Riding on the left.....in the USA

Tim Downie said:

Just back from a holiday in the US and noticed several cyclists riding
*facing* oncoming traffic and hugging the curb.

Normally I'd discount such action as the work of Darwin award collectors but
I have vague memories of being advised to ride in such a fashion as a child
when I lived in the US.

Is my memory playing tricks or is riding facing the traffic actually
sanctioned by anyone in the US?

TIm

Cycling on the right is required by law everywhere in the US, and it
probably was back when you were being told as a child to ride on the
left. Nonetheless, the myth that cycling against the flow of traffic
seems to persist, usually among people who classify bicyclists as
pedestrians instead of as vehicles.

mark

mark said:

Tim Downie said:

Just back from a holiday in the US and noticed several cyclists riding
*facing* oncoming traffic and hugging the curb.

Normally I'd discount such action as the work of Darwin award
collectors but I have vague memories of being advised to ride in such
a fashion as a child when I lived in the US.

Is my memory playing tricks or is riding facing the traffic actually
sanctioned by anyone in the US?

TIm

Cycling on the right is required by law everywhere in the US, and it
probably was back when you were being told as a child to ride on the
left. Nonetheless, the myth that cycling against the flow of traffic
seems to persist, usually among people who classify bicyclists as
pedestrians instead of as vehicles.

mark

I was going to suggest that it maybe stemmed from walking, where facing
the oncoming traffic has always been the rule.

druidh

druidh said:

mark said:

Tim Downie said:

Just back from a holiday in the US and noticed several cyclists
riding *facing* oncoming traffic and hugging the curb.

Normally I'd discount such action as the work of Darwin award
collectors but I have vague memories of being advised to ride in such
a fashion as a child when I lived in the US.

Is my memory playing tricks or is riding facing the traffic actually
sanctioned by anyone in the US?

TIm

Cycling on the right is required by law everywhere in the US, and it
probably was back when you were being told as a child to ride on the
left. Nonetheless, the myth that cycling against the flow of traffic
seems to persist, usually among people who classify bicyclists as
pedestrians instead of as vehicles.

mark

I was going to suggest that it maybe stemmed from walking, where facing
the oncoming traffic has always been the rule.

druidh

It probably does, which is why I suspect wrong way cyclists and their
advocates of classifying cyclists of pedestrians.
mark

"Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just back from a holiday in the US and noticed several cyclists riding
*facing* oncoming traffic and hugging the curb.

What, generally was the "type" of person breaking the rules. I've noticed
that those who do ride on the left are teenage boys, yobbos and couriers.
Graham

graham said:

"Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just back from a holiday in the US and noticed several cyclists riding
*facing* oncoming traffic and hugging the curb.

What, generally was the "type" of person breaking the rules. I've noticed
that those who do ride on the left are teenage boys, yobbos and couriers.
Graham

I assume you're referring to American teenage boys, yobbos (although we
don't call them that) and couriers riding the left, since a much wider
cross section of British society rides on the left.

Around here (Colorado) it seems to be a wide range of "types" of persons
riding against traffic, most of them fairly respectable individuals.
The common factor seems to be a very low level of cycling experience,
poor bike handling skills, and the mistaken belief that bicycles are not
really vehicles.

mark

"mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

graham said:

"Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just back from a holiday in the US and noticed several cyclists riding
*facing* oncoming traffic and hugging the curb.

What, generally was the "type" of person breaking the rules. I've
noticed that those who do ride on the left are teenage boys, yobbos and
couriers.
Graham

I assume you're referring to American teenage boys, yobbos (although we
don't call them that) and couriers riding the left, since a much wider
cross section of British society rides on the left.

Around here (Colorado) it seems to be a wide range of "types" of persons
riding against traffic, most of them fairly respectable individuals. The
common factor seems to be a very low level of cycling experience, poor
bike handling skills, and the mistaken belief that bicycles are not really
vehicles.

Note the .ca in my address. I don't see that many - perhaps we're more
law-abiding{:þ)) But those that I do see, do tend to fit the stereotypes
that I mentioned. I think that cycling safety is also promoted in schools.
Graham

graham said:

"mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

graham said:

"Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Just back from a holiday in the US and noticed several cyclists riding
> *facing* oncoming traffic and hugging the curb.
>
What, generally was the "type" of person breaking the rules. I've
noticed that those who do ride on the left are teenage boys, yobbos and
couriers.
Graham

I assume you're referring to American teenage boys, yobbos (although we
don't call them that) and couriers riding the left, since a much wider
cross section of British society rides on the left.

Around here (Colorado) it seems to be a wide range of "types" of persons
riding against traffic, most of them fairly respectable individuals. The
common factor seems to be a very low level of cycling experience, poor
bike handling skills, and the mistaken belief that bicycles are not really
vehicles.

Note the .ca in my address. I don't see that many - perhaps we're more
law-abiding{:þ)) But those that I do see, do tend to fit the stereotypes
that I mentioned. I think that cycling safety is also promoted in schools.
Graham

Sorry, I should have looked more closely at the address.

I've never heard of any serious attempt at promoting cycling safety in
US schools, which could account for the difference in who cycles on the
wrong side in the two countries.

mark

In article <[email hidden]>, timdownie2003
@obvious.yahoo.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Just back from a holiday in the US and noticed several cyclists riding
*facing* oncoming traffic and hugging the curb.

Normally I'd discount such action as the work of Darwin award collectors but
I have vague memories of being advised to ride in such a fashion as a child
when I lived in the US.

Is my memory playing tricks or is riding facing the traffic actually
sanctioned by anyone in the US?

It /used/ to be in some parts of the US, but AFAIK it no longer is
(thread elsewhere about numpty attempts to reintroduce it in Ohio
notwithstanding).

There are, however, some people who still insist that it's the Right
Thing. Darwin will probably render them extinct before too long...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for
Gary Busey to pass through the eye of a camel.

Dave Larrington wrote on 25/07/2006 21:43 +0100:

Quoted message said:

It /used/ to be in some parts of the US, but AFAIK it no longer is
(thread elsewhere about numpty attempts to reintroduce it in Ohio
notwithstanding).

There are, however, some people who still insist that it's the Right
Thing. Darwin will probably render them extinct before too long...

What, Americans?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Dave Larrington said:

(thread elsewhere about numpty attempts to reintroduce it in Ohio

Can't find it - any hints to narrow the search?

--
Peter Headland

mark wrote:
.... snip

Quoted message said:

Around here (Colorado) it seems to be a wide range of "types" of persons
riding against traffic, most of them fairly respectable individuals.
The common factor seems to be a very low level of cycling experience,
poor bike handling skills, and the mistaken belief that bicycles are not
really vehicles.

It almost certainly stems from the very common fear (but not common
incidence) of being hit from behind by a motor vehicle. Such cyclists
believe they are avoiding "from behind" traffic while on the opposite
side of the road. In reality, they are trading the low risk of being
hit from the rear for very high risks that occur from manoeuvres in
front of them, particularly where cars are parked, and at intersections
and driveways. Bike lanes seem to invite this habit.

The source of the practice seems to be parents who don't have a clue
about self preservation on a bicycle.

Peter Headland wrote on 26/07/2006 01:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

(thread elsewhere about numpty attempts to reintroduce it in Ohio

Can't find it - any hints to narrow the search?

Montana akshually:
http://www.bicycle-law.com/mtlaw.htm

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Headland wrote on 26/07/2006 01:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

(thread elsewhere about numpty attempts to reintroduce it in Ohio

Can't find it - any hints to narrow the search?

Montana akshually:
http://www.bicycle-law.com/mtlaw.htm

For those who are interested, but not to the point of editing the link...

"In response to local pressure from a Glendive resident, Montana State
Representative Jeff Pattison drew up House Bill 212, that would require
Montana bicyclists riding outside of town to travel against traffic.
[Background: The Glendive resident had lost her husband to a rural bike
crash when an overtaking motorist ran him down. Both were going into the
afternoon sun.]

A number of Montana bicycle advocates rose up against the bill and worked to
get it defeated. Bicyclists from other states also heard about the bill and
chipped in their 2-cents worth. The bill was introduced and during the
subsequent committee hearing, bicyclists spoke at length against the bill in
committee. There was little support for the bill, either from those
testifying or from those on the committee. Aside: committee members were
contacted by many bicyclists and were aware that it was a hot issue. The
bill was killed in committee and never made it to the House floor. "

"druidh" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I was going to suggest that it maybe stemmed from walking, where facing
the oncoming traffic has always been the rule.

The "rule" means that when the ped sees a car coming they are supposed to
leap into a ditch so as not to inconvenience the poor motorist.

If the ped doesn't leap into a ditch it shouldn't matter whether or not the
driver can see the ped's eyes should it?

Riding with the flow of traffic, imho, ignores the increasingly significant risk that inattentive automobile drivers pose. eg: distracted by cell phones, texting, adjusting radios, swatting kids in the back seat, reading a map, finishing lunch, putting out a cigarette etc. etc.

None of the above scenarios improve your odds of being seen, but rather increase the odds of getting run over. It's interesting to me that the law suggests that pedestrians walk against the traffic, but not for cyclists. Your "profile" or "visual footprint," whether cycling or walking is approximately the same size when the motorist sees you. And, the argument for a "closure rate differential" disadvantage riding against the traffic, with the possible exception of residential areas with 25mph limits, is negligible.

It's widely accepted that motorcycles are difficult for motorists to see, notwithstanding being larger than cyclists and utilize day-time running lights. However, contributing factors frequently cited for car/motorcycle accidents is that the motorist didn't see the motorcycle.

Darwinian or not, until I grow eyes in the back of my head I'll take my chances riding against the traffic. Having the opportunity to observe the potential threat as it approaches, and thus having a chance to avoid getting hit certainly seems to be better odds than just crossing my fingers, hoping for the best, and letting everyone else determine my fate.

SLA1500 said:

Riding with the flow of traffic, imho, ignores the increasingly significant risk that inattentive automobile drivers pose.  eg: distracted by cell phones, texting, adjusting radios, swatting kids in the back seat, reading a map, finishing lunch, putting out a cigarette etc. etc. None of the above scenarios improve your odds of being seen, but rather increase the odds of getting run over.  It's interesting to me that the law suggests that pedestrians walk against the traffic, but not for cyclists.  Your "profile" or "visual footprint," whether cycling or walking is approximately the same size when the motorist sees you.  And, the argument for a "closure rate differential" disadvantage riding against the traffic, with the possible exception of residential areas with 25mph limits, is negligible. It's widely accepted that motorcycles are difficult for motorists to see, notwithstanding being larger than cyclists and utilize day-time running lights.   However, contributing factors frequently cited for car/motorcycle accidents is that the motorist didn't see the motorcycle. Darwinian or not, until I grow eyes in the back of my head I'll take my chances riding against the traffic.  Having the opportunity to observe the potential threat as it approaches, and thus having a chance to avoid getting hit certainly seems to be better odds than just crossing my fingers, hoping for the best, and letting everyone else determine my fate.

You're an idiot and an example of a bad cyclist. Simple math: the closing speed difference between a pedestrian and a car changes little no matter which way the pedestrian walks. That's not the case for cyclists. Congrats are in order, however, since you managed to dig up a 7.5 year old thread.

Alienator,

I appreciate your effort to enlighten me on this.

After multiple web searches, looking through bike forums, and reviewing state laws, the facts are clearly in favor of traveling with traffic. Admittedly, I was wrong.

Not sure exactly how many years ago, but there was a time when some of us were told that odds favored "facing the enemy versus turning ones back on them." I guess it took a little "encouragement" from you, and some research to purge my head of the old info. I'll make a note that commenting on old posts, even for new members attempting to become familiar with this website, may be frowned upon.

This old dog is enjoying getting back into cycling after a 30+ year layoff, and it appears that this forum is a great info source.

Regards,

Oh, were you by chance the guy that I read about years ago that tried to pick a fight at a Dale Carnegie convention? Your avatar and screen name seems appropriate,

I always assumed his screen named was derived from the movie of the same name. Not a well known movie so probably not many have ever heard of it.

jhuskey said:

I always assumed his screen named was derived from the movie of the same name. Not a well  known movie so probably not many have ever heard of it.

The name was given to me by a work partner for the way I made a nurse cry. We were called to a nursing home for an unconscious patient, a patient who was unconscious because she had a stroke just an hour or so prior and her nurse had continued to feed her chicken noodle soup. While I was suctioning chicken noodles and broth out of the patients trachea, I delivered a bit of soliloquy about the nurse's incompetence. Apparently the words hurt her feelings. I was glad she cried and hoped she had suffered more because as it turned out her stupidity killed the patient.