Cycle lanes next to roads

[snorri]

Snotty e-mail on way!

Don't be too fast with the email, let the adrenaline die down first.
A hasty email often fails to put the message over clearly, take a little time over the composition then sit on it for an hour or two before sending.

 

[mcshroom]

Remember; the more polite you are, the more cutting you can be

 

[downfader]

Reminds me of this letter I found the other day (I think it was from a news link on the CTC site)

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/yoursay/letters/8249268.Selfish_motorists_beggar_belief/

Read the comments from the Troll on there. Made me laugh tbh. Cyclepaths ONLY work where the riders can:

a) have free flow of movement (pedestrians and debis often puts an end to that, as happened to me today with 300 foreign students standing on a local one)
B) Navigate junctions safely and efficiently
c) are not secluded and a haven for muggers and other potential attackers.Perhaps a little paranoid on my part, LOL.

The Warrington cyclepath would imo work if there was a safe way over or under the junctions.

I also think that it is not the responsibility of other road users to dictate where and when we ride. It is down to first and foremost our judgement, then the various official bodies to use and exercise theirs. Bus drivers dont even figure on the scale of things.

 

[HJ]

[pedant mode]
I think the discussion (in 2006?) was around changing the wording in the Highway Code rather than changing the law.
[/pedant mode]

[pedant mode]
If the wanted to change the wording of the HC to say MUST, then there would have to be a change in the law, where it says MUST in the text of the HC it is refereeing to a legal requirement.
[/pedant mode]

 

[wafflycat]

Going back to the then proposed change in the wording of the HC, which was (thankfully) successfully opposed & defeated, the wording was going to be changed, IIRC, to something that was pretty much saying that where cycle facilites were provided you should use them as they would make your journey safer, yadda, yadda, yadda. The reason for outcry was that although it wasn't a change of law, the HC carries weight in determining liability/rights/wrongs/supposed best practice. From the HC itself:-

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’. "

Hence the outcry from many a cyclist & cycling organisation aty the time, as it would have effectively put the 'blame' for their demise if cyclist was hit by car... "should have used the cycle path" "should have been in the cycle lane" and the like would have arisen... and errant motorists would have found it even easier to get out of their responsibilities.

You can see it now, in court... lawyer for the defence of the poor innocent, poor, put-upon, law-abiding, road-tax paying motorist and why aren't police out catching real criminals, who wasn't looking where he was going when driving, who say, ran into the back of some poor schmuck cycling along...

"But m'lord, it is not the fault of my client, a fine upstanding member of the community who, if he loses his licence, will lose his job, his home, his children as his wife will run off with the milkman.. it is the fault of that scourge of civilisation, the Lycra Lout, who is entirely repsonsible for his current state of quadraplegia, as he chose to cycle on the road when there was a perfectly acceptable cycle lane over there .. somewhere... and if only he had been prepared to use that, my client would not have run accidentally into the back of him. And undoubtedly that villian wearing padded pants to make his genitalia look like a baboon in heat as he sat astride some luridly coloured carbon fibre pedal cycle, thus frightening the delicate minds of young children and fragrant virgins of the parish, will also jump red lights! He deserves his fate!"

You get my long-winded drift.

 

[HJ]

Going back to the then proposed change in the wording of the HC, which was (thankfully) successfully opposed & defeated, the wording was going to be changed, IIRC, to something that was pretty much saying that where cycle facilites were provided you should use them as they would make your journey safer, yadda, yadda, yadda. The reason for outcry was that although it wasn't a change of law, the HC carries weight in determining liability/rights/wrongs/supposed best practice. From the HC itself:-

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’. "

Hence the outcry from many a cyclist & cycling organisation aty the time, as it would have effectively put the 'blame' for their demise if cyclist was hit by car... "should have used the cycle path" "should have been in the cycle lane" and the like would have arisen... and errant motorists would have found it even easier to get out of their responsibilities.

You can see it now, in court... lawyer for the defence of the poor innocent, poor, put-upon, law-abiding, road-tax paying motorist and why aren't police out catching real criminals, who wasn't looking where he was going when driving, who say, ran into the back of some poor schmuck cycling along...

"But m'lord, it is not the fault of my client, a fine upstanding member of the community who, if he loses his licence, will lose his job, his home, his children as his wife will run off with the milkman.. it is the fault of that scourge of civilisation, the Lycra Lout, who is entirely repsonsible for his current state of quadraplegia, as he chose to cycle on the road when there was a perfectly acceptable cycle lane over there .. somewhere... and if only he had been prepared to use that, my client would not have run accidentally into the back of him. And undoubtedly that villian wearing padded pants to make his genitalia look like a baboon in heat as he sat astride some luridly coloured carbon fibre pedal cycle, thus frightening the delicate minds of young children and fragrant virgins of the parish, will also jump red lights! He deserves his fate!"

You get my long-winded drift.

Waffling again

 

[Deleted member 1258]

There is no 'No Cycling' sign. It's this bit...
http://maps.google.c...ie=UTF-8&tab=wl

This bit of cycle lane only runs for about a 1/4 mile and then it just stops. For those in Coventry it's the bit along Kenilworth road to Coat of Arms Bridge road. I don't use it 'cos of the debris that's usually on it and because it's so short. I use the lane from Warwick Uni to the Kenilworth Road junction. That's about 1 1/2 miles long and it's a good surface, so fair enough I use that. But not this stupid bit of pathway. I think it does appear in that list of pointless CLs 'cos it actually runs through a bus stop.

For eight years I rode that road twice a day, I lived in Earlsdon and worked in Kenilworth. Then there wasn't a cycle path and I rode on the road. Even today if I use that road I always ride on the road, I have never had any problems on there. I think the cycle path was put in for access to the university from the city centre and continues down Stonleigh Avenue

 

[ufkacbln]

There is a very handy document issued by the DfT - the Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists

It helpfully states

* 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.

It also gives you the chance to use something like:

I must express my concern that a "professional" driver is apparently unaware of current guidelines and legislation",

 

[dondare]

That does not appear to be a cycle path or cycle lane. That appears to be a footpath with a white line painted down the middle of it.

In any case, as a cyclist you are supposed to use the carriageway. Cycle lanes/paths are there to encourage non-cyclists to give it a go.

The proposed change in the HC would not have meant a change in the law as such. For that, the Law would have to have been changed first. However, the HC is supposed to be best practice and failure to comply with it's advice can be cited as negligence or lack of consideration. Which is illegal. So it was very important that the proposed changes were watered down, even though the current wording is cumbersome, confusing and ignorant.

 

[dondare]

I don't know why that last post was in itallics. (Or this one.)
The bus driver should be told that if he wishes to go on being a bus driver then he has to learn to cope with other traffic.

 

[benb]

There is a long stretch along my commute which is shared use. The road itself is quite fast, so if I'm in a slow pootling mood I will use it. As cycle paths/lanes go it's not bad. Giving way at each side street is a pain though, so I do only use it if I want to go slowly.

As for the italics, it looks like someone opened italic tags without closing them. I don't know how, as you can't get to the HTML view with the editor.

Oh, gone now.

 

[trsleigh]

You were perfectly within your rights, report it.
Just a couple of weeks ago I was closely overtaken by a "bendy bus" in very similar conditions where it appeared from the discussion with the driver it was to encourage me to use the short section of adjoining cyclepath.
A professional driver using a 30 ton 18M vehicle to bully other road user is not on. So email to TFL ( Transport fot London )
Got this reply:

"Dear Mr Ealing Cyclist

Driver on route nnn

Thank you for your email in the above matter where I was concerned to learn of your distressing incident regarding a driver on route nnn. Safety is paramount at London Buses, and the wellbeing of cyclists is an important issue. I am very sorry for the obvious inconvenience and upset caused to you by this incident.

I have contacted xxx, who operate route nnn on our behalf. They would like to convey their apologies for the incident. They have advised me that throughout training and at regular intervals thereafter, drivers are instructed and constantly reminded of the need to drive their bus in a safe manner, both for the benefit of their passengers and other road users such as cyclists, and to be considerate and courteous at all times.

xxx have informed me that the driver was identified and has been dealt with in accordance with the disciplinary procedures of the company. For confidentiality reasons we cannot release details of an interview and any subsequent action taken. However this matter will be taken very seriously to ensure it doesn’t happen again. I understand your concerns relating to safety issues on the roads.

All drivers are formally assessed by a Driving Standards Agency Approved Assessor. In addition to holding a full category B entitlement (car) driving licence, all bus drivers take an additional test for Passenger Carrying Vehicle's (PCV) as assessed by the DSA. This includes ensuring that the vehicle is driven, at all times, with the utmost safety and with courtesy and consideration for everyone else on today's busy roads.

We are actively training bus drivers in regards to behaviour around cyclists. We have consulted with the Cycling Centre of Excellence and London Cycling when devising these training programmes. We currently have a training programme specific for bus drivers dealing with cyclists.

I hope that this helps, and I hope that your future journeys are more pleasant. I should note that most drivers are courteous towards cyclists and we hope that this trend continues. Should you need to contact us again, please feel free to email me.

Yours sincerely"

 

[medals]

Thanks for all the comments people. I've slept on it and I will send a polite but firm email to travel Coventry regarding this incident. It wasn't even the fact he used his horn at me while passing me originally. I was peeved but I'd let it go.
It's the way he used it again in a prolonged manner and gave me the finger a further mile or so down the road when he overtook me again(I had prevoiusly overtaken him in stationary traffic).
Attitude or what!

 

[BentMikey]

It's usually the poorer drivers who have this sort of bad attitude. It's nothing more than ignorance and stupidity, medals. You're quite right to be using the road if you so choose.

 

[Davidc]

As far as I'm aware any 'No Cycling' sign in England is powerless and non enforceable

Unfortunately they are enforceable, and prosecution and fines are possible.

Generally if you're spotted it's just a ticking off though. I did manage to get a caution letter from Essex Police about ignoring one on the A13. I wasn't impressed, it was 3 O'clock in the morning and the only other vehicle anywhere around was the police car which stopped me.(What I said to Mr Plod was probably more the cause of the letter than the actual cycling offence )