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

[GaryvdM]

Logically the fact that you can see what's coming at you and depending on your ability to take evasive action in time, I'd say you would be safer as it seems most accidents are as a result of being hit from behind. It would also allow you to see a car wanting to turn in front of you rather than into you. I don't ride on the road a) my skills are lacking and b) it freaks me out that I can't see behind me.

 

I have a mirror like this that I use when I ride in urban areas. It quick and easy to remove for when you are racing. It's really helpful to use it to check if it is safe to move in to the lane, or when making a right turn.

[GaryvdM]

Plus let's not forget the various studies which have proven that cars are less likely to give you space should you be riding towards them.

 

Please could you provide a link to such studies.

[Jaws677]

riding against the traffic is not going to save you either. car speed + bike speed = speed of impact so 100km+40km = 140km against 100km-40km=60km

.

 

Physics fail.

 

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html

Edited November 15, 2013 by Jaws677

[Icycling]

When I did not work from home and commuted to work by bicycle - we talking about 20 years ago, in rush hour traffic,where I was going in the direction of the traffic but faster I would often be on the wrong side of the road i.e. be on the right while the cars were on the left (keep left pass right). But this is not really the question at hand!

 

Basically as I still ride on the road as a cyclist you need to take ownership of the space of the road you on - this means riding in such a manner that a vehicles have to notice you. This includes wearing bright colored clothing and riding left but not so far left that a car thinks they can "race" past you. On certain road I will ride in the middle of the lane to ensure that no car will even try and over take - for those who live in the Southern Suburb of Cape town the road coming in to Muizemberg from St James is an example of this - the road is in to bad a condition and to narrow for cars to over take - speed limit 40km/h gale force SE wind 40Km/H on bike easy!

 

I, on my bicycle am assuming that basically all people do not really want to kill somebody they don't know and go through the legal procedure of defending themselves if they did - yup their are some cowboys out their who want o kill but fortunately they are very few and far between! Normally these guys are also the idiot who will stop and give a piece of their mind - but they look so chicken once you have disarmed their weapon by taking their keys out their car - the look on their face is priceless when you say the keys will be at the police station with a charge of negligent driving against you! At that point they have ZERO power as you head off on your bike!!!!

[GaryvdM]

Physics fail.

 

http://warp.povusers...lisionmath.html

 

No. That does not apply here. If you read it, you will see the second scenario is a car hitting a immovable rock wall. A wall that is fixed to the earth, and so strong that when you hit it, it does not break. So when we need to calculate the impulse from the collision, the mass of the wall would be equal to the mass of the earth.

 

This is not the case when comparing a car hitting a bike travelling in the same direction, and a car hitting a bike travelling in the opposite direction.

 

However, this is all about when you have a collision, what side is better for you to be on. I believe a far more important discussion is on which side are you less likely to have a collision in the first place.

[awesme]

Excuse me

 

I think the option of safer should only be considered if both options are legal, riding on the wrong side is against the law, so not a valid option to consider to start with.

 

G

[Butterbean]

 

 

Please could you provide a link to such studies.

 

Google the topic.

[Witkop]

Physics fail.

 

http://warp.povusers...lisionmath.html

 

Firstly a bicycle is not a car of equilivant mass to a car, and secondly a bicycle has wheels on it unlike a brick wall.

 

I have been nudged by a bus travelling 20km/hr when I was travelling 19km/hr and I felt a little "bump" and accelleration. If however, I was travelling in the opposite direction I would have been dead.

 

In a similar experiment, I have had a friend cycle behind me at a similar speed and then tap me on the back as he past me (we were going around 30km/hr at the time). Later that week as a I came around a corner a pedestrian stepped in front of me, walking slowly (I was traveling at about 20km/hr) needless to say the pedestrian hit the ground hard and I followed her).

 

 

I challenge you to replicate the experiment, only please travel in the oppossite direction to the bus first. . (it will save you having to do the second part of the expeiment) and will prove conclusively that your post is irrelevant ) ps which hospital is on your speed dial?

[Master-Yoda]

Convenient time to mention that?

Fact still remains not good air dynamics riding against the traffic.

 

But if as you say you are doing a few hundred meters scrabbling around in the road median on your MTB or just crossing over to get to the trails on the other side then go whichever way you want to go, what's the point of even having this discussion. Trolling along lalalalala...

 

Ok wait sorry , I see you only have 14 posts - you new to this game!!

Take it easy buddy, the whole internet will never always be on your side or agree with you

Good luck winning though!

 

Convenient, no. It's called adding information so that others may better understand my perspective, certainly not "convenient". Reply #36 of the following link which I posted a few weeks ago clears shows that we have mountain bikes and not road bikes; https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/132266-rant-thule-salesman/page__st__32

 

BTW, I've been making a living off the net for over 15 years now and have in the past moderated more than a handful of public forums. Don't be naive and assume just because someone is newly registered and only has a few posts that he/she is a complete newbie because you'd be wrong. Rofl.., what assumptions people make these days..

[Witkop]

safest way to travelhttp://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/7/6/1246899481571/Matt-Lucas-and-David-Wall-001.jpg

 

A UK study found that motorists give "lady" cyclists an additional 30cm of road when passing. The researcher (being male) actually dressed up in pink and clipped a blonde wif/ ponytail under his helmet to simulate being a lady.

 

Maybe we should be tumbleweed to replicate the experiment with his magneta boa?

[Master-Yoda]

However, this is all about when you have a collision, what side is better for you to be on. I believe a far more important discussion is on which side are you less likely to have a collision in the first place.

This is exactly what I'm referring to, glad to hear that someone understands what I'm talking about (Y)

[Master-Yoda]

The below study clearly shows that you're less likely to suffer an accident when riding in the same direction as the traffic flow and not against it and I thought I was clear when I said that in most countries this is the case. What most hubbers that are reading and replying are forgetting is that I specifically mentioned our conditions and how many drivers in SA and especially taxi drivers behave. So once again I'm going to repeat this and say that the question asked refers to if you're less or more likely to have or avoid an accident (in SA) by driving on one side or the other. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's illegal as we all know the answer to that question..

 

http://i.stack.imgur.com/f6gyc.png

 

Source; http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/9033/why-is-it-safer-to-bike-with-traffic-instead-of-facing-oncoming-cars

[Uni]

It has nothing to do with whether or not it's illegal as we all know the answer to that question..

it's become clear to me that hypothetical doesn't exist on the hub

[Nuss]

When looking at these stats and considering the facts stated by previous respondents there could be problems with this system as:

 

1) The wind direction gust caused by passing vehicles would cause a wind knock to the cyclist

2) The dilemma of pedestrians not knowing to step left or right of an oncoming bicycle (and neither would the cyclist)

3) The simple law of the road dictates that all traffic moves in the same direction as to avoid any confusion

 

I believe there is a lot of merit when it comes to mountain biking on the opposite side of the road off the shoulder (with a 1000+ lumen flasing light) which is perhaps a step closer to proving your point, but only in this instance.

[Pure Savage]

Hitting a oncoming cyclist at 60Km/h is gonna be sore as hell but I'll take that any day over being hit by a car from behind even if it's doing less than 60Km/h, have you done the maths on that?

 

 

I have seen this happen, person coming down that same hill head on into idiot on wrong side of road, idiot gets knocked off into road and hit by a car. You do the math.

 

 

[DJR]

Cycle on the left, it is SAFER, even in South Africa.

 

Denying it or questioning it will not make it right and will only encourage more delusional cyclists trying it and getting themselves and others killed. Just this morning I nearly killed an idiot going the wrong way down MAIN ROAD in RONDEBOSCH. Landrovers with bull bars don't take prisoners. It was only my awareness and quick reaction that saved him, but I'm pretty sure he is at work now, congratulating himself on his own intelligence for riding against the traffic and thus dodging death.