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!

I tend to call a greeting of hello 👋 first a few meters back then ding my bell, that way it gives them chance to register someone is behind them & not startle them. I don’t feel guilty for sharing nicely

I hate bike bells

I campaigned against a local scheme. It was tricky to do as it was pretty well hidden presumably because the council had made their minds up to do it. It was cancelled in the end, partly because of me [smug], but mostly because it was such an obviously bad idea the guy who was due to implement it resigned over it.

Ach was me who said "dozey pedestrians."
I believe it was in the context of reasons not to use a shared cycle path.
The long wide cycle path OP told us about but won't tell us where it is so no one can verify that it runs uninterrupted for miles with excellent quality tarmac on it.

Anyway, my concern to avoid dozey pedestrians is for their safety really.
Not because they upset me by existing.
dozey = somewhat or maybe completely oblivious.
Possibly with earbuds in so shouting out doesn't really help to make our brief encounter any safer.

Walkers can be quite dozey about runners, too. But I can't do as much damage to them when I'm running if they veer suddenly into my path.

Yeah I don't object to them being there in principle but I am very nervous about the damage I could do if they suddenly lurch, plus sometimes they are walking in middle of a wide pavement so I can't figure out which side is safer (back to earbuds). I would like to ask pedestrians on shared paths to choose which side to be on and to keep aware of the environment. Dog Walkers are generally hyper aware, excellently considerate, very good at keeping track of their pets. Teens and scruffbag-look-homeless are the most dozey.

Because the cyclist pays council tax, which funds the roads.

A pedestrian wearing headphones and looking down at their phone as they cross a road may not be 'dozey', but they sure are deaf and blind. It's amazing how many people do it

You continually harp on about vehicle drivers road tax. Just to be absolutely clear - council tax pays for local roads. Also, most adult cyclists also own a car and pay VED.

A lot of them just seem to be a box ticking exercise and make cycling more dangerous. There are also some that are helpful for slower cyclists but not much use if you are going some distance and want to keep going. Unfortunately most cycle lanes don't think about where people actually want to go and how junctions etc will be navigated. All they do is paint a line or a picture of a bike onto a bit of road or pavement that's wide enough. Even if the bit of road is only wide enough for 10 metres.

You can tell a good cycle lane because they are full of cyclists of all ages and abilities. If no one uses it, it's a bad cycle lane.
A one off cyclist not using it is either going too fast for the lane, or maybe missed the dropped kerb to get onto it.

I drive along a road with a similar setup though the cycle path is what was actually the old road however the new road is very wide so doesn't cause too many issues. I do just sometimes feel like surely it would feel safer to be on the cycle path than a road with cars doing 60. On the other hand there is another road not far with this setup but the road is very very windy with no space for anyone to overtake and I feel it does just cause more dangers for all if they don't use the cycle path.