A Newbie's Dilemma - what's your opinion

[simon the viking]

I believe myself to be a considerate commuter-cyclist. I always wear a fluorescent cycling jacket and helmet, use two sets of lights, look behind me before I manoeuvre in traffic, never JRL (even at crossings) and wear Lycra (the last bit is nothing about being considerate just a confession).

My dilemma is this, on my 15 mile round trip I have to use quite a narrow but very busy bridge with 40 mph limit. do I...

A - Ride across it on the pavement paying particular attention to pedestrians as they have right of way?

B - Ride across on the road and risk injury or worse as cars can just overtake you as long as they only give 2 inches room while buses and lorries can't and just sit two foot off your back wheel revving aggressively?

C - Get off and walk, The bridge is over half a mile long and walking it pushing a bike would be a pain and add ten minutes to a thirty minute commute.

What would you do? Me? for a week I did B now I do A (but feel guilty about it every time) as I can't face C as I'm a cyclist. In my defence most people do A

 

[400bhp]

It's very difficult to comment without seeing the particular bridge. Provide a link to the bridge. Someone is likely to know the bridge in question and others can comment on it too.

 

[ianrauk]

Me.. without seeing the bridge.....I would sit in primary and let them wait behind me. For all their aggressive revving, well that's just all it is. Let them get on with it. It doesn't get them anywhere. You are not risking injury. And I can't imagine it happens a lot. Not all motor drivers are idiots.

If you are not confident of cycling in primary on the bridge then the best thing would be to walk. Cycling on the pavement is not a good idea. You are asking for a whole heap of trouble if you hit a ped.

 

[400bhp]

Oh, there is option D - find another route.

Many cyclists think too much like car drivers when it comes to route planning.

 

[endoman]

I'm guessing it's the Widnes-Runcorn bridge from the OP's username. Not much alternative route. Pretty sure this came up on here some time ago, worth a search. Me, I'd just ride it,

 

[simon the viking]

Hi its In Burton on Trent - St Peters Bridge- there is only other available bridge which is the wrong side of town and if anything even busier. in reply to ianrauk by riding primary do you mean taking a central position in the flow of traffic? (sorry being a newbie didnt know the term) if it is not sure I'm ready for that yet

 

[AndyRM]

I live in Newcastle and we have a sort of similar bridge which connects Byker to town.

I used to ride on the pavement until I clipped a pedestrian, despite the width available. I had a twattish moment when I almost sped off without apology but quickly remembered myself and paused to apologise and offer some Ibuprofen.

Always ride on the road now, impatient drivers can swivel. Plus I'm only usually about 10mph under the speed limit anyway.

 

[ianrauk]

Hi its In Burton on Trent - St Peters Bridge- there is only other available bridge which is the wrong side of town and if anything even busier. in reply to ianrauk by riding primary do you mean taking a central position in the flow of traffic? (sorry being a newbie didnt know the term) if it is not sure I'm ready for that yet

Indeed....I cycle a good mile of busy road where there is very little overtaking possibilities. So know and understand what it's like for you.

Just be assertive. Don't let anyone bully you.

 

[400bhp]

Hi its In Burton on Trent - St Peters Bridge- there is only other available bridge which is the wrong side of town and if anything even busier. in reply to ianrauk by riding primary do you mean taking a central position in the flow of traffic? (sorry being a newbie didnt know the term) if it is not sure I'm ready for that yet

This one?

I see what you mean - a really shatty bridge for cycling on. Straight and wide, so I guess car drivers can see the empty road ahead but, because of oncoming traffic, can't overtake.

If (and a big if) there is very little pedestrian traffic, then I'd hop on the pavement. So, option A

 

[400bhp]

Me.. without seeing the bridge.....I would sit in primary and let them wait behind me. For all their aggressive revving, well that's just all it is. Let them get on with it. It doesn't get them anywhere. You are not risking injury. And I can't imagine it happens a lot. Not all motor drivers are idiots.

If you are not confident of cycling in primary on the bridge then the best thing would be to walk. Cycling on the pavement is not a good idea. You are asking for a whole heap of trouble if you hit a ped.

See the above link. Would you still do that on there?

 

[400bhp]

I've just spotted "The Dingle". Why isn't that opened up for cyclists? Stupid.

 

[ianrauk]

See the above link. Would you still do that on there?

Yes I would.
As I said in a post above I cycle a road which is similar but longer.

 

[400bhp]

I've just spotted "The Dingle". Why isn't that opened up for cyclists? Stupid.

Hang on-it is...NCN63. There's your answer.

You're thinking in car driver mode.

 

[ianrauk]

Hang on-it is...NCN63. There's your answer.

You're thinking in car driver mode.

indeed...

 

[simon the viking]

This one?

I see what you mean - a really shatty bridge for cycling on. Straight and wide, so I guess car drivers can see the empty road ahead but, because of oncoming traffic, can't overtake.

If (and a big if) there is very little pedestrian traffic, then I'd hop on the pavement. So, option A

That's the one, its never that quiet when I go across it though, as to pedestrian traffic I normally have to pass 2 or 3 people at night but non in the morning