Let’s Stop Miseducating Society About Cycling

‘Good Advice’ Gone Wrong

A typical example of the bad advice given in bike safety programs is “stay out of the way of cars”.  Do you know what’s wrong with that advice?

First, it is based on fear.  We don’t teach beginning swimmers to fear the water.  Instead we teach them to relax and stay afloat.  But there are more reasons not to teach “stay out of the way”.

Think about how one might follow this advice.  Many novices stay out of the way by riding on sidewalks.  This makes them much less likely to be seen when they unexpectedly cross paths with turning traffic at intersections and driveways.

That’s why sidewalk cyclists have a much higher crash rate (two to nine times higher) than cyclists on the adjacent roadway.

Another dangerous way to stay out of the way is to ride on the wrong side of the road to “see traffic coming”.  This leads to a crash rate about four times higher than cycling on the right.  Some novices even veer from side to side to avoid traffic.

Staying out of the way leads to poor lane position, even among those who ride on the right side of the road.  “Hugging the curb” invites passing motorists to “squeeze by” where there is not enough room for safe passing.

It also leads to other mistakes such as trying to make left turns from the right side of the road, rather than merging to the proper position in advance.

When Right is Wrong

Most states have a traffic law that requires riding “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable”.  This is often misinterpreted to mean as near as possible.

Where bike lanes have been added to a street, the lane stripes encourage cyclists to stay to the right and motorists to stay left.  In several situations this is contrary to safety.

• Where a motorist is making a right turn near a cyclist, the motorist should either pass well before the intersection or merge to the edge of the road (into any bike lane) behind the cyclist.  Unfortunately, a bike lane stripe encourages the motorist to stay left, and then cut across the cyclist’s path.  This “right hook” is a dangerous mistake.
• A cyclist turning left has two methods to choose from:  (1) The beginner’s method involves turning in two steps like a pedestrian.  This is safe but very slow and many cyclists prefer a better way.  (2) A much more efficient method is making a “vehicular” turn, as you would do in a car.  This means merging to the center of the road in advance, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear (or for a turn signal) and then turn.

  If a bike lane stripe is present, novices tend to stay to the right until they get into the intersection, and then they swerve across traffic, as in a “shooting gallery”.

• A faster cyclist who wishes to pass a slow car should pass on the left, not the right, unless the car is about to make a left turn.  This is the same rule you would follow if you were passing in a car.  But a bike lane stripe keeps the slow car to the left, so there is no room to pass there; instead there is a tempting clear channel on the right.  But watch out if the car suddenly turns into a driveway or parking space.
• A driver who is about to turn left is less likely to see a cyclist approaching in a bike lane at the edge of the road.  Thus, a bike lane makes “left cross” collisions more likely.
• Some bike lanes are placed in dangerous locations, such as too close to parked cars (in the “door zone”); and some direct straight-through bicycle traffic to the right of a right turn lane.

Cyclists should move left for other situations too, such as where passing is not safe or reasonable, where stopped or parked vehicles create a “screen” that blocks visibility or where debris or broken pavement make the edge of the road unsuitable.

Classified Misinformation

Some “bicycle advocates” use an “ABC” classification scheme for cyclists.  “A” refers to advanced cyclists who generally know how to ride in traffic.  “B” means basic or beginners, who are frightened by traffic and thus prefer separate facilities.  Finally, “C” stands for pre-teen children presumed too young to understand how to follow the rules of the road.

These advocates estimate that only about five percent of cyclists are “advanced”.  They then assume this ratio will persist and are little interested in improving skills of cyclists.  Finally, they assume that the needs of the B and C cyclists are similar, and treat them the same.  This means that 95% of the cycling public are treated as children incapable of riding in traffic and unable to improve.

Bicycle advocates use this classification scheme to argue for bikeways: separate places for bicycles but not cars.  They claim that bikeways make cycling safe for people who do not know how to follow standard traffic rules.  However, no one has ever been able to identify any of the skills that are required for cycling on normal roads that are not needed on bikeways.  Indeed, knowledgeable cyclists report that bikeways increase conflicts with motor traffic, thus they require more skill.  Some of the more honest bikeway promoters now claim only that bikeways make people feel safer.

The very presence of separate bikeways undermines the legitimacy of cycling on the roads.  Bikeways encourage motorist hostility towards cyclists not using the facilities.  Many cyclists are intimidated by motorists who are convinced they do not belong in traffic.

Bikeways make teaching novice cyclists harder.  This is because novices are led to believe they need not learn how to deal with traffic and also because the bikeways “teach” riding in the wrong place (often too far right) on the road.