Cyclists should use cycle lanes where they exist

[TychosNose]

Apologies if this sounds like I'm cyclist bashing. I don't mean to.

A road a regularly drive down has a completely separate cycle path which is along the footpath, separated from the road by a grass verge, but every single day I have to hover behind cyclists who insist on riding along the road rather than on the cycle lane (I'm driving a car obv.)

I have no idea why they do this. It's safer for them on the cycle lane surely?

It would also be faster because there are traffic lights on the road but not on the cycle lane (unless they jump the red light ... ).

Aibu to suggest they should be fined for using the road when there is a perfectly adequate, dedicated, safe, probably expensive cycle path?

The thing is that however a bike user is riding it's always going to be the car drivers fault if there is an accident so they should try to make the situation safe.

No I wouldn't be slowed down more if these people drove. Because they'd be driving at 35-40mph, just like me.
The bikes are actually causing loads more pollution because of all the cars having to drive at 15, the accelerate to overtake, rather then sticking to 40 mph.

and that's what I'm saying about the Highway Code. It should be changed to compel cyclists to use the cycle path providing there is one.

It isn't 'I don't want to slow down for toddlers'
It is 'I don't want to risk a toddler/dog running in front of me, and either being hit or me having to brake so hard that I potentially fall off'

You might also want to pay attention to where the cycle paths end.

Many near me finish at a junction, and spit bikes back onto the road at the exact same place that a car is about to turn left.
It is far, far safer to stay visible to cars in the run up to the junction than to suddenly pop up unexpectedly and get side swiped by a car who isn't expecting to see you

Cyclists are allowed to use the road therefore they are using the road. It's as simple as that. A disadvantage of using a car is that you can only use the road. An advantage of using a bike is that sometimes you have the choice between using the road or using a cycle lane. Sometimes cars are not the most efficient method of transport. However, that does not give them any particular rights over cyclists.

The Highway Code can't and won't ever say that though.
Cyclists, pedestrians, riders all have a right to use roads. Motorists are merely tolerated under licence.
So it would have to be a pretty fundamental legal change to save you a couple of minutes off your commute

Because they'd be driving at 35-40mph, just like me.

Until they reach a bottle neck like a traffic lights, and then weight of traffic slows everyone down. The more traffic on the road, the more traffic jams. That is why traffic is slower during the rush hour.

It's actually not my commute. I don't have a job. I'm sure it adds many minutes on to other people commutes though.

Reasons I use the road when there is a cycle lane:

• The cycle lane is poor quality with pot holes and or/debris

• Using the cycle lane means constantly stopping and starting because unlike a road, often they stop at side roads

• The cycle path is shared use with pedestrians and not segregated

• The cycle path is often treated like a car park

• The cycle lane is in a 'dooring zone'

• The cycle lane puts me too close to a kerb

• The cycle lane is not segregated and encourages close passes by drivers

On another note, if you believe that cyclists should get out of the way for you when you are the faster traffic, do you therefore pull over when in traffic queues to keep the road clear for cyclists when they are the faster moving traffic?

Well there's a bottle neck behind the cyclists!

Every cycle path along where I live is on a pavement so cyclists have to stop at every junction to cross the road before continuing.

A real pita if there are a load of junctions.

Also cycle paths move from on the pavement to the edge of the road and back again. Then they vanish.

Add to that the number of cars who think a cycle path means park here and I am not surprised it is easier to stay in one place down the road.

Tychosnose, are you trolling or do you genuinely believe that increasing numbers of cyclists increases pollution? In the last year I have driven into the city centre approximately 4 times as I cycle to work, I nipped past traffic jams of stationary cars, bletching out fumes. Its other cars that slow you down not bikes.

Apologies if this sounds like I'm cyclist bashing. I don't mean to.

I don't believe your apology or the idea that this isn't yet another thread that invites posters to slag off cyclists in general.

I hate to break it to the noncyclists, but bikes have a legal right to use the (not motorway) highway if they so wish.

Motor vehicles - with a few exceptions - have to pay for a licence to use the highway.

Not excusing the dickhead dangerous cyclists, but they cause fewer deaths and injuries than dickhead dangerous drivers.

How do you define adequate, dedicated and safe? That is an issue as would it necessitate my proving a cycle lane was inadequate or unsafe?

I average a little over the speed limit on my ride to work (32mp/h)* if I'm on one of my road bikes and there are very few .cycle lanes where this would be appropriate.

Maybe I'll walk down with my very unpredictable toddler!

I assume you mean down a cycle path? That would be idiotic. If you mean down the pavement next to it then what would your reaction be if I zipped past at 20+ mp/h nearly silently?

Cyclists have as much right to be on the road as any car driver - just before you mention road tax. We paid £490 x 2 for our cars which, if you do want to start talking about taxation, gives me more right than most to ride on the road.

If by hovering you mean trying to intimidate then I hope you get stuck behind someone who stops and explains why it's dangerous to you in no uncertain terms. I happily do once a week or so.

Cycle lanes are an option we can choose to use.

While your post has shown nothing more than short-sighted ignorance, I think that most here can guess as to your general style of driving and attitude in daily life. A self-centred one.

ps. I fucking hate people slowing me down on my bike when I've got a good tailwind and am stuck behind some egit when they could use public transport or get a bike themselves.

*perfectly legally

I'm sure it adds many minutes on to other people commutes though

If everybody in the UK who cycled for transport used a car instead there would be far more minutes added to your commute. Every single person on the road is a burden on somebody else's journey time, that includes you. Cyclists, bus users, and pedestrians could all get around a lot quicker with fewer cars too.

But this cycle lane is totally separate from the road so cyclists are not pushed into the kerb.
And no of course I don't pull over for cyclists to pass when I'm in traffic. That's a totally ridiculous suggestion. How would that even work?

Because in my car, to slow down and overtake I use the following physical effort: move right foot slightly to the left and press gently down, followed by turn steering wheel slightly to the right, move right foot slightly right and press it down slightly, all whilst sitting in a comfy heated seat in an air conditioned environment. If I successfully slow down from 20+ mph to a stop when dog runs out of side path without having to peel half my face from the pavement or hand over all my details to inevitably pay for said dogs injuries, I then have to get my bike back up to speed again using my own legs. It is much easier to maintain a constant speed than it is to keep stopping and starting for junctions, people, glass etc. I can guarantee that being behind a cyclist at 60% of the speed limit for less than a mile slows you down by no more than a minute. It's not about being more important, it is about being safer for everyone. The car is safe from cyclists and pedestrians as they are in a metal box. The cyclist is at risk whichever lane they choose, the pedestrians are only at risk if the cyclists are on a shared use path. Therefore the least total risk is cycling on the road.

we have a similar route on my way to work, but my dh pointed out, that using the cycle path you have to potentially stop at all the side roads before crossing on your bike, it isn't heavily populated by pedestrians, and it is a straight level route, so you would see walkers even if cycling fast. So I would always use it.

My life would be easier if everyone who isn't me would just get off the road, or at least pull over to the side so that I can get past them. I think I'll propose it to my local MP.

Wow that's really harsh herecomethepotatoes total character assassination!

I've said nothing about road tax. I'm very happy to share the road with cyclists and I'm a very considerate driver, which is partly why I'm so slowed down, because I will not overtake a cyclists unless I can drive completely on the other side of the road, leaving as much room as I would for a car. I just wanted to know why cyclists might choose to use the road when there seems to be a better option. I wouldn't dream of trying to intimidate anyone ever.

Ok clearly iabu
I apologise.

Except to potatoes who was just really rude.

Cycle paths are recommended for cyclist doing under 15mph. Also the surface of most cycle paths is not suited to or designed for road bikes with thin tyres. Cycle paths are designed for recreational use and not for commuting and other fast cyclists. So no all cyclists should not be using the cycle paths are they are not designed for all cyclists.

I just wanted to know why cyclists might choose to use the road when there seems to be a better option

But this has been explained to you by several posters, and your response has basically been 'poop poop! get out of my way!'

Yanbu. But I'm a slow cyclist who never cycles on a road anyway. I don't trust drivers one bit (I drive sometimes but usually walk).