Ride with or against traffic flow? Which is safer and why?

[Capricorn]

I've written quite extensively on this subject and done a fair amount of research.

Has anyone else?

 

It's illegal!

To be a woman and drive in Saudi.

To be a Jew and own property in Hitler's Germany.

To be black and walk through a WHITES ONLY entrance.

To marry the woman you love, if she's not the same colour as you.

 

How many more examples would you like?

So, legality is not always a good argument. The law is an ass and dynamic. It changes when it's out of date and no longer works, fulfills it's intended purpose..

 

I ride on the WRONG (!) side and I'll give you clues why.

 

This law was promulgated in the late 19th Century, when horse drawn vehicles and human powered vehicles outnumbered automobiles and where faster than automobiles.

What was the cycle to auto ratio in 1900?

What is it now (given that there are more than 12 million registered vehicles in SA)?

What was the average speed of automobiles in 1900? Where cycles as fast?

What is the SLOWEST speed limit today? Can any cyclist, other than a pro, cycle at that speed for any length of time?

What was the fastest an automobile could travel in 1900?

What is the maximum speed limit today, let alone the maximum speed of a car!

 

In other words, the LAW was written to keep 'fast' moving traffic (horses, cycles and automobiles) away from pedestrians (read the original law).

 

Are things the same?

or

Are they different?

 

If we had cycle lanes (a poor attempt to resolve a huge problem within an existing law) I would use them. BUT, we don't, so , in summary:

I've been riding 50 odd years.

When I obeyed the law (most of the 50 odd years) I was knocked off my bike 3 times, broke a few bones, but still alive.

For the last 10, I've been breaking the law and despite a few close shaves (idiots on the road, who can deny that!!!), not one car has come close.

 

If it was working, I would suggest we leave it alone (don't fix what's not broken), but let's change the law if it's not working.

 

IMHO

 

what utter rubbish. You've promulgated your whole flawed theory on your exceptional luck. I can't wait for you to open your mouth and change feet when it runs out. You remind me of those fools who think they have enough time to tuck and roll. You've got all that speed and randomness under complete control. Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

[TopFuel]

I've written quite extensively on this subject and done a fair amount of research.

Has anyone else?

 

It's illegal!

To be a woman and drive in Saudi.

To be a Jew and own property in Hitler's Germany.

To be black and walk through a WHITES ONLY entrance.

To marry the woman you love, if she's not the same colour as you.

 

How many more examples would you like?

So, legality is not always a good argument. The law is an ass and dynamic. It changes when it's out of date and no longer works, fulfills it's intended purpose..

 

I ride on the WRONG (!) side and I'll give you clues why.

 

This law was promulgated in the late 19th Century, when horse drawn vehicles and human powered vehicles outnumbered automobiles and where faster than automobiles.

What was the cycle to auto ratio in 1900?

What is it now (given that there are more than 12 million registered vehicles in SA)?

What was the average speed of automobiles in 1900? Where cycles as fast?

What is the SLOWEST speed limit today? Can any cyclist, other than a pro, cycle at that speed for any length of time?

What was the fastest an automobile could travel in 1900?

What is the maximum speed limit today, let alone the maximum speed of a car!

 

In other words, the LAW was written to keep 'fast' moving traffic (horses, cycles and automobiles) away from pedestrians (read the original law).

 

Are things the same?

or

Are they different?

 

If we had cycle lanes (a poor attempt to resolve a huge problem within an existing law) I would use them. BUT, we don't, so , in summary:

I've been riding 50 odd years.

When I obeyed the law (most of the 50 odd years) I was knocked off my bike 3 times, broke a few bones, but still alive.

For the last 10, I've been breaking the law and despite a few close shaves (idiots on the road, who can deny that!!!), not one car has come close.

 

If it was working, I would suggest we leave it alone (don't fix what's not broken), but let's change the law if it's not working.

 

IMHO

 

I don't see where you actually made a point/case for riding on the right hand side. And personally, if someone was to knock me over because they don't "agree" with the law (despite all those twisted statements you brought up - you can find a negative/poor example of anything if you look for it - it is still the law, and obviously hasn't been changed for a reason), they'd be completely in the wrong. It is simply not safe, and it is definitely not legal. Ride on the right (left) side of the road.

[Skubarra]

I've written quite extensively on this subject and done a fair amount of research.

Has anyone else?

 

It's illegal!

To be a woman and drive in Saudi.

To be a Jew and own property in Hitler's Germany.

To be black and walk through a WHITES ONLY entrance.

To marry the woman you love, if she's not the same colour as you.

 

How many more examples would you like?

So, legality is not always a good argument. The law is an ass and dynamic. It changes when it's out of date and no longer works, fulfills it's intended purpose..

 

I ride on the WRONG (!) side and I'll give you clues why.

 

This law was promulgated in the late 19th Century, when horse drawn vehicles and human powered vehicles outnumbered automobiles and where faster than automobiles.

What was the cycle to auto ratio in 1900?

What is it now (given that there are more than 12 million registered vehicles in SA)?

What was the average speed of automobiles in 1900? Where cycles as fast?

What is the SLOWEST speed limit today? Can any cyclist, other than a pro, cycle at that speed for any length of time?

What was the fastest an automobile could travel in 1900?

What is the maximum speed limit today, let alone the maximum speed of a car!

 

In other words, the LAW was written to keep 'fast' moving traffic (horses, cycles and automobiles) away from pedestrians (read the original law).

 

Are things the same?

or

Are they different?

 

If we had cycle lanes (a poor attempt to resolve a huge problem within an existing law) I would use them. BUT, we don't, so , in summary:

I've been riding 50 odd years.

When I obeyed the law (most of the 50 odd years) I was knocked off my bike 3 times, broke a few bones, but still alive.

For the last 10, I've been breaking the law and despite a few close shaves (idiots on the road, who can deny that!!!), not one car has come close.

 

If it was working, I would suggest we leave it alone (don't fix what's not broken), but let's change the law if it's not working.

 

IMHO

 

Did your "fair amount of research" go beyond how and when the law was created in 1900 & your personal experience of riding against the traffic? If so I would like to see which articles / studies promote this as a great idea?

 

also

 

In principal I agree that just because something is law doesn't make it right, however the examples you mention are discriminating laws in oppressive societies. None are / were universally accepted laws. Now I havent done your amount of research on this but are there instances where this law was challenged by people who felt that it was outdated & wrong. Any examples of other countries or even studies where you can ride against the traffic on your bicycle?

 

Just to conclude, so in 50 years you were knocked off 3 times off your bike, thats about once every 16.67 years. You have only been going for 10 years against the traffic, so statistically you need another 6.67 accident free years before you can start claiming that its safer.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Skubarra

[ThePubSA]

http://bike.cofc.edu/images/traffic-flow.jpg

http://www.sandiego.gov/tsw/programs/losetheroaditude/graphics/bikes.gif

http://floridabicycle.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/same-rights-same-rules-011.png

[DJR]

I've written quite extensively on this subject and done a fair amount of research.

Has anyone else?

............................................snip snip............................

 

If it was working, I would suggest we leave it alone (don't fix what's not broken), but let's change the law if it's not working.

 

IMHO

 

This time you are talking utter self-delusional rubbish, pure and simple! (I.M.VeryH.O.)

Edited November 15, 2013 by DJR

[Skubarra]

I don't care if few people like my opinion and I honestly don't care if the majority has a different opinion, it sure as hell doesn't mean that mine is completely wrong. There's a few that voted right but prefer to keep quiet, maybe because the majority don't know how to deal with someone else having a different opinion and then all gang up on the minority but guess what, I don't give a ****. I have my opinion and I sure as hell aint going to keep quiet about it.

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and if you simply wanted to state your opinion you were successful. But there are a number of very solid arguments on this thread against your opinion which you have not addressed as vigorously as the exact details of your job history - so thats why very few people other than "heyyou" buys into your opinion.

 

Like someone else commented, maybe I wont have enough time to react but if that means that my family that's coming from behind sees/hears the "splat" and if that gives them the chance to get out of the way and save themselves, then I'll be happy to be hit head on by a vehicle if it means that they aren't.

 

Well technically if you ride behind your family on the correct side of the road and not ahead of them, you will be the first to "splat" and that would give them the chance to save themselves, so for me that is not a compelling reason to break the law.

[Master-Yoda]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and if you simply wanted to state your opinion you were successful. But there are a number of very solid arguments on this thread against your opinion which you have not addressed as vigorously as the exact details of your job history - so thats why very few people other than "heyyou" buys into your opinion.

 

 

 

Well technically if you ride behind your family on the correct side of the road and not ahead of them, you will be the first to "splat" and that would give them the chance to save themselves, so for me that is not a compelling reason to break the law.

 

I'd be (and as I said) riding in front and my family would be behind me, not the other way round.

 

I'm not arguing with facts and neither with the legal side of things (I thought this had been established by now). I'm referring to (and forget legalities) if I or my family/friends have a better chance of avoiding being ridden over by a vehicle by riding against or with the traffic flow. Again and I reiterate, forget legalities as that's not in question.

 

Let me throw this at you from a different angle. Three riders (mom/dad/child) are riding with the traffic flow and some drunk driver comes and hits them from behind, do you think that only one, two or possibly all three riders will be hit by the vehicle? Most families ride closely to one another and the way I see it, there's a higher chance of all three family members suffering the same outcome.

 

Now the same scenario except that this family is now riding against the traffic flow and of course, the same driver comes along. Now I don't know about most people by I for one have a defensive style of driving, I'm constantly looking and anticipating what other drivers are doing and I apply the same technique to when I ride my bike on the road, I go defensive. So I'll definitely be on the look out and am likely going to be ready to have some sort of reaction if I have the slightest feeling that "***" is heading my way and I honestly believe that anyone that's behind me will also have a better chance of reacting.

 

Nothing is perfect and driving against traffic would be no exception to the rule. It's obvious that there's a higher chance of the accident being fatal from a head on collision and maybe there's actually more fatalities (percentage wise) with cyclists that ride against traffic, I don't.. What I do know is that I hate of not having some sort of control to at least try and prevent getting tangled in the first place.

[TopFuel]

I'd be (and as I said) riding in front and my family would be behind me, not the other way round.

 

I'm not arguing with facts and neither with the legal side of things (I thought this had been established by now). I'm referring to (and forget legalities) if I or my family/friends have a better chance of avoiding being ridden over by a vehicle by riding against or with the traffic flow. Again and I reiterate, forget legalities as that's not in question.

 

Let me throw this at you from a different angle. Three riders (mom/dad/child) are riding with the traffic flow and some drunk driver comes and hits them from behind, do you think that only one, two or possibly all three riders will be hit by the vehicle? Most families ride closely to one another and the way I see it, there's a higher chance of all three family members suffering the same outcome.

 

Now the same scenario except that this family is now riding against the traffic flow and of course, the same driver comes along. Now I don't know about most people by I for one have a defensive style of driving, I'm constantly looking and anticipating what other drivers are doing and I apply the same technique to when I ride my bike on the road, I go defensive. So I'll definitely be on the look out and am likely going to be ready to have some sort of reaction if I have the slightest feeling that "***" is heading my way and I honestly believe that anyone that's behind me will also have a better chance of reacting.

 

Nothing is perfect and driving against traffic would be no exception to the rule. It's obvious that there's a higher chance of the accident being fatal from a head on collision and maybe there's actually more fatalities (percentage wise) with cyclists that ride against traffic, I don't.. What I do know is that I hate of not having some sort of control to at least try and prevent getting tangled in the first place.

 

Take your strange example and go one step further: you're on the wrong side of the road, and a driver, who is not drunk, or negligent in any way, merges into the road you're travelling on. But, the intersection is a blind one, and they are unable to see you and pull out in front of you, allowing you to effectively T-bone them.

 

Please explain how you're going to react then.

[HeyYou]

baaaaa, baaaaa, baaaa

 

perhaps a bunch of skaap?

[DJR]

baaaaa, baaaaa, baaaa

 

perhaps a bunch of skaap?

 

Still much better than being a Judas Goat, leading other innocent cyclists to their death......

 

 

A Judas goat is a trained goat used in general animal herding. The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. ...

Edited November 16, 2013 by DJR

[shaper]

This thread still going?

 

The minute the OP started dismissing factual arguments as irrelevant then you could pretty much tell that he was trolling and only emphasizing his misguided view.

 

Pretty much sums up his mental state that he wants to ride with his family on the road in the wrong direction and illegal rather than go to a cycle park where it is safe for all.

[scotty]

Indeed, imagine the odds..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI8AxZnrx8

Odds on people actually believing its real when its a fake video.

[ThePubSA]

baaaaa, baaaaa, baaaa

 

perhaps a bunch of skaap?

Still much better than being a Judas Goat, leading other innocent cyclist to their death......

 

 

A Judas goat is a trained goat used in general animal herding. The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. ...

[Master-Yoda]

Take your strange example and go one step further: you're on the wrong side of the road, and a driver, who is not drunk, or negligent in any way, merges into the road you're travelling on. But, the intersection is a blind one, and they are unable to see you and pull out in front of you, allowing you to effectively T-bone them.

 

Please explain how you're going to react then.

 

I don't mind replying to your question but why don't you do the same and reply to mine first? I've put different scenarios out there which all have read yet fail to post a reply specific to it which makes me believe that the obvious answer would be favorable to riding against the traffic flow. Now you take my question ans answer it with your own question and expect a reply in my defense, I don't think so. I will however gladly reply when the same courtesy is received.

[Master-Yoda]

baaaaa, baaaaa, baaaa

 

perhaps a bunch of skaap?

Edited November 16, 2013 by 3dclaude

[Master-Yoda]

This thread still going?

 

The minute the OP started dismissing factual arguments as irrelevant then you could pretty much tell that he was trolling and only emphasizing his misguided view.

 

Pretty much sums up his mental state that he wants to ride with his family on the road in the wrong direction and illegal rather than go to a cycle park where it is safe for all.

If you want to use the term troll or trolling then you should use these terms when applicable. The term is generally used when someone "trolls" a thread with the intention of insulting others or disrupting the thread. In-case you haven't noticed, I started the thread (so I can't be trolling now can I..) and members that have posted in this thread (such as yourself) are in fact the trolls as you're disrupting the thread, insulting others and quite frankly, making no contribution whatsoever.