Cyclists riding two or three abreast down country lanes.

[Roseforarose]

AIBU that it's a bit of a hazard. We've just come back from a journey and there was a bike rally or something. We were trailing behind for ages from the ones who refused to get in single file. Surely for everyone's safety they should be in single file? What do you all think?

[merrymouse]

The Priory Lane cycle path is there for cyclists going up to Richmond Park. Cylcists choose not to use it - and slow down all the traffic while the cycle lane is empty. V frustrating if youa re a driver.

You could just as well argue that most of the car drivers are using Priory Lane to take a shortcut through Richmond Park - why can't they use the Upper Richmond Road or the A3 to get to their destination? - plenty of people have argued over the years that the park should be closed to cars.

How is it more frustrating to be stuck behind a cyclist than to be stuck in rush hour gridlock on the Upper Richmond Road or waiting at the double level crossing in Barnes or trailing a bus that keeps stopping? It's best just to get into the car accepting that you may be slowed down by other road users, and driving a car doesn't make your journey intrinsically more important than anybody else's.

[MythicalKings]

It's more frustrating because cyclists should be on the cycle path. Very selfish, typical of a lot of cyclists.

[sparechange]

The Priory Lane cycle path is there for cyclists going up to Richmond Park. Cylcists choose not to use it

The Priory Lane cycle path is incredibly badly designed. Part of it goes straight across the junction of The Priory and the national tennis centre, several metres back from the junction, which is where drivers leaving those places would expect to a) see traffic and b) stop. And because they are concealed entrance, cyclists can't see if traffic is emerging.
So the path forces cyclists straight into the path of traffic which they can't see and that can't see them.
And not to mention the potholes, broken glass and litter all of it, which gives you a very real risk of a puncture if you are on a road bike. Which could cause someone to lose control of their bike and fall under the wheels of a car.

99% of traffic going up Priory Lane is doing so to get into Richmond Park, which has a speed limit of 20mph. All the cyclists mean is that cars are forced to travel at 20mph for a few extra hundred metres. It is really no hardship. No one is being made late for anything important and the deer will still be there when you get to the park a few seconds later

[GuybrushThreepwoodMP]

Mythical cyclists have as much right as you have to use the road.

[sparechange]

cyclists should be on the cycle path

Who says they should? Cyclists can use any road they want, except motorways and roads where they are explicitly banned. There is absolutely no obligation, legal or moral, for a cyclist to use a cycle path.

So many of them are so poorly designed and/or maintained that using them is actively dangerous and far riskier than using the road. It isn't selfish of me to want to minimise the risks to my life. It is selfish of drivers to expect cyclists to endanger their lives in order to save a few minutes off their journey time.

[MythicalKings]

Not when there are cycle paths available, Guybrush. They whined to get them so the least they can do is use the bloody things.

[merrymouse]

No, they can choose to use the cycle path if it is suitable.

[MythicalKings]

Arrogant, as I probably said earlier. If they decide, then it's ok to be selfish.

[tarantula]

No we didn't whinge to get them. Half arsed crappy dangerous cycle paths with no thought behind them are not something cyclist have ever asked for or wanted. Which is why we don't use them.

[tarantula]

Also most councils clearly state that cycle paths are for the use of leisure cyclists only and not commuters, who should continue to use the roads.

[sparechange]

Mythical
Nobody 'whined' to get them. Organisations such as SusTrans have campaigned for suitable provision, both as a way of encouraging new cyclists who are too nervous to cycle on roads, and a way of keeping existing cyclists safer.

The Priory Lane path is not suitable provision, nor is it safer than using the road for huge amount of cyclists.
I am struggling to see how you can call someone 'arrogant' and 'selfish' for wanting to keep themselves safer. The path is badly designed and dangerous.

Arrogant and selfish is your attitude that your car journeys should be unhindered by any sort of inconvenience that doesn't allow you to drive flat out to the speed limit at all times.

[merrymouse]

Not when there are cycle paths available, Guybrush.

You are confusing how you think things should be with how they actually are. Cyclists may use a cycle path but they do not have to use a cycle path.

Ironically many cyclists travel faster than the average pace of traffic in London - certainly faster than the average traffic speed in central London. Why is traffic slow in central London? Because of cars. You could argue that people should cycle, walk or take public transport, but they don't - also perfectly legal.

[Tinklewinkle]

Our cycle path have huge signs stating that they're shared paths and for use by leisure cyclists only. Commuters are supposed to use the road

Our local one became a bit of a no go area as it was used as a race track for serious/speedy cyclists, we had PCSOs were patrolling it for a while after a young child was hit and seriously hurt

As for cycling 2+ abreast. I understand why they do it, but sometimes it's bloody dangerous. I was out yesterday, driving along an extremely windy country lane, as I came round one bend I came across 5 cyclists coming the opposite direction, all over the road (including my side of the road). I wasn't going fast so stopped no problem, but they were racing each other, head down not looking (then one felt the need to bang his fist on the bonnet of my stationery car and hurl insults at me as he went past)

[TedAndLola]

Still think it's ironic that "serious road cyclists" can't be inconvenienced by having to slow for other cycle path users but other road users have to be inconvenienced to allow cyclists to choose the road rather than a cycle path

Yep.

[NurNochKurzDieWeltRetten]

This is about country lanes though isn't it - London contains no very few country lanes... Banning cars except blue badge holders, residents of the center and taxis from the centre of London during most of the working day (say 7am to 7pm) might be no bad thing...You see crazy everything in London - too many people in a rush raises the blood pressure and lowers the common sense.

[Mistigri]

Most cycle paths are not fit for purpose if you are a commuting cyclist.

That's besides the point here though. As someone said just above, cyclists need to be sensible on narrow roads, and in particular they need to ensure that if they are riding two abreast they do not impede oncoming traffic.

Slower road users do have a right to occupy the road though - or do all the impatient motorists on this thread think that other slower road traffic, like tractors or construction vehicles, also have no right to take up "their" road space?

[merrymouse]

The main difference is speed. If you drive across Ham common the speed limit is 30. If you drive down a country lane it is likely that the National speed limit will apply.

There are plenty of narrow roads in London and it is better to clearly occupy the road than encourage a driver to pass through a space that isn't really there.

The problem is that many people drive badly and aggressively when they erroneously believe that the road user in front of them (L driver, slow driver, tractor, cyclist, horse rider) has less right to use the road than they do.

[NurNochKurzDieWeltRetten]

Misti for me the difference is often that a tractor has no alternative, but a cyclist is often choosing to use the road when a beautiful cycle path runs tantalisingly close by... It's inconsiderate not to use it IMO as nobody else can! I emphasise that I am talking about an area with proper cycle track - tarmac and we'll maintained and only busy with children/ families on a sunny weekend but generally pretty empty otherwise. Cyclists use the road because they consider the paths beneath their dignity (club cyclists in groups generally) or because sometimes the paths take a less direct route - there is one single lane road over a steep hill with blind bends where cyclists and the occasional tipsy pedestrian are a big hazard to themselves as it's the most direct route from a train station to a large village, and the cycle path takes a route avoiding the steepest part of the hill so is about 1.5 km longer, but much safer than the 6 km road route with blind bends and crests and steep banks making it impossible to move off the road in an emergency.

What's safe or necessary is fine, but that's not always what cyclists choose (nor anyone else of course).

Slow car drivers are more annoying when they are the ones you get stuck behind for 5 miles doing 40 mph in a 60 mph zone and then they continue to do 40 mph through a 20 mph village! Most very slow drivers do this - they can't really be counted as careful when they effectively speed through villages!

[Mistigri]

I have never come across a cycle path in the UK that's suitable for cycling any distance at speed - most are short, don't take a direct route, and are unsuitable for cycling much faster than walking pace.

Cyclists have as much right to use a road as drivers. Many may well use beautiful cycle paths when out with their kids, but might prefer to use a road if commuting or training. And why shouldn't they?

I use a cycle path for regular training rides (it's a fast, safe path designed for mountain bikes with few road crossings) but I wouldn't dream of using it to commute as it is twice as long as the road route!

[NurNochKurzDieWeltRetten]

It's the doing it "because I have the right and why shouldn't I?" even when there is a safer alternative that comes across as arrogant twatery though. If it'sthe only or the safest option of course it is churlish to complain, but if it's about going faster and causing delays and hazards but sod everyone else not so much...

[merrymouse]

Completely agree Mistigri. Road bikes are designed for roads. Cycle paths are rarely designed for road bikes. There might be cyclists who get a kick out of driving in traffic, but I have never actually met one.

[Mistigri]

Yes, I'd always use a suitable cycle path if one existed - but mostly it doesn't. The comments here are mostly from a position of ignorance.

I did use a cycle path at lunchtime - perfect for a moutntain bike, hopelessly unsuited to a road bike, and in any case it takes the best part of 50km to do a distance that is less than 20km by road. The road route has one narrow part where the less evolved drivers sometimes have difficulty waiting a few minutes behind cyclists, but I am afraid that is their problem.

[babybat]

Can someone let me know where this mythical part of the UK which abounds with wide, direct, well-maintained cycle paths is? Where the cycle paths are better than the roads, but the local cyclists don't use them for some reason? All I can find is narrow, pot-holed painted lanes that give up when you get to a junction, and mean that you get shouted at by drivers when you don't use them, and shouted at by pedestrians who think you're cycling on the footpath when you do.

[muminhants1]

There's a great cycle path alongside the A24 in Dorking (dual carriageway so just crazy to cycle along it but people do, even though I never see any families with toddlers on trikes on the cycle path) and the Fleet to Farnborough road in Hampshire has a segregated cycle path which a lot of cyclists won't use for reasons I am not privy to, as again, the path is not generally used by families or dog-walkers.

We also have a great cycle path in Fleet which was recently opened and has a lovely road surface. So yes they do exist but I know what you mean about painted lines on roads which are worse than useless, we have those in Fleet too.

[NurNochKurzDieWeltRetten]

babybat I said further down that I'm in Germany and talking about my experience but I have been assured on a different thread (about kids learning to cycle) some time ago that some parts of the UK have similar - I'm vaguely remembering somebody saying York and somebody else Oxfordshire perhaps... But didn't commit the comments to memory. Certainly several areas with good cycle networks were mentioned.