• insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    The wrong side thing I’d say is probably because many bikes (even ebikes!) don’t come with a mirror. So the rider lacks awareness if they aren’t doing regular head-turns.

    Similar lacking bell, which can be used to announce your presence to other people who might be around the corner (when you wouldn’t want to use a loud horn).

    • Hawke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’d guess it’s more likely because they don’t want to have to cross the street (twice!) because their destination is on the same side of the street. They judge (maybe correctly) that it’s safer to ride the wrong way for a short distance than to cross four lanes twice.

      • insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Maybe, but that’s circumstantial.

        What I said is just… fear of getting ran over because by the time you notice* the sound of the motor of an extremely heavy and fast vehicle approaching you it’s probably right behind you. This logic also assumes you’re getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn’t a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic though. Either way, not preferred.

        This was my own logic (not that I actually rode very much like that) until I got myself a mirror.

        * also knowing that it’s approaching you, not going some other direction

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The wrong side thing I’d say is probably because many bikes (even ebikes!) don’t come with a mirror.

      So … you think the absence of a safety device (mirror or bell) turns riding on the wrong side of the road against traffic, around a completely blind corner with no shoulder, with two little children in tow, into a good idea? I don’t understand what would make someone think that.

      • insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        My point is just that there is some reasoning behind it, even if it isn’t preferred. As I said in another comment, plus the caveat:

        This logic also assumes you’re getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn’t a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic though. Either way, not preferred.

        I mention safety devices because obviously I think people should have them. There should be free/cheap options (or already on the bike when bought). A mirror should fix the desire to be going the wrong way, but even a bell used (her or you) could’ve improved the situation either way.

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          even a bell used (her or you) could’ve improved the situation

          A bell would have been useless had it been a car instead of me on my bike.

          This logic also assumes you’re getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn’t a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic

          Hence why this isn’t “logic” at all. There are many situations in which a cyclist riding against traffic has nowhere to go - like almost every road and street in my district, which have no shoulders and often high curbs and dense vegetation. Riding against traffic also happens to be illegal, as bikes are required to obey the same traffic laws as motorized vehicles. Not all laws reflect common sense, but these sure as hell do.