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
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 (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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>>>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.)
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].
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
-- 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 --
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.
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
> 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.
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?
>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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
>#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.
> 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.
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)
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.
> 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.
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.
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 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...
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:
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
261 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 94.0 ms ] threadNovice 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
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.
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.
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.
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
...so basically what the grandparent is saying?
Honking is good; it means they see you!
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
>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
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?
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.
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.
It’s important to share the road and be considerate, but not if it risks your safety.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Hostility results in hostility, and you’re not surrounded by steel.
I have never heard of this happening to anybody.
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.
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.
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.
* traffic doesn't only consist of cars. Bikes, pedestrians, wheelchairs are also part of traffic.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
In risk management this is trying to flatten the curve by increasing the chance of death.
And if people start abusing that, at least their relatives or random elderly people get out and about for more sightseeing!
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?
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.
Create incentives for biking, but don't outlaw cars.
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.
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.
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.
(Please don't tell me about special bicycle seats.)
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.
Getting a headlight, having a bell, having a rear-light, not riding on the sidewalk are all mandated by law here in Germany.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but bycicles are forbidden to ride on the actual sidewalk (Bürgersteig, Gehweg) by adults.
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.
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?
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.
Now I exclusively mountain bike. The risk of injury is higher, but the average severity of the injuries is minor compared to road.
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.
(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.)
[0]: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2022/6/3/23153664/lincoln-...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Maybe they also mountain bike, or do some other sort of high risk bike sport.
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.
The friends I've had, who've gotten in crashes, were mostly off-road riders where crashes are expected, or competitive riders.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
(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.
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.
[But, like the original bike safety article says, also try not to be so close to stopped vehicles that a door collision can happen]
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hate this term. 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.
Brakes are a nice option in nearly all dangerous situations that doesn't make things worse.
>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.
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).
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.