When it's safer, most of us do. Often it's not. It's not safer if it hugs the left and you want to go straight on or turn right at the next junction. It's not if it's too narrow and encourages close passes. Are you talking about cycle lanes (on road) or cycle paths (off road)? On road cycle lanes are better, but still have the above problems. Cycle paths are worse; not swept like the roads are, randomly wandering pedestrians, more conflict points with other traffic (e.g. on passing side-roads), convoluted routes...
Cycling on roads is getting worse..
- Thread starter ray316
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
When it's safer, most of us do. Often it's not. It's not safer if it hugs the left and you want to go straight on or turn right at the next junction. It's not if it's too narrow and encourages close passes. Are you talking about cycle lanes (on road) or cycle paths (off road)? On road cycle lanes are better, but still have the above problems. Cycle paths are worse; not swept like the roads are, randomly wandering pedestrians, more conflict points with other traffic (e.g. on passing side-roads), convoluted routes...
That's why you ride in the lane, not in the gutter. Well, one of the reasons.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
Although I made my point flippantly, that is exactly the point. The overwhelming majority of cycle lanes make cycling more work, less convenient and more dangerous. The are Ok for small children pootling to the park (maybe?) but detremental to all other cyclists. Their very existance makes cycling more dangerous on the roads - your view above sugests at least slight annoyance with cyclists not using them - which in too many cases translates to outright aggression (not accusing you of aggression, but the point stands).
On road cycle lanes - say 1m wide - the safest place to cycle is just outside. If you cycle within the lane you are very likely to get your elbows brushed by cars (or hit) as cars will drive to the line and give you less space than if the lane wasn't there. Never mind those lanes narrower than I bike - I've seen a good few of these
Off road cycle paths cross every junction so you have to give way every 50 yards - and every driveway becomes a hazzard.
Fine for pootling but getting to work - no!
And then there's broken glass, thorns, potholes and all the rest.
Last edited:
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Your wife should complain to the local councils if they're building shoot that cyclists wouldn't choose to use. It's not like many cyclists WANT to ride among motorists that can kill them through carelessness, if all else is equal.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I agree with much of your reasoning but you're going a bit far there. Sadly, every driveway is a hazard even if you're on the road, and of course cycle tracks should be sited to cross as few motorist junctions as possible as safely as possible but often aren't.
And the proper term is cycle tracks. "Off road cycle path" is bike bashing propaganda to suggest that lower quality is OK because it's off road and cyclists are second class guests because it's a path and cycles aren't generally allowed on paths by right.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
I think the driveway hazard thing is more serious for a cycle path. Motorists tend to (mostly, or at least most understand they should) look for traffic in the road itself, bikes included, but on the "pavement" as they might see it, not so much - and yes, I do know they should.
And I give this example
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7aqiJc0gK2A/Ua4kfh3T6JI/AAAAAAAABZM/OjKD-86Ys2c/s1600/harlow-dismounts.jpg
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Around here, most motorists give way to the cycle track. Some other places, most don't give way to bikes even if they're on the road. The exact stats are vague, incomplete and largely irrelevant. You have to remain vigilant every time because it doesn't much matter if you were in the right because it's nearly always better not to be knocked down.
I used that notorious Harlow pic myself earlier today, explaining why "cyclists dismount" signs are in disrepute and usually ignored.
I used that notorious Harlow pic myself earlier today, explaining why "cyclists dismount" signs are in disrepute and usually ignored.
bladesman73
Über Member
We shouldn't need cycle paths. Drivers should be more considerate to other human beings and slow the eff down. Stop trying to be nikki effin lauda as well.
bladesman73
Über Member
I was in belgium for a bit last year, cars bowed down to the cyclist whenever we needed to use the roads. Its a cultural issue, our country has a high percentage of tw@ts
steve292
Guru
- Location
- Weston-super-mare, north somerset
^^^^^^^^^^
This in spades, in cars, on bikes, and walking
Dec66
A gentlemanly pootler, these days
- Location
- West Wickham
Why is the driver "Mr." Lowson, whereas the cyclist is plain McDermott?
Shut Up Legs
Down Under Member
I'm guessing it's for the same reason that the motorist didn't get fined (or at least, the article never mentioned it). Prejudice.
growingvegetables
Guru
- Location
- Leeds
"The 41-year-old man was referred to the driver improvement scheme" .... for a hit-and-run, refusing to give his insurance details. 
I'd like to hope the name is more to do with copy-and-paste or some sort of auto-complete as its consistent. But I could be wrong.
However, although I don't condone the cyclist's retaliation, the most shocking thing is the fact that driving away from the scene of an accident and not giving insurance details didn't receive any more of a response from the police. Plus the fact that, according to witnesses, he either swerved to avoid a traffic cone or drove at the cyclist. The latter is going to be something along the lines of dangerous driving or attempted something, but the former is at least driving without due care I would have thought? With witnesses its much more of a case than just one word versus another.
However, although I don't condone the cyclist's retaliation, the most shocking thing is the fact that driving away from the scene of an accident and not giving insurance details didn't receive any more of a response from the police. Plus the fact that, according to witnesses, he either swerved to avoid a traffic cone or drove at the cyclist. The latter is going to be something along the lines of dangerous driving or attempted something, but the former is at least driving without due care I would have thought? With witnesses its much more of a case than just one word versus another.
