To think cyclists should use cycle lanes

[Krispybake]

Today, a massive line of traffic was held up by a cyclist who was using a long main road when a cycle path (tarmacked the same as the road) ran parallel for the entire length of the road. Due to the volume of traffic coming in the opposite direction, it was impossible to overtake the cyclist and leave the safe distance so creating a huge tail back involving service buses, funeral cortege and multiple cars.
Genuine question, why do cyclists do this? If the cycle track has the same surface as the road, why will they not use it? Very annoying!

@Whichnumbers

"It wasn't the cyclist holding you up travelling too slowly, but the sheer volume of traffic travelling in the opposite direction."

Eh?😂😂😂😂It absolutely was the cyclist holding everyone up! Had the cyclist not been on the road, then traffic would have kept moving more quickly regardless of the volume of oncoming traffic. Apologies if you meant this as a joke.....it's been a long day! 🥴

It absolutely was the cyclist holding everyone up

thats your bias mindset - if the opposite lane wasn't full of traffic everyone would have just passed the cyclist

On a side issue: the three-abreast weekend bloke pelotón. Guys, I get it. Exercise is a good thing. However, you are not Bradley Fucking Wiggins in the Tour de France. If you insist in going out in groups of 40 or more, do it at 5 in the morning when the rest of the world isn't trying to drive somewhere.

And one more thing, chaps. If you have a fat arse, wear trackies instead of the lycra shorts. Thanks.

I’ve noticed that everyone pulls over except road cyclists; tractors, horse riders, mountain bikers… the Lycra must come with a free sense of entitlement.

It doesn’t sound like you’re open to hearing any suggestion of why a cyclist might cycle in the road - every option offered, you say no that’s not a problem here. You seem very set on assuming the cyclist was doing it just because he could.

Somebody posted a picture of a cycle lane with the bollards. I probably wouldn’t choose to cycle in that lane. All it takes is a large bit of debris or pothole and you have nowhere to go, no room to avoid it. If you’re cycling on skinny tyres, that is very different to cycling on wide knobbly tyres. I’d suggest if you really want to understand, spend some time cycling on skinny tyres with busy traffic on that road at a reasonable speed. You might also find the road feels much safer

What was the point of this thread? You asked why someone may choose to move around in a particular (legal) way, yet totally refuse to listen to or accept any of the many reasons given.

At the end of the day, that person has made a choice that is perfectly legal and owes you no explanation.

I can only reply as I found the situation today. I have actually acknowledged, several times, that I appreciate there are unsafe cycle lanes which shouldn't be used and also that there are numerous occasions when cyclists must use a road.
What the cyclists on here seem to imply is that I am incapable of understanding the condition of a cycle lane and that despite it being new, wide, beautifully surfaced etc. it must be fraught with many hidden dangers and traps like something out of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
As for potholes, do roads not also have these? Is it not dangerous for a cyclist to swerve to avoid a pothole in the road when motor vehicles are right behind them?

If you can't overtake like this, it's not safe to overtake a cyclist in a bike lane either. You need just as much room to overtake a cyclist as a car.

Nope. If there was less traffic coming in the opposite direction, you would have been able to overtake.

😂

There's a brand spanking new cycle lane near me like that.

I don't use it.

Why?

Because I have to take a right turn onto a road, the cycle lane has no opportunity to come off there, and even if it did, I'd have to then cut across 2 lanes of busy traffic.

It is simply safer for me to ignore the cycle lane and use the road.

This doesn't stop entitled drivers punishment passing me, beeping their horns, swearing and shouting at me, simply because I have the audacity to ride a bicycle on my road.

I was held up by a delivery van today who drove into the cycle lane, happens both ways, that's life, no point in getting angry about it

Our local council shut a key road for several weeks and spent vast amounts to install an unusably dangerous, accident-waiting-to-happen short stretch of cycle path, to replace a mini roundabout with an attempt at a junction. It gives cyclists right-of-way over motor vehicles (a good thing), but with nice slippery new cobblestones on the cycle path (why?????) and tree branches overhanging it (so only actually usable for smaller cyclists)... the trees also make it hard to see cyclists if youre in a car... its a touristy city, the speed limit is 40mph, and its not clearly signposted as a junction anyway....what could possibly go wrong?

As a motorist it pisses me off. As a cyclist it pisses me off. But Johnny Council assumes any complaint is either from a cyclist-hating audi driver or a lycra-clad arsehole.

In reality, the people who drive aggressively/ badly wo nt give way to the cycle path users anyway, and faster cyclists will use the road and not give way to slower cycle-path users (ie the ones on thicker-tyred bikes avle to handle cobbles whilstcommuting to work rather than those trying to beat STRAVA).

It's probably best to leave more time for your journey to avoid your frustration

And that is fair enough and an understandable choice for you. As a driver, I would never dream of beeping the car horn or swearing and shouting at a cyclist. I might feel frustrated but I know how to behave. Yes, as motorists we are "entitled" as the road is the only choice we have and we are actually entitled to use it!

we are actually entitled to use it

its not an entitlement, you have to have a licence to use the road in a car

Not a cyclist but even I can see there is a vast difference between having to frequently stop to avoid hazards and then having to get your vehicle going again using your own two legs and having to drive at 15mph instead of 20/30 for a stretch until you can overtake and to be able to just speed up with a touch of a pedal. I agree there are cyclists who are arses but no more so than there are pedestrians or drivers. I’d generally assume most people have a good reason not to use cycle lanes if they don’t use them. Without knowing where the lane is/seeing it no one can really know if there is something wrong with it or not 🤷🏼‍♀️

Was this in Sussex? I saw exactly the same this morning.

The one I saw was on a 2-lane road that leads to a dual carriageway. There's 100 yards or so where the limit is 30, approx a quarter of a mile where it's 40, and last bit, well over half a mile is NSL.

That adds up to a bit under 1 mile.
Assuming OP meant at least 2 miles when she said
Today, the lane runs alongside the road for several miles.

Then couldn't be the same sighting as in Sussex.

So the mystery continues.

I'm fairly slow on a bike and even I go faster than a funeral cortege, at least the ones in my county.

🙄
Sorry, should have clarified that we must assume that those driving motor vehicles on the road actually hold valid driving licences, have valid MOTs where needed, motor vehicle insurance and the appropriate road tax, have all children in adequate car seats, are all wearing seat belts, the driver not driving in flip flops, all tyres correctly inflated and plenty of fuel (or electric charge) and oil etc., not under the influence of drugs or alcohol (have I missed anything?).....then they are entitled to use the road. I'm sure someone will argue differently! 🥴

it's your attitude that car drivers are entitled (its the fact a driving licence can be taken away for multiple reasons), your bias that it's not drivers holding you up but a solo cyclist. Did you really come along for a moan or did you really want your question answered as to why people ride bikes on the road instead of on a cycle lane and learn about why they do that? TBH I think all the laughing faces at different opinions shows its the former, sadly, as there are many people here that will answer your question comprehensively.

Op previously you'd said the cycle lane was separated by paint, then bollards.
If it is bollards, they very quickly end up unusable for road bike tires, because the path surface can't be cleaned. They don't look obviously bad from a distance but the grit and small stones are hazardous to cycle on, especially at speed. Unless you've got a bike with knobbly tires (as a typical leisure bike or mountain bike) they're not good, and bikes with those tyres are slow which is why commuters aren't likely to use them.

Have you ever tried pulling off again if you're on a bike and on even a slight hill? Most cyclists aren't on e-bikes and we don't have a motor or, literally, horsepower, beneath us.

I didn't mention paint but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasons politely. Thank you.

What? A cyclist was travelling slower than the flow of traffic would do usually. No one can get past it because of traffic travelling at the normal speed on the other side of the road but you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the issue is the cyclist?

It’s like listening to a psychotic person trying to justify their belief that they are King Charles the Third

Yes you are allowed to use the road but so is the cyclist.