Originally Posted by
jamawani
...The most dangerous roads - according to the FHWA - are moderate traffic arterial highways.
Interstate highways - with their wide shoulders - are pretty safe for cyclists. But why?
Very low traffic roads - even without shoulders - are safer than arterials...
I know nothing about the routes being discussed but can answer this one IMO.
For safety I always expect cars to do what they ordinarily do and that is to drive in the travel lane. On roads with sketchy or no shoulder where I have to also ride in the travel lane that means each car must a.) see me and b.) actively do something different to avoid hitting me. Everything rests with their attention and reaction.
Most do, but many hits, like Mike Hall's in Australia, are a result of cars not seeing or avoiding collision. On a low traffic road I can usually tell when a car approaches (why I use mirrors and don't wear ear buds and listen to music on such roads) but if I, or the driver, is distracted, it's a crap shoot because we both occupy the same space. Perhaps some of the worst situations I've encountered is when I am fatigued or day dreaming and weaving in and out on what I expect is an isolated remote road and a vehicle out of the blue passes me fast. One weave the wrong way...
I prefer wide shoulders, even on high traffic routes because vehicle avoidance does not depend on cars or me doing anything out of the ordinary. They neither need to see nor avoid me as I am out of their travel lane. In the shoulder I can zone out and log miles and look at the scenery without constantly looking in my mirror. For a hit to occur in that situation there needs to be a low statistical chance that a vehicle both moves into the shoulder area (often across rumble strips) and also doesn't see me. In most cases, drivers are looking when they go to the shoulder as they don't want to wind up in the ditch so they are naturally more aware (I assume).
Anyways, that's my theory.