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.

maybe people should also take that into account instead of deciding that it is only car drivers that are selfish?

So you are at least now admitting that you are selfish, which is a step forward.

I think the crucial thing that you are overlooking is that cyclists have a legal right to use the roads. Cars don't. They are tolerated under licence.

Furthermore, the Highway Code says that cyclists don't have to use cycle lanes, but they 'may' be safer. That in itself acknowledges that they aren't always safer.
But they are provided for the safety of cyclists. Not the convenience of drivers who haven't left themselves enough time for their journey and now need to drive at the limit of the speed limit the whole way.

spare, no I said that the cyclists are delaying the cars when they have a alternative that they don't want to use as it delays them. We are talking about one person being delayed by using the facilities provided against multiple people being delayed by those not using the facilities provided.

I think the answer in our case is to take away the separate lane (up a kerb)on the stretch where there are side roads coming off, widen the road again so that actually there is enough room for people to overtake properly and then everyone would be happy? or swap it to the side where there are no side roads and fewer houses?

Wanker, you can't be sure of anything round the bend so should only be going at an appropriate speed so that you could stop. Country lanes at national speed limit have a disproportionate amount of cyclist (and car driver) fatalities. And this is due overwhelmingly to drivers not being at the appropriate speed for the conditions. 60 is not a target.

I have said all they way through that car drivers can be selfish spare - but none of the cyclists have said that.

I don't drive at 60 on it, but it is equally not safe to drive too slow either as you need to keep up with the flow of traffic.

The Highway code says a lot of things that I am sure no-one follows - cyclists shouldn't cycle two abreast where the road is narrow or busy I think it says but I see that happening, drivers should obey the speed limit - that doesn't happen either.

I don't know what the answer is.

But cyclists are using the facilities provided for them - the road. There is no law that says they have to use inferior facilities provided just to let you drive faster. Just like there is no law that says people in slow or old cars needs to drive on the verge to let fast cars go faster.

Of course cyclists can be selfish. A prime example of this is cycling on pavements, and endangering pedestrians, just because the cyclist doesn't feel safe on the road. That is stupid and selfish behaviour in my book.

But zero cyclists think 'hmm, I could use that lovely stretch of cycle lane, or I could be obtuse and go on the road instead, and hold up the traffic'.
They exercise their legal right to use a road, which they have judged safer or better to complete their journey. They, as legal road users, are under no moral or legal obligation to make average traffic speeds faster for you or anyone who might theoretically be in a hurry, any more than you are obliged to not turn right or reverse into a parking space or do any of the other myriad of things drivers do to slow down the speed of traffic.

If you make a pledge that you will never again turn right across traffic, or slow down to let someone out of a junction, or slow down on a road when looking for an address, or flag down a taxi that has to stop on the side of the road for you to get in, then I'll promise to never again cycle anywhere other than a cycle lane. How is that for a deal?

I agree with you OP assuming the cycle lanes are kept in good repair. Cycling has become very popular where I live and the roads are totally unfit for it. There is however a very good cycle path for several miles along a particularly busy / dangerous stretch of road and cyclists never use it because they would rather cycle 2 abreast in the road having a chat

How cyclists haven't been killed near here is something of a mystery to me.

On a winding country road you don't have to keep up with traffic. You drive to the conditions, so I'm not sure why the potential for a cyclist being there should be a worry. If it's not safe to go round a corner at 30mph, go slower.

Of course there are times when cyclists don't follow the highway code (cyclists going two abreast making it impossible to pass is an example of selfish behaviour). Not sure how that is relevant to this thread though.

This is what the Highway Code says on Cycle lanes:
"Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills"

I read that to mean that I have no obligation to use a cycle lane, especially if I am an experienced and skilled cyclist.

cyclists going 2 abreast is safe cycling as motorists don't try to squeeze past them as though they aren't there and have to treat them like the slow moving vehicle they are and only overtake when there is room to do so..

www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8565471,-2.8617484,3a,75y,269.04h,65.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl_h8Zllgo7TLVujL9YyvJA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

another example of a cycle path which actually puts cyclists at risk, shame really because it is a beautiful, wide, clear cycle path, surface is shit though.

Depends on the circumstances rebecca. There are plenty of narrow roads around me where it would be OK to overtake a single cyclist but not riding two abreast.

I don't think that legally cycling on a road is selfish.

Cycling like an arse, jumping red lights, etc is selfish.

Cycling long predates motoring. I get mightily pissed off with these Johnny come lately motorists demanding that we cyclists move off the roads onto crappy ill-maintained cycle paths so that they can get the roads all to themselves to kill each other on.

Incidentally, I do use cycle lanes where they are provided. I won't repeat what's already been stated upthread. One thing that is really grating is the constant 'cyclists dismount' signs. I can see why others use the roads.

I love that video honey dragon. I cycle a lot, nearly every day in a city. In the cycle lanes, not in the cycle lanes where ever I dam well please within the rules set out in the highway code.

But zero cyclists think 'hmm, I could use that lovely stretch of cycle lane, or I could be obtuse and go on the road instead, and hold up the traffic'.

Maybe they don't think that but that is what they do - maybe they don't think....

Lots of people using the roads don't think though so i guess that's no different.

My conclusion is that there are selfish drivers, selfish cyclists and there are also considerate people of both genres. As mainly a car driver, I see both and am happy to admit that there are drivers who are entitled twats, there don't seem to be many cyclists that will admit that there are cycling entitled twats too as they are so much more noble being green and all that jazz. Obvs proportionally there should be less as there are less cyclists to cars.

But why would UK cyclists be more selfish than Netherlands cyclists?

It's unlikely.

It's more likely that there are reasons which you don't understand why the cyclists aren't using the paths. People who drive along the A road near me probably see a nice tarmac cycle path and wouldn't know that it's not wide enough, and that it ends in an odd and dangerous place.

Maybe they don't think that but that is what they do
As is their LEGAL RIGHT.

Before making every journey, maneuvre, action on the road, do you think 'I wonder how this will impact on the average speed of traffic and therefore indirectly inconvenience another road user?'
Of course you fluffing don't. Yet you expect a cyclist to have this internal conversation? Behave!

Yanbu. You just need to actually build the usable cycle lanes now. Because forgetting the ok ones that just need clearing, which ranges from glass to parked cars, many need labelling as such so you don't meet disgruntled pedestrians thinking they are pavement. Not to mention the ones that are shared with pedestrians, randomly dead end or involve dismounting and negotiating pavements and using pedestrian crossings half a dozen times in a 1/4 mile stretch. Or provide you with a massive detour.
You build them, I'll use them gladly. Until then I won't be fucking about on the local ones though unless it's for pleasure.

Most cyclists are also car drivers, I suspect car drivers who cycle are more understanding of why cyclists don't use poorly designed cycle lanes and view cyclists as just other road users albeit slow ones and don't get annoyed with them moving slowly any more than they'd get annoyed with a tractor moving slowly. If you are in a rush leave the house earlier and give yourself more time.

And I won't deny there's arsehole cyclists too. But firstly from sheer numbers there's more arsehole drivers on the road. Secondly what a non cyclist may view as selfish can actually be defence or because the cyclist is aware of something the driver isn't. And thirdly, if I ride my bike like an arse, chances are in any collision with a car I cause, I'll injure or kill myself. If I drive my car like an arse at cyclists though, there's little chance of physical harm to me. So the latter is far more selfish.

Before making every journey, maneuvre, action on the road, do you think 'I wonder how this will impact on the average speed of traffic and therefore indirectly inconvenience another road user?'

Of course I consider the impact of other road users with every action or manouver I make - why wouldn't I?

I would also consider the impact on others prior to making a journey if I was planning to go cycling I would think about the best way to get from A to B and then I would use the cycle path since it is there.

It's the double standards here that say it's okay for a cyclist to not want to use a route as it's slower and inconvenient whereas a driver is told to suck it up and leave earlier.

As for legal rights, there are lots of things that are legally ok but doesn't mean that you should do them. Anyway, things to do places to go and all that - stay safe out there people.

Of course I consider the impact of other road users with every action or manouver I make - why wouldn't I?

So if you needed to turn right at a junction, but could see that there were lots of cars coming the other way and therefore it would be a while before there was a gap in the traffic, would you think 'I won't turn right here, for I fear it may cause a delay to someone behind me'

Or would you turn right?

I realise the vulnerability of cyclists and also agree that proportionally more asshole drivers.

I explain to my kids in preparation for being drivers that you should equate it as walking around with a loaded weapon. Arseholes will flash it about and have the safety off and risk shooting someone by accident, responsible citizens keep the safety on and keep it in their bag but know that it is there and the damage it can do.

Just going round in circles aren't we?

So it boils down to the fact that some people think it's fine for cyclists to be inconvienced and slowed down by a larger proportion of their total journey than it is for motorists to be inconvenienced for a smaller proportion of their journey.

So it really is an attitude of motorist is king, rah get out my way!