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.

Well Wanking. So five motorists can be delayed for a min or two each. Or a cyclist can be delayed for ten min or more.

Why is your default position be that one individual should suck it all up rather than share it?

because it isn't that they will all be delayed by a minute or so and it isn't that there are only 5 people (that was your view that all these vehicles would only have one person, I think my 30 it closer to the reality) - why is your default position that cyclists should never be delayed by using the facilities that are actually provided for their use? As a pedestrian I have to give way to cars and bikes and other traffic, as a car user I have to give way to other traffic and pedestrians too, what makes cyclists special that they don't have to, whist at the same time inconveniencing everyone else?

I sometimes get stuck behind a bus, not great, but I understand that he is transporting a lot more people and he needs to stop and let them on and off - he doesn't have a special part of the road solely for his use that he is choosing to ignore - if there was a bus lane that I wasn't allowed to use and he/she was deliberately not using it thereby meaning that other road users couldn't pass, I'd be pee'd off at him or her too

if there was a bus lane that I wasn't allowed to use and he/she was deliberately not using it thereby meaning that other road users couldn't pass, I'd be pee'd off at him or her too

If there was a bus lane that had overhanging branches that would take the roof off the bus and injure people sat on the top deck, then would you be pissed off if they weren't using it?
Because that is essentially what this comes down to...
To what extent should a cyclist endanger their lives, so you can get somewhere 2 minutes earlier

There really should be better infrastructure. It would have so many benefits - reduced traffic congestion as more would choose to cycle (see the CTC magazine for a good article about the inequity our poor provision leads to, meaning women, children, the elderly & disabled are unfairly excluded from a cheap & healthy mode of transport). We might also see a reverse in some of the negative health trends associated with an ageing population: diabetes, dementia, heart disease, stroke risk are all reduced by regular exercise. Finally, air quality might be improved. We could gain a great deal by learning from the Netherlands.

wanker one of the things I find most unsafe about cycle lanes is the way they so often require bikes to undertake to get to the junction box.

If you'd read back, sparechange - none of that applies in the scenario I was alluding to - there is nothing wrong with the cycle lane - I've used it myself and my children use it though mainly by scooter rather than bike (not a 3 year old limping along on a 3 wheeled scooter, teenagers on large wheeled street scooters, equipped with lights and a bell) The issue with using it seems to be that on one part it means that they have to stop and check that vehicles aren't turning the corner, in another part it deviates from the main road and in the third part, they have to use a toucan crossing to rejoin on the other side of the road.

If they are choosing to endanger their lives then that is their choice as they have a safe alterative in my case. Even though I may disagree with where they are, I still drive courteously and safely. On the other hand whilst waiting in traffic, I often have cyclists coming down on my inside (not on a cycle lane) endangering pedestrians who may take the opportunity to cross through the stationary traffic and also mainly themselves.

I think there is a lot of lack of appreciation of issues from cyclists as well as from drivers. I accept that there are a lot of thoughtless aggressive drivers, but my point is that cyclists are not all squeaky clean and they tout out that they are saving the environment as if it excuses them from the basic courtesies of life.

Things such as not riding in the dark or dull weather wearing grey/green/black. Appreciating that whilst you may have attached a flashy light to your backpack, your riding position means that it cant actually be seen unless you are flying overhead on a helicopter. And yes, it might be lovely going out for a meander on your bike round the countryside on a sunny day, but you are on a 60 limit road with bends and few places to pass or for vehicles going faster to be aware that you may be hidden round the corner so at least wearing something bright might help and it might be nice to occasionally pull off to allow a build up of traffic to pass.

I am sure a cyclist could come up with an equal or bigger list the other way round but I am trying to say, don't be a prick just because you can. I'll happily pay extra tax for better cycling facilities.

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.

You would hate it in The Netherlands. Not only is driving your child to nursery viewed as anti-social behaviour, no-one wears a helmet (unless they are racing/training).

However, we do have proper provision of cycle paths, everywhere, consistently, in a condition which can be used and which are not parked on. i.e. they are just as good as the roads, particularly out of towns. And drivers are liable if they hit a cyclist (or pedestrian), whether the cyclist is on or off a cycle lane or cycling down a one way street doing handstands on the handlebars. I don't see how that's possible in the UK, and the main reason for the lack of cycle lanes in a usable state seems to be the number of people using cars for non-essential journeys.

So basically I think the UK needs more cyclists holding up people like you (and it sounds like it was on a residential street, so what the hell do you expect? No people? Motorway-like driving conditions?) so using cars for non-essential journeys becomes less desirable and cycle lane provision improves. I would guess also that because you are generally cocooned in a car, you cannot work out that your ears work just as well as your eyes for determining whether there is traffic behind you or not.

No doubt you will come back to reply that you have some condition that prevents you or your child from cycling. At which point I would say that there are also many disabled people who enjoy cycling safely in The Netherlands.

Cyclists can do no wrong in MN Land.

But why do they have to undertake thesky? couldn't they just wait in position (wherever they are in the traffic queue) at the junction and move forward when the rest of the traffic does? Surely that is safer and is what they should be doing when there is no cycle lane (or the cycle lane is elsewhere and they choose not to use it) and they are on the road?

That is the issue I have, I am waiting in traffic at lights/junction and a cyclist shoots up my inside, usually going to front - then deciding they are now a pedestrian so they cycle across the crossing and then they rejoin at the other end of the crossing and the whole queue of traffic then has to try to overtake them again when the lights change.

I often travel over a london Bridge, it is a narrow bridge with four lanes of traffic, there is a dedicated cycle path either side, then a pavement. The cycle path either side is good, clear from debris and safe. The only possible issue is (like when I am in it) you may be slowed by a cyclist in front of you.

I often seen cyclists using the road, not sure why they do this on this particular stretch but they do!

YANBU

I often don't use them because if you are using your bike to travel somewhere at a reasonable speed you don't want to share a cycle lane with pedestrians and dogs and have to keep stopping for side roads and driveways.
I'll use them if they are fast, direct and convenient. They're handy for people learning to cycle.
Cycling on the road is only dangerous if the car drivers are dangerous

There are lots of dodgy cyclists, it's true, just as there are drivers. The bad cyclists annoy me too & like with any laws, it comes down to enforcement. Lights on bikes are enforced where I live - that is law because it saves lives. Enforcing use of cycle lanes isn't law because of the shocking & often dangerous design of them! It would be great if instead of different groups blaming one another for congestion, we campaigned for better facilities that would improve things for us all.

Wanker But why do they have to undertake

Why do you have to drive your child to nursery?

Is it really beyond your total life experience to work out that if a car overtakes you just before a junction (which I wouldn't do a as a driver, because its dangerous and discourteous), you will then be on the inside of the vehicle, in a dangerous position and its safer to move up the inside to the cyclist priority lane?

Or, where the traffic is very busy and going nowhere, being a smaller more nimble thing than a car, you might want to use all that effort you are putting in to propel yourself to good use, as its not you who is holding up the traffic?

Really, as an adult, you have never cycled and wonder about these things as you have no personal experience? I find that really shocking. No wonder you have such bad attitudes.

why do they have to undertake

Maybe because the cycle lane provision for most of the country and most cities is a strip of paint along the inside, which has signaled for several decades that cyclists can and should be up the inside of cars next to the pavement.

Maybe also because junctions and traffic lights have boxes for bikes in front of the cars, because cyclists are told that getting in front and therefore away from the lights first is safer. So cyclists are trying to get there.

Or maybe because as like people on motorbikes, they can take advantage of not needing a full car-sized space to make progress in heavy traffic and can therefore still move in stationary traffic

Elke - are you being deliberately obtuse?

I personally don't drive my child to nursery, but If I did, I'd obey the law and be considerate of other road users. The point I'm making is that some cyclists seem to think that they should never be inconvenienced and have to stop and restart and because they are small they can weave through traffic and go back to the front. It's dangerous and inconsiderate and selfish and they don't take anyone else's needs into account. A bit like yourself.
Car drivers are aware that some other car drivers are shit and selfish and dangerous - cyclists will never accept that they have any kind of responsibility for they way they use the roads - they always blame someone else. i.e. car users, pedestrians, the council, the government. I am not going to trawl back through the thread, but I think you will find multiple admissions by drivers that there are things they do wrong - I doubt you'll find any admission by cyclists - ever - that they are part of the problem as well as part of the solution.

And you can take what you think is my attitude and shove it sideways - and then try to cycle on that......

And yes, I have cycled as an adult, I use the cycle lanes, I have lights and I have a bell. It's not rocket science - I allow enough time for my journey to account for the junctions I may have to stop at. It just pee's me off that I equally have to allow time for delays caused by people who have an alternative.

If a cyclist arrives at the back of a long queue of traffic waiting for traffic lights. If they waited in the queue without undertaking what would happen when the lights went green is a load of cars would Rev past the cyclist and overtake. Cyclist would progress a short distance and then when the lights go red be behind a load of cars which had been behind them.

Why do those cars have to overtake you could ask? Dunno but they do.

So it could take numerous light changes before the cyclist gets through the junction due to all the car drivers who keep "pushing in" and not waiting their turn.

Yes, but it isn't safer is it spare change? It is actually safer to hold the space in the traffic queue where the car behind you is aware that you are there and can make safe provision for you rather than melting up the inside on a road that has no cycle lane (that was my example) where cars are not expecting you to appear and may inadvertently cut into your space as they start to move off?

Wanker Elke - are you being deliberately obtuse?

Obtuse? You think anyone that disagrees with you is "deliberately obtuse"? I think you are crediting yourself with more attention than you have actually achieved...

It just pee's me off that I equally have to allow time for delays caused by people who have an alternative.

Its a busy country, even if you drive on motorways you will still be delayed by something. If you find driving that frustrating, its possible you are going to endanger other road users (including car drivers) at some point. Delays are simply a part of driving, especially urban driving. Maybe some relaxation techniques would help, because the world isn't suddenly going to be free of cyclists.

that doesn't make any sense at all SImon, you simply cycle at your speed through the junction, why would you get pushed back the queue? I often don't get through the lights on first go - why is it any different? Cars shouldn't be overtaking unless it is safe to do so, that shouldn't have any effect on the speed you can cycle, all you mean is that instead of waiting in the queue, you want to sneak to the front just because you can.

I like the SkyCycle idea but can't imagine it actually happening - it would be great though if it did.

ODFO elke, all you have done is try to pick a fight - you have contributed naught to the debate really other than confirm that a cyclist will never admit that they ever do anything to contribute negatively to the situation. You have no idea what the roads are like where I live. If you actually read the post before attempting to answer it. I said delays caused by people who had an alternative not by other road users who have no choice. I often get help up by buses and tractors and bin lorries etc - they don't have any option - I am sure they would love a nice lane that they could use that would stop them holding other people up.

Are you seriously trying to say that you cant appreciate that being in a queue of traffic caused by a bike while driving next to a completely empty cycle lane would be annoying for other people? Yet you apparently have all that empathy and insight to think that I may find driving stressful?

wanker
You are being so binary about it.
You can't see anything wrong with your stretch of cycle lane (even though by your own admission it is used by non-cyclists, puts you at risk of being run over by a car turning left, and leaves you having to risk crossing a busy road) therefore ALL cyclists should use ALL cycle lanes ALL the time.

So firstly, we have to decide what the purpose of cycle lanes is. Is it to keep cyclists safer, or to keep traffic moving faster?
I will eat my hat if you can find a single council which has said they have installed cycle lanes in order to allow cars to drive faster on roads. Which means their primary purpose is to keep cyclists safer.

For you, safer = separated from cars.
Safer for me achieved by staying a safe distance from the kerb and encouraging drivers to give me enough space when passing me. For me, a cycle path where you have to stop start stop start, dodging kids on scooters and then cross a busy road isn't safer than riding properly on the road.
And frankly, my default position is to avoid cycle lanes, because the majority of them aren't fit for purpose. So if I'm cycling somewhere for the first time, I'm not going to 'test out' the cycle lane, because I already know there is a more than 50% chance it will be less safe than the road, for my style of bike and riding.

So then we get down to consideration. For you, it seems that anyone not able to stay at the speed limit for the duration of their journey is inconsiderate, nay selfish.
However, it is only cyclists that appear to get your wrath on this.

As I have said before and will say again, what about people looking to turn right, who stop and wait for a gap in the traffic to turn. Are they selfish for holding up traffic behind them?
What about a driver who stops to let that car turn right, therefore holding up traffic behind them? Are they selfish?

Op, have you seen this?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

rebecca I think your statement Cycling on the road is only dangerous if the car drivers are dangerous is simplistic and in some cases wrong. EVERY road user has a duty of care to other road users. Some cyclists, like some drivers, don't exercise that duty of care, it isn't always that accidents are caused by drivers. I watched a cyclist this morning nearly cause an accident pulling out in front of a lorry which had to screech to a halt, the cyclist then pulled in front of me, so of course I slowed down, and then another lane to turn right, when had he ridden about 100 yards further up there was a pedestrian and cycle crossing to take him on to the road he needed to get to

Of course it makes sense.

In the short term a car acclerates quicker than a cycle. So they push past. Why are they allowed to push past rather than wait their turn?

Why don't they recognise the cyclist has been waiting longer and wait behind them?

I don't expect to get through lights first time but if it takes me ten light changes to get through and cars are getting through in two then I'm not going to wait in the queue when no one else is bothering. I'm going to legally filter up the inside as the traffic laws in this land declare this is perfectly acceptable.