic.

Cars pulling out of side roads on that side now how to cross the double bike lane first, (which means looking both ways when you would only expect to have to look in one direction) before reaching either car lane. It's also not signposted that bikes can be coming from both directions. Cars going straight over a cross roads have to cross the double bike lane after the double car lane, so have to switch and look both directions twice at different times.

Worse, as a car, if you are turning off the main road and down the side road (either to the left or right), you now also have to watch for bikes coming up the bike lane from behind you which is very tricky.

Both of these situations goes against the well established norms of the road which I think makes for a very dangerous situation.

And finally, when the double bike lane crosses a more major intersection with traffic lights, they actually narrow it to a single lane running only with the flow of traffic. Bikes moving on the lane opposite to the natural flow are directed to cut across the other half of the bike lane and navigate the whole junction on the pedestrian pavements, crossing the roads at crossings. On a bike this significantly slows you down, unsurprisingly I've frequently seen cyclists ignore the guidance and attempt to navigate the intersection against the flow of traffic on the now single track bike lane. That's crazy dangerous as the timing of the lights pretty much guarantees that you are going to be passing in front of a turning or crossing car. I don't endorse the behaviour of cyclists who do this, and to some extent it's their fault if they get hit when not following the rules of the road, but given how awkward and slow they've made it to follow the 'correct' route, I'm not at all surprised to see it being ignored.

[1] Something like these: - https://www.buffalorising.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/202... - https://www.buffalorising.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/202...

That sounds like a terrible design. Or rather, a reasonable design implemented poorly. I don’t have a problem with double bike lanes, but they have to be signed properly for the reasons you mention. And they should be continuous - forcing one direction to periodically divert onto sidewalks is bonkers.

After seeing some of the designs of bike lanes, sidewalks, etc in my area, I’m convinced the traffic engineers are either 100% incompetent or they’re all anti-bike/pro-car. State funding requires bike infrastructure when major roadworks are planned, but it doesn’t appear to require bike infrastructure that makes any sense.

Illegal but safer?

Before you can get safer doing illegal things, you need to know how to do things. The laws and rules exist so that anyone knows what to expect on those interactions. Doing "illegal" breaks those assumptions and might end with worst outcomes.

If you don't really know how to act when you do something illegal, it won't be safer.

None of those things are illegal, and in fact many of the "this is unsafe" things are also illegal.

https://bicyclesafe.com/#wrongway

I hate this term. The wrong way is simply the safest choice in blind hill situations with ignorant and distracted drivers.

The wrong way is simply the safest choice in blind hill situations with ignorant and distracted drivers.

Is it? I’m incredulous.

As a driver, I would hate to crest a hill on a country road and have a cyclist coming straight at me. I’d have to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid him. That’s bad.

As a cyclist, I would hate to crest a hill on a country road and have a car coming straight at me. Because if it doesn’t swerve, we run into each other head-on.

If there’s room on the shoulder for me to go the wrong way, I’m probably better off in the shoulder on the correct side of the road. Or just in the main traffic lane like I normally am.

You've assumed the road is wide enough for byway traffic. Around here they are 30 feet wide, including at the crest.

>As a driver, I would hate to crest a hill on a country road and have a cyclist coming straight at me. I’d have to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid him. That’s bad.

This occurs on both sides of the crest. You can only hope for a near miss.

>As a cyclist, I would hate to crest a hill on a country road and have a car coming straight at me. Because if it doesn’t swerve, we run into each other head-on.

That's up to you. You can choose jump as a last resort. Getting hit from behind, you're unaware of everything until you're launched into the sky.

> I’d have to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid him.

Brakes are a nice option in nearly all dangerous situations that doesn't make things worse.

Here is one that bicyclists really hate:

Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic.

I used to live on one such road and the bicyclists regularly insisted I travel >30 MPH below the speed limit because of a long uphill section that was double yellow due to many curves and hillsides blocking the line of site for passing. Bicyclists would get visibly angry at drivers who were not willing to break the law and pass on a double yellow and also risk a head-on collision. It was among the most arrogant and inconsiderate things I've seen people do on a regular basis.

I don't think I understand.

Apparently it's unreasonable for one set of road users to say to another "When we're around, you have to go much more slowly on this road than you would like to".

But it's not unreasonable for one set of road users to say to another: "You must not use this road at all".

Actually, I'm not being entirely sincere. I think I understand very well: you think that car drivers are proper road users, entitled to use the roads conveniently and safely, and cyclists are impostors who have no such right unless it causes zero inconvenience to car drivers. I, on the other hand, think that that is bullshit. Unless some road is specifically designated as not-for-everyone, car drivers are allowed to use it even though that exposes cyclists to some danger, and cyclists are allowed to use it even though that exposes car drivers to some inconvenience.

"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense", so let's do a little arithmetic. Suppose you are stuck for a full mile behind a cyclist who makes you drive at 15mph where you could otherwise have driven at 45mph. Then that mile will take you 4 minutes instead of 1 minute 20 seconds. It's cost you about two and a half minutes. That's probably less time than you spent, e.g., writing the comment above.

If the cyclist isn't allowed to use that road, or any other "narrow back-country roads", then most likely they have to take a much longer route. (If they can get where they're going at all. Not everywhere is on the main roads.) If they have to go an extra 3 miles, at that 15mph speed, that's an extra 12 minutes. Is your time 4.5x more important than theirs?

Yes, the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is hostile and should receive lashes for being such an angry hater of anything that is good and just in this world.

I think the problem here is there is scarce resources, and you cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as you expect them to.

All people shall travel at the speed of the bicyclists. This is good and just and non-negotiable.

(And your math is flawed - how much time does the bicyclist lose by pulling over and allowing the cars to pass - can you even see your incredible bias here?)

I did not say (and don't believe) that "the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed". You just made that up. Most of the time, when a car meets a bicycle, the car overtakes. The only question is what happens in places where that isn't safe. The answer you suggested is that bicycles shouldn't ever be on those roads. I don't think that's a good answer.

I did not say anything about you (or others who might disagree with me) being "hostile". You just made that up. (You are being pretty hostile, as it happens, but I wasn't complaining about that.)

And of course I didn't say anything about punishing people for being "angry haters"; again, you just made that up out of nothing.

I agree that the basic problem is scarce resources. I have no idea why you think I "cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as [I] expect them to". I didn't say anything remotely like that, and I didn't mean anything remotely like that.

I did not say (and don't believe) that everyone should travel at bicycle speeds. Cars should be able to travel at car speeds when it's safe. Bicycles should be able to travel at bicycle speeds when it's safe. The only difficult question is what to do in the unusual situations where both of them can't safely do their thing. Again, your solution was to say that cyclists shouldn't be on those roads at all, and I don't think that's a good solution.

> how much time does the bicyclist lose by pulling over and allowing the cars to pass

I agree: they should totally do that, if there are a bunch of cars behind them and there isn't going to be a safe place for ordinary overtaking soon, and if they're actually safer to drive past when stationary than when cycling. (It's what I do if I'm on a bicycle in that situation.) I'm not sure what makes you think I don't think they should do that.

If you'd said "If you're cycling on a road where cars can't get past you, stop and let them past every now and then" I'd have nodded my head and thought "yup, good advice". But you didn't. You said "Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic." and the only thing you said about overtaking was to complain about how cyclists encourage drivers to overtake.

(I don't know the specific roads you have in mind, but from what you said the situation I was imagining was one where the road is so narrow that you can't safely pass them even if they're standing beside their bicycle rather than riding it.)

If your actual complaint was that some cyclists could give you a safe overtaking opportunity and don't do it, maybe you should have said that, rather than complaining about the fact that they're on the road at all?

Yes, the universe shall operate on the car's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is a hostile and should be run down and mutilated at the first possible opportunity for being such an angry hater of anything that is good and just in this world.

I think the problem here is there is scare resources, and you cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as you expect them to.

All people shall travel at the speed of the car. This is good and just and non-negotiable.

I completely agree with you on these points.

When unbending, the cyclists’ stance on this kind of thing feels very misattuned to physics and social awareness.

Doesn’t it create more carbon emissions to cause cars to be on the road for twice as long, running at less-efficient speeds?

Especially when a cyclist blocking a half-dozen or more cars could pull over for 30 seconds to let them pass.

And sure, equal rights to the road, I can get behind. If a thoroughfare is intended for different types of vehicles with average speeds that can differ by an order of magnitude, it feels aware and attuned to me that the operators of these vehicles respectively know when to relax a tight-fisted grip on “rules no matter what”, and adjust according to the situation.

> a cyclist blocking a half-dozen or more cars could pull over for 30 seconds to let them pass

But then they wouldn't get their Strava KoM! Oh, the horror.

How are the bicyclists both insisting that you travel below the speed limit and getting angry at you not overtaking them?

That doesn't add up, I'm more inclined to believe they were road users minding their own business and you were annoyed that the road didn't provide an opportunity to overtake them.

What would you propose as an alternative? Many such roads are the only route available.

You sure sound like a driver who owns the road. Nobody expects you to pass on a double yellow. You are supposed to slow down as needed to stay behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass.

> You sure sound like a driver who owns the road.

I hear this often, but it doesn't make sense to me. I have one single route to get to any destination, and because one person wants to ride a bicycle on this round, >5 cars will often be lined up behind the bicyclist traveling >30 MPH below the speed limit.

Of course, it's the drivers who feel they own the road in this scenario (even if it's one driver).

This is the transportation system that exists. I didn't create it.

> Nobody expects you to pass on a double yellow.

The bicyclists literally try to wave cars past them when they can see the other side of a corner. You are making an assumption, and that assumption is wrong.

I never did this because the bicyclists care that I leave and have zero accountability for their waving. Twice I had bicyclists do this and cars arrive around the curve during the time that I would have been passing. Literally, the bicyclists were actively trying to create head-on collisions.

Fortunately, most people on that road were very well aware that traffic was both busier than the bicyclists understood and faster due to higher speed limits that the bicyclists were generally oblivious to.

I don't own a car, but do own a bike. At least where I live, I also have the same single route as you to commute to work (there might be lovely alternative cycle lanes where you live).

No bicycle lanes. In fact, passing while completely in the other lane violates the law because the vehicle cannot be greater than 10 feet from the bicyclist due to how narrow the road is. The bicyclist's presence means they are, according to law, deciding the speed all traffic shall flow at. It is odd to me how bicyclists find this to be an acceptable situation and anyone disagreeing to be in the wrong, so much so they will downvote someone expressing direct experience on the matter.

So this is the only road and there's no alternative bike path. It's too narrow for overtaking so presumably there's also not enough space for stopping on the side. You said yourself that cyclists tried to let you overtake which you didn't because it's illegal.

So what I don't understand is what else you think a cyclist can do in this situation other than not existing and bothering you. There's no alternative route.

There is easily enough room for a bicyclist to stop on the side because there are driveways a-plenty plus utility pullouts. These things cannot do anything to increase the usable width of the road for a car.

I see a really consistent trend of people who feel it must be the case that the bicyclist must be justified in what they are doing, then go on to make assumptions that are wrong, just as you here assumed something about the road that is wrong.

Honestly, you could have said from the start you wanted them to pull over.

You started with "Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic.". That sounds to me like, don't do it at all, not "please pull over every so often to allow card to pass".

Living in a densely populated urban city where I walk and take public transport. The problem cuts both ways, irrepressible cyclists are a danger to pedestrians and motorists when they aren't following the road.

It must vary from place to place as to which group is the most dangerous, but in Scotland the cyclists in the major cities (especially delivery ones) are getting more and more dangerous. They seem to treat every journey like a parkour adventure.

Generally that happens in places where biking would be the ideal transportation mean (due to distances/weather/density) but the infrastructure is poor to support it. Give people safe means to move around and they will use it.

On the other hand, statistics show that bikes are comparatively much safer than cars when it comes to the safety of others. When a bike rider kills someone else, it makes the news. When a driver kills someone else, it's business as usual because it's so common.

>The problem cuts both ways, irrepressible cyclists are a danger to pedestrians and motorists when they aren't following the road.

This keeps being brought up often but is it actually true. Accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians seem to be quite rare and if there's injuries it is more often the cyclist when falling off their bike.

Also how are cyclists supposed to endanger motorists? They're safe in their metal death box.

The overwhelmingly most common one I see is cyclists not stopping at STOP signs (or worse, red lights), and the real crazy ones appear to not even slow down.

It is illegal to run a stop sign, and it is certainly possible a car (crossways or turning) will arrive first and have right of way. So a car is turning, why should it expect a cyclist to come plowing through on a whim?

Again: it is ILLEGAL for cyclists to run stop signs. You have to stop, just like a car. (And in case you think it’s no big deal, I see plenty of cars that aren’t too good at stopping either. You want to hit them?)

It actually depends on the state laws in the US. More states are starting to adopt the Idaho stop. Though I agree that cyclists who abandon all situational awareness when arriving at intersections are just future organ donors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

  > ...overwhelmingly most common one I see is cyclists not stopping at STOP signs

It's common, yes, but it's not even close to the primary cause of any of the accidents in the article.

For whatever reasons, many folks have a serious problem with cyclists pragmatically taking certain liberties that they, as motorists, don't have. You would be correct in situations where cyclists blindly zip through intersections without awareness, but that's almost never the case. What actually happens is that cyclists assess the intersection from a point of view that's far better than a motorist who is lower and can't hear or see as well as a cyclist because of their position/enclosure. Cyclists choose to take the risk to proceed because it takes physical exertion to come to a full stop and then start-up again. That's very taxing on a commute.

  > ... Again: it is ILLEGAL for cyclists to run stop signs

Sure it is, if you're one of those "letter of the law" people (and your usage of CAPS suggests that you are). In practice, it's allowed with a common sense judgement call. I've done it more times that I can remember in front of police. I have heard of police enforcing this occasionally to "send a message" but it's never sustained.

It's also "ILLEGAL" to run red lights on a bike, but that is done anyways for pragmatic reasons. If you're a cyclist, the most dangerous time is when traffic starts moving again. Motor vehicles can be going at speed just as you're getting clipped in and starting to move. In certain cases, it's just better to get yourself through the intersection and to the other side before the cars start moving. That way, you can position yourself and be visible to them. There's fewer surprises that way for everyone.

In some situations, it is empirically safer for cyclists to clear intersections against red/stop signs. Usually because there's no other traffic crossing their path at those times.

Of course, the egregious cases you've witnessed are probably not those situations, so this is more as a reminder that sometimes the dichotomy of the law is not what matters most to the individual.

Speeding is ILLEGAL as well. Yet car drivers don't seem that bothered. Funny how a car driver doing something ILLEGAL which substantially increases the risk of death for other road users is acceptable, but a cyclist doing something ILLEGAL which doesn't increase the risk of death for other road users is completely unacceptable.

Everyone breaks laws. Cars and cyclists just break different laws. For example it is also illegal to drive so close to the car in front of you that you can't brake, and yet we have lots of rear-end accidents.

Car driver here, not a bicyclist. I don't see your side of the story, and probably never will unless I kill one of you. Don't want me to hit you? Make yourself visible and courteous.

Put on a bright jacket, bright helmet, or something else bright. And use a steady (not flashing) red light in the back and a steady (not flashing) white light aimed at the ground in the front. If you use flashing lights I cannot tell how far away you are. If you aim the light in my face it looks like you're farther away because I cannot see you through the glare and your light is dimmer than car headlights.

And if you drive in my lane, respect me like you want me to respect you. You've got a right to use the lane just as much as I do, but be a good citizen and actually let me pass you safely. If you hear me coming up behind you or notice my flashing high beams, please dip to the right a bit so that I can continue past you and leave you safely. Don't make me squeeze past you unsafely, and don't think that I'm going to sit behind you patiently.

"You" being all bike riders, not necessarily the guy reading this post. I don't care how any single specific bike rider does things, I'm talking to the worst of you.

"Me" being all car drivers. I specifically might not try to squeeze past bike riders, and I specifically might actually be patient on the road. But the proverbial "me" is the worst of the car drivers for purpose of this post.

> You've got a right to use the lane just as much as I do, but be a good citizen and actually let me pass you safely. If you hear me coming up behind you or notice my flashing high beams, please dip to the right a bit so that I can continue past you and leave you safely.

Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users?

As you say, bike user have just as much right to the lane as car users. That means they can use the entire thing, just like car users do. If their rights are equal, why do you expect bikes to squeeze over and force them to share the lane side-by-side with you?

You’re missing the major point that bikes go much slower than cars, so it makes sense for traffic flow to let cars pass safely.

Nothing against letting cars pass safely. Just think that demanding bikes let you invade their safety buffer isn’t how you perform a safe pass.

> Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users?

I assure you almost all car drivers get annoyed by slow-moving[1] obstacles in their path, whether car, camel or bike.

Why on earth would you think that someone would not get annoyed?

[1] Depending on how slow the obstacle is moving, the annoyance can range from muttering-under-the-breath to honking in disbelief at the inconsideration shown by the obstacle.

When you see a line cars all slowing following some obstacle for a large amount of time, it's unreasonable to expect that the drivers won't be annoyed. When you're on your bike, wouldn't you be annoyed at slowing to less than 10% of your speed for the duration of your journey because of a slower-moving obstacle?

> I assure you almost all car drivers get annoyed by slow-moving[1] obstacles in their path, whether car, camel or bike. > > Why on earth would you think that someone would not get annoyed?

Oh I’m so sorry. Clearly driver annoyance is far more important than avoiding cycle and pedestrian, death and injury. Please go right ahead, intimidate and mow those slow moving obstacles.

Prehaps driver should take some time to realise that cyclist don’t like holding up traffic either, they don’t do it for finishes, they do it because the lack to cycle infrastructure means they have no other options.

Don’t want bike slowing down car traffic, build dedicated infrastructure for them so they don’t have to share the same space as cars. Everybody wins, cyclists don’t need to worry about being hit by cars, car don’t have to get stuck behind bikes.

> Oh I’m so sorry. Clearly driver annoyance is far more important than avoiding cycle and pedestrian, death and injury. Please go right ahead, intimidate and mow those slow moving obstacles.

That wasn't the point I made.

People get annoyed by obstacles; it's a people reaction, not a car-driver reaction.

Are you seriously saying that cyclists won't be annoyed if they were forced to share their route with much slower moving obstacles?

How does annoyance justify not allowing cyclist to use the road safely?

> Are you seriously saying that cyclists won't be annoyed if they were forced to share their route with much slower moving obstacles?

I'm sure they would. But it's much harder to kill a person with a bike during a road rage incident, than it is to kill a person with a car. That's the fundamental difference here, cyclist annoyance has never led to pedestrian death, can you honestly say the same is true of car drivers?

> How does annoyance justify not allowing cyclist to use the road safely?

I'm not justifying "not allowing cyclist to use the road safely", I'm pointing out that people don't like obstacles. It's not specific to cyclists like you make it seem, and not specific to car drivers like you make it seem.

It's unreasonable to expect that people not be people.

> Do you take the same approach to cars? Or do you reserve such aggressive tactics only for vulnerable road users?

Look in the manual for your car (or pick a random one on the internet and download it). If the headlight stalk has a momentary mode there's a good chance it's literally referred to as "flash-to-pass". It's not aggressive, it's how to communicate a desire/intent to pass to slower traffic.

To your specific question, have you ever seen a line of cars behind a tractor or school bus on a rural road? Or an octogenarian doing 48 MPH on a highway?

How about bicyclists on a path shared with pedestrians? Funny that, cyclists often have the same problems with pedestrians as drivers have with cyclists. Heck, I'd bet joggers have conflicts with walkers.

It's not about the bicycle, it's about slow traffic blocking fast traffic.

Slow traffic that is blocking fast traffic on a shared path should attempt to enable safe passing, for everyone's benefit. Sometimes, especially in hilly/mountainous areas, this involves actually pulling over and stopping because there's not enough room to allow for safe passing in motion. It's not unheard of for such roads to have pull-off areas specifically for this purpose. It's courteous and it makes everyone's day better.

> Look in the manual for your car (or pick a random one on the internet and download it). If the headlight stalk has a momentary mode there's a good chance it's literally referred to as "flash-to-pass". It's not aggressive, it's how to communicate a desire/intent to pass to slower traffic.

This is clearly a cultural thing. It doesn't exist where I live, there's no such thing a flash-to-pass, and would actually be illegal to perform here.

> How about bicyclists on a path shared with pedestrians? Funny that, cyclists often have the same problems with pedestrians as drivers have with cyclists. Heck, I'd bet joggers have conflicts with walkers.

I strongly believe that cyclist sharing space with pedestrians need to be patient, slow down and give pedestrians plenty of space. I also believe that cyclist that don't should be vilified. However a big difference between car vs bike and bike vs pedestrian is that car vs bike = dead cyclist, bike vs pedestrian = injured pedestrian and cyclist. Cyclist kill between 0 to 2 pedestrian a year in the US, cars kill over 7000 pedestrians and around 1000 cyclists every year in the US. Cyclist's aren't perfect, but they're 4000x less dangerous than car drivers.

> Slow traffic that is blocking fast traffic on a shared path should attempt to enable safe passing, for everyone's benefit. Sometimes, especially in hilly/mountainous areas, this involves actually pulling over and stopping because there's not enough room to allow for safe passing in motion. It's not unheard of for such roads to have pull-off areas specifically for this purpose. It's courteous and it makes everyone's day better.

I agree it's courteous, and I certainly make an effort to do this. But the arrogance of drivers to demand that vulnerable road users make way for them, and failure to make space is a licence for drivers to injure and kill vulnerable road users is beyond comprehension.

The cyclists who are "taking the lane" are actually just preventing you from doing the unsafe thing, which is trying to squeeze past them without changing lanes. Nobody's ever making you do that, ever.

I tend to be pretty considerate when I'm on my bike. I have good situational awareness thanks to years of urban cycling, so I can adjust my own speed to the flow of traffic and rarely get a bunch of cars backed up behind me for very long.

I also avoid routes where drivers are not entirely in control of their cars, such as congested multi-lane roads. What I mean is that cars are closer together than a safe stopping distance, so that they can't really react in time if there is a slow-down, plus a lot of the drivers are quite inattentive.

You can get a sense for which roads are dangerous based on where car crashes occur. For instance rear-end crashes mean that even a car going slower than expected is vulnerable to getting hit, which requires exceptionally inept driving.

In my experience, "you" are much more likely to unsafely squeeze past me if I dip to the side of the road.

When I stay in the centre of the lane, "you" actually prefer to wait for the next lane to be free over smearing me out over the pavement. Thanks!

"You" might be annoyed, but I actually get to come home and see my wife and kids, which matters a lot to me (and surely even more to them). Sorry for being selfish!

Many cyclists die every year, typically in collisions involving motor vehicles. It goes without saying that very few drivers are killed in those collisions. The risks are widely asymmetric. So if we want to talk about the worst of a group, I'd encourage you to spend five minutes on r/idiotsincars. Compare anything in that subreddit with your example here: you have drive more slowly than you'd like in a situation where you acknowledge the other person has equal rights?

Also, wow at this:

> I don't see your side of the story, and probably never will unless I kill one of you.

  > "Me" being all car drivers. I specifically might not try to squeeze past bike
  > riders, and I specifically might actually be patient on the road. But the
  > proverbial "me" is the worst of the car drivers for purpose of this post.

A cyclist must be courteous for you not to kill them? The instigator on an unsafe pass is the person passing, not the person getting passed.

  > "Me" being all car drivers. I specifically might not try to squeeze past bike
  > riders, and I specifically might actually be patient on the road. But the
  > proverbial "me" is the worst of the car drivers for purpose of this post.

Overtake a cyclist like you would overtake a car. Move to the next lane. If you can't safely do that, you shouldn't be driving.

>> Don't want me to hit you?

Not a bike rider, but if you don't want to hit anyone, then you should try not to, regardless of whatever anyone else is doing.

Btw, you proably didn't intend it that way but your comment comes across as threatening to hit somebody.

  > "Me" being all car drivers. I specifically might not try to squeeze past bike
  > riders, and I specifically might actually be patient on the road. But the
  > proverbial "me" is the worst of the car drivers for purpose of this post.

Why do you keep copy/pasting this same bit of text without explanation? Should I assume you have no interest in this conversation and you do not think any of your interlocutors are worthy of engaging with on an individual level?

I thought that the explanation was obvious, just that people were not reading my entire post. I actually considered moving that portion to the top, but did not want to change the context of my original post.

That bit of text demonstrates that I'm not describing how I, Dotan Cohen, feel. That bit of text demonstrates that I am presenting the side of a large portion of car drivers. The bike riders cannot reason with them, because for every driver they educate there are countless hundreds more who have not been educated.

I personally respect all users of the road, be them on two, four, or more wheels, and be them powered by gas, diesel, electric, or muscle. In fact, I'm usually the slow poke being overtaken on the road, and when people pass I do dip right to ease their passing (I'm in an electric Model 3 today, previous to that it was a FWD Impreza).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com