Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that cyclists should use cycle lanes where they are available?

88 replies

IwishIwasmoreorganised · 09/11/2010 21:50

Particularly now the nights are getting darker earlier?

No matter how many lights they have on them and their bike, they are still safer in cycle lanes and so should be using them?

Tonight I was driving along a newish road (single carriageway) that has a separate footpath and a separate cyclepath running alongside it. In the space of about 2 miles, I passed 3 cyclists on the road. They all had lights on, one in particular had lots, but it still meant that the cars travelling in the same direction as them had to overtake. Wouldn't the cyclists be far safer on the cycle path?

OP posts:
GreatGreenArkleseziure · 09/11/2010 22:58

cycle lanes in the UK are generally designed for the inexperienced, nervous or younger cyclist.
The route chosen by the designer will nearly always favour a safe passage over speed over directness, they are there to encourage people who may not be confident in traffic to use a cycle for some journeys. they are not designed for the experienced or 'fast commuter' who is savvy in traffic and not willing to take a longer route to avoid congestion.
i rarely use them.

Northernlurker · 09/11/2010 23:00

If you hit a cyclist in the circumstances you outline op it will be your fault and it will be because you are driving without taking proper care. I cycle every day and I am utterly, utterly sick of people in cars who think the engine gives them right of way. People who drive to close to me and my children. Who hoot at us because we are cycling in single fucking file along a road. Who pull out on us all the time. Who underestimate how fast cyclists travel. Who drive in on the road cycle paths. Who turn left across our path.
If I cycle through a red light then fine have a go at me ( I don't though) but don't have a go at cyclists who have the temerity to use the road. And by the way when overtaking cyclists you should leave as much space as when you are overtaking a car. Don't give them a bare foot and pull in right in front of them because there's something coming the other way. If you can't get passed, you can't get passed. Deal with it.

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:06

"If you go over a blind hill and aren't able to react to any hazards that may be on the other side then you're going too fast."

I knew someone would say that.

It's a 60mpgh limit. I'm a good driver though, so I anticipate such things (especially on roads like that). Other drivers don't though, that's my point.

A lot of drivers don't though, and that's my reason for cursing them as the driver coming the other way has to suddenly swerve into my path to avoid a bike when they have a perfectly good cycle path a foot to the left

I DO understand that cyclists don't want to use a lane when they have to stop every 20m to give way to a side road, or if it's in bad condition, or if it's a more direct path to use the main road. SO many times though I have seen long unhindered cycle paths unused, and bikes on the road.

I know they're entitled to be there, of course they are, but the main reason I get cross is that there is a much safer alternative, and I'm baffled to understand why they don't use it!

(in fairness, there is the excellent cycle path along the A40 going west out of Oxford, and the vast majority of cyclists DO use it... I guess mostly out of common sense. You still get the odd one though.

That's the one I don't understnad.. that single one that deems himself too important to use a lowly cycle path.

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:07

sorry... I will attempt to stop ranting now Blush
(no offense intended to anybody, it's a local thing and it's annoying)

Northernlurker · 09/11/2010 23:08

Why is it safer? Because people on the roads are too egocentric, callous and downright stupid to look where they're going and it would be so much easier for them if cyclists were segregated away? Yes of course - what a spledid idea! Hmm
Roads are safe for cyclists. It's car drivers who should be kept away!

LookToWindward · 09/11/2010 23:13

"It's a 60mpgh limit. "

Doesn't matter. The limit is not an indication of a safe speed for the whole of that stretch of road. It is the legal maximum. An important distinction.

"A lot of drivers don't though, and that's my reason for cursing them as the driver coming the other way has to suddenly swerve into my path to avoid a bike when they have a perfectly good cycle path a foot to the left"

The simple fact is that a cyclist has as much right to a road (with the obvious exceptions of motorways and so on) as a car. If the cyclist chooses not to use a cycle lane - for whatever reason - then they are free to use the road.

As a car driver the onus is on you to drive with due care and consideration of other road users - which in this example includes cyclists.

A cyclist is under no obligation to change their behaviour to accommodate motorists.

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:15

of course its safer [further baffled]

a clear path just for your bike? Why wouldn't you use it? (if well lit, unhindered, no pedestrians, blah blah)

that's what I'm confused about!

..and yes, obviously there are shit drivers, just like there are shit cyclists (yes, that red light applies to you too, bad cyclist)

"because people on the roads are too egocentric, callous and downright stupid to look where they're going "

I take offence at that. Not everybody on the road is an arsehole. I'm a GOOD considerate driver.

GiddyPickle · 09/11/2010 23:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:18

"As a car driver the onus is on you to drive with due care and consideration of other road users - which in this example includes cyclists."

Yes, and I appreciate that and there's a very good reason I've never hit anybody on the road in 15 years.

"A cyclist is under no obligation to change their behaviour to accommodate motorists."

Of course they're not. I just don't get why they wouldn't choose a safer option if it was available to them?

In all of this I'm only thinking of safety of people on bikes. I do cycle after all (not often anymore, but hey) but DP cycles, my sister is on a Motorbike (whole other issue) and my other sister rides a bike with her DS in a seat (whole other thread again as she's useless on a bike and has no idea of road safety)

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:20

"As a car driver the onus is on you to drive with due care and consideration of other road users - which in this example includes cyclists."

missed something, sorry.

The onus is not only on the car driver. It's on every road user to drive/ride/cycle responsibly. EVERYBODY on the road must be considerate to other road users. It doesn't matter if they are in a car or on a bike. Same basic road rules apply.

Northernlurker · 09/11/2010 23:21

Oh well heaven forbid a car driver have to slow down. Your engine falls out if your drop below 20 doesn't it? Hmm

JGK - no reason for good drivers to take that personally. Good drivers tend not to stress about cyclists though........

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:26

I only stress about cyclists because I live in Oxford.. seriously.. it's like they've got a death wish!

don't Hmm :) it's just confusing why a cyclist chooses the road when there is a cycle path next to it. I bloody wouldn't! (and there's the crux of my confusion)

:)

Northernlurker · 09/11/2010 23:28

Well I can't imaine why anyone drives in Oxford. Don't you have the worst designed road system in western Europe? Grin

GiddyPickle · 09/11/2010 23:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Northernlurker · 09/11/2010 23:35

That argument doesn't hold up. At any point you could come across any sort of obstruction. Nobody should be driving at full speed trusting that nothing will ever come between them and their destination Hmm.

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:36

It does appear that way NL, yes Grin Learning to drive in that city does prepare you for most road issues :)

Most people drive in Oxford because they can't afford to live in the city, so all the hospitals and University's staff who come from 30 miles away can't get public transport because the buses are shit. The Park n Ride is surprisingly shite too...

annoying city..

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:37

I agree NL!

Today I suddenly had to anchor on as there was a tractor doing a 3 point turn in the road Hmm FFS... luckily the arsehole that had been tailgating me had turned off a few roads previously.

:-p

Northernlurker · 09/11/2010 23:38

I'm in York. Buses are crap here too Grin

JarethTheGoblinKing · 09/11/2010 23:38

i'm investing far too much in this thread :-p

GiddyPickle · 09/11/2010 23:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

A1980 · 09/11/2010 23:42

I try to use cycle lanes of which we have several in my area which are not on the road and not on the pavement, they're carved out seperately. They also have seprate crossings on the road for bikes which are sperate from pedestrians.

Pity I can't use becasue fucking pedestrians walk on them, push their buggies in them and use the bike road crossing as the pedestrian crossing is a little bit further for them to walk to so they camn't be arsed. If I dare ring my bell or say to them, this is for bikes, I get abuse hurled at me. One old couple were walking right up the middle of it and I said politely, could you please walk on the pavement so I can pass and the woman said "we don't want to". What do you do with that?

So where am I supposed to cycle? Pavement is illegal, road is dangerous at night.

Pedestrains think they have an absolute right to walk wherever the hell they like.

A1980 · 09/11/2010 23:43

^ Just noticed my awful typos in above post. Sorry. I'm tired. Grin

newwave · 09/11/2010 23:46

I am a driver and I am also a regular cyclist, there are bad drivers and bad cyclists it wont change.

One thing i would add (tin hat on) is that cyclists should have (compulsory) insurance, pay a small amount of road tax and have an identity disc on the bike then you can say you have equal rights to the road.

LabMonkey · 10/11/2010 07:18

Where I live the road is often safer as many pedestrians object to cyclists using the shared path/pavement and have been known to make folks come off their bikes on purpose.

The path I use to get to work is split half bikes/half pedestrians and there are regularly people with small children in the cycle path - I'm guessing you wouldn't let your toddler walk in the road? BTW I always slow right down when passing pedestrians with small children or dogs as they do tend to wander.

When it's dark I have reflective bits, yellow jacket and lights but the pedestrians have nothing.

There are also a lot of cyclists around here with no reflective/high-vis gear and no lights and I blame them for the fact that many drivers and pedestrians think all cyclists are a menace and fair game.

I wouldn't cycle on a 60mph road if there was a path available mainly because I don't trust most drivers.

tyler80 · 10/11/2010 08:50

A lot of cyclists already pay road tax as they're also drivers. Would you expect them to pay twice?

As for compulsory insurance for cyclists, I think everyone would benefit far more by clamping down on uninsured motorists.