[rmxt]

The rule of thumb that I've heard is to walk against traffic if there are no sidewalks or dedicated space, but always to ride your bicycle with traffic if there are no bike lanes. You might be practically invisible to motor vehicles, but as you've noticed, traffic regulations often consider bicycles the equivalent of cars for all intents and purposes. Until the tide changes for cyclists and dedicated infrastructure improves, I think people are stuck with the cards they've been dealt for traffic regulations.

[escherize]

One reason to ride with traffic is that you give the driver more time to react to you. If a driver is going 40 mph and you ride 15 mph, if you're going the same way the speed delta is 25 mph. Going the other way makes the speed delta more than double (or 55mph).

[markbnj]

This is true, and a reasonable point, although it still puts the outcome nearly completely in the driver's hands, which is the part I have a hard time getting past. Given the number of people I see talking on their phones or otherwise distracted and weaving a couple of feet here and there, it wouldn't really take much to end up a hood ornament.

[usrusr]

If you ride on the wrong side so you can jump out of the way in front of a car to survive, some drivers will expect you to do exactly that. This is a game much more dangerous than vehicular cycling.

Edit: also, don't expect other cyclists to endanger themselves by swerving into overtaking cars for an against the flow rider. They might even consciously chose a good head-butt with the other rider over ending under a car. In other words: you should be _really_ ready to jump.

[mjmaher]

Riding with traffic doesn't put the outcome in the drivers hands, your still responsible for paying attention to cars behind you and not, for example, pulling out in front of them. Even if it was completely in the drivers hands, I'd would rather they have more time to deal with it. And if nothing else, I'd rather become a hood ornament at 25 mph than at 55 mph