Poll: Poll pls: In the presence of a dedicated cycle lane, should cyclists be allowed to use the roads?

In the presence of a dedicated cycle lane, should cyclists be allowed to use the roads?

  • Yes

    Votes: 170 26.6%

  • No

    Votes: 218 34.1%

  • Yes but only if conditions of cycle lane are unsafe

    Votes: 252 39.4%
  • Total voters
    640
Diddums said:
The thing that gets me the most is Boris Bikes. "Oh, you come from a country where people ride donkeys and the busiest road has about 15 cars on it all day? And you ride on the other side of the road too? And you've never driven a car? Ok cool, here's a bicycle, feel free to ride all over some of the world's busiest streets, it'll be fine, don't worry".
Click to expand...

Yet people whine like crazy if you take away precious car space to build safe cycle infrastructure
 
Diddums said:
Or.... "let's help reduce the deaths on the roads" thread. Depending on how you look at it. Your response is textbook cyclist though, to play victim.
Click to expand...

Most cyclist deaths are the motorists fault and it has nothing to do with whether they were using bike lanes or not. I suggest you do some research.
 
FishFluff said:
Most cyclist deaths are the motorists fault and it has nothing to do with whether they were using bike lanes or not. I suggest you do some research.
Click to expand...

So why would you purposely ride amongst them if they're the cause, when you have perfectly adequate means of getting to your destination with considerably less risk?

And I don't know about statistics and don't care enough to do any research, but the amount of times I've alsmost squashed a cyclist due to their own fault is unbelievable. I'm not innocent obviously, and mistakes happen, but cyclists take immense chances that you simply can't take in a car.
 
I see a lot of GD motorists haven't read the part of the highway code saying it's not compulsory to use one.

Fact is they are often littered with obstacles and is common for them to be just as dangerous as cycling on the road.
 
If the cycle lanes aren't being used, they should remove them and use the freed-up space to widen the roads instead.
 
Diddums said:
So why would you purposely ride amongst them if they're the cause, when you have perfectly adequate means of getting to your destination with considerably less risk?

And I don't know about statistics and don't care enough to do any research, but the amount of times I've alsmost squashed a cyclist due to their own fault is unbelievable. I'm not innocent obviously, and mistakes happen, but cyclists take immense chances that you simply can't take in a car.
Click to expand...

Because a painted white line doesn't protect cyclists. It's safer to ride further towards the middle of the road so that car drivers (who are probably on their mobiles) have a better chance of seeing you.

Build proper cycle infrastructure, like in the Netherlands, where there's a physical barrier between the cycle path (not lane, path) and then we'll talk about who can go where.
 
That main problem is that many car users are completely ignorant to the rules of road/cycle lane usage and the ones that moan the most are usually appalling drivers.

For riders that ride at 18mph+ you are not supposed to ride in cycle lanes as they are shared spaces with pedestrians. Cycle lanes are useful for riders that lack confidence to ride on the roads, slower riders and for the safety of children.
 
Number three but only because there was an inexplicable lack of pancake options.
Cyclists don't like being told what to do though in my experience.
 
If a cycle lane is there they should be forced to use it, simple as that.

Using the excuse that people cycle in different ways is not one that can be used as its a hypocritical argument at best.
 
Uther said:
Number three but only because there was an inexplicable lack of pancake options.
Cyclists don't like being told what to do though in my experience.
Click to expand...

Nobody does, if they did then there wouldn't be any need for speed cameras or red light jumping cameras, people drink driving or using mobile phones whilst driving.
 
kindai said:
If a cycle lane is there they should be forced to use it, simple as that.

Using the excuse that people cycle in different ways is not one that can be used as its a hypocritical argument at best.
Click to expand...

Of course there is, it's in the rules of usage. Another case of ignorance, and here is the main issue that causes much anger, the driver being a thick ****.
 
Bear said:
Cycle lanes are useful for riders that lack confidence to ride on the roads, slower riders and for the safety of children.
Click to expand...

So your "advanced cyclists" don't like being inconvenienced by slower traffic and go and inconvenience all the motorists instead?
 
Minstadave said:
So your "advanced cyclists" don't like being inconvenienced by slower traffic and go and inconvenience all the motorists instead?
Click to expand...

That for me is the biggest issue with motorists. We cyclists are simply seen as an "inconvenience ". Absolutely pathetic mentality to have.
 
kindai said:
If a cycle lane is there they should be forced to use it, simple as that.

Using the excuse that people cycle in different ways is not one that can be used as its a hypocritical argument at best.
Click to expand...

Would you want to be forced to ride in an environment where there could be obstructions around any corner (bollards, bins, lamp posts, railings) or a shared environment where there could be children or dogs with outstretched leads, or a path that suddenly merges into live traffic, or an unmaintained surface with sunken drains and potholes.

Because all of those are valid examples. And if you're a proficient cyclist that can knock our 20mph average, that's askibg for trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom