Why Don't Cyclists Use Cycle Lanes....

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

Well in in the opinion of the cycling victims on here, having come across anything that may imperceptibly inconvenience them once on a cycle path somewhere in the UK, automatically rules out every other cycle path as suitable.

If you take the attitude that cycle paths are bad, then you can find fault with everything.

And if that is the attitude, then the cycling organisations would be better placed to argue for the removal of every single piece of cycling infrastructure, on the basis that it is not 100% perfect, and could be better.

In fact I have seen this happen. A road I cycled regularly on in London on my way down from Kings Cross used to have dotted line indicative cycle lanes in the road.

They worked well, the road was wide enough that the cars stayed out of the indicated lanes.

Then they disappeared, deliberately having been burnt off. The response from the council when I asked was that the local cycling campaign group didn't like them, as they were perceived to be "too narrow", even though they were about a marked about a meter from the kerb.

So now the cars keep closer to the kerb as they come down the road, needing to pull out and back in front of any cyclists they meet.

So great, a cycle path that someone perceived as "not suitable" is now gone, and the road is more dangerous than before.

But it is all the big bad motorists fault.

What If I know they are bad from experience?
Am I allowed to decide not to use them?
a painted line on a road isnt a cycle path

Altarf

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Or do you think it is acceptable to cycle at 20mph+ on a shared cycle way?

Depends.

I know some that 5mph would be dangerous, I know others where 50mph would be fine.

But to automatically rule them all out all the time...

RichardD1970

Altarf wrote: »

Depends.

I know some that 5mph would be dangerous, I know others where 50mph would be fine.

But to automatically rule them all out all the time...

I haven't automatically rule them all out all the time... where did I say all cycle lanes were rubbish, I even said in my original post

We have recently had a whole new cycle network created, and very nice it is too. Nice wide shared paths, well thought out junctions, side roads/service roads re-allocated and marked up as cycle ways, with vehicular access to frontages. Really nicely done.

I gave the reasons that I don't use the cycle network where I live. I have never cycled anywhere else so can't comment.

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

a painted line on a road isnt a cycle path

What is it then?

Anyway, just off on this pitch black evening to the station, lets see how many cyclists are choosing to ignore the nice cycle paths that run alongside the roads, and instead dice with death on the road, whilst indicating their presence with a glow worm on their back (if I am lucky).

geordie_ben

Altarf wrote: »

What is it then?

A painted piece of road

Just like dual carriageways being a lot safer than single carriage ways - give us proper kerbed cycle lanes, which only cyclists can use, then we would probably all use them

But drain ridden, pot hole clad painted pieces of road does not, and will not, make people want to ride in that "lane"

Marco_Panettone

Altarf wrote: »

What is it then?

http://road.cc/content/news/96380-cycle-superhighway-2-just-piece-blue-paint%E2%80%9D-crash-investigator-tells-inquest

hugheskevi

The Department for Transport advises leaving half a car's width when overtaking cyclists. That is about 1 metre.

Marking a cycle lane can encourage dangerous overtaking, as many drivers will assume that as long as they do not cross the line, they are fine to proceed without reducing speed. That can lead to overtaking at speed with only a few centimetres of paint separating cyclists and cars. But if an overtake is dangerous withouth paint, then it does not become safe simply because a line has been painted on a road.

The width of a bike's handlebars (flat handlebars) is about 60cm. Pedestrians will often be walking at the edge of pavements, so in many places it is not safe to have handlebars over the pavement.

So that leaves 40cm of space between edge of handlebar and the paint. Add to that metals grids (which often are badly put into the road, creating a hole or raised surface you have to go around), pot-holes, painted lines and so forth, and that eats up a few more centimetres.

Which leads to the question how many centimetres is safe. Given the amount of dents that occur between stationary and slow moving vehicles in supermarkets, it seems many drivers are not sufficiently skilled to be judging moves down to a few 10s of centimetres at speed.

If there is no cycle lane there, drivers have to exercise judgement rather than assuming as long as they stay the right side of the line the pass is safe.

Vauxhall Bridge in London has an excellent example of this sort of dangerous infrasturcture, encouraging dangerous overtaking.

Frugalsod

You would be amazed at how close most motorists actually get. They do not leave anywhere near enough room.

Altarf

geordie_ben wrote: »

give us proper kerbed cycle lanes, which only cyclists can use, then we would probably all use them

Never going to happen.

So do you recommend removing any cycle infrastructure that doesn't meet the perfectionist demands?

hugheskevi wrote: »

Marking a cycle lane can encourage dangerous overtaking, as many drivers will assume that as long as they do not cross the line, they are fine to proceed without reducing speed.

All can do is speak from experience.

Dotted white line down the stretch of road, cars drove down the road around 1.5 meters away from kerb (i.e. treated the dotted line as a kerb), and moved out a little further as they approached cyclists, so no problems.

No dotted white line, cars drove down the road around 0.5 meters away from kerb, and only moved out a little further as they approached cyclists. So now passing cyclists much closer than before.

However the cyclist "victim" campaign are now happy that things are more dangerous now this hazardous marking has been removed.

j0nathon2

I recommend removing any infrastructure that:

• Encourages poor overtaking
• Is more dangerous than the main carriageway

Unfortunately this is the majority of on-road lanes due to the poor road edge, drain covers, debris, pedestrians and pot holes. Also I disagree with the above that drivers give more room on roads without a painted line - I find the exact opposite. The white line is some kind of magical barrier to many motorists, who will ride within inches of me as long as they're on "their side" of it. If that line isn't there, the motorists will use ME as the guide of where to drive, not the line.