To wonder if cyclists should be made to use cycle lanes

[Notsureifthiswillworkasaname]

Especially where it is dangerous or slows down flowing traffic when they don't.
I am sure some places need more cycle lanes, but I am talking about stretches of road that have dedicated cycle lanes.
Cars have to use roads, pedestrians are expected to use pavements, so why can't cyclists be expected to use cycle lanes

And yes there will be cyclists who will flame this thread.

I've never seen a cyclist not using an available cycle lane. When have you seen this)

This:

Will this be before or after they clear the broken glass, nettles, branches overhanging, fix the pot holes, and ban cars parking in them?

YANBU - yesterday doing the nursery run I saw a load of cyclists cycling three abreast so that they could overtake each other. On a busy road with bus and cycle lanes (in both directions) and speed slowing bollards in the middle of the road. None of them bothered to look behind them when deciding to overtake and one of them wasn't even wearing a helmet.

Drives me mad that people just risk their lives (and others') like this.

I think that when cycle lanes are good, cyclists are absolutely thrilled to use them. The problems come because cycle lanes are often very narrow, full of potholes, blocked by cars, full of unnecessary shifts from one side of the road to the other (involving lots of stopping and starting), or extremely awkward for various other reasons.

Welcome to Mumsnet by the way.

I use them mostly, however they are so badly maintained that it is often dangerous.

When you run over a pothole in your car imagine what it would do to a cyclist. Also parked cars, debris from heavy rain.

I'd take a decent cycle lane over the road anytime. But many of them are not in great condition / force cyclists to stop / start, or there are cars parked in them.

Thanks Pootles it is a name change- and yes they would obviously need to be cleared up, by I never see complaints from cyclists about the state of their lanes.

In fact lots of lanes round here appear to be wide and clear. Some are shared with pedestrians so that is why I hadn't considered their state.

See picture on 3rd response.

I don't think I've ever driven alongside a cycle Lane that doesn't have that little addition.

A cycle lane is an invitation, not an obligation. If it is the safest place for me to cycle, then I will use it. If it is not, then I won't.

I wouldn't dream of telling car drivers that they should get on a bike instead, even though if everyone were forced to cycle my commute would be a lot quicker and a lot safer.

If you cleared them up, and made them really useful, you wouldn't need to ban cyclists from the road.

It would be amazing if they could sort them out - would make cyclists and motorists a lot happier. Can't see it happening though.

You've never seen complaints from cyclists about the state of cycle lanes? There are several on this thread already!

Thistles that's so sensible. Cyclists face so many dangers. Potholes, loose drain covers etc. wouldn't bother me in my car but could put a cyclist in hospital.
There are cyclists who behave dangerously but so do many drivers.

The ones with dozy pedestrians wandering around on them, and that have to give way at every single junction and every single driveway, to cross traffic? That's assuming they even have dropped curbs at the give-way points. The designated cycle route that criss crosses around town rather than take a direct route? The off road lane on the opposite side of the road from where I'm going, so I have to wait a while to cross lanes of traffic to get to and from it?

I suppose this is why I pay taxes and car tax on 2 cars, so I can be forced to always drive rather than get to cycle.

Sharing a cycle lane with pedestrians is one reason I will decide not to use it. I cycle at 18-20 miles an hour on the flat parts of my commute and would rather take my chances with the traffic (which is rarely going any quicker) than risk colliding with a pedestrian who steps out in front of me without looking.

The ones that share pavements are super dangerous because cars will drive right over the cycle lane to the edge of the intersection, so you can't cycle fast along those. Much better to cycle in the road.

As someone who has been a keen cyclist in the past but doesn't have anywhere to go on a bike ATM, I have every sympathy for a cyclist grinding away up a hill in all weathers while I sit in a climate controlled car listening to whatever I want. I don't rush them or squeeze them or get cross.

I wish there were proper dedicated cycle lanes that I could use safely, but often they have very poorly designed junctions with other road intersections, as well as all the problems others have mentioned. We have a fantastic wide separate cycle path between 2 parts of my city, but it is gutting that it is often covered in glass and in winter is never gritted by the council, making it unusable.

YANBU if you believe in investment in proper joined-up cycling infrastructure which would allow older people, children and disabled people to cycle in safety, as well as improving traffic flow. YABU if you just want cyclists out of the way and don't mind if the facilities are appropriate or not.

Cycle paths always look as though they've been designed by people who have never ridden a bike in their lives.

I've long been an advocate of separate paths/roads for cars and cycles.

It makes sense. There aren't nearly enough of them though, yet, though I hope one day this will change.

Putting cars and cycles on the same bit of tarmac was never going to end well. Different speeds, levels of vulnerability, requirements, sizes and all the rest of it - they have almost nothing in common.

You almost never get horses/carriages sharing with motor vehicles now.

Without pissing off either lobby though (and I am a member of both contingents - cyclists, car drivers - also motorcyclists) I'm not sure how you divvy up the roads that can't be expanded.

Separate lane not adjacent but nearby and going in the same direction perhaps.

Don't think banning anyone is the best idea. Carrot, not stick iyswim

YANBU - I see it everyday - we have a local cycle lane that in some parts is completely newly built, so not full of weeds etc and another more established part which again is not full of weeds and glass but does mean stopping at road junctions as it runs as part of a footpath with roads coming off it and also requires a diversion from the road as one section does not have a wide enough pavement and clearly the road has been deemed not wide enough to transfer the bikes to the road instead. This section links both older section and new together - it does require using a toucan crossing if they want to get straight on to the main cycle path again.

I pass probably about 10 cyclists a day not using any of the supplied cycle paths and causing delays on the roads. In fact, I see more cyclists on the road than I see on the cycle paths.

When they widened the pavement (narrowing the road) for the new bit of cycle track, they also put more crossing islands in and it makes it nearly impossible to pass safely.

I always give them the proper safe courtesy on the road, but it does my head in, every other mode of transport accepts that at times it has to give way to other road users, a lot of cyclists seem to think that they are the exception. I am also fed up of them undertaking when queuing in traffic - surely that is illegal as well as fecking dangerous?

The problem in these discussions is that people often have a very poor understanding of what is actually dangerous versus what they perceive to be dangerous.

A cyclist on a main road, being overtaken by a car is actually not in much danger. A cyclist maneuvering the junction on and off an off road cycle path is at much higher risk. Or a cyclist following a cycle path up the inside of cars and lorries to a junction - dangerous.

There is a theory that the reason the woman are involved in a disproportionate number of cycle fatalities is that they tend to follow the rules, sticking to dangerous cycle paths, where men are more likely to ignore them and trust their judgement.

So for reference, situations where I will ignore a cycle path:

• Busy paths which are shared with pedestrians
• Paths where I need to keep swerving in and out of the main traffic flow to avoid parked cars
• Paths on roads with metal railings to the left
• Paths which are not gritted in poor weather
• Situations where I am turning right ahead
• Paths which lead me down the inside of stationary traffic
• Paths which approach a junction, if I am going straight ahead, and cars to the right of the cycle path are turning left
• Paths where the route to join/leave is more dangerous than just staying on the road

There are probably more I've forgotten.

So YANBU to ask, but the answer is no.

As a pedestrian I would much rather a cyclist was on the road than trying to share the pavement with me and my dash-across-to-the-hedge-to-look-at-a-snail DS. 20mph is much closer to car-speed than pedestrian-speed and it doesn't do any harm for the cars to slow down a little. It's not going to add that much to your journey time and it does you good to be reminded that you don't own the road and have to share nicely even with people who don't like to drive a big sexy car.

As a cyclist I cycle where it is safest for me to do so. Sometimes that is on the road even when there is a cycle lane if the cycle lane is badly maintained, full of glass or parked cars, or liable to have a toddler on it. Sometimes it is on the cycle lane if it is suitable. Very occasionally it is on the pavement (slowly) if I can't see any pedestrians and the road is dangerous (there is a narrow road under a bridge near me where cyclists have been killed and I don't feel safe on the road). I don't expect any other road user to have any input on my judgement as to what is least likely to do me damage, thank you.

As a car driver I try to be considerate of all other people and if I have to slow down for a few minutes while I wait to get to a suitable overtaking point then I don't let it get to me. If there is so much traffic that there is no opportunity to overtake a cyclist, it's probably safest to be going at cyclist-speed anyhow.