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

dzug1

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Why are you (a non-cyclist, I presume?) classing a particular bit of paint as a good cycle lane? What, in your mind, makes it 'good'?


You need to look at where it starts (is it obvious from far enough away to get onto safely at a reasonable speed in all conditions?), where it ends (does it come to a random halt, or spit riders back out into traffic without warning?) and how often users have to 'give way' to motor vehicles. What's the surface like? Is it a shared path with pedestrians? Does it actually go anywhere? Is using it a better option for the rider than remaining on the road?


If it is a painted lane it is not GOOD. If paint created safe space for people we wouldn't have kerbed pavements.

A former cyclist.


And no it's not 'a bit of paint'. It's a kerb - with a drop and signs where it leaves and rejoins the main road. Its surface is better than the main road. Yes it's shared with pedestrians but if you see one pedestrian in the couple of miles you are (un)lucky - it's usually deserted.


I'd say it was a better option than the main road. If you use it (the main road) you should be able to keep up rather than obstructing traffic on it - 50mph should do it though it's often faster. A paltry 20mph on a narrow trunk road really isn't enough. Both motorists and cyclists should proceed according to the conditions - sadly many of both do not

Strider590

Personally I believe that cycle lanes only serve to give drivers a false sense of ownership over the rest of the road. Cycle lanes often lead cyclists around left hand junctions which they dont want to take, leading to conflict with cars or trucks turning left. To restrict cyclists to cycle lanes would be extremely dangerous and most drivers will never see the dangers until they themselves get on a bike...

lxpeanut

There are a few good cycle lanes around here but most of them dont go places I want to go. We do have one which is an old railway line which is great for a Sunday morning cycle but doesn't go anywhere useful and isn't a safe place to be alone at night.

The rest are either part of the pavement usually with street furniture stuck in the middle of them (one runs you straight into a bus shelter) or just a painted line on the road. Even they just stop and start at random intervals and dont form any kind of logical route.

peter_the_piper

Strider590 wrote: »

Personally I believe that cycle lanes only serve to give drivers a false sense of ownership over the rest of the road.

I don't understand this. I've never met a driver who thinks that "We own the rest of the road, and just dare a cyclist use it". Most I know know cyclists use a cycle lane(where provided) and also realise that they are quite likely to ride on the rest of the road as well. Maybe you have met different drivers just as we have met different cyclists. None are perfect and both make mistakes. When I used to ride a MC I gave both a wide berth.

Mids_Costcutter

Perhaps not, but in my experience motorists will often drive right up to the edge of a cycle lane which is why it's critical that they have a minimum width of 1.5m. If cycle lanes are too narrow then cyclists will actually be given less clearance when vehicles pass, than if there were no lane at all. So please don't put up with sub-standard facilities where you live!

RichardD1970

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.

Would I use them, not usually.

They are great for a family ride out on a Sunday afternoon, but I wouldn't use them for my commute.

Why? Well in the first half a K from my front door, if I use the cycle path I would have to give way 5 times at roads that feed across the path.
If I am on the road I have right of way to traffic emerging and can carry on (up a long hill) without having to stop (baring idiot motorists ).

I will also go faster on the road, not only because it is inappropriate to ride, at speed, on the shared cycle path due to all the pedestrian traffic (dog walkers with long leads :mad:, school kids, grannies with shopping trolleys, mobility scooters, all usually with headphones or on their phones), but psychologically, if I am on the road I am impelled to ride harder to maintain a better pace. Whereas on the paths I feel I can just cost along.

If anyone doesn't like that, then tough. I pay 2 lots of "road tax", council tax and all the other taxes that apply to the majority of working people. So pay my fair share for the upkeep of the road network .

custardy

dzug1 wrote: »

A former cyclist.

define a former cyclist

Marco_Panettone

dzug1 wrote: »

A former cyclist.


And no it's not 'a bit of paint'. It's a kerb - with a drop and signs where it leaves and rejoins the main road. Its surface is better than the main road. Yes it's shared with pedestrians but if you see one pedestrian in the couple of miles you are (un)lucky - it's usually deserted.


I'd say it was a better option than the main road. If you use it (the main road) you should be able to keep up rather than obstructing traffic on it - 50mph should do it though it's often faster. A paltry 20mph on a narrow trunk road really isn't enough. Both motorists and cyclists should proceed according to the conditions - sadly many of both do not

So to use it riders have to be on the main road already, and at the end of the route you end up back on the same main road? Why? What's the point?


As you say, it's a shared path. That almost certainly means that it isn't a cycle route at all, but a pavement that's had a small blue sign put up allowing bikes to use it.

j0nathon2

As a beginner to cycling, wherever I see a cycle lane that is off road I have been using it as it instinctively feels safer once on it, however, I am slowly coming off them:

• They are not maintained like a road: leaves, glass, cans etc.
• I have to continually stop to check for people entering or leaving driveways
• Similarly as above but minor junctions
• Some lanes continually switch from one side of the road to the other, with a cyclist dismount message at every crossing
• They are bumpy and cracked
• Pedestrians wander in to them

Then there are the on road bike lanes:

• Often in the car door zone
• Too narrow
• Full of drain covers and potholes

If you use it (the main road) you should be able to keep up rather than obstructing traffic on it - 50mph should do it though it's often faster.

On busy A roads of such speed I still personally either avoid them, or use the bike lane - most times if it's an A road it's a properly constructed lane by the Highways Agency and actually very usable.

However, it must be said that the 50 in the red circle is the maximum limit, and nobody says you must try and target that - be you a horse, cyclist, tractor or car.

SteveJW

Local authorities appear to get grants for improving cycling facilities it also ticks the right box
It appears to me that these are designed by people who have never ridden a bike since they left school, many of the shared footpaths round here have hoar thorn bushes alongside them, guaranteed a puncture when they have been cut
We have advanced stop boxes at traffic lights were it is impossible to get to as the streets are so narrow you cannot get past the stationary cars to get to them

Just out of town where I live they are improving a cycle track that runs alongside the A1035 everything is fine until the track crosses the main road, you then have to take your life in your hands crossing the road

Do I use cycle tracks / shared footpaths yes and no
Shared footpaths impossible to use at school start and leaving times, plagued by dog walkers with those long leads that are impossible to see in poor light. Why do cyclists lose all road sense on a shared footpath and forget that we drive on the left in the UK??
Cycle lanes that are full of road debris, street furniture etc