Cyclists obliged to use cycle lanes?

custardy

ZootHornRollo wrote: »

what happens to the cycle lane at that bit?

at the roundabout? it stops
there are lowered kerbs for people to walk over the roundabout junctions but no pedestrian points on the roundabout lights.
so its a dash over each point

again sorry for the very dodgy lines



the red line with 2 year old crosses shows the route after the cycle lane ends,crossing multiple lanes (sth gyle broadway is 4 lanes for a start)
the blue line is the straight through road that passes under the roundabout or if the cyclist prefers a flat run they can follow the roundabouts natural course

ZootHornRollo

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

If you find it difficult to overtake a cyclist then you should consider handing your licence back in, and selling your car.

nobody mentioned difficulty in overtaking cyclists.

On a national limit section of road where cars are entering the traffic flow via a filter lane and car are leaving the carriageway via the same filter lane, throwing a cyclist into the mix trying to travel between the filter lane and main carriageway across the mouth of a slip road is just adding to the potential trouble.

angeltreats

Actually it can be very difficult to overtake a cyclist. We live where there are lots of very busy but very narrow single carriageway roads with a limit of 50 or 60 mph. If there's a line of traffic coming towards you there's absolutely no way you can overtake because there just isn't room, and if you get stuck behind a cyclist a huge queue of traffic builds up very quickly.

I cycled around London for years but there's no way I'd cycle on these roads. Having been on two wheels myself I have sympathy with the cyclists as it's not their fault we have no cycle lanes, but it's hard not to be a bit impatient when you get stuck behind one for several minutes.

custardy

theres plenty of room on the road in question

thescouselander

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Unlike motorists, who merely have permission to use the roads, cyclists have a right in law. They are not compelled to use cycle lanes, and nor should they be, for all the reasons stated above.

If you find it difficult to overtake a cyclist then you should consider handing your licence back in, and selling your car.

I disagree. In a perfect world there would be no accidents but unfortunately accidents to happen for any number of reasons. This means that a comming together of cyclists and other vehicles will happen no matter how careful everyone is - the cyclist is always going to come off worse.

Surely the best thing to do is to keep motor vehicle traffic separate from pedestrians and cyclists where ever possible and where provision has been made cyclists should be required to use it - of course that does imply the cycle track should be of sufficiently good quality (not always the case at the moment).

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

ZootHornRollo wrote: »

nobody mentioned difficulty in overtaking cyclists.

On a national limit section of road where cars are entering the traffic flow via a filter lane and car are leaving the carriageway via the same filter lane, throwing a cyclist into the mix trying to travel between the filter lane and main carriageway across the mouth of a slip road is just adding to the potential trouble.

So what? That's the cyclist's problem, not yours.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

angeltreats wrote: »

Actually it can be very difficult to overtake a cyclist. We live where there are lots of very busy but very narrow single carriageway roads with a limit of 50 or 60 mph. If there's a line of traffic coming towards you there's absolutely no way you can overtake because there just isn't room, and if you get stuck behind a cyclist a huge queue of traffic builds up very quickly.

I cycled around London for years but there's no way I'd cycle on these roads. Having been on two wheels myself I have sympathy with the cyclists as it's not their fault we have no cycle lanes, but it's hard not to be a bit impatient when you get stuck behind one for several minutes.

Diddums. I probably spend about 10 minutes a year getting stuck behind cyclists.

I reckon I spend several days a year getting stuck behind motorists.

Cyclists have a right to use the roads, you don't. Live with it.

sebdangerfield

darich wrote: »

No doubt you'd complain if a cyclist entered the roundabout in the left lane to turn right(a legal move in a bicycle, check highway code, 163) and slowed you down by a few seconds?

You need to lighten up - your impatience is the cause of raod rage!!

163 of the Highway Code is; "Overtake only when it's safe and legal to do so" and also touches on "give vulnerable road users at least as much room as you would a car" Where does it say a cyclinst can turn right from the left lane? It's not specifically unlawfull I agree, but it would under most circumstances constitute dangerous or careless cycing.

I agree it would be safer to segregate cyclists from cars but as has already been stated, cyclists have a common law right to use the roads, motorvehicles have to comply with several access restrictions to be allowed. If we were to segregate cycles because they're slow what about slow cars, steam locos, invalid carrages, horses, horse drawn carts etc? They all take up far more room and would legitimately cause a problem in overtaking.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

thescouselander wrote: »

I disagree. In a perfect world there would be no accidents but unfortunately accidents to happen for any number of reasons. This means that a comming together of cyclists and other vehicles will happen no matter how careful everyone is - the cyclist is always going to come off worse.

Surely the best thing to do is to keep motor vehicle traffic separate from pedestrians and cyclists where ever possible and where provision has been made cyclists should be required to use it - of course that does imply the cycle track should be of sufficiently good quality (not always the case at the moment).

Sorry, but no. Any law that requires me, as a cyclist, to use a cycle lane where possible, will be ignored.

They're !!!!. We didn't ask for them. We don't want them. They're impractical. They terminate at right angles to junctions, where visibility is extremely poor. They give way to everybody else.

They're a travesty. Nobody I know likes them. A complete and utter waste of money, and I will use them only when it is convenient for me.

thescouselander

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Sorry, but no. Any law that requires me, as a cyclist, to use a cycle lane where possible, will be ignored.

They're !!!!. We didn't ask for them. We don't want them. They're impractical. They terminate at right angles to junctions, where visibility is extremely poor. They give way to everybody else.

They're a travesty. Nobody I know likes them. A complete and utter waste of money, and I will use them only when it is convenient for me.

And there is the problem I think. Too many cyclists are prepared to flout the law and that is one of the reasons they should be kept separate from traffic.

As I cyclist myself I prefer to stay on the cycle tracks as its safer and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet. Also I am away from the diesel fumes of passing busses and lorries which is a bonus. Luckily round here (Bristol) there are some really good cycle tracks that don't suffer from the problems you describe.

I can understand why people wouldn't want to use a substandard cycle track but my point was that good quality cycle tracks should be provided and only then could you force cyclists to use them.