Cyclists obliged to use cycle lanes?

sebdangerfield

anewman wrote: »

I can think of an instance I wish a cyclist had been in the middle of the road to indicate their intention to turn right. As they had kept left I assumed they wanted to go straight on then overtook them with plenty of space and I'm lucky I did.

Been said before also. If we put our collective brains together and thrashed out every time we witnessed poor riding/driving or anything else on the road then we'd come up with all sorts. It doesn't mean it's the norm. Thats what I don't get about threads on here regarding motoring, there's a general concesus that if one person's driving is poor and they drive a certain vehicle then every driver of that vehicle is also rubbish! Surely we're all a little more intelligenct than that!?

The fact is, there are poor cyclists, poor motorists, poor horse riders, poor hgv drivers, thats life. We all use the roads, it's a free country and under common law cyclists have the right to use a road. Motorvehicles, under certain criteria have an entitlement. That means we're in the same place at the same time, nothing any rubbish "I've nearly run over a maniac cyclist" or "I was nearly wiped out by a car" comments are ever going to change that.

Why not just use your experience to make you better at using what ever mode of transport you choose.

If you're regularly held up by cyclists then you're doing something wrong, I've driven for a long time and managed to get some decent qualifications in the process and can't think of a time i've ever not been able to put in a safe overtake of a cyclist with a minute of getting behind one. So it's not really a huge deal is it?

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

ZootHornRollo wrote: »

now that you have actually posted some facts rather than unquantified comments i see what you are saying.

any monkey can ride a bike. it takes proven skills to drive a car.

Exactly, because driving a car is inherently a more dangerous activity than riding a bicycle, or walking.

However, not 'any monkey' can ride a bike. That takes skill also.

moonkee

On the 5 mile stretch of road to get home from home there are very wide cycle paths on both sides of the road and I'm always confused as to why a person would chose to cycle on the road. I cycle home in summer and always use the path with no problem so why don't the half dozen cyclists I pass daily?

Plus not all of them wear night time gear! It's like they have a death wish!

sebdangerfield

moonkee wrote: »

On the 5 mile stretch of road to get home from home there are very wide cycle paths on both sides of the road and I'm always confused as to why a person would chose to cycle on the road. I cycle home in summer and always use the path with no problem so why don't the half dozen cyclists I pass daily?

Plus not all of them wear night time gear! It's like they have a death wish!

I think the point is; not everyone wants the same things. You mention people must have death wishes to do some things but opinions differ, what one person may say is a death wish is another's acceptable level of risk. Just using your post as an example moonkee, nothing personal. :beer:

Back when I started commuting to work daily about 8 years ago, I didn't wear any reflective clothing or a helmet and not once did anyone mention it may be safer to do things differently. If I did that now I can guarentee the reaction i'd get from internet forums would be that they'd expect me to die horrendously before dinner! I actually prefer the more involved ever so slightly more dangerous option of cycling on the road because of the other road users around me. It keeps my skills sharp and the commute's more interesting and I havn't died from it once since I started. But thats how I differ from someone more cautious who'd rather ride on the pavement or cycle path.

From experience, I've also noticed that it's mainly leisure cyclists who use the cycle paths. Again moonkee, sorry to use your post as an example when several others have posted similar things but it's easier to read yours! You mentioned you cycle to work in the summer. An action I commend and support but as you only cycle in the summer I assume that you do it as you like to keep fit rather than because you're an avid cyclist who come rain or shine must "put a loop in" or other slightly anal things we do! Because of that you're more likely to cycle at a more leisurely pace, not get annoyed at the pedestrians who wander into the cycle path and not see you, and not mind having to get off the bike to cross roads istead of going with the flow of other road traffic accross it. An avid cyclist would be moving at 23mph (me, rubbish!) or anything up to 28-30mph if you're a decent rider and for those, it's dangerous to be mixing with peds walking at 3mph when it's far safer to ride at the same speed most cars do in the commute. For these types of rider, theres no point in constantly getting of their bikes to cross roads and then get back on again.

Again, sorry to use your post. I don't disagree with you at all but want to show things from the more everyday of the year rider's perspective.

Another point that's cropped upon here is the health and safety one. Many posts all over the 'net regarding cycling on roads intimate that it's one of the most dangerous things we can do, thats why we should segregate ourselves from the cars. If thats the case why do we, in every school in the UK actively teach and encourage 10 year olds to ride on the road!? In a word where conkers is a game where safetly specs are obligatory and even children walking to school wear hi-vis vests surely the cycle proficiency scheme would have stopped a long time ago?

DaveMacD

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Another point that's cropped upon here is the health and safety one. Many posts all over the 'net regarding cycling on roads intimate that it's one of the most dangerous things we can do, thats why we should segregate ourselves from the cars. If thats the case why do we, in every school in the UK actively teach and encourage 10 year olds to ride on the road!? In a word where conkers is a game where safetly specs are obligatory and even children walking to school wear hi-vis vests surely the cycle proficiency scheme would have stopped a long time ago?

Cycling in traffic is only dangerous if you don't pay attention to what is going on around you. Likewise, trying to cross a main road by looking straight ahead and with earphones full of thrash metal turned up to 11 is likely to end badly.

The reason for the CPT is simple. Cyclists (regardless of whether some folk think they have an unalienable right to use the road with no care for anything else) have duties and responsibilities to other road users. Their vehicles MUST come up to certain standards, and their riding also has to reach a certain standard. They also have to obey the same rules and regs. as other road users. And since kids seem to be more receptive to getting taught the SAFE way to do things, that's why they do the CPT. My personal feeling is that EVERYONE should be introduced to the HC at an early age, so that they can learn road skills properly, and that it should be encouraged to continue to buy and read the updates every few years.

Using the road is the only thing I can think of where the users have rules to follow, but don't have to keep up to date.

Mids_Costcutter

There seems to be a little too much victim blaming on this thread (cyclists being the victim). Would a strict liability law in the UK, as in other European countries, not have a positive effect on the behaviour of some motorists? This would mean that motorists would be responsible for compensation for injuries to cyclists and pedestrians, unless it was proven that the victim caused the collision. At present in personal injury cases the burden of proof is on the victim to prove the other party was negligent. More should be done to protect the most vulnerable road users and increasing cycling is much more than just a transport issue.

In the meantime I'd recommend Bikeability (national standard) cycle training to any cyclist wanting to ride more safely and confidently, plus the excellent Cyclecraft by John Franklin as reading material.

I write as a cyclist and car driver by the way.

DaveMacD

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Would a strict liability law in the UK, as in other European countries, not have a positive effect on the behaviour of some motorists? This would mean that motorists would be responsible for compensation for injuries to cyclists and pedestrians, unless it was proven that the victim caused the collision.

Given the number of cyclists who have posted on these forums, and the number who openly boast about their complete disregard for little things like red lights, right of way, cycling on pavements etc. I think a large number (a minority for sure, but a large minority) would interpret that as giving them the right to do whatever they like on the roads. Suddenly, they feel they have the law on their side saying, 'it's ok, you cycled like an eejit, but the nasty car driver sneezed as you ran the red light, so it's all their fault'. There's an awful lot of blame being thrown about, and finger pointing, but the simple fact is that vulnerable road users will always be vulnerable, and no amount of gerrymandering of laws will alter that simple fact. There isn't much point in being right if you're also dead, and lycra doesn't do much to protect your body when you slip under the wheels of a truck or fly over the bonnet of a car. You wouldn't walk up to a stranger on the street and trust them to blindfold you and give you directions to cross a busy road, so why would anyone trust hundreds of strangers to drive with only their best interests at heart. Take care, look out for your own safety first, and drive/ride defensively. If you can't be bothered about being safe, then you shouldn't be on the roads in the first place.

worbikeman

The problem with cycle lanes and cycle routes is that they are never designed by anyone who actually rides a bike.
There's a cycle lane near me that abruptly ends at the bottom of a hill where the road narrows, with a high kerb, thereby suddenly bottle-necking cyclists into heavy single-lane traffic. Lorries squeeze past the cyclist dangerously because of oncoming traffic. Meanwhile the adjacent pedestrian footpath is enormous and empty. Where's the common sense? Are cyclists expected to disappear into a wormhole and reappear at some other co-ordinates in the universe?:rotfl:

custardy

or the likes of this,why bother?

olly300

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Your post above is largely !!!!!!!!.

Cyclists have a right to use the roads. Motorists do not. That is unarguable fact.

My post isn't !!!!. It quotes the law.

You have a right to use the road with regards to the law.

And the law is worded so that if you cycle with disregard to other road users then you are breaking the law.

Even pedestrians are mentioned in the Road Traffic Act.