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

Marco_Panettone

Altarf wrote: »

But people don't.

To take the title to the thread, "Why Don't Cyclists Use Cycle Lanes..." even where there are reasonable facilities, the usual answer is from the cyclist is "won't and you can't make me", followed by some irrational argument.

So if motorists perceive that cyclists are acting selfishly, then motorists will act selfishly, and so cyclists will act selfishly. And round and round we go.

The fact that you have to qualify your argument with "even when there are reasonable facilities" says it all. Cycle infrastructure is so often so terrible and intermittent that riders have stopped trusting it entirely. This is a rational decision based on the evidence available. Maybe you should try using it.


It has nothing to do with being selfish. It's about being consistent. There are plenty of roads that drivers avoid on journeys because they're indirect, poorly-surfaced and full of parked cars and speed humps, along with having to give way at every other road.

RichardD1970

Altarf wrote: »

Of course it would.

Yes, of course it would, due to not being able to go as fast and having to stop/slowdown every 100mtrs to cross side roads. It's not rocket science.

Altarf

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Yes, of course it would, due to not being able to go as fast and having to stop/slowdown every 100mtrs to cross side roads. It's not rocket science.

Yes of course that will mean it takes twice as long. Keep saying that you yourself.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

The fact that you have to qualify your argument with "even when there are reasonable facilities" says it all. Cycle infrastructure is so often so terrible and intermittent that riders have stopped trusting it entirely. This is a rational decision based on the evidence available. Maybe you should try using it.

It has nothing to do with being selfish. It's about being consistent.

So just because some cycle paths are poor, then all cycle paths should be avoided.

Sounds like the usual irrational argument cyclists "victim" argument to me.

And as for me using it - I do cycle.

Do I use cycle paths, funnily enough yes.

Do I find them poorly designed. Some, and I choose to ignore those. But the vast majority of cycle paths assist in getting from A to B quickly and safely. To ignore all of them because of the occasional failing is just silly.

RichardD1970

Altarf wrote: »

Yes of course that will mean it takes twice as long. Keep saying that you yourself.

Sorry, but you don't know where I live, the route I take or anything about my commute. What qualifies you to make that sort of statement? Or are you just being an argumentative !!!!!!?

Marco_Panettone

Altarf wrote: »

Yes of course that will mean it takes twice as long. Keep saying that you yourself.



So just because some cycle paths are poor, then all cycle paths should be avoided.

Sounds like the usual irrational argument cyclists "victim" argument to me.

And as for me using it - I do cycle.

Do I use cycle paths, funnily enough yes.

Do I find them poorly designed. Some, and I choose to ignore those. But the vast majority of cycle paths assist in getting from A to B quickly and safely. To ignore all of them because of the occasional failing is just silly.

Of course they shouldn't ALL be ignored out of hand. However, when you ride on enough of the crap infrastructure we have it tends to formulate a "what's the point - it'll be rubbish" attitude.


When you're used to 'cycle lanes' that appear and disappear without warning that are only an afterthought anyway, shared paths that are too narrow for cycling on and bring direct conflict with pedestrians, having to give way to vehicles on the road that are behind you, and all the other things that clearly show you to be a 3rd class citizen on the roads it hardly fills you with joy and confidence when you encounter a 'new' piece of "infrastructure."

Altarf

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Sorry, but you don't know where I live, the route I take or anything about my commute.

But I do know the information that you provided, which from the few minor issues, appeared that you were wildly exaggerating the increase in time in the attempt to make a point.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Of course they shouldn't ALL be ignored out of hand. However, when you ride on enough of the crap infrastructure we have it tends to formulate a "what's the point - it'll be rubbish" attitude.

And I do ride on enough of them to know that the vast majority are not "crap", but work fine for their intended purpose.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

When you're used to 'cycle lanes' that appear and disappear without warning that are only an afterthought anyway, shared paths that are too narrow for cycling on and bring direct conflict with pedestrians, having to give way to vehicles on the road that are behind you, and all the other things that clearly show you to be a 3rd class citizen on the roads it hardly fills you with joy and confidence when you encounter a 'new' piece of "infrastructure."

Lots more "victim" mentality, but nothing to justify ignoring the cycle paths that are suitable for use.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

Lots more "victim" mentality, but nothing to justify ignoring the cycle paths that are suitable for use.

suitable in who's opinion?

RichardD1970

Average road speed 20-25 mph.

Don't fancy doing more than 10 - 15 on the shared path due to pedestrians, people coming out of gardens and all the other obstacles mentioned and dismissed as minor by you, also having to stop for side roads, cross from one side of the road to another to continue on shared path. So twice as long not a wild exaggeration.

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

If the cycle paths were suitable for my use, I would use them, only an idiot wouldn't want to get away from potentially dangerous traffic.

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

suitable in who's opinion?

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.

Marco_Panettone

Altarf wrote: »

And I do ride on enough of them to know that the vast majority are not "crap", but work fine for their intended purpose.

Lots more "victim" mentality, but nothing to justify ignoring the cycle paths that are suitable for use.

Come for a ride with me. I'm in London. Then judge just how bad some of the infrastructure here is. There's a very small amount that is ok, and a couple of good bits that are hugely let down by the disjointed nature of the provision.


Maybe you're lucky where you are. Maybe you have low expectations and low standards as to what 'good' is. For far too long some cyclists have been so pleased to have even been remembered at all, even as an afterthought they've been happy with a narrow painted lane that people can legally drive and park in. That is not good enough.


What is this "intended purpose"? Where is the documentation, signage, etc that states what the purpose of any cycle infrastructure is? If it isn't suitable for EVERYONE to use it is crap. It certainly isn't good enough to be encouraging more people to use it, is it?