Cycle Lanes: Right of Way

[Liefrich]

[TW]Fox has let us down, I think I used the word priority somewhere above remembering his last post on it.

Anyway, I'm trying to decide which is worse on OCUK:
Muslims or Cyclists?

An Islamic feminist cyclist would bring this forum down.

The arguments against cyclists are just text book prejudiced behaviour with over generalisations used constantly. I rarely engage in arguing with people like Minstadave as people like him are so wrapped up in their view point that they lose their sense of empathy and cannot see the wood through the trees.

For instance - I saw a car drive up the wrong side of a one way street just now. All car drivers are therefore idiots...

 

[Bear]

I would argue that doctors that belittle people for trying to get out to improve their health and fitness are idiots that are in the wrong job.

 

[scorza]

Who has priority at a busy roundabout? Pedestrians, cyclists, motorists or Black Lives Matter protestors?

 

[ttaskmaster]

a car or motorbike driven for fun doesn't disrupt traffic like a cyclist does.

The screams of "Bloody Sunday drivers" I hear echoing around would suggest otherwise...

they are riding sensibly and are probably not riding dangerously, carelessly or in an inconsiderate manner.

I never said otherwise...

There is no such thing as road tax.

Already got there...

Who has priority at a busy roundabout? Pedestrians, cyclists, motorists or Black Lives Matter protestors?

If it's a real roundabout, then whoever is on the right.
If it's a hypothetical one, then whoever is IN the right!

 

[Lethal`]

ROFL

my journey? it's not just me stuck behind the cyclists it's a que of 40-50 vehicles including double decker buses. on bad days it could be 100+ people behind them. They have other routes they can take, the HGV's and double decker buses do not and you certainly don't want all traffic heading through the villages.

My brother cycles the same direction I drive everyday but like the rational cyclists he takes the back roads, takes him 5 mins longer if that and has very little effect on traffic. It's 5-6 cyclists who think their journey is more important than others forcing everybody on an A road to match their speed rather than take a different route.

here's the problem part of the route i'm talking about
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/W...6e87093!2m2!1d-1.1335613!2d51.5974177!1m0!3e1

So your suggesting that your journey is more important than the cyclists?

Cyclists hogging the road by riding two abreast on the other hand should be run over at the earliest opportunity (extra points awarded for style), in much the same way as cyclists that ride on the road when there's a perfectly good cycle path right next to them

It sounds like you generally pass cyclists too close if you can't handle two abreast cyclists.

 

[uv]

..when there's a perfectly good cycle path right next to them

There's no such thing as a perfectly good cycle path in Manchester!

 

[Greebo]

Unicycle?

Yep you can ride them on the pavements. No law against it.

 

[Greebo]

It sounds like you generally pass cyclists too close if you can't handle two abreast cyclists.

Since the guide lines is to give half a cars width when passing a cyclist, how do you do that when passing a gaggle of them taking up the whole width of the road?

You have no choice but to pass them really close.

 

[Infidelus]

So your suggesting that your journey is more important than the cyclists?

It sounds like you generally pass cyclists too close if you can't handle two abreast cyclists.

Not at all. As a cyclist myself, I give plenty of room when passing them. Cyclists riding two abreast on a road though is just ignorant on busy roads, and especially on narrower roads where they should be riding single file according to the highway code, and I can fully understand car drivers getting annoyed with them.

There's no such thing as a perfectly good cycle path in Manchester!

There's a few decent stretches around here, not many, but I never understand why a cyclist would ride on the road when there's a dedicated cycle path that's flat and wide to ride on, yet I regularly see cyclists ignoring this beautiful thing.

 

[Lethal`]

There's a few decent stretches around here, not many, but I never understand why a cyclist would ride on the road when there's a dedicated cycle path that's flat and wide to ride on, yet I regularly see cyclists ignoring this beautiful thing.

The cycle paths that are on the pavement and force you to give way at every junction and share with pedestrians walking out into them? If you go on the road you can make progress without the risk of colliding with a pedestrian or having to slow every 20 metres for a junction.

 

[FishFluff]

Since the guide lines is to give half a cars width when passing a cyclist, how do you do that when passing a gaggle of them taking up the whole width of the road?

You have no choice but to pass them really close.

** no personal insults ** You use the other lane. If it's a single lane back road then generally cyclists riding 2 abreast will go single file if there's a car behind.

Genuinely don't understand car drivers beef with cyclists riding 2 abreast, particularly if it's a big group. Overtaking 12 cyclists riding 2 abreast takes less time than overtaking a single line of 12.

 

[ttaskmaster]

It sounds like you generally pass cyclists too close if you can't handle two abreast cyclists.

Most of the time, they're two abreast because they're chatting away, so ambling along slowly and weaving about, rather than paying attention to the road. There are several roads here with solid white lines where you can safely overtake single file cycles, but two abreast just kills all hope of passing with safe distances.

 

[Greebo]

** no personal insults ** You use the other lane. If it's a single lane back road then generally cyclists riding 2 abreast will go single file if there's a car behind.

Genuinely don't understand car drivers beef with cyclists riding 2 abreast, particularly if it's a big group. Overtaking 12 cyclists riding 2 abreast takes less time than overtaking a single line of 12.

No need to be abusive!

No, I think you are missing the point. Cyclists take up whole of left lane by being two or three abreast.

How can a car driver then give the require half a cars width of space on passing in the other lane? Unless you plan to mount the kerb on the other side?

So you end up overtaking them really closely.

 

[Infidelus]

The cycle paths that are on the pavement and force you to give way at every junction and share with pedestrians walking out into them? If you go on the road you can make progress without the risk of colliding with a pedestrian or having to slow every 20 metres for a junction.

If the path's as wide as the one I'm talking about, there'd have to be 4 people all walking side by side to get in a cyclist's way.

I guess you're a cyclist from your comment. So what you're saying is it's OK to moan about pedestrians getting in the way on a shared carriageway, but when a driver has the same complaint about a cyclist, that's not OK?

 

[Lethal`]

Most of the time, they're two abreast because they're chatting away, so ambling along slowly and weaving about, rather than paying attention to the road. There are several roads here with solid white lines where you can safely overtake single file cycles, but two abreast just kills all hope of passing with safe distances.

If they're going more than 10mph then you're not allowed to cross solid white lines to overtake them.

 

[Lethal`]

If the path's as wide as the one I'm talking about, there'd have to be 4 people all walking side by side to get in a cyclist's way.

I guess you're a cyclist from your comment. So what you're saying is it's OK to moan about pedestrians getting in the way on a shared carriageway, but when a driver has the same complaint about a cyclist, that's not OK?

You ignored the give way at junctions comment. That is the main issue but for shared use paths pedestrians are fairly unpredictable compared to road traffic and many don't expect a cyclist despite it being a shared use path.

Since the guide lines is to give half a cars width when passing a cyclist, how do you do that when passing a gaggle of them taking up the whole width of the road?

You have no choice but to pass them really close.

I imagine it's possible to wait until there is space to overtake safely. It's fairly rare that a group of two abreast cyclists would manage to take up the whole width of the road. In those cases the road would be too narrow to overtake so you can wait until it's wider.

 

[LeeUK]

On a related note, what would you do here? I've often been in the cycle lane going straight on, but had cars cut in front of me at the last second to turn left. Seems like it could be very dangerous, aren't they supposed to give way?

Always take the centre lane with the red Citroen in if I'm going straight ahead. I would usually be heading for Newcastle City Centre and it's easier being in that lane. You'll only end up stuck behind buses at bus stops in Gosforth if you stay in the left.

 

[Nevakonaza]

That's slack it should have been a fixed penalty ticket for that

Oh yeah for sure,Regardless of a fine though id still be on the pavement the next night.

 

[mattyfez]

Oh yeah for sure,Regardless of a fine though id still be on the pavement the next night.

If your responsible about it, you are highly unlikely to be fines for riding on the pavement...

"Riding on the pavement is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 and Section 129.5 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Both these laws apply equally to drivers and cyclists and prohibit the 'driving or riding of a carriage on the part of the highway set apart for traffic on foot' (the footway).

For cyclists, this is set out in Rule 64 of the Highway Code, which states that 'you MUST NOT cycle on the pavement.' This also applies to children, although as those under 10 years old are below the age of criminal responsibility, they cannot be prosecuted.

However, Ministers have issued guidance to the police to use discretion when issuing fines or fixed penalty notices (FPN) for riding on the pavement. When the FPN was introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, the then Home Office Minister issued the following statement: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

In 2014, Transport Minister Robert Goodwill, reiterated this view in a letter to a cycling campaigner saying "I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng’s original guidance."

If you have been given a FPN for riding on the pavement but believe the police should have exercised discretion because you were considerate to others and felt compelled to do so to protect yourself, please get in touch with CDF to see if we can assist you in contesting the fine.

Note in 1888 the bicycle was recognised as a carriage for the purpose of enforcing highway laws, and in 1903 the motor car was defined as a carriage in the Motor Car Act 1903."

 

[uber soldat]

The cycle paths that are on the pavement and force you to give way at every junction and share with pedestrians walking out into them? If you go on the road you can make progress without the risk of colliding with a pedestrian or having to slow every 20 metres for a junction.

You mean you have to cycle carefully and responsibly?
Perish the thought.....