JacquesHammer:
*I would hope not. My three examples are:-
- Stretch of tow path that is very clearly signed to dismount as it is a narrow tunnel with poor visibility. Cyclists regularly don’t, one of whom knocked a child into the canal.
- Cyclist ran over dog in an area of the local country park where cycling is forbidden.
- Main road through town has a left only lane, then straight ahead. Cyclist hugs the kerb only to go straight ahead when he should clearly position himself between the two lanes of traffic. I saw him do this every working day for 4 months.*
JacquesHammer, in the above post you described three situations that you had personal knowledge of and you thought we could agree on.
The first two seem clear. 'No Cycling' means no cycling. In my experience local councils broadly (if often clumsily) encourage cycling and make these bi-laws for good reason.
Your third situation though is an excellent example of how little understanding there is by people (most of whom drive, but don't cycle) of cyclists and cycling on public roads.
You describe a junction with a left turn lane. Traffic intending to go ahead are expected to move to the right hand lane to do so. This a very typical, often busy, urban road layout and takes absolutely no account of the needs of cyclists, who come in all ages, shapes, sizes and degrees of fitness.
My approach at a junction like this would be to check over my shoulder and move to the centre of the left turn lane, (ie ignoring the arrow and signs - shock horror) and signalling if necessary. This prevents any cars in that lane getting beside me and then turning into me and running me down when they (inexplicably) don't manage to see me. Once I am past the junction I would move back to the left. The idea that a cyclist should follow the road sign instruction to change lane is actually dangerous for various reasons, the biggest of which is because it puts the rider between two lanes of traffic and may on some road layouts mean the rider then has to get back again.
I am a fit, very experienced cyclist. On most busy urban roads I can keep up with the cars and often move quicker. This gives me a considerable safety advantage over cyclists who are perhaps older, less experienced or less fit. It takes confidence and skill to glance over your shoulder on a bike, while staying in a straight line, assessing the traffic (ie the bloke in the white van six feet off your back wheel) and its intentions and then to get in its way to prevent it from running you over. I would say most cyclists prefer to stay left and as close to the curb as much as possible, believing that always staying out of the way of the traffic (an idea by implication promoted by many people who have contributed to this thread) is the safest way to ride. It often really isn't.
The person in your example JacquesHammer was doing what thousands of cyclists would also do at that junction often because they have no other choice. Because a driver can very easily kill a cyclist, it always behoves the driver to take this into account, which you don't appear to have done. This is surely a basic principle that seems to escape many people and is only an extension of the cyclist v. pedestrian
argument so many of the non-cycling drivers seem to be so exercised about.
So, no, I don't think the rider in your example was necessarily doing a stupid thing and if you rode a bike more you could only agree.