E
Evsolutions
Guest
Thanks John I read through most of the report with my morning coffee and was surprised my name never
showed up once. I was a bit surprised by the high number of cyclists hit by cars while riding the
wrong direction on streets. I did notice there were no stats for the number of cyclists thrown off
their bikes or directed into traffic by all the potholes and road cuts. Joshua
*****
"john riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
showed up once. I was a bit surprised by the high number of cyclists hit by cars while riding the
wrong direction on streets. I did notice there were no stats for the number of cyclists thrown off
their bikes or directed into traffic by all the potholes and road cuts. Joshua
*****
"john riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
M
Mark Leuck
Guest
"EVSolutions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks John I read through most of the report with my morning coffee and was surprised my name
> never showed up once. I was a bit surprised by the high number of cyclists hit by cars while
> riding the wrong direction on streets. I did notice there were no stats for the number of cyclists
> thrown off
their
> bikes or directed into traffic by all the potholes and road cuts. Joshua
> *****
> "john riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
>
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
I never could understand WHY riding against traffic is/was considered a good idea
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks John I read through most of the report with my morning coffee and was surprised my name
> never showed up once. I was a bit surprised by the high number of cyclists hit by cars while
> riding the wrong direction on streets. I did notice there were no stats for the number of cyclists
> thrown off
their
> bikes or directed into traffic by all the potholes and road cuts. Joshua
> *****
> "john riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
>
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
I never could understand WHY riding against traffic is/was considered a good idea
M
Mark Leuck
Guest
I shudder to even think about riding against traffic, most places here that would be suicide
"GEBUH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >I never could understand WHY riding against traffic is/was considered a
good
> >idea
> i never could understand why it isn't. does anyone know why pedestrians
are
> supposed to walk against traffic, but bikes are supposed to ride with it? gebuh
"GEBUH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >I never could understand WHY riding against traffic is/was considered a
good
> >idea
> i never could understand why it isn't. does anyone know why pedestrians
are
> supposed to walk against traffic, but bikes are supposed to ride with it? gebuh
R
Russ Price
Guest
GEBUH <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I never could understand WHY riding against traffic is/was considered a good idea
> i never could understand why it isn't. does anyone know why pedestrians are supposed to walk
> against traffic, but bikes are supposed to ride with it?
Let's say you're cruising along at 20 MPH on your bike. A car traveling 40 MPH behind you will yield
a closing speed of (40 - 20) = 20 MPH.
If you ride against traffic, the closing speed would be (40 + 20) = 60 MPH. This gives you and the
driver far less reaction time should something go wrong, like finding a pothole in your path. Not to
mention that a 60 MPH impact will do far more damage to you than a 20 MPH impact.
In addition, if you're riding against traffic, a driver entering an intersection on your left [1]
isn't going to expect a cyclist from the right, riding in the wrong lane.
When you're on foot, on the other hand, you can dodge a car on a collision course by leaping at
right angles to its path. In this case, it's better to be able to see the approaching cars. The
other option would be to wear an eyeglass mirror while walking with the current of traffic.
[1] Switch left/right around if you live in a country with left-handed traffic.
--
Russ [email protected] the wabbit to despam "I am committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." -Diebold Election Systems
CEO Wally O'Dell
>>I never could understand WHY riding against traffic is/was considered a good idea
> i never could understand why it isn't. does anyone know why pedestrians are supposed to walk
> against traffic, but bikes are supposed to ride with it?
Let's say you're cruising along at 20 MPH on your bike. A car traveling 40 MPH behind you will yield
a closing speed of (40 - 20) = 20 MPH.
If you ride against traffic, the closing speed would be (40 + 20) = 60 MPH. This gives you and the
driver far less reaction time should something go wrong, like finding a pothole in your path. Not to
mention that a 60 MPH impact will do far more damage to you than a 20 MPH impact.
In addition, if you're riding against traffic, a driver entering an intersection on your left [1]
isn't going to expect a cyclist from the right, riding in the wrong lane.
When you're on foot, on the other hand, you can dodge a car on a collision course by leaping at
right angles to its path. In this case, it's better to be able to see the approaching cars. The
other option would be to wear an eyeglass mirror while walking with the current of traffic.
[1] Switch left/right around if you live in a country with left-handed traffic.
--
Russ [email protected] the wabbit to despam "I am committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." -Diebold Election Systems
CEO Wally O'Dell
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On 24 Dec 2003 06:12:39 GMT, [email protected] (GEBUH) wrote:
>>I never could understand WHY riding against traffic is/was considered a good idea
Because some people think bikes are pedestrians with wheels, despite the obvious stupidity of
that view.
>i never could understand why it isn't. does anyone know why pedestrians are supposed to walk
>against traffic, but bikes are supposed to ride with it?
Because bikes are vehicles, so are part of the traffic. A ped walking on a street with no footway
has no alternative but to take to the road. The ped is effectively stationary relative to vehicular
traffic, and most vehicular traffic does not drive according to the rules (always ensure that you
can stop well wiothin the distance you can see to be clear), so to be able to see oncoming vehicles
and throw yourself into the hedge is a safety bonus.
A bike is part of traffic, moving at (in my case) up to about 40mph. Not only are closing speeds
that much lower, bikes can't stop instantaneously like peds can and riders have limited
opportunities for throwing themselves into the hedge without serious injury.
Riding in the line of traffic also puts you where drivers expect to see traffic, so makes it less
likely that you'll be SMIDSYd[1]. Crashes at junctions are the no. 1 cause of injury for cyclists,
so behaving like a vehicle makes obvious sense.
The only type of crash you could hope to avoid by riding against traffic is being hit from behind.
This is a very rare type of crash, and the attendant increase in risk from other sources (like
being hit head-on because you're increasing the closing speed with your speed) more than wipes out
any benefit.
[1] SMIDSY = Sorry Mate I Didn't See You
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
>>I never could understand WHY riding against traffic is/was considered a good idea
Because some people think bikes are pedestrians with wheels, despite the obvious stupidity of
that view.
>i never could understand why it isn't. does anyone know why pedestrians are supposed to walk
>against traffic, but bikes are supposed to ride with it?
Because bikes are vehicles, so are part of the traffic. A ped walking on a street with no footway
has no alternative but to take to the road. The ped is effectively stationary relative to vehicular
traffic, and most vehicular traffic does not drive according to the rules (always ensure that you
can stop well wiothin the distance you can see to be clear), so to be able to see oncoming vehicles
and throw yourself into the hedge is a safety bonus.
A bike is part of traffic, moving at (in my case) up to about 40mph. Not only are closing speeds
that much lower, bikes can't stop instantaneously like peds can and riders have limited
opportunities for throwing themselves into the hedge without serious injury.
Riding in the line of traffic also puts you where drivers expect to see traffic, so makes it less
likely that you'll be SMIDSYd[1]. Crashes at junctions are the no. 1 cause of injury for cyclists,
so behaving like a vehicle makes obvious sense.
The only type of crash you could hope to avoid by riding against traffic is being hit from behind.
This is a very rare type of crash, and the attendant increase in risk from other sources (like
being hit head-on because you're increasing the closing speed with your speed) more than wipes out
any benefit.
[1] SMIDSY = Sorry Mate I Didn't See You
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
T
Tom Sherman
Guest
Russ Price wrote:
> ... In addition, if you're riding against traffic, a driver entering an intersection on your left
> [1] isn't going to expect a cyclist from the right, riding in the wrong lane....
You should check out some of the two-way bike lanes that are located on one side of a street. It is
amazing that more cyclists riding legally against traffic on these do not get run over by motor
vehicles turning left.
I used to drive on a street with one of these bike lanes, and even though I was specifically looking
for these cyclists coming against traffic when I was about to make a left turn, they were not always
easy to see due to the high pedestrian traffic. Whoever designed these bike lanes had no clue to how
they would actually function in the real world.
When riding a bike, I would always use a different street a block or two over, rather than riding
against traffic.
Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W
> ... In addition, if you're riding against traffic, a driver entering an intersection on your left
> [1] isn't going to expect a cyclist from the right, riding in the wrong lane....
You should check out some of the two-way bike lanes that are located on one side of a street. It is
amazing that more cyclists riding legally against traffic on these do not get run over by motor
vehicles turning left.
I used to drive on a street with one of these bike lanes, and even though I was specifically looking
for these cyclists coming against traffic when I was about to make a left turn, they were not always
easy to see due to the high pedestrian traffic. Whoever designed these bike lanes had no clue to how
they would actually function in the real world.
When riding a bike, I would always use a different street a block or two over, rather than riding
against traffic.
Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W
W
William Higley
Guest
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected].
>
> I used to drive on a street with one of these bike lanes, and even though I was specifically
> looking for these cyclists coming against traffic when I was about to make a left turn, they were
> not always easy to see due to the high pedestrian traffic. Whoever designed these bike lanes had
> no clue to how they would actually function in the real world.
>
> Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W
Probably some well meaning P.E., whose code of ethics dictates that the public well being is his
ultimate responsibility.
William Higley, Sr. Vision R-50 RANS Rocket
news:[email protected].
>
> I used to drive on a street with one of these bike lanes, and even though I was specifically
> looking for these cyclists coming against traffic when I was about to make a left turn, they were
> not always easy to see due to the high pedestrian traffic. Whoever designed these bike lanes had
> no clue to how they would actually function in the real world.
>
> Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W
Probably some well meaning P.E., whose code of ethics dictates that the public well being is his
ultimate responsibility.
William Higley, Sr. Vision R-50 RANS Rocket
T
Tom Sherman
Guest
"William Higley, Sr." wrote:
>
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected].
> >
> > I used to drive on a street with one of these bike lanes, and even though I was specifically
> > looking for these cyclists coming against traffic when I was about to make a left turn, they
> > were not always easy to see due to the high pedestrian traffic. Whoever designed these bike
> > lanes had no clue to how they would actually function in the real world.
> >
> > Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W
>
> Probably some well meaning P.E., whose code of ethics dictates that the public well being is his
> ultimate responsibility.
I suspect his/her mind was addled by spending too much time reading the AASHTO "Green Book".
I actually considered working in geometric roadway design until I read portions of the "Green Book".
Tom Sherman - 41½ N, 90½ W
>
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected].
> >
> > I used to drive on a street with one of these bike lanes, and even though I was specifically
> > looking for these cyclists coming against traffic when I was about to make a left turn, they
> > were not always easy to see due to the high pedestrian traffic. Whoever designed these bike
> > lanes had no clue to how they would actually function in the real world.
> >
> > Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W
>
> Probably some well meaning P.E., whose code of ethics dictates that the public well being is his
> ultimate responsibility.
I suspect his/her mind was addled by spending too much time reading the AASHTO "Green Book".
I actually considered working in geometric roadway design until I read portions of the "Green Book".
Tom Sherman - 41½ N, 90½ W
Similar threads
