[u801e]

> In my experience, most people don't have a great understanding of what keeps cyclists safe in mixed traffic (i.e. not within a protected lane)

There is really no fundamental difference between pedalcyclists and motorcyclists on surface streets where traffic moves between 0 and 30 mph. Neither one needs a barrier separated lane to operate in traffic.

> As a former professional urban cyclist, I constantly broke the law to keep myself safe,

By breaking the law, you made yourself less predictable to other drivers and pedestrians. That actually decreased your safety because people were expecting you to do one thing, but you did something else. The key to safety is to be predictable and following the same rules of the road as drivers of other vehicles. When I rode my bicycle yesterday, I just stayed in the middle of the travel lane and complied with traffic control devices. I didn't have any close calls or threats to my safety even though I was riding in moderate to heavy traffic.

> Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit ... A kind of Three Laws where the unarmored travelers come first, then myself, then the folks in big steel boxes.

The current rules of the road require pedestrians to follow a certain set of rules when crossing or walking along a roadway and group cyclists with drivers of vehicles in that they have to follow the same set of rules in terms of right of way, signaling, and where to position themselves laterally when preparing to make a turn at an intersection.

Some cyclists want to operate in a manner similar to pedestrians (using side paths and crossing at crosswalks), but the problem with that is that even the slowest cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. This means that a cyclist a second away from entering the intersection would be much further away compared to a walking pedestrian. This makes it less likely a motorist or motorcyclist would see them and yield to them compared to the pedestrian. In fact, this is the reason why statistics show that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous compared to riding on the road with traffic.

Even if the rules were changed to match your proposal, that doesn't address the issue I brought up about cyclists moving too fast to really be seen by motorists so that the latter have time to see them and yield to them.

[eckmLJE]

I respect that you feel safe in taking the lane and following the law. I agree with what you say about riding on the sidewalk.

One of my greatest fears when riding a lot in the city was being run over from behind. This is more common on country roads, where I believe it's the leading cause of cyclist fatalities in collisions, but I still saw it as a constant threat in the city. Especially when vehicles would intentionally tailgate me in the lane, rev their engine to speed toward me, slow down and repeat, etc.

In _Zodiac_, by Neal Stephenson, the author describes two opposing frames of mind that a cyclist must maintain simultaneously in traffic: 1) I'm invisible, no car can see me and no matter what I do to make myself visible a car will ignore my presence and drive through me, and 2) I am extremely visible and have a target on my back, and every car is intentionally trying to run me over. Only by riding in a way that is defensive to both cases can I approach a guarantee of safety.

I do not trust drivers to respect my presence on the road. This is a perspective I have learned repeatedly through experience.

With pedestrians, I ride such that no matter what they suddenly decide to do, to respond weirdly to my presence, it doesn't matter. They can start running, they can stop on a dime and turn around, they can fall over, and I will have positioned myself not to be in their way.

I'll also say I don't really have a proposal. I'm not saying everyone should follow the way I ride. Just that I had to invent a way to ride that felt safe for me and others because the law makes no sense for me.

[u801e]

> 1) I'm invisible, no car can see me and no matter what I do to make myself visible a car will ignore my presence and drive through me

If you try to ride in a way that you're not noticed (off to the side, behind parked cars, using the sidewalk, then motorists will not see you until it's too late to avoid a collision. That's not because they're purposefully ignoring you. It's because their attention is focused on traffic, traffic control devices and where they expect traffic or pedestrians to cross. They're not focused on you because you're not where they expect.

> I am extremely visible and have a target on my back, and every car is intentionally trying to run me over.

This is demonstratably false. There are many cyclists who ride and motorists aren't intentionally targeting them. The motorist who doesn't notice the cyclist is the greatest risk because the motorist won't take actions to avoid a collision until it's too late to do so. Therefore, the safest option is to ride where motorists are looking, which is in the center of the lane.

> Just that I had to invent a way to ride that felt safe for me and others because the law makes no sense for me.

The problem is that different cyclists will come up with different ways to deal with the situation at hand. This makes them hard to predict or know where to check for motorists and drivers of other vehicles. One time, there was a cyclist riding down the sidewalk the same speed I was going on the road. The cyclist suddenly decided to cut across the road right in front of me and I barely avoided a collision with him. I had a trailer and one of my kids in the rear child seat with me and had there been a collision, we would have suffered serious injuries. A cyclist riding in the road directly in front of me is more predictable and won't cause a situation that could lead to a crash with injuries.

I think that eduacation programs that focus on how to safely ride in traffic is the best option. Cycling Savvy[1] is one program that I've found very useful.

[1] https://cyclingsavvy.org/

[avianlyric]

> There is really no fundamental difference between pedalcyclists and motorcyclists on surface streets where traffic moves between 0 and 30 mph. Neither one needs a barrier separated lane to operate in traffic.

Spoke like someone who has little experience of either.

I can tell you from experience that the introduction of a physically separated cycle lane on a 30mph road which is part of my commute as reduced the number of close calls I’ve had from every couple of days to zero.

As would like to remain alive and with all my limbs intact, I would strongly argue that your opinion on this topic is somewhat simple and desperately lacking.

[u801e]

> I can tell you from experience that the introduction of a physically separated cycle lane on a 30mph road which is part of my commute as reduced the number of close calls I’ve had from every couple of days to zero.

What happens when you cross an intersection? The physical separation doesn't extend through the intersection and intersections are where most crashes and close calls happen.

> I would strongly argue that your opinion on this topic is somewhat simple and desperately lacking.

You're not arguing. You're just dismissing without an actual counter argument.

[avianlyric]

> What happens when you cross an intersection? The physical separation doesn't extend through the intersection and intersections are where most crashes and close calls happen.

Traffic lights prevent car movement, at other junctions the lane is set back, and road is elevated to the level of the cycle lane, creating a natural speed bump. That plus bright paint and very sharp corners on the junctions forces cars to slow down, substantially decreasing both the probability and severity of collisions.

> You're not arguing. You're just dismissing without an actual counter argument.

There’s plenty of literature, studies and statistics out there. Bikes aren’t some new invention, methods for making roads safe for vulnerable road uses is well documented and tested with decades of data.

It’s not my job to educate you. You can do that yourself, if that’s too much effort for you, then don’t bother sharing your views, as they’re clearly going to be poorly informed.

[u801e]

> Traffic lights prevent car movement, at other junctions the lane is set back, and road is elevated to the level of the cycle lane, creating a natural speed bump.

There are virtually no intersections like that in the US where there are barrier separated cycle tracks, nor do they have separate signals for cyclists. And the intersection configuration you're referring to will not work for mid-block intersections due to lack of necessary space.

The one intersection I know of[1] that meets some of the criteria you mention was studied and they found that turning motorists yielded to cyclists 87% of the time. That doesn't sound very safe to me (more than a 1 in 10 chance a motorist won't yield when I go through the intersection).

[1] https://twitter.com/OakDOT/status/1289407831695745024

[avianlyric]

That’s nice, that just means US road planners don’t know how to build safe cycle tracks, and US drivers aren’t very good.

Thankfully I live in a more civilised country.

I also see you’ve taken no real effort to educate yourself. I assume you’re going to continue finding way to blame cyclists for road issues, rather than consider that the issue is more complex than cyclists = bad?

[u801e]

> I assume you’re going to continue finding way to blame cyclists for road issues

Where have I blamed cyclists for road issues?

> rather than consider that the issue is more complex than cyclists = bad?

> that just means US road planners don’t know how to build safe cycle tracks, and US drivers aren’t very good.

>

> Thankfully I live in a more civilised country.

It seems that you have simplified the issue into government/countries and motorists = bad and that they're uncivilized. You appear to be blaming everyone else for road issues besides cyclists.