You just know the mental tone of voice

[wafflycat]

being used when this little gem was written...

"Cycling out of lane" - a letter in the Sunday Torygraph 7 December 08

"I drive to work every morning along an extremely congested dual carriageway. Parallel to the road is an excellent cycle path. However, one cyclist always uses the main road. Cars on the inside lane often have to swerve on to the outside lane to avoid colliding with this chap as he emerges in their view unexpectedly.

Should there not be a regulation to ensure that, where cycle paths have been provided at great taxpayer expense, the road should not be used by cyclists?

John Seaton, Bristol"

I expect he reads The Daily Wail as well.

 

[numbnuts]

Cars on the inside lane often have to swerve on to the outside lane to avoid colliding with this chap

"have to swerve" ....so he was driving without due care and attention then

 

[PBancroft]

Maybe the driver has a point? If there is indeed a cycle lane that is of a good quality then maybe it MAY be better for the cyclist to use that instead of going down a busy dual carriageway

Forget about a regulation being bought in though, now that is crazy talk.

I guess it depends on whose point of view makes it good quality.

A good quality cycle lane which is also a footpath?

A good quality cycle lane which veers off away from the direction the cyclist wants to travel in, or has more junctions than the road.

I propose a new solution. Where a good quality motorway is provided at great taxpayer expense, drivers should be forced to use it.

 

[wafflycat]

"have to swerve" ....so he was driving without due care and attention then

Yup, about right.

 

[bryce]

I very rarely use cycle paths unless they have dropped kerbs at every intersection, no obstacles and are safe to use. I use a racing bike and don't want to slow down for obstacles or damage it/ myself.

Would John Seaton drive his Ferrari on a dirt-track if a better road was available parallel to it? No.

 

[Keith Oates]

So where is this Excellent Cycle Path, I haven't seen one yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[peanut]

it probably wouldn't be such a hazard if more motorist's use their indicators to indicate when they are about to pull out to overtake
Drives me mad when i see all the drivers in front of me speed around a cyclist without indicating.

I believe we have a perfect right to cycle on the roads but could appreciate it might be safer if slower to ride on a cyclepath where suitable.

 

[wafflycat]

I wouldn't be surprised iof that letter was written in green ink, that one and the little gem below it, about bicycle bells, on the Torygraph web site

 

[mickle]

I agree with Mr Seaton, cycle paths are a waste of tax payer's money.

 

[Christopher]

I wouldn't be surprised iof that letter was written in green ink, that one and the little gem below it, about bicycle bells, on the Torygraph web site

wot like: "Sir: When will cyclists realise that roads are for cars..." twits

 

[dondare]

John Seaton is missing the point. The purpose of cycle tracks is not to remove bikes from the road, but to reduce the number of cars on the road by encouraging people to cycle.
I propose therefore that wherever there is a good quality cycle-track available, motorists should be forced by law to leave their cars at home and cycle instead.

 

[Twiggy]

John Seaton is missing the point. The purpose of cycle tracks is not to remove bikes from the road, but to reduce the number of cars on the road by encouraging people to cycle.
I propose therefore that wherever there is a good quality cycle-track available, motorists should be forced by law to leave their cars at home and cycle instead.

But but but... People have a right to use their cars, it's an inate right, like breathing, or a computer. /sarcasm

 

[dondare]

In fact, under British Law, whereas people have a right to cycle on public roads, they do not have a right to drive on them. This requires a licence which can be denied or revoked.
The cyclist is there by right, the motorists are there conditionally.

 

[jonesy]

In fact, under British Law, whereas people have a right to cycle on public roads, they do not have a right to drive on them. This requires a licence which can be denied or revoked.
The cyclist is there by right, the motorists are there conditionally.

While this is true, I have found it extremely difficult to get people to understand this argument if they are not already sympathetic... it simply doesn't compute. Peoples' attitudes towards cyclists usually have little to do with their legal status.

 

[dondare]

To get back to the original point, since the dual carriageway is congested and John Seaton wishes to see the cycle-track used, he can address both issues by cycling on the track instead of driving on the road.