Cynic wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
[on the topic of cycling - or, for that matter, driving - the wrong way
along a one-way street]
>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
others, collisions are more, not less, likely.
> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
> rearview mirrors).
If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
without hard shoulders.
That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
really mean it).
> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
He can do that *anyway*.
> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.
Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?
> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
So I see.
It takes all sorts.
PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
> |