[wpietri]

That seems like a lot of advice from somebody who has apparently never tried it.

If you did, one of the things you'd learn is the extent to which serious cyclists minimize the risks, from route choice to gear to behavior. E.g., the first bike tour I did was about 150 miles. I found a mailing list of local riders and people were happy to discuss my route and how to handle safety issues.

In any case, you're wrong on the facts. Motorcyling is more dangerous. Deaths per 100m miles traveled is circa 25 for motorcyclists [1], while it's between 4 and 13 for people on bicycles [2]. Given that recommended touring distances for motorcyclists seem to be around 300 miles per day versus 50 for bicycles, bike touring is going to be much safer. Which only makes sense; if I'm riding at 10 mph vs 50 on a motorcycle, that's 25 times the kinetic energy that needs to get dissipated if something goes wrong.

[1] https://www.motorcyclelegalfoundation.com/motorcycle-acciden... [2] https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/

[wolverine876]

> one of the things you'd learn is the extent to which serious cyclists minimize the risks

At a social event which happened to include many members of the local bicycle club, I observed: Almost everyone I know who bicycles regularly has been hospitalized due to a bicycle-car accident. Is that true? Yes, they all agreed, that's about right.

IME, they don't minimize risks well. There's no safe way to ride in traffic unless it's moving near bicycle-speed. However, there are side streets, etc., so that risk could be minimized if they wanted to do it; you can cut exposure to cars by 90% easily.

[dsizzle]

Source #2 indicates that "wrong-way" biking is more dangerous, but my intuition is that it's safer: I like being able to see the traffic that is closest to me. I guess whatever advantage that provides is more than offset by the accident being head-on, and having less time for the driver to react (and maybe there's an expectation aspect too).

[wolverine876]

AFAIK: The most important safety factor is being seen by the automobile drivers, and a disproportionate number of accidents happen at intersections and turns, including driveways. The drivers in those situations have a large cognitive load; they are looking for cars, not bicycles, and will look where they expect traffic to come from. You want to be where they are looking.

Next time you drive a car, notice where you look. Consider where a bicycle would have to be in order to noticed if you are in a hurry, distracted, trying to figure out where you are or where to go, not expecting them, etc.

[eCa]

Think relative speed. Even a bike touring cyclist will regularly travel at speeds around 40 kph (25 mph). If you then have cars travelling at 80 kph (50 mph).

Also, you learn hearing the difference in sound a car makes as it moves over to give room.

In short, I’d wager that < 0.5% of all people that have done any sort of serious biking would prefer to ride against traffic.

[dsizzle]

Per the reference in the article above (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm) 8% of bicyclists were going against traffic.

Yeah relative speed goes hand-in-hand with head-on collision and less reaction time and expectation that I mentioned. I do bike a fair amount, but not on major roads. I am coming to realize that going with traffic is safer, despite it being hard to see cars coming from behind you. I also didn't realize that it's illegal in most places to bike against traffic https://roadbikebasics.com/ride-with-or-against-traffic/

[snovv_crash]

You can get mirrors on your handlebars or helmet if you lack situational awareness. I did this for my bike and it's a huge help, the Spintech drop bar mirrors are sleek and unobtrusive.

[wolverine876]

I find that focusing on the mirror, aligning it in a useful way, dealing with other issues (vibrations, etc.), and then interpreting what I see in a small mirror (which might need to be realigned to see what I need) - it all takes too long. I'm much better off just turning my head - it's faster and I have better situational awareness while I'm doing it.

Bicycle mirrors aren't comparable to automobile mirrors: Car mirrors are stable in alignment - your body is in a relatively fixed position in the driver seat and so are the mirrors relative to you and the car. On a bicycle, your handlebars are moving frequently as is your head. The whole bicycle vibrates far more than a car, sometimes making the mirrors unusable. Cars have space for more and bigger mirrors.

(Also, isn't it risky attaching anything to your helmet? In an accident, as far as I know, it can both change the helmet's performance properties and also get jammed into your head.)

[thirdsun]

I'd add Garmin's Varia radar as a better (yet more expensive) alternative to a mirror. It's a bike light combined with a radar that will track and display cars coming up behind you on your bike computer (doesn't have to be a Garmin unit since the standard is open to everyone). Many cyclists who tired it (including me) won't ride without one.

[wpietri]

Could you say a bit more about why you like it? I was thinking about getting back into touring and I just recently learned about them. Previously I was using a mirror that attached to my glasses, which seemed adequate. The radar seemed interesting, but I was concerned that it would more be in the "cute toy" category for me.

[seoaeu]

The problem is drivers seeing you. If you are in a serious crash it is probably going to be because they hit you, not from you hitting them. Motorists look for other road users they may be overtaking, but usually don’t expect to see oncoming traffic in their lane