You hear it all the time, especially on the internet: cyclists should ride in the cycle lane. You might have had motorists yelling the same thing at you out on the road, or honking their horn (breaking Rule 112 of The Highway Code) and pointing at the cycle lane. What’s the truth?
Let’s see what The Highway Code has to say. Remember, not all of the rules in the Code are legal requirements but, as the RAC points out, even if they aren’t specifically backed up in law, its advice can be used as evidence in court, particularly when establishing liability.
As per Rule 61: “Cycle lanes are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings (see Rules 62 and 73) where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.”
So there, despite what some people might claim as they angrily pass cyclists or type furiously on the internet, The Highway Code makes it very clear — cyclists aren’t obliged to use cycle lanes.
Surely, though, it’s better all round for those on bikes to make use of cycle lanes when they are provided? It helps us cyclists by giving us our own space and it allows motor vehicles to flow more freely, right?
Well, it’s not always the best option. The key bit here is The Highway Code advising cyclists to use them “where they make your journey safer and easier”.
What if the cycle lane is full of debris that could to cause a puncture? Cycle lanes are usually positioned on the far left of the road and the camber means that everything that lands on the main carriageway eventually ends up there… grit, stones, bits that have fallen out of skips, the lot.
We’re not saying it’s common but we’ve even seen glass from a road traffic incident being swept from the middle of the carriageway onto the cycle lane and left there, as if that means it has been cleared.
Likewise, what about in autumn if the cycle lane has become a slippery mess of leaves and puddles? In both these cases the bike lane has not made your journey safer and easier. Some cycle lanes are dotted with slippery drain covers because of their positioning and they can be full of obstructions like bins left out to be emptied, temporary road signs and parked cars.
Then there’s the design of many poorer cycle lanes which, for an experienced road cyclist, are simply going to be far slower to use, compared with staying on the road. Some badly designed lanes, for example, might force riders to stop altogether to rejoin the road at the end of the route, or ride on a surface worse than the road, or ride right next to parked cars where a door might open at any second (going against Rule 67’s advice to leave at least a metre when passing parked cars).
So I guess what we’re getting at is that there are a whole host of reasons why that cycle lane might not make a particular cyclist’s journey safer or easier, in which case choosing not to use it is, as we’ve established, completely fine.
That won’t be a binary decision for all cyclists. The Highway Code points out, “This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time”. Yes, a less experienced cyclist riding to the shops might find a slightly bumpy bike lane with give way points safer and easier than riding on the road. But, an experienced road cyclist travelling at faster speeds on skinnier tyres, might not. It’s going to be subjective from rider to rider.
It’s widely accepted that cycling infrastructure needs to be built with beginners in mind. Design routes for the people who currently don’t cycle but would if you offered them a safe and accessible route. It’s a sensible approach and one that’s benefits are obvious when you visit somewhere like London and see a whole new wave of people getting around by bike and using newly built cycle lanes.
However, cyclists are a varied species and whether a cycle lane makes your journey safer and easier will, as The Highway Code rightly points out, be very much dependent on your experience (and bike choice, might we add as, after all, tyre width will make some surfaces more manageable than others).
Road cyclists riding a bike for sport and leisure are likely to be travelling at faster speeds than people riding a bike for transport or errands, so many shared-use-style segregated cycle lanes may actually end up making a journey more difficult when you factor in slowing down to access the route and rejoining the road later on.
That’s fine though. The infrastructure isn’t designed for those of us who enjoy smashing out the miles at the weekend, but just bear that in mind the next time you see (or more likely hear) someone getting angry about someone cycling at 30km/h on the road when there’s a slower cycle lane provided.
Rule 140 of The Highway Code has been heavily revised in the latest version that took effect a few years ago, the aim to afford greater protection to cyclists.
It says: “Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
“You should give way to any cyclists in a cycle lane, including when they are approaching from behind you – do not cut across them when you are turning or when you are changing lane (see Rule H3). Be prepared to stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists before crossing the cycle lane.
“Cycle tracks are routes for cyclists that are physically protected or located away from motor traffic, other than where they cross side roads. Cycle tracks may be shared with pedestrians.
“You should give way to cyclists approaching or using the cycle track when you are turning into or out of a junction (see Rule H3). Be prepared to stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists before crossing the cycle track, which may be used by cyclists travelling in both directions.
“Bear in mind that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks.”
There’s a distinction in The Highway Code between ‘Must/Must not’ instructions which are legal requirements, and ‘should/should not’ and ‘do/do not’ rules which are advisory. That means that motorists are only advised not to park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line.
Even if there’s just the occasional parked car, you’ll need to leave the cycle lane and perhaps move back into traffic that’s travelling at a faster speed. You might feel safer staying out of the cycle lane completely.
Another reason for not using a cycle lane on the left of the road is that it isn’t always convenient if you’re soon going to turn right or need to be in the right lane. Staying in the cycle lane might leave you needing to cross multiple lanes of traffic.
You might also sometimes find traffic turning left across your path without noticing you. The risk of getting sideswiped is one of the most common objections to using some cycle lanes.
A recent study published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention found that, far from protecting cyclists, painted cycle lanes are likely to result in closer passes from motorists. If you’ve had similar experiences, you’re perfectly entitled to skip the cycle lane.
There’s also the fact that some cycle lanes are simply – what’s the word? – crap. They’re filled with obstacles – street signs, bollards, trees and the like – they’re so narrow that it’s impossible to overtake, and they end abruptly.
Some cycle routes impede progress by requiring cyclists to give way to side roads frequently and even to dismount at certain junctions. It’s far easier and quicker to steer clear of many.
If you use a cycle lane you’ll have to rejoin the rest of the traffic at some point. This is usually straightforward enough but sometimes the junction at the far end has been poorly designed so you might want to avoid it by not taking the cycle lane in the first place.
You’ll often hear complaints that cyclist don’t use “perfectly good cycle paths”. The issue is that a cycle path existing and a cycle path being perfectly good are two different things. They’re sometimes footways that have been converted by having little blue shared-use signs added, they’re full of pedestrians, they’re narrow and poorly surfaced, they yield at every junction and they sometimes disappear entirely.
We’ve only pointed out the negative aspects of cycle lanes here, naturally, because we’re explaining why cyclists don’t always use them (and, of course, it’s always easy to criticise). The truth is that many fulfil a purpose.
If you feel safer in a cycle lane, you think it’s better for your purposes, or you reckon that, as a matter of courtesy, using one will help the flow of motor vehicles on the road, then go for it. Riding in a cycle lane is often the most sensible option but, despite what others might insist, it’s completely up to you.
127 thoughts on “Why don’t cyclists use cycle lanes?”
Not sure why you are telling
Not sure why you are telling us all this here, surely you are preaching to the converted.
Try getting The Sun or the Daily Hate Mail to publish it in a prominent place and getting the DVSA to do a more thorough job exhamining new drivers.
For me it is does it provide
For me it is does it provide me with an advantage. Do the pros outweigh the cons? Do I want to travel fast or am I going for a slower journey? Sometimes an off road or away from the road route is so much nicer, with nature and less fumes, but it is often not as direct. Then there is the joy of a near road path that takes me past huge queues of near stationary motor vehicles, stinky fumes but so many smiles. I also don’t like too many give ways at side roads, or the dreaded blue beware concealed entrance nonsense signs. And the amount of objects that they expect us to navigate around that would never be placed in the middle of any other form of roadway, let alone dark grey posts in the dark. Signposting is rarely great either, never telling you where you are or where you are going.
Agree with DrG82, you’re
Agree with DrG82, you’re leaning on an open door posting this article here. It would be much better aimed at a driver forum than a cyclist one, after all we already know why we avoid certain cycleways.
I had this the other day.
I had this the other day. Riding on the road a bus come really close behind me within 2 metres, it can’t get passed but won’t back off, I have to stick my hand out to tell him to back off. At the next lights I am shouting at the driver, what is he doing? He dismissively gestures to the kerb where there is a seperate bike lane. I am shouting back WRONG WRONG WRONG! He keeps gesturing. I just sprint away from him when the lights turn.
There was an adjacent bike lane which goes around the back of bus stops, has plenty of pedestrians walking around in the dark and wet not looking out for me (they even seemed to forget to look when stepping into the road that night the visibility was that bad.) It was jusy safer to be on the road until this berk decides he knows the law better than I do.
Not sure why you refer to
Not sure why you refer to rule 140 when last month you told us it was ok to park in cycle lanes built after 2016. Or as seems the actual case, the regs were changed in 2016 and due to poor wording allow parking.
Completely segregated cycle
Completely segregated cycle lanes are frequently good. Shared use paths are ok when I’m riding with my 5 year old.
But white paint on the road causes me more problems with motorists than if they weren’t there at all. Because if you dare to ride outside them, get ready for a full barrage of honking, finger pointing and shouting from ignorant halfwits who struggle to operate a motor vehicle.
They’re too small to provide
They’re too small to provide any protection, but you’re expected to use them.
I went into town on my
I went into town on my motorbike yesterday and found the cycle lane very useful to get front of the traffic lights. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a cyclist use this section of them, I reckon the council just randomly placed them for a token gesture so they could say ‘look we’ve done our bit for cycling’. They didn’t even end it with an ASL at the lights either.
Anyway 10/10 for motorcycling – would jump to front of queue again.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Motorbike/scooter in a cycle lane or ASL is definitely in my top ten things that pi$$ me off, tbh.
Remember: that’s the strip of road which is (supposed to be) ours, away from the motor vehicles.
brooksby wrote:
I do filter to the front when I’m on my motorbike but I stay out of the ASLs, because they’re not for motorbikes. I do get irritated with powered two wheeler riders who use ASLs. Twist and go scooter riders do seem to be the worst for using them, but then their riding skills are often horrendous too.
I’ve been told off by a van driver when on my motorbike for not using an ASL. He called over to me and told me to go into it and wouldn’t listen when I told him it wasn’t allowed. I don’t know why he bohered. It wasn’t as if me riding my sportsbike would hold up his Transit once the lights changed, but then people using four wheels rarely appreciate how much faster even small motorcycle is away from the lights.
brooksby wrote:
I get that motorised two wheelers are vulnerable too, and I’m much more tolerant of the odd infraction, but it does annoy me when I filter past a long line of cars to an ASL I know is there, only to find it already full of motorbikes and scooters – leaving me (the one without a motor) having to do said drag race / jostle for position with the cars behind.
Rick_Rude wrote:
That’s illegal by the way, filtering past the vehicle stopped at the white line at traffic lights.
Motorcyclists and scooter
Motorcyclists and scooter riders are also vulnerable road users and also have the right to filter. In some circumstances, getting to the head of the queue and pulling diagonally in front of the lead vehicle is a trick I learned from a Police rider. It is extremely dominant, gives you clear space, good visibility into the junction and prevents any thought of a drag race when the lights turn red and amber. In most scenarios the motorcycle will be off and away into clear space and safety without holding up the traffic in any way. ASLs are therefore a complete pain in the arse in this respect and reduce rider safety.
If they were to work for cyclists then they should be combined with a 5 second head start over the motorised traffic to allow the cyclists to clear the junction without motons breathing down their necks, and especially in those daft designs where 2 lanes of traffic are forced to merge into 1 at the far side of the junction.
Motorbikes in ASLs can be an
Motorbikes in ASLs can be an issue when the rider isn’t indicating their intention i.e. when they are planning on turning left and a cyclist goes to their inside. Most of the time though, two wheelers share the same problems on the road and so tend to be more considerate.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think my opinions have been skewed by anecdotal experience. Being followed down a cycle lane into an ASL by a small group of scooters, who took exception to my clearly not moving over far anough to let them all out into the ASL, and one of whom tried to kick me off once the lights changed…
oh god this is my pet hate-
oh god this is my pet hate- people telling me to use bicycle lanes which dont exist or are crap. You all know why we cannot use them when shared with pedestrians, when they cross junctions, when they have ramps or when they are full of trees, lamp posts or the elderly. Motorists who do not cycle of course wont get it, because theyre too retarded to ask politely. They are in effect, giving us permission to ride up alongside them in traffic and point to the bus stop sign. ”Why arent you on the bus? The council spent millions on the bus services here, yet you car drivers REFUSE to use them! And youre sat two abreast, slowing me down!] i have actually said this, or along those lines, to a few people now. Anyone reading this still, go to rate driver, type in” thr900j” or ”hg59yrf” ”hg09foj” you cannot drive two abreast, with just you in a car, at zero mph, then beep and shout at a cyclist going 30 mph for slowing you down. seriously, we have to be on the road with people this dumb. i will gladly use cycle lanes when i dont have to give way, stop or battle with pedestrians. they dont exist yet in my area, the council takes great delught in pisstaking us with pavements and that little blue sign. Putting me going 30 mph on a pavement with people going 3 miles per hour is akin to cycling on the road at ten mph then letting a car driver weave in and out of you and other people on bikes, going at 100 mph, Ten times the speed, why is this thought to be ok to mix? I remmeber numberplates very well, every time i come across a driver who has previously said or done something to me when im cycling, if i find them when on my motorbikes, i beep or yell at them.
Quote:
And of course the winner in this one is the awful “shared space” one on Priory Lane, from the South Circular in towards Richmond Park (Roehampton Gate).
One pavement split half and half with a “cycle lane” that’s routinely blocked by parked cars / delivery vans, covered in leaves, full of schoolchildren etc and obviously all the road cyclists going to and from Richmond Park will ride in the road. The abuse along there is unreal, I know road.cc has featured a couple of close passes and one example of extreme abuse but it’s a classic example of how shit infrastructure makes things MORE dangerous. Remove that cycle lane from the pavement and the abuse will drop dramatically (it’ll never go away entirely). Crap cycle lanes are worse than nothing.
Sustrans have to accept some responsibility for this because for years they were wiling to sign off any half-hearted bollocks from councils as being a hard-won campaign effort and “better than nothing” whereas in fact it’s contributed to a lot of the issues.
The Department for Transport
The Department for Transport (DfT) advice is,
“Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.”
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688
I’ve got numerous pics of
I’ve got numerous pics of scooters and motorcycles, in one case 3 of them, stopped in ASLs from my handlebar camera. I don’t generally have a problem with it, although I’d never do it on my own motorbike.
I do object to scooters/motorbikes using the cycle lanes although.
My other reason for hating painted cycle lanes is that the addition of them on the roads has pushed the 2 lines of traffic closer together and reduced the amount of space and, therefore, safety and opportunity, for filtering up the middle of the road on the motorbike when it’s rush hour – hence why some of them now use the cycle lanes.
Most cycle lanes just aren’t
Most cycle lanes just aren’t wide enough. According to the design notes for cycle lanes:
All too often what you actually get is a cycle lane that’s not much wider than your handlebars.
Tom_77 wrote:
Whoever is measuring cycle lanes must be the same sort of person that says they’ve got a 12 inch cock. As mentioned, handlebars width if you’re lucky.
The one by Dover castle is
The one by Dover castle is great
https://goo.gl/maps/tQWEy3W14Z3gTVdC7
On this occaision, the bike lane looks wider than the car lane.
Or my personal favourite,
Or my personal favourite, approaching the Clifton Suspension Bridge from the Bristol side…
And the motorists just cannot understand why a cyclist might ride in the general lane…?!
https://goo.gl/maps/yhaFnD6awyYig1st7
You’re lucky that using
You’re lucky that using painted lanes is optional. Here (NSW, Australia) it’s compulsory if they are provided. But at least there is less confusion, they must be signposted as a bike lane, with the word lane written. If there’s a bike symbol without the word lane written, it’s not one. There is no parking permitted in bike lanes at all, which there shouldn’t be, they’re a traffic lane (enforcement is another matter). It doesn’t mean they’re any good, but at least it’s clear to cyclists what they are and when we must use them.
I’d like to vote for the
I’d like to vote for the shared pavement along Coronation Rd in Bristol:
https://bristolcars.blogspot.com/2010/08/coronation-road-cycle-path.html
or, there’s an absolute beauty on the A370/M5 roundabout by Weston:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3594591,-2.8941526,3a,75y,96.43h,77.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKHeN_WKdakzy1T33Ipoqgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s pretty crap, but not really like that article makes out, most folk seem to be able to use and share it just fine. That said, my favourite bit is where the blue signage gets erroneously reversed for one wee section, putting the cycle side furthest from the road – or not…
fukawitribe wrote:
It’s usable if you’re not in a rush and can handle all the tree roots, but yeah, you can’t rely on pedestrians keeping to “their” side. Personally, I prefer tangling with the motorised traffic instead.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Aye, I only ever use it if the traffic is spread out kerb to centre – it’s generally reasonably easy to stay at or near the flow of traffic on that stretch, more often have to filter than not at the times i’d be going through.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, now I know where Norwich got its inspiration from
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3594591,-2.8941526,3a,75y,96.43h,77.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKHeN_WKdakzy1T33Ipoqgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
What! Where do I go then when I get to the traffic lights?
hirsute wrote:
What! Where do I go then when I get to the traffic lights?— hawkinspeter
It’s not obvious, but on the left hand side of the A370 there’s a quite usable cycle lane, so by just merely hopping across two lanes of traffic, you can carry on in relative safety (strangely enough, that bit is on the pavement, but is marked as cycle only though it’s very rare that I’ve encountered walkers on there).
hawkinspeter wrote:
I did see that bit of signage but I thought it was for joining. I really didn’t think it was intended as an exit from the traffic lights !
hirsute wrote:
“Intended” would be putting it a bit strong – I’d be surprised if anyone put much thought into it. The whole appoach to the M5/A370 roundabout is almost impossible to navigate on foot as there’s only fragments of pavements here and there.
They put one of these shared
They put one of these shared paths in Edinburgh up and down Leith walk. But most of the time the part labeled for bikes is full of people walking, stopped talking or pushing prams. They actually have no idea they are In a bike lane.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You sound local to my parents, they live in Clevedon. Have you seen the proposals for the seafront? I thought they looked really good but my folks hate them along with most locals. Unfortunately they live in the adjacent street so the one way will make it a rat run.
Not owning a car they cycle everywhere and my Mum was recently knocked off her bike. Given that the bike was written off and she’s in her 70’s miraculously she’s fine after a couple of weeks taking it easy.
This
This
Sure looks like hell on earth
Sure looks like hell on earth to me. In places it would seem only two cars wide – how can you get past the parking at any speed?
Cyclists will never use it, because hill. Also: because hill, people won’t be able to safely cross the cycle path for speeding cyclists. It’ll need some barriers across it every 50 metres to slow them down.
chrisonatrike wrote:
You must be a local! That’s pretty much what they all seem to think, even the ones who cycle regularly like my folks. Personally I thought it looked good but each to their own I guess.
This bit right here is
This bit right here is exactly why the HC needs a total revamp and written by people who actually understand things like priority, safety and hazard perception!
“keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users.”
The first bit is utterly irrelevant, it should be something like, ‘ the lane is a guide only, if you need to ride outside of the marked area for any reason (safety being one), do so, you are not constrained in any way to remain within the cycle lane.’
And, ‘When leaving the lane, if you are able to check behind, do so, you have priority and vehicles behind need to ensure it is safe to pass/overtake you. If it is safe for you to take your hand off the bars (do not do this if the weather or road conditions would make this dangerous to you) then signal your intention with an outstretched arm in the direction you wish to move, this can be helpful to other road users but is not necessary.
Motorists behind you who are observing the HC and fulfilling their lawful obligation to ensure you are not going to be harmed and doing their hazard perception will see that the lane is ending and/or that you may wish to navigate to another part of the highway. if you are making a turn then the HC already states that a motorist cannot overtake you if there is a junction, move confidently to the position you wish to hold.’
Except it won’t, because it’s written for motorists by motorists with little to no understanding of the problems and why they’ll reoccur time and again with bad outcomes for the vulnerable person no matter what line/lane or training people on bikes have.
Xena, Moon landings, any
Xena, Moon landings, any thoughts?
Any original thoughts or are
Any original thoughts or are you just going to parrot things you have been told on youtube?
Xena,
Xena,
You have absolutely no idea about what’s going on in the world, you’re happy to suck up any bullshit American con-artsts (often backed by billionaires) you watch on you tube becuase it must be true.
Go learn some actual science, stop being a dupe of people who want to maniuplate you for their own profit.
I don’t generally use the
I don’t generally use the ones that are a shared space with pedestrians unless the adjacent road is dangerous to cycle on. This is because it seems the only way to safely share space with pedestrians is to be travelling at their speed, and if I wanted to be travelling at walking pace I’d be walking!
It is always a pleasure to
It is always a pleasure to have your insights Crippledbiker.
ktache wrote:
Thank you – honestly, a lot of the stuff I say is pointing out the exact same thing. Over and over and over again.
It gets wearisome.
The notion that disabled cyclists might not be able to dismount is hardly extraordinary or revolutionary, given but a moment of thought and remembering that we bloody well exist.
Having said that, most posters here cotton on once it’s been pointed out and keep it in mind. Now, if somebody could remind the pillocks who keep designing stuff we can’t use, and those who keep trying to ban bikes from places…
Crippledbiker wrote:
It is always a pleasure to have your insights Crippledbiker.
— Crippledbiker Thank you – honestly, a lot of the stuff I say is pointing out the exact same thing. Over and over and over again. It gets wearisome. The notion that disabled cyclists might not be able to dismount is hardly extraordinary or revolutionary, given but a moment of thought and remembering that we bloody well exist. Having said that, most posters here cotton on once it’s been pointed out and keep it in mind. Now, if somebody could remind the pillocks who keep designing stuff we can’t use, and those who keep trying to ban bikes from places…— ktache
Tsk.. I remember the days when disabled people were grateful for a pat on the head, the offer of a “nice cup of tea” in a loud voice and a guide dog every now and again.
Mungecrundle wrote:
The title of the R4 prog summed it up nicely: “Does he take sugar?”
That title is so apt
That title is so apt
I had a run in with a
I had a run in with a Stagecoach bus driver recently,
https://road.cc/content/news/265532-near-miss-day-297-bus-driver-cuts-cyclist-because-he-wasnt-crap-bike-path
I reported this to the police who viewed the footage and said it wasn’t worth pursuing as the driver could argue he was braking for the speed hump, even though he close passed me then swung in and slammed on, nearly taking me out. When I confronted him he kept telling me to use the cycle path.
Last week I had another close pass by another Stagecoach bus driver, who passed me inside a pinch point crossing place in the centre of the road. Again, when I caught up with him and confronted him, he kept telling me to use the cycle path. I am currently awaiting a response from Stagecoach. I think the police should act on this as it was clearly driving without due care, but have lost all faith in Lancashire Police. Even when I have complained to the police standards dept, they have not had the decency to reply.
Stagecoach drivers should be trained to ensure they are aware that cyclists do not have to use cycle paths.
Good luck with that I have
Good luck with that I have tried Bus Cos and they are not responsive
It’s the so called ‘professional’ drivers that are the most complacent, abusive and dangerous
Watch the postie when delivering with a van in rural locations
Advice from the Department
Advice from the Department for Transport is that you shouldn’t be using bike lanes if you cycle at more than 18 mph anyway.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688
bike.brain wrote:
That’s for shared-use paths, not bike lanes.
Is this some kind of ironic
Is this some kind of ironic messaging from Peloton?
https://twitter.com/Cycle_Whamp/status/1346218521601204224?s=20
Old post, I know… but not
Old post, I know… but not ‘ironic’ if the Peloton van is parked – if it’s parked then it is ‘apt’ given that Peloton are famous for their stationary bikes.
Probably one of their staff
Probably one of their staff decided to take a bike out for a ride for a change…
“A recent study published in
“A recent study published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention(link is external) found that, far from protecting cyclists, painted cycle lanes are likely to result in closer passes from motorists.”
This, for me, is one of the fundamental problems with on-road, painted cycle lanes, and you can’t even really blame drivers for it.
When driving in the right hand lane of a two lane carriageway, there is no need to perform any kind of overtaking manoeuvre, or move out in any way, to pass another vehicle being driven in the left hand lane.
So, when the left hand lane is a cycle lane, rather than a motor vehicle lane, drivers act in the same way because “that is how it works when the vehicles are in their own lanes”, resulting in them cruising past the cyclists’ elbows far too close.
And it comes back to the same issue so much of this debate does, which is drivers often don’t understand what it is like to be on the road as anything other than the driver of a motor vehicle.
2 points:
2 points:
1. I was once advised not to feed trolls.
2. I don’t know if any of these contributions are moderated but blatant foul and abusive language, as opposed to comments the moderator disagrees with, is usually a good reason for a contribution to be blocked as it is very unlikely to be helpful to anyone.
Fair point.
Fair point.
I’m responsible for republishing material like this; In future I’ll try and remember to check the comments for fossilized nastiness by long-banned pillocks.
In this particular case I’m quite tempted to just delete everything Xena ever posted. Nothing of value would be lost, except for some quality snark in response.
My favourite was when ktache
My favourite was when ktache busted him for coming back with a new username by asking about his photo of his bikes in a shed. “You’ve stolen [user] ‘s bikes and … their shed !”
A classic!
A classic!
BTW, as the username suggests, Xena was a woman.
From the sublime to the
From the sublime to the ridiculous on this old thread. Good to reread crippledbiker’s comments and lament his passing. Xena was a real oddity, although he did confess to drug use, so probably explains most of his comments.
Chapeau to Crippledbiker.
Chapeau to Crippledbiker.
“Some cycle routes impede
“Some cycle routes impede progress by requiring cyclists to give way to side roads frequently and even to dismount at certain junctions.”
Point of order, blue “cyclists dismount” signs are advice you are not “required” to dismount.
But, if you don’t and then
But, if you don’t and then get hit by a motorist not paying attention (I know, like that ever happens…) then getting insurance, especially for injury could be far more problematic.
Here’s an example of a useful
Here’s an example of a useful Bristol shortcut from Avonvale Rd to Silverthorne Lane (part of my route to the station).
Oh wait, what’s that blocking access?
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/photograph-one-bristols-worst-parked-7034882
The police want to talk to the driver about their unorthodox parking methods.
I can assure you it’s not a
I can assure you it’s not a uniquely british thing. Here in Norway we get the same arguments. (Including about not paying some “Road Tax” (Veiavgift) that doesn’t exist)
“Why build lanes when they don’t use them”, yet those lanes of a decent quality are well used.
The same people who complain about cyclists on the road in the local paper commetns, are also complaining about the construction of a properly segregated route between the 2 local town, linking to the main employment area in the middle. 14km of dedicated quality cycle infrastructure, which features filter lanes for turning off, over and underpasses at roads, few turn offs (to discourage people walking dogs etc), a tunnel through a hill-top. So by providing a route to keep those on 2 wheels away from the drivers it’s STILL wrong.
Next segment with the tunnel and 2 motorway junction flyovers should open in the spring. THIS is a cycle lane. https://youtu.be/mLabUYSsEJQ
Did you manage to pass the
Did you manage to pass the bloke in front ?
What a wonderful peice of
What a wonderful peice of cycle infrastructure, I like the junctions.
And the rumblestrips warning you of the upcoming corner.
But cycle lanes are useful if
But cycle lanes are useful if you need to pop in to the sandwich shop:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1562795245531971592
A good summary that should be
A good summary that should be shared widely, especially with those who ‘design’ and install these cycleways. The standards of installation and upkeep are appalling.
There was one on Teesside that had house & minor road priority across the cycleway, hence no one used it
The article above does
The article above does nothing to endear cyclists to other road users or pedestrians. If cyclists moan about the awful state of the cycling lanes and that they cant use them because of this, then perhaps they should also contribute a little more towards the cost of repair, obviously councils are finding it hard to fund repair of cycle lanes and are continuing to do what they did before cycle lanes were invented ie as little repair to the carrigeway as they can get away with.
Pedestrian300 wrote:
A quite brilliant solution, cyclists have already paid for their cycle lanes through their income tax, council tax, VAT etc, but if they want them kept in rideable condition they should pay for that? Presumably pedestrians who moan about the state of the pavement should pay for their repair, also drivers who moan about the state of the roads? Perhaps people who are worried about high crime should pay more for extra police, people who complain about the state of the NHS should pay for their own operations etc?
Pedestrian300 wrote:
Fuel duty and VED are not ringfenced, so all taxpayers contribute toward the upkeep of the roads. Do motorists offer specific voluntary contributions toward the costs of repair and upkeep of the roads, given that it is motor vehicles which damage most road surfaces the most?
Well, the story on VED is a
Well, the story on VED is a little more nuanced:
[I]As part of his 2015 change Osborne announced that the money raised through VED would also exclusively go directly back into improving the roads.[/i]
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/vehicle-excise-duty/
Sriracha wrote:
IIRC wasn’t that going back to maintaining the primary road network (motorways and major A roads). Everything else is still free range (or whatever the opposite of ‘ringfenced’ would be).
Didn’t really go as planned
Didn’t really go as planned anyway
https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/A38-scheme-wins-43m-National-Roads-Fund-pledge/10823
“The National Roads Fund combines the cash pots for the Major Road Network and Large Local Major schemes. It has suffered severe cutbacks to local funding since first being announced.
Last year its local funding provision was cut from an expected £3.5bn to £2.6bn over five years.”
Still leaves the roads used by cyclists being maintained from local council tax and any schemes funded by general tax and local tax.
If that prat Cameron had not
If that prat Cameron had not given the OK for the HS2 rail track then our roads might well be a lot better with a good cycle network for safety and NHS would be better funded to!
Pedestrian300 wrote:
Why? Why do cyclists complaining about poor infra cast them in a worse light than drivers complaining about poor road surface, or pedestrians complaining about overgrown/impassable walking routes?
Uh, what? Road building and maintenance are funded by general taxation, not “Road Tax” (which hasn’t existed since 1937), so we already pay as much as drivers do. Also, if you consider:
A) the fact that roads are designed primarily with cars in mind, with very little thought given to usage by/safety of cyclists and are also maintained with cars in mind (a pot-hole “fix” that’s good enough for a car can still be lethal to a cyclist).
B) by far the most expensive type of roads to build and maintain (motorways), cyclists aren’t even allowed to use.
It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that cyclists (especially ones who don’t drive – like myself) pay quite a disproportionately massive share towards the UK’s roads, and don’t really get anything back.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Even though our taxes still contribute toward their maintenance…
Is the M6a still a toll road?
Is the M6a still a toll road?
There should be an extra
There should be an extra amount of council tax for cyclists ? Or perhaps increasingly heavier cars should have their owners pay a bit more council tax?
Or should there be an extra bit of income tax for cyclists?
A large problem with cycle lanes is the poor design from the start with street furnture in them and dumping the rider back out to the road.
Even now highways people do not meet the standards of LTN 1/20 with new schemes.
https://ipayroadtax.com/no
https://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/who-pays-road-tax/
Cyclists “perhaps… should
Cyclists “perhaps… should also contribute a little more towards the cost of repair” What we already pay through our taxes for cycle lanes, or are you suggesting we pay another tax, maybe an imaginary tax like road tax?
You’re right.
You’re right.
As a cyclist I don’t pay any income tax, council tax or VAT.
Obvious really; you must not
Obvious really; you must not be able afford a car if you’re cycling. Or you’re some kind of (whatever they call hippy / crusty / eco-warrior types these days).
A cycle uses little space
A cycle uses little space compared to your small car let alone a 4X4 or bus etc and a lot less wear to a road. One car one driver, four bike riders and we all pay the tax that covers the roads and your NHS stay,
I think the main complaint
I think the main complaint about cycle lanes is poor design and lack of consultation, not state of repair.
Seeking endearment from pedestrians and motorists is a bit like shovelling custard uphill.
As long as pedestrians look up from their mobiles before stepping into the road and motorists look ahead more than 5 metres before trying to overtake,look properly before entering roundabouts and don’t think it is ok to clip my elbow so they can get to McDonald’s sooner, they can think what they likeTBH.
I’d agree the biggest
I’d agree the biggest complaint about them covers those points. But I’d still like the road sweeper to occasionally sweep them, or a steam roller to flatten all the tree root bumps to keep what they do dump on us semi usable
I think any ‘flattening’ of
I think any ‘flattening’ of tree root bumps by a heavy roller would last a few days at most!
It’s a legitimate point.
It’s a legitimate point. Infrastructure needs maintenance and if we benefit from *cycling specific* infrastructure we should contribute.
But does a white line arbitrarily painted down a road marking out a cycle lane that’s punctuated by sunken drain covers and often flooded or actively parked on actually count in this regard?
StevenCrook wrote:
Cycling-specific infra? You mean velodromes (oh and cycle garages)?
I’ll happily pay cycle tax when everyone else does – in the same way as my “road tax” is mostly getting spent on providing for the motoring I don’t do…
You are right that this is how people *see* it – “stands to reason” and motoring businesses and politicians have done a brilliant job of hiding the total costs of mass motoring (which everyone is paying for, not just those who buy fuel or tax their car).
In fact everyone stands to benefit from mobility infra of sufficient quality (such that it leads to “mass cycling”). Children (independent mobility), pedestrians in general *, those with mobility issues / who can’t drive for health reasons…
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the-dutch-cycling-infrastructure/
… even those who still drive (the main problem for drivers is all the other motorists).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
* They don’t have to share, they are further from motor traffic, there should be less motor traffic in central urban areas as part is replaced by cycling…)
StevenCrook wrote:
Everyone benefits from cycle specific infrastructure (though it typically supports scooters/skaters as well) due the reduction in congestion and pollution of people driving. Even non-drivers benefit as there’s less pressure on the NHS when more people cycle. Therefore, everyone should contribute and ideally we should stop subsidising the drivers so much.
StevenCrook wrote:
I do, I pay income tax, council tax, VAT, alcohol duty and numerous other levies that go into the general fund from which cycling provision is funded. Despite my paying my taxes the same as any driver, the government spends £148 per person on roads for cars as opposed to the £10 per person spent on active travel (not just cycling). Additionally, when you factor in the costs of accidents and pollution, each car on the road costs the taxpayer around £4000 whilst cyclists actually provide a net benefit to the exchequer through less lateness and illness-driven absenteeism and lower demands on the NHS through better health. So until the government starts spending £4500 per cyclist on cycling specific infra, I don’t really feel like paying any extra, thanks.
I seem to think that I
I seem to think that I already pay towards the upkeep of roads, pavements and cycle lanes by virtue of my income tax and council tax.
First let’s see the receipts
First let’s see the receipts for all the donations you have made to your local council for the upkeep of the pavements, Pedestrian 300, so we can be sure you have endeared yourself to other road users or cyclists.
This is a great overview of
This is a great overview of everything regular cyclists will already be acutely aware of. However from a motorist’s perspective, I can’t see how any of this answers their argument to ‘use the cycle path when provided’.
Explaining why a cyclist might not want to use a path is essentially admitting that the path should really be used. it is admitting we are wrong… we are not in the wrong.
My answer whenever challenged is now;
“I don’t have to use the path, and I won’t use one unless it is more convenient for me to do so.
The key purpose of a cyclepath is to provide a dedicated space where less confident / able riders are able to ride their bikes away from traffic. They are an enabler, to encourage more people to use bicycles as an effective mode of traffic.
What cyclepaths are not, is a segregator to remove cyclists from the road for the convenience of motorists. Please stop seeing them as such”
It is the motorists perception that is wrong here, we don’t need to justify our actions.
one thing I saw at the
one thing I saw at the weekend on my travels, but had never thought about before really, are you allowed to put a skip in a cycle lane ?
I was about to say “obviously
I was about to say “obviously” but thinking about this maybe not because cars could crash into it. Especially if it sticks out into the main lane.
yeah I dont know the answer,
yeah I dont know the answer, I know you need to obtain a licence to put a skip on a public road, which suggests someone reviews where you want to put it, but you cant put a skip on a pavement for instance, so why is it allowed to block a cycle lane ? especially one you shouldnt be able to leave a parked car in.
Unfortunately some – even
Unfortunately some – even “madatory cycle lanes” – are indeed “parkable”. Dunno if that makes a difference for putting skips / contractor’s equipment in them? You’re probably aware of the dodge / loophole / legal mess which means that for some cycle lanes parking is legally allowed and it’s entirely not transparent if this is the case or not. (As well as just “well I put it here, what are you going to do?” practice).
Skips are transported on a
Skips are transported on a small truck they are not allowed by law to be on any pavement at all since the 1980s, so the skip has to stay on the road.
That 1980 law stated no
That 1980 law stated no trucks (lorries) over a certain weight can’t drive or park on pavements but they do put skips onto a small private driveway when never possible, mainly so it is near to the job, not on safety grounds. Our UK roads were only built for sedan chairs, horse & carriages, horse & cart transport, pedestrians then bicycles, not very large cars (Volvo 4X4s etc) and trucks from 15cwt to 42 tons etc. So I would say most motor traffic should be removed.
Why not leave them in the
Why not leave them in the carriageway, they don’t because the builders want the skip as close to the job as pose!
They are basically a free
They are basically a free parking area for very lazy drives!
No, we don’t have to use them
No, we don’t have to use them; but as we fought for them we should use them when and where we feel it’s safe. The anti-cyclists’ main argument for removing them is lack of use. That argument went out of the window this week in London, but we need to increase usage nationally. We’ll never get better infrastructure if we don’t use what we’ve already got.
60somethingcyclist wrote:
Speak for yourself – I’ve never fought for the kind of rubbish that predominantly masquerades as ‘cycle provision’, and I doubt most other people here have either.
Read the rest of what I said.
Read the rest of what I said. “We’ll never get better infrastructure if we don’t use what we’ve already got”
60somethingcyclist wrote:
Who is “we”?
I agree that the usual trap is “look we built it (by sticking a sign on a footpath) but the cyclists didn’t come ergo nobody wants to cycle so let’s pour any future cash into a fraction of a B-road”.
(Bonus for the status quo – if cyclists *did come in numbers there would be pressure from pedestrians to get rid of them – see “fighting over scraps”).
The problem is as usual that those who already cycle (or might give it a go with no advance other than *more* UK paint-and-signs-level stuff) are very few (hence around 1% of journeys cycled nationally).
There’s no guarantee that having existing cyclists using the (generally poor) infra will do anything. It would rarely make it more convenient for them and some in the UK is so bad as to make it more dangerous than ignoring it.
As places elsewhere have found – cycling needs to be a *lot* more attractive for those numbers to rise much. (Not “perfect” though – or even Dutch quality – as places like Paris and Seville show).
There also needs to be some push eg. reduce the convenience of driving. Cycling has to be *relatively* attractive. (Plus we also need the space from somewhere – motor traffic being very good at taking it over).
How to break out of the loop? As eg. Chris Boardman in the UK and others elsewhere have pointed out there is a large target group who might like to cycle, and who people are slightly more likely to be sympathetic to: children.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/03/who-do-we-campaign-for.html
I agree that some push is
I agree that some push is needed. This weeks tube strike was the push that got more londoners on their bikes, although I doubt that any politician would endorse making it more inconvenient to drive in the current political climate. I’ve noticed a lot more children being taken out on their bikes by parents and our local comp has a lot of pupils cycling in. Unfortunately I can’t see drivers being any more sympathetic to them than to adult cyclists.
60somethingcyclist wrote:
Truth there (some years back I witnessed a few parents even campaigning against making their street a no-through road – a street with a school on that apparently their *own* kids went to!…)
The good news is that because cycling is “small, cheap and (often) unobtrusive” it can sneak in on the cracks (sometimes literally – the bits of space no one yet turned into road or profit).
The flip side is for mass cycling (which works *together* with walking and public transport to cover a lot of the “alternative to driving”) at some point *some* of the hardest battles have to be fought – junctions. (Even better – re-thinking our local road *networks* – but that’s “nuclear-fusion level” hard in the UK it seems).
I try to be optimistic (on the grounds that lots of other driving- centric places have managed to slightly tame the driving and create good alternatives). And as at some point we may start running out of space and money to throw at mass motoring (along with the other issues it has) local authorities may start grasping the truth of “providing for walking and cycling – your least shit option”.
60somethingcyclist wrote:
I did. It wasn’t relevant to my point.
60somethingcyclist wrote:
I get the sentiment, but there are limits to the “use it or lose it” argument.
Nobody is mourning the loss of this bit of “cycling infrastructure” (what were they thinking?!)…
https://maps.app.goo.gl/yfP7droZX4qsfy8p9
In fairness the dumb stuff
In fairness the dumb stuff like that is how road planners set up things to let cyclists cross roads to infra, therell be a cycle path opposite most if those im sure, but alot of them are still in the pedestrian with wheels mindset which doesnt produce Dutch quality routes
stonojnr wrote:
I did include a link to the streetview and that’s exactly what it is – a ‘refuge’ for cyclists wanting to access the shared use cycle track on the other side of the road.
But it’s ridiculous! If you have just cycled up that twisting national speed limit country road, why on earth would you feel the need to dismount and walk your bike across the road – especially when there’s not actually any pedestrian crossing facility. You’d just turn right onto the cycle track!
Maybe the hope is that right-turning cyclists will pull over and not hold up drivers, because that’s the only group who might stand to benefit from this nonsense!
I would guess that providing
I would guess that providing funding for a crossing point was a condition of the planning permission for the drive-thru, with the intention that it would link to an onward path beyond the roundabout, but the funding for that never transpired.
mdavidford wrote:
It’s difficult though because active travel funding seems organised more like a lottery. So when eg. the council answer questions / objections that obvious things are missing or incomplete with “… will be proved via separate funding / as part of (some larger project)” it’s frustrating. It’s not helpful to say “codswallop!” – but the reality is that often these funds don’t appear / the project does not happen for years – or ever!
It’s reasonable that the things might be sliced and diced this way. However because of repeated failures to “finish the job” the suspicion is that people are being less than frank. Or perhaps are regularly selling us a pup by stating there will be such provision while finding ways to move key parts out of scope / make these the first parts to be cut due to “costs”. The effect being to excuse the project (and/or private developers) the duty of providing adequate (or any) active travel infra. (Even where this seems directly counter to their stated policies…)
Maybe a case of all that the
Maybe a case of all that the local authorities could afford in a fiscal year. They had plans to extend but then COVID intervened.
Seriously, are councils so full of political career people, that nobody dare point out crass idiocy?
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Well, sympathy for the devil … but councillors may get some nastiness from other councillors and I believe death threats have resulted from plans which might have removed parking spaces.
The consultants used presumably want to keep their jobs, the council officers likewise (although IIRC Edinburgh had the opposite issue where officers responsible for active travel would quit and become consultants – presumably it was less frustrating and better-paid…)
60somethingcyclist wrote:
That’s not how things work. Imagine if you will, a town with a collapsed bridge – no-one’s using it, so it’ll never get repaired. Seem logical to you?
That’s not how things work
That’s not how things work
It is how some things work! The local Aldi seems to order replacement goods on the basis of boxes being nearly seen nearly empty – if the boxes have been emptied and removed, then replacements aren’t ordered for weeks
hawkinspeter wrote:
Photo is from 2016, bridge still not repaired even though we used it so yes it does seem logical
Backladder wrote:
Is this like the Russian(?) joke (“they pretend to pay us so we pretend to work”) but for active travel eg. “We pretend to care about active travel / vulnerable road users / accessibility, so we pretend to provide for them”?
Backladder wrote:
I think you’re confusing the behaviour of councils with logic.
I used to allways use the A15
I used to allways use the A15 main carriageway but I moved close to it and it takes me ages post chemo (2019) to warm up now as its wrecked my nerves/ circulation, so I use the path now. Touchwood, the one p’ture I’ve had in about 6 years on the road bike was immediately after cycling down there. Being littered in glass is another reason not to use farcilities. Its also bumpier and more draggy than it look in the street view (all those puddles and other depressions are usually filled with sand/ fine gravel). Also last week there was a flash flood on the road, a car went through the flood and totally drenched the path. I anticipated that and slowed down only for a following muppet driver to speed up and drench me. https://maps.app.goo.gl/D5rcdcLjfibnWH8K7
Because they are mostly ill
Because they are mostly ill conceived shite.
(Cycle lanes that is).
I can live with street
I can live with street furniture. I can live with pedestrians stepping into them. I can live with leaves, and litter. What I can’t stand is that every time I get to a side road the cycle lane pauses, I have to hit a beg button and wait for a mandatory 90 seconds for the lights to let me cross. And then repeat the whole thing in 200 metres. If I’d stayed on the road it would shave almost 10 minutes off the journey.
Convinced that North Yorkshire County Council have done this deliberately to discourage people from riding bikes at all.
A few Councils are rolling
A few Councils are rolling out Continuous (aka Copenhagen) Crossings.
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2018/11/13/design-details-1/
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2019/10/01/design-details-2/
HLaB wrote:
Available in Edinburgh, and some are *almost* “correct” eg. Leith Walk / Jane Street.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@55.968975,-3.173213,287.16h,-13.61p,1.71z,OR7aXYuVDQH68VfXTncrzw
As per Robert’s excellent articles the devil is in the detail though. And often this is just not good enough (or important preconditions for it working aren’t met):
a) because UK we tend to have “minor side streets” which aren’t. They’re still quite busy because what would be effectively a LTN elsewhere is permeable to through traffic in the UK. Then because we don’t discourage this (eg. with narrower streets, low speed limits, the narrow entrance of a”continuous footway”) they *are* more used. So this becomes self-fulfilling eg. “We can’t create a bottleneck at the entrance because of the traffic flows…”
b) In other places the main street these emerge into would also not be hugely busy / have high speed limit – but again in the UK that’s often not the case. It might be a 40mph+ multi-lane “urban motorway”. So extra space is provided for drivers’ safety / not to hold up those on the main road, and what should have been a “continuous footway / cycleway” instead gets the “side *road*” treatment, which diverts cyclists to make waiting space for drivers. That design isn’t bad of itself but in the UK currently a high proportion of drivers simply drive straight onto the cycle path / footway and use that as more waiting area. In Edinburgh this is the case along the CCWEL from Wester Coats to Haymarket.
Of course like many places in the UK in Edinburgh drivers have been *trained* to ignore this stuff because the council have been building cargo cult versions for years which have no standard design or clear meaning…