Any cyclists here?

[RogerS]

Something screwed up there with the edit.

The initial responses raise valid points as it would appear that cycle lanes have failed because cyclists don't use them. So let's get rid of them.

 

[matt]

I also find myself wondering why other cyclists don't use the cycle lanes. I understand the road debris argument but in my area that problem doesn't really exist. We also have the raised pavement cycle lanes too. In one place the pavement was extended to provide a safe passage through a particularly tricky strip of road, including a crossing. The idea being to avoid motorists having to navigate around cyclists on the approach to a pedestrian crossing. I don't think it is a case of road-rage - that's quite a leap from commenting on cyclists using the road when there are specific lanes for good reason.

I don't think cyclists are setting out to be selfish, I think some want to assert their right to use the road, albeit at the expense of safety (in some cases the safety of other road users), whereas others are just more than a little unaware. There is also the sense that when on a pavement cycle lane I feel inclined to slow down and some cyclists don't want to do that.

I get annoyed, I get over it. Same as cyclists do when they perceive motorists to be inconsiderate without all the facts of any given situation.

 

[Jake]

The reason I was pulling Roger's leg about road rage is that isn't uncommon for Rog to start a thread fulminating about other road users...

 

[RogerS]

The reason I was pulling Roger's leg about road rage is that isn't uncommon for Rog to start a thread fulminating about other road users...

Moi?

 

[Jake]

You want me to prove the point?

 

[RogerS]

You want me to prove the point?

No, I've learnt through experience that it is extremely hard to win an argument with you, Jake, although in this instance I make a valid point.

 

[woodbloke]

The initial responses raise valid points as it would appear that cycle lanes have failed because cyclists don't use them. So let's get rid of them.

I disagree...there ought to be more cycle lanes, not fewer. You only need to see what provision there is for cyclists in certain places on the Continent to see how it should be done properly. Cycling is the best, quickest, cheapest and healthiest way of getting around town...as proven by the 'hamster' in TG a while back - Rob

 

[StevieB]

It really depends on who you envisage on using cycle lanes. To a motorist all cyclists are the same ie slower than them. However there are vast differences in cyclists, from the lycra clad road ninja who can maintain a 25mph speed for hours on end to the stereotypical vicars wife with a bell and a basket pootling down to the vicarage. For the former a cycle lane is a major pain and no advantage whatsoever. For the slow pootler its great as it keeps them free to pootle. When walking - how annoyed do you get when stuck behind a pensioner, or a window shopper blocking the pavement. Its the same on a bike - you can overtake on the road but generally not on a cycle lane. This is doubly so when they keep stopping and starting in towns etc.

If cycling is to be encouraged then thats great, but do not place restrictions on where the cycles can then be ridden just to pacify motorists!

Steve.

 

[MikeG.]

it would appear that cycle lanes have failed because cyclists don't use them. So let's get rid of them.

By "them" I suspect you meant cycle lanes, but that you harbor a desire to be rid of the cyclists.....

So does that mean I can drive in their cycle lane?

........by insisting on their 'right' they make life more dangerous for everyone. Not road rage. Just annoyed at selfish behaviour.

Does that mean I can use their cycle lane then

Roger,

have you ever ridden a bike?

Mike

 

[Ironballs]

Whatever method of transport I'm using I like it to be as fast as possible and I hate doing something slower than I could eg, why walk when I could run instead, but then cycling is faster than running and let's ride as fast as I can, but I'm on a road so why not get in the car and so on. However, if I'm walking up the side of Great Gable the fastest I can go is a head down trudge on my own 2 feet cause my body can't power me any faster.

I only own MTBs so generally just ride on the roads to link up bits of offroad, but when I am on the road I'll go at the fastest pace I can maintain and am painfully aware of other road users.

I never do anything on the road to put myself in the way of harm, but even doing that I still have more near death experiences on the road on my bike than doing anything else. A few months ago I had to drop my car off for an MoT and decided to ride the last few miles into work. Unfortunately this takes me through a place called Harehills in Leeds in which all laws and rules of the road cease to exist, I hate driving through it never mind riding.

I was almost through it and congratulating myself on a successful negotiation with just one tricky bit left to do. Coming up to a set of lights the road curves to the right with a spur carrying on straight ahead, I know this is a dangerous section for a cyclist and for the 50m heading up to it I spent most of time riding looking back over my shoulder. Having got halfway across and convinced myself I wasn't going to be mown down I looked ahead and about 3 seconds later heard the dreaded screeching of rubber on tarmac and saw a shape appear in my peripheral vision before being collected on my rear quarter. Managed a bit of oversteer before coming to a halt in front of a Metro.

To cut the rest of the story/altercation short it was clear he didn't understand the layout of the road and probably hadn't seen me (though the helpful chap in the car behind him had and backed me up). Not only that it was my fault for being a stupid pillock apparently.

In that instance, short of stopping at the side of the road before the turn and crossing it like a pedestrian there was little more I could have done to safeguard myself and I still nearly got wiped out. And yes I was ready to stick one on him as I only have one life, a point I somehow managed to make to him without violence which he seemed to accept in the end

 

[RogerS]

it would appear that cycle lanes have failed because cyclists don't use them. So let's get rid of them.

By "them" I suspect you meant cycle lanes, but that you harbor a desire to be rid of the cyclists.....

So does that mean I can drive in their cycle lane?

........by insisting on their 'right' they make life more dangerous for everyone. Not road rage. Just annoyed at selfish behaviour.

Does that mean I can use their cycle lane then

Roger,

have you ever ridden a bike?

Mike

Did it not occur to you that perhaps my comment was tongue-in-cheek? I'm not anti-cyclists but I am anti-'anti-social'-cyclists such as those who insist on riding on pavements. Whether or not I ride a bike is irrelevant.

In an ideal world, we'd have a cycle lane for pootlers, a faster cycle lane for intermediate ninjas and a cycle lane for ninjas cycling on ultra thin tyres - the latter lane swept every day so that their ridiculously this tyres don't get punctured. Then we'd have a couple of car lanes for old ladies at 30mph, another for those who want to maintain a steady safe speed and another for those who like to drive at breakneck speed, overtake o double white lines and drive inches behind the bumper of the car in front.

But we're a small island and we don't have the space. So we must accommodate the interests of all parties as much as possible. This applies equally to cyclists views of motorists as it does the other way round. Cyclists need to be just as tolerant towards other road users as they would hope tolerance was shown to them.

So when a council goes to great length and expense (your money and my money) to hive off a chunk of the road to provide a dedicated, separate and safer lane for cyclists, is it not that unreasonable for the other road users using the now narrower main road to expect cyclists to use that which has been dedicated for their exclusive use?

 

[andrewm]

It really depends on who you envisage on using cycle lanes. To a motorist all cyclists are the same ie slower than them. However there are vast differences in cyclists, from the lycra clad road ninja who can maintain a 25mph speed for hours on end to the stereotypical vicars wife with a bell and a basket pootling down to the vicarage. For the former a cycle lane is a major pain and no advantage whatsoever. For the slow pootler its great as it keeps them free to pootle. When walking - how annoyed do you get when stuck behind a pensioner, or a window shopper blocking the pavement. Its the same on a bike - you can overtake on the road but generally not on a cycle lane. This is doubly so when they keep stopping and starting in towns etc.

If cycling is to be encouraged then thats great, but do not place restrictions on where the cycles can then be ridden just to pacify motorists!

Steve.

Sorry, coming a bit late to this one but I can’t resist.

The Department of Transport lays down guidelines for the construction of cycle lanes. The lanes they describe are probably quite good and I suspect that many cyclists would use them. However what gets implemented is usually not the same thing. Even in Cambridge which has just received £5m of government funding as a "Cycling Demonstration Town" local councillors cannot point to one cycle facility that complies with these DOT guidelines.

Imagine if the same slapdash approach were applied to motorways, a facility solely for use of motor vehicles. There are similar guidelines for their construction and they are vigorously adhered to. If they built motorway that had lanes only six feet wide, perhaps with a zebra crossing every half-mile, and where you had to give way to traffic joining the road at each junction. Would you use it if there was a nice fast road running parallel to it?

I thought not.

Andrew

 

[RogerS]

But that's my point, Andrew. In this particular instance there is a nice fast two lane dedicated cycle track. No bumps, no crossings, nothing to impede the progress of either the vicars' wife or the flying ninja.

 

[andrewm]

But that's my point, Andrew. In this particular instance there is a nice fast two lane dedicated cycle track. No bumps, no crossings, nothing to impede the progress of either the vicars' wife or the flying ninja.

Is this a dedicated cycle path or a dual-use cycle/pedestrian path. If the latter then I can certainly understand a reasonably fast cyclist avoiding it because pedestrians can be highly unpredicatable when on 'their pavement'.

I thought perhaps this was a path that I had used. But looking at the map I think I was thinking of one coming out of Worcester. Not as wide (perhaps only 1.2m) but inthe country so no peds and no driveways crossing it either.

Can you point to this one on Google maps (it it is wide enough to show up)

Andrew

 

[RogerS]

You can't see anything as the hedge obscures it. Search for Roman Road Hereford and scroll west.

 

[andrewm]

You can't see anything as the hedge obscures it. Search for Roman Road Hereford and scroll west.

You're right I can't see anything on Google. Are you talking about the bit in Hereford or out in the country. And you didn't answer my question as to whether it was a dedicated cycle lane or dual use with pedestrians.

Andrew

 

[bugbear]

You can't see anything as the hedge obscures it. Search for Roman Road Hereford and scroll west.

Microsoft live map might have a different POV.

BugBear

 

[andrewm]

Microsoft live map might have a different POV.

It does indeed. Is this the cycle lane you are talking about Roger?

Looks quite nice. Wide, separated from the carriageway by a verge and marked in both directions. Certainly one of the better examples. BUT note that there are Give Way signs (and possibly cyclists dismount signs too) at the entrance to every farm track. This puts the onus on the cyclist to slow down at every junction. Now this lane is not in the middle of the city but in the country so it is likely that the cyclist will not be pootling along. Slowing down is one thing that you do not want to do unnecessarily when on a bike. It's not like a car where you just press the accelerator to speed up again. I would hazard a guess that the planners who designed this were not regular cyclists.

Put it another way. Suppose they built a shiny new motorway next to you favourite A road, six lanes, hard shoulder, nice surface but rather than building bridges over it put Give Way signs every mile or so when another road crossed so that you had to slow down just in case someone was coming the other way. And this arrangement meant that if you did hit someone it was your fault and not theirs. Would you use it? I thought not. Why should it be different for cyclists?

Andrew

 

[RogerS]

Andrew, your link insists I use Microsoft Explorer IE7 which is a tad difficult on a Mac!

EDIT: Re-reading your post, it seems that it all boils down to the ninjas, that they take a calculated risk in that the infinitessimally small chance of them having to actually stop at a give way sign for farm tracks or risk being run down by the non-existent tractor is higher than the risk they run to both themselves and other road users by NOT cycling in the cycle lane?

Fair game then :wink:

 

[andrewm]

Andrew, your link insists I use Microsoft Explorer IE7 which is a tad difficult on a Mac!

Doesn’t work with Opera either. I had to fire up IE for the first time in a long time. But it is the only site which shows the path in question in any detail so is better than nothing.

EDIT: Re-reading your post, it seems that it all boils down to the ninjas, that they take a calculated risk in that the infinitessimally small chance of them having to actually stop at a give way sign for farm tracks or risk being run down by the non-existent tractor is higher than the risk they run to both themselves and other road users by NOT cycling in the cycle lane?

Not quite. An old biddy pootling home with the shopping is likely to be able to cross these paths without slowing down. But a reasonably confident cyclist doing say, a 15 mile commute to work is likely to be travelling at perhaps 18-20mph. It is not possible to see over the hedge to see if there is an approaching tractor so the only thing is to slow down at each turning even though the chance of meeting a tractor is very small. Remember, if a tractor hits you it is your fault. Its down to the planners. If they painted the white lines the other way so that turning traffic has to give way (as they do on the continent) then perhaps more cyclists would use it. As it is each cyclist will make their own assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Their decisions will be based on their own particular risk assessment.

It’s the same for all road users. If I am driving I will look at a route and decide whether it is worth, for example, going through town rather than around on the motorway even though the motorway has been proved to be the safer road. It depends on traffic conditions, where I am going, how long the comparative journeys will take and my assessment of the risk. Others might come to a different conclusion given the same set of circumstances.

So this ‘pillock’ as you put it has made an assessment and decided that all things considered the road is the better option.

Andrew