AIBU - cyclists should use the cycle lane on the huge pavement?

[Fizzielove]

AIBU to feel really annoyed when I see a cyclist on the road - when there is a special lane on the pavement (which was specially widened to provide a cycle lane with a white line and everything!)

I mean seriously - USE THE CYCLE LANE!! I get sooooo annoyed!! They hold up the traffic because everyone has to give them a wide birth.

AIBU to get annoyed and want to put the window down and shout at them "Use the f cycle lane - that's what it's there for!!!"

YABU. Though a wide birth does sound painful.

I keep my mountain bike for more exciting trails, Misti

backward yes it is a surface that is really designed for leisure users on hybrids and MTBs, not commuters or road cyclists or trail riders. And it's fine for that purpose. (It's the same surface as they put down on the bmx race tracks that my son rides, and you wouldn't take a road bike there either )

Yes and that's fine, but I have been shouted at told to get on the cycle path before by some irate driver going through the village... Not likely!

I work on roads and highways and see the huge cost implications of constructing cycle lanes only for cyclists not use them!

Why do you think that is? Nothing to do with planning by people who don't understand road and cycle usage.

There's a new one near us. Its not fit for purpose and more dangerous. And whoever designed it didn't consult with the local cyclists who use the route daily. Its designed more for people who cycle small distances for leisure and at slow pace rather than those who keep up with traffic and do long commutes. There is a difference between different types of cyclists. In this area there are few recreational cyclists so it baffles me.

If you are commuting 15 miles to work by bike would you stop 3 or 4 times to cross a road if you cycled at 20 to 30mph and keep up with the speed and flow of traffic? If you have to do that it rather defeats a huge part of the reasoning of cycling in the first place (that it can be as quick or quicker in rush hour). In which case, if you were only allowed to cycle in the cycle path the cycle path would no longer be needed... oh wait... aren't we supposed to be encouraging cycle use by building cycle lanes...

Like I say, you have to understand the use and purpose of something if you are going to plan, pay for and build it.

Cyclists also have this particularly weird problem with risk homeostasis. (Google it). It means if you change certain things, with the intention of making an action safer, it doesn't. It can make no difference or even make things risker, because it changes other behaviours. There have been some interesting finding when comparing cycling with/without a helmet and cycling with a camera for 'protection' with regard to behaviour and risk taking for example.

In this case the trouble with this new cycle lane is its presence now puts those cyclists who do use the road MORE at risk because of the attitudes of poor drivers who think they no longer have a right to be on the road, not because they are cycling differently to how they were previously.

Also the same local council having spent a fortune on this new cycle lane have done nothing to tackle the problem two miles away where there are always cars parked in it.

Where is the logic in that?

Cyclists can use the road. If they are fast they should use the road.

If they are pootling, it is nice (but not a legal requirement) if they use a cycle path (if it is decent quality, without obstacles and hazards such as dogs off leads). And it is even nicer when the high quality cycle path goes alongside a 60mph dual carriageway and is empty.

I think that there are a FEW cyclists who use the road to annoy drivers because it's their right to use the road don't you know, but the VAST majority will have very good reasons to do so which others before me have set out eloquently.

I see a lot more stupid drivers than I do cyclists. For example, last Saturday I was out for a bike ride with a group. We were riding relatively slowly. A faster cyclist came past us. Car driver coming up behind was clearly annoyed that cyclist overtook us and overtook too into the path of an oncoming car, which had to come to a complete stop to avoid an accident.

Equally I was driving on a dual carriageway on Sunday morning where there was a cycle event. If I wanted to overtake a cyclist I moved into the outside lane, and then back. If I wanted to overtake a slower vehicle, I waited until they'd overtaken a cyclist and then overtook, so they didn't get trapped between me and the cyclist. BUT then an idiot comes along at 90mph who won't wait and is DETERMINED that he is going to squeeze past me overtaking a cyclist and wasn't going to give me the time to overtake safely.

All that said, I do wonder why cyclists undertake lorries in London. It's a death sentence. I see it every time I am walking around up there and it terrifies me. Not related to cycle path use though.

YABU and I'm glad you said you wouldn't actually shout and swear at a complete stranger in the street.
That would be deeply unacceptable behaviour.

I think cycle lanes do more harm than good, they are badly designed and badly maintained making them dangerous for cyclists and they give motorists the mistaken notion that cyclists should not be in the line of traffic.

Another source of irritation to me is the 'we pay road tax' argument. Technically it's Vehicle excise duty which goes towards the upkeep of roads and motor vehicles cause the most damage to roads. The majority of road maintenance is paid for by the TAXPAYER therefore, any cyclist taxpayer is entitled to use any part of the road as they see fit.

I work on roads and highways and see the huge cost implications of constructing cycle lanes only for cyclists not use them!

^^ this also applies to park & ride carparks. Enormous cost, yet car drivers aren't forced to use them

Fizzie let's say you're going on a 20-mile drive in an estate car. The first mile is on a nice back road, a few lorries but not many, mainly cars about the size of yours. But to get where you really want to go you have a choice. You can do about 30 miles on similar roads to this one but it will mean stopping and starting a lot and therefore getting through a lot of fuel, which is expensive and it will take a long time. There will be lorries but not that many of them. Sometimes the drivers in the lorries won't see you and you'll have to brake to avoid them. You know that sometimes the lorries are driven right over the top of cars like yours and the drivers aren't prosecuted for doing this so aren't very careful about not doing it. So you want to avoid lorries but you don't really want to add 50% onto the length of your journey and probably around 100% to the time it takes.

So you opt for the 20 mile route which involves A roads with a lot more lorries. However, despite your lorry fear you know if you are assertive with your road positioning you can hold them off and make yourself more visible. Your car is painted in luminous orange so in theory they should be able to see you anyway, especially since you often have your lights on in daylight. Sometimes lorry drivers will yell things at you, but you've got used to it and besides, who wants to drive around on their own in a great big lorry, when they could just use a more economical car?

On the 20-mile route, there is a 1-mile stretch of back road from which lorries are banned. It's quiet, because there are only other cars on it but to get to it you have to detour across about 8 lanes of lorries. It sort of goes in the right direction but not quite and there is only 1 mile of it. You can just about pass other cars coming the opposite way. If there is a slow car in front of you (and the road often attracts slow drivers) you have to wait a long time to get past them safely. Then to get back on your chosen, more direct route, you have to cross a junction with a lot of lorries, many of which are routinely driven through red lights, at you.

Are you going to use the 1 mile of quiet, car-only road or not? It will give you a breather, but it's slow, out of the way, and so risky to get onto it it actually ups the danger quotient overall.

This is basically the decision cyclists have to make about cycle paths. Even the ones which look bloody marvelous from a car are rarely worth using if you are cycling fast and trying to get somewhere as they are just too disjointed. Cyclists have a right to use the road. Oh, and if you think cyclists are the ones causing congestion, you're thick. There's no other way to put that.

Oh I can see the threads on MN now... Every day I walk my dog on extendable lead and double buggy where one side only contains shopping along a cycle path because they are always empty, but now hundreds of commuters are coming near me whizzing past at 20mph. AIBU to be pissed off about this...

Can't win!

I've been hassling my local council about the unsuitable cycle path near me. See the photo, council couldn't give a shit. They say there's nothing wrong with it even though I've explained it's dangerous and ive come off my bike twice here due to it.

If I use the cycle path I have the thing in the photo to negotiate. I also have two other bollard hazards where I have to get off my bike as the turn is so tight to get the bike through.

The path is compacted limestone so a lot slower than tarmac and I'm more likely to get punctures.

The cycle path also has a few side roads coming across the cycle path with high hedges blocking the view both for me and cars. So to cross safely I have to stop completely every time and peer round the hedge.

I may get stuck for three miles behind someone cycling a lot slower and it's not wide enough to pass.

The cycle path ends in the middle of nowhere about a mile before my village. To continue home I'm then meant to cross the busy A road to get on the correct side. Dangerous and difficult to get across both lanes.

Nobody maintains the brambles and Hawthorne hedge at the side of the path and I have to cycle frequently putting my hand up to protect my face from brambles.

Oh Viva, that cycle path is hilariously awful. There's one painted on a pavement near me, where there are painted signs instructing the cyclists to give way to the trees planted in the middle of it. Jolly good.

It's sad isn't it? Just shows the lack of thought which goes into cycle paths. The fact they reckon it's fine beggars belief.

When you arrive at it from the direction of bollards first then the cattle grid it's dangerous. The stupid crossway strips on the cattle grid have gaps inbetween just right for getting a wheel stuck between. When it's wet it's a skiddy death trap. There's no livestock in a ten mile radius and never have been so no idea why they need a cattle grid. There isn't a cattle grid at the other end of the path.

Why do places like Holland get it so right yet we seem to get it so wrong. Miles of very expensive cycle lanes round my town that no except the local foxes use, such a waste.

Cycle path near me is lined with native trees and shrubs. The native trees being wild plums that turn the path into a slippery mess every autumn.

A road near me has chicanes for cars that have a little route for cyclists. The little cycle shortcut doesn't get swept because sweepers can't get down it so it gets full off stones and glass and things meaning it's safer to take the main route the car uses.

ETC ETC.

'They' need to consult cyclists and make paths that are needed and that work.

"where there are painted signs instructing the cyclists to give way to the trees planted in the middle of it. Jolly good"

Well thank goodness for the signs telling you what to do, otherwise you might be trying to cycle through the tree trunks.

I'm a female cyclist. A bloke swore at me out of his car window a while ago for riding on the road, not the cycle path. I was riding at 20 mph and the speed limit is 20 mph on that stretch of road. It was 7 am on a Sunday.
I was amazed that anyone could be so intolerant and angry.

What the actual fuck is that on the cycle path!

I was driving home this evening along the road that was in the RoadRage cyclist you tube clip the other day. (Inspired a thread).

Normally cyclists don't use the cycle path - all the usual reasons, (hazards, stopping and starting etc). Today traffic on the road jammed solid - nothing moving. All the cyclists using the cycle path. Cyclists whizzing along. No problem with all the "hazards" today. (And I was stuck in the jam for 35 minutes).

I am by the way both a driver and a cyclist and commute to work by bike through London. I use cycle paths when they are there - out of respect for drivers but mostly because they are safer.

" I use cycle paths when they are there - out of respect for drivers"

What does that even mean? Do they return that level of respect? Why do you feel you owe them some blanket respect as a group, as opposed to treating them as individuals?

Roads are public highways. Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use them by right. Drivers use them under licence. You don't need to tug your forelock to drivers. And given how many journeys are short and could be made by more active forms of transport, personally I'm not inclined to start grovelling around and use substandard facilities out of some utterly misplaced sense of "respect".

You quoted half a sentence the whole makes sense -
What respect means is that I am a slowish cyclist. I am not very fit and I carry a lot of stuff in my saddle bags. If the road is narrow, especially if a bus is behind me and cannot get by, then everyone driving along that road has to go at 12 miles per hour. That is just arrogant and I wouldn't deleiberately slow everyone down when I don't have to. Why would I? Why would anyone? It is London, it is rush hour, there are lot of people trying to get where they need to go.

And actually, when I cycle I get a lot of respect from car drivers. (Van drivers can be a bit fast but I have never felt threatened). It is nice cycling to work when the weather isn't too bad!

Isn't that a bit like using the rat run with speed bumps through town when the motorway is closed?

I can't see the problem orange vase

By the way when I am driving I respect pedestrians and other road users. I give way, I let people out, I smile, I say thank you when they let me in - it makes driving easier for everyone.

I also say thank you to bus drivers and let people through doors ahead of me. It is just respect. Why wouldn't I? Don't care of that sounds prissy - it is just the way it is and generally peope respond to it.

Orange, the second part of the sentence was to do with safety. So yes, the part I quoted kept your original intent.

IME drivers often don't have much respect for other road users. Oh some do, sure, but not that many. The majority of drivers admit to breaking traffic laws, for a start. That isn't respectful. Using a vehicle designed for 4 people and driving on a busy road with only 1 person in that vehicle isn't respectful either, by your definition, since it uses up space, thereby slowing everybody down.

Oh and London rush traffic averages around 10mph so if you're doing 12mph you're speeding them up. It's one of the problems drivers have when they get rage-y with cyclists. They can't work out traffic flow and confuse their ability to drive faster with the notion that their average speed will be faster.

YABU. I'm lucky enough to have OK cycle lanes for some of my route to work, but even then one bit has been full of broken glass for the last week, one bit regularly has cars parked in it, and one bit excitingly suddenly stops and dumps you out on a blind corner full of pedestrians and cyclists coming in the opposite direction.