why ride bicycle on left side facing traffic?

While there's probably a lot of reasons for being a "bike salmon" I think one is the feeling of safety. You see what's coming at you and can react. Unfortunately this places everyone going the right way in danger as I find bike salmon don't like to give way and you can't tell what way they will pass.

Another reason could be that the person going the wrong way is saving time. So, instead of making a left turn from a side street, heading to the right side of the street they are turning on to, and then making another left turn from this street to another side street, they simply cut the corner and take the shortest, most direct route... going the wrong way.

Regardless of which of these reasons motivates a salmon, it's still a dick move because they put everyone they encounter in danger for arguable and marginal gains.

While they may feel safer seeing what is coming toward them, they have nowhere to go (unless they can hop their bike over curbs). This is why pedestrians are supposed to walk facing traffic - they have the ability to maneuver sideways. Perhaps some people on bikes think they are classified as pedestrians and not vehicles. Its incredibly dangerous and stupid to bike facing traffic.

If you want to see what's coming get a rearview mirror.

My elementary school used to have film reels about traffic safety. I remember the lesson that if you are walking along the road, several roads near my old elementary school still lack sidewalks, that you are to walk against traffic.

I think many people equate riding a bicycle with those walking rules. I'm pretty sure I did as a child. Common sense should prevail here... but unfortunately it simply does not.

Some people are just dicks. There's certainly a lot of need for bicycle infrastructure and protection, but there's also a shocking number of cyclists who demonstrate no understanding of the rules of the road or even the most basic safety precautions. In addition to fuelling a seemingly infinite number of "Cyclists don't follow the rules of the road" opinion columns, these people's behavious is dangerous to other cyclists as well.

There is some weird obsession with "bad" cyclists in this City, cyclists themselves seem to be some of the worst sufferers of this obsession. I probably came across 50 cyclists today, more than 90% were riding responsibly. What it gets them I do not know. I do know that while I obeyed a stoplight, actually this happened twice, a driver tried to intentionally sideswipe me. It would have been much better for me not to stop.

So, yeah, we become obsessed with poor cyclists because they'll cause 80% of the cycling accidents. It's not the 80 or 90% of cyclists following the rules and paying attention who cause 80% of the accidents - it's the 10-20% of the ignorant cyclists causing that 80%.

As for why people choose the wrong-way? I don't know... stupid is as stupid does I suppose.

P.S. if a wrong-way cyclist keeps coming at you, please stop and wait till they pass, they're obviously spatially and directionally challenged and likely to behave further in an erratic manner.

Your stats are way off base. A misconception that the media likes to sell to the public, it perpetuates a lie.

We have the Star, CAA and CTV to keep track of so called "bad" cyclists. Why not more effort for those who take some care when they ride?

Seems to me that the only cyclists being seen out there are the 'bad' ones. Odd way to make yourself visible.

I read that to mean that ignorant cyclists are responsible for 80% of cycling accidents where the cyclist is at fault, not all cycling accidents.

"Seems to me that the only cyclists being seen out there are the 'bad' ones."

I see plenty of cyclists, but I tend to remember the ones who almost ran into me while going the wrong way over the Bloor Viaduct. Similarly, if you only ever read this site, you might get the impression that every driver in Toronto is a raging psychopath who deliberately tries to run over ever cyclist they see.

As much as I hate the regular "Cyclists don't obey the laws and run down little old ladies on the sidewalk" rants, there are some real idiots and dicks riding bikes. There's no harm in talking about them.

There's no problem talking about the occasional idiot out there. I believe they involve about 2% of the population and include drivers, cyclists and pedestrians in the same ratio.

Let's recognize this then move forward.

As for my guess, at 80% it's not meant to be totally accurate. I'm using a common rule of thumb called the Pareto principle or 80 20 rule. Statisticians have found that the principle roughly fits distributions in many areas. For example, those who cause automobile accidents and others who commit crimes. Where the group of perpetually unskilled drivers who accounting for roughly 20% of drivers cause 80% of all road accidents. Or career criminals who represent 20% of criminals are responsible for commiting 80% of the total crimes.

In my example I'm saying that unskilled cyclists who account for 20% of the cycling public account for 80% of all the cycling accidents(caused by cyclists).

It's only a rule of thumb though so please don't berate my percentages, but to me it partially explains why that cyclist doing the wrong way thing always sticks out.

Electric, I am not trying to discount your experiences. What I am trying to figure out in a general sense is why do is there so much focus on such few cyclists? There are no stats to back up the perception that cyclists are so exceedingly bad. If one would believe they are as bad as people say we would expect to see serious injury/kill rates in the hundreds. Cyclists are getting left behind because so much focus on a problem that is manufactured.

iBikeTO does a superb job of bringing us stories on everyday cyclists just getting on with their lives and integrating bicycle transportation into their routine. Yet this is overwhelmed by a focus toward some perceived negative aspects. Yes there are some dumb cyclists out there but they are no different(percentage wise) than any other dumb people from any group. Whether that be doctors, garbage pickers, cops, etc. etc.

Some issues, like sidewalk riding, are a little more complex than they appear on the surface. Yes it is illegal and yes we know statistically that it is more dangerous than riding on the road. Yet people ride on the sidewalk for irrational reasons that mostly relate to emotion. Telling them they are bad and urging them to take a course does not address the problem.

A bad cyclist is hardly as dangerous as a bad driver.

What I am trying to figure out in a general sense is why do is there so much focus on such few cyclists? There are no stats to back up the perception that cyclists are so exceedingly bad. If one would believe they are as bad as people say we would expect to see serious injury/kill rates in the hundreds. Cyclists are getting left behind because so much focus on a problem that is manufactured.

My sense is that when you mention collisions and accidents, people think of cars and trucks. So many of those accidents are dangerous and shocking that it 'sticks' in peoples minds. You would think that this makes cycling even more attractive, but i think that would be giving people too much credit.

Danger and the chance of an accident represented by a 'bad' cyclist is, perhaps, automatically and unconsciously associated with accidents involving cars. Such car/truck accidents are typically far more violent. The memory of that violence carries forwards and tinges a persons viewpoint on cycling. For example a Copenhagener might feel fine with bicycle cycling by but, other car-centric people would feel extremely uncomfortable because in their culture the possible violence of any road accident feels far worse. It feels far worse because their outlook is anchored in some other frame of reference, in this case car-pedestrian or car-whatever collisions.

Then we get our media talking up how "bad cyclists" are everywhere and they're extremely dangerous. It's been said that the media loves a culture of fear, that "the nail that sticks out is going to get hammered", and when you add rich automobile lobbyists giving media fat advertising checks for writing pro-car, anti-bike material and you can see a possible explanation of the resistance cyclists face. So "bad" cyclists make a great red herring for main stream media.

Anyways, perhaps I'm rambling on... I definitely don't want to get into another bad cyclist analysis and prefer positive ones ;)

When I see them i just look down and brace myself, they usually end up forced of the road.

About half the time i encounter them, they are on cellphones as well.

I believe the focus is there because we must constantly be on the lookout for them. Generally the asshats of the road do pretty dangerous stuff, and one can't really ignore the fact that they're there. Even if I only saw one bad cyclist or driver a month, I'd still have my radar turned up full to ensure I don't get caught unawares (as it may cost me life or limb).

So with that in mind, as small a percentage as they may be, they're constantly on our minds and whatever is on our minds tends to get talked about.

When I was young, my mother taught me that no matter how good you are, if you pull some bad stuff, people are going to remember it, and judge you for it.

Having been a driver, also walking and cycling, having lived in Toronto, Montreal and Tokyo, I've come to the conclusion that the percentage of dicks in every grouping of humans is pretty stable (apart from BMW drivers, and people who vote Conservative).

The only thing that is relevant here, since that percentage is stable, is that dick-drivers cause multiples more death, injury and damage, than dick-cyclists can. If the law were fair, and more effective, any fine you'd get on a bike would be multiplied by that same threat-factor against drivers: a $100 fine for no bike-lights would be $5000 for a broken headlight, since cars cause at least fifty times as much damage.

However, laws are not made to be fair, or effective: they are political. Witness this witless hands-free device law: the actual danger to the public was found to be equivalent for hands-free or standard cells.

The Koehl article posted a couple days ago nailed it: cars kill everybody, and in large numbers.

Salmon only seem dangerous because they might cause me to be hit by a car. It's been stated over and over, but bad cyclists pose a danger mostly to themselves; cars (driven poorly or not) pose a danger to themselves, cyclists, pedestrians, small & large animals, the air we breathe, our energy independence, etc etc etc.

I'd prefer to see the cyclist ride upstream through a lane of car traffic, freak THEM out.

Take the lane.

I wish there could be a more moderate debate that focused on driving cars less and using alternatives more, like: Drive less - Bike more, Walk more, Take the Train more, etc.

The argument that cars are just BAD serves to divide people into two groups - those who drive, and those who don't.

I cycle every day, but I also own a car, and every time I hear someone utter the word "cager" I cringe.

Why are there just two sides to this issue?

I agree that we need to reduce our dependency on cars, but there are better strategies than throwing around the usual anti-car rhetoric.

Appeal to people’s sense of reason, change public policy, lead by example, and do your part. Do this consistently and relentlessly and you will accomplish a lot more than you will by simply labeling every road user as either with us, or against us.