Originally Posted by Clyde1820

I suppose your logic generally holds, yes, that it'll likely be less risky (on the fact of it) to be on a higher-speed road with proper space/lanes for cyclists and slower vehicles than it could on a road (country or otherwise) where sight lines are ugly and/or no space exists for cyclists.


That said ... for myself:

I'm okay with straight-but-fast roadways, assuming there is plenty of clearly-marked riding area for cyclists. Up to a point. I've done it on roads with 50mph limits, but am not generally a fan of going that far.

I'm okay with smaller "country" (two-way rural type) roads. But I draw the line when two factors converge on such a road: 1) curves that create blind sections, combined with 2) zero "outs" for cyclists or pedestrians on that road.

So. Depends on the road. Depends on whether there are sufficient "outs" in twistier sections of the road. Depends on whether there are generally clear sight lines for approaching drivers. And, at least to me, it also depends on what the history on that road happens to be with respect to crashes.

Around my area, there are several high-volume smaller roads that have zero lanes for cyclists. (They were built in an era before contemporary sensibilities came along, regarding non-motorized vehicles existing on such roads.) There are several lower-volume roads that have horrible sight lines, are twisty enough to be ugly, and on which there are many sections with zero "outs" for a cyclist (which are roads I refuse to bike on, ever). Pretty few roads exist with well-considered lanes for cyclists, with plenty of "outs" and with reasonable speeds that guard against deadly encounters. Same as most places I've seen.

In short: I rolls the dice and takes my chances, but only on roads where I feel I've got a fighting chance of not being struck that year. Otherwise, I find another way. Which works for me.