Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulHoule | Hacker News Reader

It astonishes me how much (many) cyclists blame everybody else for the dangers they are exposed to.

For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street. If they're chasing a suspect or heading to a crime scene I'll forgive it, but they usually aren't in a hurry and are actually ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce.

As a pedestrian I have been hit multiple times by cyclists on a sidewalk and in fact when I was in high school I knocked a pedestrian down pretty hard when I was rolling down a steep hill.

View on HN

> For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street.

You know, this one I understand entirely. When I walk on a road without sidewalks, I always walk on the wrong side of the road, so I can see what's coming and whether they're paying attention. Getting mowed down from behind by someone not looking where they're going isn't on my bucket list.

And that's correct--WHEN WALKING. Cyclists are supposed to behave as vehicles, not as pedestrians, so they need to move with traffic.

I'm just saying part of the problem is that cyclists behave as a squishy bag of meat in an accident. Given the prevalence of inattentive motorists, I'm not shocked some folks prefer to risk a ticket.

Say the speed limit is 30, and you can pedal along at 15 mph.

If you ride with traffic and get hit, your relative speed at collision will be 15 mph and the collision will push you away from the car.

If you ride against traffic and get hit, you're dealing with a head-on collision at 45 mph relative speed.

That's why I always ride with traffic.

That's valid assuming I have an equal chance of getting hit in both situations.

Probably a decent thing to do in high-traffic/large cities. But in more rural areas, where speed limits are 45-65MPH, getting hit is deadly no matter which direction you are riding. It's safer to see oncomming traffic in this situation so you can get out of the way.

If you are removing yourself from the road for _every single_ car, regardless of the direction of travel, then maybe it doesn't matter.

If you are going to stay on the road with other vehicles: You _never_ ride against traffic. Drivers are less likely to see you if you are biking where they normally don't anticipate any traffic. Even in a rural environment, biking with the flow of traffic gives the driver better visual cues that something else is on the road (you) and they have more time to plan their approach. It also gives them more time to find something appropriate to throw at you.

that doesn't make sense. you are on their right-hand side no matter which side of the street your ride on. the only difference is you see them or you don't (depends which way you are facing).

...

If you ride against traffic, then you still "don't see" the vehicles that are going in the same direction as you, and you are now on their left. Sure, they're on the opposite side of the road, but you don't know if they are paying attention or what. Thus: no more safety gained by riding on the opposite side of the road, where you aren't supposed to be.

The most dangerous area is, obviously, an intersection, where being on the wrong side of the road is demonstrably less safe[1]. After that, it's the blind spot over the crest of a hill. If you are going against the flow of traffic, you will be moving your slowest when you are in that blind spot. Moving with the flow of traffic -> moving quickly through that blind spot.

Knowing when a vehicle is coming up behind you, with plenty of time to react if necessary, is solved with a $12 helmet mirror.

[1] http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

Also keep in mind that when people come up to a road they expect traffic to be coming from a given direction. They may not expect traffic to be going the wrong way, so they aren't looking for it. For pedestrians, not necessarily a big issue, but for cyclists it kind of is. By going the wrong direction, when you suddenly appear out of nowhere, at speed, you will cause a lot of unnecessary confusion, surprise, and rapid decision making. It's not worth it. Luckily, I see very little of this (Santa Monica).

Walking towards oncoming traffic is, if not the law, then at least the sanctioned way of walking. Riding your bike into oncoming traffic, though, IS against the law since a bicyclist is considered a vehicle just like a car.

Cyclists are vehicles, so are obligated to follow the rules of the road and drive on the correct side.

Pedestrians, in the absence of sidewalks, do have the option to face incoming or outgoing traffic, and the usual choice is to face oncoming traffic as you suggested.

Walking is different because you can stop on a dime and dive out of the way if you see trouble coming. On a bicycle, however, you are usually unable to do this.

Additionally, the increase in speed differential (which is much more significant for cyclists than pedestrians) created by cycling towards oncoming traffic greatly reduces available reaction time of both parties.

When you are travelling in the same direction as the traffic there is usually still a speed differential but it is substantially less. While you no longer have the ability to see potential problems "coming at you", drivers have significantly more time to notice you and react accordingly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com