Cyclists who act like they own the road should pay towards it

[dreamingofsun]

So cyclists get priority on the roads, and are happy to ride two abreast so they hold all the car traffic up. Shouldnt they at least pay towards the upkeep of the road?

Using your logic OP, being a driver who in your view does pay for access, and being a cyclist who definitely pays more than 180 in VAT for cycling related gubbins every year I am some kind of super road owner. And I'd like you to stop using my road

I live very near an A road which has a cycle track alongside it.

Cyclists always use the road, which has only one lane each way, causing looooong tailbacks of traffic. There's absolutely no excuse for it.

I can only think that in their arrogance they believe they are above special lanes and should be able to ride wherever they like.

One day the urge to come up behind one and hoot loudly will be too strong to resist.....

Cycle tracks are often poorly maintained and impractically designed, which is why many use the roads as they are entitled to do.

As a driver you should know better than to use your horn to intimidate or alarm other road users. As a driver, I don't want to share them road with such idiocy and illegality.

You’re the problem.

have you cycled in this lane yourself? Do you know how much debris is often found in cycle lanes. I’d say the arrogance comes from you. Presumably you have legs? Why don’t you just walk, and then you don’t need to be sat in traffic. Is it too far for you? Not safe? Well perhaps same.

@BinkyBeaufort

Cyclist don't cycle simply to piss off car drivers.
They cycle to get from A to B as safely and quickly as possible in the main.

So, if there's a cycle lane and no cyclists are using it, there will be a reason.

It might be badly maintained, dangerous in some way or have side roads every few yards where cars pull out without looking.
It could also be that some cyclist need to turn right at some point, this becomes a dangerous manouver when cars are speeding along in the next lane.

If you can provide a Google Streetview link we can probably tell you why it doesn't get used.

Rule 163 of the Highway Code:

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should:

• give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. As a guide - leave at least 1.5m when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30 mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds.

The usual width of a lane is around 3.65m, so if a cyclist is riding in the middle, you'd need to use the opposite carriageway to pass. Even if a cyclist is using the very edge of the road, you'd still need to go half way on to the other lane.

Cyclists riding in the middle of a lane aren't ego tripping. They're following rule 67 of the Highway Code:

"You should... watch out for obstructions in the road, such as drains, service covers and potholes, positioning yourself so you can move to the left (as well as to the right) to avoid them safely"

Have you also heard of the "new" rules that state drivers should stop and let pedestrians cross the road that they're turning in to or out of?

Your opinion that pedestrians and cyclists shouldn't use the roads is a moot point here. It is just your opinion. The Highway Code has a "hierarchy of road users". The definition of "road users" includes pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Just because you don't think cyclists shouldn't be on the road doesn't exempt you from following the law.

Perhaps it is you that needs to brush up on the Highway Code, or perhaps for the safety of all other road users, hand your driving licence back.

Here is a helpful link to the "new" HC rules that came in 18 months ago.

London is definitely a different kind of crazy I agree. I have quite a lot of saved dashcam videos of idiocy! Plenty of red light jumpers in cars too, definitely.

Everyone had warned me before I went to LA that the roads were crazy. I drove around it thinking it was better than London!

Maybe. I just think people are incredibly impatient and can't see why they should slow down for even a second.

I also agree that some cyclists in London are completely mad, but I suspect a lot of them don't drive.

Outside London, the majority of cyclists will also drive.

Another uneducated anti cyclist fool

Cycling two abreast makes car overtakes both safer for the cyclists and the other car road users.

They should be taxed and insured like motorised vehicles

Nobody has paid road tax since 1937 when it was abolished.

Most recreational cyclists are insured. They do it voluntarily for self protection.

I live very near an A road which has a cycle track alongside it. Cyclists always use the road, which has only one lane each way, causing looooong tailbacks of traffic. There's absolutely no excuse for it

Try cycling along said cycle track on a road bike. See how many of your teeth have been shaken out by the end of it. 95% of them are not fit for purpose. We would love to use them but they are neglected and unusable.

There's a busy road near me that has a cycle lane heading in each direction but because people park in it all down one side all the traffic gets bumped over meaning that the cycle lane on the other side is no use either.

I can only think that in their arrogance they believe they are above special lanes and should be able to ride wherever they like.

This bit especially though, they are able to ride where ever they like, that's the whole point, that's the actual law. I can only think that in your arrogance you believe you are above special ideas like laws and that...

I ride and I drive, a lot. Sometimes there's cyclists and I could have got somewhere faster but I'm not a person with an overinflated sense of self importance and I'm pretty good at journey planning and leaving adequate time to get where I need to be.

And almost every time I ride my bike I could have got everywhere much faster if there weren't cars slowing everything down

@dreamingofsun

I wonder which of us filmed and reported you?

How much was the fine?

Cars have their place especially when you live where public transport is scarce. But really, if you can afford one, and your regular journey is short, you should be walking or cycling.

Cargo bikes and ebikes are getting more affordable all the time and can replace a small car. They are cheap to run.

I use a folding manual at the moment and I have a route that avoids most main roads. To be honest, most other vehicles are respectful. I have got into altercations with motorists because my top speed is 15mph and theirs is 70+mph, but that's not my problem.

The biggest prat I came across was a guy in a Mini Electric. T*t. Tailgated me and then yelled at me as he took over. K*b

I'm trying to fit exercise in my day and do my bit for the environment. My emissions are virtually nil, apart from parts and accessories. I AM insured because there are plenty of idiots out there, both on bikes and those with an engine. .

My next step up is an ebike. I've got joint issues so I've gone as far as I can with the manual without popping a Nurofen. I'd like to be able to go further without using a train so I need a little help. The purists might hate me, but I don't give a toss. I aim to get one with a decent battery and motor because lithium batteries in cheaper bikes are a fire risk. My emissions will go up...but still nowhere close to a petrol small far.

I have no plans to take your ideas on board because they demonstrate a complete disregard for the ignorant behaviour of most cyclists on their jollies who deliberately get in other people’s way. It is so bad in some places that Highways and/or NP staff have to put up road signs asking them to be more considerate.

We have cameras now 😎

Sounds like a plan:

(Retires to a safe distance and waits for onefinemess to blow a gasket)

I'm all for people cycling but I get annoyed when There's a perfectly good cycle lane and a solid white line road and yet they refuse to use their designated area. They say 'oh it's only taking you a few seconds to overtake' but the route to work is full of them so my journey that would normally take 45 mins takes a good 1hr20.
Not to mention how dangerous they are in traffic with all their silent weaving about. You go to edge forward and suddenly they dart in front of you car.
By all means cycle but act responsibly and don't forget you're not invincible.

I agree in a perfect system we'd have cycle paths next to every single road. Unfortunately though cyclists don't like to use cycle lanes especially the ones in Lycra.

The thing is cyclists, like drivers, want to take the most direct and quickest route from A-B. I’d argue this is even more important when being powered under your own physical activity than it is when just pressing a pedal in a car. The only way to get cyclists on to cycle paths is to make it better than the road in terms of journey time, elevation and distance. If the cycle path follows the main road, but has to give way at every side road it doesn’t take a genius to see why this is worse than just being on the road. It could be made out of the best, smoothest, freshly laid tarmac going but if it’s stop start vs a clean run it won’t be appealing, as the getting going is the bit that requires the most physical exertion and every single crossing is a conflict point where the risk of you not being seen by a turning driver is way more than the risk of not being seen by a driver that comes up behind you.

Also as these threads love a bit of anecdotal, I drove from the midlands to the Excel the other day. Almost all of this route is motorway where cycling is forbidden. The journey should have taken 2.5 hours if I could get at or near the speed limit on each of the roads and it took nearly 4. For almost all of the M1 from about j16 to j6 it was 40 or 50 mph, stop start crawling for a good 2-3 miles to join the M25 and then that didn’t get near 70 for a lot of it either. We don’t have daily threads because we had to go 30mph less than the speed limit for miles and miles on the motorway…

I'm quite happy to use segregated cycle infrastructure.

But, round here certainly, they've "invested" in cycle lanes of which, 80?% fulfill one of the following criteria:

1. Not cleaned when roads are cleaned so full of dangerous debris.

1. Very very narrow so difficult to impossible to cycle along safely (particularly given 1).

1. Stop and start at random intervals to the point it risks your safety. One particular spot is spectacular, I'll try and add a photo. The green circle is where the cycle land starts, red arrow where it ends.

1. Throws you out into the wrong places on e.g. roundabouts so you can't turn right without seriously risking someone flattening you.

1. Shared use with pedestrians and not big enough - so given pedestrians are the more vulnerable road user it follows that I should move so as to not put them at risk.

1. Somewhere between poorly and catastrophically maintained, i.e. entirely filled with tree roots, to the point where they are a safety risk.

It should be mandatory for cyclists to use cycle lanes and to pass a cycling test to prove their roadworhiness. Too many cyclists vastly over-estimate their ability and then end up blocking single carriage roads, and some panic and get onto the pavement where they hurt pedestrians or themselves. Also in some places cyclists tend to comprise of people who can’t drive for medical reasons or because they have lost their licenses - these people should be walking or using public transport not cycling!