Bike lanes where the bikers ride in the same direction as the cars allows them to be hit from behind without warning. Bikes riding against the traffic can see a car coming and not die.
I'd be curious to see what percentage of bike deaths are caused by riders being rear ended. I'd think many if not most of those could be avoided by the rider having a second or two to swerve out of the way by having the bike riders facing and seeing the cars.
I did a quick search of this and boy oh boy are people angry at any biker who would do this. Like, they deserve to die, they're worse than Hitler hatred. So why?
About the only reason I can see to pretend a bike is just a really slow, really light car so they should go in the same direction is that at night the lights could blind each other but you could say that about cars going in the opposite direction.
Now please, don't all bun this at once, I don't want the internet to get overloaded and crash. And please don't use words like "hero" and "genius" in your annotations. Let's just stick to the subject.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 29 2021 a1s link again it's so good. https://www.vox.com...hs-happen-in-the-usThe prosecution rests. [doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021] Exhibit A https://goo.gl/maps/wCYM6NBo6SmhGGQv7I cycled along this cycle lane once ever in my life, it was so terrifying that I vowed never to do so again. Cycling in the vehicle lane with the traffic was much safer. [pocmloc, Sep 30 2021] Exhibit B https://www.google....!14m1!1BCgIgARICCAIThis is Foothill Expressway, the death road that inspired this. Cars are typically going abut 60 miles per hour. [doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021] Okay, like I suspected, 40% of bike deaths are from being rear ended. (thank you a1, I will use the word hero for that post) Here's what the article says about why bikes need to accept that number and ride in the direction of traffic. My favorite is the first one:
1- People backing out of driveways don't expect bikes to be going the other way because bikes (currently) ride in the direction of traffic. So that's one down.
2 - Drivers can repond quickly and appropriately. (Except for all the bike riders they kill when they rear end them.) Driving against traffic reduces reaction time. Great, if it's the bikes hitting the cars, but the vast majority of deaths are cars rear ending bikes. So that's two down.
3- It's basic physics. (already commented on in #2)
4- Traffic lights are set up for this. This is the only reason with a bit of legitimacy. So put in lights for the bikes. My town has all sorts of pedestrian crossing lights, bike crossing lights, dog crossing lights, crazy cat lady crossing lights.
5- And the worst, "It's the law." Won't even bother commenting on that one. Ok, I will. "A car is considered a vehicle under the law." So? Now how about we admit there's some difference between a 20 pound bike and a 3 ton dump truck?
And for the link, how to not get hit by a car, 1 example of riding the wrong way, 7 showing people riding with the traffic.
I wasn't sure about this till I saw the reasons we're still killing bike riders by rear ending them with this dumb rule that was clearly not though out.
Bikes need to ride so they can see the cars coming at them.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Hmm, Palo Alto, where I live. Interesting. Home of the craziest, most obnoxious bike riders on Earth.
I think you're missing the fact that all those rear end deaths are because the driver veered into the bike lane regardless of what direction they were going.
So what happens if you add an anti collision system where the bike actually SEES the car about to him? This doesn't happen in the death scenario that kills most bike riders. The bike rider gets hit before he knows what's happening. So let's just assume the rider can have eyes put on the back of his head. Not a rear view mirror, wide range binocular vision with an entire brain devoted to collision avoidance. What percentage of rear end collisions could be avoided if you doubled the number of humans involved in the collision avoidance process?
The single most important collision avoidance system is a human in charge of the process. Seeing the other vehicle, tracking it, estimating closing time and trajectory and creating and initiating a collision avoidance vector. I'm talking about doubling the number of systems involved doing those jobs.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 a1 that was a good link, I definitely didn't take it down.
That was what I commented on, 1 example was from behind, 7 were from riding on the right side of the road.
But seriously, I didn't expect to get any buns for this but I'm seeing more pros than cons with this idea.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Here’s a thought, if you substituted pedestrians for bikes would you want them facing towards or away from oncoming traffic?-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 The general consensus for walking is towards oncoming traffic. I think it all depends on HOW separated the bike is from the vehicle traffic; ie. "in" the road (no cycleway), just a painted cycleway (more-or-less on the road with the traffic), raised/separated cycleway (curb or other "change in height"). Some cycleways I've seen are between the footpath & the "parking lane"; which is good in some ways but terrible in others.-- neutrinos_shadow, Sep 30 2021 //an entire brain devoted to collision avoidance//
I'm seeing tail gunners.
Not human, obviously, and not packing guns, but a bright flash of light towards the driver, and an audible alarm for the rider, should be achievable.-- pertinax, Sep 30 2021 So you want bikes to do what I always do when walking on country lanes & roads absent of a pavement or footpath, walk against the direction of traffic so I have a chance to actually see any bugger coming my way who appears to have missed that I'm there & might hit me so I can jump in the ditch?
As a pedestrian it's far better to be able to see approaching cars in the lane you are using than have them come at you from behind & a bicycle is nearer pedestrian than a car.
Sorry to the nay-sayers but it sort of makes makes sense to me.
[Ponders]
Erm? this sort of works, if (& only if) the cyclist have their own lane.
A cyclist needs more space than a pedestrian & I wouldn't want to be in a same lane situation going the other way to cars.
So now I see a big argument against it .. what makes sense when they have a lane to themselves doesn't when they don't.
If you constantly switch the direction they should be going between the two situations (cycle lane / no cycle lane) you'll provide a frequent cause for confusion in them & in drivers & that will breed accidents that wouldn't have otherwise happened so that's a really bad idea .. going against traffic on most roads (outside of towns with their own cycle lanes) is also a really bad idea so choosing against traffic as the new default isn't a good idea at all.
So what to do?
Probably best to leave it as it is.
Welcome me back nay-sayers.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 I can see a logical development of this.
Trucks drive in one direction. cars travel opposite to trucks mopeds and electric bikes opposite to cars push-bikes opposite to mopeds scooters opposite to push-bikes Prams and pushchairs and wheelchairs opposite to scooters Joggers and fast walkers opposite to prams, pushchairs and scooters Slow walkers opposite to fast walkers and joggers People crawling, sliding on their arses, or rolling opposite to slow walkers.
Only need nine contra-flowing lanes in each direction.-- pocmloc, Sep 30 2021 //That's not a fact. All we know is the bikes were rear ended. That doesn't necessarily mean the driver veered into the bike lane. Your solution of having everyone drive into traffic to avoid rear enders doesn't make sense if driving into traffic is more dangerous. Yay, rear enders are down to zero, but casualties are up 370%.//
LOL, up 370%? Not 369% How about 371%? That might sound more like you didn't just make it up out of thin air.
You'll need to have access to exactly how those rear end accidents occurred. One of two ways, the bike turned in front of the car, (in which case it probably would be categorized as the bike cutting off the car) or the car turned into the bike lane. Now how many of those accidents could have been avoided had the biker seen the car coming so they could swerve out of the way.
I really am beginning to see how a poorly thought out procedure comes to being and garners support. This is getting interesting. 143.54 percent more interesting than I had expected.
I'd pick the most dangerous road that has long stretches with few traffic lights and heavy bike traffic and flip it. The street by where I live where I'm always having to watch out for bikes is Foothill Expressway. It's perfect for this trial.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 It's depressing to think that this is how smart motorways happened in the UK [doc], no one stopped to ask 'why did we do it that way before?' or think it through it seems, not even to the degree I did with this idea, they didn't even roll it out in a test area first that I know of, just went ahead & did it to save money on new lanes.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 Okay, then THEY made it up out of thin air.
Did they show any videos of how these rear end collisions occurred and then create a model of what percentage of these suprise rear endings could have been avoided if the main element of their danger, the suprise was removed?
The specificity of the number shows that it's bs.
The danger of a rear end colllision of the element of suprise, you and the people with the phony numbers are saying that removing that element would cause more crashes because of the increased closing rate. The bike might have to swerve what, 3 4 feet in half a second to avoid the car? The car isn't suddenly swerving, it's drifting into the bike lane. So how much time would that give a bike rider to execute that half second move? 5 seconds? 10?
Let's throw a little bit more critical thinking at this before just saying "I saw it on the internet so it must be true.".-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Which means absolutely nothing if you don't see the car coming. There may be other reasons to not do this but the internet's: "closing time reduction vs actually seeing the car coming" is bunk.
I also noted that your model needed heavy fog to work. Visibility is typically about a mile, not 100 feet. We almost never get fog in Palo Alto. On the rear occasion that we do, it makes the news.
The link showing what inspired this it Foothill expressway. I made the mistake of riding a bike here once. Every time a car blasts by you feel the wind hit you like a bomb. The sound of an approaching car that's going to miss you by 3 feet vs one that's going to hit you is identical. They veer into the bike lane (and they do) your course of action is to die.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Yeah I hadn't even really considered the reaction time cut from the bicycles speed [limp], a significant difference to a pedestrian situation that.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 And seeing a car a mile away isn't helpful, it's only possible to make a judgement that they won't adjust course to avoid you when they're much much closer than that, you already had your fun & made your point [doc], stop flip flopping between gotcha! & more daft stuff so you can do another gotcha later ;p
I am of course assuming the whole idea was 'idiot' bait? you already got your catch including me (initially at least) so move on :)-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 //your fun & made your point [doc], stop flip flopping between gotcha! & more daft stuff so you can do another gotcha later ;p//
Insults in lieu of logical arguments are a sure sign of panic. Like when you're boxing and the guy's against the ropes and he tries to punch you in the nuts. You know you've got him.
Where did I flip flop?-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 //Insults in lieu of logical argument//
Characterising a compliment as an insult is a sure sign the speaker is still trying to wrongfoot you or that you made a mistake & assumed wrongly that they were someone clever making a humorous attempt to trick you into making a fool of yourself for fun.
[Wonders which of those it is?]-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 (Original post above was: "Do tell".)
Okay.
Insults in lieu of logical arguments are a sure sign of panic.
(Then he said "Do tell." I was devastated, I had no comeback. It was brilliant and I didn't know what to do. I cried at first, hid under the bed but the pain woudln't go away. Words like nuclear missiles. "Do tell." They still haunt me till this day.)
Wait, did I write that or just think it?
Another sign the debater is out of ammo is when they go ad hominem.
By the way, okay to debate here, don't take it seriously. If I thought anybody here was stupid I woudn't bother. I appreciate the criticism. I love debate.
I also love boxing, but it has to be consensual.
Let me try the iron man argument, where I make your point. (the opposite of a straw man argument)
So here's the main point of contention: from your side as I see it, it's better to have an extra second or two for the car driver to correct his drift into the bike lane and keep the biker who's about to get hit blind. Would that accurately characterize your position?-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 So you're honestly telling me you think this is a good idea?
Even after going ahead & dropping a line like this right into one of your annos?
//beginning to see how a poorly thought out procedure comes to being and garners support//
I took that (having realised just how silly this idea is) to be a deliberate (right in your face) nod & a wink or a Freudian slip.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 Yes, I'm very stupid, will stipulate. Enjoy your victory. Well played.
So back to the iron man argument, does that correctly summarize your position? I see that the scientific numbers, basic physics arguments etc have been dropped. The core information needed by both sides at this point is actual rear end collision information. I can't make a decision without these, can you?
Without seeing some very specific cases of cars rear ending bikes and evaluating if the bike seeing the car coming would have prevented the collision I can't conclusively say, but the idea that the bike seeing the car coming doesn't do anything to help seems a bit... well, if it's true I'd be suprised, leave it at that.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Oh get a grip [doc] I just went out of my way to explain what you're calling an insult was meant as a compliment.
If you now tell me the premise it was made on was flawed that does negate the compliment but not by my intent.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 "Get a grip is insulting" and further avoiding the subject and changing to an entirely new one so I'll take that as you tapping out.
You made some good points. Thank you for an interesting discussion.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 [Waves]
Wish I could say the same, you've been everything you accused me of (though it was fun until you started with that) & I can't be bothered so I'll just toddle on.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 (Waves back) Have a good rest of your day.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 I assume by ripe you mean awesome, so sorry I made you so angry, have a nice day.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Yea, went down the list commenting on each assertion one by one. I'll re-post.
By the way, just so nobody else gets their feelings hurt, (not you a1, I think you're fine with being on the opposite side of this argument without taking it seriously, which is where I am as well) but for anybody who might think this stuff is important enough to get emotional about WHO CARES?!?
It's interesting to look at stuff, disagree and discuss. If I'm wrong, so what? Questioning orthodoxy can be interesting.
Anyway, here's my view on the first article.
5- And the worst, "It's the law." Won't even bother commenting on that one. Ok, I will. "A car is considered a vehicle under the law." So? Now how about we admit there's some difference between a 20 pound bike and a 3 ton dump truck?-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Just a thought about debate, anger, emotion etc.
If you're debating a flat Earther, would you get mad? I wouldn't. If you get mad at somebody you disagree with, isn't that a bit of a red flag? Maybe you're doubting yourself which can be uncomfortable so here's what I do.
"Oh, I'm wrong? Great, I just got smarter and good for me for not being emotionally married to a particular view."
I'll start with this one by repeating what I said (basically) "There may be other reasons for this to not work but the having one of the two drivers being blind so you get a bit more time for ONLY ONE of the drivers to correct sounds like bunk to me."
Anyway, semi interesting subject. Might be interesting to try this on Foothill expressway.
Or not.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Try this for size 'having both of those people seeing the oncoming collision means they both try to zig or zag, all else being equal you have a 50% chance they'll both dodge the same way & the cyclist is dead, if only the driver sees & the cyclist doesn't react the drivers reactions are the only issue & whichever way he dodges he'll miss, plus with the bicycle travelling away from him he gets more reaction time than if it's coming toward, it may be that all adds up to better odds for the cyclist going with the traffic' .. & (now I've read some) some of the links we've got here conclude that travelling with traffic is shown to be statistically safer, none I've read conclude contrarywise, but I've not read them all & only skimmed those I did because I'm not that interested, but what I did read coincides with my second developed opinion (you'll remember I was on your side to start with) formed after I thought it through.
In summary, (my opinion is) it's a bad idea & would likely cause more accidents than without it.
More study would be interesting though.
[Holds up hand]
Bagsy the car!
[Grins]
Looks like you get the bicycle [doc], what speed do you want to start with?-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 Let it go Limp. You're being kind of a jerk. Notice that's the first time I've made a judgement on YOU, not your opinion. If you want to play some kind of insulting game find another person to play with. Really. Tell you what, you win. Now will you go away?
Skewed, I think I'm not understanging you, did say the bike might not try to turn away from the car coming at him at 60 miles per hour and might try to cut across the car's path to make it onto the road? And conversely, the car might try to correct by turning further into the bike lane? Maybe I'm not understanding you.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Holy shit, I've got it.
This is very very very very easily tested. If the test proves my theory (which I'm not particulary married to) wrong, the world will have more proof that rear end bike deaths are the way to reduce bicycle fatalities.
Video game simulation. That's it. Here's how it works:
In a driving simulator, you have two subjects, the biker and the driver. We'll need about 10,000 hours of testing and 7 or 8 thousand accidents to get any usable data. The way you get the crash is this:
The car driver has to constantly look away from the screen while driving a curvy road with lots of bikes in the bike lane. We have 2,000 "players" 500 bikes going with traffic, 500 bikes going against traffic each with 500 cars either driving in their direction or in the opposite direction.
Actually, we don't need any bikers going the direction of the car, they'll be hit no matter what they do so we don't need human interaction there so only 1,500 test subjects needed.
At the end of the experiment I think we'd have conclusive results.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 //did say the bike might // try to cut across the car's path//
Oh you noticed that, Yeah kind of ;) but I did preface that by saying all else being equal.
On the other hand it's amazing how daft a panicked person can be so it's not beyond the realms of 'things that do happen'.
It may be worse than 50% for the cyclist in reality because there's often only one unoccupied space both can dash for (other traffic, pedestrians on the walkway, railings etc in the way can reduce options) to try to avoid the other & it only needs the cyclist to jig just a little bit the wrong way in panic before catching himself to negate any chance of the driver missing him, no having two actors rather than one make choices won't improve this situation, traveling against traffic isn't a good idea.
[Jiggles car keys]
Come on, I'm still waiting for you to pick a speed for our first test run.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 //Video game simulation//
You really are no fun any more.
[Pouts]
[Looks over shoulder]
You may as well go home guys we won't need the ambulance today.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 Well, I'd be pretty sure there's no confusion about which way to turn unless the bike is dead center to the car but I'm assuming most collissions occur where the right side of the car hits the bike.
But there you are, let's get that simulation going.
I'd even add a black comedy element like "You just killed the 16th biker out for a ride. Hope that funny meme you sent got lots of thumbs up."-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 //Video game simulation//You really are no fun any more.[Pouts][Looks over shoulder] You may as well go home guys we won't need the ambulance today.//
LOl, know who your post reminded me of? Give you a hint, it made me a bit nostalgic.
(Hint: His name wasn't 6th of 5.)
And he'd be in here right now goading us on, calling anybody trying to make the peace or wrap it up a wussy, saying stuff like "You gonna let him get away with that?"
Miss the guy.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 //rear end bike deaths are the way to reduce bicycle fatalities//
I like the way you put that, I'm going to use it next time I'm in court.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 Okay 8th, I knew your death was a fake!
Well played. Welcome back!-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 //Miss the guy//
.
Sad to say but there'll not be another quite like him, until there is of course, infinity being what it is, doubtful I'll be here to see the next one though, infinity's a bit long for that.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 Shit, now I'm sad. LimpNotes! Get back in here you big lummox! Just kidding.
Sigh, may the flying spaghetti monster bless us all. You too LimpNotes.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 Well, maybe the extra set of eyes helps there too.
All could be added very easily to the simulation with very off the shelf video game technology. The only thing you're adding is the having to look away from the screen to do various tasks to cause the accidents.
Scratch that, have the screen switch from the road to a text you need to respond to, a funny meme you need to put a laughing emoji on etc.
This just gets simpler and simpler.
And I'd say this, results from this would be conclusive because you're studying hundreds of accidents if not thousands and you have 100% control of all the parameters.
Somebody has to have done something similar to this.-- doctorremulac3, Sep 30 2021 //Well, maybe the extra set of eyes helps there too//
Uncle Mordecai already tried that, was a bugger getting the optic nerves to bed in & when they finally did the extra visual stimuli were a bit too confusing & made him feel nauseous, then the tissue rejection set in, got a bit wiffy after that & they threw him out of the country club, at the end of the day he said all the sneaking about in graveyards just wasn't worth it.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 Aesthetically displeasing, I mean, can you imagine? two eyes one size & two more another, no that would never do, they'd be the wrong colour & iris type & everything.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 Yes I know, but there's just no telling some girls that is there [thoughtful musing] or maybe there is, might be why the last one tried to tear my eyes out, then she'd have the beauty in the eye of the beholder? [muses further] can't help thinking she took that all a bit too literally if that was it.-- Skewed, Sep 30 2021 When I was a boy in the 1970s in Israel, the law was that you had to ride you bike against the direction of traffic so you saw them and they saw you. Nobody thought at that time of making special bicycle lanes, but then they also didn't have to explain to the drivers that they should care about the lives of pedestrians and the cars didn't seal hermetically in order to boil the babies forgotten in them.-- pashute, Oct 03 2021 The concern is not just seeing each other, but how long it takes to see each other, and what options are available for avoiding an accident once you see the other party.
Your average cyclist travels at ~15mph. Your average car, on roads that cyclists travel on, travels at ~45mph. So you have a choice of closing speed of 30mph or 60mph. So, assuming that neither party wants to hit the other, the question is if a driver can do more to avoid an accident at 30mph than the driver and cyclist, combined, can at 60.
What can each of the parties do to (actively) avoid an accident? The driver can take care not to drift into the bike lane, and to not pass the cyclist to closely. A cyclist, hemmed in by parked cars, a curb, or a ditch, can do very little except a reflex based bailout.
So, practically speaking, maximizing the driver's opportunity to see the cyclist and avoid contact is more important than trading that opportunity for the cyclist's ability to dodge.
(That being said, the cyclist should make every effort to increase visibility, but that is a passive thing, and direction doesn't matter much)-- MechE, Oct 04 2021 Why would you assume the driver even sees the bike and that they're not adjusting their radio or texting? There's a reason they've veered into the bike lane in the first place. They weren't paying attention to the line delineating the bike lane, which is why they crossed over it. If they're not paying attention to keeping their car properly on the road, why would they notice a little thing like a bike?
Having the bike be able to see this car that's in the bike lane due to lack of attention to the road ahead of them, which is how it got there, allows a second person to be able to diverge the vehicles from their collision course. It doubles the amount of people in control of the situation.
The car's driver already proved they're not cognizant of their surroundings by virtue of the fact that they're not on the road they're supposed to be on so they can hardly be trusted to suddenly become aware theyr'e driving in a bike lane at the appropriate time to steer away from a bike in that bike lane.-- doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2021 I've seen that done in Turkey.-- pertinax, Oct 05 2021 Do we have any statistics from there to compare with?-- doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2021 Or get rid of the inattentive drivers.
Lifetime ban for driving inattentively, fiddling with the radio or phone, or talking whilst in the car, would quickly make the roads a lot safer for everyone.-- pocmloc, Oct 05 2021 [docremulac] I don't assume that the driver is paying attention. I assume that doubling the time the inattentive driver has to look up does more good than giving the cyclist with nowhere to go notice that they are about to be hit.-- MechE, Oct 05 2021 //I assume that doubling the time the inattentive driver has to look up does more good than giving the cyclist with nowhere to go notice that they are about to be hit.//
The inattentive driver is going to look up when the bike rider crashes through his window. Their car's in the bike lane because the driver wasn't looking where they were going. They aren't going to suddenly become aware of a bike when they weren't even aware enough to keep their car on the road.
And who says the bike has no place to go? It swerves a couple of feet to the left to get out of the way of the oncoming car whose driver's eyes are fixed on their cellphone. Unless you're saying the driver is taking up the entire bike lane and even scraping along the curb, in which case I'd REALLY rather depend on the bike rider to fix the situation. I've pretty much lost faith in that car's driver who at that point is probably asleep or drunk.
But like I said, easily simulated to test. Results would be conclusive. Check the earlier posts.-- doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2021 I'm typically a pedestrian, so I see no point in this when no one will abide by whatever is decided if it means they cannot ride on the pavement. It would be easier to require cars to drive on the right as is done in the U.K. than to change rules in the U.S. no cyclists follow anyway.-- reensure, Oct 06 2021 Well I think we can all agree that SOME direction should be picked for bikes. And I very seldom see bikes riding towards traffic, they pretty much alway drive blind with the traffic like they're told to.
I mean, traffic laws are good, they should just be proven to be the right traffic laws.-- doctorremulac3, Oct 06 2021 So just kill people so we don’t need to do that proposed human/simulator comparison?
Or is this more about fantasizing about me being killed since we might have a different opinion?
Whatever the case I like my idea better.-- doctorremulac3, Oct 06 2021 Appreciate that but I’ll go with the test that has the least chance of killing me.-- doctorremulac3, Oct 06 2021 random, halfbakery