• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Road Safety - Cycling

Your specific residence is not relevant, at all, to the general nation-wide claim you made.

I didn't make a nation-wide claim....
 
There isn't always a sidewalk, and when there is, there's usually a law forbidding cyclists from using it.

That doesn't change anything about the facts I stated. The fact that there aren't better options available doesn't make something a good idea.
 
I ride a motorcycle so I can keep up with vehicles or usually pass them.

I cannot stand to ride a bicycle in traffic. It seems like you're a sitting duck, and often invisible to distracted drivers.

The same with motorcycles. Since I believe 2013.. the most common way that motorcycles thre hit by cars is when the motorcycle is stopped and the car strucks the from behind while the motorcyclist is stopped.
 
That doesn't change anything about the facts I stated. The fact that there aren't better options available doesn't make something a good idea.
Nothing you've said changes the fact that a lot of people don't have a choice.
 
The same with motorcycles. Since I believe 2013.. the most common way that motorcycles thre hit by cars is when the motorcycle is stopped and the car strucks the from behind while the motorcyclist is stopped.

I have a friend that happened to, but fortunately at fairly slow speed, and he had only minor injuries.
 
As someone who doesn't drive I feel like the most counterintuitive car policy is overtaking. Trains don't overtake other trains, planes don't overtake other planes, and so on. It seems strange to the uninitiated that the safest way is to drive on the opposite side of the road that puts you at risk of incoming vehicles. Firstly if you're on the other side then driving faster will mean you can overtake faster. This would reduce the risk of oncoming collision even though it'd increase the risk of losing steering control of the car. So how much leeway should people have to exceed the speed limit overtaking on a straight, quiet road or should people never exceed the speed limit? Driving too slow is not dangerous in and of itself but if it causes everyone else to take risks overtaking the vehicle then should the slow driver be obliged to pull into the hard shoulder? Is that unfair or unenforceable? Police speed cameras aren't on the lookout for slow drivers seeing as they're not driving dangerously and merely travelling at an overly cautious and safe pace. If you flash your lights at the car in front of you then should they slow down to increase the relative velocity for when you're overtaking them? That'd mean you could accelerate less when you overtake them and it'd take less time to return to the proper side of the road. Road railings between the lanes would prevent overtaking and limit road speeds by narrowing the lane which might be unsuitable for straight sections if they're time-consuming or expensive but maybe they might be an option on dangerous bends where you wouldn't be allowed to overtake anyway. If there's enough width in the road for extra markings then which should be prioritised: hard shoulders for damaged and parked vehicles to decrease the threat of rear collisions and also to protect cyclists and pedestrians where there's no footpath, or double centrelines to separate opposing lanes of traffic and reduce the risk of oncoming collisions?
 
Holy thread-resurrection, Batman!
 
Why should I pay for jack asses on bikes?
This is certainly a resurrection of an old thread, but if a runner or cyclist causes an accident and they are at fault, their homeowners is what actually pays out.
 
I used to ride a bike all the time, commuting to work and shopping or whatever. Roads are never safe. So, I would usually go out of my way to take the paved bike trails. Even if the detour added ten miles to the overall trip, it was worth it.
 
716E1793-5F95-4154-869A-B454C00BCD73.jpeg

Ennis bypass, Co. Clare.

Are the two large hard shoulders the best use of limited road breadth? Would lengthening and widening the space inside the two white lines between the left and right car lanes lead to a proportionately greater reduction in head-on collision risk if a car swerves? There's a raised footpath and so the pedestrians wouldn't be using the hard shoulder. It's easier for a cyclist to see a fellow cyclist than a rapid car and so only one of the large hard-shoulders might be sufficient to fit a two-way cycling system.
 
View attachment 67357975

Ennis bypass, Co. Clare.

Are the two large hard shoulders the best use of limited road breadth? Would lengthening and widening the space inside the two white lines between the left and right car lanes lead to a proportionately greater reduction in head-on collision risk if a car swerves? There's a raised footpath and so the pedestrians wouldn't be using the hard shoulder. It's easier for a cyclist to see a fellow cyclist than a rapid car and so only one of the large hard-shoulders might be sufficient to fit a two-way cycling system.
Funny story. In ex-urban Michigan we had many heavy travelled winding two lane roads. It was not unusual to see lines of cars traveling in opposite directions pass by each other with only inches to spare between their door panels. Of course, I learned to drive on those roads, so it was no big deal.

Flash forward a year or two when my cousins from Chicago came to visit. For them, this narrow winding road thing was unheard of. My oldest completely freaked out as I rolled along within inches of head-on crashes down one of these roads, likely while passing him a joint, talking and changing the radio station.
 
It was not unusual to see lines of cars traveling in opposite directions pass by each other with only inches to spare between their door panels.

I was on holiday a few years ago in a mountainous area in Italy near Turin. It was hairy driving up the first night because there was a steep drop on one side of the windy road. My father drove very slowly upwards because one wrong move could've toppled the car. I got used to it after a few trips not necessarily as a result of overcoming my fear of steep heights but simply because I was content that I lived a good life should an accident happen! I asked my father why the government doesn't just put a chain or a barrier on the side of the road. He replied that if one mountain village was granted a road railing then every little village would be demanding the same. Maybe fully secure concrete barriers would be too expensive but a metal chain attached to the odd pole would hardly break the bank.

For pedestrians even a rope might be sufficient if metal is seen as too distracting. Although you might have to replace the rope thread every so often if it's exposed to the elements.
"A safety review of Skellig Michael, commissioned after two tourists fell to their deaths in separate incidents on the island last year, has recommended against erecting protective barriers along its steep walkways."
https://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0530/131634-skelligmichael/
 
Last edited:
If flashing your lights doesn't catch the attention of the driver in front then should motorists be allowed to beep the horn to request them to slow down during the overtaking? This might cause noise pollution for pedestrians or stress for the recipient car and aggravate road rage for certain fast drivers but oncoming vehicles would get much more of a fright by a prolonged stretch on the wrong side of the road.
 
Hi. I'm just inquiring about cycling and road safety.

Should cyclists travel against traffic? This would allow cyclists to see oncoming cars. They'd have a better chance of dodging any close vehicles. Any collision with a fast car, whether from behind or head-on, would be very dangerous. So we must choose the optimal one for avoiding the collision in the first place, rather than slightly reducing the impact of a potential collision.cr
No, they should just make special cycling paths. Also, if someone does not have their lights on but a reflector on the back of the bike, a driver has a chance to see them.

And one more thing, if you are riding 20 kmh on a bike and a car is driving 50 kmh, and both are driving towards each other on the same side of the road it will take some time for the driver to pass the cyclist, giving him more time to see him/her. If both are coming towards each other it will seriously cut the reaction time of both cyclist and driver. Not a good idea IMO. And a head on crash with a car when both are driving at serious speed will more likely kill a cyclist.
 
I live in a rural area; I cringe when I see pedestrians walking with the flow of traffic for the reasons you point out. Bicycles fall into another category, I think. I recommend checking with your local jurisdiction as to the laws pertaining to this.
In the Netherlands it is dependent mostly on whether or not there is a footpath at the side of the road, if there is no footpath you can use the cycling path, if there is also not a cycling path you can use the soft road shoulder or on the outer edges of the road.

A lot of experts advise to walk on the side that gives you the best view of oncoming traffic so you should walk on the left side of the road because then you can see the cast and bikes coming towards you.
 
Cyclists go with the flow of traffic, but I always hated it. Never liked having to trust my safety to others like that.
In the Netherlands that is almost never an issue because we have cycling paths. And outside the city limits often the cycling paths are not directly connected to the road due to the speed of cars outside the city limits. That means there is a strip of land between the road and the cycling path. This increases the safety of the cyclist.
 
Hi. I'm just inquiring about cycling and road safety.

Should cyclists travel against traffic? This would allow cyclists to see oncoming cars. They'd have a better chance of dodging any close vehicles. Any collision with a fast car, whether from behind or head-on, would be very dangerous. So we must choose the optimal one for avoiding the collision in the first place, rather than slightly reducing the impact of a potential collision.

Bad idea, since you are not traveling with the normal flow of traffic. You can’t see traffic signs or lights and the closing speed with other traffic is greatly increased. Best to go with the flow and add a rear view mirror (or two).
 
Hi. I'm just inquiring about cycling and road safety.

Should cyclists travel against traffic? This would allow cyclists to see oncoming cars. They'd have a better chance of dodging any close vehicles. Any collision with a fast car, whether from behind or head-on, would be very dangerous. So we must choose the optimal one for avoiding the collision in the first place, rather than slightly reducing the impact of a potential collision.
What we really need to is to enforce minimum speed limits on bikes so they’re not riding on streets with motor vehicle traffic. Bikes should be banned on any street with a speed over 35 and under that they need to be able to maintain 15 or they should be cited
 
In the Netherlands that is almost never an issue because we have cycling paths.

The trouble is resources where a lot of countries can't afford to widen many roads. Some rural roads are surrounded by ditches and it'd be a big effort to renovate them. Cyclists are allowed on the hard shoulder but a lot of remote roads are so narrow that they can hardly fit one car; never mind having a two-lane road with cycling paths on either side. The difference between typical footpaths and hard shoulders is that footpaths are raise above a curb whereas a hard shoulder remains at road-level. Truth be told a short curb won't offer huge protection to a pedestrian from a dangerous driver but at least it limits average traffic to the road area. The hard shoulder is designed for emergencies where a damaged car can pull in without blocking traffic but should society ever reprioritise? After all a broken car can be towed to the closest driveway until further help arrives. A trouble with this though is that a stationary car might not only cause traffic but could also cause a motor accident in and of itself. Another possible idea is to have a hard shoulder that is only intermittently accessible to cars where there'd be intervals of barriers. Alternatively a miniature curb or ramp along a hard shoulder would allow a car to pull in anywhere yet would still be uncomfortable enough to deter cars from complacently encroaching into the hard shoulder while they're driving. A more rebellious idea is to combine the space for hard shoulders onto one side of the road such that cyclists could travel together in both directions. A cyclist-to-cyclist collision would be less dangerous than a cyclist-to-car confrontation.

C250A25E-1B22-4A73-9571-B3A0C542FBAE_4_5005_c.jpeg
We could possibly reorient a speed bump in the forward direction along the hard shoulders.
 
Last edited:
For added safety you could stop just before a car passes you by when doing a so-called “salmon” walk “upstream” against traffic on a narrow road.
 
Putting transparent stickers on the windscreens of tourists might be a good way to avoid driving on the wrong side of the road.
 
I think there is no safe way to put bicycles and cars on the busy roads together. I am for making roads wider and a designated bike lane. I know a lot of people that would ride a bicycle if it wasn't so dangerous. Once you get out of the residential neighborhood and into the busy main roads it is just a crap shoot. Especially with texting and driving and all the other distractions in a car today. Mythbuster proved even trying to have a conversation while driving impairs a drivers ability to control their vehicle.
 
I think there is no safe way to put bicycles and cars on the busy roads together. I am for making roads wider and a designated bike lane. I know a lot of people that would ride a bicycle if it wasn't so dangerous. Once you get out of the residential neighborhood and into the busy main roads it is just a crap shoot. Especially with texting and driving and all the other distractions in a car today. Mythbuster proved even trying to have a conversation while driving impairs a drivers ability to control their vehicle.
Yes there is. Bike riders need to travel with traffic, it is so much more safe, because people pulling out into traffic look left, and they seldom look right. Big, clearly marked bike lanes, and some common courtesy on both sides and things work out.

You have no idea how many times people in cars pull out right in front of me when I am crossing legally at a light.
 
Back
Top Bottom