Poll: Poll pls: In the presence of a dedicated cycle lane, should cyclists be allowed to use the roads?
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,885
- Location
- Rutland
Wow I'm a usual suspect and a troll because I've said that cyclists impede traffic and posted in a thread months ago saying it's irritating living in a county where a bunch of middle aged men like to dress up and live out their midlife crisis on the public highway.
Drama queen much? How dare anyone be annoyed by something or have a different opinion to you - they must be a troll! Maybe we should try and bring my profession into it again like last time - because that made sense.
You also completely miss the fact that the vast majority of voters on the poll agree that cyclists should be on cycle paths provided they are available and safe. Unfortunately the "pro cyclists" dislike being slowed down by other cyclists or having to stop for side roads (even stopping for traffic lights is too much for some) so use the road where safe cycle paths exist.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 4,453
- Location
- Gloucestershire
The poll says nothing about them being safe. So that's why they are all wrong.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,661
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
It's quite funny what motorists think of as safe cycling lanes.
Here's one of my typical 'cycle lanes' that I daren't use any more - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9...GQ!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Yeah, that bit of white line on the pavement is the cycle lane believe it or not. I did use it but people tend to walk straight out of their houses and into my path. I can also guarantee that at 8:10am in the morning and 5:10pm in the evening all car spaces are taken and I have had a few close incidents where passengers open their doors without looking. We have a lot of these cycle lanes in Stoke that are actually dangerous for home owners and people getting out of cars.
Here's another example on the left hand side - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9...fWDeF5FTAafxnZQmnw_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,885
- Location
- Rutland
I think most people would agree that's a pretty shonky cycle lane. Makes you wonder why they even bothered to mark it?
I know that road well. Cycled it a handful of times, but drive along it more often. It is a nice wide road with a fair size cycle lane on each side. But as you can see, it is never clear. So what do you do? Try to use the lane and weave in and out when you come across each car, or just use the road? You just use the road of course.
It is a shame, because it would be a good lane otherwise. It gets much better where it goes past Carmountside but then there is less residential housing. Kinda ironic given the name. If any pavement was going to be mounted by cars...
If all lanes we like that (but without cars in them) then I think the vast, vast majority of cyclists would use them, no bother. I feel safer certainly. But its just not feasible, roads aren't always wide enough, they cannot be widened and they are often too busy. Therefore lanes are shoehorned in with little thought resulting in inappropriate and inconvenient implementation. Not to mention the lack of maintenance.
It is something all road users are going to have to get used to. Cyclists are not going to spend all their time in lanes for the reasons I've just mentioned, and even if they were implemented well, it is impossible for them to be implemented everywhere. Cyclists on the roads are not going anywhere, they're here to stay. It is something every road user needs to understand and get over. The sooner the better.
Added to the fact that pedestrian's are totally unpredictable makes it even more dangerous than the road.
Im 90kg and can (could once upon a time) reach speeds of 20-25mph pretty easily. Anyone want to do some fag packet maths to calculate the force/weight of the impact?
Anyone in the 'ALL cyclists should be in the cycling lane regardless where it is' want me cycling close to your family, then then fair doo's. I'll end up in a bad shape in a crash but it's your baby/kid/nan that will end up 6ft under.
I like going in cycling lanes that are shared purpose for other road users; like a bus/motorbike lane and where I can maintain speed and predicability. I'll ignore nearly all others as they aren't designed for me. Most are nearly afterthoughts/tickboxes for the council. In other places where there is room, surface condition is good and it's safe i'll let you pass without issue; I wouldn't hold up other road users intentionally.
Last edited:
Pretty much all that needs to be said on this matter. Bravo.
On my occasional cycle to work there is a 2 ish mile stretch of road with a single traffic light in the middle. There is also a cycle lane for most of the distance. I always take the road as the cycle path is broken up about 10 times by side roads.
I don't consider there to be much of any difference in safety between the two.
I don't consider there to be much of any difference in safety between the two.
Surely a such poll such as this will end up heavily weighted in favour of the majority type of road user?
I've had this type of discussion at work. There's 4 cyclists (one of whom IS the 'typical' idiot cyclist that we all seem to get labelled) and 30 car drivers. Of course, our opinions are always 'wrong' because we are the less represented.
On the subject of cycle lanes, I wonder if those 'planning' cycle routes have had to make the journeys themselves on a bike?
I'm sure there could be better solutions in many cases that wouldn't cause drivers or cyclists too much inconvenience.
Cycling to work in the mornings at 7 o'clock, I see barely anyone on footpaths. That's a lot of unused space. Maybe at certain times it could be legal to use them?
I've had this type of discussion at work. There's 4 cyclists (one of whom IS the 'typical' idiot cyclist that we all seem to get labelled) and 30 car drivers. Of course, our opinions are always 'wrong' because we are the less represented.
On the subject of cycle lanes, I wonder if those 'planning' cycle routes have had to make the journeys themselves on a bike?
I'm sure there could be better solutions in many cases that wouldn't cause drivers or cyclists too much inconvenience.
Cycling to work in the mornings at 7 o'clock, I see barely anyone on footpaths. That's a lot of unused space. Maybe at certain times it could be legal to use them?
It wouldn't matter if it was. Even if you give them dedicated cycle paths, they don't use them because at some point they have to stop at a junction - which apparently is wrong ... a bit like traffic lights really.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,661
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,937
- Location
- Nottingham
Use the cycle lane ffs.
In Derby and especially in Notts there have been schemes to build dedicated cycle paths, for safety and traffic benefit.
Why bother if cyclists ignore them? It should be a condition that where the formal cycle zones exist, they should be utilised..
If thew's a problem with the paths themselves, it needs to be raised because we are spending a huge wad on them for no benefit if so
In Derby and especially in Notts there have been schemes to build dedicated cycle paths, for safety and traffic benefit.
Why bother if cyclists ignore them? It should be a condition that where the formal cycle zones exist, they should be utilised..
If thew's a problem with the paths themselves, it needs to be raised because we are spending a huge wad on them for no benefit if so
Last edited:
Have you looked at any of the links on this thread? None of the car drivers have actually said the cyclists should use them because they are just horrendous pieces of tarmac.
I ride a bike, use the train and drive a car and I would't use any of them other than the one segregated one on the old train line.
The 'cycle paths' around me are a complete joke, you pick up a cycle path, less than 100 meters later it punts you back into the road, whats the point?
Even on the flagship cycle super highway in London, some parts of it are just stupid, others are way to narrow for the volume of traffic. No wonder those that want to 'make progress' use the road. But then other parts are fantastic.
Without bulldozing most towns and cities and starting again this problem can not really be fixed.
Last edited:
You don't get it. If I'm bombing along at a fair old speed, it is impractical to stop every few hundred metres where the path meets a road. The route I use is a long main road with dozens of little side roads coming off it. On a fast bike, it's more practical to be on the road and I'm less of a hazard to the pedestrians using the same bit of tarmac as the cycle path. It's really only for kids and people who plod about on slow bikes.
No its for Bicycles.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,661
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
And so is the road we pay for