Cyclists & Bike Owners

[agrumpycow]

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

I
My biggest bugbear though is why cyclists ride on a main road when there is a perfectly good cycle track just yards away.........

A point I 100% agree with, it makes me so mad
As a car driver and occasional cyclist I can see both points of view. I can also only comment on the roads near where I live but there is a very well kept, well signposted and suitable cycle path along the A329 here near me. Yet cyclist continually insist of cycling on the dual carriageway slowing cars in the inside lane to a crawl or risking accidents by having to swerve into the other lane. It's ridiculous! It's a wonder there are not more accidents involving these cyclists who don't see or (I suspect) don't choose to use the cycle path. If it was poorly maintained, etc. fair enough but it isn't!
Rant over

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

....Most cyclists are fine, but there is a significant minority who are dangerous....

I am pleased you accept that most cyclists are fine. What I cannot stand, are the oft heard generalisations that some people make, with ludicrous statements like "all cyclists should be banned from the roads etc. etc."

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

....My biggest bugbear though is why cyclists ride on a main road when there is a perfectly good cycle track just yards away. Highland council has recently spent a lot of money to put in a cycle track/footpath up to Glenmore, but some cyclists still insist on riding on the road which is really busy with tourist traffic and buses. There is also a cycle track running alongside the A9 on the approach to Slochd summit, which has had several fatal accidents on it, but again, some cyclists still ride on the road, why?...

Cycle lanes are for the most part, provided for the slower, or more timid, or younger cyclists. They are often completely useless as a viable route, having been constucted purely by councils thinking more about their "perceived" green policies, than any actual thought for the safety of cyclists.

I don't particularly want to divert this thread into that specific area, but I could bore you with countless examples of totally useless, and in some cases downright dangerous cycle lanes.

Proper road cyclists, and I mean those who abide by the rules of the road , will almost unanimously avoid cycle lanes, because they just don't allow a good (road) cyclist to maintain good speeds - too many kerbs, silly junctions, and quick changes of direction, etc. etc. (As I say, even when cycle lanes are of sufficient length to make them viable, they are mostly constructed with the slower cyclist in mind).

You may (possibly) argue that if there is a cycle lane there, then it would be incumbent upon all cyclists to use it. Not so - there is no legal requirement for cyclists to use these facilities. There is however, a legal requirement for vehicle drivers to abide by the highway code with respect to travelling alongside cycle lanes.

A good cyclist obeying the rules of the road is no hindrance to traffic flow, but quite a few drivers seem to think it is good fun to overtake giving minimal clearance to frighten the cyclist. Such games are dicing with death, because cyclists do need room to manouvre around potholes and other road debris.

As a driver, as well as a cyclist, I can see things from both sides of the argument, but if both cyclists and drivers always behaved responsibly, the roads would be safe enough for all.

Regards
Mike.

[SheffieldLass]

You can tell that Mike is a very experienced cyclist ...

What many non-cycling people or casual cyclists forget is that a fit road cyclist is typically travelling an average speed of 15-25mph on level open road, maybe more, and easily 30mph on downhill stretches. Many cycle routes just do not allow for that type of speed.

Regards
Melanie

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

....What many non-cycling people or casual cyclists forget is that a fit road cyclist is typically travelling an average speed of 15-25mph on level open road, maybe more, and easily 30mph on downhill stretches. Many cycle routes just do not allow for that type of speed....

Couldn't agree more.

I would expect to average about 22mph overall, and can easily reach 40mph going down some of the hills around here.
(The reaction of some drivers seeing a cyclist keeping up with them at 30-40mph is quite amusing sometimes ).

Regards,
Mike.

[SheffieldLass]

And also that they are cycling in a day maybe 40 to 100+ miles. I used to do between 60 and 90 miles on a day trip. You just can't do that if you are having to stop every 50 yards ...

Melanie

[Meta menardi]

The bike lanes round here are quite odd. Wide flat and well marked where the road is wide flat and well marked, then they disappear at any difficult bits on the road, just where you think "I could do with a little refuge from the cars".

[foxy mars]

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

I think that it is high time that cyclists had to pass some kind of test and get a licence before being allowed to ride a bike in public.

I don't think there will ever licence cyclists, the idea was thought up years ago and was thrown out, due to being a time/money waster.

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

I live in an area with quite a lot of cyclists about, both locals and those on holiday, and some of them just shouldn't be allowed out.

I would of thought that would be a good thing to see, being good exercise.

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

I have lost count of the times that a cyclist has shot out of a side road in front of me, causing me to have to brake hard to avoid them.

I can say the same about cars flying out from side roads, some car drivers are simply just imprudent.

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

My biggest bugbear though is why cyclists ride on a main road when there is a perfectly good cycle track just yards away.

Most cyclists are die-hard rebels and are still titled to ride on the road, the cycle-path is there for choice and safety. I know of one old cyclist who regularly cycled on the A19, in the peak period and there is a cycle-path next to it which is separated by bushes. I mean it is a lovely cycle-path, one that I use to/from work, but you can't make the old chap to cycle on the cycle-path, that's his choice.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by foxy mars

....Most cyclists are die-hard rebels....

Sorry foxy mars, but I feel compelled to comment upon this statement, as it is yet another generalisation that could be construed as confrontational by many of the anti-cycling brigade.

Most (law abiding) cyclists are not in any way rebellious. Would you make a similar statement saying most drivers are die hard rebels?

Let us be quite categoric about the facts. Cyclists are 100% entitled to use public roads. The use of cycle lanes is entirely optional. There is no legal, moral, or implied requirement to make use of them, and the choice not to do so should not be associated with rebellious behaviour.

There are good cyclists and there are bad cyclists, just as there are good and bad drivers, but regardless of whether pro or anti cycling, I would stress to everyone that cyclists are probably the most endangered of all road users, and implore all drivers to apply a little common sense when a cyclist is encountered.

Just some food for thought for some of the less sympathetic drivers out there: -
How many cyclists do you encounter on your daily travels? Five or six maybe?
OK - So you may need to slow down for five or ten seconds until a suitable spot for overtaking appears. Overall, you might lose a full minute of time on your journey - Is that such a big problem that you would rather risk manslaughter?
Likewise - How many other cars do you encounter on your daily travels? Several hundred I should imagine. Now, considering that between 15 and 20 percent of all cars on the roads are non legal, (uninsured, driver unlicenced etc. etc.), which would you rather have? illegal cars, and there are about 3 million of them driving around in Britain, or a few fully legal cyclists?

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Meta menardi

The bike lanes round here are quite odd. Wide flat and well marked where the road is wide flat and well marked, then they disappear at any difficult bits on the road, just where you think "I could do with a little refuge from the cars".

Typical of what I mean when I say that many of these lanes are useless.
Many such ill-conceived lanes are provided because councils can obtain grants towards the cost, but the money doesn't stretch as far as would be needed to actually create a safer road layout.

Consequently they just put the cycle lanes wherever there is a bit more space on the road, (where they are least needed), and then they pat themselves on the back saying "look what good boys we are, we have provided "X" miles of cycle lanes".

(When in truth, "X" minus 99% will more than likely be the extent of the usefulness of those lanes ).

Regards,
Mike.

[earthdragon64]

If so many cycle lanes are useless, then perhaps it is time that our councils stopped spending money on them. Certainly the cycle track to Glenmore was presented to the public as a way of removing cyclists from a busy road, into a safe area.

I'm not bothered by having to slow down to pass law-abiding cyclists, I'm never in that much of a rush to get anywhere, what concerns me are the minority who ride in such a way that they endanger my life, and the lives of others. It seems crazy that under current legislation, anyone can buy or hire a bike and ride on a road with no experience or understanding of safety and the highway code.

As far as car drivers go, I have always believed that the driving test should be far tougher than it is currently, and there should be a bit less emphasis on only prosecuting speeding, and a lot more emphasis on prosecuting those drivers who exhibit poor driving skills with the aim of getting them off the roads if they don't improve.