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.

Am off for a bike ride

Right so just so I'm clear

Cyclists should always use cycle lane, however....
Cyclists should not use the cycle lanes on the approach to a junction because car drivers don't like being undertaken, despite the fact that being at the front of the queue of traffic is safer for the cyclist

Cyclists shouldn't cycle 2 abreast because car drivers don't like it despite it being legal, and making the situation safer for both cars and driver overtaking

ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html

I have to say I'm bloody glad I took up cycling - its made me a much better and more aware driver

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'

Sometimes yes, if there is an alternative. I have a side road that I can cut down that shortens my commute home but involves a right turn - if the road if traffic free, I take it if it isn't then I carry on to the lights and turn right there. Did that today actually.

Sometimes yes, if there is an alternative. I have a side road that I can cut down that shortens my commute home but involves a right turn - if the road if traffic free, I take it if it isn't then I carry on to the lights and turn right there. Did that today actually.

And you do this out of concern for other drivers, or because when there is lots of traffic, it isn't a shortcut any more?

I completely fail to believe that the decisions you make when driving are based primarily on what causes least inconvenience to the person behind you. You might claim it to try and score points on this thread, however

No, I do it because traffic would have to queue behind me and I have an alternative - you can think what you like however until the thought police are formed and make it illegal. :) Even if I have to wait for some cars coming the other way, chances are that it is still quicker for me even if I get to the next junction and the lights are green - not quicker for others though and queuing traffic also increases pollution.

Hang on, you are now worried about the pollution from your car, but upthread had a dig at cyclists for being 'entitled twats who think they are being noble and green'
Are you for real?

wanker I said upthread that there are bad cyclists just as there are bad drivers and that they annoy me (both when I am cycling & driving).

To answer your question about undertaking to get to the junction boxes - I find it as confusing as you do & it makes me uncomfortable, but I am being directed to do it by the road-markings. I said I think those road-markings are actually quite dangerous and here is why:

1. Cars expect you to be in the junction box, so are not looking for cyclists in the cycle lane. That means holding your queue place in the cycle lane is dangerous as you often experience being pushed off the road as the car alongside you pulls into your lane without checking mirrors. This happens to me regularly. (Hence a pp who said they won't cycle in a cycle lane that has railings on the inside.)

1. Because cars expect you to be in the junction box and there is a cycle lane, if you sit out in the middle of the road in the queue (which I agree is where I would naturally be) you face the difficulty of pulling out from the cycle lane into a queue where cars are not expecting you to be, which is dangerous. I will only move forward in this situation if I have made eye contact with the driver and know they understand my intention. You are also open to the abuse of 'there's a **ing cycle lane, you know' from the driver who doesn't want a cyclist in front of them. Not to mention their refusal to let you into the queue because of said cycle lane.

The fact of the junction box reminds you it is safer to be there, visible, ahead of the traffic, etc, but you can't even overtake to get there (when at least cars would be expecting to check their right-hand mirror) as due to the cycle lane, the road is ironically too narrow! To summarise - it's very vulnerable and exposing to be a bike in a queue of traffic, hence the road design to push you to a safer area as quickly as possible.

From a car's perspective, it is probably also better for traffic flow to have all the bikes gathered and going at once than spread throughout the queue causing poor acceleration at multiple points.

Maybe your councillors could look into the bike problem where you are & find out if there is a solution?

Cycle paths are rubbish. And even when you get good ones, people insist on using them to walk their dogs, either off-lead or with those infernal extendable leads.

That said, if a cycle path is good quality and segregated, and empty and safe, it is pretty unreasonable not to use it. They do exist! Unless you cycle at 30mph (I average around 15mph) I guess.

As for not turning right, yes I also plan my routes from time to time to avoid right turns. Easier for me, and for those behind me. Same in supermarkets - if someone is looking at something, I don't barge through, I just go round to the end of the aisle and back up the other way - more exercise for me as well!

Isn't this entire thread based on a hopeless premise? There's no way cyclists could be compelled to use cycle lanes even if we thought it was a good idea.

They could if it was the law. I think in some other countries where they do have decent well-maintained paths you do have to use them if they are available? I may be wrong though.

"It is not helped by people not wearing bright colours or lights etc. so as much as it may be an inconvenience, it also makes driving the road worrying."

Good! Driving should be "worrying". You are in charge of a lethal weapon. You shouldn't be drifting along thinking about what you're having for dinner. When I'm on my daily cycle commute I am constantly vigilant and aware of everything going on around me: if not, I get squashed.

Re: filtering - it is totally legal for cyclists to filter through stationary traffic if it's safe to do so. It's not safe to go up the inside of buses/HGVs and sometimes/mostly, car drivers aren't great at checking their mirrors before moving off either, so it can be risky. Personally when I'm in doubt at a junction and there isn't room, I just 'pretend I'm a car' - ie, take primary position in the centre of my lane until through the lights. When I'm through the junction and the road is wide enough, I'll then move back to secondary position and let people past, but usually they haven't been waiting for long as it's quite easy to keep up with motorised traffic at those speeds.

hantslass They could if it was the law. I think in some other countries where they do have decent well-maintained paths you do have to use them if they are available? I may be wrong though.

You are. If you are meaning The Netherlands. Except in the case of motorways, like in the UK. Even if you hit a cyclist who is cycling with his feet on the steerer and a passenger on the back while smoking coming down a one way street the wrong way, you will be held liable. Because driving a car requires a license. And that's because its a heavy enough motorised vehicle to kill or seriously injure someone seriously should it hit them.

I'm always worried when I'm driving, and the time I stop worrying will be the time I stop being alert. My absolute nightmare would be to have a momentary lapse in concentration and "not see" a pedestrian or cyclist, and hit them, causing death or serious injury. Totally bloody irrelevant whether they're wearing bright colours or not. I have eyes and as a driver, am supposed to look where I'm going. I'd hate to have that on my conscience for the rest of my life.

If we actually had cycle paths that served their primary purpose, rather than at best only any good for a leisurely ride, I don't think you'd really need a law to get the majority of cyclists on them. Why share a space with a huge number of potentially deadly hazards if there is another practical solution? It's not just that there are more arsehole drivers, a perfectly considerate driver can kill a cyclist with an error so minor it would only scratch the paintwork of another car. I had a fender bender with another motorist who had a minor lapse in concentration, if I'd been on my bike I'd have been dead. And she wasn't speeding or driving like a twat.
I think all motorists should be forced to go out on roads on a bike, a horse, as a pedestrian in rural areas without pavements, and in a wheelchair in built up areas before being allowed a license. Unless of course they have a physical disability preventing it. And I'd include motorbikes, but unlike the other road users it would be too impractical to teach them to ride one first.