Crazy Motorists

[Ninety5rpm]

Here is a question

where exactly should we stop on the right at a signal? on the curb? in the bike lane? in the road before the cross walk lines? In the cross walk lines in front of them?

I have the most problems with drivers in this context.

The answer varies based on the circumstances, most of which can be ascertained by answering these four simple questions.

Is your destination straight, right or left?
What destinations does your lane serve?
Is there a dedicated right and/or left turn lane?
Is the lane wide enough to be safely shared?

Where you should stop in a lane depends on your answer to all of the above.
Assuming the answers are:

Is your destination straight, right or left? STRAIGHT
What destinations does your lane serve? ALL
Is there a dedicated right and/or left turn lane? NO
Is the lane wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side by a bike and car? YES

I would stop near the LEFT side of the lane, leaving room for right turners to turn on my right.

Changing only the answer to the last question from YES to NO,

Is the lane wide enough to be safely shared? NO

my position would be: MIDDLE of the lane.

If there is a dedicated right turn lane, my lane is only for straight traffic, and is wide enough to be shared, yeah, I would probably stop on the right side of the lane. If my lane is straight-or-right, I would still stop near the middle or left side, depending on whether it is wide enough to be shared.

But the key is to think of all the issues raised by the above four questions, and position yourself accordingly.

A useful and quick rule of thumb to consolidate all this is: If I was on a motorcycle where would I position myself? Then, possibly modify that answer if the lane is wide enough to be safely shared.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

so cal is the worst and we cheat death every day. Motorists neither care or want to care and regardless of our rights as a 'vehicle' within the code' they demand right of way in every case..

Please watch these SoCal traffic cycling videos.

The rights and duties of cyclists.

Bicycle driving on SoCal Arterials

Lane Control in Long Beach, CA

 

[Parbar]

But the key is to think of all the issues raised by the above four questions, and position yourself accordingly.

A useful and quick rule of thumb to consolidate all this is: If I was on a motorcycle where would I position myself? Then, possibly modify that answer if the lane is wide enough to be safely shared.

95RPM, I appreciate alot of what you have to say but you pretty much ignore mentioning local law as a factor. In Michigan, and other states nearby where I have occasion to think about riding, bicycles and motorcycles are not treated alike. Motorcycles are entitled to an entire lane. Bicycles are entitled to the right third only, and must stay as far to the right as practicable within that third of a lane. Everything you post about riding near the center of the lane is illegal here for a bicycle.

As a cyclist, motorcyclist and cager, I'm quite conscious of the issues that face each mode of transportation. I'm sorry, but if I see a cyclist on the road breaking the law because someone told him an expert said what he was doing was the safer way to ride, I'm not going to be sympathetic. I'm not going to smile at his wave or his smile. I might even honk my horn at him, and I'd be more than happy to talk the situation over with the police if it came to that. Why? Because cyclists breaking the law give all cyclists a bad name and make it harder for all of us to get along on the roads.

Also, I disagree with how you put it that drivers' reactions say more about the cyclist than about the driver. In my area, it is a learned behavior for drivers who don't believe cyclists should share the road to honk and yell "get on the sidewalk" (even if there is no sidewalk). There is enough anti-cycling sentiment here that recently 2 morning drive-time DJs for a local radio station went on an 8-minute rant that cyclists should not be allowed on the road period. And frankly, I hold the view in life generally that when someone abuses (verbally or whatever) their fellow man, it says more about the abuser than the one abused.

In the motorcycle world, a major mantra regarding safety is that you never, ever learn all there is to know about bike handling in different stituations and how to be safe: in other words, always keep an open mind about learning more. I think that would be good for bicyclists too. It's taught me to evaluate my rides on a regular basis, read what others have to say about safety, and even research applicable laws.

 

[Aapjes]

I'm sorry, but if I see a cyclist on the road breaking the law because someone told him an expert said what he was doing was the safer way to ride, I'm not going to be sympathetic.

You are not sympathetic to someone who wants to stay safe? Seriously???

Because cyclists breaking the law give all cyclists a bad name and make it harder for all of us to get along on the roads.

Also, I disagree with how you put it that drivers' reactions say more about the cyclist than about the driver. In my area, it is a learned behavior for drivers who don't believe cyclists should share the road to honk and yell "get on the sidewalk" (even if there is no sidewalk).

Drivers breaking the law kill cyclists, which is exactly why Ninety5rpm adopted his riding style. Ultimately, in a car vs bike situation, a mistake by the car driver will almost never be lethal to himself, while an mistake by either has a good chance to kill the cyclist. Yet many drivers feel that they can flaunt the law and the cyclists can't.

Personally I think that it should be mandatory for cops to spend at least one day of the week on a bike. They will lose a few pounds and they will teach drivers to respect cyclists very quickly.

In the motorcycle world, a major mantra regarding safety is that you never, ever learn all there is to know about bike handling in different stituations and how to be safe: in other words, always keep an open mind about learning more. I think that would be good for bicyclists too. It's taught me to evaluate my rides on a regular basis, read what others have to say about safety, and even research applicable laws.

So why can't you accept the possibility that the law is wrong and Ninety5rpm knows better? I don't see much of an open mind in your post.

 

[Parbar]

You are not sympathetic to someone who wants to stay safe? Seriously???

My point was that the instructions/advice being provided on riding safely failed to include the factor of knowing the applicable law.

Some of the posts suggest that there is an "American" standard. Well, there isn't. Congress does not regulate cycling; the individual states do.

I followed the link to the first CyclistLorax video on YouTube and it began with the statement that in all 50 states cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. That is blatantly false. In Michigan, that is only the first half of one sentence in the law; the whole sentence reads: "Every person riding a bicycle or moped upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have applications."

Of course I am sympathetic to cyclists wanting to be safe on the road, but it is irresponsible of those providing seemingly expert advice to water down the fundamental message: "You need to know the law where you are cycling; you need to know how to ride defensively. It is your responsibility as a cyclist to know when and where you can ride safely within the bounds of the law, when you can and should choose to deviate from the law for safety's sake, and when you should just get off the road and find another time or place for cycling."

Remember, this thread is about crazy motorists. A couple of the big things that p**s them off is cyclists not following the law and cyclists appearing arrogant (acting like they own the road when they don't). If the thread was about obscure laws or stupid interpretations of laws or stupid laws themselves, then my attitude would be totally different.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

95RPM, I appreciate alot of what you have to say but you pretty much ignore mentioning local law as a factor. In Michigan, and other states nearby where I have occasion to think about riding, bicycles and motorcycles are not treated alike. Motorcycles are entitled to an entire lane. Bicycles are entitled to the right third only, and must stay as far to the right as practicable within that third of a lane. Everything you post about riding near the center of the lane is illegal here for a bicycle.

As a cyclist, motorcyclist and cager, I'm quite conscious of the issues that face each mode of transportation. I'm sorry, but if I see a cyclist on the road breaking the law because someone told him an expert said what he was doing was the safer way to ride, I'm not going to be sympathetic. I'm not going to smile at his wave or his smile. I might even honk my horn at him, and I'd be more than happy to talk the situation over with the police if it came to that. Why? Because cyclists breaking the law give all cyclists a bad name and make it harder for all of us to get along on the roads.

Also, I disagree with how you put it that drivers' reactions say more about the cyclist than about the driver. In my area, it is a learned behavior for drivers who don't believe cyclists should share the road to honk and yell "get on the sidewalk" (even if there is no sidewalk). There is enough anti-cycling sentiment here that recently 2 morning drive-time DJs for a local radio station went on an 8-minute rant that cyclists should not be allowed on the road period. And frankly, I hold the view in life generally that when someone abuses (verbally or whatever) their fellow man, it says more about the abuser than the one abused.

In the motorcycle world, a major mantra regarding safety is that you never, ever learn all there is to know about bike handling in different stituations and how to be safe: in other words, always keep an open mind about learning more. I think that would be good for bicyclists too. It's taught me to evaluate my rides on a regular basis, read what others have to say about safety, and even research applicable laws.

I certainly agree bicyclists should follow the law. Like most states, Michigan requires bicyclists to ride as far right as "practicable". Some states clarify what "practicable" means in certain situations in the law, others, do not. But in any case "practicable" implies safe and reasonable operation. That's all I'm suggesting. Do not ride so far right that your safety is compromised. That would be further right than "practicable", by definition.

But yeah, always keep an open mind about what is safe. We all have more to learn.

NOTE: See Post #81 for more details about Michigan law.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

95RPM, I appreciate alot of what you have to say but you pretty much ignore mentioning local law as a factor. In Michigan, and other states nearby where I have occasion to think about riding, bicycles and motorcycles are not treated alike. Motorcycles are entitled to an entire lane. Bicycles are entitled to the right third only, and must stay as far to the right as practicable within that third of a lane. Everything you post about riding near the center of the lane is illegal here for a bicycle.

Can you cite the Michigan law which restricts cyclists to the right third of the lane?

Honestly, I think you made that up, or heard it from someone who made it up.

There is all too much misleading lore out there concerning bicycling safety and the law. Let's not spread that here.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

95RPM, I appreciate alot of what you have to say but you pretty much ignore mentioning local law as a factor. In Michigan, and other states nearby where I have occasion to think about riding, bicycles and motorcycles are not treated alike. Motorcycles are entitled to an entire lane. Bicycles are entitled to the right third only, and must stay as far to the right as practicable within that third of a lane. Everything you post about riding near the center of the lane is illegal here for a bicycle.

Actually, this is simply false. Here is what Michigan law actually states:

257.660a Operation of bicycle upon highway or street; riding close to right-hand curb or edge of roadway; exceptions.
Sec. 660a.

A person operating a bicycle upon a highway or street at less than the existing speed of traffic shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except as follows:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(b) When preparing to turn left.

(c) When conditions make the right-hand edge of the roadway unsafe or reasonably unusable by bicycles, including, but not limited to, surface hazards, an uneven roadway surface, drain openings, debris, parked or moving vehicles or bicycles, pedestrians, animals, or other obstacles, or if the lane is too narrow to permit a vehicle to safely overtake and pass a bicycle.

(d) When operating a bicycle in a lane in which the traffic is turning right but the individual intends to go straight through the intersection.

(e) When operating a bicycle upon a 1-way highway or street that has 2 or more marked traffic lanes, in which case the individual may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ilpznq45elh1wdqz5jif3i55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-660a

 

[Ninety5rpm]

As a cyclist, motorcyclist and cager, I'm quite conscious of the issues that face each mode of transportation. I'm sorry, but if I see a cyclist on the road breaking the law because someone told him an expert said what he was doing was the safer way to ride, I'm not going to be sympathetic. I'm not going to smile at his wave or his smile. I might even honk my horn at him, and I'd be more than happy to talk the situation over with the police if it came to that. Why? Because cyclists breaking the law give all cyclists a bad name and make it harder for all of us to get along on the roads.

Please do not honk at bicyclists just because you think he's doing something illegal, especially if it's a lane positioning/controlling situation. It is precisely this wrong-headed kind of thinking, that creates "crazy motorists" and makes cycling in traffic more challenging than it would otherwise need to be.

Also, I disagree with how you put it that drivers' reactions say more about the cyclist than about the driver. In my area, it is a learned behavior for drivers who don't believe cyclists should share the road to honk and yell "get on the sidewalk" (even if there is no sidewalk).

Even with crazy drivers out there, who honk at bicyclists out of ignorance (like believing that cyclists are restricted to right third of a lane), I stand by my point. Encounters with crazy drivers cannot be eliminated. But what we can do is greatly reduce how often we frustrate them and cause them to go crazy, and that often means doing the opposite of what "common sense" might indicate.

For example, in a narrow lane the tendency for most bicyclists is to ride as close to the curb on the right as possible (most bicyclists are unaware that doing so is not practicable, and many states, including Michigan, explicitly relieve bicyclists from riding near the right in narrow lanes). They think they're doing exactly what they need to do, but what they are doing is inviting overtaking motorists to try to squeeze into the lane, instead of changing lanes to pass. So what happens is a motorist is driving along, and is likely to ignore the bicyclist up ahead because he appears to be off to the side and irrelevant. By the time the motorist realizes he cannot pass because the lane is too narrow he is almost upon the cyclist, and by then the adjacent lane is occupied, so all he can do is slam on his brakes. He is frustrated, and honks. The cyclist gets mad... after all, he is already practically scraping his right pedal against the curb... what does the crazy motorist want from him? Neither knows, they're just both mad and frustrated.

Yet if the cyclist had been clearly occupying the full narrow lane by riding near the center (which is legal), the motorist would have been much more likely to notice the cyclist, and the need to change to pass, long before it was too late to change lanes and pass safely. This is exactly what is illustrated in those CyclistLorax videos, over and over. No honks. No close passes. Just calm, predictable, civil passing of slower traffic by faster traffic. Yes, the cycling in these videos might appear to be boring, but that's also the point. Cycling in traffic, even on narrow high speed arterials, does not have to be an adrenaline rush death defying activity.

There is enough anti-cycling sentiment here that recently 2 morning drive-time DJs for a local radio station went on an 8-minute rant that cyclists should not be allowed on the road period. And frankly, I hold the view in life generally that when someone abuses (verbally or whatever) their fellow man, it says more about the abuser than the one abused.

When the abused makes himself or herself the victim, it says at least as much about the abused as the abuser.

I say again. If you're encountering uncomfortable situations with crazy or inattentive drivers several times a day or week, that indicates there is much you can do improve your behavior to reduce that rate of incidence to just a few times per year.

If you get it down to a few times a year, then you can blame the "crazy motorists". But, then, once you get it down to a few times a year, you won't have much to complain about. That's my main point here.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

My point was that the instructions/advice being provided on riding safely failed to include the factor of knowing the applicable law.

Some of the posts suggest that there is an "American" standard. Well, there isn't. Congress does not regulate cycling; the individual states do.

Knowing the applicable law is very important. You should take your own advice with respect to knowing Michigan traffic and bicycling law.

By that measure there is no American standard for traffic law either, since states, not Congress, regulate traffic law. Yet, one generally doesn't have to study the traffic laws of every state crossed into as one drives (or rides) coast to coast to avoid breaking the law. That is, the states copy each other a lot, and the underlying traffic principles are essentially the same. There is also the Uniform Vehicle Code that many states use for guidance. All of this adds up to an American standard of sorts for traffic law in general, and bicycle traffic law in particular. That's why Bob Mionske's book on Bicycling and The Law applies in all 50 states.

There are slight differences to be sure, but in general if you learn the laws of your own state well, you'll be legal if you adhere to them in any state. The big exception in general traffic law is whether right on red is permitted. With respect to bicycling law the main significant difference is whether bicyclists are allowed in the road when an adjacent separate bike path is available. A small number of states require cyclists to use the path in such a situation. Some states explicitly require use of bike lanes (with significant exceptions), but the effect is the same in states without such laws, since the "keep right" law (also with significant exceptions) kicks in.

In short, you should learn the laws in your own state really well, and you should be fine riding accordingly in any other state.

I followed the link to the first CyclistLorax video on YouTube and it began with the statement that in all 50 states cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. That is blatantly false. In Michigan, that is only the first half of one sentence in the law; the whole sentence reads: "Every person riding a bicycle or moped upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have applications."

It's not "blatantly false". There are a few "special regulations", of course, but, especially when you consider how all drivers of slow moving vehicles are restricted, they are rather minor. In short, the only significant exception amounts to requiring bicyclists to share lanes when it is safe and reasonable to do so, including only between intersections where the outside lane is wide enough to safely share. Other than that, cyclists in all 50 states do have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. And understanding and exercising those rights is an important aspect of safe traffic cycling.

 

[elapid]

I saw a truck squeeze a cyclist off the road this morning. The truck had passed the cyclist, but the cyclist then passed the truck on the inside of a four lane road when he had stopped at the lights. After catching up with the cyclist, the truck pulled over as close as he could get to the gutter, scraping along the cyclist and forcing him off the road, and then the truck continued on back in the middle of his lane. This happened 20m in front. Unbelievable.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I saw a truck squeeze a cyclist off the road this morning. The truck had passed the cyclist, but the cyclist then passed the truck on the inside of a four lane road when he had stopped at the lights. After catching up with the cyclist, the truck pulled over as close as he could get to the gutter, scraping along the cyclist and forcing him off the road, and then the truck continued on back in the middle of his lane. This happened 20m in front. Unbelievable.

The crazy thing is they if you ever talk to these people they are convinced they are doing the cyclist a favor, by teaching a lesson in safety.

Anyway, that's exactly the kind of incident I try to avoid ever having. Unless there is a lot of time to be gained, I generally do not pass motor vehicles stopped at a red light, but take my place in line. Often, some other cyclist squeezes ahead to the front, but once the light turns green I typically pass him, thanks to the draft advantage I get from traveling with the motorists.

 

[elapid]

Anyway, that's exactly the kind of incident I try to avoid ever having. Unless there is a lot of time to be gained, I generally do not pass motor vehicles stopped at a red light, but take my place in line. Often, some other cyclist squeezes ahead to the front, but once the light turns green I typically pass him, thanks to the draft advantage I get from traveling with the motorists.

+1. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a lot we as riders can do on the road to lessen the possibility of such altercations with automobiles, but also think that there is no excuse for this kind of behaviour by motorists.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

+1. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a lot we as riders can do on the road to lessen the possibility of such altercations with automobiles, but also think that there is no excuse for this kind of behaviour by motorists.

Absolutely no excuse. But my point here (where the audience is close to 100% cyclists) is to emphasize the utility of adjusting our behavior in order to greatly reduce the incidence of unpleasant experiences (honks by the annoyed, being overlooked by inattentive drivers, "close passes" and "close calls", etc.) from a few a day or week to just a few per year.

 

[nightfend]

I think motorists and truck drivers don't realize the damage they can cause. I think in their mind they figure they can push the cyclist off the road, he'll put his foot down or take a light fall to the ground, then dust himself off and head on his way. Unfortunately, the reality is that falls at even slower speeds can break bones, and ruin bikes.

 

[Rupert]

Where to stop

Here is a question

where exactly should we stop on the right at a signal? on the curb? in the bike lane? in the road before the cross walk lines? In the cross walk lines in front of them?

I have the most problems with drivers in this context.

I do not stay all the way right at the curb. I try to stay far enough left to be visible. If the right lane is a right turn lane (assuming more than one lane each direction) I stay on the far left edge of it or in the bike lane (if there is one between the right turn lane and the straight traffic lane). If it's not a right turn lane I stop near the middle of it so if a car comes up behind me that wants to make a right turn I can let them pass me on the right (if they're signalling, and then I usually have to wave them past me). When the light changes I move to the right as soon as I can so the straight-through cars can get by me. My main concern is not getting right-hooked by cars who didn't see me, when the light changes. I generally stop just short of the stop line, or maybe just beyond. I want to be visible to all the cars near me at the light. If there's a line of cars ahead of me I may either roll to the front near the right (not right at the curb) if I don't think the front car is making a right turn. If there are right-turners I take the center of the lane behind the left-turning cars, or even move up on their left. I want to be visible in their mirror, not in their blind spot on the right. Just my technique and it probably doesn't cover every situation. I want to be visible and not get right hooked... I try to make it clear to cars that I'm trying to cooperate (wave them past me on the right if they're turning right-on-red), etc. Please, no long nit-picking discussion of every detail - just tryiing to convey what I think about at an intersection.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I do not stay all the way right at the curb. I try to stay far enough left to be visible. If the right lane is a right turn lane (assuming more than one lane each direction) I stay on the far left edge of it or in the bike lane (if there is one between the right turn lane and the straight traffic lane). If it's not a right turn lane I stop near the middle of it so if a car comes up behind me that wants to make a right turn I can let them pass me on the right (if they're signalling, and then I usually have to wave them past me). When the light changes I move to the right as soon as I can so the straight-through cars can get by me. My main concern is not getting right-hooked by cars who didn't see me, when the light changes. I generally stop just short of the stop line, or maybe just beyond. I want to be visible to all the cars near me at the light. If there's a line of cars ahead of me I may either roll to the front near the right (not right at the curb) if I don't think the front car is making a right turn. If there are right-turners I take the center of the lane behind the left-turning cars, or even move up on their left. I want to be visible in their mirror, not in their blind spot on the right. Just my technique and it probably doesn't cover every situation. I want to be visible and not get right hooked... I try to make it clear to cars that I'm trying to cooperate (wave them past me on the right if they're turning right-on-red), etc. Please, no long nit-picking discussion of every detail - just tryiing to convey what I think about at an intersection.

+1. This is great. I might not do exactly this in every detail, but agree the main thing is to be visible and not get hooked; don't just blindly stay to the right and ride obliviously up to the front.

 

[Rupert]

Safety vs the law

.... Bicycles are entitled to the right third only, and must stay as far to the right as practicable within that third of a lane..

Laws vary, but in most places I've ridden there is some variation of "as far to the right as practicable" but there are exceptions that allow the cyclist to be farhter left or to take the lane when necessary (like it's not safe for a car to pass, the shoulder is not rideable, etc).

I don't say disregard laws but I do think it's justifiable to do what's safest for me under the conditions and I'll argue it with a police officer or judge if it comes to that and take my (legal) lumps if necessary.

I try hard to think about what I'm doing, have a reason for doing so, and try to make it obvious to motorists that I'm cooperating with them. Not that they always understand what I'm doing or why....

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Laws vary, but in most places I've ridden there is some variation of "as far to the right as practicable" but there are exceptions that allow the cyclist to be farhter left or to take the lane when necessary (like it's not safe for a car to pass, the shoulder is not rideable, etc).

I don't say disregard laws but I do think it's justifiable to do what's safest for me under the conditions and I'll argue it with a police officer or judge if it comes to that and take my (legal) lumps if necessary.

I try hard to think about what I'm doing, have a reason for doing so, and try to make it obvious to motorists that I'm cooperating with them. Not that they always understand what I'm doing or why....

Yes, not always, but if you think about what you're doing, and know the reasons why, and so are confident about what you're doing and why, and convey this confidence in your riding, they are much less likely to be annoyed with you or harass you, even if they don't understand what you're doing or why.

It's the ones who cower off to the side and ride obliviously with regard to others around them that are most likely to be overlooked, and, if noticed, to cause annoyance and invoke anger.

 

[tiggertoo]

I suppose really, it is remarkable there are not more cyclist/car collisions given the disparate speeds of each vehicle and the general distraction most drivers seem to engage in these days.

But in the case of stopping at traffic lights; if I am at the front of the queue I usually look back at the driver behind, make eye contact, look to see if they are signalling to turn right - left in England - and move over to allow them to do so. Making eye contact establishes a relationship, even if very brief, which identifies me as a person. Psychologically, most people don't want to kill someone who has looked into their eyes.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I suppose really, it is remarkable there are not more cyclist/car collisions given the disparate speeds of each vehicle and the general distraction most drivers seem to engage in these days.

This seems to assume that a common cause of bike-car crashes is or should be a fast moving car crashing into a slow-moving bike from behind. But rear-enders by fast into slow-moving traffic while traffic is moving is very rare. The typical rear-ender occurs when traffic is stopped (typically for a red light), and the slowing motorist misjudges distance, someone in front of them starts and then stops suddenly and unexpectedly, or something like that. Otherwise, rear-enders are very rare.

People imagine that cyclists riding in the middle of the road at 15 mph should get rear-ended by traffic moving at 25-50 mph, but that ignores the fact that even distracted drivers have to pay attention every few seconds (or they would drive off the road), and are bound to notice and adjust for a cyclist up ahead in their lane.

Note that on city streets speeds are constantly changing. Sometimes, when someone needs to parallel park, they not only stop, but back up in the lane. Yet this is not a situation that makes one particularly vulnerable to being hit (unless one suddenly slows and stops in order to backup and park, or something like that). Traveling relatively slowly, especially in the so-called slow lane, also does not make one particularly vulnerable to being hit.

The real threat to a cyclist being hit is from cross traffic up ahead - and the best insurance against that is to ride in a manner that is visible, predictable and optimizes space around him. Riding out in the lane generally accomplishes all of that much better than riding closer to the road edge, and, as a bonus, it makes you more likely to be noticed sooner by those approaching from behind.

Now, cyclists are hit from behind, but usually this involves cyclists riding near the edge of the road, and overtaking motorists not noticing them, or trying to squeeze into a too-narrow lane and misjudging passing space, or something like that. In these cases, again, riding more conspicuously out in the lane is probably the best antidote.

But in the case of stopping at traffic lights; if I am at the front of the queue I usually look back at the driver behind, make eye contact, look to see if they are signalling to turn right - left in England - and move over to allow them to do so. Making eye contact establishes a relationship, even if very brief, which identifies me as a person. Psychologically, most people don't want to kill someone who has looked into their eyes.

Good advice, but as I wrote earlier in this thread, do not assume eye contact means you've necessarily been noticed (when being noticed is critical to your safety)... look for supporting evidence of being noticed too.

 

[Rupert]

Rear enders vs intersections

... Sometimes, when someone needs to parallel park, they not only stop, but back up in the lane...

I nearly got nailed this way once, and going slow and having the "spider semse tingling" , expecting something like that, saved me.

The real threat to a cyclist being hit is from cross traffic up ahead ... Riding out in the lane generally accomplishes all of that much better than riding closer to the road edge, and, as a bonus, it makes you more likely to be noticed sooner by those approaching from behind.

I feel much more threatened by situations at intersections / driveways than from overtaking traffic, so I avoid those kind of streets when possible (made big changes to my commuting route!), and make a point of moving further from the curb, approaching an intersection/driveway, when possible, to be more visible. Also watch cars like a hawk to see if they see me or not - many do not.

...(when being noticed is critical to your safety)... look for supporting evidence of being noticed too.

I swear that you can read a car/driver's "body language." I look for cars that look like they're in a hurry, and not likely to stop and REALLY look before they go. That has saved me at least twice - I have yelled and gotten their attention when they were about to run me over because they looked too hastily and were going. Would have been better to not enter the intersection at all, but I can't always make the call in time to avoid that.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I swear that you can read a car/driver's "body language." I look for cars that look like they're in a hurry, and not likely to stop and REALLY look before they go. That has saved me at least twice - I have yelled and gotten their attention when they were about to run me over because they looked too hastily and were going. Would have been better to not enter the intersection at all, but I can't always make the call in time to avoid that.

Yes! I know what you mean! I think we're not even conscious of all the little indicators processed by our minds to result in an evaluation of what someone is doing. The rate of deceleration/acceleration is certainly part of it, where they are tracking in the lane, angle of tires, where and how much the driver is looking around, etc.

I do think it's helpful though to remember that it is the driver who is behaving, not the car, and we're looking for signs about how the driver is behaving, though much of that is expressed through the movement of the vehicle, of course.

 

[TheDude]

Just about got run off the road this morning by some delivery guy trying to look up somehting on a laptop while driving.

What gets me, almost daily on the ride home some kid or drunk guy or something will come down the road on a busted-up old mountain bike right at me (i.e. down the wrong side of the road). Where did they ever get the idea that riding towards traffic was a good idea?

Moral of this story - there are MANY bad drivers and bad riders, but drivers kill people, riders only kill themselves.

 

[craig1985]

The crazy thing is they if you ever talk to these people they are convinced they are doing the cyclist a favor, by teaching a lesson in safety.

Anyway, that's exactly the kind of incident I try to avoid ever having. Unless there is a lot of time to be gained, I generally do not pass motor vehicles stopped at a red light, but take my place in line. Often, some other cyclist squeezes ahead to the front, but once the light turns green I typically pass him, thanks to the draft advantage I get from traveling with the motorists.

Yeah I agree. The main time I do move up is when a set of lights are at the top of a hill and usually I have to change lanes. I do this I believe I can get away quicker, then being at the top of a hill and hold up traffic whilst I clip my foot back into pedal and build up speed. These hills have an 8% gradient as well.